The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012.08.21 City Council AgendaCITYOFUNIVERSITYPARK REGULARCITYCOUNCILMEETING LOCATION:CITYHALLCOUNCILCHAMBER AGENDA#2843 AUGUST21,2012 CALLTOORDER:5:00P.M. 4:00-5:00P.M.WORKSESSIONFORAGENDAREVIEW:TheCouncilwillmeetinopenwork sessiontoreceiveagendaitembriefingsfromstaff.CouncilConferenceRoom,2nd FloorCityHall. TOSPEAKONANAGENDAITEM AnyonewishingtoaddresstheCouncilonanyitemmustfilloutagreen“RequesttoSpeak”formand returnittotheCitySecretary.WhencalledforwardbytheMayor,beforebeginningtheirremarks,speakers areaskedtogotothepodiumandstatetheirnameandaddressfortherecord. I.CALLTOORDER A.INVOCATION:CouncilmemberBobBegert B.PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE:CouncilmemberBobBegert/BoyScouts C.INTRODUCTIONOFCOUNCIL:MayorW.RichardDavis D.INTRODUCTIONOFSTAFF:CityManagerBobLivingston II.CONSENTAGENDA A.CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceestablishinga30-minutelimitonaparking spaceadjacenttotheParkCitiesAnimalHospital B.CONSIDERANDACT:toadoptthe2012CertifiedPropertyAppraisalRoll C.CONSIDERANDACT:onapprovalofminutesoftheAugust7,2012CityCouncil MeetingMinutes D.CONSIDERANDACT:onapprovalofminutesoftheAugust14,2012Emergency CityCouncilMeetingMinutes III.MAINAGENDA A.PUBLICHEARING:onarequesttoamendtheSpecialSignDistrictforSouthern MethodistUniversity B.CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceamendingtheSpecialSignDistrictforSMU C.PUBLICHEARING:onarequesttoamendtheSpecialSignDistrictforthePlazaat PrestonCenter D.CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceamendingtheSpecialSignDistrictforthe PlazaatPrestonCenter E.CONSIDERANDACT:onarequesttoabandonautilityeasementat2632 Westminsterandprovidedirectiontostaff F.PUBLICHEARING:onproposedFY2013budgetandtaxrate IV.PUBLICCOMMENTS AnyonewishingtoaddressanitemnotontheAgendashoulddosoatthistime.Pleasebe advisedthatundertheTexasOpenMeetingsAct,theCouncilcannotdiscussoractatthis meetingonamatterthatisnotlistedontheAgenda.However,inresponsetoaninquiry,a Councilmembermayrespondwithastatementofspecificfactualinformationora recitationofexistingpolicy.ItistheCouncil’spolicytorequestthatcitizensnotaddress itemsthatarecurrentlyscheduledforafutureagendaorpublichearing.Instead,theCouncil requeststhatcitizensattendthatspecificmeetingtoexpresstheiropinions,orcommentto theCouncilbye-mailatCity-Council@uptexas.orgorletteraddressedtotheMayorand Councilat3800UniversityBlvd.,UniversityPark,Texas75205.Otherquestionsorprivate commentsfortheCityCouncilorStaffshouldbedirectedtothatindividualimmediately followingthemeeting. AsauthorizedbySection551.071(2)oftheTexasGovernmentCode,thismeetingmaybeconvened intoClosedExecutiveSessionforthepurposeofseekingconfidentiallegaladvicefromtheCity AttorneyonanyAgendaitemslistedherein. AGENDAMEMO (8/21/2012AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:GeneR.Smallwood,P.E.;DirectorofPublicWorks SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceestablishinga30-minutelimitonaparking spaceadjacenttotheParkCitiesAnimalHospital BACKGROUND: OnNovember1,2011,theCityCouncilapproveda30-minuteparkingspacealongtheArmstrong frontageoftheParkCitiesAnimalHospitalat4365LoversLane.Priortotheinstallationofthe approvedsignage,PCAHstaffrequestedachangeofthespacefromtheArmstrongfontagetothe LoversLanefrontage.TherevisedordinancewasbroughttoCouncilonApril3,2012,however,it wascoupledwithparkingrestrictionsproposedalongHillcrestsouthofWestminster.Following discussionoftheissues,theitemwastabled,becausetheHillcrestownersdecidedagainst theirrequestforparkinglimits.ThePCAHrequestwasnotbroughtbacktoCouncilasaseperate itemuntilthismeeting. RECOMMENDATION: StaffrecommendsCityCouncilapprovaloftheordinanceestablishinga30-minuteparkingspace alongtheLoversLanefrontageat4435LoversLane. ATTACHMENTS: ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. ___________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, PROHIBITING PARKING IN EXCESS OF THIRTY MINUTES ON THE SPACE ADJACENT TO ADJACENT TO 4365 LOVERS LANE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A; PROVIDING FOR THE ERECTION OF SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That it shall be unlawful and an offense for any person to leave, stand or park any motor vehicle in excess of thirty (30) minutes at any time on the space adjacent to 4365 Lovers Lane, as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made part hereof for all purposes. SECTION 2. That all ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. That any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be subject to a fine not to exceed the sum of two hundred dollars ($200.00) for each offense. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. The parking restrictions set out herein shall not be effective until appropriate signs giving notice thereof shall have been erected as provided by the Code of Ordinances. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day of August 2012. APPROVED: ____________________________________ W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ ELIZABETH SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY (RLD/8-3-12/54774) ORDINANCE NO. ___________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, PROHIBITING PARKING IN EXCESS OF THIRTY MINUTES ON THE SPACE ADJACENT TO 4365 LOVERS LANE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A; PROVIDING FOR THE ERECTION OF SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day of August 2012. APPROVED: ____________________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ CITY SECRETARY AGENDAMEMO (8/21/2012AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:KentAustin,DirectorofFinance SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:toadoptthe2012CertifiedPropertyAppraisalRoll BACKGROUND: EachyearbyJuly25 ,theDallasCentralAppraisalDistrict(DCAD)providestheCitywiththe certifiedtaxroll.Therollisalistofallpropertyparcelsinthecityandtheirassociatedmarketand taxablevalues.ThesumofthetaxablevaluesisthetaxbaseuponwhichtheCityappliesitstaxrate supportingthenextfiscalyearbudget.OfficialadoptionofthetaxrolloccursbyCityCouncil resolution. Thetablebelowdisplaysthisyear'smarketvalue,taxablevalue,newconstructionvalue,andover-65 homesteadexemptionamountcomparedwithlastyear.Forthefirsttimesince2009 ,theoverall valueofpropertyroseinUniversityPark,by0.35%.Theover-65 homesteadexemption totalincreasedby0.89%,despitethereductionoftheexemptionfrom$280,000to$275,000 ,because oftheriseineligibleparcels(from1,157to1,186). 2011 2012 $CHANGE %CHANGE MarketValue $8,149,526,370 $8,241,068,310 $91,541,940 1.12% TaxableValue $5,568,088,524 $5,587,424,812 $19,336,288 0.35% NewConstruction $45,708,824 $69,332,692 $23,623,868 51.68% Over-65Exemption $318,701,501 $321,523,327 $2,821,826 0.89% RECOMMENDATION: Citystaffrecommendsapprovaloftheresolutionadoptingthe2012certifiedtaxrollof $8,241,068,310marketvalue,$5,587,424,812taxablevalue,and$69,332,692newconstructionvalue. ATTACHMENTS: Resolutionadopting2012certifiedtaxroll 2012CertifedTaxRollLetter RESOLUTION NO. ________________________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE 2012 APPRAISAL ROLL OF THE DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT FOR THE CITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City’s assessor and collector of taxes has submitted to the City Council the 2012 tax appraisal roll compiled by the Dallas Central Appraisal District; and WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the 2012 appraisal roll should be approved and adopted; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the 2012 appraisal roll for the City of University Park, as presented by the Dallas Central Appraisal District, be, and the same is hereby, approved and adopted in all respects showing a total appraised property value of $8,241,068,310, new property added to the tax roll of a taxable value of $69,332,692, and a total taxable value of property, after exemptions, for 2012 of $5,587,424,812. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage, and it is accordingly so resolved. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day of August, 2012. APPROVED: __________________________________ W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: __________________________________ __________________________________ CITY ATTORNEY CITY SECRETARY DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT CERTIFICATION OF APPRAISAL ROLL Year: 2012 Jurisdiction: UNIVERSITY PARK In accordance with the requirements of the Texas Property Tax Code, Chapter 26, Section 26.01, paragraphs (A) and (B), the following values are hereby certified: Market ValueTaxable Value *Total Value of New Construction in Certified Market Value above I, W. Kenneth Nolan, Executive Director/Chief Appraiser of the Dallas Central Appraisal District, do hereby certify the aforementioned values and totals to the taxing jurisdiction indicated above, in accordance with the requirements of the laws of the State of Texas on this 23th day of July, 2012. Dallas Central Appraisal District W. Kenneth Nolan Executive Director/Chief Appraiser $8,241,068,310 $5,587,424,812 $69,332,692 Market Value of all Real & Business Personal Property Before Qualified Exemptions* Taxable Value of all Real & Business Personal Property In accordance with the requirements of the Texas Property Tax Code, Chapter 26, Section 26.01, paragraph (C), the following values are hereby certified as disputed values and are not included in the above totals: Values under protest as determined by the Appraisal District** Values under protest as claimed by property owner or estimated by Appraisal District in event property owner's claim is upheld Freeport Estimated Loss Estimated Net Taxable **Value of Disputed New Construction in Protested Market Value Above $0 $18,825,740$0 $0 $0 $13,178,018$0 2949 N Stemmons Fwy, Dallas, TX 75247-6195 (214) 631-0520 AGENDAMEMO (8/21/2012AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:LizSpector SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onapprovalofminutesoftheAugust7,2012CityCouncil MeetingMinutes BACKGROUND: MinutesoftheAugust7,2012CityCouncilMeetingareincludedfortheCouncil'sreview. ATTACHMENTS: Aug7,2012CCMtgMinutes MINUTES AGENDA #2842 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS COUNCIL CHAMBER – CITY HALL TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2012, 5:00 P.M. 3:45 - 4:30 P.M. WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW. COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, 2ND FLOOR, CITY HALL. The Council met in open work session to receive agenda item briefings from staff. Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Clark, Councilmember Moore and Councilmember Stewart were present. Councilmember Begert was excused from the work session. Director of Parks Gerry Bradley address the Council about a request from a group wishing to reserve Burleson Park for a fundraising kickball tournament. He stated this same group has conducted similar tournaments in other cities and no problems were reported. Director of Public Works Bud Smallwood addressed the Council about a request to create a No Parking area on the south side of the 3400 block of Westminster. The Council had no concerns. Mr. Smallwood then discussed a resident request to purchase an approximately 3 foot wide strip of right-of-way running the length of their property at 7406 Turtle Creek. He said the City had sold similar strips of ROW to other nearby property owners. Mr. Smallwood stated the sale of this ROW will not move the curb or street at all. The Council had no concerns. Mr. Smallwood addressed an amending ordinance related to the gate at St. Andrews. He said the amendment was to correct an oversight made during a previous amendment and will permanently close the gate except for emergencies. He said the neighbors are in favor. City Manager Livingston addressed the appointments of two residents to committees. He said due to an oversight, an additional alternate was needed to be appointed to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Bobby Womble is proposed for this position. In addition, he said due to a resignation, Mr. Brion Sargent is recommended for appointment to the Public Works Advisory Committee. The Council had no questions and adjourned the work session. The City Council Meeting was called into session at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Present were Councilmember Stewart, Councilmember Clark, Mayor Davis, Councilmember Moore, and Councilmember Begert. Also in attendance were City Manager Livingston, and City Attorney Dillard. I. CALL TO ORDER A. INVOCATION: Director of Community Development Robbie Corder B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Director of Community Development Robbie Corder / Boy Scouts Mayor Davis asked the Boy Scout in attendance at the meeting to come to the front and assist in leading the Pledge of Allegiance. The Boy Scout introduced himself as Matthew Placide, Troop 730, working on his Citizenship in the Community merit badge. City Manager Bob Livingston introduced staff in attendance. They included Information Services staff member Ken Irvin, Chief Planning Official Harry Persaud, Director of Community Development Robbie Corder, Director of Human Resources Luanne Hanford, Director of Finance Kent Austin, Police Captain Greg Spradlin, City Secretary Liz Spector, Director of Public Works Bud Smallwood, Fire Chief Randy Howell, Director of Information Services Jim Criswell, Community Information Officer Steve Mace, Assistant Director of Public Works Jacob Speer, Assistant to the City Manager George Ertle. ORDINANCE NO. 12/17 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, PROHIBITING PARKING AT ANY TIME ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE 3400 BLOCK OF WESTMINSTER, FROM THE SNIDER PLAZA-HURSEY ALLEY TO DICKENS; PROVIDING FOR THE ERECTION OF SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE NO. 12/18 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK TEXAS, ABANDONING A 993 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY OF TURTLE CREEK BOULEVARD AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AND DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT “A”, TO THE ABUTTING OWNERS, JASON F. SCHMIDT AND RACHEL RUCKER-SCHMIDT, FOR A CASH CONSIDERATION OF $59,917.62; AND PROVIDING FOR THE FURNISHING OF A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE FOR RECORDING IN THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS A QUITCLAIM DEED OF THE CITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. C. INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL: Mayor W. Richard Davis D. INTRODUCTION OF STAFF: City Manager Bob Livingston II. CONSENT AGENDA A. CONSIDER AND ACT: on a reservation request for Burleson Park B. CONSIDER AND ACT: on an ordinance designating NO PARKING ANYTIME along the south curb of Westminster C. CONSIDER AND ACT: on an ordinance abandoning certain street right-of-way along Turtle Creek Blvd. D. CONSIDER AND ACT: on an ordinance authorizing closure of the gate across St. Andrews ORDINANCE NO. 12/19 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE TEMPORARY CLOSING OF ST. ANDREWS DRIVE 140 FEET EAST OF PRESTON ROAD, AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT “A”; PROVIDING FOR THE ERECTION OF A GATE; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Bobby Womble was appointed alternate on the Board of Adjustment and Mr. Brion Sargent was appointed to the Public Works Advisory Committee. Councilmember Stewart made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Clark seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. Chief Planning Official Harry Persaud briefed the Council regarding the Park Cities YMCA request to amend their site plan in PD-12. He summarized the proposed changes include demolition of the existing 41,801 sq. ft. facility (including a 11,760 sq. ft. outdoor space) and construction of a 65,000 sq. ft. facility which will incorporate the outdoor space. Mr. Persaud displayed slides detailing the improvements including a partnership with the Rise School of Dallas with anticipated enrollment of approximately 60 students, a gymnasium, 25-meter indoor swimming pool, a therapy pool, a cardio and weight training fitness area, multipurpose rooms, administrative offices and outdoor playground. He also said the YMCA proposes to construct an underground parking garage and eliminate all of the perimeter surface parking on Preston, Normandy, Connerly and Shenandoah. He said this garage is planned to have 309 spaces and will have one entrance/exit feeding from/to Normandy. Mr. Persaud said 43 notices were sent to owners of properties located with the 200 ft. buffer zone. He stated 27 responses were received, 1 in favor, 24 opposed, and 2 undecided. Mr. Persaud said staff calculated the percentage opposed to the proposal at 62% which he said triggers the requirement for a super-majority of the Council (4/5) to approve the proposal. Mr. Persaud said much correspondence was received. He said over 1,000 correspondences east of Preston Road E. CONSIDER AND ACT: on appointments to fill a vacancy on the Board of Adjustment and on the Public Works Advisory Committee F. CONSIDER AND ACT: on minutes of the July 17, 2012 City Council Meeting III. MAIN AGENDA A. PUBLIC HEARING: on a request by the Park Cities YMCA to amend Planned Development District PD-12, to demolish the existing structure and redevelop a 3.72 acre tract more or less, with a 65,000 sq. ft. facility and below-grade parking garage. were received in support of the YMCA proposal and 59 were received opposed to the proposal. He said of those correspondences, 48% were from University Park residents, 15% were from HP residents, 32% were from City of Dallas residents and 5% were from other communities. Mr. Persaud displayed a map plotting resident responses on a city map. Mr. Persaud stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted in favor of the proposal with special conditions in a 4 to 1 vote. He said the Council members have been provided the special conditions for review. Mayor Davis addressed the audience. He said the Council has been provided a great deal of information to assist them in making their decision on the YMCA plan. He said the Council members have reviewed all submissions from the YMCA and all information submitted by residents. He stated he has read hundreds of letters and emails expressing various opinions. Mayor Davis said the Council is also familiar with the facts and opinions expressed at the public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mayor Davis asked the YMCA to designate a representative to present the proposal to the Council. Mr. Duncan Fulton, the architect, indicated he will present the proposal. Mayor Davis asked Mr. Fulton to contain his presentation to approximately 15 to 20 minutes which will allow 10 or 15 minutes for others in favor of the proposal to address the Council. Mayor Davis said following the presentations given by those in favor of the proposal, those in opposition will be given 20 to 30 minutes to address the Council. He then said he will allow ten minutes of rebuttal for each side, starting with YMCA representatives. Mayor Davis reminded the crowd that City Council Meetings are formal and no calling out, cheering or clapping will be tolerated. He asked that facts and opinions be presented in a careful, thoughtful manner. Mayor Davis stated that voting on the proposal will not take place during this meeting. He said the City has retained a traffic engineer to review the TIA submitted on behalf of the YMCA and by those opposed. He said to allow the Council to review the opinions of this engineer, they will meet to receive his report and ask any questions about that report at the August 21 City Council Meeting. He said copies of the report will be provided to all interested parties. Mr. Duncan Fulton, of Good, Fulton and Farrell Architects, addressd the Council. He stated beginning 18 months prior to filing the application, the YMCA conducted a total of 34 community meetings with the stakeholder public, including the First Unitarian Church, West of Preston Neighbors and East of Preston (SANA) neighbors. Mr. Fulton said these meetings were to assist the YMCA in determining issues critical to these groups. He also mentioned that in addition to these 75 hours of face-to-face meetings, there were numerous telephone hours and over 3,200 emails related to the project. Mr. Fulton said subsequent to the February 28, 2012 filing, the YMCA worked through three months of review with city staff and two public hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission. He said the YMCA conducted a traffic study with 3 supplements, and also conducted additional stakeholder meetings. Mr. Fulton mentioned that after the public hearings and staff review, staff and P & Z made numerous recommendations which are more restrictive than the PD application. He added that the YMCA is prepared to work within those restrictions. Mr. Fulton said that although there will be no plan that makes everyone completely happy, he said the YMCA hopes to arrive at a compromise that will provide the most good for the most people. Mr. Fulton discussed common themes and issues that arose during planning meetings. He said there was a general consensus that additional parking, improved traffic congestion and neighborhood traffic penetration (especially to the west) were issues that should be addressed. While those are common goals, he said there are many varied viewpoints on how those issues should be addressed. Mr. Fulton discussed the traffic and parking studies conducted at the YMCA’s request. He said the initial report prepared January 11, 2011, was framed around the 60,000 sq. ft. building conceived at that time, based on peak occupancy of current uses plus a detailed analysis of proposed uses, and the study assumed retaining the existing street alignment. Mr. Fulton said with the proposed addition of the Rise School to the YMCA, the traffic studies were updated in March 2012 to reflect the additional traffic and additional requested 5,000 sq. ft. for the building. Mr. Fulton said the traffic engineers were requested to evaluate Normandy in realignment scenarios and associated traffic controls such as signals, barriers, etc.) as directed by city staff. In May, 2012, Mr. Fulton said staff and residents requested the traffic engineer to reevaluate six additional intersections for traffic changes. Mr. Fulton said the traffic study data shows traffic will increase with any expansion. He said present peak use is 156 vehicles, using a facility of 60,000 sq. ft. results in anticipated peak use of 237 vehicles, and with the addition of the Rise School, a 65,000 sq. ft. facility results in anticipated peak use of 259 vehicles. Mr. Fulton said specific road and signal improvements are recommended to allow capacity improvement commensurate with the increase in facility. He said the study showed no siginificant changes at other intersections, no significant change in wait times and that other other mitigation measures should be required. Mr. Fulton said concerns about Normandy straight-through traffic are best managed with traffic control devices (signs or signals) rather than by barriers. He said the study showed there would be no significant impact on traffic operation by realigning Normandy. Mr. Fulton discussed parking for the proposed facility. He said the YMCA plans to contract an underground parking garage housing 307 spaces which is 100 spaces more than required by the City Zoning Ordinance. He said the garage access will be on a non-residential street segment. He said these spaces will benefit the community and reflect a 280% increase in available parking for 36% more activity area in the building. Mr. Fulton said the current design is in response to what was heard during community meetings. He said neighbhorood concerns regarding facility size, appearance, landscaping, noise and service area screening have been addressed. He said some neighbors have indicated they want the city to create a Residential Parking District. He said the YMCA has no official position on a parking district but they will support any neighbors who choose this. He also mentioned that a formal parking agreement has been reached with the First Unitarian Church. Mr. Fulton also said certain operational issues have been addressed, specifically regarding the enhanced pre-school program, operating hours, and restrictions during the construction period. Mr. Fulton reiterated that the size of the building is the most critical issue for the YMCA. He said the YMCA wants a facility that will meet users needs for the next 25 to 30 years. He said the YMCA conducted a strategic needs facilities assessment in 2007 and throughout the next three years they held retreats and met with consultants to determine what types of future uses will be needed for the community. He said based on the initial space inventory, it was determined a 110,000 sq. ft. building would meet the future community needs. He stated that size was later reduced to 85,000 sq. ft. and then to 62,500 sq. ft. Mr. Fulton said YMCA has flexibility in many issues surrounding this proposal, but in order to proceed, they must construct a project that gives it space to support its programs and will justify the proposed expenditures of $20 - $25 million. Mr. Fulton cited that correspondences received from University Park residents are 6 to 1 in favor of the proposed plan. Mr. Fulton also stated that this project is based on a 50-year planning horizon. He said the YMCA is prepared to move forward based on the recommendations of P & Z. Mayor Davis called Mr. John Bunten, Jr. to address the Council. Mr. Bunten said as the city does not provide recreational activities for children or seniors, the YMCA is the community’s main source of youth programming, aging older adult activities, programs for special needs children, swimming lessons, and other activites. Mr. Bunten mentioned that through the several meetings with neighborhood groups a proposal was developed. He said compromises were made to sigificantly reduce size from 110,000 sq. ft. to 65,000 sq. ft.; the building was redesigned to better fit into the neighborhood with a more residential look, the roof slope was reduced by 5 feet, perimeter parking was eliminated, landscape buffers added and, he said the YMCA will voluntarily limit operating hours and outside lighting. Mr. Bunten said the YMCA has also offered to place voluntary limits on interior lighting hours, limits on uses, number of children in the pre-school, drop-off and pickup restrictions, limit field access to two sites and added an elevator and changed lobby configuration to address concerns of the First Unitarian Church. Mr. Bunten also mentioned that the YMCA has agreed to limit noise decibels of garage ventilation fans and to provide a post-occupancy traffic study. He said if that study finds deficiencies, the YMCA will correct them. Mr. Bunten noted that the concessions made by the YMCA have added $2.75 to $3.25 million to the original planned facility costs. Mr. Bunten said there is no viable option to further reduce the size of the proposed facility. He said YMCA has reduced the facility as far as feasible and if the proposal is declined by the City Council, the YMCA will renovate under existing zoning rather than reconstruct. He mentioned that any such renovation will not address traffic or parking concerns currently held by the neighborhood. Mayor Davis asked the neighbhood representative to address the City Council. Mr. Tom Black, 4117 Shenandoah, said many of the surrounding neighbors are supporters of the YMCA so this is a complicated issue. He said he has studied the proposal, the traffic study and the user projections provided by the YMCA and says the plan is not good enough. Mr. Black said the proposal does not meet the plans and principles set forth related to uveruse and overscheduling. He also said an unintended consequence of parking 300 vehicles underground is the inherent problem of many people trying to exit at the same time. He said when patrons realize how long it will take to exit the parking garage, they will figure out other places to park, and to drop off and pick up Y users. He said the drop off lane on Preston will not handle the capacity. Mr. Black said drivers will circle the YMCA or create unofficial drop off spots on Shenandoah and Connerly. Mr. Black said he is concerned that traffic added by new events and activities no mentioned in the proposal were not included in traffic study. He said any new facility will support new events and activities. He said neighbors are concerned that there will be no limits to the number of people attending events and no parameters for frequency of events. He said these events will bring additional traffic to the infrastructure and use will be maximized if space exists. Mr. Black said the neighbors don't find the YMCA traffic assumptions believable. He said any traffic study is only as good as its inputs. Mr. Black asked the Council to request more realistic usage plans and better traffic estimates from the YMCA to control traffic growth and address parking concerns. Mayor Davis asked Mr. Tim Hardin to the lectern. Mr. Hardin, 4211 Normandy said there are two main concerns held by the west side neighbors, property values and safety. He said the size of the proposed building is too large and it will burden the surrounding neighbors. He said the zoning regulations are designed to encourage appropriate use of properties consistent with the neighborhood character and mature development. Mr. Hardin stated there has been much discussion about the size of the proposed development and questioned the definition of "programmable area." Mr. Hardin suggested that if comparable definitions are used, there is a 55% increase in programmable area. He said if the size of the current building’s air conditioned space is compared to the proposed facility, there is a 107% increase in size. Mr. Hardin said that the West of Preston neighbors think they are not in a position to demand or propose specific types of uses for the YMCA and he asked the YMCA and the City Council to work on a compromise. He asked the Council to help preserve values of properties in neighborhood, and provide an acceptable level of safety with regards to passage of traffic through neighborhood. He said the West of Preston Neighbors request the YMCA to construct a facility containing no more than 50,000 sq. ft. of air conditioned space. Mr. Hardin also requested the Council require retention of on-street parking along Shenandoah and Connerly and on Normandy east of the proposed entrance into the underground parking garage. He said the West of Preston Neighbors also request two entrance/exits for the underground parking garage. Mr. Hardin asked that the city monitor vehicle operations per hour at peak. He said if the number exceeds 237 at any time, the YMCA should be required to abate the usage to reduce the number. He also said other limitations should be placed on playing field usage, allowing no more than 2 games be scheduled in either facility within any given 1.75 hour time period. He said there will be a huge inflow and outflow of vehicles during games. Mr. Hardin also stated that the West of Preston Neighbors do not support the introduction of a Residential Parking District in their neighborhood. He said these districts may diminish property values. Mr. Hardin suggested incorporating physical traffic limitations on Shenandoah, San Carlos and Normandy, such as cul-de-sacs. He said this would have those three streets ending on the west side of Preston with no access to or from Preston. He also suggested using traffic islands. Mr. Hardin said during the first four months of 2012 there have been five accidents at this location. He urged the Council to vote against the YMCA’s proposal as submitted. Mrs. Gail Schoellkopf, 4006 Shenandoah, addressed the Council. She said her property will be the most affected by the YMCA and she owns the most property around the YMCA. Mrs. Schoellkopf said the YMCA has transitioned from its original purpose providing services for children, into an adult fitness center. She said along with this transition has come excessive traffic, crime, and trash. Mrs. Schoellkopf stated that the Park Cities Y is unique because no other area YMCA branches are in such close proximity to homes in such a small area. She also mentioned that any members who join the Downtown YMCA or join as Gold Members can also use the Park Cities Y. She said the Park Cities Y is a convenient alternative to many people travelling to and from work outside of University Park. She suggested the YMCA relocate the adult fitness programs to a more commercial site outside of residential areas. She urged the City Council to protect the neighborhood from the negative commercial development's impact on the neighborhood. Mrs. Nancy Seay addressed the Council. She said she does not support the proposal and read the University Park Mission Statement. She said this statement reinforces that the city is primarily residential and should have a minimum of essential commercial establishments. Mrs. Seay encouraged the Council to deny the proposal and for the YMCA to relocate its adult fitness programs to another location. Mrs. Carol McEvoy, 4012 Shenandoah, said the YMCA is no longer suitable for the location. She said the facility is open for 90 hours per week and along with this comes excess traffic, crime and accidents. Mrs. McEvoy played a video of vehicular and pedestrian traffic at the site. Mr. Tom Weber, 5919 Preston Road, addressed the Council. He said the development proposed by the YMCA will address parking and traffic concerns held by the neighborhood residents. He said the proposal does much to offset the impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Weber said there is not enough parking for Y users currently and by adding underground parking and creating residential parking districts this problem will be remedied. Mr. Weber stated the project is within reasonable zoning criteria for its location and has a similar size and mass as the renovation approved for the First Unitarian Church in 2010. He said he also appreciates that the YMCA and the church were able to work out shared parking commitments. Mr. Weber said the YMCA will continue to be a good neighbor and has a right to serve the community as well as they can. Mr. Weber said he does not agree with the planned change for the Normandy intersection. He said the architect’s initial solution of aligning the intersection was superior and safer than the revised design as currently proposed. Mr. Weber said installation of a physical barrier at the end of Normandy will negatively impact access by property owners. He urged the Council to reconsider the original submittal on the Normandy intersection. Mr. Weber said he is supportive of the YMCA's request and welcomes the new facilities. Mr. Bill White, 6405 Golf Drive, addressed the Council. Mr. White said as a former mayor of Highland Park, he worked through the reconstruction of Mockingbird Lane. He said there were many opponents to this rebuild prior to the work, but after completion, most of the main opponents were pleased with the changes. He said this is a similar situation and he said the plans submitted by the YMCA will provide vast improvements to current parking and traffic issues. He urged the Council to support the YMCA and vote in favor of the proposal. Mr. Jim Snell, 4017 Stanford, addressed the Council. Mr. Snell said he was speaking on behalf of the Unitarian Church. He stated that the YMCA has been a good neighbor, and has been generous to the church with shared parking. He said the YMCA has a history of cooperation and has made an agreement for use of the garage for church members. Mr. Snell said the Church has as much at stake as the YMCA and the neighbors. He said the undergound parking will alleviate the traffic snarl around Y. He state the Church understands the YMCA has been constrained for years to adequately provide programs and the new plans will be beneficial to the YMCA and to the community. Mr. Snell said he supports the inclusion of the Rise School and the voluntary restrictions on hours and lighting. He stated that the YMCA has made a great effort to accommodate community concerns. He said the majority of YMCA users will use the underground parking garage which will greatly benefit the neighborhood. Mr. Snell asked the City to require the YMCA to provide on-street parking during construction, and asked that any future residential parking districts not include regular parallel spaces on the YMCA side of Shenandoah and Normandy, nor be so restrictive for first-time visitors attending the First Unitarian Church. Mr. Snell stated the First Unitarian Church has no reservations in their support of the YMCA project which will allow the Y to better serve the community. Ms. Marnie Wildenthal, 4001 Hanover, addressed the Council. She voiced her support for the YMCA proposal. She also said she supported the incorporation of the Rise School into the YMCA facility. She said the Y programs help those at home meet the needs of children with Down Syndrome. She said it is easy to marginalize people with disabilities but they gain from being surrounded by all types of people. Ms. Kendra Yanchak addressed the Council. Ms. Yanchak is a representative for the YMCA. She said among the reasons the renovation is the need to increase privacy for patrons. She said there are no private offices to allow for financial assistance discussions, no private areas for body assessments to be done, no appropriate space for those utilizing the special needs adaptive aquatic programs to change clothes. Ms. Yanchack mentioned there are only 5 women’s toilets and 6 men’s toilets. She said due to limited meeting spaces, there are limitations on provided programming. She mentioned that class-sizes are capped or only half of a class is able to participate at any one time. She said the child care space is very small and people are turned away from child care every day because it is full and are unable to work out or attend a class. Ms. Yanchak said another major reason to approve the plan is the increase in safety it will provide. She said there have been many vehicles broken into while parked on-street and the underground parking garage address this issue. She said families deserve more than what they are being provided and this is a chance to remedy many conditions. Ms. Yanchak said the YMCA cannot operate at anything less than what they are asking for and there is a combined responsibility this community shares. She said the YMCA is the only provider in this community of many important programs and she urged the Council to approve the plan. Drew Lee, 2700 Hanover, a senior at Highland Park High School addressed the Council. He said he is the president of Youth in Government, a club that meets in space provided by the YMCA He said the club needs a permanent place to meet and urged the Council to approve the YMCA plan. Mr. George Chandler, 4500 San Carlos, addressed the Council. Mr. Chandler said his children participate in many YMCA programs. He mentioned that his youngest child has Down Syndrome and attends the Rise School. He said he doesn't find the drop-off concerns valid because there is a wide range of times that parents drop children off. He said it is not like drop-off at the elementary schools because of the wide range of times. He said the inclusion of the Rise School students should be encouraged. Ms. Susie Soderquest, 3547 University, addressed the Council. She stated she has been a member of the Park Cities Y for 25 years. She said an important reason the YMCA plan should be approved is because of the importance of fitness to the local community and she said there should be convenient access to fitness programs to encourage their use. Mr. Jon Mosle, 6125 Westlake Road, addressed the Council. He said no one is opposed to the programs for children and that the Rise School is not the issue. He stated the issue is expansion of the adult fitness center into a commercial workout facility and the increase to traffic such expansion brings. He said the expansion will bring more people, more members from outside the Park Cities, more parking and traffic problems and more disruption to the neighborhood will occur. Mr. Gill Brown, 4007 Normandy, addressed the Council. He stated the St. Andrews Neighborhood Association has worked hard over past 18 months to help ensure a better YMCA is part of the community. Mr. Brown said forcing all parking underground is the only practical way to force the Y to self-manage. He stated if any surface spaces are allowed to remain, Y users will continue to create traffic problems by circling the YMCA searching for an on-street space. Mr. Brown also asked the Council to require the YMCA to manage classes, sports games and new events. Mr. Brown said that the YMCA is comparing their PD amendment to other facilities such as the First Unitarian Church. Mr. Brown said this is an unfair comparison as the church is a quiet neighbor with no more than twenty visitors daily for six days of the week and one day (Sunday) having approximately 200 people for a four hour period. He says the YMCA is a commercial venture charging a monthly fee. He also stated that ingress/egress to the facility is very important. He said the Park Cities Y is the only landlocked Y in Dallas. He said the east side neighbors are so concerned about the surface parking because they have no alleys and no other way to enter their homes other than from the street. Mr. Brown stated that the traffic and safety concerns will not be fully addressed unless the City and the YMCA team up, rebuild and work through Preston Road, and require all ingress/egress on Preston. Mr. Mal Gudis, 6101 St. Andrews, addressed the Council. He said the YMCA has proposed expansions several times throughout the past thirty years. He said the issue has never gotten very far due to parking, traffic and crime concerns raised by neighbors. He questioned whether neighborhood property values will decline if the expansion is approved. He stated 100% of the neighbors around the YMCA are opposed to the plan. Mr. Gudis said no one is against the YMCA and the services they provide, nor the benefits of the Rise School. He said he merely questions if this neighborhood is the right location. He stated it is job of the City Council to protect value of neighborhoods. He stated the YMCA is a commercial enterprise trying to expand their services to people outside the Park Cities and he said it will be a the expense of the surrounding neighborhoods and of the children in those neighborhoods. Mayor Davis stated he proposes to continue this discussion to the August 21 Council Meeting. He stated this will allow the traffic engineer to submit his review of the YMCA’s TIA for the Council’s consideration. He said he proposes that the rebuttals of the YMCA and residents begin at that August 21 meeting. Councilmembers Begert, Clark, Moore and Stewart all agreed with Mayor Davis that the speakers who signed up to speak at this meeting will be allowed to speak tonight but all rebuttals will be held over until August 21. Mr. Nick Kuntz, 4012 Normandy, addressed the Council. He said while most everyone would be in favor of improvements to the YMCA, he said the YMCA must be reasonable and build at a scale appropriate for the neighborhood. He said the Y cannot minimize the impact of the size of the facility by promising to not change their programming. He said they will maximize their space. Mr. Kuntz also stated that the traffic study was based on low-usage estimates rather than maximized usage. Mr. Kuntz said the YMCA cannot use petitions and public opinion to defend construction of an overly large facility. He said 0.8% of the signatures on the YMCA petition came from the neighborhood surrounding the Y. He said the majority of the petition signers have no personal interest or expense in the expansion. He said the YMCA is a community center and does great things for the community, but they are not a sole provider of these services. He said local churches also provide many of these services. Mr. Kuntz reminded the Council that the city turned down a YMCA expansion request in 1988 to construct a gym and the YMCA did not suffer. Ms. Betty Marquis, 4384 San Carlos, addressed the Council. She said she opposes the construction of such a large facility and expressed concerns about traffic through the local neighborhood. Mr. Bill Bolding, 4101 Stanhope, addressed the Council. He asked the Council to consider if the YMCA increases their usable activity space by 36% that it will increase traffic 66.66%. He said his garage is accessed from Preston Road and he will not be able to use his driveway. Mr. Bolding also said that little mention has been made of the venting of toxic carbon monoxide fumes from the underground garage into the neighborhood. He also stated his concerns about the negative effect the proposed YMCA facility will have on property values. Mayor Davis thanked everyone for their comments. He said the hearing will be continued on August 21, 2012 to allow the Council to review the report from the traffic engineer hired by the City to review the YMCA’s TIA. B. CONSIDER AND ACT: on transmittal of proposed FY2013 City Manager’s budget and scheduling of public hearings on budget and tax rate City Manager Bob Livingston addressed the Council. He stated the proposed budget is straightforward with the average homeowner receiving a $1 reduction in property taxes, a 3% cost of living adjustment for city employees and retirees, and funding for the public library including three full-time staff. He said the budget will be reviewed by the Finance Advisory Committee, the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee and the Property, Casualty and Liability Insurance Advisory Committee and they will submit recommendations to the Council. Mr. Livingston said staff proposes to conduct public hearings on the budget at the August 21 and August 28 City Council Meetings. Councilmember Begert made a motion to accept the proposed FY2013 City Manager’s budget for review and to schedule public hearings on the budget and tax rate for August 21 and August 28, 2012. Councilmember Stewart seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. No one wished to address the Council from the floor and Mayor Davis adjourned the meeting. Considered and approved this 21st day of August, 2012. __________________________________ W. Richard Davis, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Elizabeth Spector, City Secretary IV. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR AGENDAMEMO (8/21/2012AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:LizSpector SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onapprovalofminutesoftheAugust14,2012Emergency CityCouncilMeetingMinutes BACKGROUND: MinutesoftheAugust14,2012EmergencyCityCouncilMeetingareincludedfortheCouncil's review. ATTACHMENTS: 08.14EmergencyCCMtgMin. MINUTES EMERGENCY CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS COUNCIL CHAMBER – CITY HALL TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2012, 4:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Davis opened the Emergency City Council Meeting at 4:30 p.m. in the Executive Conference Room at City Hall. Present were Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Bob Clark, Councilmember Bob Begert, Councilmember Dawn Moore and Councilmember Tommy Stewart. Also present were City Manager Bob Livingston, City Secretary Liz Spector, Community Information Officer Steve Mace, Director of Finance Kent Austin and Assistant to the City Manager George Ertle. II. MAIN AGENDA A. CONSIDER AND ACT: on resolution declaring Local State of Disaster due to imminent threat to public health and safety due to a severe outbreak of West Nile virus within the limits of the City of University Park, Texas City Manager Livingston said that Dallas County Judge Jenkins and State Health Commissioner David Lakey have requested area Home Rule Cities declare a local state of disaster related to the severe outbreak of West Nile virus. According to County officials, there have been over 190 confirmed cases of the virus and 10 deaths. The Council agreed with the county and state officials’ recommendation and Councilmember Begert made a motion to approve the resolution declaring a Local State of Disaster due to imminent threat to public health and safety due to a severe outbreak of West Nile virus within the limits of the City of University Park, Texas. Mayor Pro Tempore Clark seconded and the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 12-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS DECLARING A LOCAL STATE OF DISASTER BECAUSE OF AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY DUE TO A SEVERE OUTBREAK OF WEST NILE VIRUS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS; PROVIDING THE CONSENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO THE CONTINUATION OR RENEWAL OF THE DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY BEYOND A PERIOD OF SEVEN (7) DAYS FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS RESOLUTION; PROVIDING AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS TO PARTICIPATE IN AERIAL SPRAYING FOR THE PURPOSE OF MOSQUITO ERADICATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE B. DISCUSS: participation in Dallas County aerial spraying initiative for mosquito control City Manager Livingston said that Dallas County and other state agencies were recommending aerial spraying of certain areas of Dallas County to control mosquitoes carrying the West Nile virus. Mr. Livingston said he and Community Information Officer Steve Mace met with county, state and federal officials Monday afternoon, August 13, 2012 to receive information regarding the control by aerial spraying. County Judge Clay Jenkins conducted the meeting and provided the information. Judge Jenkins asked certain local mayors of Home Rule Cities to provide authority for Dallas County to request state assistance for the aerial spraying. Mayor Davis discussed the information with the Council and they gave their approval to Mayor Davis to authorize Dallas County to include the City of University Park in the request to the state for aerial mosquito control. Mr. Livingston stated that the Centers for Disease Control urged the County and Cities to aerial spray. Mr. Livingston told the Council that the City uses the same or similar product when spraying by truck and the product has been used safely for years. He said the aerial application will allow the product to be distributed into yards not previously reachable by truck application because of tall fences and heavy tree canopy. Mr. Livingston discussed the plan to use the Code Red warning system to call residents informing them of the plan. Mr. Mace said he will also distribute a news release regarding the Council’s actions during this meeting and he will detail the aerial spraying process on the homepage of the City’s website. The Council agreed that the situation was an emergency requiring drastic measures and to prevent any further devastating consequences gave their approval to the aerial mosquito control. Mayor Pro Tempore Clark motioned to approve the City of University Park participation in the Dallas County aerial spaying initiative for mosquito control. Councilmember Stewart seconded and the motion carried unanimously. As there was no further business and Mayor Davis adjourned the meeting. Considered and approved this 21st day of August, 2012. ATTEST: ___________________________ W. Richard Davis, Mayor __________________________________ Elizabeth Spector, City Secretary AGENDAMEMO (8/21/2012AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:HarryN.Persaud,ChiefPlanningOfficial SUBJECT:PUBLICHEARING:onarequesttoamendtheSpecialSignDistrictforSouthern MethodistUniversity BACKGROUND: ThespecialsigndistrictforSMUwasestablishedinApril,1994.Sincethen,therehave beensixamendmentsforspecificsignagelocatedwithinthecampusrelatingto scoreboards,constructionsigns,stadiumsignageandmonumententrywaysigns. TheproposedamendmentswillprovideformonumententrywaysignslocatedatSMU BoulevardandCentralExpresswayandbuildingidentificationmonumentsignsforthe SchoolofEducationandtheschoolofEngineering.Thespecificproposalsconsidered andrecommendedbytheUrbanDesignandDevelopmentAdvisoryCommittee (UDADAC)aredescribedasfollows: 1.BuildingIdentificationSignfortheSchoolofEngineering : ThemonumentsignshallbelocatednearthefrontentrywaytotheSchoolof Engineering,facingAirlineRoad,asshownonExhibit1.Thesignshallbe constructedwithbrickandshallincorporatecaststoneaccents,toincludeacast stonelogo,baseandcapasshownonExhibit2.Themonumentstructureshall notexceed23feet8inchesinlength,shallnotexceed6feet3inchesinheightat thecenter,andshallnotexceed5feet1inchinheightoneachside.Thecast stonesigninsetshallnotexceedanareaof36squarefeetandexternal illuminationshallbeprovided. 2.BuildingIdentificationSignfortheSchoolofEducation: ThemonumentsignshallbelocatedonthesouthwestcornerofAirlineRoadand UniversityBoulevardasshownonExhibit1.Thesignshallbeconstructedwith brickandshallincorporatecaststoneaccents,toincludeacaststonelogo,base andcapasshownonExhibit3.Themonumentstructureshallnotexceed22feet 4inchesinlengthandshallnotexceed5feet8inchesinheightatthecenter,or4 feet6inchesinheightoneachside.Thecaststonesigninsetshallnotexceedan areaof29squarefeetandprovideforexternalillumination. 3.SMUEntrywaySigns: Entrywaymonumentsignsshallbelocatedonthenorthwestcornerandsouthwest cornerofCentralExpresswayandSMUBoulevardasshownonExhibit4.The monumentsignsshallbeconstructedwithbrickandshallincorporatecaststone accents,toincludelogoandcapasshownonExhibit5.Thestructureforthe entrywaysignsshallnotexceed44feetinlengthnor5feetinheight,andthecast stonesigninsetshallnotexceedandareaof84squarefeet.Externalillumination shallbeprovidedforbothsigns. RECOMMENDATION: UrbanDesignandDevelopmentAdvisoryCommittee(UDADAC)consideredthisitemonAugust1, 2012andvotedunanimouslytorecommendapproval. ATTACHMENTS: MinutesofUDADAC08.01.12 DraftOrdinance-SpecialSignDistrict-SMU URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES August 1, 2012 The Urban Design & Development Advisory Committee of the City of University Park met on Wednesday, August 1, 2012 at 12:00 P.M. at the Peek Service Center, 4420 Worcola Street, Dallas, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting. Committee Members Attending: Staff Members Attending: Michael Culwell - Chairman Bud Smallwood – Director of Public Works Doug Smellage Jacob Speer – Assistant Director of Public Works Spence Kendrick Robbie Corder – Community Development Director Jason Mackey Harry Persaud – Chief Planning Official Tom Weber George Ertle – Assistant to the City Manager Jodie Ledat – Public Works Administrative Assistant Councilmember in Attendance: Guests: Bob Clark Phillip Jabour of Southern Methodist University Trisha Mehis of Southern Methodist University Mike Geisler of Venture Commercial Management Absent and Excused: Cindy Kipp Charlie Little William R. “Rusty” Goff Brian Hammer Jason Mackey Eurico Francisco 1. Call to Order Bud Smallwood opened the meeting at 12:12pm, and invited Harry Persaud to present the first agenda item. 2. Review and Discuss a Proposed Amendment to the Special Sign District for the Plaza at Preston Center Chief Planning Official Harry Persaud provided the committee with background regarding the Special Sign District for the Plaza at Preston Center as well as the proposed amendment to the sign district. He noted the Plaza was requesting the amendment in response to a request by a potential tenant for secondary signage on the Preston Road and Northwest Highway frontages. Mike Culwell asked if there would be changes to signage on the façades facing residential areas. Mr. Persaud noted no changes to residential facades were proposed. Mr. Mike Geisler of Venture Commercial distributed photos of area business signage similar to the signage requested and indicated it was very common. Discussion ensued. Chairman Culwell made a motion to approve the proposed amendment to the Special Sign District for the Plaza at Preston Center. Jason Mackey seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. 3. Review and Discuss a Proposed Amendment to the SMU Special Sign District Harry Persaud introduced to the committee SMU representatives, Philip Jabour and Trisha Mehis, and presented the proposal for new monument signs at four (4) locations. Mr. Culwell asked if the signs were larger than existing signs and if they would be illuminated. Mr. Jabour indicated the proposed signs are a bit smaller than existing monument signs and will be illuminated by lights in planter beds. The four proposed signs would be at the Annette Caldwell Simmons School of Education and Human Development, the Bobby Lyle School of Engineering, and two (2) SMU Campus signs, one at the northwest corner of SMU Boulevard and Central Expressway and the other on the southwest corner of the same intersection. Committee members indicated they felt the signs were necessary and complimentary to the campus. Chairman Culwell made a motion to approve the amendment to the Special Sign District for SMU. Spence Kendrick seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. 4. Discuss Requirements for Garage Sales Community Development Director Robbie Corder distributed handouts of Article 4.07 of the Code of Ordinances which regulates the sale of personal items and explained the City Council requested UDADAC review the current requirements and consider revisions. Robbie Corder utilized a PowerPoint presentation to inform the committee of current regulations, issues faced by code enforcement officers, and policies of area cities regarding garage and estate sales. There was discussion regarding permitting, signage, online publication of area sales, etc. Spence Kendrick suggested requiring a low-cost permit which would allow residents to be notified of regulations and sign a form indicating they understand and will follow the regulations. Mr. Weber felt this may make more work for enforcement officers, and Mr. Mackey indicated he was in favor of requiring no permit but would request residents to sign a form indicating they are aware of regulations they would need to abide by. Mr. Smellage felt the revenue collected via a low-cost permit would at least offset some of the enforcement costs incurred by the City. Mr. Culwell suggested the allowed hours for a sale should also be reviewed and perhaps changed. Robbie Corder thanked the committee for their suggestions and indicated he will take the committee’s thoughts, conduct more research, and bring back to the committee options for their review. 5. Discuss the City’s Storm Water Management Plan Bud Smallwood informed the committee of the City’s mandate to inform and update certain advisory committees on the Storm Water Management Plan, and he asked Jacob Speer to make the presentation. Mr. Speer utilized a PowerPoint presentation to update the committee on the requirements of the plan and the City’s progress. 6. View Ethics Training Video Due to time constraints, the video will be viewed at the next meeting. 7. Review and Approve Minutes of the February 29, 2012 meeting Chairman Culwell asked for approval of the minutes of the February 29, 2012 meeting. Mr. Weber moved to approve the minutes, and Spence Kendrick seconded the motion. All members present voted in favor. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Culwell at 1:34pm. _______________________________ ____________________ M. Culwell, Chairman, Date U.D.A.D.A.C. ORDINANCE NO. _________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 94/40, A SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT FOR SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, BY AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL MONUMENT SIGNS FOR THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND THE SMU ENTRYWAYS; ADOPTING SIGN STANDARDS ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS; APPROVING LOCATIONS OF ADDITIONAL SIGNS AND SIGN DETAILS AS SHOWN IN THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED HERETO; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Urban Design and Development Advisory Committee of the City has considered a request for amendment of Ordinance No. 94/40, the Special Sign District for Southern Methodist University, as heretofore amended; and WHEREAS, the Committee is of the opinion that such amendment will result in benefits to the public health, safety and general welfare and is in the interest of the City of University Park, and has recommended to the City Council that such amendment be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided notice and a public hearing with regard to such request and recommendation and is of the opinion and finds that such special sign district should be amended as requested; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the Urban Design and Development Advisory Committee has considered a request for amendment of Ordinance No. 94/40, as heretofore amended, which granted a Special Sign District for Southern Methodist University, and such amendment has been approved by the Committee as beneficial to the public health, safety, and general welfare and in the interests of the City of University Park. The City Council therefore hereby determines that ordinance No. 94/40, the Special Sign District for Southern Methodist University, as heretofore amended, should be further amended in accordance with the following sections. SECTION 2. That the following additional monument signs are hereby authorized to be constructed on the campus of Southern Methodist University, to wit: 1. Building Identification Sign for the School of Engineering: The monument sign shall be located near the front entryway to the School of Engineering, facing Airline Road, as shown on Exhibit 1. The sign shall be constructed with brick and shall incorporate cast stone accents, to include a cast stone logo, base and cap as shown on Exhibit 2. The monument structure shall not exceed 23 feet 8 inches in length, shall not exceed 6 feet 3 inches in height at the center, and shall not exceed 5 feet 1 inch in height on each side. The cast stone sign inset shall not exceed an area of 36 square feet and external illumination shall be provided. 2. Building Identification Sign for the School of Education: The monument sign shall be located on the southwest corner of Airline Road and University Boulevard as shown on Exhibit 1. The sign shall be constructed with brick and shall incorporate cast stone accents, to include a cast stone logo, base and cap as shown on Exhibit 3. The monument structure shall not exceed 22 feet 4 inches in length and shall not exceed 5 feet 8 inches in height at the center, or 4 feet 6 inches in height on each side. The cast stone sign inset shall not exceed an area of 29 square feet and provide for external illumination. 3. SMU Entryway Signs: Entryway monument signs shall be located on the northwest corner and southwest corner of Central Expressway and SMU Boulevard as shown on Exhibit 4. The monument signs shall be constructed with brick and shall incorporate cast stone accents, to include logo and cap as shown on Exhibit 5. The structure for the entryway signs shall not exceed 44 feet in length nor 5 feet in height, and the cast stone sign inset shall not exceed and area of 84 square feet. External illumination shall be provided for both signs. SECTION 3. That the signs approved hereby may be constructed and placed at the specific locations and on the elevations as shown in said Exhibits, which are attached hereto and made part hereof for all purposes. SECTION 4. That any provision of Ordinance No. 94/40, as heretofore amended, in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance with regard to the signage permitted for Southern Methodist University is hereby repealed. SECTION 5. That should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part of provision thereof, other than the part decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional. SECTION 6. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be subject to a fine not to exceed the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense, and each and every day such offense shall continue shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day of August 2012. APPROVED: ___________________________________ W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ________________________________ ___________________________________ CITY ATTORNEY LIZ SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY (RLD/56736; 8-3-12) EXHIBIT #1 LOCATION OF MONUMENT SIGNS EXHIBIT #2 EXHIBIT #3 ORDINANCE ___________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDI EXHIBIT #4 EXHIBIT #5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 94/40, A SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT FOR SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, BY AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL MONUMENT SIGNS FOR THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND THE SMU ENTRYWAYS; ADOPTING SIGN STANDARDS ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS; APPROVING LOCATIONS OF ADDITIONAL SIGNS AND SIGN DETAILS AS SHOWN IN THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED HERETO; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day of August 2012. APPROVED: ____________________________________ W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ LIZ SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY AGENDAMEMO (8/21/2012AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:HarryN.Persaud,ChiefPlanningOfficial SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceamendingtheSpecialSignDistrictforSMU BACKGROUND: Pleaseseememowithattachmentssubmittedunderpublichearingforthisitem. RECOMMENDATION: UrbanDesignandDevelopmentAdvisoryCommittee(UDADAC)consideredthisitemonAugust1, 2012andvotedunanimouslytorecommendapproval. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance-SpecialSignDistrict-SMU ORDINANCE NO. _________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 94/40, A SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT FOR SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, BY AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL MONUMENT SIGNS FOR THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND THE SMU ENTRYWAYS; ADOPTING SIGN STANDARDS ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS; APPROVING LOCATIONS OF ADDITIONAL SIGNS AND SIGN DETAILS AS SHOWN IN THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED HERETO; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Urban Design and Development Advisory Committee of the City has considered a request for amendment of Ordinance No. 94/40, the Special Sign District for Southern Methodist University, as heretofore amended; and WHEREAS, the Committee is of the opinion that such amendment will result in benefits to the public health, safety and general welfare and is in the interest of the City of University Park, and has recommended to the City Council that such amendment be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided notice and a public hearing with regard to such request and recommendation and is of the opinion and finds that such special sign district should be amended as requested; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the Urban Design and Development Advisory Committee has considered a request for amendment of Ordinance No. 94/40, as heretofore amended, which granted a Special Sign District for Southern Methodist University, and such amendment has been approved by the Committee as beneficial to the public health, safety, and general welfare and in the interests of the City of University Park. The City Council therefore hereby determines that ordinance No. 94/40, the Special Sign District for Southern Methodist University, as heretofore amended, should be further amended in accordance with the following sections. SECTION 2. That the following additional monument signs are hereby authorized to be constructed on the campus of Southern Methodist University, to wit: 1. Building Identification Sign for the School of Engineering: The monument sign shall be located near the front entryway to the School of Engineering, facing Airline Road, as shown on Exhibit 1. The sign shall be constructed with brick and shall incorporate cast stone accents, to include a cast stone logo, base and cap as shown on Exhibit 2. The monument structure shall not exceed 23 feet 8 inches in length, shall not exceed 6 feet 3 inches in height at the center, and shall not exceed 5 feet 1 inch in height on each side. The cast stone sign inset shall not exceed an area of 36 square feet and external illumination shall be provided. 2. Building Identification Sign for the School of Education: The monument sign shall be located on the southwest corner of Airline Road and University Boulevard as shown on Exhibit 1. The sign shall be constructed with brick and shall incorporate cast stone accents, to include a cast stone logo, base and cap as shown on Exhibit 3. The monument structure shall not exceed 22 feet 4 inches in length and shall not exceed 5 feet 8 inches in height at the center, or 4 feet 6 inches in height on each side. The cast stone sign inset shall not exceed an area of 29 square feet and provide for external illumination. 3. SMU Entryway Signs: Entryway monument signs shall be located on the northwest corner and southwest corner of Central Expressway and SMU Boulevard as shown on Exhibit 4. The monument signs shall be constructed with brick and shall incorporate cast stone accents, to include logo and cap as shown on Exhibit 5. The structure for the entryway signs shall not exceed 44 feet in length nor 5 feet in height, and the cast stone sign inset shall not exceed and area of 84 square feet. External illumination shall be provided for both signs. SECTION 3. That the signs approved hereby may be constructed and placed at the specific locations and on the elevations as shown in said Exhibits, which are attached hereto and made part hereof for all purposes. SECTION 4. That any provision of Ordinance No. 94/40, as heretofore amended, in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance with regard to the signage permitted for Southern Methodist University is hereby repealed. SECTION 5. That should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part of provision thereof, other than the part decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional. SECTION 6. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be subject to a fine not to exceed the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense, and each and every day such offense shall continue shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day of August 2012. APPROVED: ___________________________________ W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ________________________________ ___________________________________ CITY ATTORNEY LIZ SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY (RLD/56736; 8-3-12) EXHIBIT #1 LOCATION OF MONUMENT SIGNS EXHIBIT #2 EXHIBIT #3 ORDINANCE ___________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDI EXHIBIT #4 EXHIBIT #5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 94/40, A SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT FOR SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, BY AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL MONUMENT SIGNS FOR THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND THE SMU ENTRYWAYS; ADOPTING SIGN STANDARDS ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS; APPROVING LOCATIONS OF ADDITIONAL SIGNS AND SIGN DETAILS AS SHOWN IN THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED HERETO; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day of August 2012. APPROVED: ____________________________________ W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ LIZ SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY AGENDAMEMO (8/21/2012AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:HarryN.Persaud,ChiefPlanningOfficial SUBJECT:PUBLICHEARING:onarequesttoamendtheSpecialSignDistrictforthePlazaat PrestonCenter BACKGROUND: CityCouncilapprovedacomprehensiveamendmenttothespecialsigndistrictforthePlazaat PrestonCenteronMarch20,2012.Thedeveloperisintheprocessofpre-leasingspaceinthenew officebuilding“J”currentlyunderconstruction.Theproposedamendmentprovidesfortwo additionalbusinessidentificationwallsignsdescribedasfollowsandshownonexhibitsattached. (a)OneadditionalwallsignlocatedonthenorthfaçadefacingNorthwestHighway.Thesizeofthe signshallnotexceed80sq.ft.inareawith24-inchreversechannelletterswithhaloillumination. (b)Oneadditionalwallsign,locatedonthewestelevationfacingPrestonRoad.Thesizeofthesign shallnotexceed80sq.ft.with24-inchreversechannelletterswithhaloillumination. RECOMMENDATION: UDADAC met August1,2012andvotedunanimouslytorecommendapproval. ATTACHMENTS: MinutesofUDADAC08.01.12 DRAFTOrdSpecialSignDistrict-PlazaatPrestonCtr URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES August 1, 2012 The Urban Design & Development Advisory Committee of the City of University Park met on Wednesday, August 1, 2012 at 12:00 P.M. at the Peek Service Center, 4420 Worcola Street, Dallas, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting. Committee Members Attending: Staff Members Attending: Michael Culwell - Chairman Bud Smallwood – Director of Public Works Doug Smellage Jacob Speer – Assistant Director of Public Works Spence Kendrick Robbie Corder – Community Development Director Jason Mackey Harry Persaud – Chief Planning Official Tom Weber George Ertle – Assistant to the City Manager Jodie Ledat – Public Works Administrative Assistant Councilmember in Attendance: Guests: Bob Clark Phillip Jabour of Southern Methodist University Trisha Mehis of Southern Methodist University Mike Geisler of Venture Commercial Management Absent and Excused: Cindy Kipp Charlie Little William R. “Rusty” Goff Brian Hammer Jason Mackey Eurico Francisco 1. Call to Order Bud Smallwood opened the meeting at 12:12pm, and invited Harry Persaud to present the first agenda item. 2. Review and Discuss a Proposed Amendment to the Special Sign District for the Plaza at Preston Center Chief Planning Official Harry Persaud provided the committee with background regarding the Special Sign District for the Plaza at Preston Center as well as the proposed amendment to the sign district. He noted the Plaza was requesting the amendment in response to a request by a potential tenant for secondary signage on the Preston Road and Northwest Highway frontages. Mike Culwell asked if there would be changes to signage on the façades facing residential areas. Mr. Persaud noted no changes to residential facades were proposed. Mr. Mike Geisler of Venture Commercial distributed photos of area business signage similar to the signage requested and indicated it was very common. Discussion ensued. Chairman Culwell made a motion to approve the proposed amendment to the Special Sign District for the Plaza at Preston Center. Jason Mackey seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. 3. Review and Discuss a Proposed Amendment to the SMU Special Sign District Harry Persaud introduced to the committee SMU representatives, Philip Jabour and Trisha Mehis, and presented the proposal for new monument signs at four (4) locations. Mr. Culwell asked if the signs were larger than existing signs and if they would be illuminated. Mr. Jabour indicated the proposed signs are a bit smaller than existing monument signs and will be illuminated by lights in planter beds. The four proposed signs would be at the Annette Caldwell Simmons School of Education and Human Development, the Bobby Lyle School of Engineering, and two (2) SMU Campus signs, one at the northwest corner of SMU Boulevard and Central Expressway and the other on the southwest corner of the same intersection. Committee members indicated they felt the signs were necessary and complimentary to the campus. Chairman Culwell made a motion to approve the amendment to the Special Sign District for SMU. Spence Kendrick seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. 4. Discuss Requirements for Garage Sales Community Development Director Robbie Corder distributed handouts of Article 4.07 of the Code of Ordinances which regulates the sale of personal items and explained the City Council requested UDADAC review the current requirements and consider revisions. Robbie Corder utilized a PowerPoint presentation to inform the committee of current regulations, issues faced by code enforcement officers, and policies of area cities regarding garage and estate sales. There was discussion regarding permitting, signage, online publication of area sales, etc. Spence Kendrick suggested requiring a low-cost permit which would allow residents to be notified of regulations and sign a form indicating they understand and will follow the regulations. Mr. Weber felt this may make more work for enforcement officers, and Mr. Mackey indicated he was in favor of requiring no permit but would request residents to sign a form indicating they are aware of regulations they would need to abide by. Mr. Smellage felt the revenue collected via a low-cost permit would at least offset some of the enforcement costs incurred by the City. Mr. Culwell suggested the allowed hours for a sale should also be reviewed and perhaps changed. Robbie Corder thanked the committee for their suggestions and indicated he will take the committee’s thoughts, conduct more research, and bring back to the committee options for their review. 5. Discuss the City’s Storm Water Management Plan Bud Smallwood informed the committee of the City’s mandate to inform and update certain advisory committees on the Storm Water Management Plan, and he asked Jacob Speer to make the presentation. Mr. Speer utilized a PowerPoint presentation to update the committee on the requirements of the plan and the City’s progress. 6. View Ethics Training Video Due to time constraints, the video will be viewed at the next meeting. 7. Review and Approve Minutes of the February 29, 2012 meeting Chairman Culwell asked for approval of the minutes of the February 29, 2012 meeting. Mr. Weber moved to approve the minutes, and Spence Kendrick seconded the motion. All members present voted in favor. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Culwell at 1:34pm. _______________________________ ____________________ M. Culwell, Chairman, Date U.D.A.D.A.C. ORDINANCE NO. _________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 90/6, A SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT FOR THE PLAZA AT PRESTON CENTER, TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION WALL SIGNS ON OFFICE BUILDING J; ADOPTING SIGN STANDARDS; APPROVING SIGN DETAILS AND LOCATIONS ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBITS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Urban Design and Development Advisory Committee of the City has considered a request for amendment of Ordinance No. 90/6, the Special Sign District for the Plaza at Preston Center, as heretofore amended; and WHEREAS, the Committee is of the opinion that such amendment will result in benefits to the public health, safety and general welfare and is in the interest of the City of University Park, and has recommended to the City Council that such amendment be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided notice and a public hearing with regard to such request and recommendation and is of the opinion and finds that such special sign district should be amended as requested; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the Urban Design and Development Advisory Committee has considered a request for amendment of Ordinance No. 90/6, which granted a Special Sign District for the Plaza at Preston Center, and such amendment has been approved by the Committee as beneficial to the public health, safety, and general welfare and in the interests of the City of University Park. The City Council hereby determines that ordinance No. 90/6, the Special Sign District for the Plaza at Preston Center, as heretofore amended, should be further amended in accordance with the following sections. SECTION 2. The Special Sign District is amended to permit additional Business Identification Wall Signs for Office Building J as shown on the Exhibits, attached hereto and made part hereof for all purposes, to wit: 1. One additional business identification wall sign may be located on the north façade of Building J, facing Northwest Highway. The sign shall not exceed 80 square feet in area and shall have 24 inch reverse channel letters with halo illumination, constructed as shown on Exhibit 2; 2. One additional business identification wall sign may be located on the west façade of Building J, facing Preston Road. The sign shall not exceed 80 square feet in area and shall have 24 inch reverse channel letters with halo illumination, constructed as shown on Exhibit 3. SECTION 3. That the signs approved hereby may be constructed and placed at the specific locations and on the elevations as shown in said Exhibits. SECTION 4. That any provision of Ordinance No. 90/6, as heretofore amended, in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance with regard to the signage permitted for the Plaza at Preston Center is hereby repealed. SECTION 5. That should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part of provision thereof, other than the part decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional. SECTION 6. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be subject to a fine not to exceed the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense, and each and every day such offense shall continue shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day of August 2012. APPROVED: ___________________________________ W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ________________________________ ___________________________________ CITY ATTORNEY LIZ SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY (RLD/56743; 8-3-12) EXHIBIT #2 EXHIBIT #3 ORDINANCE NO. _________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 90/6, A SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT FOR THE PLAZA AT PRESTON CENTER, TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION WALL SIGNS ON OFFICE BUILDING J; ADOPTING SIGN STANDARDS; APPROVING SIGN DETAILS AND LOCATIONS ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBITS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day of August 2012. APPROVED: ____________________________________ W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ LIZ SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY AGENDAMEMO (8/21/2012AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:HarryN.Persaud,ChiefPlanningOfficial SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceamendingtheSpecialSignDistrictforthe PlazaatPrestonCenter BACKGROUND: Pleaserefertomemowithattachmentsprovidedforthepublichearingonthisitem. RECOMMENDATION: UrbanDesignandDevelopmentAdvisoryCommittee(UDADAC)consideredthisitemonAugust1, 2012andvotedunanimouslytorecommendapproval. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance-SpecialSignDistrict-PlazaatPrestonCtr ORDINANCE NO. _________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 90/6, A SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT FOR THE PLAZA AT PRESTON CENTER, TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION WALL SIGNS ON OFFICE BUILDING J; ADOPTING SIGN STANDARDS; APPROVING SIGN DETAILS AND LOCATIONS ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBITS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Urban Design and Development Advisory Committee of the City has considered a request for amendment of Ordinance No. 90/6, the Special Sign District for the Plaza at Preston Center, as heretofore amended; and WHEREAS, the Committee is of the opinion that such amendment will result in benefits to the public health, safety and general welfare and is in the interest of the City of University Park, and has recommended to the City Council that such amendment be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided notice and a public hearing with regard to such request and recommendation and is of the opinion and finds that such special sign district should be amended as requested; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the Urban Design and Development Advisory Committee has considered a request for amendment of Ordinance No. 90/6, which granted a Special Sign District for the Plaza at Preston Center, and such amendment has been approved by the Committee as beneficial to the public health, safety, and general welfare and in the interests of the City of University Park. The City Council hereby determines that ordinance No. 90/6, the Special Sign District for the Plaza at Preston Center, as heretofore amended, should be further amended in accordance with the following sections. SECTION 2. The Special Sign District is amended to permit additional Business Identification Wall Signs for Office Building J as shown on the Exhibits, attached hereto and made part hereof for all purposes, to wit: 1. One additional business identification wall sign may be located on the north façade of Building J, facing Northwest Highway. The sign shall not exceed 80 square feet in area and shall have 24 inch reverse channel letters with halo illumination, constructed as shown on Exhibit 2; 2. One additional business identification wall sign may be located on the west façade of Building J, facing Preston Road. The sign shall not exceed 80 square feet in area and shall have 24 inch reverse channel letters with halo illumination, constructed as shown on Exhibit 3. SECTION 3. That the signs approved hereby may be constructed and placed at the specific locations and on the elevations as shown in said Exhibits. SECTION 4. That any provision of Ordinance No. 90/6, as heretofore amended, in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance with regard to the signage permitted for the Plaza at Preston Center is hereby repealed. SECTION 5. That should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part of provision thereof, other than the part decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional. SECTION 6. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be subject to a fine not to exceed the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense, and each and every day such offense shall continue shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day of August 2012. APPROVED: ___________________________________ W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ________________________________ ___________________________________ CITY ATTORNEY LIZ SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY (RLD/56743; 8-3-12) EXHIBIT #2 EXHIBIT #3 ORDINANCE NO. _________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 90/6, A SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT FOR THE PLAZA AT PRESTON CENTER, TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION WALL SIGNS ON OFFICE BUILDING J; ADOPTING SIGN STANDARDS; APPROVING SIGN DETAILS AND LOCATIONS ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBITS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day of August 2012. APPROVED: ____________________________________ W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ LIZ SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY AGENDAMEMO (8/21/2012AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:GeneR.Smallwood,P.E.;DirectorofPublicWorks SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onarequesttoabandonautilityeasementat2632 Westminsterandprovidedirectiontostaff BACKGROUND: Thepropertyat2632Westminsterislistedforsale.Staffwascontactedrecentlyregardingan easementalongtheeasternpropertyline.WeconfirmedthattheCityatonetimehadawatermain runningfromWestminsternorthtotheWestminster-LoversLanealley.Thewatermainisnot currentlyinservice,havingbeendisconnectedabouteighteenyearsago.Thetenfootwideeasement, runningtheentireonehundredseventysevenfootdepthofthelot,isanencumbrancethatwasnot identifiedonthecurrentowner'stitlepolicy.WehavebeencontactedbyarepresentativeofFidelity NationalTitleGrouprequestingtheCityabandontheeasement. TheCity'sabandonmentpolicy(easements)callsforappraisalofthepropertytodeterminethefair marketvalue(FMV).Forright-of-wayabandonment,theFMVis100%oftheappraisedvalue/ squarefoot,andeasementsarevaluedat25%oftheappraisedvalue.Giventheappraisalof $475,000,theFMVoftheeasementiscalculatedtobe$20,150.27. Mr.Garrigan,withFidelityNational,contendstheeasementshouldhavenovalue.Helistshis argumentsintheattachedletter,andoffers$7,500fortheCitytoabandontheeasement.TheCityhas beenconsistentwithitsabandonmentpolicyinthedeterminationofFMV,however,staffisnot authorizedtonegotiate.TheCouncil'soptionsincludeacceptanceoftheoffer,standingfirmonthe appraisedFMV,ortodeclinetoabandontheeasement. RECOMMENDATION: StaffrequestsCityCouncildirectionregardingtherequestforabandonmentoftheutilityeasementat 2632Westminster. ATTACHMENTS: Easement FidelityNatLetter 1990WATER WaterSys-Current 1990 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 6"WATER MAIN IN EASEMENT AGENDAMEMO (8/21/2012AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:KentR.Austin SUBJECT:PUBLICHEARING:onproposedFY2013budgetandtaxrate BACKGROUND: Texasstatutesrequirethatcitiesprovidenoticeandholdpublichearingsbeforeadopting anannualbudgetandpropertytaxrate. ProposedFY2013budget TheTexasLocalGovernmentCode(Section102)requiresthatabudgethearingbeheld nosoonerthan15daysaftertheproposedbudgetisfiledwiththemunicipalclerk.Using August6asthefilingdate,ahearingAugust21meetsthisrequirement. AsecondbudgethearingisscheduledfortheAugust28Councilmeeting.Afterthis hearing,thebudgetandtaxratearescheduledforactionattheSeptember4CityCouncil meeting. TheproposedFY2013budgetof$44,275,593is2.9%largerthantheadoptedFY2012 budgetof$43,027,730.Thebudgetmaintainsthecurrent27.845propertytaxrateand presumesrateincreasesforwaterandsewerservice. TheUniversityParkPublicLibraryisincludedasaCitydepartmentforthefirsttime, withaninitialbudgetof$600,000andthreefull-timepositions. A3%payraiseisincludedforallfull-timeCityemployees.Detailsontheproposed budget'sexpendituresandrevenuesareprovidedintheattachedCityManager'sbudget memoandline-itemdetail. TheFinanceAdvisoryCommitteemetAugust9,2012,toreviewtheproposedbudget andrecommendeditsadoptionasproposed.Twootheradvisorycommittees--Employee BenefitsandProperty,Casualty,andLiabilityInsurance--aremeetinginAugustto reviewthebudgetandmakearecommendationtotheCouncil. Proposedpropertytaxrate ThepropertytaxistheGeneralFund'sprimarysourceofrevenue.InthecurrentFY2012 budget,$15,504,342ofthe$26,758,000GeneralFundrevenueisderivedfromcurrent yearpropertytaxes. The2012certifiedtaxrollrose1.12%inmarketvalueand0.35%intaxablevalue comparedtolastyear.Thisisthefirstyearsince2009thatpropertyvalueshaverisenin thecity. Thedistinctionbetweenatax revenueincreaseandatax rateincreasecanbeconfusing, especiallyinthepresentcase–eventhoughtheCityisnotincreasingitstaxrate(by maintainingthe27.845centrate),taxrevenueswillrise,by$53,842,becauseoftherise intheoveralltaxbase. Atthesametime,themarketvalueoftheaveragesingle-familyhomeinUniversityPark fellslightly,sothattheaveragesinglefamilyhomeownerwouldpay$1lessinCity propertytaxes($2,434in2012vs.$2,435in2011),asthetablebelowdemonstrates: TruthinTaxationimpact TheTexasTaxCode(Section26,TruthinTaxation)requiresthecalculationand publicationoftheeffectivetaxrate(ETR),anumberintendedto“enablethepublicto evaluatetherelationshipbetweentaxesfortheprecedingyearandforthecurrentyear, basedonataxratethatwouldproducethesameamountoftaxesifappliedtothesame propertiestaxedinbothyears”(2012Truth-in-TaxationGuide ,TexasStateComptroller). TheDallasCountyTaxAssessor-Collectorperformstheeffectivetaxratecalculation. TheETRformulais: Prioryeartaxesminustaxesonpropertylostthisyear:$15,405,122 dividedby Currentvalueofpropertytaxedlastyear:$5,518,092 times$100 equalsEffectiveTaxRate:$0.279174 Ascanbeseen,theETRformulausesdifferentnumbersforlastyear’staxesandtaxbase thantheproposedbudgetuses.Consequently,eventhoughtheproposed$0.27845rate willraisemorerevenuethanlastyear,theETRcalculationsaysitactuallyrepresentsan effectivetax decrease. Comparisonoftaxbase,taxrate,andtaxlevy 2011(FY2012)2012(FY2013) Citywidecertifiedtaxbase $5,568,088,524 $5,587,424,812 Citytaxrateper$100 $0.27845 $0.27845 Totaltaxlevy $15,504,342 $15,558,184 Avgsingle -familyhome(market)$1,093,015 $1,092,539 Avgsinglefamilyhome(taxable)$874,412 $874032 Avgsingle -familyhometaxbill $2,435 $2,434 TheETRissignificantbecauseitdrivesthenoticeandhearingrequirementsacitymust meetpertheTexasTruth-in-Taxationlaw.Citiesproposinganeffectivetaxincreaseover theprioryearmustholdtwoseparatepublichearingsaboutthetaxrate. ForFY2013,eventhoughtheproposed$0.27845rateislowerthantheETRof $0.279174,sothatnoticesandhearingsare notrequired,Citystaffhaschosentopublish noticesandschedulehearingsoutofanabundanceofcaution.Thiswillprovidean opportunityforresidentstogiveinputbeforetheCityCouncilapprovesafinaltaxrate. ATTACHMENTS: CityManager'sproposedFY2013budgetmemo Line-itemdetail--FY2013proposedbudget CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS FY2013 PROPOSED BUDGET October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2013 August 7, 2012 This budget will raise total property taxes versus last year’s budget by $65,334 or 0.42%, and of that amount, $193,057 is tax revenue to be raised from new property added to the tax roll this year. This statement is required by HB 3195 of the 80th Texas Legislature. 1 M E M O DATE: August 7, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Livingston, City Manager SUBJECT: Proposed FY2013 budget INTRODUCTION This memo presents the City Manager’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2013 (FY2013, the period October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2013). The proposed FY2013 expenditure budget totals $44,275,593, a 2.90% increase from FY2012. The budget maintains the same City property tax rate as the past two years: 27.845 cents per $100 taxable value. While the overall tax base rose just 0.35%, single-family home values stayed level. The average single-family homeowner will pay one dollar less in City property taxes under the proposed budget. FY2013 marks the first year of the University Park Public Library as a City department, with an initial budget of $600,000. Of this amount, $300,000 will be funded by the UP Friends of the Library. Prior City budgets included library expenditures of $196,555, so the net budget increase is only $103,445. The proposed budget includes a 3% pay raise for City employees, the first in two years. This increase is partly offset by a reduction in the City’s TMRS contribution rate, from 10% to 8.26%. The number of full-time positions totals 243, reflecting the addition of three new Library employees. The table below compares 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 originate from the three budgeted funds. A summary page showing the proposed budget by fund and department follows this memo. . FUND FY2011 ACTUAL EXPENDS FY2012 ADOPTED BUDGET FY2013 PROPOSED BUDGET $ CHANGE % CHANGE GENERAL$27,003,169$26,724,086 $27,261,321 $537,235 2.01% UTILITY$13,716,254$13,435,168 $14,242,469 $807,301 6.01% SANITATION$2,686,568$2,868,476 $2,771,803 ($96,673) ‐3.37% TOTAL$43,405,991$43,027,730 $44,275,593 $1,247,8632.90% 2 As can be seen, the most dramatic change is in the Utility Fund. Water and wastewater rate increases will be needed to keep pace with the 13% higher rate for treated water from the Dallas County Park Cities Municipal Utility District (MUD) and reduced wastewater revenues. City staff is working to select a consultant to perform a comprehensive water and wastewater rate study, with input from the City Council and City advisory committees. The study is expected to be completed by November so that rates can be considered by the City Council before December 31. Consequently, the proposed FY2013 budget shows the likely effect of a rate increase in Utility Fund revenues but does not yet recommend specific rate changes. ADDITIONAL BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS • Sales tax revenues continue upward, from $3,121,443 in FY2010 to a projected $3,399,321in FY2012. Some of the increase in FY2012 comes from lump-sum sales tax recoveries. The FY2013 budget proposes sales tax revenue of $3,338,000. • Single family home starts continue to increase—for the seven months ended July 31, new SF home permits total 40, versus 34 during the same time last year. Building permit revenue continues to benefit from large SMU and commercial projects. Permit revenues were boosted in FY2011 by the George W. Bush Presidential Center ($1,670,697) and in FY2012 by the Plaza at Preston Center office building and the SMU sophomore commons projects. Permit revenue for the first ten months of FY2012 totaled $2,305,344, compared with a budget of $1,400,000 and last year’s total of $2,846,125. While FY2013 is expected to include revenues from projects like the renovation of SMU’s Moody Coliseum, the proposed revenue budget remains at $1,400,000. • The General, Utility, and Sanitation Fund budgets are balanced, so that proposed expenditures are matched by projected revenues. Again, however, this presumes increases in water and wastewater rates, which are not yet specified in the proposed FY2013 budget. • Direct Alarm monitoring continues to be a bright spot. Actual alarm monitoring revenue has increased from $652,999 in FY2008 to a projected $823,000 in FY2012. The FY2013 budget proposes Direct Alarm revenue of $866,989. • Pay-as-you-go capital project funding of $5.2 million is maintained. Of this amount, $3,032,187 is budgeted in the General Fund (Department 01-85, Transfers) and $2,195,415 in the Utility Fund (Department 02-85, Transfers). These amounts are moved to the Capital Projects Fund in 12 level installments during the fiscal year. A separate FY2013 capital budget will be reviewed by the Capital Projects Review Committee on August 20 and forwarded to the City Council for adoption in September. As I have said in the past three budgets, I want to commend our department heads and employees for preparing budgets that balance the current economic climate with continued delivery of quality services. Over the last three years, the General Fund budget has increased just 1.71%, compared to a 6.48% rise in the Consumer Price Index for Dallas-Fort Worth and a 9.3% increase in the Municipal Cost Index (MCI). [The MCI is a statistic developed by American City & County magazine that is designed to show the specific effects of inflation on the cost of providing city services. It differs from the Consumer Price Index by including elements common to cities, like health care, fuel, and construction materials.] 3 CITYWIDE EXPENDITURE ISSUES Seven categories account for 85% of the total budget’s expenditures. Of these, four are level or decreasing for FY2013: PERSONNEL Salaries and benefits comprise 53% ($23.3 million) of the $44 million total budget. Three full-time Library positions are being added; with other changes, total full-time positions rise from 241 to 243. Salary changes A 3% market raise is included in the FY2013 budget, amounting to an increase of about $507,400 citywide. No raise was included in the FY2012 budget; the FY2011 budget included a 3% raise. Under the City’s pay plan, about 15% of employees remain eligible for 3% merit-based pay raises. The City continues to enjoy a very low employee turnover rate, which is an indicator that our salaries and benefits are competitive with other area cities and private employers. Maintaining a competitive salary and benefits plan is essential for retaining and recruiting quality employees. Within the departmental budgets, the following changes are included: • Relocation of Sanitation Department’s Neighborhood Integrity Officer to Community Development Department. • Addition of one new Sanitation worker position in Sanitation Department. • Deletion of one position in Facilities Maintenance. • Relocation of one Utility position from the Utility Billing Office to the Utilities Division. • Conversion of full-time Purchasing Assistant in Finance to part-time position. Benefit changes Employee health insurance No change is proposed for employee health insurance benefits or employee contributions. In calendar 2007-2011 and so far in 2012, the plan has operated at a surplus, and the Self-Insurance Fund’s balance CategoryFY2012FY2013Change $Change % Personnel costs$22,677,265$23,329,230$651,9652.87% Treatment charges$6,737,339$7,242,506$505,1677.50% Library$196,555$600,000$403,445205.26% Capital projects$5,227,602$5,227,602 $00.00% Electricity costs $627,253$626,000 ($1,253)‐0.20% Equip. replacement$540,061$507,772 ($32,289)‐5.98% Fuel costs $436,840$426,840 ($10,000)‐2.29% Subtotal $36,442,915$37,959,950$1,517,0354.16% Total budget $43,027,730$44,275,593$1,247,8632.90% Percent of budget 84.70%85.74% Major expenditure categories comparison 4 has grown. Maintaining the contributions to the fund seems to be a prudent and appropriate course. Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) costs The proposed FY2013 budget includes a contribution rate of 8.26%, down from 10.5% in FY2012. Last year the rate declined from 13.87% to 10.5%. The FY2013 rate includes a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for retirees and service credit update for current employees; without these the required rate would be 6.8%. For many years the City has followed a policy of intermittently granting cost of living adjustments for retired employees. This policy has helped keep the City’s TMRS rate low while providing relief to its retirees from constant cost increases resulting from inflation. The City last adjusted retiree benefits in FY2008. Firefighters’ Relief and Retirement Fund (FRRF) costs University Park Fire Department personnel belong to a separate retirement system that is governed by a local board made up of three firefighters, two local residents, and two City representatives. The FRRF is structured as a defined benefit plan and is currently underfunded on an actuarial basis, although its status has improved due to changes in the plan. In 2008 the firefighters voted to increase their own contribution rate from 10% of gross pay to 15% over a three year period, beginning in FY2010. This move was designed to restore the plan to actuarial soundness and ultimately match the City’s contribution rate of 15.54%. In FY2011 and FY2012 the firefighters paid in 14% of gross salary, up from 12%. Since the 2008 plan amendments, the FRRF plan has been changed so that employee contribution increases will only occur in years when there is an overall pay increase. Consequently the firefighter contribution rate is expected to rise to 15% for 2013. TREATMENT CHARGES University Park relies on two outside providers for treatment of water (DCPCMUD) and wastewater (City of Dallas Water Utilities). Treatment charges comprise about half the cost of University Park’s water and wastewater operation. The amount budgeted and expended for outside treatment can vary dramatically from year to year, depending on volume and rate, and sometimes in different directions. For FY2013, the cost of purchased water is projected to rise 12.7%, while wastewater costs are dropping 1.8%. Water treatment The MUD’s plan to finance the construction of their new membrane filter plant relies on a multi-year series of rate increases. Fortunately, the rates proposed and adopted to date have been lower than initial forecasts. For example, the rate for FY2013 is $2.2935 per 1,000 gallons, while the previous projection was $2.4878. Similarly, the FY2012 rate of $2.0281 was originally projected to be $2.1709. Although the projected volume of water to be purchased is decreasing for FY2013, the 13% rate increase results in a $549,209 increase in budgeted water purchases: FY2010FY2011FY2012 FY2013 Change $Change % Rate per 1,000 gallons $1.783 $2.014$2.028 $2.294 $0.2713.09% Forecast gallons (000) 2,138,238 2,162,3372,135,813 2,128,216 (7,597) ‐0.36% Budgeted purchases $3,812,051$4,355,379$4,331,642 $4,881,063 $549,42112.68% 5 The chart on the next page depicts the impact of the MUD plant conversion on wholesale water rates. As noted earlier, City staff is working currently to select a rate consultant. Wastewater treatment The other major treatment cost item is wastewater treatment, which is provided by the City of Dallas Water Utilities. For FY2013, University Park will pay $2,361,443, down 1.84% from $2,405,697 in FY2012. Compared with one year ago, consumption (monthly winter household water use) fell by 4.2%, from 79,294,000 gallons to 75,960,000. This is multiplied against the proposed rate per 1,000 gallons (up 11.37%) and infiltration/inflow factor (down 7.99%). LIBRARY As mentioned, effective October 1, 2012 the University Park Library will become a full City operation. Recruitment for a Library Director is currently underway, and a new Director should be appointed and in place by early October. The current Director will remain until shortly after the first of the year, as a City employee. Retaining the outgoing Director is expected to aid in the move to the Library’s new space in Preston Center. Construction on that location, which is on the second floor of a new office building, is on schedule. Current plans are for the Library to relocate near the end of the year and open at Preston Center in early January 2013. The UP Public Library has been operated since 2001 by the not-for-profit University Park Friends of the Library. The City supported the library financially; in recent years the Executive Department budget included $196,555 for library support. Now the library has been established as a new City department, and the FY2013 budget proposes a first- year budget of $600,000. The Friends have agreed to fund $300,000 for the first year; ultimately the Friends have agreed to provide $500,000 annually, if their capital campaign is successful. Consequently, the net budget impact to the City for FY2013 is an expenditure increase of $103,445: $1.207 $1.205 $1.316 $1.783 $2.014 $2.028 $2.294 $2.373 $2.347 $2.321 $0.000 $0.500 $1.000 $1.500 $2.000 $2.500 FY07FY08FY09FY10FY11FY12FY13FY14FY15FY16 MUD water rate per 1,000 gallons 6 CAPITAL PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS The FY2013 budget continues the City’s successful practice of funding its capital projects on a pay-as- you-go rather than debt. As with the prior three years, no increases are proposed for the Utility Fund contribution of $2,195,415 or the General Fund contribution of $3,032,187. These amounts are included in the Transfers Departments in the General and Utility Funds. The budgeted transfers and other sources help fund the City’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP), so that in a given year the amount of project expenditure may be sharply higher or lower than the annual budgeted contribution. The Capital Projects Review Committee will meet with City staff to consider the capital budget for FY2013 and projections for FY2014-2017. Once approved by the City Council by resolution, any subsequent changes to the FY2013 capital budget and five-year CIP must first be reviewed by the Committee before being considered by the City Council. ELECTRICITY, EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT, AND FUEL Projected expenditures for these three categories are level or down slightly, reflecting a leveling off in prices. The City purchases electricity via its membership in TCAP, the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power. For FY2013 the budget includes $626,000 for electricity, compared with $627,253 in FY2012. Budgeted contributions for replacement of motorized equipment total $507,772, versus $540,061 last year. This is an internal charge that appears as expenditure in the user departments and revenue in the Equipment Services Fund. Fuel costs are projected to remain nearly the same for FY2013. The City is budgeting for $3.25 per gallon for gasoline and $3.45 for diesel, compared with $3.00 and $3.40 in FY2011. Citywide FY2013 fuel purchases are projected to total $426,840 for FY2013, versus the FY2012 budget of $436,840. FY2011FY2012FY2013 $ Change Revenues$0$0$300,000 $300,000 Expenditures$196,555$196,555$600,000 $403,445 Net budget impact:($196,555)($196,555)($300,000)($103,445) Library impact on City budget 7 DISCUSSION OF TAXES AND UTILITY RATES GENERAL FUND Revenue considerations Non-property tax revenues comprise $11,484,621 of the City’s $27,286,305 General Fund revenue budget and include everything from sales tax to franchise fees to swimming pool passes. Sales tax City sales tax revenues have improved consistently since FY2009 and are expected to exceed budget in FY2012. The City’s sales tax consultants have continued to work at submitting requests for retroactive recoveries of taxes distributed to other jurisdictions. The chart below displays recent sales tax history. Building permits Permit revenue in FY2012 has nearly matched FY2011’s extraordinary spike: $3.46 $3.03 $3.03 $3.18 $3.34 $- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 FY09FY10FY11FY12FY13 Mi l l i o n s City Sales Tax Revenue FY2009‐FY2013 Budget Actual $- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 FY2008FY2009FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013 Mi l l i o n s Building Permit Revenue FY2008‐FY2013 Budget Actual 8 The building permit revenue budget for the last five years has remained at $1,400,000 and is proposed to stay there for FY2013. This practice prevents future year budgets from being dependent on an uncertain or unstable level of permit revenue. Property tax impact The 2012 overall tax base of $5,587,424,812 is up for the first time since 2009. Interestingly, the 0.35%, or $19,336,288, rise is solely due to $69,332,692 in new construction. Existing property declined very slightly. Of the total tax base, residential property comprises 87% of the parcels and 93% of the value. The FY2013 budget proposes to maintain the property tax rate at its current level, 27.845 cents per $100 taxable value. This will result in a budgeted property tax revenue increase of $53,842. The table below compares this year with the past three: The owner of a home whose value decreased by the citywide average would pay $1 less in City property taxes, from $2,435 to $2,434. The owner of an average home with a homestead exemption whose value did not change in assessed value this year would pay $2,435, the same as last year. The proposed $0.27845 rate is below the effective tax rate (ETR) of $0.279174, just barely. The ETR is the tax rate that would raise the same dollar amount of revenue as last year, on properties that were on the tax roll in both years. The value of new construction is excluded from the ETR calculation. From an ETR standpoint, total tax revenues are actually decreasing 0.26%. Because the City’s proposed rate is lower than the ETR, the City is not required legally to hold the additional public hearings required by State Truth in Taxation law. Even so, a second hearing has been scheduled to provide the fullest opportunity for public review and comment. UTILITY FUND As described earlier in this memo, while the FY2013 budget does not propose increases to City retail water or wastewater rates, these rates changes will be required in the near future. The comprehensive rate Property tax rate comparison, FY2009 – FY2012 AdoptedAdoptedAdopted Proposed Tax purposeFY2010FY2011FY2012 FY2013 Op. & Maint.0.26548 0.27845 0.27845 0.27845 Debt Service0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Total Tax Rate0.26548 0.27845 0.27845 0.27845 Property tax levy comparison, FY2009 – FY2012 Assessed Value (Market) $1,189,311 $1,120,199 $1,093,015 $1,092,539 Less 20% Hmstd Exmp ($237,862)($224,040)($218,603)($218,508) Taxable Value $951,449 $896,159 $874,412 $874,032 Tax Rate per $100$0.26548 $0.27845 $0.27845 $0.27845 City Tax Levy $2,526 $2,495 $2,435 $2,434 Proposed FY2013 Adopted FY2010 Adopted FY2011 Adopted FY2012 9 study will provide a chance to factor in issues like conservation incentives and allocation of costs between base and consumption elements of the rate. Non-treatment related expenditures are proposed to increase to accommodate recent increased activity. Actual expenditures for the Backfill Materials and Utility Main Maintenance accounts have averaged $464,113 over the past three years; the proposed FY2013 budget for these accounts is $413,000, up from $380,000 in FY2012. SANITATION FUND No change is proposed for City sanitation (solid waste and recycling collection) fees. Rates were last increased in FY2009. The proposed FY2013 expenditure budget of $2,771,803 is down 3.37% from $2,868,476 in FY2012. Reasons include lower personnel costs, reduced landfill budget, and lower equipment replacement charges. The Neighborhood Integrity Officer position is being moved from the Sanitation Department to the Community Development Department. This reduction is offset by the addition of one new sanitation worker position. The revenue budget has been reduced 4.32% to reflect revenues more realistically. The FY2013 total is $2,937,660, versus $3,070,451 last year. The Fund has a budgeted gain of $165,857, the result of subtracting budgeted expenditures from revenues. Consistent with past years, the Sanitation Budget contains a $100,000 placeholder (labeled “Disposal Fees Contingency” in the line-item budget), which is intended to promote accumulation of reserves toward future landfill needs. CONCLUSION The proposed budget is now ready for review by the Employee Benefits, Finance, and Insurance Advisory Committees. Staff proposes the following schedule to satisfy the public hearing and notice requirements for the FY2013 budget’s adoption: Date Day Description August 6/7 Tuesday Submit proposed budget to City Council and file with City Secretary August 21 Tuesday Receive staff briefing on budget and hold public hearing August 28 Tuesday Hold second public hearing September 4 Tuesday Adopt budget and related ordinances October 1 Monday 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. 10 CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS FY2013 PROPOSED BUDGET BY FUND AND DEPARTMENT 8/7/2012 Fund / Org Unit / Department FY2011 Actual FY2012 Adopted Budget FY2013 Proposed Budget $ Change% Change GENERAL FUND Revenues 01‐11 REVENUES$29,720,043$26,758,000$27,286,305$528,3051.97% Total Revenues$29,720,043$26,758,000$27,286,305$528,3051.97% Expenditures 01‐02 EXECUTIVE $1,166,906$1,187,135$947,218 ($239,917)‐20.21% 01‐03 FINANCE $1,192,3861,059,604$1,023,093 ($36,511)‐3.45% 01‐04 HUMAN RESOURCES $351,049363,849$354,043 ($9,806)‐2.70% 01‐05 INFORMATION SERVICES $918,087996,662$980,320 ($16,342)‐1.64% 01‐06 LIBRARY $0 0$600,000 $600,000#DIV/0! 01‐10 COURT $310,298331,720$341,706 $9,9863.01% 01‐19 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $1,023,2811,016,899$1,155,595 $138,69613.64% 01‐20 ENGINEERING $777,939744,212$750,505 $6,2930.85% 01‐25 TRAFFIC $810,201848,934$862,322 $13,3881.58% 01‐35 FACILITY MAINTENANCE $748,700755,293$581,232 ($174,061)‐23.05% 01‐40 FIRE $4,957,7414,860,342$5,040,718 $180,3763.71% 01‐50 POLICE $6,509,9826,666,922$6,795,268 $128,3461.93% 01‐70 PARKS $2,819,7702,834,510$2,745,922 ($88,588)‐3.13% 01‐75 SWIMMING POOL $272,103269,583$275,869 $6,2862.33% 01‐80 STREETS $1,737,5301,756,234$1,775,323 $19,0891.09% 01‐85 TRANSFERS $3,407,1963,032,187$3,032,187 $00.00% Total Expenditures $27,003,169$26,724,086$27,261,321$537,2352.01% General Fund Surplus/(Deficit)$2,716,874$33,914$24,984 ($8,930)‐26.33% UTILITY FUND Revenues 02‐11 REVENUES14,386,443$ $13,445,004$14,250,997$805,9935.99% Total Revenues$14,386,44313,445,004$ 14,250,997$ $805,9935.99% Expenditures 02‐21 UTILITY OFFICE $7,942,476$7,882,997$8,428,704 $545,7076.92% 02‐22 UTILITIES 3,505,3983,266,3063,365,480 $99,1743.04% 02‐23 STORM WATER 72,96590,450252,870 $162,420179.57% 02‐85 TRANSFERS2,195,4152,195,4152,195,415$00.00% Total Expenditures$13,716,254$13,435,168$14,242,469$807,3016.01% Utility Fund Surplus/(Deficit)$670,189$9,836$8,528 ($1,308)‐13.30% SANITATION FUND Revenues 04‐11 REVENUES$2,953,835$3,070,451$2,937,660 ($132,791)‐4.32% Total Revenues$2,953,835$3,070,451$2,937,660 ($132,791)‐4.32% Expenditures 04‐60 SANITATION$2,686,568$2,868,476$2,771,803 ($96,673)‐3.37% Total Expenditures$2,686,568$2,868,476$2,771,803 ($96,673)‐3.37% Sanitation Fund Surplus/(Deficit)$267,267$201,975$165,857 ($36,118)‐17.88% TOTAL REVENUES $47,060,321$43,273,455$44,474,962$1,201,5072.78% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 43,405,99143,027,73044,275,593$1,247,8632.90% TOTAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)$3,654,330$245,725$199,369 ($46,356) 11 CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS FY2013 PROPOSED BUDGET PROPERTY TAX IMPACT 8/7/2012 FY2012FY2013 FY2011ADOPTEDPROPOSEDDOLLARPERCENT ACTUALBUDGETBUDGETCHANGECHANGE TOTAL CERTIFIED TAXABLE VALUE 5,707,112,954$ 5,568,088,524$ 5,587,424,812$ 19,336,288$ 0.34% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES NEEDED:27,003,169$ 26,758,000$ 27,286,305$ 528,305$ 1.96% NON PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Sales tax 3,479,629$ 3,178,851$ 3,338,000$ 159,149$ 4.57% Franchise fees 2,207,303 1,910,000 2,050,000 140,000$ 6.34% Building permits 2,846,125 1,400,000 1,400,000 ‐$ 0.00% Traffic/parking fines 458,721 531,000 556,000 25,000$ 5.45% Service charges 790,735 1,042,730 865,055 (177,675)$ ‐22.47% Direct alarm monitoring fees 799,884 819,000 866,989 47,989$ 6.00% Interest income 202,120 265,000 265,000 ‐$ 0.00% Utility Fund contribution 600,000 600,000 600,000 ‐$ 0.00% Miscellaneous 2,370,927 1,263,077 1,543,077 280,000$ 11.81% TOTAL NON PROPERTY TAX REV.13,755,444$ 11,009,658$ 11,484,121$ 474,463$ 3.45% PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Operations & Maintenance (O&M) need 15,786,241$ 15,504,342$ 15,558,184$ 53,842$ 0.34% Penalty/interest & attorney's fees 119,527 145,000 145,000 ‐$ 0.00% Delinquent (prior years) taxes 58,835 99,000 99,000 ‐$ 0.00% TOTAL PROP TAX OP REQUEST 15,964,603$ 15,748,342$ 15,802,184$ 53,842$ 0.34% ‐$ REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES 2,716,878 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐$ DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENT ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ #DIV/0! ‐$ PROPERTY TAX RATE ‐$ Operations & Maintenance (O&M)0.27661$ 0.27845$ 0.27845$ 0$ 0.00% Debt Service ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐$ #DIV/0! Total Property Tax Rate per $100 0.27661$ 0.27845$ 0.27845$ 0.00000$ 0.00% IMPACT ON HOMEOWNER Average single‐family market value$1,120,199$1,093,015$1,092,539 ‐$476 ‐0.04% Less: 20% homestead exemption $224,040$218,603$218,508 ‐$95 ‐0.04% Average single‐family taxable value $896,159$874,412$874,032 ‐$381 ‐0.04% Tax levy $2,479 $2,435$2,433.74 ‐$1 ‐0.04% Increase in levy over prior year ‐$47 ‐$44 ‐$1 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐02 EX E C U T I V E LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $4 5 0 , 3 3 4 $ 4 5 7 , 6 6 7 $ 4 7 7 , 2 1 0 $ 1 9 , 5 4 3 4.27% 10 0 2 OV E R T I M E EA R N I N G S $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $2 , 2 2 7 $ 2 , 8 4 8 $ 3 , 1 3 4 $2 8 6 10 . 0 4 % 10 0 7 CA R AL L O W A N C E $7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $0 0.00% 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $2 9 , 1 2 5 $ 3 0 , 5 3 6 $ 3 1 , 8 7 1 $ 1 , 3 3 5 4.37% 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $6 3 , 0 7 0 $ 4 8 , 1 9 8 $ 3 9 , 5 3 5 ( $ 8 , 6 6 3 ) ‐17 . 9 7 % 11 2 7 RE T I R E M E N T SU P P L E M E N T A L $4 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0.00% 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $2 , 9 9 2 $ 2 , 9 7 9 $ 3 , 1 2 7 $1 4 8 4.97% 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $6 1 6 $6 0 8 $5 3 6 ($ 7 2 ) ‐11 . 8 4 % 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $5 4 , 0 0 0 $ 4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 4 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0.00% SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $6 4 9 , 5 6 4 $ 6 3 5 , 0 3 6 $ 6 4 7 , 6 1 3 $ 1 2 , 5 7 7 1.98% 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $2 , 9 9 9 $ 3 , 3 2 1 $ 3 , 3 2 1 $0 0.00% 23 1 8 CO M P U T E R SU P P L I E S $0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0.00% SU P P L I E S $2 , 9 9 9 $ 4 , 3 2 1 $ 4 , 3 2 1 $0 0.00% 30 0 3 BO A R D ME E T I N G S $9 , 6 3 6 $ 1 3 , 5 6 0 $ 1 0 , 5 6 0 ( $ 3 , 0 0 0 ) ‐22 . 1 2 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $2 , 1 1 8 $ 2 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 1 0 0 $1 0 0 5.00% 30 1 4 PU B L I C A T I O N S $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $3 3 6 , 4 6 9 $ 3 8 6 , 0 5 0 $ 1 3 9 , 2 9 5 ( $ 2 4 6 , 7 5 5 ) ‐63 . 9 2 % 30 6 3 PR O G R A M M I N G / M A I N T E N A N C E $3 1 , 8 0 9 $ 3 1 , 6 7 4 $ 3 3 , 4 8 8 $ 1 , 8 1 4 5.73% 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $2 0 , 2 9 2 $ 2 0 , 8 2 6 $ 2 0 , 8 2 6 $0 0.00% PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $4 0 0 , 3 2 4 $ 4 5 4 , 1 1 0 $ 2 0 6 , 2 6 9 ( $ 2 4 7 , 8 4 1 ) ‐54 . 5 8 % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $1 1 , 2 9 1 $ 1 2 , 3 2 0 $ 1 0 , 6 0 0 ( $ 1 , 7 2 0 ) ‐13 . 9 6 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $5 , 6 9 4 $ 5 , 7 9 4 $ 6 , 4 5 6 $6 6 2 11 . 4 3 % UT I L I T I E S $1 6 , 9 8 5 $ 1 8 , 1 1 4 $ 1 7 , 0 5 6 ( $ 1 , 0 5 8 ) ‐5.84% 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $9 1 5 $3 2 9 $3 2 9 $0 0.00% 55 1 4 IN S U R A N C E ‐PU B L . O F F L LI A B $4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 2 8 , 0 0 0 $ 2 8 , 0 0 0 $0 0.00% 55 1 6 BO N D S ‐OF F I C A L S & EM P L O Y E E $2 0 0 $2 0 0 $2 0 0 $0 0.00% IN S U R A N C E $4 6 , 1 1 5 $ 2 8 , 5 2 9 $ 2 8 , 5 2 9 $0 0.00% 62 0 0 EQ U I P RE P A I R S / N O N VE H I C L E $0 $6 0 0 $6 0 0 $0 0.00% 01 - 0 2 E X E C U T I V E 1 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐02 EX E C U T I V E LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $0 $6 0 0 $6 0 0 $0 0.00% 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $1 4 , 7 0 4 $ 1 4 , 1 7 0 $ 1 4 , 2 7 5 $1 0 5 0.74% 71 7 0 TR A V E L EX P E N S E $3 , 9 5 4 $ 9 , 2 6 0 $ 7 , 2 6 0 ( $ 2 , 0 0 0 ) ‐21 . 6 0 % 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $5 , 7 8 5 $5 0 0 $ 1 , 8 0 0 $ 1 , 3 0 0 26 0 . 0 0 % 72 0 2 MI C R O CO M P U T E R SO F T W A R E $1 4 8 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $0 ( $ 1 , 0 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $2 , 8 5 9 $ 4 , 6 5 0 $ 4 , 6 5 0 $0 0.00% 72 3 5 YO U T H AD V I S O R Y CO M M I S S I O N $1 , 1 9 4 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $0 0.00% 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $1 , 8 2 2 $ 4 , 8 4 5 $ 2 , 8 4 5 ( $ 2 , 0 0 0 ) ‐41 . 2 8 % 74 3 2 EL E C T I O N S $2 0 , 4 5 3 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0.00% 74 7 5 IM P R O V E M E N T S ‐‐ UN D E R $5 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! OT H E R $5 0 , 9 1 9 $ 4 5 , 9 2 5 $ 4 2 , 3 3 0 ( $ 3 , 5 9 5 ) ‐7.83% 91 0 0 OF F I C E EQ U I P M E N T $0 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0.00% 92 0 1 MI C R O CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 99 1 0 OF F I C E FU R N I T U R E $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $0 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0.00% TO T A L EX E C U T I V E $1 , 1 6 6 , 9 0 6 $ 1 , 1 8 7 , 1 3 5 $ 9 4 7 , 2 1 8 ( $ 2 3 9 , 9 1 7 ) ‐20 . 2 1 % 01 - 0 2 E X E C U T I V E 2 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐03 FI N A N C E LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $5 6 8 , 7 6 4 $ 5 6 9 , 6 7 2 $ 5 7 2 , 0 8 1 $ 2 , 4 0 9 0. 4 2 % 10 0 2 OV E R T I M E EA R N I N G S $2 6 8 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $5 , 2 5 4 $ 5 , 5 8 1 $ 5 , 3 0 1 ( $ 2 8 0 ) ‐5. 0 2 % 10 0 7 CA R AL L O W A N C E $7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $4 0 , 4 3 2 $ 4 1 , 6 5 9 $ 4 1 , 6 9 7 $3 8 0. 0 9 % 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $8 0 , 7 2 1 $ 6 1 , 1 5 6 $ 4 8 , 2 8 7 ( $ 1 2 , 8 6 9 ) ‐21 . 0 4 % 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $3 , 8 6 7 $ 3 , 8 4 5 $ 3 , 6 3 1 ( $ 2 1 4 ) ‐5. 5 7 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $7 2 5 $7 5 7 $6 4 3 ( $ 1 1 4 ) ‐15 . 0 6 % 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $6 3 , 0 0 0 $ 5 4 , 0 0 0 $ 4 9 , 5 0 0 ( $ 4 , 5 0 0 ) ‐8. 3 3 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $7 7 0 , 2 3 1 $ 7 4 3 , 8 7 0 $ 7 2 8 , 3 4 0 ( $ 1 5 , 5 3 0 ) ‐2. 0 9 % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $4 , 6 2 6 $ 5 , 5 5 0 $ 5 , 5 6 0 $1 0 0. 1 8 % SU P P L I E S $4 , 6 2 6 $ 5 , 5 5 0 $ 5 , 5 6 0 $1 0 0. 1 8 % 30 0 7 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X AT T O R N E Y $2 1 , 0 5 0 $ 2 9 , 0 0 0 $ 2 9 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $2 , 0 3 7 $ 2 , 1 0 0 $ 2 , 0 0 0 ( $ 1 0 0 ) ‐4. 7 6 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $1 9 5 , 5 8 9 $ 8 6 , 5 8 0 $ 7 1 , 9 0 0 ( $ 1 4 , 6 8 0 ) ‐16 . 9 6 % 30 6 3 PR O G R A M M I N G / M A I N T E N A N C E $4 7 , 2 2 0 $ 3 8 , 3 9 6 $ 3 9 , 1 6 1 $7 6 5 1. 9 9 % 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $5 , 5 3 9 $ 6 , 3 5 0 $ 6 , 3 5 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 31 4 1 DA L L A S CO TA X CO L L SE R V $1 1 , 2 5 8 $ 1 1 , 4 2 0 $ 1 1 , 4 2 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 31 4 5 CE N T R A L AP P R A I S A L DI S T R I C $7 5 , 7 1 6 $ 7 7 , 7 4 5 $ 7 5 , 9 5 7 ( $ 1 , 7 8 8 ) ‐2. 3 0 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $3 5 8 , 4 0 9 $ 2 5 1 , 5 9 1 $ 2 3 5 , 7 8 8 ( $ 1 5 , 8 0 3 ) ‐6. 2 8 % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $8 , 3 5 1 $ 9 , 1 4 4 $ 7 , 5 0 0 ( $ 1 , 6 4 4 ) ‐17 . 9 8 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $5 , 3 4 0 $ 5 , 2 8 8 $ 5 , 5 0 1 $2 1 3 4. 0 3 % UT I L I T I E S $1 3 , 6 9 1 $ 1 4 , 4 3 2 $ 1 3 , 0 0 1 ( $ 1 , 4 3 1 ) ‐9. 9 2 % 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $1 , 2 6 5 $4 5 6 $4 5 6 $0 0. 0 0 % IN S U R A N C E $1 , 2 6 5 $4 5 6 $4 5 6 $0 0. 0 0 % 62 0 0 EQ U I P RE P A I R S / N O N VE H I C L E $1 , 2 5 0 $ 1 , 0 1 0 $ 1 , 0 1 0 $0 0. 0 0 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $1 , 2 5 0 $ 1 , 0 1 0 $ 1 , 0 1 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $1 4 , 4 6 3 $ 8 , 5 3 5 $ 1 5 , 1 0 0 $ 6 , 5 6 5 76 . 9 2 % 01 - 0 3 F I N A N C E 3 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐03 FI N A N C E LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 71 7 0 TR A V E L EX P E N S E $8 , 4 0 1 $ 1 1 , 2 5 5 $ 1 0 , 0 9 5 ( $ 1 , 1 6 0 ) ‐10 . 3 1 % 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $7 , 2 9 2 $ 8 , 0 9 7 $ 1 , 0 0 0 ($7 , 0 9 7 ) ‐87 . 6 5 % 72 0 2 MI C R O CO M P U T E R SO F T W A R E $0 $ 4 , 1 7 8 $ 2 , 7 9 8 ( $ 1 , 3 8 0 ) ‐33 . 0 3 % 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $5 , 0 4 7 $ 5 , 9 1 5 $ 5 , 9 1 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $7 , 7 1 3 $ 4 , 7 1 5 $ 4 , 0 3 0 ( $ 6 8 5 ) ‐14 . 5 3 % OT H E R $4 2 , 9 1 6 $ 4 2 , 6 9 5 $ 3 8 , 9 3 8 ( $ 3 , 7 5 7 ) ‐8. 8 0 % 92 0 1 MI C R O CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! TO T A L FI N A N C E $1 , 1 9 2 , 3 8 8 $ 1 , 0 5 9 , 6 0 4 $ 1 , 0 2 3 , 0 9 3 ( $ 3 6 , 5 1 1 ) ‐3. 4 5 % 01 - 0 3 F I N A N C E 4 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐04 HU M A N RE S O U R C E S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $1 8 2 , 0 2 5 $ 1 8 3 , 3 8 8 $ 1 9 1 , 2 0 9 $ 7 , 8 2 1 4. 2 6 % 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $1 , 7 8 2 $ 1 , 8 7 4 $ 1 , 9 5 3 $7 9 4. 2 2 % 10 0 7 CA R AL L O W A N C E $7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $1 2 , 6 0 0 $ 1 2 , 8 2 4 $ 1 3 , 3 5 9 $5 3 5 4. 1 7 % 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $2 6 , 4 6 9 $ 2 0 , 2 0 8 $ 1 6 , 5 5 0 ( $ 3 , 6 5 8 ) ‐18 . 1 0 % 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $1 , 2 2 9 $ 1 , 2 1 5 $ 1 , 2 7 6 $6 1 5. 0 2 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $2 3 3 $2 5 1 $2 2 0 ($ 3 1 ) ‐12 . 3 5 % 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $1 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 8 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $2 4 9 , 5 3 8 $ 2 4 4 , 9 6 0 $ 2 4 9 , 7 6 7 $ 4 , 8 0 7 1. 9 6 % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $9 0 5 $ 1 , 4 5 0 $ 1 , 4 5 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 1 8 CO M P U T E R SU P P L I E S $7 1 $7 5 0 $ 1 , 3 0 0 $5 5 0 73 . 3 3 % SU P P L I E S $9 7 6 $ 2 , 2 0 0 $ 2 , 7 5 0 $5 5 0 25 . 0 0 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $2 0 4 $3 4 8 $2 7 5 ($ 7 3 ) ‐20 . 9 8 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $1 9 , 2 7 7 $ 3 0 , 4 6 0 $ 2 3 , 1 9 0 ( $ 7 , 2 7 0 ) ‐23 . 8 7 % 30 6 3 PR O G R A M M I N G / M A I N T E N A N C E $1 0 , 1 1 2 $ 9 , 1 7 4 $ 9 , 4 6 9 $2 9 5 3. 2 2 % 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $1 3 7 $1 0 0 $1 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $2 9 , 7 3 0 $ 4 0 , 0 8 2 $ 3 3 , 0 3 4 ( $ 7 , 0 4 8 ) ‐17 . 5 8 % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $4 , 8 3 9 $ 5 , 2 8 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 ( $ 2 8 0 ) ‐5. 3 0 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $2 , 9 3 3 $ 3 , 0 8 2 $ 3 , 4 2 5 $3 4 3 11 . 1 3 % UT I L I T I E S $7 , 7 7 2 $ 8 , 3 6 2 $ 8 , 4 2 5 $6 3 0. 7 5 % 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $4 6 7 $1 6 8 $1 6 8 $0 0. 0 0 % IN S U R A N C E $4 6 7 $1 6 8 $1 6 8 $0 0. 0 0 % 62 0 0 EQ U I P RE P A I R S / N O N VE H I C L E $0 $1 5 0 $1 5 0 $0 0. 0 0 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $0 $1 5 0 $1 5 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 71 1 0 EM P L O Y E E RE C O G N I T I O N $1 1 , 8 6 7 $ 1 3 , 1 5 0 $ 1 5 , 6 2 0 $ 2 , 4 7 0 18 . 7 8 % 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $1 , 9 3 5 $ 2 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 1 6 4 $1 6 4 8. 2 0 % 71 7 0 TR A V E L EX P E N S E $1 , 4 2 2 $ 1 , 9 6 0 $ 1 , 8 5 0 ( $ 1 1 0 ) ‐5. 6 1 % 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $1 , 4 4 4 $8 6 2 $5 0 0 ( $ 3 6 2 ) ‐42 . 0 0 % 01 - 0 4 H U M A N R E S O U R C E S 5 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐04 HU M A N RE S O U R C E S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $6 , 7 5 4 $ 7 , 5 0 0 $ 7 , 0 5 0 ( $ 4 5 0 ) ‐6. 0 0 % 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $1 , 5 0 0 $ 2 , 4 5 5 $ 2 , 5 6 5 $1 1 0 4. 4 8 % 72 4 5 TU I T I O N RE I M B U R S E M E N T $3 7 , 6 4 5 $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 ( $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ) ‐25 . 0 0 % 74 7 5 IM P R O V E M E N T S ‐UN D E R $5 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! OT H E R $6 2 , 5 6 7 $ 6 7 , 9 2 7 $ 5 9 , 7 4 9 ( $ 8 , 1 7 8 ) ‐12 . 0 4 % 92 0 1 MI C R O CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! TO T A L HU M A N RE S O U R C E S $3 5 1 , 0 5 0 $ 3 6 3 , 8 4 9 $ 3 5 4 , 0 4 3 ( $ 9 , 8 0 6 ) ‐2. 7 0 % 01 - 0 4 H U M A N R E S O U R C E S 6 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐05 IN F O R M A T I O N SE R V I C E S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $4 4 6 , 6 0 5 $ 4 5 1 , 3 8 1 $ 4 6 6 , 5 3 0 $ 1 5 , 1 4 9 3. 3 6 % 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $1 , 8 7 1 $ 2 , 1 0 9 $ 2 , 3 4 5 $2 3 6 11 . 1 9 % 10 0 7 CA R AL L O W A N C E $7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 10 0 9 CE L L PH O N E AL L O W A N C E $7 8 5 $ 1 , 2 0 0 $ 1 , 2 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $3 2 , 2 5 5 $ 3 4 , 2 0 9 $ 3 5 , 3 4 1 $ 1 , 1 3 2 3. 3 1 % 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $6 3 , 4 1 8 $ 4 8 , 4 9 9 $ 3 9 , 4 2 3 ( $ 9 , 0 7 6 ) ‐18 . 7 1 % 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $2 , 9 0 6 $ 2 , 4 3 8 $ 3 , 1 1 5 $6 7 7 27 . 7 7 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $5 3 2 $6 0 1 $5 2 5 ($ 7 6 ) ‐12 . 6 5 % 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 4 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $6 0 0 , 5 7 2 $ 5 9 2 , 6 3 7 $ 6 0 0 , 6 7 9 $8 , 0 4 2 1. 3 6 % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $6 4 8 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 1 8 CO M P U T E R SU P P L I E S $1 , 9 2 6 $ 1 2 , 8 4 2 $ 1 2 , 0 2 9 ( $ 8 1 3 ) ‐6. 3 3 % SU P P L I E S $2 , 5 7 4 $ 1 4 , 3 4 2 $ 1 3 , 5 2 9 ($ 8 1 3 ) ‐5. 6 7 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $1 1 7 $1 3 9 $1 2 0 ($ 1 9 ) ‐13 . 6 7 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $3 4 , 9 4 6 $ 4 1 , 9 1 0 $ 3 6 , 4 0 0 ( $ 5 , 5 1 0 ) ‐13 . 1 5 % 30 6 3 PR O G R A M M I N G / M A I N T E N A N C E $1 0 9 , 3 8 4 $ 1 1 7 , 8 7 3 $ 1 1 2 , 2 8 5 ( $ 5 , 5 8 8 ) ‐4. 7 4 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $1 4 4 , 4 4 7 $ 1 5 9 , 9 2 2 $ 1 4 8 , 8 0 5 ($ 1 1 , 1 1 7 ) ‐6. 9 5 % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $7 , 7 2 3 $ 8 , 5 1 4 $ 7 , 3 0 0 ( $ 1 , 2 1 4 ) ‐14 . 2 6 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $8 1 , 8 9 2 $ 1 0 3 , 0 2 4 $ 1 0 0 , 5 5 8 ( $ 2 , 4 6 6 ) ‐2. 3 9 % UT I L I T I E S $8 9 , 6 1 5 $ 1 1 1 , 5 3 8 $ 1 0 7 , 8 5 8 ($ 3 , 6 8 0 ) ‐3. 3 0 % 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $5 5 2 $1 9 9 $1 9 9 $0 0. 0 0 % IN S U R A N C E $5 5 2 $1 9 9 $1 9 9 $0 0. 0 0 % 62 0 0 EQ U I P RE P A I R S / N O N VE H I C L E $3 3 , 0 3 8 $ 4 3 , 3 1 5 $ 3 4 , 9 9 3 ( $ 8 , 3 2 2 ) ‐19 . 2 1 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $3 3 , 0 3 8 $ 4 3 , 3 1 5 $ 3 4 , 9 9 3 ($ 8 , 3 2 2 ) ‐19 . 2 1 % 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $3 4 7 $3 3 5 $6 3 5 $3 0 0 89 . 5 5 % 71 7 0 TR A V E L EX P E N S E $3 , 1 9 4 $ 1 4 , 8 3 0 $ 1 5 , 4 4 5 $6 1 5 4. 1 5 % 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $8 , 2 7 8 $ 2 3 , 2 9 4 $ 2 7 , 4 7 0 $ 4 , 1 7 6 17 . 9 3 % 72 0 2 MI C R O CO M P U T E R SO F T W A R E $1 , 0 2 8 $ 1 , 6 2 0 $ 1 , 6 2 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 01 - 0 5 I N F O R M A T I O N S E R V I C E S 7 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐05 IN F O R M A T I O N SE R V I C E S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $2 1 1 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $2 , 8 3 5 $ 1 5 , 6 3 0 $ 1 9 , 0 8 7 $ 3 , 4 5 7 22 . 1 2 % OT H E R $1 5 , 8 9 3 $ 5 5 , 7 0 9 $ 6 4 , 2 5 7 $8 , 5 4 8 15 . 3 4 % 92 0 1 MI C R O CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T $3 1 , 3 9 5 $ 1 9 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ( $ 9 , 0 0 0 ) ‐47 . 3 7 % CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $3 1 , 3 9 5 $ 1 9 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ($ 9 , 0 0 0 ) ‐47 . 3 7 % TO T A L IN F O R M A T I O N SE R V I C E S $9 1 8 , 0 8 6 $ 9 9 6 , 6 6 2 $ 9 8 0 , 3 2 0 ($ 1 6 , 3 4 2 ) ‐1. 6 4 % 01 - 0 5 I N F O R M A T I O N S E R V I C E S 8 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐06 LI B R A R Y LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $0 $0 $ 2 7 8 , 1 8 3 $ 2 7 8 , 1 8 3 # D I V / 0 ! 10 0 7 CA R AL L O W A N C E $0 $0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 # D I V / 0 ! 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $0 $0 $ 2 1 , 8 3 3 $ 2 1 , 8 3 3 # D I V / 0 ! 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $0 $0 $ 1 6 , 8 1 7 $ 1 6 , 8 1 7 # D I V / 0 ! 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $0 $0 $ 1 , 3 1 2 $ 1 , 3 1 2 # D I V / 0 ! 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K E R S CO M P $0 $0 $3 1 2 $3 1 2 # D I V / 0 ! 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $0 $0 $ 2 7 , 0 0 0 $ 2 7 , 0 0 0 # D I V / 0 ! SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $0 $0 $ 3 5 2 , 6 5 7 $ 3 5 2 , 6 5 7 # D I V / 0 ! 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $0 $0 $ 4 , 5 0 0 $ 4 , 5 0 0 # D I V / 0 ! 23 5 0 SU P P L I E S & MA T E R I A L S $0 $0 $ 2 2 2 , 8 4 3 $ 2 2 2 , 8 4 3 # D I V / 0 ! SU P P L I E S $0 $0 $ 2 2 7 , 3 4 3 $ 2 2 7 , 3 4 3 # D I V / 0 ! 30 6 3 PR O G R A M M I N G / M A I N T E N A N C E $0 $0 $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 # D I V / 0 ! PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $0 $0 $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 # D I V / 0 ! TO T A L LI B R A R Y $0 $0 $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 # D I V / 0 ! 01 - 0 6 L I B R A R Y 9 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐10 CO U R T LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $1 8 9 , 8 8 3 $ 1 9 1 , 0 0 6 $ 1 9 8 , 6 5 3 $ 7 , 6 4 7 4. 0 0 % 10 0 2 OV E R T I M E EA R N I N G S $4 , 3 3 0 $ 4 , 5 3 8 $ 8 , 6 6 5 $ 4 , 1 2 7 90 . 9 4 % 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $5 4 2 $6 3 4 $ 3 , 0 5 4 $ 2 , 4 2 0 38 1 . 7 0 % 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $1 3 , 4 8 4 $ 1 5 , 0 0 8 $ 1 6 , 0 9 3 $ 1 , 0 8 5 7. 2 3 % 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $1 5 , 7 7 8 $ 1 2 , 4 5 5 $ 1 0 , 2 6 3 ( $ 2 , 1 9 2 ) ‐17 . 6 0 % 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $7 3 4 $7 5 2 $7 9 3 $4 1 5. 4 5 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $2 3 2 $2 5 5 $2 2 6 ($ 2 9 ) ‐11 . 3 7 % 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $3 6 , 0 0 0 $ 3 6 , 0 0 0 $ 3 6 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $2 6 0 , 9 8 3 $ 2 6 0 , 6 4 8 $ 2 7 3 , 7 4 7 $ 1 3 , 0 9 9 5. 0 3 % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $6 1 2 $ 1 , 3 0 0 $ 1 , 3 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 1 8 CO M P U T E R SU P P L I E S $0 $ 1 , 4 0 0 $0 ( $ 1 , 4 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % 23 5 0 SU P P L I E S & MA T E R I A L S $3 6 2 $4 0 0 $4 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SU P P L I E S $9 7 4 $ 3 , 1 0 0 $ 1 , 7 0 0 ( $ 1 , 4 0 0 ) ‐45 . 1 6 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $3 , 1 8 8 $ 2 , 1 1 8 $ 4 , 4 0 0 $ 2 , 2 8 2 10 7 . 7 4 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $2 2 , 0 5 3 $ 2 5 , 7 9 0 $ 2 5 , 7 9 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 6 3 PR O G R A M M I N G / M A I N T E N A N C E $2 , 3 7 3 $ 1 8 , 5 4 3 $ 1 8 , 5 4 3 $0 0. 0 0 % 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $3 , 0 8 7 $ 2 , 5 7 0 $ 3 , 1 7 0 $6 0 0 23 . 3 5 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $3 0 , 7 0 1 $ 4 9 , 0 2 1 $ 5 1 , 9 0 3 $ 2 , 8 8 2 5. 8 8 % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $3 , 2 2 6 $ 3 , 5 2 0 $ 3 , 0 0 0 ( $ 5 2 0 ) ‐14 . 7 7 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $4 , 0 9 8 $ 4 , 6 5 6 $ 4 , 4 0 1 ( $ 2 5 5 ) ‐5. 4 8 % UT I L I T I E S $7 , 3 2 4 $ 8 , 1 7 6 $ 7 , 4 0 1 ( $ 7 7 5 ) ‐9. 4 8 % 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $5 1 4 $1 8 5 $1 8 5 $0 0. 0 0 % IN S U R A N C E $5 1 4 $1 8 5 $1 8 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 62 0 0 EQ U I P RE P A I R S / N O N VE H I C L E $2 9 7 $5 0 0 $8 5 0 $3 5 0 70 . 0 0 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $2 9 7 $5 0 0 $8 5 0 $3 5 0 70 . 0 0 % 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $0 $1 4 0 $1 4 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 71 7 0 TR A V E L EX P E N S E $3 , 5 5 8 $ 6 , 7 5 0 $ 3 , 5 0 0 ( $ 3 , 2 5 0 ) ‐48 . 1 5 % 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $4 , 2 8 2 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 01 - 1 0 C O U R T 10 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐10 CO U R T LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $1 0 4 $2 0 0 $2 8 0 $8 0 40 . 0 0 % 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $1 , 5 6 0 $ 2 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 ( $ 1 , 0 0 0 ) ‐40 . 0 0 % OT H E R $9 , 5 0 4 $ 1 0 , 0 9 0 $ 5 , 9 2 0 ( $ 4 , 1 7 0 ) ‐41 . 3 3 % 92 0 1 MI C R O CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! TO T A L CO U R T $3 1 0 , 2 9 7 $ 3 3 1 , 7 2 0 $ 3 4 1 , 7 0 6 $ 9 , 9 8 6 3. 0 1 % 01 - 1 0 C O U R T 11 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐11 GE N E R A L FU N D RE V E N U E S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 30 0 0 TA X E S ‐CU R R E N T YE A R $1 5 , 7 8 6 , 2 4 1 $1 5 , 5 0 4 , 3 4 2 $1 5 , 5 5 8 , 1 8 4 $5 3 , 8 4 2 0. 3 5 % SU B T O T A L CU R R E N T TA X E S $1 5 , 7 8 6 , 2 4 1 $1 5 , 5 0 4 , 3 4 2 $1 5 , 5 5 8 , 1 8 4 $5 3 , 8 4 2 0. 3 5 % 30 4 7 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐19 9 7 $9 8 3 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 30 4 8 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐19 9 8 $1 , 2 3 4 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 30 4 9 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐19 9 9 $9 7 6 $5 0 0 $0 ($ 5 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % 30 5 0 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐20 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 5 1 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐20 0 1 $1 , 0 2 1 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 5 2 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐20 0 2 $1 , 1 0 8 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 5 3 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐20 0 3 $1 , 1 6 0 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 5 4 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐20 0 4 $1 , 0 5 5 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 5 5 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐20 0 5 $1 , 8 3 4 $1 , 0 0 0 $5 0 0 ($ 5 0 0 ) ‐50 . 0 0 % 30 5 6 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐20 0 6 $4 , 2 9 1 $2 , 5 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 ($ 1 , 5 0 0 ) ‐60 . 0 0 % 30 5 7 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐20 0 7 $7 , 1 5 3 $2 , 5 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 5 8 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐20 0 8 $1 2 , 3 7 2 $5 , 0 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 ($ 2 , 5 0 0 ) ‐50 . 0 0 % 30 5 9 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐20 0 9 $2 4 , 1 3 1 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 ($ 5 , 0 0 0 ) ‐50 . 0 0 % 30 4 5 . 2 0 1 0 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐20 1 0 $0 $7 5 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 ($ 6 5 , 0 0 0 ) ‐86 . 6 7 % 30 4 5 . 2 0 1 1 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐20 1 1 $0 $0 $7 5 , 0 0 0 $7 5 , 0 0 0 #D I V / 0 ! 30 9 3 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐19 9 3 $4 0 2 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 30 9 4 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐19 9 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 30 9 5 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐19 9 5 $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 30 9 6 DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S ‐19 9 6 $1 1 5 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! SU B T O T A L DE L I N Q U E N T TA X E S $5 8 , 8 3 5 $9 9 , 0 0 0 $9 9 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 9 8 PE N A L T Y / I N T E R E S T ON TA X E S $9 7 , 6 5 5 $1 1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 1 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 9 9 AT T O R N E Y FE E S ‐TA X E S $2 1 , 8 7 2 $3 5 , 0 0 0 $3 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SU B T O T A L PE N A L T Y AN D IN T E R E S T $1 1 9 , 5 2 7 $1 4 5 , 0 0 0 $1 4 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 31 0 9 UT I L I T Y FU N D CO N T R I B U T I O N $6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SU B T O T A L UF CO N T R I B U T I O N $6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 31 5 0 CI T Y SA L E S TA X $3 , 4 7 9 , 6 2 9 $3 , 1 7 8 , 8 5 1 $3 , 3 3 8 , 0 0 0 $1 5 9 , 1 4 9 5. 0 1 % SU B T O T A L SA L E S TA X $3 , 4 7 9 , 6 2 9 $3 , 1 7 8 , 8 5 1 $3 , 3 3 8 , 0 0 0 $1 5 9 , 1 4 9 5. 0 1 % 01 - 1 1 G F R E V E N U E S 12 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐11 GE N E R A L FU N D RE V E N U E S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 33 0 0 BU I L D I N G PE R M I T S $2 , 8 4 6 , 1 2 5 $1 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SU B T O T A L BU I L D I N G PE R M I T S $2 , 8 4 6 , 1 2 5 $1 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 34 9 9 DI R E C T AL A R M RE V E N U E $7 9 9 , 8 8 4 $8 1 9 , 0 0 0 $8 6 6 , 9 8 9 $4 7 , 9 8 9 5. 8 6 % SU B T O T A L DI R E C T AL A R M $7 9 9 , 8 8 4 $8 1 9 , 0 0 0 $8 6 6 , 9 8 9 $4 7 , 9 8 9 5. 8 6 % 32 0 0 T U EL E C T R I C $1 , 1 6 3 , 3 8 3 $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 32 0 2 TE L E P H O N E FR A N C H I S E $2 1 1 , 0 3 1 $3 0 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 32 0 3 LO N E ST A R GA S $4 6 9 , 9 1 6 $4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 32 0 4 CA B L E FR A N C H I S E $3 6 2 , 9 7 3 $2 1 0 , 0 0 0 $3 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 4 0 , 0 0 0 66 . 6 7 % SU B T O T A L FR A N C H I S E FE E S $2 , 2 0 7 , 3 0 3 $1 , 9 1 0 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 4 0 , 0 0 0 7. 3 3 % 34 0 0 TR A F F I C FI N E S $3 0 4 , 3 5 9 $3 4 6 , 0 0 0 $3 4 6 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 34 0 3 CR O S S ' G GU A R D ( C H I L D SF T Y ) $1 6 , 2 2 7 $1 5 , 0 0 0 $1 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 34 0 4 PA R K I N G TI C K E T S $1 3 8 , 1 3 5 $1 7 0 , 0 0 0 $1 9 5 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 14 . 7 1 % SU B T O T A L FI N E S $4 5 8 , 7 2 1 $5 3 1 , 0 0 0 $5 5 6 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 4. 7 1 % 33 0 2 CO N T R A C T O R S LI C N S E / P E R M I T $2 4 , 7 3 5 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 33 0 3 AN I M A L CO N T R O L TA G S / F E E S $1 6 , 1 7 3 $1 5 , 0 0 0 $1 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 33 0 4 HE A L T H / F O O D PE R M I T $3 4 , 2 1 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 33 0 5 FI L M I N G PE R M I T S $2 , 2 8 2 $2 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 33 0 6 FI R E PE R M I T S / R E V E N U E $2 8 , 3 8 9 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 33 0 8 PO L I C E RE V E N U E $8 7 , 0 9 8 $9 7 , 9 1 1 $4 4 , 9 1 1 ($ 5 3 , 0 0 0 ) ‐54 . 1 3 % 34 0 1 WR E C K E R FE E S $1 , 6 0 8 $2 , 1 6 0 $2 , 1 6 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 34 0 5 AL A R M BI L L I N G $7 7 , 6 8 0 $1 3 5 , 9 8 4 $1 3 5 , 9 8 4 $0 0. 0 0 % 34 0 6 FA L S E AL A R M FE E S $8 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 34 0 8 AM B U L A N C E FE E S $2 9 6 , 3 0 2 $4 4 4 , 6 7 5 $3 0 0 , 0 0 0 ($ 1 4 4 , 6 7 5 ) ‐32 . 5 3 % 34 0 9 91 1 SE R V I C E FE E S $8 8 , 3 2 2 $1 0 9 , 0 0 0 $1 0 9 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 34 1 0 91 1 SE R V I C E FE E S ‐WI R E L E S S $1 1 6 , 6 2 8 $1 1 1 , 0 0 0 $1 1 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 34 1 1 CA P I A S WA R R A N T RE V E N U E $1 , 6 0 8 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 34 1 2 RE D LI G H T CA M E R A RE V E N U E $0 $0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 #D I V / 0 ! 35 3 5 UT I L I T Y CA P OF F $1 4 , 9 0 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SU B T O T A L SE R V I C E CH A R G E S $7 9 0 , 7 3 5 $1 , 0 4 2 , 7 3 0 $8 6 5 , 0 5 5 ($ 1 7 7 , 6 7 5 ) ‐17 . 0 4 % 01 - 1 1 G F R E V E N U E S 13 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐11 GE N E R A L FU N D RE V E N U E S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 39 0 0 IN T E R E S T EA R N I N G S $2 0 2 , 1 2 0 $2 6 5 , 0 0 0 $2 6 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SU B T O T A L IN T E R E S T EA R N I N G S $2 0 2 , 1 2 0 $2 6 5 , 0 0 0 $2 6 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 31 5 5 MI X E D BE V E R A G E TA X $1 0 5 , 1 7 5 $1 0 8 , 0 0 0 $8 8 , 0 0 0 ($ 2 0 , 0 0 0 ) ‐18 . 5 2 % 35 1 0 TE N N I S PE R M I T S $5 0 , 0 4 8 $2 4 , 0 0 0 $2 4 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 35 1 1 SW I M PO O L PE R M I T ‐RE S I D E N T $1 7 7 , 6 8 5 $1 6 5 , 0 0 0 $1 6 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 35 1 2 SW I M PO O L PE R M I T ‐NO N R E S $9 , 7 8 0 $7 , 0 0 0 $7 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 35 1 3 SW I M PO O L PR M T S GA T E RC P T $1 1 7 , 3 9 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 35 1 4 SW I M M I N G PO O L CO N C E S S I O N S $8 , 0 0 0 $6 , 0 0 0 $6 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 35 1 5 SW I M LE S S O N S $1 , 5 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 37 3 0 PU B L I C SA F E T Y GR A N T S / R E V $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 37 4 0 PO L I C E GR A N T S / D O N A T I O N S $0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 37 4 5 FI R E GR A N T S / D O N A T I O N S $1 2 , 8 9 4 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 38 5 0 AU C T I O N / S A L E OF EQ U I P M E N T $2 4 , 7 5 1 $2 1 , 0 0 0 $2 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 39 0 1 RE N T $4 5 , 8 7 5 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 39 1 1 CO P I E S $1 , 3 9 2 $4 , 0 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 39 2 0 PA Y M E N T IN LI E U OF TA X E S $3 7 5 , 0 0 0 $0 $3 0 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 0 , 0 0 0 #D I V / 0 ! 39 9 9 OT H E R RE V E N U E $1 , 4 4 1 , 4 3 7 $7 7 1 , 0 7 7 $7 7 1 , 0 7 7 $0 0. 0 0 % SU B T O T A L OT H E R RE V E N U E $2 , 3 7 0 , 9 2 7 $1 , 2 6 3 , 0 7 7 $1 , 5 4 3 , 0 7 7 $2 8 0 , 0 0 0 22 . 1 7 % TO T A L RE V E N U E S ‐ GE N E R A L FU N D $2 9 , 7 2 0 , 0 4 7 $2 6 , 7 5 8 , 0 0 0 $2 7 , 2 8 6 , 3 0 5 $5 2 8 , 3 0 5 1. 9 7 % 01 - 1 1 G F R E V E N U E S 14 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐19 CO M M U N I T Y DE V E L O P M E N T LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $7 0 2 , 8 8 2 $ 7 1 0 , 6 2 9 $ 7 9 9 , 0 7 4 $ 8 8 , 4 4 5 12 . 4 5 % 10 0 2 OV E R T I M E EA R N I N G S ($ 8 6 ) $5 2 7 $0 ( $ 5 2 7 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $4 , 4 9 9 $ 4 , 8 5 9 $ 4 , 8 3 9 ($ 2 0 ) ‐0. 4 1 % 10 0 7 CA R AL L O W A N C E $7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 10 0 9 CE L L PH O N E AL L O W A N C E $3 6 0 $3 6 0 $9 6 0 $6 0 0 16 6 . 6 7 % 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $5 3 , 2 8 4 $ 5 4 , 4 2 3 $ 6 1 , 0 0 6 $ 6 , 5 8 3 12 . 1 0 % 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $9 8 , 4 9 5 $ 7 5 , 9 7 6 $ 6 5 , 0 7 6 ( $ 1 0 , 9 0 0 ) ‐14 . 3 5 % 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $4 , 4 9 0 $ 4 , 7 0 9 $ 4 , 9 2 8 $2 1 9 4. 6 5 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $1 , 4 1 6 $ 1 , 4 4 9 $ 1 , 3 9 4 ($ 5 5 ) ‐3. 8 0 % 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $8 1 , 0 0 0 $ 7 2 , 0 0 0 $ 9 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 8 , 0 0 0 25 . 0 0 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $9 5 3 , 5 4 0 $ 9 3 2 , 1 3 2 $ 1 , 0 3 4 , 4 7 7 $ 1 0 2 , 3 4 5 10 . 9 8 % 20 2 9 CL O T H I N G AL L O W A N C E $1 , 1 8 7 $ 1 , 3 2 0 $ 1 , 5 0 5 $1 8 5 14 . 0 2 % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $2 , 7 4 9 $ 4 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 1 8 CO M P U T E R SU P P L I E S $0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 2 0 GA S , OI L & GR E A S E $4 , 0 8 1 $ 4 , 9 9 2 $ 4 , 9 9 2 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 5 0 SU P P L I E S & MA T E R I A L S $1 , 2 3 7 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $ 2 , 2 5 0 $7 5 0 50 . 0 0 % SU P P L I E S $9 , 2 5 4 $ 1 2 , 8 1 2 $ 1 3 , 7 4 7 $9 3 5 7. 3 0 % 30 0 3 BO A R D ME E T I N G S $1 , 0 3 4 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $1 , 3 8 3 $ 1 , 3 3 4 $ 4 , 8 0 0 $ 3 , 4 6 6 25 9 . 8 2 % 30 1 4 PU B L I C A T I O N S $3 9 7 $5 0 0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 20 0 . 0 0 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $1 , 0 5 4 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 6 3 PR O G R A M M I N G / M A I N T E N A N C E $1 8 , 9 8 6 $ 1 2 , 9 8 7 $ 3 4 , 0 3 2 $ 2 1 , 0 4 5 16 2 . 0 5 % 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $4 0 0 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $2 3 , 2 5 4 $ 1 7 , 8 2 1 $ 4 3 , 3 3 2 $ 2 5 , 5 1 1 14 3 . 1 5 % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $4 , 9 2 7 $ 5 , 3 1 2 $ 4 , 8 0 0 ( $ 5 1 2 ) ‐9. 6 4 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $9 , 8 1 8 $ 7 , 1 2 2 $ 1 0 , 8 4 7 $ 3 , 7 2 5 52 . 3 0 % UT I L I T I E S $1 4 , 7 4 5 $ 1 2 , 4 3 4 $ 1 5 , 6 4 7 $ 3 , 2 1 3 25 . 8 4 % 55 0 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐AU T O LI A B I L I T Y $1 3 2 $1 2 2 $1 2 2 $0 0. 0 0 % 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $8 7 1 $3 1 4 $3 1 4 $0 0. 0 0 % IN S U R A N C E $1 , 0 0 3 $4 3 6 $4 3 6 $0 0. 0 0 % 01 - 1 9 C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T 15 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐19 CO M M U N I T Y DE V E L O P M E N T LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 61 9 0 AU T O RE P A I R S $1 , 0 3 7 $ 2 , 0 6 0 $ 2 , 0 6 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 5 EQ U I P M E N T MA I N T E N A N C E $6 , 7 1 9 $ 1 5 , 8 9 9 $ 1 5 , 8 9 9 $0 0. 0 0 % 62 0 0 EQ U I P RE P A I R S / N O N VE H I C L E $0 $3 0 0 $3 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $7 , 7 5 6 $ 1 8 , 2 5 9 $ 1 8 , 2 5 9 $0 0. 0 0 % 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $3 , 5 0 3 $ 3 , 0 9 5 $ 2 , 6 6 5 ( $ 4 3 0 ) ‐13 . 8 9 % 71 7 0 TR A V E L EX P E N S E $1 , 2 1 0 $ 4 , 9 8 5 $ 4 , 9 1 0 ($ 7 5 ) ‐1. 5 0 % 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $1 3 4 $ 2 , 2 2 7 $ 5 , 5 0 0 $ 3 , 2 7 3 14 6 . 9 7 % 72 0 2 MI C R O CO M P U T E R SO F T W A R E $0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $2 , 8 3 8 $ 3 , 5 0 0 $ 4 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 28 . 5 7 % 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $2 , 9 6 6 $ 5 , 5 3 1 $ 6 , 4 1 3 $8 8 2 15 . 9 5 % 72 4 5 TU I T I O N RE I M B U R S E M E N T $9 4 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! OT H E R $1 0 , 7 4 5 $ 2 0 , 8 3 8 $ 2 5 , 4 8 8 $ 4 , 6 5 0 22 . 3 2 % 90 0 0 CA P I T A L EQ U I P M E N T RE P L A C E $2 , 9 8 1 $ 2 , 1 6 7 $ 4 , 2 0 9 $ 2 , 0 4 2 94 . 2 3 % CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $2 , 9 8 1 $ 2 , 1 6 7 $ 4 , 2 0 9 $ 2 , 0 4 2 94 . 2 3 % TO T A L CO M M U N I T Y DE V E L O P M E N T $1 , 0 2 3 , 2 7 8 $ 1 , 0 1 6 , 8 9 9 $ 1 , 1 5 5 , 5 9 5 $ 1 3 8 , 6 9 6 13 . 6 4 % 01 - 1 9 C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T 16 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐20 EN G I N E E R I N G LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $4 9 6 , 9 4 3 $ 4 9 5 , 2 7 6 $ 5 1 2 , 0 5 7 $ 1 6 , 7 8 1 3. 3 9 % 10 0 2 OV E R T I M E EA R N I N G S ($ 1 , 4 1 8 ) $ 2 , 1 4 6 $ 1 , 6 9 8 ( $ 4 4 8 ) ‐20 . 8 8 % 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $4 , 4 6 5 $ 4 , 6 8 3 $ 4 , 9 1 9 $2 3 6 5. 0 4 % 10 0 7 CA R AL L O W A N C E $1 4 , 4 0 0 $ 1 4 , 4 0 0 $ 1 4 , 4 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 10 0 9 CE L L PH O N E AL L O W A N C E $0 $0 $3 6 0 $3 6 0 #D I V / 0 ! 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $3 3 , 9 6 2 $ 3 4 , 3 6 2 $ 3 5 , 4 6 3 $ 1 , 1 0 1 3. 2 0 % 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $7 1 , 7 3 1 $ 5 4 , 2 3 3 $ 4 4 , 0 6 2 ( $ 1 0 , 1 7 1 ) ‐18 . 7 5 % 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $3 , 3 6 1 $ 3 , 8 4 7 $ 3 , 4 1 6 ( $ 4 3 1 ) ‐11 . 2 0 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $1 , 1 8 1 $9 4 5 $7 9 1 ( $ 1 5 4 ) ‐16 . 3 0 % 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 4 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $6 6 9 , 6 2 5 $ 6 5 4 , 8 9 2 $ 6 6 2 , 1 6 6 $ 7 , 2 7 4 1. 1 1 % 20 2 9 CL O T H I N G AL L O W A N C E $1 , 5 4 4 $ 1 , 3 5 0 $ 1 , 3 5 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $1 , 2 4 7 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 1 8 CO M P U T E R SU P P L I E S $1 , 5 0 1 $ 3 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 ( $ 2 , 0 0 0 ) ‐57 . 1 4 % 23 2 0 GA S , OI L & GR E A S E $2 , 7 7 9 $ 3 , 4 7 4 $ 3 , 4 7 4 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 5 0 SU P P L I E S & MA T E R I A L S $2 , 7 5 0 $ 2 , 5 0 0 $ 2 , 5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SU P P L I E S $9 , 8 2 1 $ 1 1 , 8 2 4 $ 9 , 8 2 4 ( $ 2 , 0 0 0 ) ‐16 . 9 1 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $6 7 $9 7 $9 7 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $2 4 , 4 1 2 $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 6 3 PR O G R A M M I N G / M A I N T E N A N C E $1 9 , 6 4 3 $ 1 9 , 7 7 6 $ 2 0 , 9 5 0 $ 1 , 1 7 4 5. 9 4 % 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $3 3 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $4 4 , 1 5 5 $ 3 5 , 8 7 3 $ 3 7 , 0 4 7 $ 1 , 1 7 4 3. 2 7 % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $4 , 3 8 1 $ 4 , 8 3 5 $ 4 , 3 0 0 ( $ 5 3 5 ) ‐11 . 0 7 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $1 1 , 6 4 2 $ 1 3 , 1 0 5 $ 1 0 , 8 3 4 ( $ 2 , 2 7 1 ) ‐17 . 3 3 % UT I L I T I E S $1 6 , 0 2 3 $ 1 7 , 9 4 0 $ 1 5 , 1 3 4 ( $ 2 , 8 0 6 ) ‐15 . 6 4 % 55 0 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐AU T O LI A B I L I T Y $2 9 8 $2 7 5 $2 7 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $1 , 0 9 1 $3 9 3 $3 9 3 $0 0. 0 0 % IN S U R A N C E $1 , 3 8 9 $6 6 8 $6 6 8 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 0 AU T O RE P A I R S $1 , 6 9 3 $ 1 , 9 6 8 $ 1 , 9 6 8 $0 0. 0 0 % 01 - 2 0 E N G I N E E R I N G 17 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐20 EN G I N E E R I N G LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 61 9 5 EQ U I P M E N T MA I N T E N A N C E $7 , 0 3 3 $ 8 , 3 8 4 $ 8 , 3 8 4 $0 0. 0 0 % 62 0 0 EQ U I P RE P A I R S / N O N VE H I C L E $5 6 7 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $5 0 0 ( $ 1 , 0 0 0 ) ‐66 . 6 7 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $9 , 2 9 3 $ 1 1 , 8 5 2 $ 1 0 , 8 5 2 ( $ 1 , 0 0 0 ) ‐8. 4 4 % 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $1 , 2 2 8 $9 9 0 $9 9 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 71 7 0 TR A V E L EX P E N S E $1 , 2 5 2 $ 1 , 7 8 0 $ 1 , 7 8 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $2 , 7 4 0 $5 0 0 $ 6 , 3 0 0 $ 5 , 8 0 0 11 6 0 . 0 0 % 72 0 2 MI C R O CO M P U T E R SO F T W A R E $1 7 , 1 3 9 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $9 4 4 $ 3 , 7 1 0 $ 1 , 7 1 0 ( $ 2 , 0 0 0 ) ‐53 . 9 1 % OT H E R $2 3 , 3 0 3 $ 7 , 4 8 0 $ 1 1 , 2 8 0 $ 3 , 8 0 0 50 . 8 0 % 90 0 0 CA P I T A L EQ U I P M E N T RE P L A C E $4 , 3 2 9 $ 3 , 6 8 3 $ 3 , 5 3 4 ( $ 1 4 9 ) ‐4. 0 5 % CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $4 , 3 2 9 $ 3 , 6 8 3 $ 3 , 5 3 4 ( $ 1 4 9 ) ‐4. 0 5 % TO T A L EN G I N E E R I N G $7 7 7 , 9 3 8 $ 7 4 4 , 2 1 2 $ 7 5 0 , 5 0 5 $ 6 , 2 9 3 0. 8 5 % 01 - 2 0 E N G I N E E R I N G 18 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐25 TR A F F I C CO N T R O L LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $3 7 6 , 7 6 5 $ 3 8 6 , 2 1 3 $ 4 0 1 , 8 1 0 $ 1 5 , 5 9 7 4. 0 4 % 10 0 2 OV E R T I M E EA R N I N G S $2 , 6 9 7 $ 3 , 2 8 6 $ 3 , 7 5 7 $4 7 1 14 . 3 3 % 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $4 , 0 1 1 $ 4 , 1 5 2 $ 4 , 4 8 8 $3 3 6 8. 0 9 % 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $2 8 , 3 2 9 $ 3 0 , 1 1 5 $ 3 1 , 3 6 8 $ 1 , 2 5 3 4. 1 6 % 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $5 3 , 0 9 4 $ 4 1 , 3 3 4 $ 3 3 , 8 7 2 ( $ 7 , 4 6 2 ) ‐18 . 0 5 % 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $2 , 2 2 4 $ 2 , 5 6 2 $ 2 , 6 8 1 $1 1 9 4. 6 4 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $6 , 3 8 5 $ 7 , 0 1 2 $ 5 , 7 8 0 ( $ 1 , 2 3 2 ) ‐17 . 5 7 % 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $6 3 , 0 0 0 $ 6 3 , 0 0 0 $ 6 3 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $5 3 6 , 5 0 5 $ 5 3 7 , 6 7 4 $ 5 4 6 , 7 5 6 $ 9 , 0 8 2 1. 6 9 % 20 2 9 CL O T H I N G AL L O W A N C E $3 , 2 0 6 $ 3 , 4 2 0 $ 3 , 4 2 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $4 2 7 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 2 0 GA S , OI L & GR E A S E $8 , 3 9 0 $ 7 , 7 8 5 $ 7 , 7 8 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 5 0 SU P P L I E S & MA T E R I A L S $5 7 , 8 9 5 $ 9 4 , 9 0 0 $ 9 3 , 3 2 0 ( $ 1 , 5 8 0 ) ‐1. 6 6 % 23 6 0 SM A L L TO O L S $0 $2 5 0 $2 5 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SU P P L I E S $6 9 , 9 1 8 $ 1 0 7 , 3 5 5 $ 1 0 5 , 7 7 5 ( $ 1 , 5 8 0 ) ‐1. 4 7 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $1 $8 $5 ($ 3 ) ‐37 . 5 0 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $2 0 , 3 4 0 $ 2 4 , 0 0 0 $ 2 2 , 0 0 0 ( $ 2 , 0 0 0 ) ‐8. 3 3 % 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $0 $ 2 , 0 3 5 $ 2 , 0 3 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 31 1 5 CO N T R A C T MA I N T E N A N C E $5 , 4 1 8 $ 8 , 1 8 2 $ 6 , 2 2 3 ( $ 1 , 9 5 9 ) ‐23 . 9 4 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $2 5 , 7 5 9 $ 3 4 , 2 2 5 $ 3 0 , 2 6 3 ( $ 3 , 9 6 2 ) ‐11 . 5 8 % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $3 7 , 8 4 5 $ 4 1 , 4 6 9 $ 5 2 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 5 3 1 25 . 3 9 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $3 , 0 0 5 $ 3 , 0 6 4 $ 3 , 1 3 6 $7 2 2. 3 5 % UT I L I T I E S $4 0 , 8 5 0 $ 4 4 , 5 3 3 $ 5 5 , 1 3 6 $ 1 0 , 6 0 3 23 . 8 1 % 55 0 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐AU T O LI A B I L I T Y $1 , 4 9 3 $ 1 , 3 7 8 $ 1 , 3 7 8 $0 0. 0 0 % 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $9 6 3 $3 4 7 $3 4 7 $0 0. 0 0 % IN S U R A N C E $2 , 4 5 6 $ 1 , 7 2 5 $ 1 , 7 2 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 0 AU T O RE P A I R S $7 , 1 2 5 $ 5 , 0 8 4 $ 5 , 0 8 4 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 5 EQ U I P M E N T MA I N T E N A N C E $3 4 , 6 4 1 $ 2 8 , 4 1 3 $ 2 8 , 4 1 3 $0 0. 0 0 % 63 5 0 SI G N A L MA I N T . & RE P $7 1 , 8 5 0 $ 6 7 , 0 0 0 $ 6 7 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 01 - 2 5 T R A F F I C C O N T R O L 19 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐25 TR A F F I C CO N T R O L LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $1 1 3 , 6 1 6 $ 1 0 0 , 4 9 7 $ 1 0 0 , 4 9 7 $0 0. 0 0 % 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $4 8 0 $4 8 0 $5 6 0 $8 0 16 . 6 7 % 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $0 $ 1 , 3 6 5 $ 4 , 3 0 0 $ 2 , 9 3 5 21 5 . 0 2 % 72 0 2 MI C R O CO M P U T E R SO F T W A R E $0 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $2 , 3 8 5 $3 0 0 $3 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $2 , 3 2 5 $5 0 0 $0 ( $ 5 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % OT H E R $5 , 1 9 0 $ 3 , 1 4 5 $ 5 , 6 6 0 $ 2 , 5 1 5 79 . 9 7 % 90 0 0 CA P I T A L EQ U I P M E N T RE P L A C E $1 5 , 9 0 6 $ 1 9 , 7 8 0 $ 1 6 , 5 1 0 ( $ 3 , 2 7 0 ) ‐16 . 5 3 % CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $1 5 , 9 0 6 $ 1 9 , 7 8 0 $ 1 6 , 5 1 0 ( $ 3 , 2 7 0 ) ‐16 . 5 3 % TO T A L TR A F F I C $8 1 0 , 2 0 0 $ 8 4 8 , 9 3 4 $ 8 6 2 , 3 2 2 $ 1 3 , 3 8 8 1. 5 8 % 01 - 2 5 T R A F F I C C O N T R O L 20 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐35 FA C I L I T I E S MA I N T E N A N C E LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $1 9 8 , 2 5 9 $ 1 9 8 , 8 6 4 $ 1 0 9 , 0 2 8 ( $ 8 9 , 8 3 6 ) ‐45 . 1 7 % 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $2 , 3 1 1 $ 2 , 4 1 5 $ 1 , 2 9 8 ( $ 1 , 1 1 7 ) ‐46 . 2 5 % 10 0 7 CA R AL L O W A N C E $7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $0 ( $ 7 , 2 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $1 5 , 5 0 1 $ 1 5 , 9 4 8 $ 8 , 4 4 0 ( $ 7 , 5 0 8 ) ‐47 . 0 8 % 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $2 8 , 7 4 7 $ 2 1 , 8 9 0 $ 9 , 1 1 3 ( $ 1 2 , 7 7 7 ) ‐58 . 3 7 % 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $1 , 6 6 9 $ 1 , 3 1 7 $7 2 7 ( $ 5 9 0 ) ‐44 . 8 0 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $1 , 0 1 3 $ 1 , 0 3 0 $7 3 3 ( $ 2 9 7 ) ‐28 . 8 3 % 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $2 7 , 0 0 0 $ 2 7 , 0 0 0 $ 1 8 , 0 0 0 ( $ 9 , 0 0 0 ) ‐33 . 3 3 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $2 8 1 , 7 0 0 $ 2 7 5 , 6 6 4 $ 1 4 7 , 3 3 9 ( $ 1 2 8 , 3 2 5 ) ‐46 . 5 5 % 20 2 9 CL O T H I N G AL L O W A N C E $3 6 6 $6 7 0 $6 7 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $3 9 0 $4 8 2 $3 9 0 ($ 9 2 ) ‐19 . 0 9 % 23 1 8 CO M P U T E R SU P P L I E S $0 $2 6 1 $2 2 5 ($ 3 6 ) ‐13 . 7 9 % 23 2 0 GA S , OI L & GR E A S E $2 , 8 5 6 $ 8 , 4 2 7 $ 3 , 4 2 7 ( $ 5 , 0 0 0 ) ‐59 . 3 3 % 23 5 0 SU P P L I E S & MA T E R I A L S $5 , 1 4 5 $ 7 , 1 8 8 $ 4 , 6 5 1 ( $ 2 , 5 3 7 ) ‐35 . 2 9 % 23 6 0 SM A L L TO O L S $0 $ 1 , 0 9 8 $ 1 , 0 9 8 $0 0. 0 0 % SU P P L I E S $8 , 7 5 7 $ 1 8 , 1 2 6 $ 1 0 , 4 6 1 ( $ 7 , 6 6 5 ) ‐42 . 2 9 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $1 $3 0 $5 ($ 2 5 ) ‐83 . 3 3 % 30 1 4 PU B L I C A T I O N S $0 $3 7 8 $3 7 8 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 0 0 0 $0 ( $ 2 , 0 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $0 $2 0 0 $0 ( $ 2 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % 31 1 5 CO N T R A C T MA I N T E N A N C E $7 5 , 5 9 9 $ 1 6 1 , 0 0 4 $ 1 3 7 , 6 4 2 ( $ 2 3 , 3 6 2 ) ‐14 . 5 1 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $8 5 , 6 0 0 $ 1 6 3 , 6 1 2 $ 1 3 8 , 0 2 5 ( $ 2 5 , 5 8 7 ) ‐15 . 6 4 % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $1 1 8 , 9 0 0 $ 1 2 8 , 7 5 6 $ 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 ( $ 8 , 7 5 6 ) ‐6. 8 0 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $3 , 9 7 3 $ 4 , 3 2 6 $ 4 , 1 5 9 ( $ 1 6 7 ) ‐3. 8 6 % UT I L I T I E S $1 2 2 , 8 7 3 $ 1 3 3 , 0 8 2 $ 1 2 4 , 1 5 9 ( $ 8 , 9 2 3 ) ‐6. 7 0 % 55 0 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐AU T O LI A B I L I T Y $1 , 8 8 7 $ 1 , 7 4 2 $ 1 , 7 4 2 $0 0. 0 0 % 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $1 , 0 8 5 $3 9 1 $3 9 1 $0 0. 0 0 % 55 1 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐BL D G & CO N T E N T S $2 6 , 6 7 2 $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % IN S U R A N C E $2 9 , 6 4 4 $ 4 2 , 1 3 3 $ 4 2 , 1 3 3 $0 0. 0 0 % 01 - 3 5 F A C I L I T I E S M A I N T E N A N C E 21 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐35 FA C I L I T I E S MA I N T E N A N C E LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 61 8 4 SE C U R I T Y EX P E N S E $3 , 0 9 0 $ 1 4 , 0 8 3 $ 1 2 , 0 8 3 ( $ 2 , 0 0 0 ) ‐14 . 2 0 % 61 9 0 AU T O RE P A I R S $8 9 0 $ 2 , 1 1 0 $ 2 , 1 1 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 5 EQ U I P M E N T MA I N T E N A N C E $3 3 , 7 3 4 $ 1 7 , 3 1 5 $ 1 7 , 3 1 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 62 0 0 EQ U I P RE P A I R S / N O N VE H I C L E $1 , 9 7 3 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 4 0 0 $4 0 0 40 . 0 0 % 62 5 0 FA C I L I T Y MA I N T & RE P $6 3 , 7 2 1 $ 5 0 , 0 4 9 $ 6 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 4 , 9 5 1 29 . 8 7 % 63 3 0 RA D I O SE R V I C E $0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $0 ( $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $1 0 3 , 4 0 8 $ 9 4 , 5 5 7 $ 9 7 , 9 0 8 $ 3 , 3 5 1 3. 5 4 % 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $0 $1 2 0 $1 2 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 71 7 0 TR A V E L EX P E N S E $1 4 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $0 $ 5 , 1 8 3 $5 0 0 ( $ 4 , 6 8 3 ) ‐90 . 3 5 % 72 0 2 MI C R O CO M P U T E R SO F T W A R E $0 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $0 $2 5 0 $2 5 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $2 1 9 $3 2 5 $3 2 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 6 0 EQ U I P M E N T RE N T A L $0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 74 7 5 IM P R O V E M E N T S ‐‐ UN D E R $5 0 0 0 $3 , 3 8 6 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % OT H E R $3 , 6 1 9 $ 1 2 , 3 7 8 $ 7 , 6 9 5 ( $ 4 , 6 8 3 ) ‐37 . 8 3 % 90 0 0 CA P I T A L EQ U I P M E N T RE P L A C E $1 3 , 6 7 7 $ 1 5 , 2 0 1 $ 1 3 , 5 1 2 ( $ 1 , 6 8 9 ) ‐11 . 1 1 % 91 1 5 SM A L L EQ U I P M E N T $0 $5 4 0 $0 ( $ 5 4 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % 99 5 0 RE M O D E L I N G PR O J E C T S $9 9 , 4 2 2 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $1 1 3 , 0 9 9 $ 1 5 , 7 4 1 $ 1 3 , 5 1 2 ( $ 2 , 2 2 9 ) ‐14 . 1 6 % TO T A L FA C I L I T Y MA I N T E N A N C E $7 4 8 , 7 0 0 $ 7 5 5 , 2 9 3 $ 5 8 1 , 2 3 2 ( $ 1 7 4 , 0 6 1 ) ‐23 . 0 5 % 01 - 3 5 F A C I L I T I E S M A I N T E N A N C E 22 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐40 FI R E LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $2 , 7 8 9 , 2 6 9 $ 2 , 7 1 1 , 2 2 3 $ 2 , 8 1 1 , 9 7 5 $ 1 0 0 , 7 5 2 3. 7 2 % 10 0 2 OV E R T I M E EA R N I N G S $3 4 1 , 5 5 3 $ 3 4 3 , 8 2 6 $ 3 5 2 , 8 0 0 $ 8 , 9 7 4 2. 6 1 % 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $1 9 , 5 9 0 $ 2 1 , 0 2 9 $ 1 9 , 2 2 9 ( $ 1 , 8 0 0 ) ‐8. 5 6 % 10 0 6 ED U C A T I O N PA Y $3 9 , 9 9 8 $ 4 0 , 5 6 0 $ 4 8 , 3 6 0 $ 7 , 8 0 0 19 . 2 3 % 10 0 7 CA R AL L O W A N C E $7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $2 3 2 , 5 3 4 $ 2 3 5 , 5 2 5 $ 2 2 9 , 2 0 4 ( $ 6 , 3 2 1 ) ‐2. 6 8 % 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $2 0 , 0 0 3 $ 1 5 , 0 9 5 $ 1 2 , 2 7 5 ( $ 2 , 8 2 0 ) ‐18 . 6 8 % 11 2 1 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. R . & R . $4 6 9 , 2 6 6 $ 4 6 3 , 1 0 7 $ 4 7 6 , 2 8 2 $ 1 3 , 1 7 5 2. 8 4 % 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $1 7 , 9 9 1 $ 1 7 , 2 4 6 $ 1 7 , 2 5 1 $5 0. 0 3 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $2 3 , 2 9 0 $ 2 7 , 8 6 6 $ 2 3 , 0 1 9 ( $ 4 , 8 4 7 ) ‐17 . 3 9 % 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $3 3 3 , 7 5 0 $ 3 0 6 , 0 0 0 $ 3 1 5 , 0 0 0 $ 9 , 0 0 0 2. 9 4 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $4 , 2 9 4 , 4 4 4 $ 4 , 1 8 8 , 6 7 7 $ 4 , 3 1 2 , 5 9 5 $ 1 2 3 , 9 1 8 2. 9 6 % 20 2 9 CL O T H I N G AL L O W A N C E $1 9 , 3 6 5 $ 3 5 , 4 0 0 $ 2 3 , 8 0 0 ( $ 1 1 , 6 0 0 ) ‐32 . 7 7 % 20 6 0 PR O T E C T I V E CL O T H G & SU P P $6 , 3 3 1 $ 4 , 1 0 0 $ 4 2 , 8 0 0 $ 3 8 , 7 0 0 94 3 . 9 0 % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $3 , 3 5 4 $ 4 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 1 8 CO M P U T E R SU P P L I E S $0 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 2 0 GA S , OI L & GR E A S E $1 9 , 0 9 7 $ 2 1 , 5 7 4 $ 2 1 , 5 7 4 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 4 5 MI C U DR U G S & SU P P L I E S $3 8 , 0 4 0 $ 3 0 , 9 0 0 $ 4 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 1 0 0 32 . 6 9 % 23 5 0 SU P P L I E S & MA T E R I A L S $1 6 , 3 2 8 $ 1 4 , 0 0 0 $ 1 6 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 0 0 0 14 . 2 9 % SU P P L I E S $1 0 2 , 5 1 5 $ 1 1 0 , 4 7 4 $ 1 4 9 , 6 7 4 $ 3 9 , 2 0 0 35 . 4 8 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $2 6 1 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $3 8 , 8 0 0 $ 1 0 3 , 1 0 0 $ 6 9 , 4 0 0 ( $ 3 3 , 7 0 0 ) ‐32 . 6 9 % 30 6 3 PR O G R A M M I N G / M A I N T E N A N C E $3 6 , 8 4 0 $ 3 9 , 9 7 0 $ 4 4 , 0 1 0 $ 4 , 0 4 0 10 . 1 1 % 30 6 4 EM E R G E N C Y MA N A G E M E N T $6 , 0 2 5 $ 7 , 0 0 0 $ 1 6 , 4 1 2 $ 9 , 4 1 2 13 4 . 4 6 % 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $1 , 7 7 5 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 ( $ 5 0 0 ) ‐33 . 3 3 % 31 1 5 CO N T R A C T MA I N T E N A N C E $5 4 , 1 0 3 $ 5 5 , 9 9 8 $ 6 7 , 2 8 1 $ 1 1 , 2 8 3 20 . 1 5 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $1 3 7 , 8 0 4 $ 2 0 8 , 0 6 8 $ 1 9 8 , 6 0 3 ( $ 9 , 4 6 5 ) ‐4. 5 5 % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $5 7 , 3 9 3 $ 6 2 , 6 2 1 $ 5 5 , 0 0 0 ( $ 7 , 6 2 1 ) ‐12 . 1 7 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $1 5 , 8 6 7 $ 1 2 , 9 1 6 $ 1 2 , 6 1 7 ( $ 2 9 9 ) ‐2. 3 1 % UT I L I T I E S $7 3 , 2 6 0 $ 7 5 , 5 3 7 $ 6 7 , 6 1 7 ( $ 7 , 9 2 0 ) ‐10 . 4 8 % 01 - 4 0 F I R E 23 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐40 FI R E LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 55 0 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐AU T O LI A B I L I T Y $3 , 0 2 1 $ 2 , 7 8 9 $ 2 , 7 8 9 $0 0. 0 0 % 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $5 , 1 5 0 $ 1 , 8 5 5 $ 1 , 8 5 5 $0 0. 0 0 % IN S U R A N C E $8 , 1 7 1 $ 4 , 6 4 4 $ 4 , 6 4 4 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 0 AU T O RE P A I R S $4 5 , 3 1 9 $ 2 1 , 5 6 0 $ 2 1 , 5 6 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 5 EQ U I P M E N T MA I N T E N A N C E $7 1 , 6 4 4 $ 6 5 , 5 3 3 $ 6 5 , 5 3 3 $0 0. 0 0 % 62 0 0 EQ U I P RE P A I R S / N O N VE H I C L E $7 , 8 8 0 $ 4 , 5 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 ( $ 5 0 0 ) ‐11 . 1 1 % 63 3 0 RA D I O SE R V I C E $0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $1 2 4 , 8 4 3 $ 9 5 , 5 9 3 $ 9 5 , 0 9 3 ( $ 5 0 0 ) ‐0. 5 2 % 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $5 , 6 7 5 $ 7 , 2 3 0 $ 7 , 8 8 0 $6 5 0 8. 9 9 % 71 7 0 TR A V E L EX P E N S E $2 , 8 6 4 $ 1 4 , 8 2 0 $ 1 4 , 8 2 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $5 , 1 1 2 $ 1 3 , 1 0 1 $ 7 , 9 5 0 ( $ 5 , 1 5 1 ) ‐39 . 3 2 % 72 0 2 MI C R O CO M P U T E R SO F T W A R E $0 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $1 7 4 $ 3 , 0 0 0 $0 ( $ 3 , 0 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $2 5 , 4 2 8 $ 2 6 , 8 4 0 $ 3 1 , 1 4 0 $ 4 , 3 0 0 16 . 0 2 % 72 4 1 EM S CO N T I N U I N G ED U C A T I O N $1 6 , 3 8 7 $ 1 7 , 0 7 6 $ 1 7 , 8 6 7 $7 9 1 4. 6 3 % 74 7 5 IM P R O V E M E N T S ‐‐ UN D E R $5 0 0 0 $4 4 , 2 5 3 $ 5 , 8 5 0 $ 1 7 , 4 0 0 $ 1 1 , 5 5 0 19 7 . 4 4 % 77 2 5 FI R E PR E V E N T I O N $1 2 , 4 9 8 $ 1 1 , 8 0 0 $ 1 3 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 7 0 0 14 . 4 1 % OT H E R $1 1 2 , 3 9 1 $ 1 0 0 , 2 1 7 $ 1 1 1 , 0 5 7 $ 1 0 , 8 4 0 10 . 8 2 % 90 0 0 CA P I T A L EQ U I P M E N T RE P L A C E $7 1 , 1 1 8 $ 7 7 , 1 3 3 $ 8 3 , 4 3 5 $ 6 , 3 0 2 8. 1 7 % 92 0 5 CA M E R A EQ U I P M E N T $0 $0 $ 1 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 8 , 0 0 0 #D I V / 0 ! 93 5 7 FI R E FI G H T I N G EQ U I P ‐MA J O R $3 3 , 1 9 6 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $1 0 4 , 3 1 4 $ 7 7 , 1 3 3 $ 1 0 1 , 4 3 5 $ 2 4 , 3 0 2 31 . 5 1 % TO T A L FI R E $4 , 9 5 7 , 7 4 2 $ 4 , 8 6 0 , 3 4 2 $ 5 , 0 4 0 , 7 1 8 $ 1 8 0 , 3 7 6 3. 7 1 % 01 - 4 0 F I R E 24 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐50 PO L I C E LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $3 , 6 1 5 , 4 4 0 $ 3 , 6 7 2 , 1 9 2 $ 3 , 8 2 5 , 5 0 3 $ 1 5 3 , 3 1 1 4. 1 7 % 10 0 2 OV E R T I M E EA R N I N G S $2 9 6 , 5 8 7 $ 3 0 6 , 5 9 0 $ 3 4 2 , 7 0 2 $ 3 6 , 1 1 2 11 . 7 8 % 10 0 4 MI S C E L L A N E O U S AL L O W A N C E S $8 , 6 2 7 $ 7 , 8 0 0 $ 6 , 6 0 0 ( $ 1 , 2 0 0 ) ‐15 . 3 8 % 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $2 2 , 6 9 5 $ 2 2 , 8 6 1 $ 2 5 , 1 5 2 $ 2 , 2 9 1 10 . 0 2 % 10 0 6 ED U C A T I O N PA Y $5 6 , 4 1 1 $ 5 8 , 5 0 0 $ 5 3 , 7 0 0 ( $ 4 , 8 0 0 ) ‐8. 2 1 % 10 0 9 CE L L PH O N E AL L O W A N C E $1 , 1 6 3 $ 1 , 0 8 0 $ 1 , 0 8 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $2 9 1 , 5 4 6 $ 3 1 0 , 0 6 7 $ 3 0 9 , 5 1 0 ( $ 5 5 7 ) ‐0. 1 8 % 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $5 4 5 , 9 1 6 $ 4 1 7 , 2 8 9 $ 3 4 0 , 3 8 5 ( $ 7 6 , 9 0 4 ) ‐18 . 4 3 % 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $2 2 , 5 0 9 $ 2 3 , 0 2 5 $ 2 4 , 1 3 7 $ 1 , 1 1 2 4. 8 3 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $3 5 , 6 4 2 $ 3 9 , 5 0 1 $ 3 3 , 2 9 5 ( $ 6 , 2 0 6 ) ‐15 . 7 1 % 11 3 2 IN S U R A N C E ‐UN E M P L O Y M E N T $1 4 , 9 4 4 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $4 5 9 , 0 0 0 $ 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 5 9 , 0 0 0 $ 9 , 0 0 0 2. 0 0 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $5 , 3 7 0 , 4 8 0 $ 5 , 3 0 8 , 9 0 5 $ 5 , 4 2 1 , 0 6 4 $ 1 1 2 , 1 5 9 2. 1 1 % 20 2 9 CL O T H I N G AL L O W A N C E $2 9 , 8 2 2 $ 3 6 , 2 0 5 $ 4 0 , 0 0 5 $ 3 , 8 0 0 10 . 5 0 % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $1 0 , 1 3 8 $ 9 , 5 0 0 $ 9 , 7 5 0 $2 5 0 2. 6 3 % 23 1 8 CO M P U T E R SU P P L I E S $7 5 9 $ 3 , 1 0 0 $ 3 , 6 0 0 $5 0 0 16 . 1 3 % 23 2 0 GA S , OI L & GR E A S E $8 2 , 3 3 2 $ 9 2 , 7 1 4 $ 9 2 , 7 1 4 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 5 0 SU P P L I E S & MA T E R I A L S $1 0 , 9 1 7 $ 1 6 , 1 7 5 $ 1 6 , 4 7 5 $3 0 0 1. 8 5 % SU P P L I E S $1 3 3 , 9 6 8 $ 1 5 7 , 6 9 4 $ 1 6 2 , 5 4 4 $ 4 , 8 5 0 3. 0 8 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $1 , 8 8 9 $ 3 , 6 5 0 $ 1 , 6 0 0 ( $ 2 , 0 5 0 ) ‐56 . 1 6 % 30 1 1 DE T E N T I O N SE R V I C E S $1 , 2 6 0 $ 8 , 1 0 0 $ 8 , 1 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 1 4 PU B L I C A T I O N S $1 9 7 $ 4 , 1 1 0 $ 4 , 1 1 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $2 3 3 , 6 1 0 $ 2 3 3 , 7 0 3 $ 2 4 1 , 0 4 2 $ 7 , 3 3 9 3. 1 4 % 30 6 2 AN I M A L CO N T R O L SE R V I C E S $8 , 6 7 3 $ 1 2 , 8 7 5 $ 1 2 , 9 7 5 $1 0 0 0. 7 8 % 30 6 3 PR O G R A M M I N G / M A I N T E N A N C E $1 2 1 , 7 4 4 $ 1 2 7 , 4 2 8 $ 1 3 1 , 4 5 2 $ 4 , 0 2 4 3. 1 6 % 30 7 0 SP E C I A L OP E R A T I O N S $0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 7 2 AC C R E D I T A T I O N EX P E N S E S $6 , 9 8 5 $ 1 6 , 4 5 0 $ 2 2 , 5 0 0 $ 6 , 0 5 0 36 . 7 8 % 30 7 5 DI R E C T AL A R M MO N I T O R I N G $5 3 , 2 8 8 $ 4 7 , 9 8 9 $ 7 5 , 7 6 5 $ 2 7 , 7 7 6 57 . 8 8 % 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $8 , 1 8 9 $ 1 1 , 1 0 0 $ 1 3 , 8 0 0 $ 2 , 7 0 0 24 . 3 2 % 31 1 5 CO N T R A C T MA I N T E N A N C E $3 1 , 5 7 4 $ 3 4 , 5 0 4 $ 3 6 , 2 7 8 $ 1 , 7 7 4 5. 1 4 % 32 6 1 WR E C K E R FE E S $1 4 0 $5 0 0 $6 0 0 $1 0 0 20 . 0 0 % 32 9 1 GU N S / E Q U I P M E N T $4 5 , 5 9 6 $ 2 3 , 5 3 5 $ 3 5 , 5 3 5 $ 1 2 , 0 0 0 50 . 9 9 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $5 1 3 , 1 4 5 $ 5 2 4 , 9 4 4 $ 5 8 4 , 7 5 7 $ 5 9 , 8 1 3 11 . 3 9 % 01 - 5 0 P O L I C E 25 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐50 PO L I C E LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $6 3 , 2 1 5 $ 7 0 , 8 9 0 $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 ( $ 1 0 , 8 9 0 ) ‐15 . 3 6 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $4 8 , 5 3 8 $ 5 1 , 9 3 8 $ 5 7 , 1 4 2 $ 5 , 2 0 4 10 . 0 2 % 41 2 1 91 1 SE R V I C E FE E S $5 4 , 3 6 3 $ 1 4 8 , 9 6 0 $ 1 4 8 , 9 6 0 $0 0. 0 0 % UT I L I T I E S $1 6 6 , 1 1 6 $ 2 7 1 , 7 8 8 $ 2 6 6 , 1 0 2 ( $ 5 , 6 8 6 ) ‐2. 0 9 % 55 0 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐AU T O LI A B I L I T Y $6 , 9 3 1 $ 6 , 3 9 8 $ 6 , 3 9 8 $0 0. 0 0 % 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $6 , 2 3 8 $ 2 , 2 4 7 $ 2 , 2 4 7 $0 0. 0 0 % 55 0 8 IN S U R A N C E ‐PO L I C E PR O F LI A $1 2 , 0 0 0 $ 1 4 , 0 0 0 $ 1 4 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % IN S U R A N C E $2 5 , 1 6 9 $ 2 2 , 6 4 5 $ 2 2 , 6 4 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 0 AU T O RE P A I R S $3 7 , 4 4 2 $ 3 9 , 7 0 7 $ 3 9 , 7 0 7 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 5 EQ U I P M E N T MA I N T E N A N C E $9 6 , 8 7 3 $ 1 4 7 , 9 2 9 $ 1 4 7 , 9 2 9 $0 0. 0 0 % 62 0 0 EQ U I P RE P A I R S / N O N VE H I C L E $4 , 6 3 3 $ 4 , 2 0 0 $ 4 , 2 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 63 3 0 RA D I O SE R V I C E $4 5 2 $ 2 , 4 0 0 $ 2 , 4 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $1 3 9 , 4 0 0 $ 1 9 4 , 2 3 6 $ 1 9 4 , 2 3 6 $0 0. 0 0 % 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $3 , 0 6 9 $ 6 , 0 5 4 $ 5 , 6 9 4 ( $ 3 6 0 ) ‐5. 9 5 % 71 6 2 EM P L O Y E E PH Y S I C A L S $4 6 4 $ 4 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 71 7 0 TR A V E L EX P E N S E $2 0 , 2 3 6 $ 2 2 , 0 8 0 $ 2 3 , 3 8 0 $ 1 , 3 0 0 5. 8 9 % 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $8 , 2 1 0 $ 1 6 , 9 0 9 $ 2 , 0 0 0 ( $ 1 4 , 9 0 9 ) ‐88 . 1 7 % 72 0 2 MI C R O CO M P U T E R SO F T W A R E $2 , 2 7 7 $ 1 0 , 3 5 0 $ 1 0 , 3 5 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $1 5 , 1 2 3 $ 7 , 5 0 0 $ 7 , 5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 2 3 CR I M E PR E V / Y O U T H SE R V I C E S $1 , 3 7 3 $ 2 , 8 0 0 $ 2 , 8 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $2 1 , 6 8 5 $ 2 6 , 9 1 0 $ 2 6 , 9 1 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 74 7 5 IM P R O V E M E N T S ‐‐ UN D E R $5 0 0 0 $1 5 , 7 6 7 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! OT H E R $8 8 , 2 0 4 $ 9 6 , 6 0 3 $ 8 2 , 6 3 4 ( $ 1 3 , 9 6 9 ) ‐14 . 4 6 % 90 0 0 CA P I T A L EQ U I P M E N T RE P L A C E $6 6 , 4 5 9 $ 7 5 , 1 0 7 $ 6 1 , 2 8 6 ( $ 1 3 , 8 2 1 ) ‐18 . 4 0 % 91 1 5 SM A L L EQ U I P M E N T $7 , 0 4 0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 92 0 1 MI C R O CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T $0 $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 $0 ( $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $7 3 , 4 9 9 $ 9 0 , 1 0 7 $ 6 1 , 2 8 6 ( $ 2 8 , 8 2 1 ) ‐31 . 9 9 % TO T A L PO L I C E $6 , 5 0 9 , 9 8 1 $ 6 , 6 6 6 , 9 2 2 $ 6 , 7 9 5 , 2 6 8 $ 1 2 8 , 3 4 6 1. 9 3 % 01 - 5 0 P O L I C E 26 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐70 PA R K S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $1 , 3 2 5 , 4 5 6 $ 1 , 3 2 7 , 4 0 1 $ 1 , 3 2 1 , 2 1 5 ( $ 6 , 1 8 6 ) ‐0. 4 7 % 10 0 2 OV E R T I M E EA R N I N G S $7 3 , 6 7 1 $ 7 8 , 8 2 5 $ 7 8 , 4 7 0 ( $ 3 5 5 ) ‐0. 4 5 % 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $1 6 , 0 3 2 $ 1 6 , 8 2 7 $ 1 6 , 1 8 5 ( $ 6 4 2 ) ‐3. 8 2 % 10 0 7 CA R AL L O W A N C E $1 4 , 4 0 0 $ 1 4 , 4 0 0 $ 1 4 , 4 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 10 0 9 CE L L PH O N E AL L O W A N C E $9 6 0 $9 6 0 $9 6 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $1 0 5 , 5 7 3 $ 1 0 7 , 9 2 1 $ 1 0 7 , 9 3 0 $9 0. 0 1 % 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $1 9 8 , 5 9 0 $ 1 5 0 , 1 8 9 $ 1 1 8 , 2 2 4 ( $ 3 1 , 9 6 5 ) ‐21 . 2 8 % 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $9 , 0 4 1 $ 8 , 8 0 2 $ 8 , 8 3 0 $2 8 0. 3 2 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $1 1 , 2 1 4 $ 1 6 , 1 5 3 $ 1 2 , 6 0 4 ( $ 3 , 5 4 9 ) ‐21 . 9 7 % 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $2 1 6 , 0 0 0 $ 1 8 9 , 0 0 0 $ 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 ( $ 9 , 0 0 0 ) ‐4. 7 6 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $1 , 9 7 0 , 9 3 7 $ 1 , 9 1 0 , 4 7 8 $ 1 , 8 5 8 , 8 1 8 ( $ 5 1 , 6 6 0 ) ‐2. 7 0 % 20 2 9 CL O T H I N G AL L O W A N C E $1 4 , 8 2 1 $ 1 4 , 2 2 2 $ 1 4 , 2 2 2 $0 0. 0 0 % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $5 , 6 4 7 $ 2 , 5 5 0 $ 2 , 5 5 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 1 8 CO M P U T E R SU P P L I E S $2 6 6 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 2 0 GA S , OI L & GR E A S E $2 9 , 0 8 8 $ 2 9 , 3 8 0 $ 2 9 , 3 8 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 5 0 SU P P L I E S & MA T E R I A L S $5 2 , 9 3 7 $ 4 8 , 2 0 0 $ 4 8 , 2 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 6 0 SM A L L TO O L S $5 , 1 3 8 $ 1 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 8 1 FE R T I L I Z E R , C H E M I C A L S &S U P $4 8 , 2 4 1 $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SU P P L I E S $1 5 6 , 1 3 8 $ 1 6 5 , 8 5 2 $ 1 6 5 , 8 5 2 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $1 , 6 3 2 $6 0 0 $ 1 , 6 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 16 6 . 6 7 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $9 , 2 6 0 $ 8 , 0 0 0 $ 8 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 6 3 PR O G R A M M I N G / M A I N T E N A N C E $5 , 4 9 0 $ 6 , 0 0 0 $ 6 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $5 4 5 $8 0 0 $8 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 31 1 5 CO N T R A C T MA I N T E N A N C E $1 9 2 , 5 5 9 $ 2 4 4 , 8 1 0 $ 2 4 4 , 8 1 0 $0 0. 0 0 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $2 0 9 , 4 8 6 $ 2 6 0 , 2 1 0 $ 2 6 1 , 2 1 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 0. 3 8 % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $1 1 8 , 6 4 3 $ 1 3 0 , 4 3 0 $ 1 1 0 , 0 0 0 ( $ 2 0 , 4 3 0 ) ‐15 . 6 6 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $7 , 9 5 8 $ 6 , 5 0 3 $ 8 , 3 9 7 $ 1 , 8 9 4 29 . 1 3 % UT I L I T I E S $1 2 6 , 6 0 1 $ 1 3 6 , 9 3 3 $ 1 1 8 , 3 9 7 ( $ 1 8 , 5 3 6 ) ‐13 . 5 4 % 55 0 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐AU T O LI A B I L I T Y $7 , 3 7 6 $ 6 , 8 0 9 $ 6 , 8 0 9 $0 0. 0 0 % 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $3 , 1 4 6 $ 1 , 1 3 3 $ 1 , 1 3 3 $0 0. 0 0 % 01 - 7 0 P A R K S 27 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐70 PA R K S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % IN S U R A N C E $1 0 , 5 2 2 $ 7 , 9 4 2 $ 7 , 9 4 2 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 0 AU T O RE P A I R S $9 , 4 8 7 $ 1 7 , 8 6 1 $ 1 5 , 8 5 0 ( $ 2 , 0 1 1 ) ‐11 . 2 6 % 61 9 5 EQ U I P M E N T MA I N T E N A N C E $1 0 1 , 0 7 1 $ 1 0 8 , 6 7 5 $ 1 0 8 , 6 7 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 62 0 0 EQ U I P RE P A I R S / N O N VE H I C L E $1 0 , 0 1 1 $ 6 , 2 5 0 $ 6 , 2 5 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 62 0 5 PA R K FA C I L I T Y RE P A I R $2 2 , 7 2 6 $ 3 1 , 0 0 0 $ 3 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 62 0 8 PA R K EQ U I P M E N T RE P A I R $2 3 , 0 0 2 $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 63 8 0 FL O W E R S , T R E E S & SH R U B S $4 2 , 4 2 7 $ 5 1 , 0 0 0 $ 5 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $2 0 8 , 7 2 4 $ 2 3 4 , 7 8 6 $ 2 3 2 , 7 7 5 ( $ 2 , 0 1 1 ) ‐0. 8 6 % $0 #D I V / 0 ! 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $1 , 2 7 9 $ 2 , 1 8 0 $ 2 , 1 8 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 71 7 0 TR A V E L EX P E N S E $2 , 5 2 5 $ 3 , 0 1 0 $ 3 , 0 1 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $2 , 0 2 8 $ 3 , 1 9 9 $5 0 0 ( $ 2 , 6 9 9 ) ‐84 . 3 7 % 72 0 2 MI C R O CO M P U T E R SO F T W A R E $0 $ 6 , 0 5 0 $ 4 , 0 5 0 ( $ 2 , 0 0 0 ) ‐33 . 0 6 % 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $2 , 6 4 9 $ 3 , 0 0 0 $ 3 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $1 , 3 4 3 $ 3 , 3 9 5 $ 3 , 3 9 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 6 0 EQ U I P M E N T RE N T A L $8 9 2 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 74 7 5 IM P R O V E M E N T S ‐‐ UN D E R $5 0 0 0 $8 6 , 1 5 8 $ 3 1 , 0 0 0 $ 3 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % OT H E R $9 6 , 8 7 4 $ 5 2 , 8 3 4 $ 4 8 , 1 3 5 ( $ 4 , 6 9 9 ) ‐8. 8 9 % 90 0 0 CA P I T A L EQ U I P M E N T RE P L A C E $3 3 , 6 1 3 $ 3 9 , 9 7 5 $ 3 3 , 7 9 3 ( $ 6 , 1 8 2 ) ‐15 . 4 6 % 99 0 0 PA R K IM P R O V E M E N T S $6 , 8 7 8 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 9 , 0 0 0 ( $ 6 , 0 0 0 ) ‐24 . 0 0 % 99 1 0 OF F I C E FU R N I T U R E $0 $5 0 0 $0 ( $ 5 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $4 0 , 4 9 1 $ 6 5 , 4 7 5 $ 5 2 , 7 9 3 ( $ 1 2 , 6 8 2 ) ‐19 . 3 7 % TO T A L PA R K S $2 , 8 1 9 , 7 7 3 $ 2 , 8 3 4 , 5 1 0 $ 2 , 7 4 5 , 9 2 2 ( $ 8 8 , 5 8 8 ) ‐3. 1 3 % 01 - 7 0 P A R K S 28 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐75 SW I M M I N G PO O L LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $1 6 2 , 7 6 5 $ 1 6 9 , 4 7 6 $ 1 7 2 , 4 1 1 $ 2 , 9 3 5 1. 7 3 % 10 0 2 OV E R T I M E EA R N I N G S $1 0 , 1 1 7 $ 7 , 6 5 2 $ 1 0 , 1 0 8 $ 2 , 4 5 6 32 . 1 0 % 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $1 3 , 2 2 5 $ 1 3 , 3 1 4 $ 1 2 , 2 8 0 ( $ 1 , 0 3 4 ) ‐7. 7 7 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $0 $ 2 , 2 6 2 $ 1 , 6 3 0 ( $ 6 3 2 ) ‐27 . 9 4 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $1 8 6 , 1 0 7 $ 1 9 2 , 7 0 4 $ 1 9 6 , 4 2 9 $ 3 , 7 2 5 1. 9 3 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $4 2 $9 8 2 $5 0 ( $ 9 3 2 ) ‐94 . 9 1 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $4 2 $9 8 2 $5 0 ( $ 9 3 2 ) ‐94 . 9 1 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $0 $ 1 , 5 0 7 $0 ( $ 1 , 5 0 7 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % UT I L I T I E S $0 $ 1 , 5 0 7 $0 ( $ 1 , 5 0 7 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % 61 8 9 SW I M M I N G PO O L RE P A I R S $3 4 , 8 6 5 $ 1 8 , 0 0 0 $ 2 3 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 27 . 7 8 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $3 4 , 8 6 5 $ 1 8 , 0 0 0 $ 2 3 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 27 . 7 8 % 73 9 0 SW I M M I N G PO O L EX P E N S E $5 1 , 0 8 9 $ 5 6 , 3 9 0 $ 5 6 , 3 9 0 $0 0. 0 0 % OT H E R $5 1 , 0 8 9 $ 5 6 , 3 9 0 $ 5 6 , 3 9 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 95 6 5 SW I M M I N G PO O L EQ U I P M E N T $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! TO T A L SW I M M I N G PO O L $2 7 2 , 1 0 3 $ 2 6 9 , 5 8 3 $ 2 7 5 , 8 6 9 $ 6 , 2 8 6 2. 3 3 % 01 - 7 5 S W I M M I N G P O O L 29 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐80 ST R E E T S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 C H A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $7 7 0 , 6 3 1 $ 7 8 4 , 8 9 8 $ 8 1 5 , 9 8 1 $ 3 1 , 0 8 3 3. 9 6 % 10 0 2 OV E R T I M E EA R N I N G S $2 3 , 6 9 0 $ 1 9 , 2 7 9 $ 2 5 , 6 4 3 $ 6 , 3 6 4 33 . 0 1 % 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $1 1 , 4 9 9 $ 1 1 , 9 9 0 $ 1 2 , 8 2 6 $8 3 6 6. 9 7 % 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $6 0 , 1 3 1 $ 6 2 , 4 3 9 $ 6 5 , 3 6 7 $ 2 , 9 2 8 4. 6 9 % 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $1 1 1 , 8 7 1 $ 8 5 , 6 9 7 $ 7 0 , 5 7 8 ( $ 1 5 , 1 1 9 ) ‐17 . 6 4 % 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $5 , 8 5 5 $ 5 , 2 0 4 $ 5 , 4 4 7 $2 4 3 4. 6 7 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $2 4 , 1 8 1 $ 2 6 , 1 1 8 $ 2 0 , 4 2 0 ( $ 5 , 6 9 8 ) ‐21 . 8 2 % 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $1 4 4 , 0 0 0 $ 1 4 4 , 0 0 0 $ 1 3 5 , 0 0 0 ( $ 9 , 0 0 0 ) ‐6. 2 5 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $1 , 1 5 1 , 8 5 8 $ 1 , 1 3 9 , 6 2 5 $ 1 , 1 5 1 , 2 6 2 $ 1 1 , 6 3 7 1. 0 2 % 20 2 9 CL O T H I N G AL L O W A N C E $1 1 , 2 7 1 $ 1 1 , 9 2 1 $ 1 1 , 6 6 5 ( $ 2 5 6 ) ‐2. 1 5 % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $6 8 0 $9 0 0 $9 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 2 0 GA S , OI L & GR E A S E $4 3 , 9 9 3 $ 5 0 , 3 8 7 $ 4 5 , 3 8 7 ( $ 5 , 0 0 0 ) ‐9. 9 2 % 23 5 0 SU P P L I E S & MA T E R I A L S $1 2 , 4 8 3 $ 9 , 6 0 0 $ 9 , 6 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 6 0 SM A L L TO O L S $1 0 , 8 8 0 $ 6 , 3 0 0 $ 6 , 3 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SU P P L I E S $7 9 , 3 0 7 $ 7 9 , 1 0 8 $ 7 3 , 8 5 2 ( $ 5 , 2 5 6 ) ‐6. 6 4 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $2 8 $5 3 $3 0 ($ 2 3 ) ‐43 . 4 0 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $0 ( $ 1 , 5 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % 30 6 3 PR O G R A M M I N G / M A I N T E N A N C E $6 9 4 $ 1 , 7 3 4 $ 1 , 0 0 0 ( $ 7 3 4 ) ‐42 . 3 3 % 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $0 $2 0 0 $2 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 31 1 5 CO N T R A C T MA I N T E N A N C E $3 , 9 0 4 $ 2 , 8 2 4 $ 2 , 9 0 6 $8 2 2. 9 0 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $4 , 6 2 6 $ 6 , 3 1 1 $ 4 , 1 3 6 ( $ 2 , 1 7 5 ) ‐34 . 4 6 % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $4 , 0 9 3 $ 4 , 3 2 2 $ 4 , 3 0 0 ($ 2 2 ) ‐0. 5 1 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $2 , 6 3 9 $ 2 , 4 5 1 $ 2 , 6 5 6 $2 0 5 8. 3 6 % UT I L I T I E S $6 , 7 3 2 $ 6 , 7 7 3 $ 6 , 9 5 6 $1 8 3 2. 7 0 % 55 0 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐AU T O LI A B I L I T Y $1 0 , 1 3 0 $ 9 , 3 5 1 $ 9 , 3 5 1 $0 0. 0 0 % 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $2 , 5 8 2 $9 3 0 $9 3 0 $0 0. 0 0 % IN S U R A N C E $1 2 , 7 1 2 $ 1 0 , 2 8 1 $ 1 0 , 2 8 1 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 0 AU T O RE P A I R S $3 4 , 1 0 3 $ 5 3 , 8 9 7 $ 5 3 , 8 9 7 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 5 EQ U I P M E N T MA I N T E N A N C E $1 6 7 , 1 2 0 $ 1 5 1 , 1 1 7 $ 1 5 1 , 1 1 7 $0 0. 0 0 % 01 - 8 0 S T R E E T S 30 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐80 ST R E E T S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 C H A N G E $ C H A N G E % 62 0 0 EQ U I P RE P A I R S / N O N VE H I C L E $3 1 3 $6 7 5 $ 1 , 0 7 5 $4 0 0 59 . 2 6 % 63 7 0 ST R E E T RE P A I R MA T E R I A L $2 0 0 , 2 6 1 $ 1 7 9 , 5 7 5 $ 2 0 0 , 9 1 0 $ 2 1 , 3 3 5 11 . 8 8 % 63 7 5 SI D E W A L K RE P A I R RE I M B U R S E M E N T $1 3 , 6 5 2 $ 6 5 , 0 0 0 $ 6 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $4 1 5 , 4 4 9 $ 4 5 0 , 2 6 4 $ 4 7 1 , 9 9 9 $ 2 1 , 7 3 5 4. 8 3 % 71 7 0 TR A V E L EX P E N S E $1 8 6 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $0 $ 1 , 3 6 5 $ 1 , 3 0 0 ($ 6 5 ) ‐4. 7 6 % 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $6 , 3 9 5 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $7 3 2 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 6 0 EQ U I P M E N T RE N T A L $0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $0 ( $ 1 , 0 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % OT H E R $7 , 3 1 3 $ 5 , 3 6 5 $ 4 , 3 0 0 ( $ 1 , 0 6 5 ) ‐19 . 8 5 % 90 0 0 CA P I T A L EQ U I P M E N T RE P L A C E $5 9 , 5 3 4 $ 5 8 , 5 0 7 $ 5 2 , 5 3 7 ( $ 5 , 9 7 0 ) ‐10 . 2 0 % CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $5 9 , 5 3 4 $ 5 8 , 5 0 7 $ 5 2 , 5 3 7 ( $ 5 , 9 7 0 ) ‐10 . 2 0 % TO T A L ST R E E T S $1 , 7 3 7 , 5 3 1 $ 1 , 7 5 6 , 2 3 4 $ 1 , 7 7 5 , 3 2 3 $ 1 9 , 0 8 9 1. 0 9 % 01 - 8 0 S T R E E T S 31 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 01 ‐85 TR A N S F E R S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 63 7 1 RE P A V I N G OU T S I D E CO N T R A C T $6 1 7 , 8 2 0 $ 6 1 7 , 8 1 6 $ 6 1 7 , 8 1 6 $0 0. 0 0 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $6 1 7 , 8 2 0 $ 6 1 7 , 8 1 6 $ 6 1 7 , 8 1 6 $0 0. 0 0 % 71 5 3 CA P I T A L PR O J E C T S CO N T R I B $1 , 0 8 4 , 7 6 4 $ 1 , 0 8 4 , 7 5 8 $ 1 , 0 8 4 , 7 5 8 $0 0. 0 0 % OT H E R $1 , 0 8 4 , 7 6 4 $ 1 , 0 8 4 , 7 5 8 $ 1 , 0 8 4 , 7 5 8 $0 0. 0 0 % 85 0 0 TR A N S F E R S $3 7 5 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! TR A N S F E R S $3 7 5 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 95 8 2 CU R B & GU T T E R $9 7 7 , 4 3 6 $ 9 7 7 , 4 4 0 $ 9 7 7 , 4 4 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 98 0 0 AL L E Y RE P L A C E M E N T PR O J E C T $3 5 2 , 1 7 6 $ 3 5 2 , 1 7 3 $ 3 5 2 , 1 7 3 $0 0. 0 0 % CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $1 , 3 2 9 , 6 1 2 $ 1 , 3 2 9 , 6 1 3 $ 1 , 3 2 9 , 6 1 3 $0 0. 0 0 % TO T A L TR A N S F E R S $3 , 4 0 7 , 1 9 6 $ 3 , 0 3 2 , 1 8 7 $ 3 , 0 3 2 , 1 8 7 $0 0. 0 0 % 01 - 8 5 T R A N S F E R S 32OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 02 ‐11 UT I L I T Y FU N D RE V E N U E S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 34 5 0 WA T E R SA L E S ‐RE S I D E N T I A L $7 , 6 2 9 , 4 6 7 $6 , 6 7 0 , 9 3 0 $7 , 1 9 8 , 2 3 1 $5 2 7 , 3 0 1 7. 9 0 % 34 5 1 WA T E R SA L E S ‐CO M M E R C I A L $3 2 0 , 3 7 8 $2 6 7 , 0 3 9 $2 9 7 , 2 2 1 $3 0 , 1 8 2 11 . 3 0 % 34 5 2 WA T E R SA L E S ‐CH U R C H / S C H O O L $4 0 6 , 0 7 1 $3 3 8 , 2 2 0 $3 6 8 , 3 7 8 $3 0 , 1 5 8 8. 9 2 % 35 2 1 WA T E R SA L E S ‐SM U $9 9 6 , 4 0 4 $7 9 3 , 1 7 0 $9 1 9 , 0 0 8 $1 2 5 , 8 3 8 15 . 8 7 % 35 2 3 ME T E R IN S T A L L A T I O N $1 1 6 , 9 0 0 $9 5 , 6 0 0 $1 1 5 , 0 0 0 $1 9 , 4 0 0 20 . 2 9 % 35 2 4 WA T E R RE C O N N E C T I O N S ($ 2 0 ) $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 35 2 5 TE S T I N G FE E S $4 8 8 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! SU B T O T A L WA T E R $9 , 4 6 9 , 6 8 8 $8 , 1 6 4 , 9 5 9 $8 , 8 9 7 , 8 3 8 $7 3 2 , 8 7 9 8. 9 8 % 35 3 2 SE W E R CH R G ‐SM U $3 2 7 , 3 2 0 $3 7 5 , 8 4 1 $3 6 8 , 4 5 4 ($ 7 , 3 8 7 ) ‐1. 9 7 % 35 3 3 SE W E R PE R M I T S $2 0 3 , 8 1 5 $3 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 2 5 , 0 0 0 ($ 7 5 , 0 0 0 ) ‐25 . 0 0 % 35 5 0 SE W E R CH R G ‐RE S I D E N T I A L $3 , 6 4 7 , 4 4 4 $3 , 8 1 2 , 4 3 2 $3 , 9 5 8 , 7 6 1 $1 4 6 , 3 2 9 3. 8 4 % 35 5 1 SE W E R CH R G ‐CO M M E R C I A L $1 5 8 , 2 9 1 $1 5 7 , 9 2 0 $1 7 5 , 8 3 0 $1 7 , 9 1 0 11 . 3 4 % 35 5 2 SE W E R CH R G ‐CH U R C H / S C H O O L $1 1 9 , 6 6 5 $1 5 8 , 5 5 2 $1 5 4 , 4 1 4 ($ 4 , 1 3 8 ) ‐2. 6 1 % SU B T O T A L WA S T E W A T E R $4 , 4 5 6 , 5 3 5 $4 , 8 0 4 , 7 4 5 $4 , 8 8 2 , 4 5 9 $7 7 , 7 1 4 1. 6 2 % 39 0 3 ST O R M FE E ‐CO M M E R C I A L $1 8 , 1 2 8 $1 8 , 5 0 0 $1 8 , 5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 9 4 ST O R M FE E ‐RE S I D E N T I A L $4 1 1 , 3 4 3 $4 1 6 , 0 0 0 $4 1 2 , 0 0 0 ($ 4 , 0 0 0 ) ‐0. 9 6 % 39 0 6 ST O R M FE E ‐CH U R C H / S C H O O L $1 0 , 9 4 8 $1 0 , 2 0 0 $1 0 , 2 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SU B T O T A L ST O R M WA T E R $4 4 0 , 4 1 9 $4 4 4 , 7 0 0 $4 4 0 , 7 0 0 ($ 4 , 0 0 0 ) ‐0. 9 0 % 38 5 0 AU C T I O N / S A L E OF EQ U I P M E N T $0 $2 , 0 0 0 $0 ($ 2 , 0 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % 39 0 0 IN T E R E S T EA R N I N G S $2 , 0 7 8 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 39 9 9 OT H E R RE V E N U E $1 7 , 7 2 4 $3 , 6 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $1 , 4 0 0 38 . 8 9 % SU B T O T A L OT H E R $1 9 , 8 0 2 $3 0 , 6 0 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 ($ 6 0 0 ) ‐1. 9 6 % TO T A L RE V E N U E S ‐ UT I L I T I E S FU N D $1 4 , 3 8 6 , 4 4 4 $1 3 , 4 4 5 , 0 0 4 $1 4 , 2 5 0 , 9 9 7 $8 0 5 , 9 9 3 5. 9 9 % 02 - 1 1 U F R E V E N U E S 33 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 02 ‐21 UT I L I T I E S OF F I C E LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $2 4 0 , 5 2 2 $ 2 4 5 , 0 7 2 $ 2 1 6 , 3 6 6 ( $ 2 8 , 7 0 6 ) ‐11 . 7 1 % 10 0 2 OV E R T I M E EA R N I N G S $3 , 0 7 5 $7 1 6 $ 1 , 9 7 2 $ 1 , 2 5 6 17 5 . 4 2 % 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $2 , 7 6 4 $ 2 , 9 9 0 $ 2 , 0 0 3 ( $ 9 8 7 ) ‐33 . 0 1 % 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $1 8 , 2 3 8 $ 1 9 , 0 3 2 $ 1 6 , 8 5 7 ( $ 2 , 1 7 5 ) ‐11 . 4 3 % 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $3 5 , 0 8 0 $ 2 6 , 1 2 2 $ 1 8 , 5 1 8 ( $ 7 , 6 0 4 ) ‐29 . 1 1 % 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $1 , 6 8 9 $ 1 , 6 8 0 $ 1 , 3 4 1 ( $ 3 3 9 ) ‐20 . 1 8 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $3 2 0 $3 2 4 $2 4 8 ($ 7 6 ) ‐23 . 4 6 % 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 3 6 , 0 0 0 ( $ 9 , 0 0 0 ) ‐20 . 0 0 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $3 4 6 , 6 8 8 $ 3 4 0 , 9 3 6 $ 2 9 3 , 3 0 5 ( $ 4 7 , 6 3 1 ) ‐13 . 9 7 % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $1 , 3 1 6 $ 7 , 8 7 6 $ 7 , 5 7 0 ( $ 3 0 6 ) ‐3. 8 9 % 23 1 8 CO M P U T E R SU P P L I E S $0 $2 5 0 $2 5 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 2 0 GA S , OI L & GR E A S E $7 2 8 $7 9 3 $7 9 3 $0 0. 0 0 % SU P P L I E S $2 , 0 4 4 $ 8 , 9 1 9 $ 8 , 6 1 3 ( $ 3 0 6 ) ‐3. 4 3 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $4 2 , 7 2 4 $ 6 8 , 6 9 1 $ 5 2 , 5 0 0 ( $ 1 6 , 1 9 1 ) ‐23 . 5 7 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $3 9 , 6 7 3 $ 4 1 , 9 0 0 $ 4 5 , 1 0 0 $ 3 , 2 0 0 7. 6 4 % 30 6 3 PR O G R A M M I N G / M A I N T E N A N C E $2 2 , 2 2 1 $ 1 7 , 7 9 1 $ 1 8 , 1 9 5 $4 0 4 2. 2 7 % 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $8 7 1 $ 7 , 1 0 5 $ 5 , 9 0 5 ( $ 1 , 2 0 0 ) ‐16 . 8 9 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $1 0 5 , 4 8 9 $ 1 3 5 , 4 8 7 $ 1 2 1 , 7 0 0 ( $ 1 3 , 7 8 7 ) ‐10 . 1 8 % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $1 1 2 , 4 7 5 $ 7 2 , 8 1 4 $ 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 7 , 1 8 6 64 . 8 0 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $2 , 1 6 5 $ 2 , 7 8 2 $ 2 , 7 6 8 ($ 1 4 ) ‐0. 5 0 % 42 7 0 SE W E R PA Y M E N T S $2 , 0 9 3 , 2 0 3 $ 2 , 4 0 5 , 6 9 7 $ 2 , 3 6 1 , 4 4 3 ( $ 4 4 , 2 5 4 ) ‐1. 8 4 % 42 8 0 WA T E R PU R C H A S E S $4 , 6 5 5 , 7 2 0 $ 4 , 3 3 1 , 6 4 2 $ 4 , 8 8 1 , 0 6 3 $ 5 4 9 , 4 2 1 12 . 6 8 % UT I L I T I E S $6 , 8 6 3 , 5 6 3 $ 6 , 8 1 2 , 9 3 5 $ 7 , 3 6 5 , 2 7 4 $ 5 5 2 , 3 3 9 8. 1 1 % 55 0 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐AU T O LI A B I L I T Y $1 0 8 $1 0 0 $1 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $8 , 0 2 2 $ 2 , 8 8 9 $ 2 , 8 8 9 $0 0. 0 0 % IN S U R A N C E $8 , 1 3 0 $ 2 , 9 8 9 $ 2 , 9 8 9 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 0 AU T O RE P A I R S $0 $1 4 $1 4 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 5 EQ U I P M E N T MA I N T E N A N C E $1 , 2 6 5 $ 1 , 2 6 7 $ 1 , 2 6 7 $0 0. 0 0 % 62 0 0 EQ U I P RE P A I R S / N O N VE H I C L E $8 , 2 5 9 $ 1 1 , 0 5 0 $ 1 1 , 0 5 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 02 - 2 1 U T I L I T I E S O F F I C E 34 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 02 ‐21 UT I L I T I E S OF F I C E LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $9 , 5 2 4 $ 1 2 , 3 3 1 $ 1 2 , 3 3 1 $0 0. 0 0 % 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $0 $7 0 0 $7 2 5 $2 5 3. 5 7 % 71 7 0 TR A V E L EX P E N S E $1 , 3 5 6 $ 5 , 4 6 0 $ 6 , 1 2 0 $6 6 0 12 . 0 9 % 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $1 , 6 6 3 $5 0 0 $ 5 , 7 0 0 $ 5 , 2 0 0 10 4 0 . 0 0 % 72 0 2 MI C R O CO M P U T E R SO F T W A R E $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $5 4 8 $ 2 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $1 , 9 2 4 $ 2 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 9 0 0 ( $ 6 0 0 ) ‐24 . 0 0 % 72 4 5 TU I T I O N RE I M B U R S E M E N T $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 72 6 0 EQ U I P M E N T RE N T A L $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 74 7 5 IM P R O V E M E N T S ‐‐ UN D E R $5 0 0 0 $0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % OT H E R $5 , 4 9 1 $ 1 6 , 1 6 0 $ 2 1 , 4 4 5 $ 5 , 2 8 5 32 . 7 0 % 80 1 0 CO N T R I B U T I O N TO GE N . FU N D $6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 5 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 9. 0 9 % TR A N S F E R S $6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 5 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 9. 0 9 % 90 0 0 CA P I T A L EQ U I P M E N T RE P L A C E $1 , 5 4 7 $ 1 , 7 4 0 $ 1 , 5 4 7 ( $ 1 9 3 ) ‐11 . 0 9 % 91 0 0 OF F I C E EQ U I P M E N T $0 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 99 1 0 OF F I C E FU R N I T U R E $0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $1 , 5 4 7 $ 3 , 2 4 0 $ 3 , 0 4 7 ( $ 1 9 3 ) ‐5. 9 6 % TO T A L UT I L I T Y OF F I C E $7 , 9 4 2 , 4 7 6 $ 7 , 8 8 2 , 9 9 7 $ 8 , 4 2 8 , 7 0 4 $ 5 4 5 , 7 0 7 6. 9 2 % 02 - 2 1 U T I L I T I E S O F F I C E 35 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 02 ‐22 UT I L I T I E S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $1 , 4 7 8 , 2 2 3 $ 1 , 4 6 2 , 7 3 1 $ 1 , 5 6 1 , 0 7 6 $ 9 8 , 3 4 5 6. 7 2 % 10 0 2 OV E R T I M E EA R N I N G S $4 8 , 3 3 8 $ 4 5 , 5 4 7 $ 5 4 , 9 1 9 $ 9 , 3 7 2 20 . 5 8 % 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $1 6 , 6 1 5 $ 1 7 , 5 1 1 $ 1 8 , 6 7 2 $ 1 , 1 6 1 6. 6 3 % 10 0 7 CA R AL L O W A N C E $7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $1 1 2 , 0 2 8 $ 1 1 6 , 4 7 6 $ 1 2 4 , 7 7 2 $ 8 , 2 9 6 7. 1 2 % 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $2 1 1 , 1 4 6 $ 1 6 0 , 9 6 4 $ 1 3 5 , 6 2 4 ( $ 2 5 , 3 4 0 ) ‐15 . 7 4 % 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $8 , 7 8 8 $ 9 , 6 8 7 $ 1 0 , 4 1 7 $7 3 0 7. 5 4 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $1 9 , 9 6 1 $ 1 9 , 8 5 0 $ 1 6 , 6 3 4 ( $ 3 , 2 1 6 ) ‐16 . 2 0 % 11 3 2 IN S U R A N C E ‐UN E M P L O Y M E N T $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $2 3 4 , 0 0 0 $ 2 3 4 , 0 0 0 $ 2 4 3 , 0 0 0 $ 9 , 0 0 0 3. 8 5 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $2 , 1 3 6 , 2 9 9 $ 2 , 0 7 3 , 9 6 6 $ 2 , 1 7 2 , 3 1 4 $ 9 8 , 3 4 8 4. 7 4 % 20 2 9 CL O T H I N G AL L O W A N C E $1 4 , 5 8 6 $ 1 3 , 9 5 5 $ 1 3 , 6 5 5 ( $ 3 0 0 ) ‐2. 1 5 % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $1 , 0 5 4 $ 2 , 5 5 0 $ 2 , 5 5 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 1 8 CO M P U T E R SU P P L I E S $0 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 2 0 GA S , OI L & GR E A S E $6 8 , 8 2 3 $ 8 1 , 1 6 6 $ 8 1 , 1 6 6 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 5 0 SU P P L I E S & MA T E R I A L S $8 2 , 3 6 1 $ 8 2 , 5 0 0 $ 6 3 , 1 6 0 ( $ 1 9 , 3 4 0 ) ‐23 . 4 4 % 23 7 0 BA C K F I L L MA T E R I A L S $1 3 0 , 6 1 9 $ 1 4 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 9 , 0 8 0 $ 1 4 , 0 8 0 9. 7 1 % SU P P L I E S $2 9 7 , 4 4 3 $ 3 2 5 , 6 7 1 $ 3 2 0 , 1 1 1 ( $ 5 , 5 6 0 ) ‐1. 7 1 % 30 0 3 BO A R D ME E T I N G S $5 4 3 $4 5 0 $4 5 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $4 2 $2 0 0 $2 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 30 1 4 PU B L I C A T I O N S $0 $ 2 , 0 9 5 $3 0 0 ( $ 1 , 7 9 5 ) ‐85 . 6 8 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $1 1 3 , 2 0 7 $ 9 9 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 9 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 10 . 1 0 % 30 6 3 PR O G R A M M I N G / M A I N T E N A N C E $6 0 , 6 8 1 $ 6 0 , 7 2 4 $ 6 9 , 0 2 4 $ 8 , 3 0 0 13 . 6 7 % 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $1 4 5 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 31 1 5 CO N T R A C T MA I N T E N A N C E $6 , 3 6 9 $ 4 , 6 0 7 $ 4 , 7 4 1 $1 3 4 2. 9 1 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $1 8 0 , 9 8 7 $ 1 6 7 , 5 7 6 $ 1 8 4 , 2 1 5 $ 1 6 , 6 3 9 9. 9 3 % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $9 , 8 6 8 $ 1 1 , 6 8 6 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ( $ 1 , 6 8 6 ) ‐14 . 4 3 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $6 , 3 5 8 $ 4 , 0 4 7 $ 7 , 7 2 3 $ 3 , 6 7 6 90 . 8 3 % UT I L I T I E S $1 6 , 2 2 6 $ 1 5 , 7 3 3 $ 1 7 , 7 2 3 $ 1 , 9 9 0 12 . 6 5 % 55 0 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐AU T O LI A B I L I T Y $1 9 , 5 0 1 $ 1 8 , 0 0 1 $ 1 8 , 0 0 1 $0 0. 0 0 % 02 - 2 2 U T I L I T I E S 36 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 02 ‐22 UT I L I T I E S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $4 , 0 8 5 $ 1 , 4 7 1 $ 1 , 4 7 1 $0 0. 0 0 % IN S U R A N C E $2 3 , 5 8 6 $ 1 9 , 4 7 2 $ 1 9 , 4 7 2 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 0 AU T O RE P A I R S $4 5 , 2 2 9 $ 4 0 , 3 6 7 $ 4 0 , 3 6 7 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 5 EQ U I P M E N T MA I N T E N A N C E $2 2 9 , 7 8 9 $ 2 2 6 , 3 5 7 $ 2 2 6 , 3 5 7 $0 0. 0 0 % 62 0 0 EQ U I P RE P A I R S / N O N VE H I C L E $3 , 4 9 1 $ 1 , 7 5 0 $ 2 , 1 5 0 $4 0 0 22 . 8 6 % 63 5 5 UT I L I T Y MA I N MA I N T E N A N C E $3 6 2 , 3 3 0 $ 2 3 5 , 0 0 0 $ 2 5 3 , 9 2 0 $ 1 8 , 9 2 0 8. 0 5 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $6 4 0 , 8 3 9 $ 5 0 3 , 4 7 4 $ 5 2 2 , 7 9 4 $ 1 9 , 3 2 0 3. 8 4 % 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $1 , 9 5 7 $ 2 , 4 9 6 $ 2 , 5 9 6 $1 0 0 4. 0 1 % 71 7 0 TR A V E L EX P E N S E $2 , 7 5 0 $ 1 3 , 2 6 5 $ 7 , 9 4 5 ( $ 5 , 3 2 0 ) ‐40 . 1 1 % 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $7 8 $ 4 , 7 1 5 $ 4 , 0 0 0 ( $ 7 1 5 ) ‐15 . 1 6 % 72 0 2 MI C R O CO M P U T E R SO F T W A R E $0 $ 1 2 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 2 0 0 ( $ 1 1 , 3 0 0 ) ‐90 . 4 0 % 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $1 , 9 0 1 $ 2 , 9 0 0 $ 2 , 9 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $7 , 2 4 1 $ 8 , 2 1 5 $ 7 , 8 7 0 ( $ 3 4 5 ) ‐4. 2 0 % 72 6 0 EQ U I P M E N T RE N T A L $0 $ 3 , 0 0 0 $ 3 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 73 3 1 PO W E R TO O L S $1 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $ 6 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 5 0 0 30 . 0 0 % 74 7 5 IM P R O V E M E N T S ‐‐ UN D E R $5 0 0 0 $0 $ 2 , 5 0 0 $0 ( $ 2 , 5 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % 75 0 0 DE P R E C I A T I O N EX P E N S E $1 0 1 , 2 0 3 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! OT H E R $1 1 5 , 2 3 0 $ 5 4 , 5 9 1 $ 3 6 , 0 1 1 ( $ 1 8 , 5 8 0 ) ‐34 . 0 3 % 90 0 0 CA P I T A L EQ U I P M E N T RE P L A C E $8 6 , 0 3 4 $ 9 6 , 8 2 3 $ 9 2 , 8 4 0 ( $ 3 , 9 8 3 ) ‐4. 1 1 % 92 0 1 MI C R O CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T $0 $ 9 , 0 0 0 $0 ( $ 9 , 0 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % 95 2 0 WA T E R SE R V I C E EQ U I P M E N T $8 , 7 5 6 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $9 4 , 7 9 0 $ 1 0 5 , 8 2 3 $ 9 2 , 8 4 0 ( $ 1 2 , 9 8 3 ) ‐12 . 2 7 % TO T A L UT I L I T I E S $3 , 5 0 5 , 4 0 0 $ 3 , 2 6 6 , 3 0 6 $ 3 , 3 6 5 , 4 8 0 $ 9 9 , 1 7 4 3. 0 4 % 02 - 2 2 U T I L I T I E S 37 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 02 ‐23 ST O R M WA T E R LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $3 5 9 $ 1 , 5 0 0 $5 0 0 ( $ 1 , 0 0 0 ) ‐66 . 6 7 % 23 5 0 SU P P L I E S & MA T E R I A L S $4 8 0 $ 8 , 5 0 0 $ 6 , 5 0 0 ( $ 2 , 0 0 0 ) ‐23 . 5 3 % SU P P L I E S $8 3 9 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 7 , 0 0 0 ( $ 3 , 0 0 0 ) ‐30 . 0 0 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $5 6 9 $ 1 , 1 5 0 $5 7 0 ( $ 5 8 0 ) ‐50 . 4 3 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $6 0 , 8 2 7 $ 6 5 , 0 0 0 $ 2 3 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 6 6 , 0 0 0 25 5 . 3 8 % 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $1 8 6 $ 2 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $6 1 , 5 8 2 $ 6 8 , 1 5 0 $ 2 3 3 , 5 7 0 $ 1 6 5 , 4 2 0 24 2 . 7 3 % 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $6 , 7 5 8 $ 7 , 1 0 0 $ 7 , 1 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $8 6 2 $2 0 0 $2 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $2 , 9 2 4 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % OT H E R $1 0 , 5 4 4 $ 1 2 , 3 0 0 $ 1 2 , 3 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 92 0 1 MI C R O CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! TO T A L ST O R M WA T E R $7 2 , 9 6 5 $ 9 0 , 4 5 0 $ 2 5 2 , 8 7 0 $ 1 6 2 , 4 2 0 17 9 . 5 7 % 02 - 2 3 S T O R M W A T E R 38 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 02 ‐85 TR A N S F E R S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 63 6 5 FI R E HY D R A N T / L I N E IN S T A L L $1 7 5 , 8 9 6 $ 1 7 5 , 8 9 3 $ 1 7 5 , 8 9 3 $0 0. 0 0 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $1 7 5 , 8 9 6 $ 1 7 5 , 8 9 3 $ 1 7 5 , 8 9 3 $0 0. 0 0 % 85 0 0 TR A N S F E R S $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! TR A N S F E R S $0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 98 0 1 LI N E RE P L A C E M E N T PR O J E C T $2 , 0 1 9 , 5 2 8 $ 2 , 0 1 9 , 5 2 2 $ 2 , 0 1 9 , 5 2 2 $0 0. 0 0 % CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $2 , 0 1 9 , 5 2 8 $ 2 , 0 1 9 , 5 2 2 $ 2 , 0 1 9 , 5 2 2 $0 0. 0 0 % TO T A L TR A N S F E R S $2 , 1 9 5 , 4 2 4 $ 2 , 1 9 5 , 4 1 5 $ 2 , 1 9 5 , 4 1 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 02 - 8 5 T R A N S F E R S 39 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 04 ‐11 SA N I T A T I O N RE V E N U E S LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 35 4 0 RE F U S E CO L L ‐ RE S I D E N T I A L $1 , 8 6 0 , 8 9 7 $1 , 9 0 3 , 4 4 0 $1 , 7 5 0 , 3 0 0 ($ 1 5 3 , 1 4 0 ) ‐8. 0 5 % 35 4 1 RE F U S E CO L L ‐ CO M M E R C I A L $3 1 6 , 0 2 7 $3 2 9 , 1 7 5 $4 3 8 , 6 0 0 $1 0 9 , 4 2 5 33 . 2 4 % 35 4 2 RE F U S E CO L L ‐CH U R C H / S C H O O L $1 5 7 , 0 1 6 $1 9 0 , 5 7 5 $1 6 2 , 0 0 0 ($ 2 8 , 5 7 5 ) ‐14 . 9 9 % 35 0 1 RE F U S E CO L L ‐SM U $6 5 , 4 7 2 $1 6 1 , 1 2 3 $7 3 , 7 0 0 ($ 8 7 , 4 2 3 ) ‐54 . 2 6 % 35 0 4 RE C Y C L I N G RE V E N U E $4 1 7 , 1 8 9 $2 9 1 , 0 6 0 $3 8 1 , 0 6 0 $9 0 , 0 0 0 30 . 9 2 % 35 4 3 BR U S H / S P E C I A L PI C K U P CH R G $7 6 , 3 9 1 $8 2 , 5 0 0 $7 0 , 0 0 0 ($ 1 2 , 5 0 0 ) ‐15 . 1 5 % 35 0 3 YA R D WA S T E BA G S RE V E N U E $6 0 , 3 5 4 $8 4 , 7 0 0 $6 1 , 5 0 0 ($ 2 3 , 2 0 0 ) ‐27 . 3 9 % SU B T O T A L CO L L E C T I O N $2 , 9 5 3 , 3 4 6 $3 , 0 4 2 , 5 7 3 $2 , 9 3 7 , 1 6 0 ($ 1 0 5 , 4 1 3 ) ‐3. 4 6 % 39 0 0 IN T E R E S T EA R N I N G S $4 9 1 $3 , 0 0 0 $5 0 0 ($ 2 , 5 0 0 ) ‐83 . 3 3 % 39 9 9 OT H E R RE V E N U E $0 $2 4 , 8 7 8 $0 ($ 2 4 , 8 7 8 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % SU B T O T A L OT H E R $4 9 1 $2 7 , 8 7 8 $5 0 0 ($ 2 7 , 3 7 8 ) ‐98 . 2 1 % TO T A L RE V E N U E S ‐ SA N I T A T I O N FU N D $ 2 , 9 5 3 , 8 3 7 $3 , 0 7 0 , 4 5 1 $2 , 9 3 7 , 6 6 0 ($ 1 3 2 , 7 9 1 ) ‐4. 3 2 % 04 - 1 1 S F R E V E N U E 40 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 04 ‐60 SA N I T A T I O N LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 10 0 1 RE G U L A R EA R N I N G S $1 , 2 4 8 , 1 5 9 $ 1 , 2 2 7 , 4 3 8 $ 1 , 2 1 9 , 8 9 4 ( $ 7 , 5 4 4 ) ‐0. 6 1 % 10 0 2 OV E R T I M E EA R N I N G S $2 7 , 6 0 6 $ 3 8 , 7 0 6 $ 4 4 , 0 0 7 $ 5 , 3 0 1 13 . 7 0 % 10 0 5 LO N G E V I T Y PA Y $1 7 , 5 3 8 $ 1 8 , 4 8 8 $ 1 7 , 8 5 5 ( $ 6 3 3 ) ‐3. 4 2 % 10 0 7 CA R AL L O W A N C E $7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $ 7 , 2 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 11 1 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E F. I . C . A . $9 5 , 6 1 9 $ 9 8 , 8 2 5 $ 9 8 , 6 0 6 ( $ 2 1 9 ) ‐0. 2 2 % 11 2 0 EM P L O Y E R S SH A R E T. M . R . S . $1 7 8 , 1 0 3 $ 1 3 5 , 6 4 1 $ 1 0 6 , 4 6 7 ( $ 2 9 , 1 7 4 ) ‐21 . 5 1 % 11 3 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐EM P L O Y E E LI F E $8 , 0 6 2 $ 8 , 1 2 7 $ 8 , 1 3 0 $3 0. 0 4 % 11 3 1 IN S U R A N C E ‐WO R K M E N S CO M P $3 0 , 0 4 1 $ 4 0 , 5 1 0 $ 3 3 , 5 3 8 ( $ 6 , 9 7 2 ) ‐17 . 2 1 % 11 3 5 HE A L T H IN S U R A N C E $2 4 3 , 0 0 0 $ 2 4 3 , 0 0 0 $ 2 4 3 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % SA L A R I E S & BE N E F I T S $1 , 8 5 5 , 3 2 8 $ 1 , 8 1 7 , 9 3 5 $ 1 , 7 7 8 , 6 9 7 ( $ 3 9 , 2 3 8 ) ‐2. 1 6 % 20 2 9 CL O T H I N G AL L O W A N C E $1 4 , 0 4 1 $ 1 3 , 2 3 2 $ 1 7 , 9 7 8 $ 4 , 7 4 6 35 . 8 7 % 21 0 0 OF F I C E SU P P L I E S $2 , 2 1 3 $ 3 , 0 6 6 $ 3 , 0 6 6 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 1 8 CO M P U T E R SU P P L I E S $0 $5 0 0 $5 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 2 0 GA S , OI L & GR E A S E $1 2 5 , 9 4 9 $ 1 3 2 , 9 2 5 $ 1 3 2 , 9 2 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 23 5 0 SU P P L I E S & MA T E R I A L S $1 2 , 4 5 7 $ 1 8 , 1 8 2 $ 1 3 , 2 3 6 ( $ 4 , 9 4 6 ) ‐27 . 2 0 % SU P P L I E S $1 5 4 , 6 6 0 $ 1 6 7 , 9 0 5 $ 1 6 7 , 7 0 5 ( $ 2 0 0 ) ‐0. 1 2 % 30 1 0 PO S T A G E $2 , 4 0 7 $ 4 , 1 0 4 $2 5 0 ( $ 3 , 8 5 4 ) ‐93 . 9 1 % 30 6 0 PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $5 0 0 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 31 1 3 PR I N T I N G $2 , 7 6 3 $ 1 , 7 9 0 $ 1 , 7 9 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 31 1 5 CO N T R A C T MA I N T E N A N C E $5 , 1 3 7 $ 3 , 7 1 6 $ 3 , 8 2 4 $1 0 8 2. 9 1 % PR O F E S S I O N A L SE R V I C E S $1 0 , 8 0 7 $ 9 , 6 1 0 $ 5 , 8 6 4 ( $ 3 , 7 4 6 ) ‐38 . 9 8 % 41 1 0 HE A T , L I G H T , W A T E R UT I L $1 1 , 5 9 0 $ 1 1 , 3 3 6 $ 1 3 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 6 6 4 14 . 6 8 % 41 2 0 TE L E P H O N E SE R V I C E $5 , 4 5 4 $ 4 , 4 7 4 $ 5 , 2 1 9 $7 4 5 16 . 6 5 % 43 9 0 LA N D FI L L $8 6 , 9 8 8 $ 1 4 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 1 , 5 0 0 ( $ 3 8 , 5 0 0 ) ‐27 . 5 0 % 43 9 2 DI S P O S A L FE E S CO N T I N G E N C Y $0 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % UT I L I T I E S $1 0 4 , 0 3 2 $ 2 5 5 , 8 1 0 $ 2 1 9 , 7 1 9 ( $ 3 6 , 0 9 1 ) ‐14 . 1 1 % 55 0 0 IN S U R A N C E ‐AU T O LI A B I L I T Y $1 3 , 7 2 3 $ 1 2 , 6 6 8 $ 1 2 , 6 6 8 $0 0. 0 0 % 55 0 6 IN S U R A N C E ‐GE N E R A L LI A B I L I T Y $3 , 4 1 3 $ 1 , 2 2 9 $ 1 , 2 2 9 $0 0. 0 0 % IN S U R A N C E $1 7 , 1 3 6 $ 1 3 , 8 9 7 $ 1 3 , 8 9 7 $0 0. 0 0 % 04 - 6 0 S A N I T A T I O N 41 OF 42 CI T Y OF UN I V E R S I T Y PA R K FY 2 0 1 3 BU D G E T 04 ‐60 SA N I T A T I O N LI N E IT E M S AC T U A L 20 1 0 ‐20 1 1 BU D G E T 20 1 1 ‐20 1 2 PR O P O S E D 20 1 2 ‐20 1 3 CH A N G E $ C H A N G E % 61 8 6 TR A N S F E R ST A T I O N RE P A I R $1 2 , 7 5 7 $ 1 4 , 6 0 0 $ 1 1 , 4 0 0 ( $ 3 , 2 0 0 ) ‐21 . 9 2 % 61 9 0 AU T O RE P A I R S $7 2 , 2 1 3 $ 1 5 5 , 8 5 4 $ 1 5 5 , 8 5 4 $0 0. 0 0 % 61 9 5 EQ U I P M E N T MA I N T E N A N C E $2 2 3 , 9 7 0 $ 2 0 0 , 4 4 9 $ 2 0 0 , 4 4 9 $0 0. 0 0 % 62 0 0 EQ U I P RE P A I R S / N O N VE H I C L E $7 7 9 $ 1 , 6 2 5 $ 1 , 8 2 5 $2 0 0 12 . 3 1 % 63 1 8 CO N T A I N E R MA I N T E N A N C E $4 8 7 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % OU T S I D E SE R V I C E S $3 1 0 , 2 0 6 $ 3 7 3 , 5 2 8 $ 3 7 0 , 5 2 8 ( $ 3 , 0 0 0 ) ‐0. 8 0 % 71 5 0 DU E S & SU B S C R I P T I O N S $2 8 4 $ 1 , 0 7 5 $ 1 , 0 7 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 71 7 0 TR A V E L EX P E N S E $3 6 $4 0 0 $4 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 0 1 CO M P U T E R EQ U I P M E N T BE L O W $5 0 0 0 $1 , 5 8 6 $ 1 , 9 6 5 $ 1 , 9 0 0 ($ 6 5 ) ‐3. 3 1 % 72 2 1 OT H E R EX P E N S E $3 , 0 1 5 $ 6 , 4 6 5 $ 6 , 4 6 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 72 4 0 TU I T I O N & TR A I N I N G $2 , 0 0 8 $ 1 , 3 6 5 $ 1 , 3 6 5 $0 0. 0 0 % 73 5 0 YA R D WA S T E PR O G R A M $2 4 , 9 0 8 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 73 9 2 CO N T A I N E R S $3 7 , 5 0 1 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $0 0. 0 0 % 75 0 0 DE P R E C I A T I O N EX P E N S E $6 , 1 7 2 $0 $0 $0 #D I V / 0 ! 76 0 1 HA Z A R D O U S WA S T E SE R V I C E $2 4 , 1 7 3 $ 3 1 , 4 8 0 $ 3 1 , 4 8 0 $0 0. 0 0 % OT H E R $9 9 , 6 8 3 $ 7 7 , 7 5 0 $ 7 7 , 6 8 5 ($ 6 5 ) ‐0. 0 8 % 90 0 0 CA P I T A L EQ U I P M E N T RE P L A C E $1 3 4 , 7 1 5 $ 1 5 1 , 5 4 1 $ 1 3 7 , 7 0 8 ( $ 1 3 , 8 3 3 ) ‐9. 1 3 % 99 1 0 OF F I C E FU R N I T U R E $0 $5 0 0 $0 ( $ 5 0 0 ) ‐10 0 . 0 0 % CA P I T A L EX P E N D I T U R E S $1 3 4 , 7 1 5 $ 1 5 2 , 0 4 1 $ 1 3 7 , 7 0 8 ( $ 1 4 , 3 3 3 ) ‐9. 4 3 % TO T A L SA N I T A T I O N $2 , 6 8 6 , 5 6 7 $ 2 , 8 6 8 , 4 7 6 $ 2 , 7 7 1 , 8 0 3 ( $ 9 6 , 6 7 3 ) ‐3. 3 7 % 04 - 6 0 S A N I T A T I O N 42 OF 42