Loading...
2002-09-10 CC Packet r I (---- kSession BudgetWor. • ClCoupe .--) , . . 1 0 0 . .., _. , . , . „ . cy , . • ?i1. , , i • .. . , . . .. ... . • • .• , . • , ., ..„ •. , . . ..: ,. ,, . , . . i . • ..,::.....Thmor •-7-.-`.- ^. .._ . - r -- w : ' ----T- 117k-r;171T. Il ' 1 lTni-dr-- • I -.I i . ' 1 . 14 r'':, 711"4---.• : : 7. ' : .',. .-$ . — $ ti" t i pir - _ \ • ".‘'... • 4 . i ', N.,,'* ' _ -- • l f 1 r---jii.....--....11V . City of Sou thlake \\., -,r 4 Annual Budget • 1711 • . k Fy2002.03 L/ City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM September 6, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Billy Campbell, City Manager SUBJECT: Council Budget Worksession, September 10,2002 The attached workbook summarizes many of the issues we will discuss at the upcoming budget worksession, scheduled for 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 10. The purpose of the document is to provide a single point of reference from which we will work; however,you may wish to bring other materials you have accumulated. The workbook has a table of contents which corresponds to the tab numbers. Most of the items are self-explanatory, but we will have a brief review of the workbook during the introductory comments of the worksession. Note particularly the inclusion of"Future Expense Analysis," (Tab 5),which has been prepared at the request of Councilmember Tom Stephen. The worksession agenda has been structured similarly to the other sessions. Given the critical importance of determining a tax rate,the general fund will be the primary focus of the evening; however, we also need to take the time to review the utility and other funds as well. The attached agenda provides the detail. If you have comments on the plans for this session,please let us know. I would like to thank the City Council for the cooperation and dedication shown during the budget process. Your commitment to this community is evident, and we appreciate the time and effort you have put into adopting the budget. We look forward to a productive worksession on the 10t. i`-i Table of Contents Tab 1 Proposed General Fund Budget Summary Tab 2 Cuts Made Prior to Filing the Proposed Budget Tab 3 Expenditure Priorities and Associated Tax Rate Chart Tab 4 Council suggested Cuts Tab 5 Future Expense Analysis Tab 6 City Council Question Follow Up Reports Tab 7 Miscellaneous General Fund Charts and Graphs Tab 8 Proposed Utility Fund Budget Summary Tab 9 Utility Rate Proposal Tab 10 Other Fund Summaries Tab 11 Copy of Sept. 10 PowerPoint Presentation General Fund Proposed Budget Highlights Fiscal Year 2002-03 f' • The General Fund covers almost all of the operational expenditures of the _ . city. This fund is supported by revenue derived from property taxes, sales tax, franchise fees, permits, and fines. I" • The proposed budget includes a tax rate of .462, a 4 cent increase over the existing rate. • The proposed FY 2002-03 Annual Budget projects $19,066,190 in revenues, an increase of $402,921 or 2.2% from the FY 2001-02 Adopted Budget. • The proposed budget reflects an ending undesignated fund balance of $2,897,230. The estimated ending fund balance represents 15.17% of estimated expenditures, with the 15% minimum but less than the 25% policy established by City Council. • The proposed budget includes personnel cuts for efficiency and service cuts: Efficiency Cuts • Eliminates 2 bldg. inspector positions ($95,509) • Eliminates construction inspector position ($47,989) Additional Cuts (previously approved) j • Eliminates battalion commander position ($75,837) • Eliminates bldg. service secretary position ($44,629) • Eliminates 2 PT library clerk positions ($24,665) (, • Eliminates senior community services coordinator position, . ($48,328) • Eliminates senior civil engineer position ($62,143) , • Eliminates planner position ($35,556) Additional Cuts ▪ Denies previouslyapproved fundingfor 3 police officer and 3 ... pp firefighter positions ($273,567) ! - • No executive pay increases, mid-management 2%. • Defers remaining "buy-in" portion of vehicle replacement fund fora year ($147,659) • . ( GENERAL FUND 2002-03 Proposed Budget and 2001-02 Revised Budget 1 04"22 PM E 08121/02 ( i $Increase/ $Increase/ 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 (Decrease) %Increase/ 2002-03 (Decrease) %Increase/ Actual Adopted • Amended Adopted -Decrease Proposed Adopted -Decrease 1 j REVENUES ' Ad Valorem Taxes $7,390,726 58,750,812 $8,750,812 $0 0.0% . $10,184,954 $1,434,141 16.4% Sales Tax 4,575,780 5,215,000 4,931,288 (283,712) -5.4% 4,729,847 (485,153) -9.3% i- Franchise Taxes 1,438,969 1,484,063 1,688,066 204,003 13.7% 1,746,123 262,060 17.7% i Fines , 794,679 906,500 758,000 (148,500) -16.4% 818,000 (88,500) -9.8% Charges for Services • 596,381 685,812 610,783 (75,029) -10.9% 523,165 (162,647) -23.7% - .I Permits/Fees 1,531,425 1,184,200 974,290 (209,910) -17.7% 698,160 (486,040) -41.0% Miscellaneous 355,347 236,882 . 245,493 8,611 3.6% 245,942 9,060 3.8% ' ,\-- • Interest Income 344.136 200.000 200.000• ' 0 0.0%' 120.000 180,000) -40.0% Total Revenues $17,027,443 518,863,269 $18,158,732 ($504,537) -2.7% $19,068,190 $402,921 •. 2.2% I_ EXPENDITURES City Secretary $272,676 $352,000 $313,080• ($38,920) -11.1% $294,480 ($57,520) 16.3% - Human Resources 221,521 286,757 ' $297,850 11,093 3.9% 239,964 (46,793) '-16.3% City Manager 379,591 401,268 410,829 9,561 2.4% 418,263 16,995 4.2% Support Services 2.454.490 2.309.100 2.261.376 (47,724) -2.1% 2.520.185 211.085 9.1% fli General Gov.Total . $3,328,279 $3,349,125 $3,283,135 (S65,9901 -2.0% $3,472,892 $123,767 3.7% i 1 Finance 460,404 517,246 ' 507,338 , _(9,908) -1.9% ,594,999 77,753 .15.0/a I-- Municipal Court • 341,598 357,597 - 358,582 (1,015) • -0.3% ' 362;41.3 ' 4,816 1.3% ^• Teen Court 84.149 88,211 68.31'1 (19,900) -22.6% 54.812 (33,398) -37.9% Finance Total $886,151 $963,054 $932,231 (530,8231 -3.2% $1,012,224 $49,170 5.1% Fire 2,317,240 2,779,355 2,704,984 (74,371) -2.7% 2,801,775. 22,420 0.8% Police 4,021,720 4,547,556 4,294,076 (253,480) •-5.6% 4,414,917 (132,640) -2.9% r`-, . Public Safety Support 973,465 1,122,823 1,116,514 (6,308) -0.6% 1,200,283 77,440 6.9% Building Inspections 970.258 1,033.830 976,714 (57,116) -5.5% 915.767 (118,0631 -11.4% Public Safety Total $8.282,683 $9,483,564 . $9,092,289. ($391,276) -4,1% $9,332,722 Streets/Drainage 938,038 1,068,822 '. 993,581 (75,241) -7.0% ' 1,158;363 89,540 8.4% Public Works Admin 629.167 804.576 ` '804576• 0 0.0% 676.758 (127,817) -15.9% I,__ Public Works Total $1,567,205 $1,873,398 $1,798,157 075,2411 -4.0% • $1.835.121 1538,277) 2.0% Planning ' 474.588 531.203 531.203' 0 0.0% 531.504 301 0.1% r Planning Total $474,588 $531,203 $531;203 pi 0.0% $531,504 $301 0.1% Economic Development . 226.421 293.875 288i875 15,0001 -1.7% 285'588' (8.287) -2.8% Economic Dev.Total $228,421, $293.875 ,$28a,875 ($5,0001 '-1.7% • $285,588 ($8,2871 -2.8% (�i Community Services 443,701 514,375 , ' , 504975• (8,400) -1.2%: 411,333 - (103,043) -20.0% I! Parks and Recreation \ 1,410,062 1,791,563 1,742,802. (48,761) -2.7% 1,910,588 ' 119,025 6.6% f Library Services 224.487 412.932 418'210 5 278 1.3%- 312.582 (100,3501 -24.3% Community Svcs.Total $2,078,250 $2,718,871 $2,668,987 ($49,8841 -1.8%i $2,634,503 (584,367) -3.1% Total Expenditures $18,843,577 $19,213,089 . $18,594,878 ($618,213) -3.2% $19,104;554 ($108,535) -0.6% Net Revenues F183.866 ($549.8201 ($438.1431 $113.676 J538.3831 $511.456 Lease Proceeds - • $401,976 _ $0 $0 . $0 $0 Transfers In 210,000 0 0 0 • 0 (- Transfers Out 50 ($1,120,163)' ($1,120,1631 0 ($1,123,1991 Total Other Sources(Uses) 5611.976 (51.120.1631' J$1.120.1631 V. • J$1.123.1991 - Beginning Fund Balance $4,819,257 $5,615,099 $5,615,099 $4,058,793 Residual Equity Transfer gp $0 $0 Ending Fund Balance ,05 615.099 $3,945.117 $4.058.793 S2.897.230 Fund balance percentage 33.34% 20.53% 21.83% 15.17% . .;. . / 'I General Fund ��yq'r�TT Budget Balancing Initiatives- FY 2002-03 ttra tom 3 Recommendation ; Item Description ) Recurring Non-Recurring City Manager Cut Batallion Commander(existing) -$75,837.00 City Manager Cut 3 Firefighters (previously authorized) I -$136,086.00 Cut 3 Police Officers (previously I City Manager authorized) -$137,481.00 • City Manager Cut Administrative Secretary(existing) -$44,629.00 City Manager Cut Sr. Civil Engineer (existing) -$62,143.00 City Manager Cut Sr. Construction Inspector(existing) -$47,989.00 City Manager Cut Planner(existing) -$35,556.00 Cut Sr. Community Services Coordinator City Manager (existing) -$48,328.00 City Manager _ Cut 2 Building Inspectors (existing) -$95,509.00 City Manager Cut 2 PT Library Clerks -$24,665.00 City Manager Cut funding for GRACE service contract -$10,650.00 Cut funding for NE Tarrant Arts Council City Manager service contract -$5,000.00 Cut funding for Women's Shelter service City Manager contract -$1,500.00 Cut funding for CARS, Inc. service City Manager contract -$15,750.00 City Manager Reduced SPIN funding request -$3,500.00 City Manager Cut funding for executive pay increases -$22,543.00 Cut mid-management pay increases to City Manager 2% -$6,056.00 F ;.tip egGestec .[terns. i ta.Fil Budge at:46 'r°= .':',» �. Denied funding for computers, software, City Manager video editor and other technology supplies -$107,931.00 Denied wireless PDA based citation City Manager issuance system -$50,000.00 City Manager Denied funding for gradall -$178,000.00 Denied funding for utility mule for City Manager streets/drainage crew -$9,500.00 Denied funding for misc. streets and drainage equipment. City Manager I -$4,150.00 . Denied funding for a licensed irrigator for City Manager parks. -$41,312.00 Denied funding for parks maintenance City Manager worker -$28,262.00 Denied funding for various park equipment City Manager items -$37,000.00 9/6/2002 11,:25 AM General Fund Budget Balancing Initiatives- FY 2002-03 Denied funding for Tarrant Youth City Manager , Recovery Campout 1 -$2,250.00 Denied funding for library resource City Manager materials, capital, etc. -$130,785.00 City Manager Reduced funding for meeting meals -$20,000.00 SUBTOTAL -$862,796.00 -$519,616.00 • • • • • • 9/6/2002 11':25 AM GENERAL FUND • • ' Expenditure Priorities and Funding Options . Priorit Cost Cumulative Comments 1 0.422 No expenditure priorities can . be funded 0.432 1 Fund pay plan increases for 140,000 140,000 This funds the city's pay plan as designed for the front-line rank and file at 5% personnel eligible for increases. _ 0.452 2 Fund Vehicle Replacement 798,199 938,199 The vehicle replacement program is a way to"even out"the Program w/Four Year Buy In expenses of fleet maintenance. With this program,staff is able`to=systematically fund the replacement of vehicles at the optimum;time,.and.mare easily project the financial impact. This is a strategic financial planning,point that will result in long-term expense reduction. First year buy-in funding was . • covered in FY 01-02. With this plan,the remainder of the buy- • in will be spread Over a three year period,rather than two. :f,1 3'13 - :13 IGi'j.�r •e._t'J:.s ''J:.'' - .1�k}-14,:l.y:�_%a -— :1 :J f�} i 'i.4 {r tf°° °-�iilF: j o oy.a C E Gall!:'`Y AJ u J f f�; Iri`..0 F '.'fI''i " frlchl'-4°� 1----''). .t,f�- ' 'r 0} . k� 'It'd*GN"" I 21 t41D1YJIF s�r° `'' n' d alS, n' a aesi a• U� a off G plr t r�r {° CJN c�1f, ,` 41 '" 4-n=r 8© o d ;r . ` a r o,. ro GN °(( 1^f'Grzr.4(JAM1 e r �y�(✓��,�$✓�/ ice* ,Y ��/7��y�� ^ (�r(I 'IHy' j ... - .. - 'Y l°12frV.-J 0 .'Y 9 Lv' 'l 4'4t.^-�Y"J.��+�V:'S L 0 t /5 's61 •j4,ja L �•^-'" 1. - - c D n o G f n 6:G�•'11:t .�. .t:1 � y,d s ` 'o x` , 9ftlri `.1 ,1i1 )ifkDJM k��r 1%$.' 'J,P_;J ',1-- x.�. '' 11 SicJl .0o 'pit, Jai, E i .11 1,`y S r _ X w o e a a o ,0 �0y �} u({� yy��jj ` �3�y(t thay, .t})J iiLI.�,�'v..•tial J.k1Ib ) - - -M ,[.n.J..�t 0/}'"A '' 0 `.T,l Jl0.n �1111L0 "' •"' rYtr ' '(Y`(+' tl _�fs Y' • ':y.:e/'i6 5 rU}.aJ .�F y� ,y 0 •0 0 -. a 1`p t oyJj 'T'4 � 4n 1}— f 3 r- -lR�'Vspi tl[IT�v11P '1!i' '1 r -': ht' ,�. �, ry.,�y g.7 ° l 'S3, rw e y S .+� ;_,;(sAi MKJ c �• • TJ t,if'i '� I4,11 J f r) �� arf ti( cj, 'iw1T J� %�.. uJ i 73� �Jal, 1 i n 'C { °c}r�c @ 01.4i.iJQtO,t P c i:'-�� I.{ 1{`i t!•.' J'x.•f�.IJ'rJ'J},�.J. + - v!iiiiCr eXiJ f:011y s at'l� 1t? 'JIR:�. f-irtlitirt11{ J$J.� 3 F4 fy�n Gdfi}:u}tiviai6J0(` � I [13- L eili t fjUl� LF :Q , ice. . :) ,r•ri.l'l i JIIJ iI 1....}. it 1)II.k i'Jr} - %I:40.) ;i, ir^4 ll+Xja'.)do aU { ',j.,V"t'�Fl1 .uh•? '.I r6`�1*1 S ��i j�� t C o-i N 3;_ r a el 1 tl y- .Cy •fit" J S4 r blliC- 4,4 c a '. 19J-3 {�?C `�C, '° :,Z4-3 hit * r. L . ,. ': : '�.F;t. ��A �.. -J ��rySY✓ t ��+P.t,.T• _w�` + V '"'1� ,�y�� _ ¢':.1 .. - w.w...►i.r�.....�...--..--..��--- ....-...--� -.-...-.-n 1 ----... �.�....-----. !_''' '.i.-+iwi- .1:,P 5 , 4 '' 1 takes.A0Elt*qi..V. .,,[40-1.G. tN TT-� - a GENERAL FUND Expenditure Priorities and Funding Options Tax Rate Priority Cost _ Comments , L�rC��'t ]t�t1 iC d 7,.39 , Gur nil eieff,f,can:on , com•4. . a: c�rialsu. flier a ,-, � h m• ,t?':.; .i,{ ^•ga • -,'� _ 4�E. .•'�^ 'C� a kh4 Td.w L*, 31ay^ _ r"�T • • aY Nae�y, ,H �1�i',''� �fr ��, ;s � rA ;Y� '� ,,,� -��tt'raCY�'Clr7C{?C?rrf�' a�r" jfhis°� Gfb•allo �tac�ee' ,; �Q-.:.a•oon- �-. •,�-f'`�.�i d^r v�i�y"7i "rrt.y 'M `l . ��.�.� '� x.Zn. dc',� • e.:R� � ip �..y.y. sr.. �,3t ! � s'RrE. .:.,r'°� ..7 - .. ' s, : yr ° },Q�'�ki•:.l: F"5'.=', „n ± _ `,. ; +..,�,,, .1:4 r�suhlr` a�moro&st ,b <sub rad th t s a Irr' .e , d a ' '.-'?t'..} 4��,;_ �' a11,f' .,,, c'' Y rw ,., t, a + j, 9 4"J 1t"'r r v a Nl •t h�Y K ,� ➢d i`r�'�,•'"�`�'�s 6�;� «z��,..r y. �,h � ''ie Y �n+Yr,� . fir':,: '�: E r � '" t,i1 44x° • ', . , , � +a r et-- ' ; :aFrre;cerns ro ion ', Kr ,, r ,a:. 'x�r �• ti+Y^*q e '" �a..�Cr ' � 1 `1t-gr^'�•-;x:+t, &1wpr2,�.r•�..,..Y %" g�t '�" z} • .�. `" 1 5 t.,' +? ,t "c?: t F v .,"! µ'*°' k:43 °`', a+- Y • �tW r..iv.. q u '3' 1 �. ' r a 5, r. k,, ,, ,°.t , ain,,. t+'4 - Y ^, n :, ., b.l;nc r ^0i 1 5 :3a9 5 in nth ale 1-" 'ono 4,1.4 :v ,i ''' K(trle •e �. f,i�trc n+ ?aft , , ,, .- .l .Y) q id n 1p. p a is r lac ftr'1, T.. a . w: " f Y . fL. = �3 '� 6. J,v4-,-ft .t--, !uce ina rterranc s as i aido 0,6,4, :Sean ces,.rs F� : w w~xw r r,y CY• i .: 7 •� .rx_."r 'Y• -_ .4..-, 6 •:,'. ., _s+: � .,..,a, •tr r _i ' J a n,. - ,t., a _,. 0. u •"-;3 Y :-f4 ® iT10 o i,. r1 f71'i.t� IG•E.ttT rt1U'CiS pl@8a0'ad GG}{ . �, rti t +F..;, �.,.., . .. ° _� a w�r •'�., .� ;t���1�1 n eery S;1: Fla �-r, R;+ �s,iT r'rJr�,S,ip-'Fb.N' w. r.�.:t .: �- _.✓-T'. «� !* _ N � S� `y.'M- �` y,:•..Y �tr ..J �' �.a�"3,'h'., n.`:x; � _ :s 4, d: aR u. ,-'' M: z : k .. :, J ✓ 4 , f�:`�:.-� .�: ti i: -.M 1+ %rl�t"" is ,6 •i h'R 't -,,:} ..� 1# £� '�+v � �' �, •sib' P b �y, _ - r _ ..'' �' ' ,•sib W:4� i rcg}n4. .":1.:r ;4.. 4,0, �»7 -.x";`hu w#,-ly 'A, X +.": .:., , , .,, w ._• � I a .. =._:§. 3 0 a -„ —--k fhis.e u-4 _men--l$ ir' hase06Cii.;a ��c .r�s �.* ti,. 2, 0 _ ` _ u g ape a_ a , c• ssisi:,par-7 : � �� ¢, r � : .; �Gia'l`�f (-'n�c� , ; :� �� ;z �. �,.�� n,e a n e�w offers beii` a` ee ,c e nf;a sty'�ey�"wt< �i�h�e. `'AN.,,,���� "� ` • � '" r � � pa �` , P ►��+ft�@Pt��O g�a F1 �• f�. @ 1a ke• en ,@ .'�, •S i•., -47 2,.. --ern➢•,.xi- '-; ?- ^'= c 1, :fs ,, ,.?y, "'t r. ;t ce r. - - °.t,. �ar, 4 , •. ,;. ,- =n, m ,a Ile a• r p a 4 te tilt f rner. ,i. tat. acce (e - PA,- Is. yy,, t b�,n . .,_...,,-, - _.._—...•.�r.� �"a - tea..,L � •: .�.: '4 .e,�$�.."�ea, G r `.:4�i'.'t- i� i1f+ F 7�.uWt1 al.yi :.."� 0.472 10 Fund:2:part-time library clerk ;24 665 1';569;064 Pert-time library clerks are.flexible and can be used to. positions (existing) provide coverage in any area in the library, enhancing the level of service provided to library patrons° 11 Fund Community Services 48,328 1,617,392 This position serves as a liaison to community groups such Coordinator (existing) as KSE, SYAC, Sister Cities, etc. 12 Fund Civil Engineer position 62,143 1,679,535 This position provides professional engineering oversight (existing) and day-to-day coordination of.capital improvement:projects. 13 Fund Planner position 35,556 1,715,091 The Planning Department reduced its staff by 2.5 positions in (existing) ,FY 00-01 due to decreasing activity. This;position supports case review, as well as ordinance work and other general administrative activities. 14 Fund purchase of mule for. 7000- 1,722,091. Funding this equipment purchase will assist park parks maintenance maintenance workers be more efficient'as they work in the park. Part of their ongoing struggle to keep the parks maintained at an,acceptable level is inadequate equipment. t- J GENERAL FUND • Expenditure Priorities and Funding Options TaxRate ._,Priority Item Cost Cumulative Comments 15 Fund purchaseHof gradall for 178,r0.0;0 1 900.;O91 Fundingthis,equipment will all Public Works field workers to Pubic Works= _ - -maintain drainage channels not accessible by tractors We are currently,unable to maintain:these.areas,.but we need to. :There'have,:been complaints,`but currently the only-,option is'.. `..to address what we can by'hand: 0.482 16 Fund library capital 98,285 1,998,376 This funds the express check out station,which will improve expenditures check out efficiency,as well as resource materials (books, periodicals, CDs, etc.) Funding these items will allow for the purchase of best sellers and other new resource materials, as well as replacements for lost or damaged books. 17 Fund 24 MS Office 97 7,680 2,006,056 18 Fund 32 power supplies 4,800 • 2,010,856 19 Fund tough book for fire 6,300 2,017,156 This technology will provide for the automatic recording of services status times in emergency situations. We currently have an accreditation weakness because times are now recorded manually. 20 Fund 1 Targa video editor 24,451 2,041,607 Purchase of this equipment will allow the city to edit its own tapes, produce reproductions, etc. 21 Fund 2 DPS laptops(new) 4,000 2,045,607 22 Fund 9 DPS desktop 13,500 2,059,107 computers (new) General Fund Budget Balancing Initiatives- FY 2002-03 Potential.Cuts Identified by Councilmembers- Recommendation Item Description Recurring Non-Recurring Fund pay plan at lat year's CPI rate (2.8%), rather than the 5% level (rounded • Stephen to 3%) -$56,000.00 Potter/Stephen/Stand Reduce amount allocated for taping erfer Council/P&Z meetings -$10,000.00 Stephen Ambulance Lease (reduction) -$102,615.00 Morris Remove Sister Cities trip -$2,300.00 • Potter Eliminate provision of.meals for meetings -$5,000.00 Remove FY 01-02 planned reimbursement to Cooper Stebbins and roll forward the amount in the fund Potter balance -$300,000.00 Potter Reduce legal services budget by$100,000 -$100,000.00 Morris Increase sports association fee to$10 $10,000.00 Potter Use TIF bond fund balance $149,743.00 SUBTOTAL -$5,000.00 -$411,172.00 9/6/2002 6:42 PM f Future Financial Analysis . (General Fund) Assuming Tax rate of.462 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 Total Revenues(1) 18,158,732 19,066,190 19,575,438 20,084,685 Total Expenditures/Transfers(2) (19,715,039) (20,227,753) (20,227,753) (20,227,753) Surplus(Deficit) (1,556,307) (1,161,563) (652,315) (143,068) • Add(Less): DPS West-personnel (275,016) (275,016) DPS North personnel (1,234,732) Sales Tax-Estimated Loss (4) (625,000) (781,250) TIF Bond Amortization-no new development (3) _ - (380,836) (527,600) Subtotal - - (1,280,852) (2,818,598) Net Projected Surplus(Deficit) (1,556,307) (1,161,563) (1,933,167) (2,961,665) Projected Beginning Fund Balance 5,615,099 4,058,792 2,897,229 964,062 Projected Ending Fund Balance 4,058,792 2,897,229 - _ 964,062 (1,997,604) Fund Balance Percentage z1.83% IS.17°/Q 4,97_% -- -9.69% Tax Rate Required to maintain 15% fund balance 0.422 0.462 0.512 0.577 Assumptions (1)5% increase in property values 2003/04 and 2004/05 at a tax rate of.462(.13242 allocated to Debt Service) (2)All expenditures flat after fiscal year 2002-03 (3)Amount represents deficit of TIF(property tax-only)revenue to cover Town Hall Debt assuming 5% increase in current value and no additional development. (4)Crime Control and SPDC are also projected to have sales tax decrease in 2003/2004 and 2004/20005 of$312,500 and$390,625, respectively. I - It 11 i J (Millions) Future Financial Analysis $24 NarttrDPS Tax Tax Rate • 1Nal-Mart Facility Opens $22 Rate Raised Departs @ 42.2 to 46.2 $22.3 $20 I ---____ I$20.9 $18 _ 1 $20.2 $19.9. $19.3' ' $19.1 i $16 — $18.2 $14 $12 $10 I $8 . . Fund Fund Balance Balance , $6 I @ 15% @150/0 $4 $2 21.83% 15.17% $2.9 $3.1 • I 4.97% $0 I -9.69°/0 * Expenditures are flat with exception of staffing DPS facilities -$2 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 11 Total Revenues •Total Expenditures MI Ending Fund Balance City of Southlake Debt Overview Debt Available Debt %Debt Fund Outstanding Debt Capacity Capacity General Fund $ 43,259,515 $ 7,800,000 $ 51,059,515 . 84.72% —I Developer Reimbursement(estimated) $ 4,500,000 $ - $ 4,500,000 100.00% Utility Fund $ 52,276,882 $ 6,000,000 $ 58,276,882 89.70% TIF _ $ 18,736,158 $ - $ 18,736,158 100.00% SPDC $ 22,415,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 24,215,000 92.57% —� • _ $ 141,187,555 $ 15,600,000 $ 156,787,555 90.05% Debt per Household(1) $ 20,309 $ 2,244 $ 22,553 90,0 % (1) Number of households equals population divided by people per household (U.S. Census) • • !_ City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM September 6, 2002 • TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Sharen Elam, Director of Finance,Ext. 1713 it SUBJECT: August 28,2002 Budget Work Session Follow Up There were several questions raised by City Council during the second budget work session. Below I have outlined answers to each question raised during the work session. If additional information is required, staff will be happy to assist with further,discussion/explanation. 1. Councilmember Rex Potter wanted a list of CIP projects. • The CIP adopted with your 2001-02 budget contained a list of projects that is attached to this memo. No bonds were sold during 2001-02,therefore all of the projects on this list remain unfunded. Note that the CIP technical committee is reviewing and re-ranking the projects on the list and a recommendation will be provided in the near future. 2. Councilmember Keith Shankland wanted an analysis of the computer replacement program proposed in the budget. li • The computers identified for replacement made the list initially because we were aware that they were taking an extraordinary amount of time to maintain. We randomly pulled the maintenance reports for one year on nine of the PCs. Service requests on each machine were logged in from a high of twenty-eight to a low of three. We calculated the lost time for both user and technician based on those numbers, but did not factor in any time the user may have lost just trying to work out the issue on their own. We estimate that these old machines cost the City of Southlake about $10,000 in unnecessary lost time the previous year. 3. Councilmember Keith Shankland asked for an analysis of the cost of pursuing a paperless packet process with the Planning and Zoning Commission via the provision of laptops. • The current process for preparing a"hard copy"packet for P&Z Commissioners every couple of weeks, once the text is completed and the exhibits have been scanned into the staff memos,requires: i. approximately 2-3 staff hours per packet($924 annually), ii. approximately 5 reams of paper(est. $256 annually), iii. approximately$.01 per copy (copy machine costs) (est. $550 annually) Billy Campbell, City Manager September 6, 2002 • Page 2 These estimates are based on 3-4 cases per packet. Also,packets are delivered to the Commissioners by hand. With a paperless system, CDs can be burned in approximately two minutes. CDs . cost the city approximately 200 each(est. $158.40 annually), and the laptops would be provided by the city. Laptops are estimated to cost-$2,200 per unit, and seven units would be required for a paperless packet system for P&Z. Amortized over a four year period, the estimated annual cost of providing the laptops is $3,850. Depending on internet access, it is possible that the packets could be e-mailed to each Commissioner. • 4. Councilmember Keith Shankland asked for a quick review of the merits of the vehicle replacement program. What does it do? i Provides an automatic funding source for the replacement of city vehicles • Minimizes maintenance costs for the entire city fleet • Generates revenue dedicated to the timely replacement of vehicles • Maximizes return on vehicles cycling out of system The Vehicle Replacement Program places the question of replacing vehicles where it should be - "What level of service should the City provide?" The Vehicle Replacement Program provides the least expensive way of replacing i f vehicles for vehicle-dependent services. In the absence of such a program, the following conditions exist: • Competition for scarce dollars between departments (decisions become political); • No common philosophy for replacement of vehicles (i.e. vehicle purchases linked to level of service authorized by Council); • Vehicles cycling out of system will become virtually worthless due to repeated deferral of new vehicle purchases (or under purchasing) causing vehicles to stay in the fleet well past their useful life; , • Vehicle maintenance costs increase. This program "evens out" the cost of replacing vehicles in much the same manner as electric bill cost averaging. Vehicle costs vary depending on needs and usage, much like electric bills vary each month. By averaging out the costs over a period of time, costs are normalized, providing a better financial planning tool and providing a means for funding vehicles in years when replacement demand is high. In addition, -- replacement costs are reduced because the fund will accumulate interest and the proceeds from the sale of vehicles going off-line. I 1 Billy Campbell, City Manager r-- September 6, 2002 Page 3 �` fl /-1 5. Councilmember Rex Potter asked for an analysis of the remaining balance of TIF bonds, and Councilmember Carolyn Morris questioned the potential use of these funds for library capital expenses. • • The TIF bond program currently has a remaining balance of$149,743, once all expenses and encumbrances have been recorded, including the funds needed to " finalize the needed modifications to the audio visual system for Town Hall. These funds are available for use, only to the extent that they fund capital projects with a useful life of at least 20 years. • 6. Councilmember Rex Potter asked about the possibility of renegotiating leases with l telecommunications companies who use water towers for antenna placement. • -During our annual review of the wireless communication antenna leases, staff determined some of the existing contracts can be terminated/renegotiated with-a notice of between 6 months — 1 year. The attorneys are drafting negotiated • ! language for two existing leases and one new lease with Sprint and expect to have these leases on the Oct 1, 2002 City Council agenda for your approval. Negotiations with Verizon and Southwestern Bell are still in progress. • The proposed budget does not include anticipated revenue from renegotiations. 1�} Until we have a contract approved, we are not comfortable embedding costs into any increases we might realize with this revenue stream. . 7. Councilmember Tom Stephen asked what water and sewer rates would be needed to cover utility-related expenses. • . The rate schedule included under Tab 9 of this workbook details proposed water and sewer rates for FY 2002-03. With these rates in place,budgeted utility fund expenses will be covered. 8. Mayor Rick Stacy asked for information about water and sewer rates of other cities. • A rate survey of surrounding cities is included in the workbook under Tab 9. 9. Councilmember Greg Standerfer asked for information regarding the addition of traffic officers,firefighters and police officers. It is important to note that there are no expectations applied towards an amount of citations or assessed revenue; rather,expectations surround expected work performance based on the activity of current officers. The costs of three traffic officers, three firefighters (hired in January 2003), and three patrol officers (hired at mid-year) and all associated equipment can be covered by the II , Billy Campbell, City Manager September 6, 2002 Page 4 expected activity of one and one-half traffic officer this fiscal year. The addition of three traffic officers only ensures that those citations which are dismissed for compliance of law (i.e. expired drivers license, expired inspection, etc) will not affect the amount of money assessed and applied towards covering these costs. 1 The addition of the traffic officers substantially reduces the cost of these critically needed personnel while addressing critical traffic safety needs in the community. While r i understanding any revenue generated is a collateral benefit to the city and state, we are not confident, at this time, that the expected average of three traffic officers is sufficient to sustain the full year costs of the three traffic officers, three patrol officers, and three firefighters for full year salary and benefits for subsequent years. We are more confident that the traffic officers can sustain the full year costs of three firefighters, which currently meet the greatest personnel need in DPS. 1 CIP Technical Committee-Project Rankings by Funding Category for THE PROJECTS BELOW HAVE NOT BEEN FUNDED FY2001-02 Funding Project Name (PD=Planning/Design,C=Construction, Source R=ROW) *Additional Funding Source(s) FY 2001 FUNDING REQUEST Average ., f50...µys„r^drg 7,h.n.- = y;' °a.t"3-%2 + ,4:. . 1r 4'!j I ySr.,j,.'1,11'r +,.[' r'6.K;.'.q .-,.�tf T t`• : + ,"�J fz., . • ,,12,,,�.Ntl£'a" ., . {•yf..,e,r* ,• 7'1 -- tt! et°- rs v t,, -,••.-'f` 'kr• r a s' r. ,'Fl.,. g e L a �r- 5 �ti i4 F.. .t•' p ,.. .&..i' -,.r +'" 1`r'4i- + ", r �ry• 'iv!1 x.,'�` p'._ 3a ks . ,r h .$". '-11 ..'i7 I�ai"•i. t -1'- , ems." . -. n-- �'' t' 1. yy A.�, ..:` 1 Y",`ale....x -- '�" 1 , 4�1 1 ..,, ��'�.- .; _T- ycrK J 4 (µ� Z; k t - ! f � }' � 1c '�. �.r' 4��. .. - ..� �'U�.,.• .....i j.' ��. .. ��-�...-�:li ECw•c'E,.: A . . �Yi. �i:..v -�.L.P,.�+.R- � � .4 _ 45 1"4 ; Pro.. i'• • -r - '•n . . 0- -I' .n- �C) $1 500,000 75 ° �fii iPavementMana.ementS stem'Irnelement'(PD $150,000 74 la�t(Mt # . 'im.a I too ed n.'to ontinenta •r - $1,097'000 66 'icl`tl f. D Storm Water Phase II E $247,000 66 ��rt4d�. ij Pro.osition Two(Urban Desi.n) C) $600;000 63 -gym 1D • ;?Traffic Si.nal.at Nolen/FM.1709(C) $165;000 61 h ir,urix.lj .► . 'in. 'eha. - ' 114to sobl ones,.12'Tr:. . 's IIMIIIIIIIIIIII $496;000 60 :0.1 a. rat f- j 1S.Pearson/Union Church Rehab-(C) $1,633,000 58 -70TA.'i=: 11: ;j Pro.osition Three(Hike-and Bike Trails) C) $500,000 56 074 iLl'et.j Miscellaneous Draina.e-RavenauxBurnet(PDC) $200000 54 > r ?r3)Public Works Facili .Im.rovements(PDC) $300,000 53 •,( ct44rat�1 I Misc.Pavement Rehabilitation Includin• Mission Hills)(PDC $517,000 47 �.1 ticre3cra i'31h`tKr. Saddle,Ridge,Sunshine,Sweet;Sam Bass,Sada,Ridge,;ShumakerDesign(PD) $240,000 NA 2 "tri. it1 ,airz Silverwood Circle Reconstruction(PDC) $245,000 44 c Sidewalk along various roadwa s(PDC) • $110000 39. CUTOFF LINE-PROJECTS BELOW LINE WILL BE DEFERRED TO FY02/03 l $8,000,000I __ 1 i01a20.i,' Y�!Saddle Ride Road/Sam Bass Ride/Soda.Rd. (PDC) $743,000 47 1•i,�, f ld,'i I Sunshine Rehabilitation-Hi.hland to:Dove(PDC') $627,000 45 C tt ptat'3t1 i Shumaker Reconstruction PDC) $337,000 43 ,4 4E-ioli 1 T.W.Kin. Rehab-Bob Jones to Lake.Gvine(PDC) $987,000 41 t'g • + £"1' ij Sweet Street Rehabilitation(PDC $297000 38 .11,Si d'1;�t1n•i Carlisle Recon-Carroll.Avenue to Rainbow St. PDC) $600,000 32 TOTAL ;: __ .-,.,,;.. .,_t,r x . $10 996 000 IIIIII c' .. .. - ' { ` hY_a! t � : ' yZ e: . T '. ,1:: ..44 aay '� a, '�~ 1 {r .:r � 2 - :x - `� v ` -# �.� �YO R ' L .` f. D �$ax r_ �iAti,1�litiir3 d0.M.�I o 4 N 'tiai.a4 .f D'M�.•_ t? .zF T.A{ t t4( . �r . % A N-IK.1F'",t, n•:,.,4Tit� s.i a_ 4d`ecJ^",!,aW0.,+ v c'1f;,ir�j N.Carroll Reconstruction(Federal•to 114 '12"W.L. PDR $335,000 82 inki 'T,g I,ite ace •ansion- mega 6/114 ('a' $994,000 73 "t r°11r�•seF114.1 Dove Road-SH el 114-White:Cha. PDC $465,000 70 ito�Fy r f=1l S.Kimball-Crooked Ln.to Continental PDCR $208,000 68 TOTAL i a, jai j1 ?k) rya:* $2,002'000 Ee e:t F lilt(,rfj.ZJil 'i 1'il!}' ' l+Xsr Ir'1r 9f i>a iciiirdr t? 'r,, t -` °i _x+,.° sC I. , '�d g -4QQ;» ,. _ r s ,�i sPrvIs i Dev. Reimbursements for Oversizin. Utilities* $50,000 67 �TC'DS irl•17?* ,,1 N2 Sewer Interce.tor $580,500 66 r��, Itc•1 fiy.1 S.Kimball S-7 Line(PDC - $387,000 63 44.3"t&s`,e.,112"Line-Shad -Oaks,Hi.hland/Dove' PD.R $55 500 51 CIP Technical Committee's Project Ranking 1 • CIP Technical Comm -Project Rankings by Funding Category for THE PROJECTS BELOW HAVE NOT BEEN FUNDED FY2001-02 • Funding Project Name (PD=Planning/Design,C=Construction, Source R=ROW) *Additional Funding Source(s) FY 2001 FUNDING REQUEST Average TOTAL r T ..` �'a"• fik a limn ,1'1 4 W# ,�H Q7J�O4.E� � P.;$ ectP ° 02::SPf C uctS, vtia�C° �9 1 cvet x _ r j'10:1 g q Bob Jones Park Development(C) • $200,000 66 Reereatlon'.Center°(C) $1,1:00 000 .. . :P61... *�-. Royal,and Annie Srrrlth Park(PD) $5Q;000 55 Gins Softball Complex(G • $700;000 55 *i Nature Ceriter Improvements(C} $10 000 46 , I Sand'Volleyball Court(C) $30 000 44 x Natatorium>`(C) 5 $500,000 ti1.4 3 Matching Funds.(Grant)(PDJC) $1002000 NA 3 , Joint Use(PD/C) $20 000 NA•3 " 4 Special'Projects(PD/C) $50,000 NA 3 TOTAL h g '`' `� s n t $2 760 000 , � ti�.r -"`'�n ;..,-. 7 -�„ -•':.. ,�i:t � �y .,,�q,.� �y z�'.� ,�' y'� '+'f w.,� ,� r��'F�`w .°a'��-_ �t�p�, ..� 4 r,:y�q�a ': �,,��.± .. c n :h�°�q 0����,�'w-`a�1 � ,�"J.nl '"�''>.`.w �1 ��-�n �ti ��''�� �* ...�3�''�5i.'1F4�:"mi't�r"� r' 0 n Q `�ea �� ��.d'"� '� ��'�-�•�E. .. 014 ..Rehab=SH 114•to Bob Jones 12'°W L* PDC) $334000 `60 �yz ti r ly Johnson Road Rehabilitation Sewer Onl )(C $230 000 57 .1;:; ,'1u Lorna Vtsfa:Royal-Oaks Uin.Cree}cOarden Heatherwood, lershaw;(C) �+ r Case Court Sewer;(PD) $7 000 50 „ r: Quail Greek/.Woodland.Heights{P:D} 194 000 45 TOTAL e 4. 1 � �_ `h� � ;�� 1:�a � ;� t�����f ; 2,471:;000 :�:.,� - l+'�- }-gv�e'� t'."".:� ,, :fit.'. '�'< x� "�p,..,��� :u�t„6,e��`•g�r� �-, ;�u .'� g ,�'�. ,�'., ,a• 7u^ s:z. nv / -a �,;ti.'� -N��'�� ¢.;•,,M'F� n t"',5*. ',�t ;:,�� � �"5�1.'���' a n.• '+.,. .t° L :�� 4 .�}"t- a • ,�,. f0 eezi . t is V� C j a •I iee 7 ..r."a yY r c c hw,� ��,� C rG �§n� ! $.-,�+ 4i: �� I as r j y�• Y fi p ,yy • � � :.. I� � 2 �. lJk P).�L �sV/,O i�J� } +� r'1 Redundant-Water:Supply(PD). . . ,418500 :$3.. eft ¢ Dev•Reimbursements for:Overstzing=Utilities'. '$50;000 : 67, 20.'.`.Line SH 114 Town`Sauare/N .W Ch .el R $100 000 62 T,W Kin.:;Rehab.-:SH 114 to Bob Jones 12 W L~(PDC) $50000 .: 60 S.Pearson;/Unton:Ghurch`Rehab(C} $805000 -58 i2"Line:R'andol Mill,FM,1709/flo"rence,(PD) ,. $54z000 :56 : 12"Llne='`Shady Oaks,HighlandlDove* (PDR) < ` $55 500 51 .r'C$2,533;000 I Projected recommended not to begin until the completion of Hidden Creek Estates 2 Multiple projects combined into one(1)project after Technical Committee's ranking 3 Projects added to CIP after Technical Committee's ranking to reflect SPDC allocated funding CIP Technical Committee's Project Ranking 2 City of Southlake,Texas MEMORANDUM . TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager , • FROM: Sharen Elam, Director of Finance Ext. 1713 j� SUBJECT: August 22, 2002 Budget Work Session Follow-up U There were several questions raised by City Council during the first budget work session. Below I have outlined answers to each question raised during the work session and additional questions raised subsequent to August 22. If additional information is required, I will be happy to assist with further discussion/explanation. 1. Council Member Tom Stephen wanted to know the future cost associated with fully staffing the DPS West Facility and the opening of the'DPS North and East Facility. • . West Facility would require hiring 6 additional firefighters. The first year of funding would be $275,016 of personnel cost and would increase each additional year due to funding the pay plan at 5% step increases each year and any increase in annual health/dental/life premiums. Staff suggests fully staffing this facility in fiscal year 2003-04. . • North Facility would require hiring 25 additional DPS employees (21 firefighters, and 4 Public Safety Officers(PSO) build out staffing. The first year of finding would be$1,234,732 of personnel cost and would increase each additional year due to funding the pay plan at 5% step increases each year and any increase in annual j 1 health/dental/life premiums. The Crime Control Capital Projects budget includes funding for the construction of the North Facility with an anticipated opening date in fiscal year 2004-05 (last quarter). A fire engine and a ladder truck would be required for the North Facility with a cost of$400,000 and $800,000, respectively. We will consider all financing options for the purchase of this equipment. • East Facility would not require any additional personnel. We would move personnel in the current East location (667 N. Carroll) to the new facility once construction was completed. Crime Control Capital Projects budget includes funding for the construction of the East with an anticipated opening date in fiscal year 2007-08 (last quarter). . . 2. Council Member Ralph Evans suggested using winter month's consumption for sewer billing. • As discussed during the budget work session, staff is currently working with the consultant on the update of the water/wastewater rate study. Based on preliminary drafts received on Tuesday from the consultant on winter-months averaging, we could cover sewer cost (debt service, operations and maintenance) if we structure r-, "� the sewer rate the same as the existing water rate ($26.16 base rate and $3.00 per 1,000 gal) with a maximum volume charge of 10,000 gal. Staff will continue to Billy Campbell, City Manager September 5, 2002 - Page2 update the City Council on the progress of the rate study. We are anticipating bring the final document to Council within the next 30 to 45 days. 3. Council Member Tom Stephen suggested funding-the pay plan at last year's CPI (2.8%) rate as opposed to the 5% step increase included in the proposed budget. • The difference would result in a reduction of$61,600 in the proposed budget. 4. Council Member Tom Stephen asked the question what is the dollar value of the assets with an average life of 20 years that 30 year bonds were issued to purchase the assets. , • After reviewing the property tax bonds outstanding, we issued $18 million 30 year bonds for 20 year life assets. 5. Council Member Greg Standerfer wanted to know what the additional .01 allocated to debt would yield. • If Council chose to allocate the additional .01 to the debt service fund, the city would have an additional debt borrowing capacity of$3.8 million (20 year bonds) to assist with funding the capital improvement program. Based on the current property tax allocation for debt service of.12242, the city could fund $7.8 million (20 year bonds) of the capital improvement program. If you will recall fiscal year 1999-2000 the debt portion of the property tax rate was .13242. To balance the general fund budget at the tax rate of.422, it was necessary to transfer.01 from the debt tax rate to the general fund. 6. Council Member Carolyn Morris suggested that we continue the $1,000 membership fee to Southlake Sister Cities but discontinue our practice of sponsoring a Southlake repersentive to visit our Sister Cities. • This would reduce the proposed budget by$2,300. 7. Council Member Tom Stephen suggested that staff examine the opportunity of a lease purchase for the ambulance. • • We received an estimate on a five-year lease that would reduce the proposed budget by $102,615. The annual lease payment would be $32,385 over the next five years. 8. Council Member Rex Potter suggested eliminating food for meetings and reducing the budget to only cover soft drinks and snacks (cookies, etc.). • The proposed budget reduced this item by $20,000 (57%) from the Adopted Budget for 2001-02. This could be a potential reduction of$5,000 to $8,000 from the proposed budget. 9. Council Member Rex Potter suggested removing the $300,000 for reimbursement to Cooper & Stebbins from the FY 2001-02 budget and use the savings to assist with the proposed Billy Campbell, City Manager September 5,2002 n Page 3 budget shortage of funding. The proposed budget includes $325,000 for Town Square's developer reimbursement. Council Member would prefer to'start the reimbursement next fiscal year as opposed to FY.2001-02. • This would increase FY 2001-02 roll forward fund balance by$300,000, therefore, _ increasing funding (fund balance) to assist with FY 2002-03 proposed budget - ; funding requirements. 10. Council Member Rex Potter suggested reducing the legal service budget by $100,000 and requiring staff to monitor/control legal expenses within budget. • Staff has taken the following steps in order to increase efficiencies in the process of requesting general legal services: Block Appointments-CMO establishing "block" times with City Attorney's Office to increase efficiency of billable attorney time; Communication Channels-working with the City Attorney and the law firm to identify and establish responsibility on particular issues, increasing efficiency regarding billable time; Departmental Accountability-insuring managerial accountability by breaking - down general legal services on a departmental basis, reviewing budget status at periodic intervals, and discussing procedural improvements; Managing Requests for Legal Services-development of request system to allow for planning of efficient Block Meetings with Attorneys, based upon priority, and allowing for managerial review and approval of requests for legal i services; Operational Review/Procedures-CMO tracking billable hours in order to perform operational reviews in order to identify and implement efficiency procedures; Staff Authorization-each Department Director has identified in memorandum ! staff authorized to request legal services, streamlining access and insuring management review and approval. Billy Campbell, City Manager September 5, 2002 Page 4 - r 11. Council Members Greg Standerfer and Tom Stephen wanted to know if the hiring of three traffic officers paid for themselves. • With regards to this particular budget, it is important to understand the deployment of police officers and that the vacant positions consist of patrol officers, not traffic officers. Patrol officers are primarily responsible for patrolling of districts, neighborhoods, businesses, etc. A patrol officer responds to all calls for service and provides safety to the community. A traffic officer is primarily responsible for the enforcement of vehicle laws, maintaining a presence in high vehicle areas, and investigating traffic accidents. Given the opportunity to add police officers, the greatest need remains within patrol. As calls for service continue to increase, patrol officers are pulled from their patrol function and committed to the call. Occasionally, we rely on officers from the traffic section to fill in on patrol calls for service, taking them away from their primary function. When they answer these calls, they handle the call and return to their traffic duties without being responsible for future activity in that neighborhood. Meeting with complainants, solving neighborhood problems, taking theft reports, responding to armed robberies, assaults, and many others are all the responsibility of patrol. Police have the greatest impact on crime when they are assigned to specific areas for long periods of time. Officers get to know the ',..` neighborhoods, the problems and problem makers. That is the basis of Community Policing and the,model we are attempting to implement. Adding traffic officers would increase the number of officers at perhaps lesser cost to the city, but impacting the crime rate in the city and addressing our greatest need will require the assignment of these officers to patrol. 12. Council Members Greg Standerfer and Tom Stephen if the hiring of police officers and firefighters reduce the requested overtime amount • The total police overtime request is $129,832. Only $22,968 is anticipated towards minimum staffing challenges. The, remainder is anticipated to provide security at "events" such as handling the traffic related to Texas Motor Speedway functions, Holiday in the park, security at council and P&Z meetings, conducting backgrounds, training, etc. Because of the timing and limited duration of these events, it is much less expensive to utilize overtime than to hire enough officers to always have enough on hand to work these events. The additional officers might reduce the minimum staffing portion of the overtime budget slightly but the amount would not come close to the$131,000 needed for the three officers. The total fire service overtime request is $48,000. $33,600 is anticipated towards _ minimum staffing. The remainder is anticipated to be used for training purposes. 3 The requested overtime amount is at a bare minimum based on the proposed part- . time firefighters requested to staff during peak hours as well as minimum staffing. At this time the needed resources in firefighter staffing could not be made up by ' hiring from the overtime line. The amount to fund the full time positions would • Billy Campbell, City Manager September 5, 2002 (- Page 5 {' "t require $131,000 total dollars; overtime coupled with the part-time positions equates to $124,000. Due to the $7,000 difference and the $14,400 needed overtime monies for training the appropriate request would be to delay the _ additional personnel until the economy improves. Overtime requests,through the Department of Public Safety, are made after careful determination of all anticipated costs to meeting minimum staffing and costs related to service delivery outside of"regular duty". Please let me know if additional explanation is required. -Staff will continue to examine- any further options presented by City Council. 'City of Southiake Don't My Taxes Go Up Every Year? Year City CISD Tarrant Hospital JuCo Total 90-91 .445 1.0100 .19606 .17747 .03472 1.86325 91-92 .455 1.4250 .23673 .20582 .03840 2.36095 92-93 .455 1.6295 .27188 .22910 .04392 2.62940 • 93-94 .455 1.6295 .27188 .24210 .04671 2.64519 94-95 .449 1.6295 .27187 .24464 .05651 2.65152 95-96 .422 1.7400 .26700 .24000 .05500 2.72400 • 96-97 .422 1.7400 • .26484 .23407 .05772 2.71863 97-98 .422 1.7400 • .26484, .23407 .05769 2.71860 98-99 .422 1.7400 .26484 .23407 .10641 2.76732 99-00 .422 1.7900 .26484 .23407 .10641 2.81732 00-01 .422 1.8850 .274785 .23407 .10641 2.922265 01-02 .422 1.935 .274785 .23407 .10641 2.972265 (Increases from previous year are shown in red, decreases are shown in blue) • Souti~ to a Property Tax Rate History 0.500 0.45 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.46 0.450 — — . . 2-0.42 0.42 0.42— 0.400 0.38 0.39 0.078- - - - - - - 0.030 0.135 0.133 0.154 —0.132 _ 0.040 0.176 0.114 0.122 0.122 o ).350 0.32 0.33 — — — — 0.159-0.172 0.175 0.132 ).300 0.045—0.042— — — — — — - — 0.26 -< p ).250 -0.031— — — — — — — — — t z �� ).200 — - _— — - — — — — — — — _ I d — o),e 8—d o a 04.8'—0 o _o so .308 I` I =.' 0.330 ).150 — _ _ �0.300—,0 290_0 300— Q ry4 61 73 ill 263-0.25a �0,247 # Y¢' 0.100 — — - — — — - -. — — ;— ; 0.050 — . . — — — — — — — — — — — va . — — 0.000 i 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 -99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 Fiscal Year •. General Fund Rate Debt Service Rate *01-02 is amended *02-03 proposed for 0.422 tax rate Source: City of Southlake Finance Department Report Date:August 6,2002 Sales Tax History • • I+P 4 ,...-....J $6 $5 - $4.8_8_5 $4.619 $4,730 co ._ $3.684 -b: s:. .. . ° `'c' h $3.068 r, . 4. $3 — _ in $1.931 . Y $2 - ��.4"i r:._. . ✓'" Egg 5. �, , __ $1.177 .- 034 50.878 $1 - f° , $0.396 $0.448 $0.510 $0.637 r ' x; $0 - Illi 44* 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 Fiscal Year *01-02 is amended **02-03 is submitted Source: City of Southlake Finance Department Report Date:August 6,2002 0 1 j ( 1 1.1.11 SoLithlake Residential Building Permits 800 - 700 704 641 s 600 577 574 500 — 474 — — a. 433 e •400 — • — -- 60 co • 2 300 — 217 • z 200 — - - — 175 125 . 100 — • — — - 0 - 1 - - r - r- - 1 - 1994 1995 1996 1997 1.998 1999 2000.. 2001 2002 2003 Calendar Year *2003 is estimated Report Date:August 6,2002 Source:City of Southlake Building Services . • Tax Rate Increase Analysis Rate : Increase : Estimated Property Values 200,000 : 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 ; 900,000 . 1,000,000 General Fund Current city tax bill 844 : 1,266 ' 1,688 , 2,110 2,532 2,954 3,376 3,798 4,220 Annual 0.01 20.00 : 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 . 90.00 100.00 305,000 Monthly • 1.67 : 2.50 3.33 . 4.17 : 5.00 5.83 , 6.67 7.50 8.33 Annual : 0.02 40.00 ` 60.00 80.00 ; 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00 610,000 Monthly 3.33 : 5.00 i 6.67 8.33 10.00 i 11.67 13.33 : 15.00 16.67 Annual 0.03 ` : 60.00 90.00 ; 120.00 ' 150.00 ' 180.00 i 210.00 ; 240.00 1 270.00 300.00 915,000 Monthly 5.00 i 7.50 10.00 ; 12.50 ` 15.00 ': 17.50 20.00 22.50 . 25.00 Annual 0.04 ° 80.00 120.00 160.00 • 200.00 240.00 280.00 : 320.00 360.00 ; 400.00 1,220,000 Monthly 6.67 : 10.00 13.33 16.67 ; 20.00 23.33 26.67 ; 30.00 33.33 • — ! I i J '-------: ,,-."-='--..' . , ., . . Ura . . •wr . Commercial. Building Permits : outhLa + - . . . . • 60 . 50 • 4;7 48 49 40 . ® 30 I .28 L cu 30 -26 _ . E 23 =z L. - . , ill ' 20 10 All8 . 0 - - I I I I i I 1 1 . 1994 - • 1995 • -1996 • . 1997. • 1998 1999 2000 2001 • 2002 • Calendar Year • . *2002 Numbers are January thru July Report Date:August 6;2002 Source:City of Southlake Building Services Utility Fund { Proposed Budget Highlights Fiscal Year 2002-03 • Utility Fund is a proprietary fund established to separately account for the City's water, wastewater, and sanitation services. • For Fiscal Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 adopted budgets, net revenues in the utility fund were not sufficient to meet revenue requirements. Transfers from impact fee funds and reserves provided the funds needed to meet expenses and provide a sufficient number of days of working capital. . • For Fiscal Year 2002-03, expenses would once again exceed revenues if the current rate structure is retained. • A rate consultant was hired to review the rate structure to determine the appropriateness of water and wastewater rates at all levels. The objectives of the rate study were to 1) review the rate structure to ensure continued financial viability of the fund, and 2) review the rate structure to promote water conservation by focusing attention to rates associated with high volume usage since Southlake's residential water consumption is more than double the average usage of residential customers for city's of similar size across the state. The consultant determined that current sewer rates (based on water usage) barely cover the full cost of service, including portion of the billing costs and all of the debt-related costs. Based on the consultant's analysis, the proposed budget incorporates new rates as shown in the schedule located at Tab 9 of the workbook. 17 UTILITY FUND 2002-03 Proposed Budget and 2001-02 Revised Budget 04:22 PM 0g 2l/02 $Increase/ $Increase/ 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 (Decrease) %Increase/ 2002-03 (Decrease) %Increase/ Actual Adopted Amended Adopted -Decrease Proposed Adopted Decrease REVENUES. Miscellaneous $26,668 $25,100 $20,400 ($4,700) -18.7% $14,800 -41.0% Interest Income 247,358 150,000 150,000 0 0.0%` 100,000 (50,000) -33.3% Water Sales-residential 7,176,589 7,500,000 7,300,000 (200,000) • -2.7% 7,400,000 (100,000) -1.3% • Water Sales-commercial 1,190,884 1,450,000 1,575,000 125,000 8.6% 1,675,000 225,000 15.5% Sewer Sales 1,415,712 1,400,000 1,600,000 200,000 14.3% 2,953,500 1,553,500 111.0% Sanitation Sales 859,933 888,000 870,000 (18,000) -2.0% 890,000 2,000 0.2% Other utility charges 372,982 301.250 248,740 • (52,510) -17.4% 166.375 u j134,875) -44. /o 8 Total Revenues $11,290,126 $11,714,350 611,764,140 $49,790 0.4%. $13,199,675 $1,485,325 12.7% • • EXPENSES • Debt Service • 4,657,953 5,195,089 5,195,089 0 0.0%. . ' 5,200,733 5,644 0.1% Utility Billing 233,033 296,386 ' 291,848 (4,538) -1.5%. 275,875 (20,511) -6.9% • Water 5,617,577 5,559,258 5,494,501 • (64,757) -1.2% -6',005,566 446,308 8.0% Wastewater . 1,443,825 1,072,079 ' 1,.494,542 422,463 39.4% 1,540,101 468,022 43.7% Sanitation 624.089 580,800 . 654,000 , 73.200 12.6% 666.000 85.200 14.7% Total Expenses 512,576,476 $12,703,612 $13,129,980 $426,368 3.4%• $13,688,274 $984,662 7.8% • Net Revenues j$1.286,3501 j$989,262) j$1.365.840) ($376.578) j$488,599) $500,663 Transfers In $1,960,999 $2,300,885 $1,125,658 $0 Developers Contributions • $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfers Out (210,000) , 0 ' 0 • 0 Total Other Sources(Uses) S1.750.219 $2,300,88q $1.125.658 a • Net Change In WIC Components L0 4�( - 312 a Beginning working capital ' $2,639,825 $3,104,474 $3,104,474 • $2,864,292 Ending fund balance- $3.104.474 34.416.097• . 52.864.29Z, - $2.375.69Z. No.of days working capital 90 127 80 63 Ir • • I � � 1 _ Water/Wastewater Recommended Rate Changes Fiscal Year 2002-03 New Rates Effective October 1, 2002 WATER SEWER Current Proposed Current Proposed(1) Standard Rate: 0-2,000 gallons 26.41 26.41 9.50 20.52 Volume Rate: Rates per 1,000 0-2000 3.02 2,001-10,000 3.00 2.75 1.92 3.02 10,001-25,000 3.00 3.25 1.92 25,001-40,000 3.00 3.50 40,001+ 3.00 4.00 Maximum volume charge 10,000 10,000 $. 24.86 $ 50.72 (1) Billing based on Winter months(November through January) hI i - Comparative Water Rates 2002 City Water Base Rate Per Additional - ' Rate Consumption Arlington $7.60 $2.10 per 1,000 gallons Bedford $10.20 $2.07 per 1,000 gallons Colleyville $12.00 $2.77 per 1,000 gallons Euless $7.00 $2.38 per 1,000 gallons Garland $4.90 $1.56 per 1,000 gallons Grapevine $9.75 $2.74 per 1,000 gallons Haltom City $10.22 $2.65 per 1,000 gallons Hurst $8.99 $3.62 per 1,000 gallons Irving $5.50 $2.79 per 1,000 gallons Keller $19.77 $2.71 per 1,000 gallons N. Richland Hills $9.00 $2.45 per 100 cubic feet (100 cubic feet=748 gallons) Richland Hills N/A N/A Southlake-Current $24.16 $3.00 per 1,000 gallons Southlake-Proposed $24.16 See rate proposal schedule Watagua $10.92 $3.06 per 100 cubic feet (100 cubic feet=748 gallons) {� Comparative Sewer Rates 2002 City Sewer Base Rate Per Additional Rate Consumption Arlington $3.05 $2.40 per 1,000 gallons Bedford $8.46 $1.06 per 1,000 gallons I Colleyville $8.60 $1.70 per 1,000 gallons Euless $5.20 . $1.29 per 1,000 gallons Garland $3.14 $2.19 per 1,000 gallons 1^� Grapevine $7.80 $3.26 per 1,000 gallons Haltom City $6.00 $1.03 per 1,000 gallons Hurst $6.51 $2.08 per 1,000 gallons I Irving $3.52 $1.92 per 1,000 gallons Keller .. $11.56 $2.06 per.1,000 gallons N. Richland Hills $7.22 $1.17 per 100 cubic feet (100 cubic feet=748 gallons) Richland Hills N/A N/A Southlake-Current $9.50 . $1.92 per 1,000 gallons Southlake-Proposed $20.52 $3.02 per 1,000 gallons Watagua $12.19 $1.71 per 100 cubic feet (100 cubic feet=748 gallons) i SPECIAL REVENUE FUND Parks/Recreation 2002-03 Proposed Budget and 2001-02 Revised Budget • 04:22 PM 08/21/02 • $Increase/ ' $Increase/ 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 (Decrease) %Increase/ 2002-03 (Decrease) %Increase/ rActual Adopted Amended Adopted -Decrease Proposed Adopted -Decrease REVENUES 1_I Permits/Fees $86,856 $100,000 . $100,000 $0 0.0% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% • 17 Interest 10.066 5500 5600 0 0.0% 66 0000 1_`00 17.9% Total Revenues $96,922 $105,600 $105,600 $0 0.0% $66,600 ($39,000) -36.9% EXPENDITURES Parks and Recreation $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0% 50 0 0.0% Park Improvements • 0 0 0_ 0 0.0% _ 0 0 0.0% Land 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% Total Expenditures 0.0% Net Revenues $96.92Z ,$_105.600 $105.600 S2 AE6:600 ($39.0001 Bond proceeds $0 . $0 $0 $0 Transfer to other funds �o K S 2 Total Other Sources/(Uses) 54 a a 59 1 Beginning Fund Balance $170,422 $267,345 $267,345 $372,945. ( Ending Fund Balance ;267,345 $372.945 $372.945. $439.545 - I I • 1 , • I / SPDC - OPERATING FUND Parks/Recreation 2002-03 Proposed Budget and 2001-02 Revised Budget 04:22 PM 08/21/02 $Increase/ $Increase/ 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 (Decrease) %Increase/ 2002-03 (Decrease) %Increase/ Actual Adopted Amended Adopted -Decrease Proposed Adopted -Decrease REVENUES Sales Tax $2,309,609 $2,297,320 $2,297,320 $0 0.0% $2,216,240 ($81,080) -3.5% Interest 95.460 • 50.000 50'.000 0 ' 0.0% 40.000 (10,0001 -20.0% Total Revenues $2,405,069 $2,347,320 $2,347,320 $0 0.0% $2,256,240 ($81,080) -3.5% EXPENDITURES Personnel $279,323 $355,656 $355,656 $0 0.0% $381,256 325,600 7.2% Operations $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 0 0.0% $3,600 0 0.0% Capital . . .80 0 0.0% . 0 0.0% Total Expenditures $282,923 $359,256 . $359,256 $0 0.0% $384,856 $25,600 7.1% • Net Revenues $2.122,146 51.988.064 ' $1:988.064 $1.871.384' ($116.680) • I I Transfers Out (1,674,240) (1,506,640) (1,683,890) ($177,250) (1,708,910) Proceeds from C.O.Sale 0 0 0 , p. Total Other Sources(Uses) 131.674.2401 f$1.506.6401 131.683.8901 131.708.9101 I�I Beginning Fund Balance $1,129,568 $1,577,474 . $t,57T,474 • 81,881,648 ' Ending Fund Balance $1.577.474 $2.058.898 S1.881.648 $2.044.121 / • • • • • • • • • • • -1 ; SPDC - DEBT SERVICE FUND Parks/Recreation 2002-03 Proposed Budget and 2001-02 Revised Budget r' 04:22 PM _ r 08121102 $Increase/ $Increase/ 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02 (Decrease) %Increase/ 2002-03 (Decrease) %Increase/ Actual Adopted Amended Adopted -Decrease Proposed Adopted -Decrease REVENUES - Interest Income $28,484 $20,000 $10.000 ($10,0001 -50.0% $4,000. ($16,000) -80.0% Total Revenues $28,484 $20,000 510,000 • ($10,000) -50.0% $4,000 . • EXPENDITURES Principal $355,000 $370,000 $485,000 $115,000 31.1% $505,000 $135,000 36.5% Interest - 933,082 1,136,640 •1',198,890 62,250 5.5% 1,203,9.10 67,270 5.9% Admin.Expenses 22 205 22 000 22000' 0 0.0% 2 000 0 0.0% Total Expenditures $1,290,287 $1,508,640 $1,685,890 $177,250 11.7% $1,710,910 $202,270 13.4% Net Revenues ($1. 61.8031 01.408.6401 ($1.675.890) $177.250 (S1.706.9101 $202,270 • Bond Proceeds $0 $0 $0 • $0 Transfers In $1,374,240 $1,506,640 $1,683,890 177.250 • $1,708,910 Total Other Sources(Uses) $1,374.240 $1.506.640 $1.683,890 $1.708,910 - • Beginning Fund Balance $100,997 $213,434 $213,434 $221,434 • Ending Fund Balance $213.434 $231.434 $221'.434 $223.434 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • r)O J CRIME CONTROL DISTRICT FUND 2002-03 Proposed Budget and 2001-02 Revised Budget -- i O4422 PM 0821102 • $Increase/ $Increase/ ' 2000-01 2001-02 • 2001-02 (Decrease) %Increase/ 2002-03 (Decrease) %Increase/ Actual Adopted Amended Adopted -Decrease Proposed Adopted -Decrease JI , REVENUES Sales Tax $2,232,252 $2,214,268 $2,214,268 $0 0.0%. $2,180,696 ($33,572) -1.5% Grant Income $0 $0 • $0 $0 $45,000 . $45,000 ^V _Interest Income $61,398 $110,500 •$50,000 ($60,500) 0.0% $60;000. (550,5001 -45.7% • Total Revenues $2,293,850 $2,324,768 ` 52,264,268 ($sosoo) z. 0s�, • $2,285,696 (539,072) -1.7% - EXPENDITURES • - Personnel 5128,522 $132,116 $132,118 $0 0.0% $301,898 $169,782 128.5% Operations $128,135 $127,811 $147,31.1 19,500 15.3%' $144,811 17,000 13.3% • Capital 0 0.0% $49,186 49.186 Total Expenditures $254,657 $259,927 $279,427 $19,500 7.5% $495,895 $235,968 90.8% Net Revenues $ ,038.993 52.064.841 . S1.984.841 J560.0001 • •$1,789.801 JS275,0401 _� Transfer out-Crime Control CIP $0 . • $0 • $0, $0, Transfers Out-General Fund J1,971,8991 12,253,715) J2,253,715) (1,526,3701 Total Other Sources(Uses) fS1.971.8991 02.253.7151. J$2.253.715) ;ST.526.3701 . Beginning Fund Balance $2,366,696 $2,433,790 $2;433,790 • $2,164,916 - Ending Fund Balance $ .433,790 ;2.244,916 • ,$�.184',916 S2.428.347 • • • • I- • i, rl • TIF OPERATING FUND 2002-03 Proposed Budget and 2001-02 Revised Budget -- i 04:22 PM 00/21/02 $Increase/ $Increase/ 2000-01 - 2001-02 2001-02 (Decrease) %Increase/ 2002-03 (Decrease) %Increase/ Actual Adopted Amended Adopted -Decrease Proposed Adopted -Decrease REVENUES Ad Valorem $1,262,466 $639,088 $1,513,623 $874,535 136.8% $800,862 $161,774 25.3% Interest Income $10 972 51 51' 51 0.0%. Total Revenues $1,273,438 - 0.0°.�0 .$639,088 $1,513,623 $874,535 136.8% $800,862 $161,774 25.3% EXPENDITURES - J' Operations $709,110 $300,000 $1.146,708 846.708 0.0% Total Expenditures $325,000 25.000 0.0% $709,110 $300,000 $1446,708 $846,708 0.0% $325,000 $25,000 0.0% Net Revenues $564.328 $339.088 S366.915 $27,827 $475.86Z $136,774 Transfers In-General Fund 300,000 • .300,000' 325,000 $25,000 Transfers Out-Debt Service (315.727) (818,8661 . (818;8661 0 _ 1880,1851 ($61,319) Total Other Sources(Uses) ($315.7271 /$518.8661 . .• .'15518:866t 10 J$555:1851 Beginning Fund Balance $223,833 $472,434 $472;434 $320,483 n Prior period adjustment 0 0 0 0 Ending Fund Balance $472.434 $292.656 $320.483 $241.1sq • • • • • • • I . - 1 l I City of Southlake Budget Worksession #3 • September 10, 2002 The Agenda 0Introductory Remarks tReview of General Fund Budget Review of Utility Fund Issues = oReview of Other Funds —ti General Fund: Where We Started 410After thoroughly scrutinizing planned expenditures, making cuts for efficiency, and denying many needed departmental requests, budgeted expenditures were at $20.1 million. oAt a 42.2¢ (current)tax rate,only a 4.16% fund balance could be achieved; �*Needed to cut expenses or enhance revenue by$2.2 million 1 • iI . • iI _ Existing Position/Program Cuts • Made to File Budget at .462 Cuts for efficiency . Eliminates 2 bldg.inspector positions($95,509) . Eliminates construction inspector position($47,989) r a Additional cuts(previously approved items) . Eliminates battalion commander position($75,837) • Eliminates bldg.services secretary position($44,6 29) . Eliminates 2 PT library clerk positions($24,665) • Eliminates senior community services coordinator position($48,328) • Eliminates senior civil engineer position($62,143) _ Eliminates. Eliminates planner position($35,556) —If Existing Position/Program Cuts Made to File Budget at .462 Additional cuts(cont'd) • . Denies previously approved funding for 3 police officer and 3 firefighter positions ($273,567); . No executive pay increases,mid- management 2%; . Defers remaining"buy in"portion of vehicle replacement fund for a year($147,659) r-, • I Existing Position/Program Cuts Made to File Budget at .462 fil Unfunded needs . Cuts funding for various technology upgrades • ($107,931); . Misc.capital items requested by Public Works ($191,650); . Park maint workers,misc capital,and service contract funding($145,224); . All capital requests for the library($128,285) 2 • • • • Council Discussion Points ' Service delivery priorities J— Desired tax rate GStaff direction on General Fund budget • • i What are we trying to accomplish as a city, • and how will the budget get us there? Utility Fund Issues Utility Fund supports the construction and operation of water,wastewater,and sanitation systems; 4)Rate structure necessary to pay personnel, operations,capital and debt service costs has not been reviewed since 1994; +a Consultant hired to review water and wastewater • rates. Utility Rate Study l J 1WateaWasteweter Recommended Rate Chang.. • instal Year 2002-03 iNevRates Effective October 1,2002 -- i WATER IJ SEWER currant roomed Curran) Prvpasad tan�efRatea...... ` .._. .. 62 OOOgillane_e. 26.41' 28 ale 9.50 ..•, 2052' i :Volume Rem)• ......_....__._.................._:.. !Rates per 1,000_ o�00. 3.02 ;2,00140,W0. 3.00„ 2.75P, 1.92 ... 3.02„ . '1O l-25,000 3.00 3.25.• 1.92 12580140,0M 3.00 3.50 r0801♦ 3.1,10 4.00: !Maximum volume charge 10000 10,000 i -f 24.85 f 50.72 • 3 4 ' I ` I Council Discussion Points Ir-1 GService delivery and the utility fund a Rate structure GStaff direction on utility fund budget What are we trying to accomplish with our utility fund, and how will the budget get us there? Other Funds o Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone GSouthlake Parks Development Corp. G Crime Control& Prevention District t'Special Revenue Fund-Parks& Rec • . Budget Adoption Schedule oFinal Public Hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, September 17,2002 0Budget effective date is October 1, 2002 4