The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-09-05CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 667 NORTH CARROLL AVENUE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 MINUTES COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Gary Fickes; Mayor Pro Tem Andy Wambsganss; Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Pamela Muller. Members: Sally Hall, Michael Richarme, Ron Maness, and W. Ralph Evans. STAFF PRESENT: Curtis Hawk, City Manager; Shana Yelverton, Assistant City Manager; Kevin Hugman, Assistant to the City Manager; LouAnn Heath, Director of Finance; Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works; Ron Harper, City Engineer; Greg Last, Director of Community Development; Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator; Billy Campbell, Director of Public Safety; Kim McAdams, Parks Project Manager; Wayne K. Olson, City Attorney; and, Sandra L. LeGrand, City Secretary. INVOCATION: Councilmember W. Ralph Evans. WORK SESSION: The work session was held where agenda items for tonight's meeting were discussed by Council and staff. The Regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Fickes. A~,enda Item #2-A. Executive Session Mayor Fickes advised the audience that Council would be going into executive session pursuant to Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071,551.072, 551.074, 551.076 of the Open Meetings Act, to seek the advice of the City Attorney with respect to pending and contemplated litigations, to discuss the purchase, exchange, lease or sale of real property and to consider the appointment and evaluation of public officials, and regarding the deployment of specific occasions for implementation of security personnel or devises. Council adjourned for executive session at 7:05 p.m. Council returned to open session at 8:03 p.m. Agenda Item #2-B. Action Necessary/Executive Session Motion was made to authorize the Mayor to close on the property discussed in executive session. Motion: Richarme Second: Wambsganss Ayes: Richarme, Wambsganss, Hall, Evans, Maness, Muller, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 7-0 vote Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 page two Aeenda Item//3. Anoroval of Minutes Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on August 1, 1995, the Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on August 15, and continued to August 22, 1995, and the Minutes of the Special City Council meeting held on August 28, 1995. Motion: Richarme Second: Hall Ayes: Richarme, Hall, Wambsganss, Evans, Maness, Fickes Nays: None Abstention: Muller Approved: 6-0-1 vote Agenda Item//4-A. Mayor's Renort Mayor Fickes presented a proclamation to Nancy McClanahan and Kay Joesten, in honor of Adventure Alley and proclaiming September as Adventure Alley Month in Southlake. The Mayor announced that Adventure Alley will be held by volunteers during the week of September 19-24. He encouraged the audience to volunteer for this community project that will bring joy to children for years to come. Agenda Item//4-B. City Manaeer's Reoort City Manager Curtis Hawk did not have items to report at this time. Agenda Item//4-C. SPIN Reoort Joe Mast, 2415 Taylor Street, Southlake, SPIN //3 Representative, reported that issues of concern in SPIN//3 are road construction and city sewer. Mast stated the area branching off of Ridgecrest Drive is in dire need of street repair. He referenced the development of Huse Homeplace and the concerns expressed by residents of Harbor Oaks Addition regarding the request for a gated community, noting a large majority of neighbors are pleased with City Council decisions to not gate the addition. In Emerald Estates sewer is a problem. In 1991 Dave Callahan presented a petition to Council regarding the need for sewer in this addition. At that time the cost to residents would have been from five to seven thousand dollars per household, and that was unacceptable. Now that the cost has come down to $1,300, it is acceptable, however, some of the residents do not want sewer. The residents in this addition understand that the property values will increase with sewer. Councilmember Sally Hall stated City Council has agreed to moving forward with street repair in the areas off of Ridgecrest Drive, at mid-year. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 1, 1995 page three Aeenda Item//5. Consent Agenda Mayor Fickes noted the consent agenda will consist of the following items: 5-A. Permit renewal request for Cub Scout Pack #507 to operate a BB Gun Shooting Range. Authorizing the Mayor to enter into an Interlocal Agreement for the Teen Court Program with City of Grapevine, City of Colleyville, City of Southlake, Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District, and the Carroll Independent School District. 5-C. Award of bid for construction of a sanitary sewer line to North Davis Business Park. Motion was made to approve the consent agenda consisting of items #5-A, #5-B, #5-C. Motion: Richarme Second: Muller Ayes: Richarme, Muller, Maness, Evans, Hall, Wambsganss, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 7-0 vote Aeenda Item #6. Public Forum Gary Hargett, 1111 South White Chapel, Southlake. Mr. Hargett gave an update of a situation he has been talking to Council about for the past year regarding drainage on his property adjacent to a brick wall installed in the Adams Addition. Hargett stated he has come before the staff on May 24, June 14, and July 28 of 1995 and made requests for information. On August 22, 1995, Mayor Fickes informed him that the information was available. He has expressed concerns about the impact of the wall to the City on a regular basis beginning July of 1994. The wall was poured and inspected on February 6, 1995, however, Southlake never required or reviewed the surface calculations until the Warren Hagan, May 31, 1995 submittal and Shawn Poe and Ron Harper's review of 6-6-95; which was over three (3) months after the wall was installed and nearly one year after his initial concerns alerting the City. The area uses for the drainage calculations was limited to the south side of the dirt driveway. This is not an issue of dispute but of property rights of Southlake residents that are protected by the Texas Law. No more no less. He is challenging the Mayor and Council to examine this situation closely and vow to implement the changes and safeguards to keep this from reoccurring. Hargett thanked Mayor Fickes for getting involved in his mediation efforts. If attempts to resolve this matter are unsuccessful, a new law suit will be filed. Hargett stated he feels the City Council has to take steps to see that citizens are heard. Public Forum closed. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 page four Agenda Item/f'/-A, Ordinance No. 642, 2nd Reading, Establishment of Sneed Limits on Certain Streets and Roadways. Ordinance No. 642, 2nd reading, an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 216 and a portion of Ordinance No. 118, relating to the establishment of speed limits on certain streets and roadways within the City of Southlake by revising the speed limits on a portion of F.M. 1938 (Davis Blvd.) and South White Chapel Blvd. and establishing school crossing zones and specifying times when reduced speed limit applies to school crossing zones. Public Hearing. Curtis Hawk, City Manager, explained that the ordinance sets the speed limits on F.M. 1938 at 45 mph as requested by TxDot and on North White Chapel from F.M. 1709 to the northern end at 40 mph. By not addressing the remainder of White Chapel, the ordinance effectively reduces the speed limit on S. White Chapel, from F.M. 1709 to Continental, to 30 mph. The ordinance also sets the school crossing zone speed limits. The public hearing resulted with no comments from the audience. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 642, 2nd reading. Motion: Richarme Second: Wambsganss Mayor Fickes read the caption of the ordinance. Ayes: Richarme, Wambsganss, Hall, Evans, Maness, Muller, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 7-0 vote Aeenda Item g7-B. Ordinance No. 647. 2nd Reading,. Fixine and Levvin~, Municinal Ad Valorem Taxes for FY 1995-96. Curtis Hawk, City Manager, explained that the FY 1995-96 budget presented to the City Council proposes a tax rate of $.42262 per $100 of assessed valuation. During the work sessions on the budget it was suggested that the rate be $.522 per $100, dropping the last two numbers for simplification. The proposed tax rate is comprised of two parts: the operating, or maintenance and operations rate of $.26285 and the debt rate of $. 15915. On July 25, the Tan'ant Appraisal District certified appraised values to the City of Southlake. Total taxable value in the City is $1,041,743,161. This establishes the value of properties in Southlake as of January 1, 1995. This tax rate for FY 1995-96 is a decrease of $.027 per $100 from the FY 1994-95 rate of $.449. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 page five A~,enda Item #7-B. Continued Public Hearing: Rex Potter, 303 Waterford Court, Southlake. Mr. Potter asked the City Council not to approve the proposed ordinance. He asked that taxes not be lowered, but Council use the money to improve the road system within the City of Southlake. Potter read from a letter to the City Council dated September 5, 1995. A copy of the letter is hereby attached to the minutes of this meeting. Councilmember Richarme commented in response to Mr. Potter's letter, it is not a matter of not having the money, it is getting the roads built. The City cannot get them built fast enough. Mayor Fickes commented it takes time to acquire right-of-way for road improvements. That is where the hold up is. Peytonville Avenue took two years and we had to take the time to do it right. Every road has right-of-way issues. Councilmember Wambsganss stated he feels we owe the taxpayers money back when we have an increase in valuation. Councilmember Hall agreed with Wambsganss. Public Hearing Closed. Motion was made to approve the 2nd reading of Ordinance No. 647. Motion: Richarme Second: Wambsganss Mayor Gary Fickes read the caption of Ordinance No. 647. Ayes: Richarme, Wambsganss, Hall, Evans, Maness, Muller, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 7-0 vote A~,enda Item #7-C. Ordinance No. 648, 2nd Reading AdoDtiw, FY 1995-96 Budeet The City Manager, Curtis Hawk, stated Ordinance No. 648, 2nd reading adopting the Fiscal year 1995-96 Annual Budget and revising Fiscal Year 1994-95 Annual Budget is being considered at this time. He noted the Operating Budget is presented in summary form, by individual fund, and by expenditure category for FY 93-94 actual, FY 94-95 Adopted Budget, FY 94-95 Revised Budget and FY 95-96 Proposed Budget. Revenues remain as previously presented. Expenditures in the Utility Fund are reduced by $957,047, the amount designated for capital projects. This same amount is reflected as a transfer out of the Utility Fund to the Waterworks Improvements Fund, a Capital Projects Fund, where the specific projects will be listed. The ending fund Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 page six Agenda Item #7-C. Continued balance in the Utility Fund remains the same at $1,045,850. The proposed budget reflects an across-the-board 4% increase to the pay and classification plan, to be effective in January 1996. The proposed General Fund budget projects an increase of thirteen (13) full time regular and two (2) part time positions in FY 95-96. These positions are needed to enable the City to maintain effective management of service demands. The positions are: one (1) full time Firefighter (January 1 hire); one (1) full time Police Traffic Officer (January 1 hire); one (1) full time Police Patrol Officer (January 1 hire); two (2) full time Public Safety Officers (April 1 hire); two (2) full time Public Safety Communications Specialists (1 @ January 1 hire, 1 @ April 1 hire); one (1) full time D.A.R.E. Officer (January 1 hire); one (1) full time Building Clerk (January 1 hire); one (1) full time Zoning Assistant (January 1 hire); one (1) full time Street/Drainage Maintenance Worker (January 1 hire); one (1) full time Park/Recreation Administrative Assistant (October 1 hire); one (1) full time Park Mainentance Worker (April 1 hire); two (2) park time Recreation Attendants. Mr. Hawk named the other expenditure highlights, including: Strategic Plan, Performance Appraisal System; Professional Marketing Services; Replace Fueling Facilities; Second Ambulance; Utility Truck, Resure Tool; Traffic Motorcycle; Vehicle Video Cameras (4); Computer Lease; Dump Truck; Pick-up Track; Concrete Pavement Breaker; Skid-Steer Loader; Propane Fuel System; and Thoroughfare Plan Update. Curtis Hawk noted in the Capital area of the budget, the City has been working on the road bond projects for several years. In the 1994 bonds we will be working on this year, Council established priorities, including: 1st priority is Dove Road, between White Chapel and Kimball Avenue; North White Chapel between F.M. 1709 and SH 114, is underway now; West Continental Blvd. between White Chapel to Davis Blvd.; West Highland from Shady Oaks to White Chapel; West Dove, from Peytonville to Shady Oaks; and from the creek to Peytonville Avenue. These projects will be initiated during this next year. There are other streets that are on the plan from the bond program. Costs are higher than anticipated because of right-of-way purchase, therefore, the remainder of the streets will have to be prioritized and the costs determined. The proposed budget reflects a proposed tax rate of $.422. Maintenance and operations is $.26285 and debt service is $. 15915. A copy of the memorandum from the Director of Finance, LouAnn Heath, dated September 5, 1995 is hereby attached to the minutes of this meeting. Rex Potter, 303 Waterford Court, Southlake. Mr. Potter thanked Ms. Heath and the entire staff for their work on the budget and he expressed appreciation for the SPIN funds in the budget, noting, he feels SPIN is a very worthwhile program and the community has benefited by it. He Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 page seven A~,enda Item/g'/-C. Continued recommended that roads be on a five (5) year plan. He is pleased with Certificates of Obligation for road repairs. Whatever it takes, he will help Mr. Whitehead to get it done. Councilmember Richaxme stated in the June Retreat, Council discussed some priorities including a 4% raise for each city employee. He stated he feels performance measures should be in place before raises axe given. It was noted raises are effective in January. LouAnn Heath, Director of Finance, noted raises axe given in January in an amount of $120,000 for general fund and $30,000 for water fund. Councilmember Richaxme commented on several points he wished to be entered into the minutes, including: * He proposes performance measures be in place before raises for employees. * Concept of issuing bonuses vs. salary increases. * Fund Keep Southlake Beautiful Program as proposed by Scott Maxtin. (Match membership monies for KSB) * Splitting the Planning and Zoning Commission into two separate boards. How to fund the split (it might reduce work load for employees). * Making Park a Department (using funds from salary deferral for director). * Token amount in the budget for Corridor Study and Urban Design Guidelines for FY 95-96. * Police and Fire head counts, he is satisfied we are in line with other cities. * See plan in place for Police/Fire center on Shady Oaks Drive. * See a second Fire Station north of town. * Investigate whether or not to eliminate the System 36 and move to AIS Platform and put consideration to work with CISD on this. Councilmember Hall suggested the City proceed with the funds from recycling going into the fund. She asked if the money from last year's recycling is Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 page eight Agenda Item #7-C. Continued increasing, adding, we should get more money into the fund than we do. The City of Colleyville gets $15,000 into their fund for recycing. In the City of Southlake the percentage of recycling is 80% to 90%. Regarding the budget, she stated she is not fond of the motorcycle in the budget--there has been three or four wrecks in Tarrant County on motorcycles in the last few months. Hall expressed that the $29,000 could be better spent on larger vehicles for the Police Department. She stated she does not agree with Councilmember Richarme regarding performance measures, as the entire evaluation will take some time to do properly. She does not agree to holding up raises this year for the program. Councilmember Muller stated she agrees we should have a car rather than a motorcycle. She feels 4% increases, plus bonuses to the employees is good, as the employees work very hard. Councilmember Wambsganss stated he feels we need to fund the urban guidelines this year. Curtis Hawk, City Manager, stated he feels we need a committee to work on the urban designs, and where we need to start. He suggested this take place mid-year. In reference to the additional fire station, he feels it appropriate to explain we have a problem here with space. He outlined the plan to move Public Works first and next to move Police/Fire. He feels we need to firm up a five-year plan on where we want to be. Regarding the System 36, he agrees we need to get off the system; it is slow but is serves our needs at this time. He feels we can go another year on it. As a staff, we feel we have a tight budget this year. Councilmember Richarme stated he has a real concern that things we talk about are not getting done. Things have been talked about for years. Mayor Fickes stated the City Council can make it happen at mid-year. We have to know where we are going, focus on the issues and make changes. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 648, 2nd reading, Fiscal Year 1995-96 Annual Budget and revising FY 1994-95 Annual Budget. Motion: Hall Second: Evans Mayor Fickes read the caption of the ordinance. Ayes: Hall, Evans, Muller, Wambsganss, Hall, Evans, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 7-0 vote Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 page nine Councilmember Sally Hall thanked Mr. Hawk and Staff for the job done on the budget. Council adjourned for recess at 9:30 p.m. Council returned to opens session at 9:45 p.m. Agenda item #7-D. Resolution No. 95-34, Revisions to the Fee Schedule Curtis Hawk, City Manager, stated each year during the budget process, Department Heads review the schedule of fees that pertain to their activities. Changes may be the result of State requirements, a new service to be provided, in-house review of the cost of providing the service, or adjustments due to comparisons with area cities. The fee changes have been incorporated into the proposed FY 95-96 budget. Couneilmember Richarme recommended the numbers in exhibit "A" be updated to 1995-96 dollars. Motion was made to approve Resolution No. 95-34, amending exhibit "A" to reflect an 8% increase in costs rounded to the nearest $5.00 increment. Motion: Richarme Second: Evans Ayes: Richarme, Evans, Hall, Maness, Muller, Wambsganss, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 7-0 vote Agenda Item #7-E Ordinance No. 649, 2nd Reading, Establishine Administrative Denartments. Curtis Hawk, City Manager, stated his thoughts on this item are the same as those set out in the memo from Shana Yelverton, Assistant City Manager, in that numerous changes in the Division have occurred during the last several years. The table clearly documents the growth in the division specifically noting changes in staffing, land/facilities, citizen participation, construction activity, budget responsibility, and funding soumes. Parks and Recreation have become a higher priority for the City. This is appropriate, given citizen demand for facilities and services, and the adoption of the Southlake Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan in January 1992, and the overwhelming passage of the half-cent sales tax initiative in November, 1993. The public hearing resulted with no comments during the public hearing. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 649, 2nd reading. Motion: Wambsganss Second: Hall Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 page thirteen A~,enda Item #8-A. Continued Motion was made to table Ordinance No. 480-179, 1st reading, at the request of the developer. Motion: Wambsganss Second: Muller Ayes: Wambsganss, Muller, Maness, Richarme, Evans, Fickes Nays: None Abstention: Hall (she had left the room and did not vote) Approved: 6-0-1 (to table) Agenda Item//12. Adjournment Mayor Fickes noted this meeting will continue on Tuesday, September 12, at 7:30 p.m. Motion was made to continue this meeting on September 12, 1995, at 7:30 p.m. Motion: Richarme Second: Maness Ayes: Richarme, Maness, Muller, Wambsganss, Hall, Evans, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 7-0 vote The meeting ended at 12:15 a.m. THIS MEETING WAS CONTINUED ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 FROM THE SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: MAYOR GARY FICKES; DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM PAMELA MULLER. MEMBERS: SALLY HALL, MICHAEL RICHARME, W. RALPH EVANS. COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: RON MANESS AND ANDY WAMBSGANSS. The continuation of the City Council meeting was called back to order by Mayor Gary Fickes at 7:30 p.m. on September 12, 1995. Agenda Item//8-B, ZA 95-76 Pre Plat for Village Center and ZA 95-70, Plat Showine W.R. Eaves No. 500 Addition ZA 95-76, Preliminary Plat for Village Center, Lots 1-6 Block 1, and Lots 1-7, Block 2, being 44.328 acres situated in the T. Mahan Survey, Abstract No. 1049, and being a portion of Tract 6 and also being Lots 3, Block 1 of the previously approved Preliminary Plat of Farrar Addition and all of Lot 1, Block 1, of the Farrar Addition as recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 1539, P.R.T.C.T. Current zoning is "C-3" Commercial District. Owner: James Farrar, et. al.; Applicant: The Midland Development Group. Spin Neighborhood//4. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 page twelve Agenda Item #8-A. Continued Mayor Fickes commented, "the proof is in the pudding." They have the highest quality project around this area. It is everything this City could ask for. We are fortunate to have them do a multi-family in the northern portion of the City. If anyone will do it right, they will do it right. We have seen their tract history. They have created something very unique in Solana. Councilmember Muller stated, years past, several of them had spent hours laying out a plan for the City, trying to find a balance for Southlake; commercial, industrial, retail and residential. This is in the northwest comer of the city, a good piece of commercial property. Looking at higher density would put a strain on the school district. How do we start balancing needs when we look at balance. Ms. Muller stated concerns with heavy density in this heavy tree area. Councilmember Richarme stated is this something we can work with the developer on? His concerns include: ancillary uses; density per Land Use Plan; mixed use area; alternate product types; impact on neighbors around this property; and impact on the school system. Mayor Fickes asked Mr. Allen for a more detailed site plan, as not having something more detailed to look at concerns him. The City Council does not know what they are dealing with. Having a site plan will give Council a better feel of what will happen. Councilmember Hall stated she would expect to see more details as it makes the transition. Councilmember Maness stated he has problems with all the deviations requested with the zoning. Mayor Fickes asked Tom Allen to give Council something they can work with-- if he needs to change it, bring it back. Council adjourned for recess at 12:05 a.m. Council returned for open session at 12;10 a.m. Tom Allen requested this item be tabled until September 19, 1995 City Council meeting. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 page eleven Agenda Item #8-A. Continued Solana has had two million square feet of commercial and retail and they have not asked for any tax abatements. They have paid $19 million dollars in school taxes; $1.3 millions dollars in city taxes, and $7.7 million toward the cost of SH 114. They plan to develop a high quality residential development on 199 acres. Mr. Allen stated their "R-P.U.D." development has four product types: Type A- single family with 1,500 sq minimum lot size; Type B- Villa Lots at 6,000 sq minimum lot size (not more than 70 in area); Type C-Duplex at 1,500 sq lots; an d Type D- Multi-Family (not more than 50% at 650 sq ft). With the multi-family at 12 units per acre, it will have to be a quality development or it will not work. Mr. Allen stated they want the ability to provide housing for their employees at Solana, however, they are not sure they can do it. It will be done right! Mr. Allen stated the ancillary uses will be limited to Kirkwood and Dove Road not on White Chapel Blvd. They will donate 17' on White Chapel to widen the roadway and will donate thirty (30) acres for a trail system. They will donate land to straighten Dove Road. It was noted that they have been approached about a second fire station site and they will listen. Public Comments: Dennis McGrath, 2403 North Carroll Avenue, Southlake. Mr. McGrath stated when IBM-MTP came to Southlake they thought it should be with "C-Y' zoning. This is a good plan for them but not for the City. This is the first property to develop to the north, everything is from the south. The citizens do not want non-ownership housing. He feels they are looking for a plan to help themselves. He referenced the increase in students at CISD, and how they would overload the school district and they won't be paying taxes. Gary Fawks, 330 Ravenaux Drive, Southlake. Mr. Fawks stated his concerns with taking a commercial area and making it residential. He is concerned that the traffic from this area will feed into Dove Road. This represents a threat to the quality of life in the City. With this being a Concept Plan rather than a Site Plan, it makes it hard to comment on the specifics. Art Clayton, 3120 Lake Drive, Southlake. Mr. Clayton stated he has lived here for one year and is concerned about any multi-family dwellings in Southlake. He does not think this should be considered in Southlake. Judy McGregor, 2535 North White Chapel Blvd. Southlake. Ms. McGregor stated they have horses and live on property. She belongs to the Rotary Club and has become informed about Solana. During the "down time" in the 1980, they have kept their property up. Multi-family is something we will have in the City. She would rather it be by someone who has proven themselves before. They have kept up their development. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 page ten Agenda Item #7-E. Continued Mayor Fickes read the caption of the ordinance. Ayes: Wambsganss, Hall, Evans, Maness, Muller, Richarme, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 7-0 vote Agenda Item #8-A. Ordinance No. 480-179. 1st Readim, ZA 95-73 Ordinance No. 480-179 ZA 95-73) 1st reading, rezoning and concept plan for Solana (Residential), being 199.2 acres situated in the W. Medlin Survey, Abstract No. 1958, the U.P. Martin Survey, Abstract NO. 1015, being portions of Tracts 1Al, 2A2, 2A3, 2A5, 2A7, the R.D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207, being all of Tracts 1, lB, lC, lC1, 1D, 1D1, 1E, 1El, IF, 1G, 1H, 1J1, 3A, 3Al, 3A1A, 3A1A1, 3A1A2, 3A2, 3A3, 3A3A1, 3A4, 3A4A, 3A4B, 3C, 4A, 4Al, 4B, 4B1, 4B2, and the James B. Martin Survey, Abstract No 1134, being a portion of Tract 1, and includes all of Lot 4, Block A, MTP-IBM Addition No. 1 as recorded in Volume 388-211, Page 68, P.R.T.C.T. and Cabinet G, Slide 208, P.R.D.C.T. Current zoning is "C-3" General Commercial District, "CS" Community Service District, and "P.IJ.D." Planned Unit Development District; Requested Zoning is "R-P-U-D" Residential Planned Unit Development. Owner: MTP-IBM Phase II & III Joint Venture; Applicant: Maguire Thomas Partners. SPIN Neighborhood #2. Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, noted twenty-four (24) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and four (4) written responses have been received from: W.P. Fletcher, 116 Sweet Street, opposed (first notice) and in favor of single dwellings, but opposed to multiple dwellings; Bonnie Hays, 2735 N. White Chapel Blvd. in favor; J.W. Riemenschneider, P.O. Box 254, China Spring, Texas, opposed (first notice) in favor of single dwellings, however, opposed to multi-family because of the lack of taxes paid to the Carroll Schools (second letter); Martin Schelling, 601 W. Wall St. Grapevine, in favor. One written response received from outside the 200' notification area from Harold D. Kruckenberg, 1730 Hunter's Creek, Southlake, opposed as it will lower property values while resulting in the other residents carrying an unfair school tax load. Tom Allen, Partner, with MTP-IBM, 9 Village Circle, Westlake. Mr. Allen stated they have made numerous presentation to SPIN groups, as well as others, stating Solana is an 800-acre development with 326 acres in the City of Southlake. He added, when acquired, the property was not in the City of Southlake, but they wanted in. The property was rezoned in 1989 when the city went through their reclassification. Now they want to add their final elements to Solana with residential to enhance the commercial portion. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 continued on September 12, 1995 page fourteen Agenda Item #8-B. Continued ZA 95-70, Plat Showing for Lots 1,2, and 3, W.R. Eaves No. 500 Addition, being 3.351 acres situated in the W.R. Eaves Survey, Abstract No. 500, Tract 2B. Current zoning is "C-2" Local Retail Commercial District. Owner/Applicant: DKV (Sutton) Partners II L.P. Drews Realty Group, General Partners. SPIN Neighborhood #13. Motion was made to table ZA 95-76 and ZA 95-70 at the request of the applicants. Motion: Muller Second: Evans Ayes: Muller, Evans, Hall, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 4-0 vote Aeenda Item #8-C. ZA 95-80. Preliminary Plat for Cambridge Place Addition. ZA 95-80, Preliminary Plat for Cambridge Place Addition, being 89.744 acres situated in the J.W. Hale Survey, Abstract No. 803, Tract 2, and the John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No 529, Tracts 6A, 6Al, 6B, and 6B1. Current zoning is "SF-20A" Single Family Residential. Owners: Clifford Wayne Hood and Glenda Sue Hood, Nolan Lemons and Malacha A. Lemons, Billie Farrar Trustee, Southlake Joint Venture; Applicant: Terra Land Development. SPIN Neighborhood #8. Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, commented that twenty-five (25) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and two (2) written responses have been received from: Sondra Kay Davis, 7902 Bryan Mawr Dr. Dallas, in favor; and Donald M. Ramsour, 703 S. Kimball Avenue, Southlake, in favor; Three (3) verbal responses received outside the 200' notification area; Jim Lunsford, in favor; Sue Hill, in favor; and Peter Sporrer, opposed to entrance on Continental Blvd; requested signal lights. Ms. Gandy stated the applicant has met all the review comments of the first Plat Review Summary dated August 11, 1995, with the exception of the items addressed in the second Plat Review Summary dated September 1, 1995. This development proposes including a portion of Greenlee Business Park to the east and a connection to South Kimball Avenue through this area. Currently the rezoning request for the Greenlee acreage is under review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Paul Spann and Bobby Harrell, Developers (Terra Land Development) were present to answer questions for Council. Mr. Spann stated this property was zoned "SF-20A" Single Family Residential about one year ago. It was established that Goodwin and Marshall prepared the drainage study on this property. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 continued on September 12, 1995 page fifteen Aeenda Item #8-C. Continued Councilmember Muller asked how the drainage would impact the property to the south. Mr. Spann stated this property does not currently have sewer. Cheatham and Associates is working on obtaining the right-of-way. The final plans should be prepared by the end of the month. Mayor Fickes expressed concerns with Carlisle and Rainbow Streets. What will happen to Carlisle with developments all around it. Someone will have to improve Carlisle in lieu of impact fees. Councilmember Richarme asked about timing on the S-7 sewer line. Eddie Cheatham stated he is working on the plans at this time. It will be 6-7 months before sewer will be finished. He also referenced tree preservation. Mr. Spann stated tree preservation will happen because it is in the best economic interest of the development. Trees are valuable. Motion was made to approve ZA 95-80, Preliminary Plat for Cambridge Addition, subject to the second Plat Review Summary dated September 1, 1995, moving the stub near the area of Lot 7, waiving item #1-A. Motion: Hall Second: Evans Ayes: Hall, Evans, Muller, Richarme, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote Agenda Item #8-D, ZA 95-81. Plat Revisions of Lots 6R and 7R, Block 5. Myers Meadow, Phttse I. ZA 95-81, Plat Revision of Lots 6R and 7R, Block 5, Myers Meadow, Phase I, being a revision of Lots 6 and 7, Block 5, Myers Meadow, Phase I as shown on the Plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 1328, P.R.T.C.T. and 0.064 acres of Tract lB situated in the B.J. Foster Survey, Abstract No. 519, for a total of 0.833 acres. Current zoning is "R-P.U.D." Residential planned Unit Development. Owners: The estate of Audrey L. Stone, deceased; the Estate of A.C. Stone, deceased; Fred joyce-Mayr Myers Enterprises, Inc., William Byrne and Monica Waite; Applicant: Fred Joyce-Mary Myers Enterprises, Inc. Spin Neighborhood #13. Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy reported that three (3) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and no written responses have been received. Ms. Gandy noted the purpose of the plat revision is to provide more buildable area for Lot 7R. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 continued on September 12, 1995 page sixteen Agenda Item #8-D. Continued Fred Joyce, developer, was present for the meeting. Motion was made to approve ZA 95-81, Plat Revision of Lots 6R and 7R, Block 5, Myers Meadow, Phase I, subject to the second Plat Review Summary dated September 1, 1995, eliminating item #4. Motion: Muller Second: Hail Ayes: Muller, Hail, Evans, Richarme, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote Agenda Item #10-A. Develooer Agreement for Lakes of La Paloma Estates Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works, noted this agreement contains the usual requirements for performance and payment bonds, letters of credit, and cash escrow. This agreement is standard with a few changes, including: Pages 1 and 2 clarifies the handling of cash escrow and requires the developer to obtain lien releases from subcontractors and suppliers. Page 2, paragraph D and F contains strikeouts and a redline. The addition is planned for private streets and these changes delete the requirements for a street maintenance bond and City acceptance. Pages 4 and 5, STREETS: Section 1 refers to the private streets. The streets will be maintained by the Developer or homeowners association. Section 2 refers to the Developer having the responsibility for maintenance and operating costs of street lights and street signs. The City will retain the right to inspect and regulate street signs. Page 6, AMENITIES: The Developer may incorporate a number of unique amenities within the Addition and agrees to accept responsibility for construction and maintenance of all amenities. Also, contained in this paragraph is the providing of authorized lock systems per the City of Southlake Fire Code. Page 7, item number 6, requires the developer or contractor to furnish to the City a list of ail subcontractors and suppliers, which provide labor or supplies greater than $1,000 vaiue to the addition. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 continued of September 12, 1995 page seventeen Agenda Item #10-A. Continued Page 9, OTHER ISSUES: Because there is no off-site and/or sewer pro ram in this addition this item is stmckout. Page 9, paragraph A. OFF-SITE DRAINAGE: The developer agrees to pay $3,105.74 toward culvert expense located in East Continental. Paragraph C. is struckout because their is no off-site water to be constructed for this addition. Page 10, paragraph B. PARK FEES: The Developer agrees to pay park fees in the amount of $8,500 (17 lots X $500/lot). Paragraph C. PERIMETER STREET ORDINANCE: The addition abuts South Carroll Avenue by 457.63 feet and at $47.50 per linear foot, the total cost is $21,737.43. After discussion motion was made to approve the developer agreement for Lakes of La Paloma Estates. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Denied: Richarme Muller Richarme, Muller, Fickes Hall, Evans 3-2 vote (a vote of 4 is need for approval) Mayor Fickes suggested to Mr. Blackard that they resubmit this developer agreement when there is a full Council present for the meeting. Aeenda Item #10-B. Soecial Commercial Developer Agreement for McDonald's Coro. Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works, led the discussion regarding the Special Commercial Developer Agreement for McDonald's Corp. located at the southeast comer of SH 114 and Kimball Avenue, stating McDonald's Corporation is in the process of obtaining a building permit on the southeast comer of SH 114 and North Kimball Avenue. The site is across Kimball Avenue from Wal-mart. As this site has all of the public infrastructure in place, a majority of the paragraphs in the Developer Agreement can be struck out. However, Article IV OTHER ISSUES: besides agreeing to pay the appropriate fees, the developer is asking for two additional considerations: Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 continued on September 12, 1995 page eighteen Agenda item #10-B. Continued DRIVEWAY: Because of the configuration of Kimball Avenue and the future realignment of SH 114, developer is requesting a temporary concrete driveway on the north side of the site to align with the N. Kimball center median cut. When TxDot acquires the needed right-of-way for SH 114 and upon the beginning of construction of the same, McDonald's would construct a new driveway at a location 221 feet south of the temporary drive. This future driveway would be a right-in, right-out only driveway because it does not align with a median cut in Kimball. The future driveway location does meet the recently adopted Driveway Ordinance. BUFFERYARD: Tx-Dot will be acquiring all of the property between the McDonald's site and existing SH 114. The request for variance to the north bufferyard is unique to this site because of the adjacency of the tract to the future right-of-way of SH 114. The required bufferyard based on the corridor overlay zone is 25 feet in width. The problem that has arisen is that Chevron owns property between the McDonald's property and the existing SH 114 right-of-way and when TxDot acquires the Chevron property there will be an offset along the McDonald's frontage. The offset abuts into the north line of McDonald's and although they are providing the required 25 foot bufferyard along the majority of their frontage, the offset of the future right-of-way onto their lot does not allow them to provide the full 25-foot width for this portion. Staff recommends approval of their request due to the fact that visually it will still look like a full width bufferyard due to the parkway provided by TxDot along SH 114. Bill DuMouth, real estate agent for McDonald's was present for the meeting and stated the reason for the Special Developer Agreement is the temporary driveway. Motion was made to approve the Special Developer Agreement for McDonald's. Motion: Richarme Second: Evans Ayes: Richarme, Hall, Evans, Fickes Nays: Muller Approved: 4-1 vote Agenda Item #10-C. Reauest for Variance for Bank United Sienage. Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works, led the discussion regarding the request of Bank United for a variance to the Sign Ordinance for two issues: letters on the west side and a monument sign. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 continued on September 12, 1995 page nineteen AI!enda Item #10-C. Continued Motion was made to approve the variance as requested. Motion: Hall Second: Evans Ayes: Hall, Evans, Richarme, Fickes Nays: Muller Approved: 4-1 vote Council adjourned for recess at 9:20 p.m. Council returned to open session at 9:35 p.m. Allenda Item g9-A. Resolution No. 95-35. Clarifvine the Southlake Park. Recreation. and Ooen Soace Master Plan for Texas Recreation and Parks Accounts Proeram of Texas Parks ond Wildlife Deoartment. Kim McAdams, Park Project Manager, led the discussion regarding the Resolution No. 95-35, clarifying the Southlake Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan for the Texas Recreation and Parks Account Program of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, adding, the State has rewritten the rules for grants, and they have asked Southlake to add information to our application. We are trying to comply and therefore need this resolution approved. Motion was made to approve Resolution No. 95-35. Motion: Richarme Second: Evans Ayes: Richarme, Evans, Hall, Muller, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote Agenda Rem #9-B. Resolution. Appointments to a Committee to Study the Feasibility of Solittim, Plannine and Zonine Commission. Gary Fickes stated during the budget process the suggestion of splitting the Planning and Zoning Commission into two separate boards was suggested. This committee is being formed to research the pro's and con's of splitting the commission. It was suggested two members of Council, two P&Z members and two members from SPIN serve on the committee. Motion was made to approve Resolution No. 95-36, appointing Sally Hall, Ralph Evans, and Ron Maness from Council; James Murphy and Rex Potter from P&Z; and two names to be submitted at the next meeting of SPIN representatives. Motion: Hall Second: Richarme Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 continued on September 12, 1995 page twenty Agenda Item #9-B. Continued Ayes: Hail, Evans, Richarme, Fickes Nays: None Abstention: Muller Approved: 4-0-1 vote Agenda Item #10-D. Accent or Reiect Bids for Summerplace Drainage Channel Imnrovements. Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works, led the discussion regarding the bids for Summerplace Drainage Channel Improvements and whether or not to accept or reject the bids. Also, granting permission to re-advertise, should the bids be rejected. Eddie Cheatham, Cheatham and Associates, was present to explain to Council that the bids were higher than he had anticipated. The originai estimate two years ago was $65,000, which was budgeted. After the 1995 June retreat, Council authorized that the "Segmented Retaining Wall" design be used at an estimated cost of $74,625. The low hid was $148,677.70. The reasons for the higher bids, as per Cheatham and Associates analysis, are due to increase of material costs ( 15 %-20 % ), and the contractors have plenty of work causing them to not bid aggressively. Cheatham added, street and utility contractors do not do this kind of work. The type wail that was bid was not the problem, channel excavation and concrete rip-rap was the big difference. Curtis Hawk, City Manager, stated if the City Council was to decide to reject bids and rend, we could put it into next year, and roll over the money from this year to next year to have more funds. Mayor Fickes stated he feels we should get the project done. Cindy Huff, 314 Dove Creek Trail, Southlake. Ms. Huff stated she lives next to the creek and stated the job cannot be done in the spring because of the rain. The residents in her area need this project to get done now; this project has been put off and put off and it needs to be done now. Tom Essig, 315 Dove Creek Trail, Southlake. Mr. Essig expressed that he aiso feels this projects needs to get done now. Councilmember Richarme expressed concern with the mixed signals he is receiving from staff. By waiting until next summer, we could save as much as $30,000. He realizes we need to get this job done. He had trouble saying do it at $150,000. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 continued on September 12, 1995 page twenty-one Aeenda Item #10-D. Continued Cheatham stated if we rebid we would be better off to wait until late spring or early summer. Motion was made to reject bids and authorize staff to rebid this project immediately with a 150 day window. Motion: Richarme Second: Evans Ayes: Richarme, Evans, Hall, Muller, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote Councilmember Richarme recommended we have an investigation within staff on how we will move money around, realizing this was not budgeted in FY 95-96. Agenda Item #10-E, Petition to TxDot for the SH 114 Reconstruction Project Curtis Hawk, City Manager, commented on a letter he received from Michael Weaver, our highway consultant on the SH 114 Project. Hawk noted whether we go forward on the 28th of September or not, it is imperative that we join with the City of Fort Worth and others in a Tm'rant and Johnson coalition to pursue SH 114 funding. Councilmembers were asked to try and attend the September 28, trip to Austin. Agenda Item #10-F~ Apnointment of Director of Parks and Recreation Curtis Hawk, City Manager, stated the establishment of a Park and Recreation Department with a Director has been part of an organization plan we have been working toward since the adoption of our Park Master Plan. He recommends that Kim McAdams, current Park Project Manager, be appointed as Director of the Park and Recreation Division. Motion was made to approve Klm McAdams as Director of the Park and Recreation Division. Motion: Richarme Second: Evans Ayes: Richarme, Evans, Hall, Fickes Nays: None Abstention: Muller Approved: 4-0-1 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes September 5, 1995 continued on September 12, 1995 page twenty-two Agenda Item #11-A. Discussion: P&Z Commission Rerluest for Relief from Res No. 95-24 Relatine to Limitin~ Cases. The request from the Planning and Zoning Commission for relief from Resolution No. 95-24, relating to limiting cases on Council agenda was discussed. It was suggested that the new committee appointed to study the feasibility of splitting the Planning and Zoning Commission also come up with a suggestion on limiting cases. Aeenda Item #2-A. Executive Session/continued Mayor Fickes advised the audience that Council would be going into executive session pursuant to Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071, 551.072, 551.074, 551.076 of the Open Meetings Act, to seek the advice o;f the City Attorney with respect to pending and contemplated litigations, to discuss the purchase, exchange, lease or sale of real property and to consider the appointment and evaluation of public officials, and regarding the deployment of specific occasions for implementation of security personnel or devises. Council adjourned to executive session at 10:30 p.m. Council returned to open session at 11:30 p.m. Aeenda Item #2-B. Action Necessary/Executive Session Motion was made to authorize the Mayor to execute the Hargett/Williams agreement as originally proposed. Motion: Hall Second: Evans Ayes: Hall, Evans, Muller, Richarme, Fickes Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote Aeenda Item #12. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. by~ /l~ayor 0~ary F~es ' ATTEST: City of Southlake, Texas " CITY COUNCIL MEETING SIGN UP IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK DURING THE MEETING DATE: 9j" NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE AGENDA 1'1'EM 3,),o imu (0(2, ' 1 q 02 -- 26 00 /0 - -C- ✓ban y //// ��: �h f8j/ 6 15‘.1 3 s v ,} Tl 4: "/d.# �y Lv �'72 1r1 t n1 i Dt✓r�� DCVE'ic�/'ri(c:'�'T � �,�2.i��1 -� b J R ea f r i i7oi Cf f 4 .ice 76 7C /, 1 ✓' _s /1 7 , / r, C—i4)-(cy five �?� .3 as yr P �4 • City of Southlake, Texas MFMORANDUM September 5, 1995 TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Lou Ann Heath, Director of Finance SUBJECT: FY95 - 96 Proposed Budget and FY94 - 95 Revised Budget Over the course of several work sessions, changes have been recommended by the Council to the proposed FY95 -96 budget, revised FY94 -95 budget, and the Capital Projects budget. Attached are the various summary sheets for the Operating Budget and the Capital Projects that reflect the discussed changes. In the following paragraphs, I will explain each difference so that comparisons can be made to the original documents provided. Proposed Budget 1995 -96 All Funds Summary. The Operating Budget is presented in summary form, by individual fund, and by expenditure category for FY93 -94 actual, FY94 -95 adopted budget, FY94 -95 revised budget, and FY95 -96 proposed budget. The top portion of the first page details projected revenues and expenditures for FY95 -96. Revenues remain as previously presented. Expenditures in the Utility Fund are reduced by $957,047, the amount designated for capital projects. This same amount is reflected as a transfer out of the Utility Fund to the Waterworks Improvement Fund, a Capital Projects Fund, where the specific projects will be listed. Therefore, ending fund balance in the Utility Fund remains the same at $1,045,850. The FY94 -95 Revised Budget reflects a net change of +$600 due to adjustments in the General Fund's Parks /Recreation Division. • Revenues from recreation classes are increased $8,500, and payments for recreation contractors are increased $15,400. Professional service expenditures of $7,500 in the Division are reduced to zero, as these expenditures are associated with and properly accounted for in the SPDC project fund. The beginning fund balance as originally presented for the SPDC operating funds was understated by $5,000 due to an adjustment in the FY94 -95 sales tax revenues. Originally, the fund balance estimate for all funds was $3,605,483. The ending fund balance for all funds is $3,611,083, reflecting the changes discussed above ($3,605,483 + $5,000 + $600). Curtis E. Hawk FY95 -96 Proposed Budget and FY94 -95 Revised Budget September 5, 1995 page 2 Capital Projects Proposed 1995 -96 Budget. The Capital Projects budget summary reflects the same revenues for FY95 -96, $1,805,500. The Waterworks Improvements Fund previously listed zero expenditures. As discussed on the previous page, $957,047 is transferred from the Utility Fund to the Waterworks Improvements Fund and identified for specific water and sewer capital projects. Accounting for these projects in a capital projects fund via transfer from an operating fund will enable year by year comparisons to be made. The Sewer Assessment Fund second year neighborhood assessment program was deleted, reducing expenditures by $1.49 million. Bond proceeds for this second year program were, in turn, reduced by $990,000. It is anticipated that the second year of the program will be implemented in FY96 -97. In the 1994 Street Bond Projects, certain road sections are proposed to be delayed until FY96 -97, reducing the FY95 -96 amount originally presented by $648,081. The Infrastructure Reserve Fund budget reflects expenditures of $1,967,850, a reduction of $1,953,800 from the original proposal. Remaining funds in the Perimeter Road Fund, $124,793, are reflected as a transfer from the Perimeter Road Fund to the Infrastructure Reserve Fund. This amount will be used for construction of the Randol Mill project from FM1709 to Kingswood. These two changes reduces by $2,107,000 the anticipated bond proceeds required to fund the projects from $3,950,000 to $1,843,000. LAH 5 September 1995 City of Southlake 667 N. Carroll Avenue Southlake, TX 76092 Attn: City Mayor and Council Members Dear Mayor and Honorable Council Members: I am writing in regards to City Ordinance 647 entitled "Adopting the Tax Rate for FY1995- 96" which has proposed to reduce the City's property tax from $.44900 to $.42200 per $100 of assessed valuation. I am asking the Southlake City Council to not approve this Ordinance, to maintain the current property tax rate, while dedicating the additional tax proceeds from the difference of the two tax rates towards the sole purpose of constructing and/or improving the City's road system. I realize that this action is not politically correct and that tax figures can sometimes be misused by politicians to their--ewn benefit their own agenda. No elected official wants to be associated with the raising of taxes! I personally do not want to be known as the one Southlake citizen who wanted higher taxes, however, I believe the City Council must act rationally and responsibly on this matter and to do what is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Southlake. As such, I would like to discuss this subject and comment accordingly. In recent years, the City of Southlake has experienced phenomenal double -digit construction growth. This growth has been predominantly concentrated in the residential arena with limited commercial or office growth at this time. It is my understanding that studies indicate that residential growth within a community places greater operating burdens on a City compared to commercial or office ventures. Residential property taxes seldom generate the revenue necessary to cover increased infrastructure expenses such as water, sewer, parks and recreation, additional fire and police, nor the construction of additional or the improvement of existing roadways. There are those us in Southlake that hope that commercialization will expand to meet citizen needs while providing additional tax revenues to offset the City's increa in operating expenses. However, commercial growth has been n slow thus far and may continue in the near term with the adoption of the much needed Overlay Zoning Ordinance which imposes high quality standards on new commercial ventures. Other taxes and/or fees attempt to minimize the increased operating cost impacts, but the revenue from these are usually limited to specified operating expenses. I believe the City staff strives to minimize operating expenses, however, this sometimes results in the delaying of infrastructure actions until a dire need arises. I believe that our City road system bears the bulk of this burden and that the much - needed road improvements are unfortunately being delayed. Such actions, as delaying road construction or improvements, deteriorate our quality of life while exposing Southlake citizens to unnecessary safety hazards. Citizens continue to express their desire for improved roadways. This has been done through the SPIN Public Works Recommendation Page 2 of 3 List as well as through individuals speaking to City Council members. In the future, the City Council members can expect to see more and more citizens expressing their dissatisfaction with Southlake's roads; evidence of this recently occurred at the last Council meeting when Mr. Bejarano expressed his strong concerns with the dangerous condition of West Continental Boulevard. He stated that this was not his first visit to City Council on this subject and I'm confident it will not be his last In summary, the citizens of Southlake want the City to improve the quality of its roads and unfortunately the limited funds are inhibiting appropriate action. Thus far, I have expressed concerns regarding the City keeping pace with the infrastructure requirements and the citizen's desire for better roads. I would now like to focus our attention on the tax rate itself. One might surmise that by leaving the tax rate the same as last year, then the average citizen's taxes are increasing. Simple math says this is true assuming an individual's appraised valuation has increased over the previous year's value. Assuming the average property value appraises at $250,000, an individual might assume his/her taxes to increase approximately $50.00 a year. At this point one has to ask "Why have property values increases ? ". There are multiple reasons for this occurrence, but one of the basic reasons might be the surrounding infrastructure. Based on that thought, one might construe that if the surrounding infrastructure does not keep p with community's requirements that this will negatively impact the property values,. If property dec rease, then the tax rate would need to be increased to maintain the existing level of infrastructure, thus the ludicrous tax cycle begins and citizens are unhappy. In regards to the amount of tax increase, each Southlake citizen will have his/her opinion as to the significance of that $50.00. I believe that most residents would not be unduly concerned with this amount, considering Southlake's low tax rate compared to other communities. I further believe that they would be more receptive to the additional $50.00 per year if they knew that it would be used for improving the City's road system versus other discretionary type expenses. Several Council members have expressed a desire to integrate good business practices into the municipal process. I would like to point out that many financial institutions prefer stability and consistency in business financial reporting. For example, keeping dividends the same over time is favored versus increasing dividends during bumper crop years and decreasing them in less profitable years. The same can be said for the City's tax rates, citizens prefer predictability and consistency each year. I don't believe that our citizens will like decreasing the tax rate this year and raising the tax rate next year. This occurrence is possible should the City's growth reduce to a single digit level in the coming years. Financial institutions also like companies whom reinvest in their business. The same can be said for a city, should we not invest in our City's infrastructure. I know that my efforts have not been as eloquent or concise as I would have liked them to be, but I hope that I have provoked some additional thoughts into each of your minds. In summary, I hope that you will do what is best for the City and not necessarily the politically correct action. Please maintain the current property tax rate, while dedicating the additional tax proceeds from the Page 3 of 3 difference of the two tax rates towards the sole purpose of constructing and/or improving the City's road system. Thank you for your time and for listening to my request. Rex Potter City of Southlake, Texas A PERMIT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A BB GUN SHOOTING RANGE; SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED HEREIN; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. I. In accordance with Ordinance No. 527, Section 4, the City Council finds that the applicant represents a responsible organization and that the request for a permit is reasonable and is in the best interest of the public. II. A Permit is hereby granted for the Cub Scout BB Gun Shooting Range "Turkey Shoot" at Camp Burnett of Southlake, subject to the following specific requirements and special conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with any range safety and down -range safety requirements established by the Director of Public Safety for the City of Southlake. 2. This permit shall be for September 30 and October 1, 1995, or for two rain days if the September 30 and October 1, 1995 days are rained out, provided however, that this permit will be valid for two (2) days only, and in any event shall expire within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this permit. III. This permit shall become effective on the date of approval by the City Council. Passed and approved this the ( 5 day of , 1995. o louuua np CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS z O .r N 1 - / •-- BY' s v Mayor ary Fickes ATTEST: .ic 4 ,,l44 c lc % O / / J. Sandra L. LeGrand City Secretary C: \ORD -RES. AGRWERMIT3. BB/kb August 28, 1995 David W. Callahan Pack 507, BSA .. 2411 Taylor Southlake, TX 76092 RECE F M)62 Mr. Curtis Hawk PC Southlake City Manager CITY SECRETij, ' 667 N. Carroll Southlake, TX 76092 R Dear Mr. Hawk, I live in Emerald Estates and belong to Cub Scout Pack 507 of Johnson Elementary School. I am the Pack's BSA trained, BB Gun Range Instructor. It is time once again to request a permit, under Ordinance No. 527, section 4. We would like to operate a Cub Scout • BB Gun Shooting Range. On September 30th and October 1st, 1995 we wish to conduct our annual "Turkey Shoot" at Camp Burnett of Southlake. I will erect ■ my range on the open parade ground facing north. It will be arranged as to allow participants an entry and an exit from the south. I am enclosing a diagram and literature pertaining to location, construction M and operation of a Cub Scout BB Gun Range. I am trained and experienced. I have the mindset that if an activity cannot be done safely and well, that I will pack up and go home. I wish to offer our scouts a fun activity and responsible training. In conclusion, Mr. Hawk, I thank you and the Council's kind ■ consideration in this matter. If you wish me to be present at your next work session please call me at 488 -4646. Due to work I may not be available for the September council meeting. 1 Si cerely yours, 1 i `a) �� L- David W. Callahan 1 ` Enclosures 1 1 1 J 1 1 r 6 , P _ ;- (/ r 1 r .. 7 . 1 7.-7-717 f. ,- :i ;; „,iN C A -r Z -4- 4- .- (1, 1.„ - .1.- _.,,,\_ > . f (° 1 4- Q 1 f Ail":(PD ` .•°°- N. ....., ,...., 1 " ...‹, CL 06 t''' 41 *- 0 0 Cs -€. Z. r1 '"°--'------V-- .....1 ....4 L , A 1 o� ---)1P ._ RANGE OFFICER DOS AND DON'TS 1. ALWAYS PUT THE SAFETY OF YOUR STUDENTS AHEAD OF EVERYTHING ELSE. .1 /r 2. NEVER SHOOT AT ANYTHING OTHER THAN PAPER TARGETS. Remember that B B's ricochet! 3. WORK AT THE AGE LEVEL OF YOUR STUDENTS. DON'T TALK AT AN ADULT LEVEL TO 9 YEAR OLDS. 4. GIVE ADULTS WITH YOUR STUDENTS A CONSTRUCTIVE JOB TO DO TO HELP. 6, -"i ) ,Q(� 5. NEVER TRY TO RUN A RANGE BY YOURSELF, ALWAYS HAVE AT LEAST TWO OTHER LINE OFFICERS WITH YOU. 6. DON'T ALLOW OTHER ADULTS TO INTIMIDATE YOU. YOU ARE IN CHARGE. 7. MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH THE STUDENTS YOU ARE TEACHING. 8. DO NOT ALLOW HORSEPLAY BY ANYONE ON THE RANGE. 9. IF ANYONE CAN NOT FOLLOW THE RULES THEY ARE TO LEAVE THE RANGE IMMEDIATELY. This includes adults. 10. IF STUDENTS HAVE IDEAS THAT YOU DON'T CONSIDER SAFE, GENTLY BUT FIRMLY POINT OUT THAT SAFETY COMES FIRST, LAST AND ALWAYS. CODE OF THE DAISY « B" R1ELEMAN • Treat every gun as if it were loaded and ready to shoot. • Never carry a gun into your home, camp or public place loaded or cocked. • Always be sure your gun barrel is clean and not plugged. • Carry your gun so you can control the direction of the muzzle, even if you stumble. • Be sure of your target before you pull the trigger. • Never point a gun at anything you do not want to shoot. • Guns not being used should always be unloaded. • Never climb a tree or fence or jump a ditch with a loaded gun. • Never shoot at a flat, hard surface or the surface of water. • Respect other people's property. r SCHEDULE OF FEES ACTIVITY FEE SECTION I. Administrative Activities 1. NSF Check Return Charge $20.00 2. Copy Charges $.10 /page 3. Water Service Customer Listing $1.00 /computer page 4. Water Customer Mailing Labels $35.00 5. Offense /Accident Report Copies $4.00 ea. 6. Burning Permits $0.00 7. Ambulance Fees: Transport - Baylor, Grapevine (w /o oxygen) $150.00 Transport- Baylor, Grapevine (with oxygen) $160.00 Transport -Other Hospitals (w /o oxygen) $300.00 Transport-Other Hospitals (with oxygen) $310.00 8. House Moving Permit $10.00 + $1,000 Surety Bond + 1.5 x hourly rate of 2 police officers utilized in the move 9. Solicitation/Vendor Permit $35.00 (Co. license) +$10.00 /Agent + $1,000 Surety Bond 10. Seasonal Permits $25.00 11. Vital Statistics: Certificate of Death $9.00 / 1st copy 3.00 each add' 1 copy at time of initial request Certificate of Birth (Amended Res. #95 -34) $13.00 / copy C : \ORD- RES.AGR \SCH995.FEE- 1ah /kb (9 -95) ACTIVITY FEE 12. Wrecker Permit Fee: (Amended Res.N94 -61) Permit fee per wrecker vehicle $24.00 per year (waived for contract agency) Permit Fee per authorized driver $12.00 per year (waived for contract agency) SECTION II. Community Development Activities 1. Board of Adjustment requests $200.00 /request 2. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance $200.00 /request 3. Zoning Only $200.00 + $10 /Acre 4. Concept Plan Only $200.00 + $10 /Acre 5. Zoning & Concept Plan $300.00 + $10 /Acre 6. Zoning and Site Plan $300.00 + $10 /Acre 7. Zoning /Concept & Site Plan $500.00 + $10 /Acre 8. Specific Use Permit $200.00 + $10 /Acre 9. Site Plans $300.00 + $10 /Acre 10. Amended Plat <_ 4 lots $200.00 + $20 /Lot /Res $200.00 + $20 /Ac -Comm 11. Amended Plat > 4 lots $300.00 + $20 /Lot -Res $300.00 + $20 /Ac -Comm 12. Plat Showing (1 lot) $200.00 + $20 /Lot -Res $200.00 + $20 /Ac -Comm 13. Plat Showing (multiple lots) $300.00 + $20 /Lot -Res $300.00 + $20 /Ac /Comm 14. Preliminary Plat (Non- P.U.D.) $300.00 + $20 /Lot -Res $300.00 + $20 /Ac -Comm C : \GRD- RES.AGR \SCH995.FEE- lah /kb (9 -95) ACTIVITY FEE 15. Preliminary Plat (P.U.D.) $300.00 + $30 /Lot -Res $300.00 + $30 /Ac -Comm 16. Final Plat (Non- P.U.D.) $300.00 + $20 /Lot -Res $300.00 + $20 /Ac -Comm 17. Final Plat (P.U.D.) $300.00 + $30 /Lot -Res $300.00 + $30 /Ac -Comm 18. Plat Revision $300.00 + $20 /Lot -Res $300.00 + $20 /Ac -Comm 19. Plat Vacation $200.00 Flat Fee 20. Rush Plat Filing $300.00 Flat Fee 21. Two - County Filing $50.00 Flat Fee 22. Extra Plat Page Filing $20.00 Flat Fee 23. Mapping (1:1000) - Blueprint $20.00 per map - Color $30.00 per map 24. Mapping (1:2000) - Black/White $5.00 per map - Color $10.00 per map 25. Mapping 11"x 17" plat reduction copies $2.00 per map 26. Mapping (digital tape format)(Added Res. #95 -34) $140.00 per tape 27. Street Name Change $100.00 per street 28. Temporary Batch Plant Permit $.00 per Permit 29. Tree Removal Permit $.00 per Permit 30. Park land Dedication- Raw acreage cost $25 ,000.00 per acre C : \ORD- RES.AGR \SCH995.FEE- lah /kb (9 -95) ACTIVITY FEE SECTION III. Public Works Activities 1. Administrative Processing Fee 2% Actual Construction Cost 2. Computer Drainage Study: HEC I: $400.00 + $10 /Linear Foot HEC II: $400.00 + $10 /Linear Foot 3. Construction Inspection 3% Actual Construction Cost 4. Street Cut Permit $15.00 per Street 5. Easement Abandonments $150.00 Flat Fee 6. R.O.W. Abandonments $150.00 Flat Fee 7. Easement /R.O.W. Dedications $100.00 per Easement 8. Water Tap Fee 1" Meter $360.00 2" Meter $600.00 4" Meter $1,900.00 6" Meter $2,777.00 8" Meter $4,054.00 9. Sewer Tap Fee $75.00 10. Sewer Participation Fee (Added Res. #95 -34) $1, 300 /lot 11. Water Administrative Service Charge $15.00 12. Water Deposits: Residential Accounts $50.00 Commercial Accounts Reviewed by Utility Billing Supervisor 13. Fire Plug Meter Deposit (City Meter) $650.00 Fire Plug Meter Deposit (Own Meter) $100.00 C : \ORD- RES.AGR \SCH995.FEE- 1ah /kb (9 -95) ACTIVITY FEE 14. Water Reconnect Fees for Non - Payment, Business Days Only: 8 a.m. -5 p.m.: lst/2nd/3rd & subsequent $20/$40/$60 After 5 p.m.: lst/2nd/3rd & subsequent $40/$60/$80 Weekends, anytime $40/$60/$80 15. Water Meter Re- installation Fee $50.00 16. Water Meter Reread Fee $5.00 17. Damaged or Broken Lock $25.00 18. Late Utility Payment Fee 5% of Outstanding Balance 19. Street Light Costs Developer pays installation + 2 -year operation cost 20. Building Permit Fees Per the currently adopted U.B.C. (Administrative Code) 21. Water Well Permit $42.00 22. Tent Permit $15.00 23. Sign Permit, Permanent Type (1 - 50 sq ft) $50.00 minimum Sign Permit, Permanent Type (> 50 sq ft) $1.00 / sq ft Sign Permit, Temporary Type $25.00 Illuminated Sign, Electrical Permit $35.00 (in addition to above) 24. Request for Variance to Sign Ordinance $100.00 /request 25 Culvert and /or Approach Permit $42.00 26. Building Contractor's Registration Fee $75.00 27. Perimeter Street Fees (Amended Res. #95 -05, Res. #95 -34) See Exhibit "A" 28. Critical Drainage Structure Fees. (Added Res. #95 -34) See Exhibit "B" C: \ORD- RES.AGR \SCH995. FEE- lah /kb (9 -95) ACTIVITY FEE SECTION IV. Park Activities (Amended Res. #95 -34) 1. Building Reservations for Residents: Regular Meetings Reservation $25.00 per year Security Deposit $50.00 (refundable) Week day meeting $10.00 /hr 2. Building Reservations for Special Activities: Security Deposit $50.00 (refundable) The Lodge (with Kitchen) $15.00 /hr Community Center /room $15.00 /rm/hr Community Center /entire building $35.00 /hr 3. Organized Athletic Programs $1,000,000 General Liability Insurance Policy 4. TV /VCR Rental Fee No charge with reservation 5. Equipment Rental: (Driver's license held) Tennis Racket & Balls No charge Volleyballs No charge Basketballs No charge 6. Reservations of Park Facilities: Security Deposit $50.00 (refundable) Hilltop Picnic Area $5.00 /4 hrs Pine Tree Picnic Area $5.00 /4 hrs Bicentennial Pavilion $8.00 /4 hrs 7. Reservations for Fields and Courts: Ballfields (No Lights) $7.50/1.5 hr /field Ballfields (With Lights) $15.00 /1.5 hr /field Soccer Fields $2.50/1.5 hr /field Field Preparation Fees: Weekday Games $25.00 /field Weekend Games $37.50 /field Multi -use Court (Hockey /Basketball) $10.00 /hr Multi -use Court (With Lights) $15.00 /hr Sand Volleyball Courts $5.00 /hr /court Tennis Courts $5.00/1.5 hr /court C : \ORD- RES.AGR \SCH995.FEE- lah /kb (9 -95) Exhibit "A" Perimeter Street Fees September 5, 1995 PER - LINEAR -FOOT COST ESTIMATES Roadway Cost Cost Classification Per Linear Foot Per Linear Foot without Drainage with Drainage Arterial - Interim 24' Section No curb & Gutter - 4" HMAC $60.00 $105.00 Arterial - Interim 48' Section No Curb & Gutter - 4" HMAC $105.00 $200.00 Arterial - Ultimate A4D Boulevard Section With Curb & Gutter $165.00 $220.00 Arterial - Ultimate A4D Boulevard Section With Curb & Gutter - 6" PCC $190.00 $250.00 Arterial - Ultimate A5U Undivided Section With Curb & Gutter - 7" HMAC $190.00 $255.00 Arterial - Ultimate A5U Undivided Section With Curb & Gutter - 6" PCC $230.00 $305.00 Arterial - Ultimate A4U Undivided Section With Curb & Gutter - 7" HMAC $ 145.00 $195.00 Arterial - Ultimate A4U Undivided Section With Curb & Gutter - 6" PCC $175.00 $235.00 Collector - Interim 24' Section No Curb & Gutter - 4" HMAC $60.00 $105.00 Collector - Interim 48' Section No Curb & Gutter - 4" HMAC $105.00 $200.00 Collector - Ultimate C2U Section With Curb Sc. Gutter - 7" HMAC $120.00 $160.00 C: \ORD- RES.AGR \FEESEXA.WPD- lah /kb (9 -95) Exhibit "A" Perimeter Street Fees September 5, 1995 PER - LINEAR -FOOT COST ESTIMATES Roadway Cost Cost Classification Per Linear Foot Per Linear Foot without Drainage with Drainage Collector - Ultimate C2U Section With Curb & Gutter - 6" PCC $135.00 $180.00 Residential Street - R2U Residential Street or Cul De Sac - 31' Section With Curb & Gutter - 6" HMAC $90.00 $115.00 Residential Street - R2U Residential Street or Cul De Sac - 31' Section With Curb & Gutter - 5" PCC $110.00 $145.00 HMAC = Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete PCC = Portland Cement Concrete PLF = Per Linear Foot C: \ORD- RES.AGR \FEESEXA.WPD- IahIkb (9 -95) Exhibit "B" Schedule of Fees Critical Drainage Structures per Engineering Report dated June 1995 Cheatham & Associates Drainage Structure Fee Per Acre 1. Structure crosses T.W. King Road at approximately 1,250 ft. north of Bob Jones Road $437.34 2. Structure crosses N. White Chapel Blvd. at Kirkwood Branch $149.11 3. Structure crosses N. White Chapel Blvd. at south fork of Kirkwood Branch $186.15 4. Structure crosses W. Dove Street approx. 900' west of N. Peytonville Ave. $307.40 5. Structure crosses W. Dove Street approx. 300 ft. west of Shady Oaks Drive $331.38 6. Structure crosses E. Dove Street at Dove Creek $235.74 7. Structure crosses Plantation Drive at Higgins Branch $280.91 8. Structure crosses Shady Oaks Dr. at approx. 2,800' south of W. Dove Street $479.34 9. Structure crosses N. Carroll Ave. at approx. 3,600' north of State Highway 114 $278.14 10. Structure crosses W. Highland St. approx. 300' east of Shady Oaks Drive $694.29 11. Structure crosses Dove Creek Trail at approx. 1,000' south of Highland Street $466.91 12. Structure crosses East Highland St. at approx. 1,650' east on N. Carroll Ave. $983.63 13. Structure crosses North Kimball Ave. at approx. 2,800' north of State Highway 114 $371.20 14. Structure crosses Shady Lane at approx. 2,800' north of State Highway 114 $222.80 15. Structure crosses North Kimball Ave. approx. 800' north of State Highway 114 $406.50 16. Structure crosses Florence Rd. at approx. 3,000' west of Randol Mill Ave. $563.01 17. Structure crosses Johnson Rd. at approx. 1,700' west of Randol Mill Ave. $408.88 18. Structure crosses Southlake corporate limits at approx. 600' west of FM1938. $212.61 C: \ORD- RES.AGR \FEESEXB. WPD- lah/KB (9 -95) Exhibit "B" Schedule of Fees Critical Drainage Structures per Engineering Report dated June 1995 Cheatham & Associates Drainage Structure Fee Per Acre 19. Structure crosses W. Continental Blvd. at west side of S. Peytonville Ave. $417.61 20. Structure crosses W. Continental Blvd. below Timberlake Addition $214.29 21. Structure crosses W. Continental Blvd. adjacent to S. Carroll Ave. $760.28 22. Structure crosses W. Continental Blvd. approx. 2,800' east of S. White Chapel Blvd. $566.02 23. Structure crosses W. Continental Blvd. approx. 1,100' west of S. Carroll Ave. $309.83 24. Structure crosses W. Continental Blvd. adjacent to S. Carroll Ave. $652.13 25. Structure crosses S. Carroll Ave. adjacent to E. Continental Blvd. $614.87 26. Structure crosses S. White Chapel Blvd. at Big Bear Creek not developed 27. Structure crosses E. Continental Blvd. approx. 1,800' west of S. Kimball Ave. $878.95 culvert cost $2,850/1.f. C: \ORD- RES.AGR \FEESEXB.WPD- 1ah /KB (9 -95) EXHIBIT A SOUTHLAKE PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN Proposed Amendments, June 7, 1995 • Duration: Adopted in January, 1992 Plan is for 20 years, the city will review and update the plan every four years . Accomplishments: Nov 1993 Citizens approved a 1/2 sales tax increase dedicated to park development Jan 1994 Citizens group formed to build a Leather's Community Playground Jun 1994 City acquired 24 acres of land to expand Bicentennial Park (City Park) July 1994 Developer donated and constructed 7 acre public neighborhood park, Lonesome Dove d, picnicking) Oct 1994 City let construction (playgroun contract for $800,000 for recreation center /gym __ joint -use facility with CISD. Oct 1994 City let construction contract for $1.8 million expansion of Bicentennial Park (Multisports Complex) Oct 1994 City hires consultants to assist in developing a Trail System Master Plan Nov 1994 Developer donated 5 acres for a public neighborhood park - Country Walk (Baseball Fields). Dec 1994 City acquired 80 acres of future park land next to the COE park on Lake Grapevine (Trails, Nature Areas, Playground, Picnicking, Outdoor Swimming, Multisports Complex, Equestrian Sites) Feb 1995 Developer opens a public /private golf course on Big Bear Creek in Southlake Needs Assessment and Identification: The citizen survey that was conducted in 1991, which was used to determine local needs for the Southlake community ( page C -13). Prioritization of needs: The citizen survey of 1991 was used to determine recreational facility priorities. Top facilities in priority order are: #1 Hike & Bike Trails #2 Nature areas & trails #3 Playgrounds #4 Golf Course #5 Picnicking Sites #6 Exercise /Fitness Trails #7 Recreation Center #8 Outdoor Swimming _. #9 Multisports Complex . #10 Baseball Fields #11 Equestrian Sites #12 Indoor Pool 9� -B Implementation Plan: 1992, Establish additional revenue sources to develop plan 1993, Set up a three year construction plan with 1/2 cent sales tax 1994, Expand Bicentennial Park as a Multisports Complex 1995, Open a joint -use recreation center / gym with CISD 1996, Acquire land near Lake Grapevine for the largest city park which would incorporate leased land from the Corps of Engineers 1996, Update Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan to determine the next five years of park facilities to be developed 7,4-f PROPOSED BUDGET 1995 -96 ALL FUNDS SUMMARY Special Revenue General Debt Service Utility Parks/ Fund Fund Fund Recreation SPDC Total Projected Revenues - FY95 -96 $7,148,925 $1,703,065 $5,566,000 $106,000 $709,500 $15,233,490 Less: Projected Expenditures $7,869,598 $1,464,333 $5,402,072 $138,000 $416,680 $15,290,683 Total- Expenditures - FY95 -96 $7,869,598 $1,464,333 $5,402,072 $138,000 $416,680 $15,290,683 C.O. Proceeds 330,000 0 0 0 0 330,000 Net Transfers In (Out) 556.600 (195.647) (1,201.324) 0 0 (840,371) Net Revenues $165.927 $43,085 ,$1,037,396) ($32.4401 $292,870 ($567,564) Estimated Fund Balance/ Working Capital 9/30/95 $1,018,074 $356,099 $2,083,246 $68,502 $652,726 $4,178,647 Estimated Fund Balance/ Working Capital 9/30/96 $1,184,001 $399,184 $1,045,850 $36,502 $945,546 $3,611,083 1994 -95 1994 -95 1995 -96 $ Increase/ 1993 -94 . Adopted Revised Adopted (Decrease) % Increase/ Expenditures Actual Budget Budget Budget Adopted - Decrease General Fund Personnel $3,173,470 $4,111,936 $4,083,863 $4,825,826 $713,890 17.4% Operations 1,560,042 2,063,354 2,121,036 2,455,842 392,488 19.0% Capital Outlay 1.041.155 655.908 883 530 587.930 (67,978) - 10.4% Total Expenditures $5,774,667 $6,831,198 $7,088,429 $7,869,598 $1,038,400 15.2% Debt Service Fund Debt Service $1.048.735 $1,342.923 $1.228.170 $1464.333 $121.410 9.0% Total Expenditures $1,048,735 $1,342,923 $1,228,170 $1,464,333 $121,410 9.0% Utility Fund Personnel $434,167 $451,405 $461,530 $603,708 $152,303 33.7% Operations 2,547,672 3 :067,858 3,576,326 4,013,522 945,664 30.8% Capital Outlay 291,608 519,375 689,375 587,080 67,705 13.0% Debt Service 81,900 78,525 193,278 197,762 119,237 151.8% Other 19.713 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Expenses $3,375,060 $4,117,163 $4,920,509 $5,402,072 $1,284,909 31.2% Special Revenue - Parks /Recreation Operations $109,566 $20,000 $81,000 $30,000 $10,000 50.0% Capital Outlay 516.782 63,350 121.258 108.000 44.650 70.5% Total Expenditures $626,348 $83,350 $202,258 $138,000 $54,650 65.6% SPDC Personnel $7,971 $47,680 $47,680 $47,680 $0 0.0% Operations 875 0 4,800 4,800 4,800 100.0% Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Debt Service 0 252.310 252.310 364.200 111,890 44.3% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $8,846 $299,990 $304,790 $416,680 $116,690 38.9% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $10,833.656 $12.674.624 $13.744.156, $15.290.683 $2.616.059 20,6% ALL FUNDS SUMMARY 03:15 PM REVISED 1994 -95 BUDGET and PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET 09/05/95 96sum14.wic4 5.449/5100 1994 -95 1995 -96 Adopted $.44915100 $ Increase/ 1994 -95 $.4221$100 ;! $ Increase/ 1995 -96 1993 -94 1994 -95 1994 . it (Decrease) % Increase/ 1995.96 (Decrease) % Increase/ REVENUES Actual Budget Revised Adopted - Decrease P roposed.: Adopted - Decrease 4555__. Ad Valorem Taxes $3,253,743 $3,784,980 $3,849,030 $64,050 1.7% $4,561,665 $776,685 20.5% 4555. ........... Sales Tax 1,050,731 1,849,500 1,530,000 (319,500; -17.3% 2,011,500 162,000 8.8% __ _.......... 5555... Franchise Fees 400,036 418,040 478,209 60,169 14.4% 516,715 98,675 23.6% 5555_ ____.... ___....._.... Fines 238,030 242,400 243,600 1,200 0.5% 260,400 18,000 7.4% 4455. Charges for Services 53,786 80,000 100,743 20,743 25.9% 94,800 14,800 18.5% 94,800 __._......... 5555._. Permits/Fees 1,879,961 2,041,350 1,969,210 (72,140: -3.5% 1;953,335 (88,015', -4.39'° 4444_ Miscellaneous 148,908 93,350 147,793 54,443 58.3% 159,275 65,925 70.6% ... 5555. __..___._..... 4444 __ 5445. Water Sales - residential 2,608,334 2,970,000. 3,044,700 74,700 2.5% 3,355,175 385,175 13.0% 4455.. 5445.. 4444. 5554.._ 4444__ _....... 4455 5444 5555 Water Sales 468,664 612,000 537,300 (74,700; - 12.2% 687,000 75,000 12.3% Wastewater Sales 371,706 432,000 500,000 68,000 15.7% 610,000 178,000 41.2% _ 5555 4555 ... ___......... Sanitation Sales 344,140 432,000 390,000 (42,000; -9.7% 420,000 (12,000' -2.8% Other Utility Charges 373,733 391,000 300,250 (90,750' - 23.2% 318,625' (72,375 -18.5% 5455._. Interest Income 215.662 " 222.650 257.562 34,912 15.7% 285.000 62.350 28.0% ____......_... 4444_ Total Revenues 511.407,434 513,569,270 $13.348.397 15220.873 -1.6% 515.233.490 $1.664.220 12.3% 4454 __.._..... . .__..... EXPENDITURES City Secretary $212,832 $194,598 $214,111' $19,513 10.0% $210,893 $16,295 8.4% 4444.. 4445 5555.. _.......... City Manager 200,295 314,533 360,197 45,664 14.5% 353 39,179 12.5% Economic Development 0 117,245 117,245 0 •0.0% 126,813 9,568 100.0% Support Services 615.511 642.785 714.274 71.489 11.1% 815.850 173.065 26.9% General Gov Total 51,028.638 51.269.161 57:405.$27 5136.666 %IA 51;507.268 5238.107 18.8% _.. _ .. Finance 263,764 265,640 261,974 (3,666; -1.4% 295,906 30,266 11.4% Municipal Court 158.793 203.990 211.383 7 393 3.690 242 4n R,4115 18.9% Finance Total 5422.557 5469.630 $473.367 S3,727 0.8% $ 568.751 14.6% __....._ Fire 728,480 784,663 810,736 26,073 3.3% 900,166 115,503 14.7% 4555. Police 1,055,234 1,249,070 1,330,994 81,924 6.6% 1,447,567 198,497 15.9% .......... 4555.. _ ............. __....... 4454._ - ......___.. Public Safety Support 434.779 690.080 611.988 178.092; -11.3% 843.124 153.044 22.2% Public Safety Total 52.218.493 $2.723.81. 52.753.718 529,905 M°,ss 53.190.857 5467.044 17.1% Building Inspections 261,663 375,155 339,048 (36,107, -9.6% 385,169 10,014 2.7% Streets/Drainage 1,225,241 997,072 1,033,062 35,990 3.6% 939,197 (57,875; -5.8% Public Works Admin 137,192 360,495 336,283 (24,212; -6.7% 443327 82,832 23.0% Water 2,268,794 2,748,041 2,976,910 228,869 8.3% 3;368,103 620,062 22.6% Wastewater 700,168 901,797 1,399,321 497,524 55.2% 1,458,207 556,410 61.7% Sanitation 304.485 388.800 " 351.000 (37.800; 9,790 378.000, (10.800; 2390 Public Works Total 54.897.543 55.771.360 56.435.624 5664.264 11.5% 56.972.003 51.200.643 20.8% Parks and Recreation 834.875 395,190 623,433 228,243 57.8% 664.547 269.357 68.2% Community Dev. Total 5281.202 5371.712 5378.439 56,727 1.8% 5391.332 519.620 5.3% 4444_ Other 19,713 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% Debt Service 1.130.635 1.673.758 1.673.758 Q 0.0% 2.026.295 352.537 21.1% Total Expenditures 510,833,656 512.674.624 $13.744.156 51.069.532 • 8.4% 515.290.683 2.616.059 20.6% Net Revenues 5573.778 5894.646 (5395.7591 151.290.405' (557.193 Proceeds from C . Sale $1,293,741 $414,180 5445,500 $31,320 .$330,000 (584,180; _.........._ 5555_.. 4555... 5555... 5554_.. 5555.4555.. _........... _.. 5555.. __.__.. Transfers In $424,613 5916,150 51,167,733 $251,583 51;343,235 5427,085 Transfers Out ($643.291' (52.623.005 (51.675.979' 5947 ($2.183.606' $439.399 Total other Sources (Uses) 51.075.062 (51.292.675 (562.745 $1.229.929 ($510371' $782.304 Beginning Fund Balance $3,215,164 $4,637,152 54,637,152 $4;178,647 _,. 5555.._ _..._. 4555... 5554.4544___ 4555 _. Reserved Fund Balance ($226,852) $0 $0 $0 Ending Fund Balance $4.637.152 54.239,1 ?3 $4.178.647 ; $3.611.083 GENERAL FUND 03:15 PM REVISED 1994 -95 BUDGET and PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET 09,0595 96s m4.w1t4 5.449/5100 1994 -95 1995 -96 Adopted 5.449/$100 $ Increase/ 1994 -95 5.422/$100 $ Increase/ 1995 -96 1993 -94 1994 -95 1994-95 (Decrease) % Increase/ 1995-96 (Decrease) % Increase/ REVENUES Actual Budget Revised:. Adopted - Decrease Proposed Adopted - Decrease .......................... ........................... ............................. Ad Valorem Taxes $2,189,927 $2,325,950 $2,385,000 $59,050 2.5% $2,888,600 $562,650 24.2% ........................... Sales Tax 877,615 1,233,000 1,020,000 (213,000; - 17.3% 1,341,000 108,000 8.8% Franchise Fees 400,036 418,040 478,209 60,169 14.4% 516,715 98,675 23.6% Fines 238,030 242,400 243,600 1,200 0.5% 260,400 18,000 7.4% Charges for Services 53,786 80,000 100,743 20,743 25.9% 94,800 14,800 18.5% Permits/Fees 1,680,919 1,941,350 1;857,710 (83,640; -4.3% 1853,335 (88,015) -4.5% Miscellaneous 40,350 41,750 55,300 13,550 32.5% 74,075 32,325 77.4% Interest Income 106.660 90.000 105:000 15.000 16.7% 120.000 30.000 33.3% Total Revenues $5,587,323 $6,372,490 $6,245,562 ($126,928; -2.0% 57,148,925 $776,435 12.2% EXPENDITURES City Secretary $212,832 $194,598 $214,111 519,513 10.0% $210,893 $16,295 8.4% City Manager 200,295 314,533 360,197 45,664 14.5% 353,712: 39,179 12.5% Economic Development 0 117,245 117,245 0 0.0% 126,813 9,568 8.2% Support Services 615.511 642.785 .714.274 71.489 11.1% 815.850 173.065 26.9% General Gov Total 51.028.638 51.269.161 51.405.827 5136.666 10.8% 51.507.268 5238.107 1 .8% Finance 263,764 265,640 261,974 (3,666; -1.4% 295,906 30,266 11.4% Municipal Court 158.793 203.990 211.383 7.393 3.6% 242.475 38.485 18.9% Finance Total 5422 .557 5469.630 5473,357 53.727 0.8% 5538.381 568.751 14.6% Fire 728,480 784,663 810,736 26,073 3.3% 900,166 115,503 14.7% Police 1,055,234 1,249,070 1,330,994 81,924 6.6% 1,447,567 198,497 15.9% Public Safety Support 434.779 690.080 61,1 ,988 (78.092; -11.3% 848.124= 153.044 22.2% Public Safety Total 52.218.493 52.723.813 52.753.718 529.905 1.1% $3 5467.044 17.1% Building Inspections 261,663 375,155 339,048 (36,10T -9.6% 385,169 10,014 2.7% Streets/Drainage 1,225,241 997,072 1,033,062 35,990 3.6% 939,197 (57,875; -5.8% Public Works Admin 137.192 360.495 336.283 (24.212;. -6.7% 443.327 82.832 23.0% Public Works Total 51.624.096 51.732.722 51.708.393 (524.329' 1.41 51.767.693 534.971 2,0 Parks and Recreation 199,681 264.160 368,695 104 39.6% 474,067 209.907 79.5% Community Dev. Total 5281.202 5371.712 5378.439 56,727 1.8% 5391,332 519.620 5.3% Total Expenditures $5,774,667 $6,831,198 $7,088,429 $257,231 3.8% $7,869,598 $1,038,400 15.2% Net Revenues 15187.344' (5458.708 ($842.867 (5384.159' 15720.673' (5261.965' Proceeds from C . Sale $720,826 $414,180 $445,500 5330,000 Transfers In 159,446 496,360 496,360 556,600 Transfers Out ($155,000; 8 6' ($623,000* 50 Total Other Sources (Uses) 5725.272 $90.514 5318.860 $886.600 Beginning Fund Balance $1,405,310 $1,542,081 $1,542,081 $1,018,074 Reserved Fund Balance (5401,157, $0 $0 $0 Ending Fund Balance 51.542.081 51.173.887 $1.018.074 S1.184.001 Fund balance percentage -CK 26.70% 17.18% 1436%_ 15,05 %, ' During FY1994 -95, the City utilized Fund Balance to construct the Kimball Road extension from FM1709 to SH114. It was anticipated that revenues generated from sales tax in subsequent years could be used to restore the Fund Balance to the minimum 15 %. The FY1995 -96 budget proposal achieves this minimum. DEBT SERVICE FUND 03:15 PM REVISED 1994 -95 BUDGET and PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET 09,05/95 96sum14.wk4 $.449/$100 . :•: ,, : , ::::. , : , ::::::. - ::::,,,,,-,,,,: 1994-95 1995 -96 Adopted $.4491$100 $ Increase/ 1994 -95 $.422/$100 $ Increase/ 1995 -96 1993 -94 1994 -95 1994 -95 (Decrease) % Increase/ 1995-96 (Decrease) % Increase/ REVENUES Actual Budget ReVlSed ::: Adopted - Decrease Proposed . Adopted - Decrease .......................... Ad Valorem Taxes $1,063,816 $1,459,030 $1,464,030 $5,000 0.3% •$1,673,065 $214,035 14.7% Interest Income 21.963 25.000 25.000 0 0.0% P 5.000 20.0% Total Revenues $1,085,779 $1,484,030 $1,489,030 $5,000 0.3% •$1;703065 $219,035 14.8% EXPENDITURES Principal $470,000 $700,000 4665900 ($35,000; -5.0% ,50 $8910. $191,500 27.4% Interest 575,737 640,923 •561,170 (79,753; - 12.4% 570;833; (70,090; -10.9% Admin. Expenses 2.998 21140 : 000 OI 0.0% •2.044 0 0.(�% Total Expenditures $1,048,735 $1,342,923 $1,228170 ($114,753 -8.5% $1;464,333: $121,410 9.0% Net Revenues 537,04 5141.107 5260.860 $119.753 •$238 732. $97.625 . Transfers In 265,167 168,480 53,725 ` 5,5,556: • Transfer Out (218,679; (251,585; (251,585; :(254 203; Beginning Fund Balance $209,567 $293,099 •$293,099 $356,099 ending Fund Balance $293 099 5351.101 5356.099 $399184 1 UTILITY FUND 03:15 PM REVISED 1994 -95 BUDGET and PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET 09/05/95 96suN4.wk4 1994 -95 1995 -96 Adopted $ Increase/ 1994 -95 $ Increase/ 1995 -96 1993 -94 1994 -95 1994-95 (Decrease) % Increase/ 1995-96 (Decrease) % Increase/ REVENUES Actual Budget Revised Adopted - Decrease Proposed Adopted - Decrease Miscellaneous $108,558 $51,600 $84,600 $33,000 64.0% $85,200 $33,600 65.1% Interest Income 74,859 75,000 94,000 19,000 25.3% 90,000 15,000 20.0% Water Sales 2,608,334 2,970,000 3,044,700 74,700 2.5% 3,355,175 385,175 13.0% Water Sales 468,664 612,000 537,100 (74,700; -12.2% 687,000 75,000 12.3% Sewer Sales 371,706 432,000 500,000 68,000 15.7% 610,000 178,000 41.2% Sanitation Sales 344,140 432,000 390,000 (42,000` -9.7% 420,000 (12,000; -2.8% Other utility charges 373.733 391.000 300 250 (90.750' -23.2% , ::318.625 (72.375', -18.5% Total Revenues $4,349,994 $4,963,600 $4■950,850 ($12,750) -0.3% $5,566,000 $602,400 12.1% EXPENSES Other $19,713 $0 $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 81,900 78,525 193,278 114,753 146.1% :`197,762 119,237 151.8% Water 2,268,794 2,748,041 2,976 910 228,869 8.3% 3,368,103. 620,062 22.6% Sewer 700,168 901,797 1,399 321 497,524 55.2% 1,458,207 556,410 61.7% Sanitation 304.485 388.800 351000, (37.800. -9.7% 378.000 (10.800; -2.8% Total Expenses $3.375.060 $4.117.163 $4,920.509 $803,346 19.5% $5.402.072 $1,284,909 31.2% Net Revenues $974.934 5846.437 530.341 , (5816.096' ..,.. $163.928 (5682.509 Transfers In $0 $0 $366,338 $367,879 Transfers Out (269.613; (1.300.084' (550:084 (1.569 203' Total Sources (Uses) (269,613; (1100,084;1 (183,746, (1;201,324` Net change In w/c components $174.305 $Q SQ. I . Beginning fund balance $1157,025 $2,236,651 $2,236,651 $2,083,246 Ending fund balance $2.236.651 51.783.004 S2 083.24$ $1.045.650 No of days working capital 242 158 155 71 '. SPECIAL REVENUE FUND Parks /Recreation 03:15 PM REVISED 1994 -95 BUDGET and PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET 09,05,95 ... _.. 96sum14.wk4 1994 -95 : :: 1995 -96 Adopted $ Increase/ 1994 -95 $ Increase/ 1995 -96 1993 -94 1994 -95 1994; -95 •(Decrease) % Increase/ ::::19954„98":. (Decrease) % Increase/ REVENUES Actual Budget Revised Adopted - Decrease Proposed Adopted -Decrease .......................... Permits/Fees $199,042 $100,000 • 5111,500 $11,500 11.5% •5100000 50 0.0% Miscellaneous 0 0 •7,893 7,893 0.0% 0 0 0.0% Interest 7.761 7,650 > 7 650 4 12e ;< i (1.650) -21.6% Total Revenues $206,803 $107,650 •6127043 $19,393 18.0% •$106000 $0 0.0% EXPENDITURES Professional Services $98,515 $20,000 •$81;000 $61,000 0.0% $30,000 510,000 100.0% Parks and Recreation 0 22,000 37,912 15,912 72.3% 8,00 (14,000: -63.6% Park Improvements 65,218 41,350 52,246 10,896 26.4% > 75 ;000 33,650 81.4% Land 462.615 4 •31.100 31.100 100.0% 25.000" 25.000 100.0% Total Expenditures $626,348 $83,350 $ $118,908 142.7% $138,000 $54,650 65.6% Net Revenues ($419,545; $24,300 •($754153 (599,515' - ($32,000: ($56,300, Proceeds from C.O. Sale $320,000 $0 :;$0 $0" Beginning Fund Balance $243,262 - $143,717 $143,717 ;$68502 Ending Fund Balance $143.717 $168.017 $68.502 ?536:503 SPDC - OPERATING FUND Parks /Recreation 03:15 PM REVISED 1994 -95 BUDGET and PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET 09A35N5 96surnI4.wk4 1994 -95 1995 -96 Adopted $ Increase/ 1994 -95 $ Increase/ 1995 -96 1993 -94 1994 -95 1994 -95 (Decrease) % Increase/ 1995-96 (Decrease) % Increase/ REVENUES Actual Budget Revised Adopted - Decrease Proposed Adopted - Decrease .......................... Sales Tax 5173,116 5616,500 5510000 ($106,500; - 17.3% $670,500 554,000 8.8% Interest 1.181 12.500 13.412 912 7.3% :21,000 8.500 68.0% Total Revenues $174,297 $629,000 $523,412 ($105,588; -16.8% :691,500 $54,000 8.6% EXPENDITURES Personnel $7,971 547,680 $47,680 $0 0.0% .$47,680 $0 0.0% Operations 875 0 < 4,800 4,800 100.0% 4,800 4,800 0.0% Capital 0 0 Q 0 0.0% Q 0 0.0% Total Expenditures $8,846 $47,680 $52,480 $4,800 10.1% $52,480 $4,800 10.1% Net Revenues $165,451 $581,320 $470,932 ($110,388' $639,020 557,700 Transfers Out 0 251,310`' (251,310; ( (251,310 (383.200; Proceeds from C.O. Sale 0 0 : Q Q Total OtherSources(Uses) 0 (251,310;: (251,310) (363,200; Beginning Fund Balance $0 $165,451 i $165,451 $385,073 Ending Fund Balance $165.451 5495 461 $385.073 $660;893 ) SPDC - DEBT SERVICE FUND Parks /Recreation 03:15 PM REVISED 1994 -95 BUDGET and PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET 09/0595 96sum14.wk4 1994 -95 1995 -96 Adopted $ Increase/ 1994 -95 $ Increase/ 1995 -96 1993 -94 1994 -95 1994 -95 (Decrease) % Increase/ 1995 (Decrease) % Increase/ REVENUES Actual Budget Revised Adopted - Decrease Proposed.. Adopted - Decrease Interest Income $3238 $12.500 $12.500 $0 100.0% S18,000 $5.500 44.0% Total Revenues $3,238 $12,500 $12,500 $0 100.0% $18,000 $5,500 44.0% EXPENDITURES Principal $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 100.0% $95,000_ $45,000 90.0% Interest 0 201,310 201,310 0 100.0% 268,200 66,890 33.2% Admin. Expenses 4 1.040 >1000 4 100.0% 1:000 0 0.0% Total Expenditures $0 $252,310 5252,310 $0 100.0% $364,200 $111,890 44.3% Net Revenues 53,238 (5239,810; ($239,810] 50 ($346,200: ($106,390; Proceeds from bond sale $252,915 $0 $0 $0 Transfers in $4 $251.310 $251.310 5363.200 Total other Sources (Uses) $252,915 $251,310 5251,310 $363,200 Beginning Fund Balance $0 $256,153 $256,153 $267,653 Endng Fund Balance $756.153 $267.653 $267. $284.653 1 1 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL FUND AND DEBT SERVICE FUND 03:15 PM REVISED 1994 -95 BUDGET and PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET 09/0595 96surN4.wk4 5.449/5100 1994 -95 1995 -96 Adopted $.4491$100 $ Increase/ 1994-95 $.4221$100 $ Increase/ 1995 -96 1993 -94 1994-95 1994 -95 (Decrease) % Increase / 199596 (Decrease) % Increase/ REVENUES Actual Budget Revised Adopted - Decrease ISrOpOS . Adopted - Decrease Ad Valorem Taxes $3,253,743 53,784,980 $3,849,030 $64,050 1.7% 54.561,665 $776,685 20.5% ......................... ............................. .......................... ............................. Sales Tax 877,615 1,233,000 1,020,000 (213,000; -17.3% 1;341,000 108,000 8.8% ......................... ............................. .......................... ......................... Franchise Fees 400,036 418,040 478,209 60,169 14.4% 516,715 98,675 23.6% Fines 238,030 242,400 • 243,600 1,200 0.5% 260,400 18,000 7.4% Charges for Services 53,786 80,000 100,743 20,743 25.9% 93,300 13,300 16.6% Permits/Fees 1,680,919 1,941,350 1,857 710 (83,640` -4.3% 1;853,335 (88,015; -4.5% Miscellaneous 40,350 41,750 55,300 13,550 32.5% 74,075 32,325 77.4% .......................... .... ...................... ............................. Interest Income 128.623 115.000 130,000 15.000 13.0% 35.000 30.4% Total Revenues 56,673,102 $7,856,520 37,734,592 (5121,928: -1.6% $8,850,490. $993,970 12.7% EXPENDITURES City Secretary $212,832 $194,598 $214 $19,513 10.0% 5210,893 $16,295 8.4% City Manager 200,295 314,533 360,197 45,664 14.5% 353,712 39,179 12.5% Economic Development 0 117,245 117,245 0 0.0% 126513 9,568 8.2% Support Services 615.511 642,785 714.274 71.489 11.1% . 815.850 173,065 26.9% General Gov Total 51.028.638 51.269.161 51.405 827 5136.666 10.8% 51,507,268 5238.107 18.8% Finance 263,764 265,640 261,974 (3,666; -1.4% 295,906 30,266 11.4% Municipal Court 158.793 2C3.990 211,383 7.393 3.6% 242:475 38.485. 18.9% Finance Total 5422.557 5469.630 5473.357 53.727 0.8% 5538,381' 568.751 14.6% Fire 728,480 784,663 810,736 26,073 3.3% 900,166 115,503 14.7% Police 1,055,234 1,249,070 1,330,994 81,924 6.6% 1,447567 198,497 15.9% Public Safety Support 434.779 690.080 611.988 (78.092; - 11.3% 843.124 153.044 2 2.2% Public Safety Total 52.218.493 52.723.813 52.753.718 S29.905 1.1% 53.190.857. $467.044 17.1% Building Inspections 261,663 375,155 339,048 (36,107, -9.6% 385,169 10,014 2.7% Streets/Drainage 1,225,241 997,072 1,033062 35,990 3.6% 939.197 (57,875' -5.8% Public Works Admin 137.192 360.495 336.283 (24.212; -6 7a 44322r 82.832 23.0% Public Works Total 51.624.096 51.732.722 51 :708.393 (524.329' -1.4% 51,767.693. 534.971 2.0% Parks and Recreation 199.681 264.160 368,695 104.535 39.6% 474.067 209,907 Community Dev. Total 5281.202 5371.712 5378,439 56.727 1.8% $39j 519.620 5.3% Debt Service G . Bonds 1.048.735 1.342.923 . 1 ;228.170 f 114.753; -8.5% 1.464.333 121.410 9.0% Total Expenditures $6,823,402 58,174,121 •,58;316,599 $142,478 1.7% $9,333,931 51,159,810 14.2% .......................... ......................... . Net Revenues (5150.300 15317.601; (5582.07 (5264.406' 15483.441' 15165.840 Transfers In $424,613 5664,840 5550,085 (5114,755; 5612,156 ($52,684; Transfers Out ($373,679` (51,071,611; ($874,585 $197,026 (5251,203, 5820,408 Proceeds from C. o. Sale $720,826 5414,180 $445,500 $31,320 $330,000 ($84,180; Total other Sources (Uses) $621.460 (5310.192` (5461.007 (5150.815' 5207.512 5517.704 Beginning Fund Balance $1514,877 51,614,877 $1,614,877 51,153,870 Reserve Fund Balance (5401,157; $0 � 50 <- 50- Ending Fund Balance 51.835.180 51.304.685 ... $1.153.870 S1.361.382 PROPOSED BUDGET 1995 -96 ALL FUNDS SUMMARY EXPENDITURES BY DIVISION /CATEGORY 1994 -95 1994 -95 1995 -96 $ Increase/ % Increase/ 1993 -94 Adopted Revised Proposed (Decrease) - Decrease FUND Actual Budget Budget Budget Adopted Adopted General Fund Personnel 3,173,470 4,111,936 4,083,863 4,825,826 713,890 17.4% Operations 1,560,042 2,063,354 2,121,036 2,455,842 392,488 19.0% Capital Outlay 1,041.155 655.908 883.530 587.930 (67.978) -10.4% Total 5,774,667 6,831,198 7,088,429 7,869,598 1,038,400 15.2% Debt Service Fund Debt Service 1.048.735 1,342.923 1.228.170 1.464.333 121.410 9.0% Total 1,048,735 1,342,923 1,228,170 1,464,333 121,410 9.0% Utility Fund Personnel 434,167 451,405 461,530 603,708 152,303 33.7% Operations 2,547,672 3,067,858 3,576,326 4,013,522 945,664 30.8% Capital Outlay 291,608 519,375 689,375 587,080 67,705 13.0% Debt Service 81,900 78,525 193,278 197,762 119,237 151.8% Other (Capital) 19.713 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total 3,375,060 4,117,163 4,920,509 5,402,072 1,284,909 31.2% Special Revenue - Parks /Recreation Fund Operations 109,566 20,000 81,000 30,000 10,000 50.0% Capital Outlay 516.782 63.350 121.258 108.000 44.650 70.5% Total 626,348 83,350 202,258 138,000 54,650 65.6% SPDC Fund Personnel 7,971 47,680 47,680 47,680 0 0.0% Operations 875 0 4,800 4,800 4,800 100.0% Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Debt Service 0 252.310 252.310 364.200 111.890 44.3% Total 8,846 299,990 304,790 416,680 116,690 38.9% GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS 10,833,656 12,674,624 13,744,156 15,290,683 2,616,059 20.6% EXPENDITURE CATEGORY Personnel 3,615,608 4,611,021 4,593,073 5,477,214 866,193 18.8% Operations 4,218,155 5,151,212 5,783,162 6,504,164 1,352,952 26.3% Capital Outlay 1,869,258 1,238,633 1,694,163 1,283,010 44,377 3.6% Debt Service 1.130.635 1.673,758 1,673,758 2.026.295 352.537 21.1% GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS 10,833,656 12,674,624 13,744,156 15,290,683 2,616,059 20.6% PROPOSED BUDGET 1995 -96 • ALL FUNDS SUMMARY EXPENDITURES BY DIVISION /CATEGORY 1994 -95 1994 -95 1995 -96 $ Increase/ % Increase/ 1993 -94 Adopted Revised Proposed (Decrease) - Decrease GENERAL FUND Actual Budget Budget Budget Adopted Adopted City Secretary/Mayor /Council Personnel 94,839 69,150 70,490 77,102 7,952 11.5% Operations 96,231 115,060 128,050 127,273 12,213 10.6% Capital Outlay 21,762 10,388 15,571 6 518 (3.870) - 37.3% Total 212,832 194,598 214,111 210,893 16,295 8.4% City Manager's Office Personnel 162,544 261,522 285,274 283,032 21,510 8.2% Operations 35,330 43,106 49,216 70,680 27,574 64.0% Capital Outlay 2,421 9.905 25 707 0 (9,905) - 100.0% Total 200,295 314,533 360,197 353,712 39,179 12.5% Economic Development Personnel 0 57,626 57,626 63,433 5,807 10.1% Operations 0 59,619 59,619 63,380 3,761 6.3% Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total 0 117,245 117,245 126,813 9,568 8.2% Support Services Personnel 23,290 24,755 23,855 26,665 1,910 7.7% Operations 543,904 576,955 648,505 694,295 117,340 20.3% Capital Outlay 48.317 41.075 41.914 94,890 53,815 131.0% Total 615,511 642,785 714,274 815,850 173,065 26.9% Finance Personnel 167,551 178,135 175,185 193,831 15,696 8.8% Operations 89,032 87,505 85,505 102,075 14,570 16.7% Capital Outlay 7181 0 1284 0 0 0.0% Total 263,764 265,640 261,974 295,906 30,266 11.4% Municipal Court Personnel 93,546 115,865 108,505 118,155 2,290 2.0% Operations 64,824 86,225 99,178 119,920 33,695 39.1% Capital Outlay 423 1900 3 700 4.400 2.500 131.6% Total 158,793 203,990 211,383 242,475 38,485 18.9% Fire Services Personnel 557,753 594,373 621,746 668,656 74,283 12.5% Operations 69,779 78,565 77,265 85,360 6,795 8.6% Capital Outlay 100.948 111,725 111.725 146.150 34.425 30.8% Total 728,480 784,663 810,736 900,166 115,503 14.7% Police Services Personnel 870,057 994,903 1,001,996 1,190,194 195,291 19.6% Operations 104,689 132,767 137,224 162,908 30,141 22.7% Capital Outlay 80.488 121.400 191.774 94.465 (26.935) -22.2% Total 1,055,234 1,249,070 1,330,994 1,447,567 198,497 15.9% PROPOSED BUDGET 1995 -96 ALL FUNDS SUMMARY EXPENDITURES BY DIVISION /CATEGORY 1994 -95 1994 -95 1995 -96 $ Increase/ % Increase/ 1993 -94 Adopted Revised Proposed (Decrease) - Decrease GENERAL FUND Actual Budget Budget Budget Adopted Adopted Public Safety Support Personnel 340,116 557,360 486,313 664,779 107,419 19.3% Operations 65,722 78,040 70,370 148,245 70,205 90.0% Capital Outlay 28.941 54,680 55.305 30.100 (24.580) -45.0% Total 434,779 690,080 611,988 843,124 153,044 22.2% Building Inspection Personnel 198,315 263,313 246,287 295,516 32,203 12.2% Operations 23,361 88,442 62,961 80,003 (8,439) -9.5% Capital Outlay 39.987 23,400 29 800 9,650 (13.750) -58.8% Total 261,663 375,155 339,048 385,169 10,014 2.7% Streets /Drainage Personnel 308,820 446,022 437,502 465,216 19,194 4.3% Operations 291,233 323,350 350,200 372,881 49,531 15.3% Capital Outlay 625.188 227.700 245.360 101.100 (126.600) -55.6% Total 1,225,241 997,072 1,033,062 939,197 (57,875) -5.8% Parks and Recreation Personnel 69,339 120,705 117,510 211,773 91,068 75.4% Operations 73,107 127,560 141,185 167,167 39,607 31.0% Capital Outlay 57 235 15.895 110.000 95.127 79 232 498.5% Total 199,681 264,160 368,695 474,067 209,907 79.5% Public Works Administration Personnel 111,743 190,845 219,108 266,852 76,007 39.8% Operations 14,639 150,550 82,825 176,475 25,925 17.2% Capital Outlay 10.810 19.100 34,350 0 (19.100) - 100.0% Total 137,192 360,495 336,283 443,327 82,832 23.0% Community Development Personnel 175,557 237,362 232,466 300,622 63,260 26.7% Operations 88,191 115,610 128,933 85,180 (30,430) -26.3% Capital Outlay 17,454 18.740 17.040 5.530 (13.210) -70.5% Total 281,202 371,712 378,439 391,332 19,620 5.3% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 5,774,667 6,831,198 7,088,429 7,869,598 1,038,400 15.2% DEBT SERVICE FUND Debt Service 1,048,735 1,342,923 1,228,170 1,464,333 121,410 9.0% Total 1,048,735 1,342,923 1,228,170 1,464,333 121,410 9.0% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,048,735 1,342,923 1,228,170 1,464,333 121,410 9.0% PROPOSED BUDGET 1995 -96 ALL FUNDS SUMMARY EXPENDITURES BY DIVISION /CATEGORY 1994 -95 1994 -95 1995 -96 $ Increase/ % Increase/ 1993 -94 Adopted Revised Proposed (Decrease) - Decrease UTILITY FUND Actual Budget Budget Budget Adopted Adopted Water Utilities Personnel 383,319 347,018 356,817 495,225 148,207 42.7% Operations 1,622,190 1,966,148 2,030,218 2,316,712 350,564 17.8% Capital Outlay 263.285 434,875 589.875 556.166 121.291 27.9% Total 2,268,794 2,748,041 2,976,910 3,368,103 620,062 22.6% Wastewater Utilities Personnel 50,848 104,387 104,713 108,483 4,096 3.9% Operations 620,997 712,910 1,195,108 1,318,810 605,900 85.0% Capital Outlay 28,323 84,500 99.500 30,914 (53,586) -63.4% Total 700,168 901,797 1,399,321 1,458,207 556,410 61.7% Sanitation Personnel 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Operations 304,485 388,800 351,000 378,000 (10,800) -2.8% Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total 304,485 388,800 351,000 378,000 (10,800) -2.8% Non - Departmentalized Other 19,713 0 0 0 0 0.0% Debt Service 81.900 78.525 193.278 197.762 119,237 151.8% Total 101,613 78,525 193,278 197,762 119,237 151.8% TOTAL UTILITY FUND 3,375,060 4,117,163 4,920,509 5,402,072 1,284,909 31.2% SPECIAL REVENUE - PARKS /RECREATION FUND Operations 109,566 20,000 81,000 30,000 10,000 50.0% Capital Outlay 516.782 63.350 121.258 108.000 44,650 70.5% Total 626,348 83,350 202,258 138,000 54,650 65.6% SPDC FUND Personnel 7,971 47,680 47,680 47,680 0 0.0% Operations & Maintenance 875 0 4,800 4,800 4,800 100.0% Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Debt Service 0 252,310 252.310 364.200 111,890 44.3% Total 8,846 299,990 304,790 416,680 116,690 100.0% GRAND TOTAL 10,833,656 12,674,624 13,744,156 15,290,683 2,616,059 20.6% CAPITAL PROJECTS 09/05/95 PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET bndbd965.wk4 FY94 -95 FY95 -96 FY92 -93 FY93 -94 FY94 -95 Actual Proposed ALL FUNDS Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Budget Revenue Interest Income 121,287 268,192 361,250 403,000 340,500 Fees 587,977 1,000,899 1,041,000 895,000 1,365,0b0 Assessment Income 11,228 6,101 1,060 5,000 70,000 Developer Participation 250,175 79,825 0 0 0 Carroll ISD Participation 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 City of Keller Participation 0 52.402 40.353 0 0 Total Revenue 970,667 1,407,419 1,473,663 1,303,000 1,805,500 Expenditures Water /Sewer Projects 1993 Water Bond Projects ($1.3 million) 241,698 1,073,555 142,456 152,065 0 Water Impact Fee Fund 17,835 126,856 207,220 180,000 279,800 Sewer Impact Fee Fund 177,134 414,010 1,307,500 560,000 400,000 Waterworks Improvements Fund 0 240,599 993,740 0 957,047 1995 Water Bond Projects ($2.5 million) 0 0 596,000 50,000 1,725,000 Sewer Assessment Fund 0 0 1.300.000 125.000 764.840 Subtotal - Water /Sewer Projects 436.667 1.855.020 4.546.916 1,067.065 4.126.687 Streets /Drainage Projects 1993 Street Bond Projects ($1.5 million) 308,614 697,878 1,023,791 500,891 0 1994 Street Bond Projects ($3 million) 0 104,712 2,468,000 394,020 1,853,357 Perimeter Road Fee Fund 0 0 0 55,395 0 Infrastructure Reserve Fund 0 0 840,526 1,748,000 1,967,850 Offsite Drainage Fund 0 0 0 0 0 Street Impact Fee Fund 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal- Streets /Drainage Projects 308,614 802,590 4,332,317 2,698,306 3.821.207 Parks Projects SPDC Revenue Bond Projects 0 258,651 2.635.963 2.563.329 141.207 Total Expenditures 745,281 2,916,261 11,515,196 6.328,700 8,089,101 Net Revenue 225,386 (1,508,842) (10,041,533) (5,025,700) (6,283,601) Bond Proceeds 2,800,000 5,603,772 5,300,000 5,665,995 1,843,000 Transfers in 0 0 1,570,026 918,375 1,081,840 Transfer out 0 (152.000) (114.755) (410.130) (241.469) Total Other Sources (Uses) 2,800,000 5,451,772 6,755,271 6,174,240 2,683,371 Beginning Fund Balance 724,772 3,750,158 7,693,088 7,693,088 8,841,628 Ending Fund Balance 3,750,158 7,693,088 4,406,826 8,841.628 5,241,398 CAPITAL PROJECTS 09/05/95 PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET bndbd965.wk4 FY94 -95 FY95 -96 FUND 757 -$1.3 MILLION FY92 -93 FY93 -94 FY94 -95 Actual Proposed 1993 WATER BOND PROJECTS Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Budget Revenue Interest income 39,699 25,217 5,000 5,000 0 Developer Participation (Oakwood Estates) 35,000 10,000 0 0 ` 0 Keller Participation -Beach Str 0 52,402 40 353 0 0 Total Revenue /Other Sources 74,699 87,619 45,353 5,000 0 Expenditures Engineering contract 75,151 46,588 0 0 0 Water line- FM1709 west (Bal. of contract) 6,291 0 0 0 0 Water line -N. White Chapel (Oakwood) 160,256 0 0 0 0 Pearson Lane Pumps 0 19,274 0 0 0 12" High- Pressure 0 470,881 0 0 0 8" Peytonville (Cont- FM1709)12" Cont./TWKing 0 271,171 0 0 0 Shady Lane water line improvements 0 0 142,456 127,667 0 Beach Street Pumps/Upgrade - Keller pump station 0 265.641 0 24,398 0 Total Expenditures 241,698 1,073,555 142,456 152,065 0 Net Revenue (166,999) (985,936) (97,103) (147,065) 0 Bond Proceeds (11/92) 1,300,000 0 0 0 0 Transfers In 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer Out 0 0 0 0 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) 1,300,000 0 0 0 0 Beginning Fund Balance 0 1,133,001 147,065 147,065 0 Ending Fund Balance 1,133,001 147,065 49,962 0 4 CAPITAL PROJECTS 09/05/95 PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET bndbd965.wk4 FY94 -95 FY95 -96 FUND 751 FY92 -93 FY93 -94 FY94 -95 Actual Proposed WATER IMPACT FEES Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Budget Revenue Impact fee receipts 243,000 371,940 390,000 300,000 317,520 CISD participation -Shady Oaks 12" water line 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 Interest Income 12.362 20.848 35.000 30 000 30.000 Total Revenue 255,362 392,788 455,000 330,000 377,500 Expenditures Impact fee update 17,835 0 0 10,000 5,000 Construction /Engineering - Kimball water line 0 126,856 77,220 25,000 0 N. Kimball 12" water main 0 0 0 0 125,800 S. White Chapel 12" water main 0 0 0 0 149,000 Shady Oaks 12" water line (CISD) 0 0 130.000 145.000 0 Total Expenditures 17,835 126,856 207,220 180,000 279,800 Net Revenue 237,527 265,932 247,780 150,000 97,700 Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers In 0 0 0 0 0 "ransfers Out (1) 0 (152.000) (114.755) (114.755) (116.676) . otal Other Sources (Uses) 0 (152,000) (114,755) (114,755) (116,676) Beginning Fund Balance 230,247 467,774 581,706 581,706 616,951 Ending Fund Balance 467,774 581,706 714,731 616,951 597,975 (1) Transfer to Utility Fund for debt service on 1993 series certificates of obligation issued for impact fee eligible projects. These projects are listed in Fund 757, $1.3M Water Bond Projects. or CAPITAL PROJECTS 09/05/95 PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET bndbd965.wk4 11111 . III FY94 -95 FY95 -96 FUND 752 FY92 -93 FY93 -94 FY94 -95 Actual Proposed SEWER IMPACT FEES Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Budget so Revenue /Other Sources Impact fee receipts 315,112 541,143 575,000 460,000 492,500 Interest Income 17,362 29,917 37,500 30,000 36,(100 w Developer contributions 215.175 69 825 0 0 0 Total Revenue /Other Sources 547,649 640,885 612,500 490,000 528,500 Expenditures • S -2 Sewer line easements 18,950 0 0 0 0 Engineering - S -2 Sewer line (BearCreek/FM1709) 15,220 4,356 0 0 0 Construction - S -2 Sewer line (BearCreek/FM1709) 142,964 337,265 0 0 0 S2A Sewer line (FM1709 /Florence) 0 0 454,500 30,000 400,000 • N -5 Sewer line 0 0 350,000 10,000 0 N-4 Sewer line 0 72.389 503,000 520.000 0 Total Expenditures 177,134 414,010 1,307,500 560,000 400,000 No Net Revenue 370,515 226,875 (695,000) (70,000) 128,500 Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 in Liransfers In 0 0 0 0 0 r'i ransfers Out 0 0 0 0 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) 0 0 0 0 0 al Beginning Fund Balance 250,122 620,637 847,512 847,512 777,512 Ending Fund Balance 620,637 847,512 152,512 777,512 906,012 s • • fp iM CAPITAL PROJECTS 09/05/95 PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET bndbd965.wk4 FY94 -95 FY95 -96 FUND 750 FY92 -93 FY93 -94 FY94 -95 Actual Proposed WATERWORKS IMPROVEMENTS FUND Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Budget Revenue /Other Sources Interest Income 4.964 11.018 35.000 0 d 0 Total Revenue /Other Sources 4,964 11,018 35,000 0 0 Expenditures: Marshall Creek Sewer Line participation (1) 0 240,599 243,740 0 0 Water /Sewer system improvements 0 0 670,000 0 0 Land - elevated water storage site 0 0 80,000 0 0 6" water main - Ridgecrest,Brian, Hilltop 0 0 0 0 103,200 Engineering -pump station & storage tank 0 0 0 0 170,000 Water lines - Rolling HiIIs ,Greenbough,Raintree,Brookwood 0 0 0 0 228,247 Water line -W. Continental 0 0 0 0 25,000 8" water line- Lonesome Dove to Emerald 0 0 0 0 37,000 Land - ground storage /pumping, N. of MTP 0 0 0 0 80,000 Land - Public Works facility (down payment) 0 0 0 0 100,000 Land - overhead storage /FM1709 0 0 0 0 40,000 Land -ROW Sutton S -2A 0 0 0 0 18,600 Dove Estates -sewer collection system 0 0 0 0 155.000 - otal Expenditures 0 240,599 993,740 0 957,047 Net Revenue 4,964 (229,581) (958,740) 0 (957,047) Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers In (2) 0 0 750,000 0 957,047 Transfers Out 0 0 0 0 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) 0 0 750,000 0 957,047 Beginning Fund Balance 224,617 229,581 (0) (0) (0) Ending Fund Balance 229,581 WI (208.7401 10) (01 (1) The Marshall Creek Sewer line participation was a one time payment of $240,599 which was made at the end of fiscal year 1994 after the budget for 1995 had been adopted, allocating the funds in the 1994 -95 year instead. (2) In FY94 -95, $750,000 was allocated as a transfer from the Utility Fund to provide seed money for the sewer assessment program. Instead $1.3 million in bonds were issued for the entire first year of the program. Funds were not transferred from the Utility Fund. The City reallocated a portion of these funds ($450,000) in the Utility Fund for payment of debt service on the Denton Creek pressure line initiated during the year. In FY95 -96, capital improvement projects are funded through a transfer from the Utility Fund. CAPITAL PROJECTS 09/05/95 PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET bndbd965.wk4 FY94 -95 FY95 -96 FUND 758 FY92 -93 FY93 -94 FY94 -95 Actual Proposed 1995 WATER BOND PROJECTS Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Budget Revenue Interest Income 0 0 47.000 47.000 90.000 Total Revenue /Other Sources 0 0 47,000 47,000 90,0 Expenditures Engineering 0 0 196,000 50,000 25,000 Land 0 0 0 0 200,000 Ground Storage Tank -5 million gallons 0 0 400.000 0 1.500.000 Total Expenditures 0 0 596,000 50,000 1,725,000 Net Revenue 0 0 (549,000) (3,000) (1,635,000) Bond Proceeds 0 0 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 Transfers In 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers Out 0 0 0 0 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) 0 0 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 Beginning Fund Balance 0 0 0 0 2,497,000 ending Fund Balance 0 0 1,951.000 2,497.000 862.000 This project will construct a ground storage tank on the west side of Southlake, and will take approximately 18 months to build. The remainder of the project will be built in FY96 -97. CAPITAL PROJECTS 09/05/95 PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET bndbd965.wk4 FY94 -95 FY95 -96 FUND 755 FY92 -93 FY93 -94 FY94 -95 Actual Proposed SEWER ASSESSMENT FUND Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Budget Revenue Assessment Income 11,228 6,101 1,060 5,000 70,000 Interest Income 1,068 1 576 37.500 37,500 60.000 Total Revenue 12,296 7,677 38,560 42,500 130,0 Expenditures Engineering 0 0 0 125,000 35,000 Year 1 sewer assessment program (1) 0 0 1,300,000 0 0 Vista Trails 0 0 0 0 247,000 Cimarron Estates 0 0 0 0 48,500 Emerald Estates 0 0 0 0 142,340 Whispering Dell Estates 0 0 0 0 165,000 Highland Estates 0 0 0 0 127.000 Total Expenditures 0 0 1,300,000 125,000 764,840 Net Revenue 12,296 7,677 (1,261,440) (82,500) (634,840) Bond Proceeds 0 0 1,300,000 1,317,050 0 Transfers In 0 0 0 0 0 ransfer Out 0 0 0 0 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) 0 0 1,300,000 1,317,050 0 Beginning Fund Balance 19,786 32,082 39,759 39,759 1,274,309 Ending Fund Balance 32,082 39,759 78,319 1,274,309 639,469 (1) Year 1 = Vista Trails, Cimarron Estates, Emerald Estates, Whispering Dell Estates, Highland Estates Year 2 subdivisions identified for FY96 -97 = Huntwick, Diamond Circle, Mission Hills, Rainforest/Shady Lane vicinity, with $1.49M estimate. CAPITAL PROJECTS 09/05/95 PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET bndbd965.wk4 FY94 -95 FY95 -96 FUND 703 -$1.5 MILLION FY92 -93 FY93 -94 FY94 -95 Actual Proposed 1993 STREET BOND PROJECTS Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Budget Revenue Interest income 45.265 43.548 25.000 18,000 4 Total Revenue 45,265 43,548 25,000 18,000 4,500 Expenditures Engineering contract 135,339 51,985 10,000 0 0 Administrative expenses (bond issuance) 24,437 0 0 0 0 N. Carroll- Dove /Burney 148,838 351,535 0 0 0 N. Carroll -SH114 /Dove 0 86,158 463,661 195,175 0 N. Carroll- FM1709 /Continental 0 0 392,763 0 0 S. White Chapel -Big Bear Creek/FM1709 0 0 0 211,295 0 S. Peytonville Road- FM1709 /Continental Blvd. 0 208.200 157.367 94.421 0 Total Expenditures 308,614 697,878 1,023,791 500,891 0 Net Revenue (263,349) (654,330) (998,791) (482,891) 4,500 Bond Proceeds (11/92) 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 Transfers In 0 0 0 0 0 "ransfers Out 0 0 0 0 0 iota! Other Sources (Uses) 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 Beginning Fund Balance 0 1,236,651 582,321 582,321 99,430 Ending Fund Balance 1,236.651 582.321 (416,470) 99,430 103.930 Remaining funds to be used to construct projects identified in Fund 700, 1994 Street Bond Projects on the following page. CAPITAL PROJECTS 09/05/95 PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET bndbd965.wk4 FY94 -95 FY95 -96 FUND 700 -$3.0 MILLION FY92 -93 FY93 -94 FY94 -95 Actual Proposed 1994 STREET BOND PROJECTS Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Budget Revenue Interest Income 0 102,067 75,000 108,000 77,000 Total Revenue 0 102,067 75,000 108,000 77,00 Expenditures Engineering contract 0 104,712 93,000 60,000 0 Brumlow- Continental /SH26 (2) 0 0 270,000 0 0 N. Carroll- FM1709/SH114 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 S. Carroll- FM1709 /Continental Blvd. (1) 0 0 325,000 0 0 W. Continental -White Chapel /Davis 0 0 0 0 555,750 E. Dove -White Chapel /Kimball (3) 0 0 900,000 0 859,000 W. Dove- Creek/Peytonville 0 0 0 0 28,607 W. Dove - Peytonville /Shady Oaks 0 0 0 0 142,100 E. Highland - Carroll /Kimball (3) 0 0 0 0 0 W. Highland -Shady Oaks/White Chapel 0 0 0 0 121,900 N. Kimball - Highland /Dove (ROW only- intersection) (3) 0 0 0 0 25,000 N. Kimball -SH114 /Highland (3) 0 0 0 0 0 N. White Chapel -SH114 /Dove 0 0 0 0 121,000 N. White Chapel- FM1709/SH114 0 0 555,000 334,020 0 3. White Chapel -Big Bear Creek/FM1709 0 0 325.000 0 0 Total Expenditures 0 104,712 2,468,000 394,020 1,853,357 Net Revenue 0 (2,645) (2,393,000) (286,020) (1,776,357) Bond Proceeds (11/93) 0 3,001,137 0 0 0 Transfers In 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers Out 0 0 0 0 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) 0 3,001,137 0 0 0 Beginning Fund Balance 0 0 2,998,492 2,998,492 2,712,472 Ending Fund Balance 4 2..998,492 S9 2 2112,472 936,115 (1) Road section design and construction on hold due to anticipated adjacent development, interim road sections vs. ultimate design /width, ROW considerations with alignment. (N. Carroll - $293,721; S. Carroll - $326,580) (2) Brumlow identified by Task Force, but not included as recommended project. The FY94 -95 budget assumed funding would be available after all recommended projects were completed. Updated cost estimates for remaining projects indicate that no funding will be available for Brumlow. (3) Projects to be constructed in FY96 -97. (E. Highland - $172,960; N. Kimball -SH114 /Dove - $250,140; N. Kimball - Highland /Dove remainder - $160,430) Funds remaining from Fund 703, 1993 Street Bond Projects, will also be used. Priorities for FY95 -96: 1. E. Dove -White Chapel /Kimball 2. N. White Chapel -SH114 /Dove 3. W. Continental -White Chapel /Davis 4. W. Highland -Shady Oaks/White Chapel 5. N. Kimball - Highland /Dove (widening intersection only) 3. W. Dove -Shady Oaks /Creek CAPITAL PROJECTS 09 /05/95 PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET bndbd965.wk4 FY94 -95 FY95 -96 FUND 502 FY92 -93 FY93 -94 FY94 -95 Actual Proposed PERIMETER ROAD FEE FUND Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Budget Revenue /Other Sources Perimeter Road Fees 29,865 48,875 76,000 90,000 0 Interest income 567 2 881 5.000 5 000 3.400 Total Revenue /Other Sources 30,432 51,756 81,000 95,000 3,000 Expenditures E. Continental (Timarron /Dominion participation) 0 0 0 55,395 0 Total Expenditures 0 0 0 55,395 0 Net Revenue 30,432 51,756 81,000 39,605 3,000 Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers In 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers Out 0 0 0 0 (124,793) Total Other Sources (Uses) 0 0 0 0 (124,793) Beginning Fund Balance 0 30,432 82,188 82,188 121,793 Ending Fund Balance 30,432 82,188 163,188 121,793 0 Remainder of funds transferred to Fund 501, Infrastructure Reserve, for construction of Randol Mill- FM1709 /Kingswood. With adoption of Street Impact Fee in latter part of 1995, perimeter road fees will no longer be collected. CAPITAL PROJECTS 09/05/95 PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET bndbd965.wk4 FY94 -95 FY95 -96 FUND 501 FY92 -93 FY93 -94 FY94 -95 Actual Proposed INFRASTRUCTURE RESERVE FUND Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Budget Revenue /Other Sources Interest Income 0 0 20,500 20,500 1.500 Total Revenue /Other Sources 0 0 20,500 20,500 1,5b0 Expenditures Kimball Road- FM1709/SH114 0 0 400,000 500,000 0 Randol Mill- FM1709 to Kingswood 0 0 103,100 15,000 319,770 West Beach Land Acquisition 0 0 0 1,168,000 0 Summer Place drainage improvements 0 0 60,000 65,000 0 Vista Trails (contractor) 0 0 163,000 0 0 Engineering - Continental /SH26 RR Crossing 0 0 20,500 0 0 Land acquisition (Municipal Facility) 0 0 0 0 850,000 Street improvements -year 1 sewer assm program (1) 0 0 0 0 440,000 Ridgecrest 0 0 93,926 0 0 Brock 0 0 0 0 58,080 Hilltop /Briar /Hillside /Crescent/Woodland 0 0 0 0 250,000 Seal -Coat (Cross Timbers addition) 0 0 0 0 50,000 Total Expenditures 0 0 840,526 1,748,000 1,967,850 Jet Revenue 0 0 (820,026) (1,727,500) (1,966,350) Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 872,625 1,843,000 Transfers In (2) 0 0 820,026 918,375 124,793 Transfers Out 0 0 0 0 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) 0 0 820,026 1,791,000 1,967,793 Beginning Fund Balance 0 0 0 0 63,500 Ending Fund Balance 4 4 0 63,500 64,943 (1) Funding for reconstruction of Vista Trails Subdivision streets only. Street repairs for the remaining Year 1 neighborhoods (Cimarron,Highland Estates, Whispering Dell Estates, Emerald) are included in the estimate of sewer installation in the Sewer Assessment Fund. (Assumes Rone Engineering street design). (2) FY95 -96 transfer in from Perimeter Road Fund 502 for construction of Randol Mill- FM1709 /Kingswood. Other projects identified, to be considered in FY96 -97 = $1,953,800: Year 2 sewer assessment neighborhoods- street improvements - $709,445 Ridgecrest - $214,500 Love Henry - $58,080 Burney to cul-de -sac - $49,500 Lake Drive - $80,800 Burney Road - $112,475 Johnson Road - $475,000 Pine /Lilac - $204,000 Culvert © S. Carroll /Continental - $50,000 CAPITAL PROJECTS 09/05/95 PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET bndbd965.wk4 FY94 -95 FY95 -96 FUND FY92 -93 FY93 -94 FY94 -95 Actual Proposed STREET IMPACT FEE FUND Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Budget Revenue Impact fee receipts 0 0 0 0 525,000 Interest Income 0 0 0 0 6.000 Total Revenue 0 0 0 0 531,dO0 Total Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Net Revenue 0 0 0 0 531,000 Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers In 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer Out 0 0 0 0 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) 0 0 0 0 0 Beginning Fund Balance 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Fund Balance 0 0 0 Q 531,000 Street impact fees are anticipated to be adopted in the last quarter of 1995. • CAPITAL PROJECTS 09/05/95 PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET bndbd965.wk4 FY94 -95 FY95 -96 FUND FY92 -93 FY93 -94 FY94 -95 Actual Proposed DRAINAGE OFFSITE Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Budget Revenue Drainage Fees 0 38,941 0 45,000 30,000 Interest Income 0 795 0 2000 2 500 Total Revenue 0 39,736 0 47,000 32,5 Total Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Net Revenue 0 39,736 0 47,000 32,500 Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers In 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer Out 0 0 0 0 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) 0 0 0 0 0 Beginning Fund Balance 0 0 39,736 39,736 86,736 Ending Fund Balance Q 39,736 39,736 86,736 119,236 Revenues collected from developers for specific critical drainage structures are identified as such on subsidiary accounting records. CAPITAL PROJECTS 09/05/95 PROPOSED 1995 -96 BUDGET bndbd965.wk4 FY94 -95 FY95 -96 Fund 302 FY92 -93 FY93 -94 FY94 -95 Actual Proposed SPDC REVENUE BOND PROJECTS Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Budget Revenue /Other Sources Interest income 0 30.325 38.750 100.000 30 000 Total Revenue /Other Sources 0 30,325 38,750 100,000 30,000 Expenditures Joint Use Improvements- Gymnasium 0 0 0 719,690 44,207 Bicentennial Park -Phase I 0 0 1,635,963 1,843,639 97,000 Land Acquisition 0 258.651 1.000.000 0 0 Total Expenditures 0 258,651 2,635,963 2,563,329 141,207 Net Revenue 0 (228,326) (2,597,213) (2,463,329) (111,207) Bond Proceeds 0 2,602,635 1,500,000 976,320 0 Transfers In 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers Out (down payment -W. Beach) 0 0 0 (295,375) 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) 0 2,602,635 1,500,000 680,945 0 Beginning Fund Balance 0 0 2,374,309 2,374,309 591,925 tending Fund Balance Q 2,374.309 1,777,096 591,925 480,718 Remainder of funds to be used to purchase land for park use at Bicentennial and the north side park, with possible use of funds as grant match upon award of grant.