Aug 03, 2017 City Council on 2017-08-03 8:30 AM

[BLANK_AUDIO] Good morning, everyone. Good morning, it's 8.33 in the morning. Thursday, August the 3rd, 2017. Wanted to welcome you to this meeting of the Denton City Council. We do have a quorum. This is, I think this, we're anticipating about an hour, hour and a half meeting today, so. >> [LAUGH] >> This is to discuss our first look at the city manager's recommended budget or budget proposal presentation. Just wanted to check to make sure that the light here is working for the off mic. See if they're listening. There it goes, all right, thank you, all right, thank you very much. Glad to know you're there. >> [LAUGH] >> Okay, we'll go on to our first work session, really our only work session, and then we have a closed meeting if there's, we do have an item for individual consideration as well. Work session reports, 1A, receive a report, hold discussion , give staff direction regarding the FY 2017-18 city manager's proposed budget. Capital improvement program and five year financial forecast. Chuck, you're up. >> Before I get started, I am going to reference the proposed budget. So I've got some extra hard copies if anybody wants an extra hard copy. I know some of you like to look at it electronically, but if you've got one, if you need one, let me know. We also handed out at your place some different listing of the supplemental projects. So I want to let you know that's there before I get started . >> So Chuck, when you say you might, you'll reference the proposed budget, you'll be referring to the page number in the hard copy. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So if anybody needs one or if I confuse them, let me know. >> I'll start off just going over the budgetary priorities for this year. I've mentioned some of these before, but just to highlight again what the developed budget was based upon. Number one is really cost containment, reducing ineffic iencies, cost and duplication of service. My first few slides, I'll go over some of the changes that have been made to do that. And really a cost containment strategy for all of the city funds. Baseline budgets were developed for all of the funds that assumed a no increase in rates, fees or taxes. That kind of goes along with the general fund budget in which we've set the tax rate at the effective tax rate. Also, there's an emphasis on expanding public safety, continuing the street maintenance expansion. Last year, the council started on a program to move all of the franchise fees over a ten year period, over to the street maintenance fund, and this will be the second year of that. There's a lot of emphasis on maintenance of some other governmental infrastructure beyond streets, traffic signals, parking lots, sidewalks and buildings within the parks. I'll go through that. Utility infrastructure, maintaining a competitive compensation plan. The proposed budget includes the compensation plan and just conservative budgetary and management practices. In terms of cost containment, I think I showed these slides . We've added a little bit to it since then, back in June. These are the general fund positions that have been eliminated during this fiscal year. You can see about 12.35 positions, about 1.3 million. And these are the cost containment reductions in other funds that have occurred. You can see in total almost 23 positions and 2.5. A lot of these cost containment have allowed the budgets to be developed with no rate increases or the effective tax rate on the general fund side. >> I have a question, just a real brief question on that. And I'm assuming that with these FTE reductions, that doesn't necessarily translate into a reduction in the services or things, I mean, what we're providing to our citizens. We're still maintaining the same level of services, I believe Council Member Gregory has asked that before, just wanted to. >> That's correct. >> Okay, all right, thank you. >> When I'm going through these slides, Mayor, it may be an hour and a half. >> Roll on. Roll on. >> Let me go over the general fund and kind of the assumptions for this year and as well as in the five year projections. The assessed valuation increased this year 13.3%. So really had our strongest year in many, many years. And that's an increase excluding the TURS growth. And for 2018, 19 and beyond, the baseline case, what we've developed in here is about 2% growth. This would equate to what we would expect in new value. The effective tax rate incorporates new value into it. And so it would really be growth in property tax revenues simply from new value for the baseline five year case. The debt service tax rate for 17, 18 is going down just a little bit less than a penny because of that strong growth in assessed valuation. And what's proposed is a decrease in the M&O portion of the tax rate, the amount of tax rate for the general fund, about 3.6 cents. So you can see the proposed tax rate is at the effective tax rate, 63.7856 cents and decrease of about 4.5 cents, a little over 4.5 cents. So that's what's built in here. In terms of sales tax, we had a very strong year this year. One of the other reasons we can propose such a decrease in the property tax rate. For 17, 18, we're estimating growth at 3%, estimating it conservatively above this year. After the one time sales tax grants. We had some sales tax grants during construction for the W inko construction this year. And we also have for the Convention Center Hotel. So when I show you the sales tax numbers, we had to adjust for that. So I'll go over that. And for 18, 19 and beyond, 3% growth, again, net after some economic development incentive grants. That will be coming online, mainly the Bucky sales tax grant. >> Real quick, the 13.32% increase, does that include the new value? That's the total. >> Yes, and I've got a slide in here that kind of breaks down new value and existing. And in terms of franchise fees, just to highlight that all the growth in franchise fees is going into the street maintenance fund. And then we're proposing an additional 622,000 a year. That's what's necessary for that 10 year program to move all of the franchise fees over to the street improvement fund. And I've got a projection of the street improvement fund also within the presentation. >> Councilmember Fedde. >> Yeah, the 13.32%. What's the total value of the increase? What is the total? >> He's got a slide on that. >> I've got a slide on that. I think it's about 1.2 billion was the total increase during the year. >> 1.2 billion. >> Yeah, and I've got a slide on it that breaks it down between new value and existing. Other assumptions, the return on investment continues at 3. 5% from the three utilities listed there. In terms of dollars, that's about 8 million in revenue to the general fund. The cost of service transfer from the general fund out to the other funds to cover kind of those general areas. And you can see the departments that are listed there. And that's about 7.9 million that's charged out to other funds and comes to the general fund. Also to mention the police additions, when we had the discussion of the budget in June, one of the things that we recommended that the council allowed us to move forward on was to begin the hiring of five patrol officers and one crime analyst this year to begin that process. That was offset by some of the cost reductions due to position eliminations in the general fund. So that's carried forward into 17-18. We won't see that as a supplemental package, but I want to let you know that's in the 17-18 budget. Some other position additions that are recommended as supplemental packages is fire medic unit number four, which is staffing of six personnel. And in the general fund, a position for the internal audit function, an additional position of a staff auditor. And just to mention our fund balance policy in the general fund will stay the same this year. In terms of some other areas, historically we've had kind of an offset to salaries in the general fund. For vacancy management salary savings program, it comes from normal turnover, but also kind of management control over filling of vacant positions where they become vacant. They're evaluated in terms of the need. We've bumped this up in 17-18, somewhat based on the historical average the last few years. So we've bumped up the salary savings estimate to 1.5 million. In the past, it's been about 1.1 million the last couple of years. We also are doing this when I gave the presentations on the utility fund. We're also budgeting salary savings in all of the utility funds. In terms of compensation and benefits, the civil service pay adjustments are in to follow the meet and confer agreement. That agreement is a set number of survey cities and whereas the set at 5% above those as well as step increases are included in there. It's a little over 3%, but it's very close for police and fire to the same compensation package for non-civil service . And all of the other non-civil services built at average merit increase of 3% and future fiscal years have that same assumption. In terms of health insurance funding, we've had a very successful year this year. So in terms of projecting next year, we don't project the need for any increase in the city contribution or employee contributions. >> Question. >> Yes. >> That's rare because everything I read suggests that the costs are going up about 10% a year. What do we attribute the fact that we can hold steady on that? >> Well, in terms of, and it's several more slides in, but what we think this year is we'll have some savings in that. What we're projecting to do is to not make some of the contributions. So based on this year, we expect our expenses to be lower than we budgeted. So we expect some growth next year, about 5 or 6%. But because this year's came in under budget, next year seems to match the budget. We did make some changes last year to the plan. >> Did we increase the deductibles? Or, of course? >> We didn't make those kind of changes and Scott is here. I know we made some changes for spousal coverage where if your spouse has the option to be covered at their employment, then there's a spousal surcharge for that. We made some changes in terms of emergency room. We made some changes in terms of out of network, where we kind of eliminated the ability to go out of network other than some special exceptions. And so part of that has done it. Part of it could be just success from our clinic and the preventative program. I hate to jinx it too much, because whenever we have a good year or a couple good years a row, and then sometimes a bad one's coming. >> But because we're going to be able to carry money forward from this past year, we don't need to increase anything. >> Yeah. Well, actually what I'm proposing to do is that savings, I'm proposing to keep that within the funds instead of contributing that. >> Okay. >> And I'll get to that kind of later on. >> Sorry. >> Thank you. In terms of the retirement, our TMRS rate for 2018 will decrease from the current rate of 17.48 to 17.31, and that 's built in. For the pot fire pension rate, we've estimated that at 18.5 %. I know there's some discussions ongoing about the fire pension, so we've estimated it at that. >> Yes. >> And we're decreasing the TMRS rate because that higher rate was to correct for an actuarial situation and now we're moving back into line for our- >> Well, actually what happens is every year, TMRS does for each individual city a new actuarial evaluation and evalu ates what you need. The TMRS system was set up several years ago where it was called a closed amortization period. In other words, our unfunded liability would be paid off at a set date and every year we get a year closer to that. As we get closer to that, we anticipate our rate to gradually go down to what's kind of called the normalized rate, which is when you have no unfunded liability and just paying currently. So we expect over the next 15 years that that rate will gradually decrease every year down to the normalized rate, which is somewhere around 10%. >> Chuck, if you have, as you've been doing, and I'm the worst culprit, so usually you'll have a slide for the question, so if somebody's asking a question, you have a slide. Let's just, we'll just move on from there. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. In terms of what's proposed for the property tax rate, you can see the total proposed rate. You can see that that's equal to what's calculated for our effective rate. Our rollback rate, which is in the news at the state level a lot these days, that's the 8% rollback rate. You can see that the rollback rate is slightly over our current rate. Our current rate is 0.68334, so the rollback rate is slightly above that. There's the certified taxable value of 10.3 billion with the growth of 13.32%. This gives a breakdown. Council member Duff was asking in terms of the change in value. You can see for 2017, on the far right, the total change was about 1.2 billion. You can see that's almost double what we had in terms of an increase last year. In terms of value changes. And in terms of that second bullet down there under the certified appraised value, of that increase about 3.16% was from new construction. And 926 million was from the increase in existing property appraisals, which are about 10%. Even the growth in new value, we've been running about 2 to 2.2% in terms of total, so that was bigger. Part of that was the WNCO came online this year, so that was part of that big increase. And the average homesteaded taxable value increased from 195 to 214,000. That does include new construction, which moves it up a little bit. They just give us that number in the lump. They don't really break that out in terms of existing homes and the other. But with the proposed tax rate, you can see that the average homeowner taxes would go up by about $27 at the effective rate. Part of that is probably because home values have grown a little bit more than business values. >> Mayor Pro Tem. >> I really appreciate this chart, thank you. So if I understand it correctly, in 2012, the average city homeowner would have paid about $800 in city taxes. Am I getting that right? >> Based on the value and the change in percentage? >> No, I'm going to have to go back and look. I think we have that historically in terms of the average home value and what they would have paid in taxes. But I'm looking over to my budget staff to see if they can look that up. >> Okay, so the change from 2012, the way that I arrived there was I just did the change from 2012 to 2017, which is about 40% if I'm reading it correctly of increase. >> Yeah, I'll have them look at that because this is really the total value of the total role. >> Okay, so it's not working out. >> Not necessarily an average residential homestead. >> Okay. >> I'll have them look that up and see if we can come up with that. >> Thank you. >> I did want to mention, and I'll get to the chart toward the end in terms of the utility with the proposed low increases in the decrease in the electric utility, this is going up about $27. That would be a decrease over a 12 month period of about $ 21 on the utility side. So between the two of them were pretty flat in terms of total cost. In terms of sales tax, and you can see, I keep this chart that goes back a little bit further. One of the reasons is to show kind of what happened during the recessionary years that yes, sales tax can decline or stay flat. I always do a little bit of warning on that because those cycles tend to come around and tend to be painful when they do come around, but you can see 16, 17 right now we're up 10.4%. So what we're projecting is to be up 10.4%, so you can see very strong growth. That's about 3.5 million in terms of growth. And then what we're projecting next year, I point out that 0.4%, that's the total rate when I back out kind of those one time sales tax rebates just during construction. That's where I get to the 3%. The 16, 17 number includes those sales tax rebates during construction. So here's a chart that shows the proposed budget in terms of revenue. You can see ad valorem taxes. You can see sales tax, which is up a little bit as a percentage up to about 30% close to ad valorem sales taxes. You can see franchise fees, which on the general fund side as a percent of revenues are continuing to decline. I mentioned the cost of service and the return on investment and then service fees in terms of major revenues. This gives the proposed budget by expenses in terms of personnel services. You can see in the general fund about 71%. So nearly three quarters in terms of that. And then I've broken it out. The next highest in terms of cost of service, those are really transfers to the internal service funds. And I've also broken out, so we have it separate, the 380 agreements. So you can see the other breakdown in terms of the budget. And this chart breaks it down by the functions. Police and fire make up a little bit over 50%. We're at about 53% to 54% of the budget. Next is parks and recreation and then libraries. And you can see the breakdown beyond that. I'm going to go through some five year projections for the general fund. And due to the recent announcement of a safer grant that will go over, I've added a third one. So I've got three of them in here. So just to add a little bit of confusion to it, I've done that. You can see the proposed budget for 17, of 119.5 million in revenues and expenditures. And then going forward, the projections here are based on those assumptions I gave. One of the major assumptions is this would be at the effective rate each year. So about 2% growth in assessed valuation and property taxes for the general fund. I've also got beginning in 1819 is our agreement with the Denton County Emergency Services District. We'll pay a portion of that fire station to provide service on the southwest portion of town. I've just added in some estimates when you talk about new baseline expenses. That's really just kind of some inflationary growth on goods and services, just an estimate for that. And then supplemental expenses, those would be additional supplemental packages. Made very conservative estimates on this. You can see next year not projecting any. So I think these are pretty conservative estimates. But what you see under this conservative assumptions is a decline in fund balance. You can see year five about 4.9 million. Now I've got at the bottom that cumulative transfer to the street improvement fund. You can see a lot of that change in fund balance or negative drawdown in fund balance. It is related to that transfer. So just to make you aware of that. Are there any questions on the baseline? >> Yes, so then because when I was looking at the revenue and expenditure line on out in the five years. That's where the delta, of course you've got your supplementals, your new baseline and your Denton County. But you're also, when you go with your expenditures, they 're rising at a higher rate than the revenues. But my hunch is part of that is because the revenues, I thought it was an increase in expenses. But it's also a decrease in revenue because we're transferring those franchise fees out. So if we added those back in, then it would look a little bit more, okay, I just wanted to understand what the difference was on that . >> And I will say the expenditures include the compensation package going forward. So that includes that compensation package in terms of the assumptions. >> So we have a higher percentage increase assumption for expenditures than we do for revenue. I mean, revenue assumption is 2%. >> Well, from property values, it's that effective rate. Sales tax is 3%. And then most of the other revenues are in that 2 to 3% growth rate, other than franchise fees which are declining each year. >> Okay. >> This is the slide that makes me slightly anxious because of the projections for the fund balance going significantly below. But my anxiety is somewhat relaxed by the fact that we have very conservative revenue projections. And do you have a slide somewhere down the road on, because you mentioned our projections for property taxes and our projections for sales taxes. We have some historical slides on sales taxes somewhere in your presentation. >> I had one, I can go back to it, that's several slides back that had the historical growth in sales tax. >> Yeah, please. >> Let me go back to this one. This one shows the historical growth. So you can see at least based on about the last four to five years, that 3% assumption is pretty conservative in terms of sales tax. >> And have you run a number, if you looked at the last five years, 08, 09, 09, 09, 10, or 09, 10 were somewhat unusual years. If you had adjusted revenues based on a 3% or a 4% sales tax, do you think that we would still be in the 20% of our fund balance goal? >> Well, and I've got on the next slide, I'm projecting it with a little bit more growth. >> Okay. >> So I'll go to the next slide and project it with a little bit more growth. In terms of the five year projection, and again, once you get out to years four and five, it gets a little less precise, so to speak. So I don't really want to raise alarm bells, but this was really looking if we stayed at the effective rate. So if we had staying at the effective rate, any growth we had greater than new value, our tax rate would be reduced. So under this scenario with the growth that we've been seeing, you would probably see a tax rate reduction each year within this scenario. And I've given another scenario that just assumes that the tax rate reduction allows for some kind of inflationary growth. The effective rate really doesn't allow for any inflation ary growth, it's just simply new value. So I've projected this with still conservative numbers, but at 4%. So if we would get 2% growth in the effective rate and some inflationary portion of the rate, about 2%, so we'd have about 4% growth in property tax values. And you can see that that change in fund balance is much, much less. There's a little bit in the out years, but again, it's much , much less. And it's significantly less than we're transferring over franchise fees to the street improvement fund. Again, with the five year projections, like I mentioned on the utility side, we include these in the budget, but what the council's really adopting is the 17, 18 budget. These are just kind of projections that we like to include and like to give the council an idea of kind of future impacts. >> Well, and I appreciate that because I think it helps address the issue from the questions we had from a historical context, in other words, because this doesn't even allow for, this is just 4% in the AV growth. If you were to say if we went up to 3.5% or 4% on the sales tax, which historically look at it, that would be probably still fairly conservative. You would probably almost see that deficit erased, it'd be minimal. So I appreciate that, that's a good way to look at this, thank you. >> And I said I was going to throw another slide in here to make it even a little bit more confusing. And this is a good confusion in terms of that. We were notified yesterday, I think late yesterday. The fire department had applied for what's called a SAFER grant. And it's a federal program, federal grant program. SAFER stands for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response. So what this grant would do would be pay a portion of the salaries for additional personnel for the station for medic unit. So it would pay 75% in year one and two and 35% in year three. And then the grant goes down to zero. So it's a grant set to encourage governments to expand their fire capabilities and to kind of ease into that expansion. So it was not in the proposed budget since we were just notified yesterday of it. But with that, and you can see with the SAFER grant reimbursement, we've estimated about 419,000 the first couple years at 75% of that cost of personnel, 195 year three. So with that, in terms of the proposed budget, now there's a change in fund balance or an increase in the fund balance of 419,000. So that gives the council the ability in 17-18 to make changes in terms of additional supplemental packages, additional one time capital or reduction in the tax rate in 17-18. I do want to point out, I've given the same projection as the prior page and this is 4%, when you look out at year four and five in terms of the change in fund balance, those are the same numbers as the SAFER grant goes away by year four, we've still got the same level of expenses. So I just want to give that kind of a bit of caution in terms of makes it better now, but realize that it will go away in a few years. -Chuck, you said because it pays part of the salaries for the personnel for Fire Station Four, I believe? -Correct. -So if we went back to your original five-year forecast, it didn't have all the assumptions, didn't have the SAFER grant, those expenses are still embedded? I mean, those personnel expenses for, okay. So this is just a relief from that. -Yeah, it's a grant to offset it. So that's why I put it up there. -Council member, go ahead. -Well, thanks to whoever applied for that grant. Who was that? -Sir. -Oh, you're welcome. Thank you. -Outstanding Fire Department team. -We appreciate that. The question that comes is, is that a one-time grant or is that something that after so many years, you can apply for it again or do we know? -I think you can apply for it again. I don't know if there's any time frame on federal funding. -Yeah, if you, yeah, we'll just need to, if you just give a brief statement on that, that'd be great. I appreciate it because it's quite an achievement. -Thank you, Mayor. And we are very proud of that. And our team did work real hard to bring that back for us. It is conditional on federal funding and that those programs are evaluated each year with regard to the budget. We have the ability to apply for it in the future for future expansion opportunities if it's available to us. -Given the fact that we anticipate future expansion needs, I mean, that will be helpful. And we need to keep that in mind in terms of our legislative agenda that we communicate with our elected officials at the national level. -We'll stay focused on that. It's directly related to the discussion we had in our fire department budget presentation that every Denton firefight er is a paramedic and every paramedic is a firefighter. This grant is focused on increasing your fire response. We're focused obviously on increasing our EMS response as a growing part of our call volume. But on each medic unit, we carry the fire protection equipment and they also respond to fires to increase our staffing in fire emergencies also. So that is how we qualified for this very important grant. Thank you. -Thank you. Thank you, Chief. Appreciate the whole team. So with that, I want to get to the supplemental packages that are recommended in the budget for '17-'18. In terms of your color-coded sheets that we put on front, it should be the second one in, which is the dark purple. So, Chuck, before we start going into each one of these supplemental packages, just help me understand as a general principle. So when I look at the top of this one, and several of them say this, it says included in the proposed budget. So when we're looking at these supplemental packages such as this one, it says included in the proposed budget. That first slide that you showed us, these are all in there . -Yes, in terms of the expenditures of the 119.5 million, these packages are all included within those expenditures for '17-'18. -Okay. Whereas in the past, typically supplemental packages were, we would be adding to the budget. These are sort of embedded in the proposed budget. I'm not saying this is going to happen. So I just want to understand the principle that if something, if the council had a consensus on well, we don't necessarily need, then what that does is reduce the budget by that, if they 're the ones that are included. -Correct. -Okay. -Correct. -Thank you. -And we do have a page on here on the ones that were not included, too. -That's right. -There's a few of those in there. -I'm glad you didn't start with that. Go ahead. Start with the good news first. -So, and some of these I'll mention are somewhat related. We've got a pretty big list of kind of one-time items that we're proposing with the growth in sales tax in '16-'17. So I'll go over that list a little bit later, but some of them are somewhat associated with those. So we talked about permitting software replacement. We've got some one-time funding for that software that we 're proposing due out of the current year. But this is kind of the ongoing funding for implementation of that. And then once we implement, we'll have the ongoing support cost in terms of software support on that. So this is really kind of the projected ongoing cost from that. The one-time cost of the purchase of the software is in a supplemental package in the current fiscal year that I'll get to a little bit later. Planning, we've included, and this is another one-time, to do a historical plan update. If you remember last year, we put some funds in the budget. I believe it was $60,000 in the budget. We're hoping to get a grant to match that to be able to do that historic plan update. They were unable to receive that grant. So this would be combined with the funding from last year in order to do that plan. In terms of parks for capital maintenance, and this would be an ongoing, what we've proposed is an ongoing amount to do capital maintenance. And these are really areas that aren't covered. We have facility maintenance that we do and facility upgrades where we issue debt each year in the capital program, about a million and a half. But these are park facilities that really aren't covered under that building maintenance facility in terms of long term. They've estimated in terms of long term maintenance needs, a listing at about 2.4 million. Some of these include roofs and pavilions at the park pavil ions. I think we've included some in the 300,000 for that. A large one is the athletic field lighting systems, where I think the oldest lights are from 1979. If you think of all the ball field lights, those have to be replaced over time. Park security lights, playground replacements and upgrades, and kind of the irrigation system throughout all the parks over time, those have to be replaced. So what we've proposed is an ongoing amount of 300,000 per year for all capital maintenance within the parks. I talked about that emphasis on maintaining infrastructure and other types of infrastructure. And this is one that really hasn't been funded in the past. Any questions on that one? We've got the medic unit number four. This number includes the personnel and also includes the one time cost for the ambulance and some other equipment. For the police department, they currently have the taser system that these two items would be ongoing and would really expand the system in terms of the capabilities and the number of basically tasers that are available and then kind of an ongoing replacement of those. In terms of transportation, this would be money contractually every year to do pavement marking replacement for bike lanes. You heard from the transportation area in terms of the need to do that. From facilities management, we budgeted across all funds. This is the net cost. Some of this will come from other funds. We budgeted about 50,000 last year for parking lot maintenance. And we said on an ongoing basis that we needed about $100, 000. So this is the second year we're adding another 50 to do that. Very similar to what they talked about in terms of streets to do the minor overlay and the crack sealing and all those type of things on city parking lots. We've put some money for the charter election in there. We've also put some funds in the general fund and others if the pay for council members is approved so that we have funding for that. Within the city manager's office, the customer relations management software, costs for that, and for the quarterly newsletter that we go out. >> Is that something we've done in the past, the quarterly newsletter? >> No, we have not. >> Okay. >> I think this is a newsletter that would go out, would be mailed out to all residents. On at least a quarterly basis. I think they talked about six times per year. >> Okay. In terms of budget and treasury, this is really budgeting software, what we're proposing. And you can, on the one time, there's some additional cost from the 15, 16 as well as from other funds. What we're proposing is to bring in a centralized budgeting system so that we'll have a city wide budgeting system to standardize it. Right now, budgets are done on Excel by the different funds and different budget staff. And this would be a significant upgrade to that as well as I think it can expand our capital budgeting capabilities. And these type of packages also have, if you've kind of seen some of the software where you can put the budget online and some budget reporting and those kind of things where citizens and others can go through your website. And kind of run some type of reports and do that. Would interface with the financial system so it kind of pulls that data up for the public also. So it benefits internally and externally. And we've proposed for a staff auditor position, an internal audit, an additional position. This is the net cost, some of that's paid by the other funds. Library materials, an increase in the annual amount they have for purchase of materials. And the city council received a presentation a couple meetings ago from United Way requesting an increase in the homelessness initiative. We put in 40,000 now for that joint position. This would increase it to 80,000 so there would be a potential for a second position to go along with that. >> Just question on, just sort of a, let me understand. So when we talk about the proposed budget as the effective rate, which means outside of new value, we'll be collecting the same property tax revenue as we had before. What the calculation is designed to do is to collect the same amount of property taxes on like property. So the same property as last year, that's what it's designed to do. Now it's a complex calculation, so I'm not guaranteeing. And it'll vary depending on the growth. Some properties may have higher growth and see their tax bill go up and some may have lower growth and may actually go down. >> And that might have been, as I think through it, that might have been the wrong question. When I think about the budget conceptually, I think about the budget last year and the budget this year and the budget. And so the difference between what the budget is in revenues last year and this year was how much? Do you remember just off the top of your head? You don't have to go back to the slides. >> No, I'm not going to go back through the slides, but we'll have it in here in terms of the general fund. The reason I ask, and the number might not be that important, is these supplemental packages that are included in the current budget means that somewhere, we either have had an increase of revenue through some other source other than property taxes, sales taxes, fees, and all that. Combined with reduction in expenses in various departments where it's been able to absorb in the new budget these additional supplemental packages. I just want to make sure I'm getting that, okay. >> Yeah, last year's budget in the general fund was 114.8 million. This year's proposed is 119.5. So you've really got the growth in new value, a significant growth in the property tax. I'm sorry, in sales tax. >> Right. >> You've really got about a three to three and a half million growth in sales tax. And then you just have some minor growth in the others. >> That's where we're able to say that's included in the budget is we've had those increases in revenue areas other than necessarily having to get it through property tax collection. >> Correct. >> Gotcha, okay. Council member Ryan. >> Just kind of clarifying on that. In the past, we've done a budget every year, and this year we're doing a baseline. Normally all this stuff would have been put into the regular budget, and then we would have had a few other additional, do you want to do these supplemental packages? >> Yes, I mean I guess when I'm talking about the baseline this year, we're talking about property taxes in terms of no increase in the rate, which is the effective rate. But the other growth in revenues are built in, so these supplemental packages you see are included in the proposed budget. So really when we said baseline, kind of like the utilities , their baseline was no rate increase, but their total budget might have been increasing because of growth in customers. >> Right, and I guess where I'm going is in the past, this might have already been included and wouldn't have been presented as a supplemental, these types of items. >> Well, no, we've included them in the past. But what we've tried to talk about in supplementals is this is a program or additional expenses that's above and beyond the current level of service that we have. In other words, we're making service level enhancements by adding personnel or, for example, in the parks for increasing maintenance. So in prior years, we've included supplementals. I think the difference was in prior years, we haven't proposed to start off with the budget at the effective tax rate. It's been at kind of a proposed tax rate that matched what was recommended in the supplemental packages. Where this year we looked at, here's the revenue baseline that we're going to propose. What packages fit within that limitation, not picking the packages that we think are necessary first and then matching the tax rate that would be necessary to fund those packages, if that makes sense. >> Yeah, I just wanted to expand upon Mayor's point with the revenues. I think the other thing that's important in the budget is we can't forget about the other side of the equation on the expense side. So this would also represent the elimination of two to three, maybe $4 million of expenses that have been reprioritized in the budget. So I really don't want to lose sight of that because our department had teamed at a nice job in terms of combing through, looking for different ways of doing business, consolidating functions, that sort of thing. So the narrative isn't just that some of these revenues increase, it's really that we're reprioritizing the existing money that's been in the budget for the last couple of years. And I think that's equally as important. >> Absolutely. >> Mayor Bookin? >> I was just going to mention, at least last year, the assumption was that we would keep the same tax rate. So that's kind of, from what I've observed, typically it was the same tax rate, but because we had increasing revenues, there was a lot of additional revenue available for supplemental packages. And as the city manager said, we never, at least last year, we didn't have any presentations on cost containment. So that wasn't a part of the equation. >> I did want to mention to the council that I mentioned we had the additional 419,000, which they can use toward supplemental packages or not. I'll make a mention in terms of what an additional one cent potentially could be used for. You'll see some supplemental packages that were not funded. And I'll kind of make my yearly plea in terms of cash funding, in terms of versus debt funding. Right now, we debt fund all our vehicle replacements in the general fund. If you remember in the utility funds, a lot of that is cash funded. We make facility improvements by debt and other general debt funding. So just to mention that, I did run an analysis on the vehicles in terms of if we cash funded a million per year versus debt funding. In about a six year period, that comes out even. In other words, in six years, our debt service tax rate decreases by a penny. So you kind of build up to it, but at some point by cash funding, it equals out. Now I'd have to build up to that. So I just wanted to mention that in case the council wants to consider that this year. >> That sounds very different than the plea. >> Thank you, use the word plea. >> So two different messages here. Yes, Mayor Portman. >> Chuck, what is our budget for sidewalks? >> Well, mainly what we have for sidewalks now is through the capital program. In other words, we sold funds through the 2014 bond program for sidewalks. In terms of sidewalk replacement, I don't think we really have a dedicated funding for sidewalk replacement. It was kind of sidewalk replacement and expansion out of the 2014 bond program. >> So we do have a dedicated fund for roads basically, which is the street maintenance fund. And sidewalks are approved as a part of that, but they're not a specific demarcation for sidewalks. And there's not a certain fund for sidewalks. >> Correct, correct. >> So for instance, if there was another opportunity for a safe routes to school program, where we can get matching from the federal government at 80 %, we don't have anything dedicated to say, okay, here government, we have our money set aside for sidewalks. >> Not on a long term ongoing basis. We have some funding through the 2014 bond election program for sidewalk improvements. So we could use that in matching, but in terms of permanent long term funding, we don't have that currently in place, no. >> Thank you. >> And it seems from traffic from the mobility committee that one of the issues that we run into with sidewalks is that if we go back and start replacing, rebuilding sidewalks that have deteriorated. That it triggers ADA requirements and an awful lot of that funding then goes to those intersections and the ramps and rebuilding those all important things. But it really makes it more difficult to add sidewalks where we currently just have pathways, that people have walked over the years. So it's part of the reason that we don't get more new feet of sidewalks is because of the cost. When we upgrade, that triggers the cost for ADA ramps and things like that in the intersections. >> Any more questions on this slide, Mayor? Or am I good? >> We're gonna go through each one of these sheets, right? >> Yes. >> So is this where, okay, you're just tossing this out. Your primary ask is to consider some level of cash funding for vehicles. >> Or one of these others. I'm just saying over the long term, cash funding of vehicles over the long term probably has a little bit higher cost than, or a little bit lower cost than debt funding. But if the council wants to consider any kind of source of funds that's dedicated over a longer term basis for sidewalks or other kinds of capital replacements, I just want to bring that up for their consideration. >> So on this last slide previous to this, is in reference to how that works into the five year forecast. So these are ongoing expenses moving forward. These aren't one, or are there some one time expense? And you probably went through those, but this is a mixture of one time and ongoing. >> Yeah, for the most part they're ongoing, but I'll go through. The historical plan is one time. A portion of Med-It Unit 4 is for that ambulance, so that's somewhat one time. It'll have to be replaced over time. The charter election is one time. The, and all of the others are generally ongoing. The homelessness initiative, I don't know how many years that will occur, but we're considering that an ongoing expense. >> If I could, Mr. Heilman, no, this isn't about a statement of for or against, but help me understand the quarterly newsletter. What's your purpose is in that and what's your goal is in that? >> Well, the point in the quarterly newsletter, actually it 's a semi-annual, every other month newsletter, basically would be to communicate to our residents any programs that are ongoing, how we're using their dollars, educate them on the tax levy. Talk about what the city programs are that are offered to them along with timing, actions the city council takes. So just much more of an educational function for our stakeholders. I think we do a fairly poor job of that today. We rely on social media times to get out important press releases, that sort of thing. But I'm really questioning on a day to day basis whether our residents know what services we perform for them, when we perform them. And just our attempt to try to communicate better with the folks that are footing the bill. >> Would that go out as a standalone mailer piece or would it be included in utility bills? Cuz I would include a lot of things in the utility bills that we're trying to get out to a wide range of our population, so is that just a standalone mail to everybody? >> It would be a standalone mailer probably somewhere in the six to ten page neighborhood. Right now I think that our utility bills can only handle two or three pages at the most. >> No, I didn't know it was gonna be that. >> So yeah, so it's much more of this is what we're doing for you and these are some programs that you fund we wanna tell you about. >> Okay, great, thank you. Councilmember Duff. >> Just a comment on that. I think that's a great idea because I think a lot of people that live in, they're not really engaged in what's going on here. And I think that's very important to get that out because we need to get more people engaged. We need more people out to vote. >> Thank you. All right, Joe. >> I'm kinda moving a little bit away from the general fund . I'll go into the one time packages, but I wanted to cover something. And part of this is in, I referenced some pages in your book, page 24 to 28. It really gives a description of all of the funds of the city. And one of the things I was tasked with this year was to kind of review all of the city funds in terms of restrictions. How they could be used to assist in this budget process. And also availability of balances. Are any of the funds, do we think the balances are a little bit too high? We can draw them down and use them for some one time kind of capital maintenance purchases. So on 24 through 28, what I've tried to add at the bottom of that is if the funds are restricted, how are they restricted when you look at, if you go on to like 26 or 27 and you see a lot of the special revenue funds. There's kind of a listing whether it's federal law, state law, why do we have the fund? Why is it restricted? Or if it's been set by the city council, what ordinance did that? So in kind of going through that process, there's built into this budget some recommendations. One of them is to reduce the balance in the risk fund. In terms of what's from accounting wise called a net position. They had a net position at about 3.7 million at the end of 9/30/16. So I'm recommending we reduce that balance by 2 million and kind of return those funds to the operating fund based on how they were put in. They come in from the general fund and the utility funds. So I'm recommending bringing that back. And that would bring about 972,000 one time back to the general fund. The thought within that is, should the risk fund have a large loss, we've also got reserves in the general fund and each of the utilities. So should they have a large loss that needs to be covered, we can cover it with those reserve balances from the fund in which the loss was associated with. Versus having a larger balance in the risk fund. >> So on that one along with probably the one next, so are those numbers included in the proposed budget as far as , is it under revenue or what would it be? >> Yeah, it would really be, it's an increase in revenue or reduction in expenses in 16, 17. And so when I get a few slides in, we're proposing kind of some one time capital uses of that fund, so for the most part, those two are really a reduction in expenses in the current fiscal year because we're reversing the transfers that were made to the risk fund this year and the contribution to the health fund. Every payroll, based on each employee and each fund, there's a transfer to the health fund from each fund. So on the second bullet, what I'm saying is I think we can withhold two of the pay rolls this year, the 26, that contribution, and that fund will still be fully funded. >> So let's say we did nothing. We don't, then what you're saying is this current year, our fund balance would just increase by this amount because our expenses would be decreased by that amount. >> Yeah, in other words, on the health insurance fund, I think the fund balance would increase this year if we did not withhold those. >> Okay, gotcha. >> The risk fund, I think we're pretty balanced this year, but over time, it's built up that fund balance and I think we can bring it down. >> Okay. >> Council Member Gregory. >> I still don't think I understand the answer to the mayor 's question. Have you already calculated those two figures in this proposed budget? >> Yes, and it's within the 16-17, in other words, it's current year. I've calculated them in the current year estimate by reducing the expenses from those two funds. >> And to use that money for one time capital expenses. >> Correct. >> Got it. >> Okay, I understand. >> And I've got some other recommendations I'll go through. One of them relates to the allowable uses for park dedication and development funds. And I've got a slide on that. And another example is in the recreation fund. They've got a balance. It's not a very large balance, but a balance. So we're projecting to use about 200,000 out of that fund for the replacement of some equipment and some amenities. And we're also proposing out of the traffic safety fund to do three more traffic signal replacements this year. >> Just a real quick question of process. Because I know we started out with the first supplemental fund for the general fund. >> Yes. >> And we've got a couple more of those. Are these slides that we're doing now related to that first supplemental or is this just off on another total? >> Well, this is going to be the front page, the light blue page. >> Yes, that's right. >> And then there'll be, later on, there's some of the supplementals from other funds. And we'll get to those. >> Okay, so there is a method to the system here. In other words, you're setting us up to, okay, I just wanted to understand, because it seemed like we'd just go through the supplement als all just sort of back to back. But there's a reason. Okay, I just wanted to understand. >> There's some minor method to the madness. >> Okay, yes. All right. Thank you. >> I've got to make it a little bit confusing. >> Yes, okay. Well, you're good. That's probably just me. >> No, for some of us, it takes very little to confuse us. I'm speaking for myself. So, and let me back up a little bit. Historically, what we've always done is looked at if the current fiscal year, if we were projecting revenues to be stronger or saving in expenses, instead of adding to the general fund-fund balance, which is kind of right about at that 25% maximum. Instead of adding, we've tried to take those funds for one time capital. All I've done this year is by looking at the risk fund and the health fund. I've increased that amount, that pool that's available for kind of one time capital. And those are the ones in bold. So I'll go through the other ones first and then go through those ones that are in bold. So these are kind of one time supplemental funding packages . One of the reasons that it's probably larger other than the ones in bold, and even the ones that aren't in bold larger than past years is because of the significant growth we've had in sales tax. The sales tax was above our budget. So we're probably about 2 million better in revenues than we had expected this year. And holding expenses down, part of the holding expenses down was the elimination of some positions. So our expenses are a little bit lower and revenues a little bit higher. >> Okay, so this is, again, it's probably just too early for me. So when I read the title here, supplemental packages funded in current fiscal year. That's the one we're currently in. >> Yes. And what we normally do during the budget process is propose these. When the council goes through the formal adoption of the budget, there'll be an item that amends the current year budget to increase the expenses to allow for these expenditures. >> So I guess, because on the blue sheet, the blue supplemental package, which is the same number, and I think it's the same. >> Yes. >> It says general fund supplemental requests included in the proposed budget. >> Yeah, it's just- >> So are these two different things or are they the same thing? >> No, in the proposed budget, what we're proposing to do is increase the appropriations for the current fiscal year and fund these one time capitals. So within, that would be action that the council has to take. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Look at the next page. >> Okay. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay. Okay, I was just looking at the title at the top that says included. So that's where I got confused. All right, thank you. >> In the prior slides, Chuck was basically showing you how we started aggregating dollars to fund some of these one time capital questions in this request in this particular budget. So the next page will focus on 1718. >> Okay. >> Which is built into the budget for other questions. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So in terms of, I've mentioned we put some ongoing costs . This would be the one time cost for the purchase of new software for the development services function. And then we've got what's been proposed by the Parks Department, a replacement of one of the buildings at the American Legion Hall. They had an architect come in and kind of evaluate the current facility and could it be retrofitted or the other. And they really recommended that it needed to be replaced. So this would be one time funding for replacement of that. The fire department request, and these are very similar to some of the things they've requested in prior years. All of these are really designed to be able to keep their staff within the station. >> I'm sorry, go ahead. >> Council Member Dreger. >> So our parks director's smiling because he thought that we just walked right past that American Legion Hall. >> And he wasn't going to have to answer any questions. But it's not going to happen. And by the way, I'm all for it. I stop in every so often to visit there. And I've heard and I've seen the problems. Is this simply replacing square foot for square foot? Are we talking about taking that building down and putting a replacement up in its spot? Could somebody just expand a little bit? >> Yes, after Emerson took me on a tour of this building, I asked Mr. Nelson's group to do a structural analysis because you could actually see through the building and places. And basically what the conclusion was is that it was as costly to fix it as to replace it in time. So it does anticipate a new building of similar square footage. >> And in the same location? >> Yes. >> So it would be attached to the newer building that's to the north? >> Or potentially demolished and put in place, but either way. But this was just basically a cost, given the analysis that came back, felt like we needed to move on this quickly. >> Thank you. Yes, Council Member Hatsbeth. >> So for me, I'd like to see what that looks like. What does 600,000 look like before? Because I'm sure someone's done that evaluation, but before I say yes, here's what I'm afraid of. Let's start there. My concern is that if it becomes not enough, and then it's a situation where we can't move forward because it's more than we anticipated, that sort of thing. Now we've allocated this funds and we're waiting to supplement those funds, which is fine if everyone kind of agrees that, hey, we're going to get this done. And if it ends up running over cost, we're going to supplement it to make sure we get it done, then I have no concerns. But if we're hesitant to say, sure, we're going to get it done, then I would want more information. I have some specific design thoughts that's a little deeper than we need to go today. But generally, I don't want us to get hung up on, it's going to cost more than we thought. We got to go back and figure it out, and it's delayed, one. Two, does it take into account that the kitchen is in the older building that we're talking about replacing? What is the fix for that during that construction? Are those costs factored in? Because that building's rented pretty regularly, as everyone in the parks knows. So I want to try to make sure we can cover that base, too. >> We would definitely need to go through. This is a very high level conceptual budget number, planning number. So the next step would be, if the council's amenable to moving this forward, to get actually into some design engineering, design architectural work where we can come back and provide plans at a 50, 60, 70% level and give you an even better budget number. We think the budget's tight at 614, but we really need to get into the planning aspect first before we can give you a solid number. So that will take a few months once this is approved. >> So approved, that really gets to the just mind question. Approved means we're going to do it at the necessary cost? >> I think the question that you're answering is we will be able to provide more certainty on the, I know this number looks very scientific, it's square footage calculations, I understand it. So we would actually get into the planning of replacing it. It assumes the same square footage. Once that building was fully designed, we would come up with an estimated cost. We'll have a cost estimator look at it as well. If it's a little bit short, we'll be back to talk to you about using some contingency dollars to make sure this happens. But in this hot market right now, it's best that we get out there and get the planning done, reach out to the community of builders to make sure that the costs are in line and let the market talk to us at that point. But it's a best estimate because we don't have solid designs yet. >> Yeah, no, then I would just add that footnote that if, as I'm in support of it, one, because I think it's an outstanding facility, day and night usage, I mean, it's used quite a bit. But two, I want to make sure we don't get hung up on a, if we're going to need an additional 400,000, whatever that number is. I would just put a footnote that I would be disappointed if we get there and then, by the way, when it comes to the real numbers. Once we get through the planning phase, if it looks like we 're short a little bit in dollars, we will come back with a funding recommendation to move the project forward. >> Councilman Ryan. >> Thank you, Mayor. On the traffic signals on those three, I'm looking at the timing of those and the road construction, the 2499 and Robinson, that that intersection will open post construction in November, I believe is the current estimate. And yet 2181 is about to go under construction in the next month or two. Are those temporary lights going in for the 400,000? >> Those are permanent lights and. >> Those are permanent lights and, sorry. >> And it's a little disappointing, Texas did not have funding or build that into that roadway. So basically what they have stated to us is if you want the signals, you pay for them. So this is a policy decision. Obviously we think that they're obviously warranted. And we think there's enough value in them that we're recommending that we move forward and build those. The one for 2499, it's only for the design of that particular signal. Typically, the design's about 10% of the cost of the signal . >> Okay, but are we not planning to put a signal in at that intersection based on this? >> We would be, but they've only asked us for design funds this fiscal year. So the next year, if they need the dollars, they will let us know. And we'll be putting it in at some later point. >> Okay, so I'd hate to see that intersection open up and not have a signal at it cuz it's. >> This particular, this is the request from right now. If we ended up needing some additional dollars, there's money in the traffic, the, help me check, traffic. >> Traffic safety fund. >> Safety fund to fund that signal. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Mayor Pro Tem. >> Can you remind me, as a part of the FM 2181 improvements , will they be adding a dedicated sidewalk area and crosswalk s for the high school? I think they will, but I just wanna make sure. >> I'm getting lots of nods of yes from over in the audience. >> And a couple of questions. On, and this is just a real basic question, on the American Legion Hall, what is the current square footage of that building? Anybody know? >> I'm thinking it's about 1200. >> Okay, yeah, well we can relay that. >> Okay, about 1200 square feet. >> About 1200 square feet. >> So what I, and this is sort of to dovetail on Council Member Hussba's comments. And this is high level, so I'm not gonna go into too much detail. But what I don't wanna happen, it happened, is the same thing that happened with the fire station. That is, I would suspect that the design and all that would be brought back with different type of construction methodology and costs associated with it, because if it's 1200 square feet, or 1300 square feet, and we're at $500 a square foot. I hope that, well, I will, it will be a struggle for me to say, if we've gotta go over that. So I just wanna make sure that as we're having this discussion, that that's the best cost estimate. But I would hope that we have the same conversation about these construction costs as we've had with the ongoing fire station. >> You've got it, and that also does include design costs, so it would be all rolled in. But we would definitely bring back anything before that contract's led. So you have options to weigh in on. >> Yeah, because when I hear 1200 square feet and I have 500 bucks a foot, and I'll fix and fall out. >> But that's okay, that's just me. All right, and so then my question goes to, and we're gonna get to this, but on these traffic safety, on these traffic signals that are coming out of traffic operations, cuz I know we had this discussion I think last year. >> No, these traffic signals would be coming out of- >> Traffic operations. >> The general fund current year available funding. >> Okay, that's- >> So the replacement signals from the traffic safety fund that we've proposed is coming later in the presentation. >> Right, and that's the three for the 1.2 million? >> Yes. >> Okay, and when we get to that discussion, cuz I know we had discussion about this last year about how many did we need to replace, how many have we replaced because there was some question about- >> I've got a chart on that for you, Mayor. >> Okay, good, fantastic, thank you. I'm hoping it'll work, we'll try it. >> All right, you bet. >> In terms of, I mentioned the fire department ones, the police. These are two patrol vehicles and two criminal investigation bureau vehicles. We're also pulling some funding out of the police seizure funds. So an additional patrol vehicle and two additional CIB vehicles will be paid out of the seizure funds. So some of the funding for those vehicles is here and some will come from the police seizure special revenue fund. The budgeting software is just some of the one time cost of the budgeting software versus ongoing. I think we've gone over the signals. Those items in bold were really funded mainly from those two sources I mentioned on the prior page. And then we've got parking lot replacements. You remember in 2015 when we did the OCI study for streets, we included city parking lots. So these are kind of some of the worst in terms of the parking lots that need replacement or reconstruction. The City Hall East parking lot, that's the one that abuts the railroad track over there, if you've been in that one. The Dina Recreation Center, the North Lakes Athletic Complex, and then portions of the service center, not completely, but kind of some of the worst portions of the service center. And some of the service center will be funded proportion ally from the utility funds. So this is the general fund portion, but there's also some money coming in from the utility funds. >> So a couple questions again. So you're asking that, what you're asking is, if we approve this, this will be money that will amend the current year budget for these one time expenses because we've had either increase in revenue, reduction in expenses, whatever the combination, any combination thereof, that allows this capacity for this. >> Correct. >> So let's say we didn't do any of it. And the fund balance would be increased by this amount, in essence. >> In essence, yeah, we would increase the fund balance in the general fund. >> Okay. Permitting software replacement. Of course, that's something I've been asking for because I think that our current software is woefully inadequate and we paid a lot of money for that. So what assurances can we get, or are we going to get presentations on that we're spending $500,000 and it will get us where we need to get as far as from a technological perspective. And increasing management efficiency and things such that in the permitting process because that's a lot of money. We were at this same place about three or four years ago, five years ago with, I forgot which ones they were, Project Docs or Laserfish or whatever it is. And that money basically was not well spent in hindsight. How can we make sure that we are not making those same decisions with this particular, I mean if you've identified one or this is the budget and you haven't identified one yet, that's fine. >> Yeah, council will be getting a report back on the recent study we've done of our plan development process, which takes into consideration our software. And I think the general consensus is that from both the community, staff, users, it's not working. This is right now, something needs to be done to improve these processes. Right now it's a planning number. We are acutely aware of the Project Docs expense and so our IT director's been working with Manal and her staff in order to make sure that we've got a spec that addresses all the deficiencies that we're currently seeing and hearing from our customers as well. And we will build that spec around trying to fill those deficiencies and bring you options. >> Okay, thank you. Yes, Council Member Gregory. >> Thanks. As you build that document for deficiencies, I think one of the concerns for a long time has been the opportunity for citizens that are not directly related to a project, but that are impacted by a project because it's happening in or near their neighborhood. To be able to see at least some of the documents that are appropriate for the public to see as public documents because to see what the progress is, what the plans are, what the recommendations are for these changes and uses. >> And we will be building that capability and >> Yes, Mayor Parkin. >> Just a friendly reminder that there are 42 slides. >> I've got to leave at 1.30, so I mean. Go ahead, Chuck. >> One of the things I mentioned in kind of going through this process and reviewing all the funds and the restrictions is the park development and dedication funds. Currently, under the ordinance, and this was passed, I believe in the late 90s, these funds, they're collected from development and they can only be used for neighborhood park development or land purchases within one mile of the development paying the fees. And you can see the projected combined fund balance of the two funds by 9.30, 18 in terms of that. We've projected some expenditures, but really it's becoming challenging, especially with some of the infill development where there 's already a park within that distance. To be able to expend these funds, we went through a process where we met with legal staff and looked at some similar ordinances of other cities. And one of the recommendations that we've come up with is at least consideration to expand the type of park development that these funds can be used for to include community parks and trails. Community parks being soccer fields and those type of parks . And to consider expanding the distance requirements for these additional types of parks. So this would give the ability to use those funds with a little bit more flexibility. And if the council's okay with this, we'd recommend just starting off going back to the park board and see what their recommendations are and kind of bring this forward through that process. >> That's my agree. >> Thank you, Mayor. I think I'm all right with that. The first question that comes up is the money that's been collected, are those somehow have to operate under the rules at the time when they were collected? >> We had that discussion with legal and at least initially , and I'm sure they'll want to review it as we come forward with any proposed ordinance. But initially, if we expand that, the existing funds could be used for that expansion. >> And that would be all part of the presentation if council, so you're looking for some direction at this point , at least to start the process and bring it forward. >> To start the process and consider it and it'll still have to be reviewed. >> Yeah, I don't have a problem with that because we'll have our detailed questions answered at that time. >> And I think one of the things to consider for them to consider as they're looking at that in expanding the definition is the notion that, for example, if we're redoing a street and we're expanding the sidewalks and expanding the streetscape for more benches. And I mean, there are times when streets end up becoming park like amenities. So would part of that money be available for that? Or along waterways that are not developable for other purposes? And we're boxing in for the water to go through and we have a green space on top. Could we use park funds then to enhance that area on the surface area for a park amenity? >> I think those are all policy questions that we can certainly bring forward. As Chuck says, we really need to let our attorney's office review that. But this request that's coming before council is really more of a result of Chuck and I going through the projected capital budget and debt issues for the next several years. And we've got some CEOs built in for park development, but we've got a fund that continues to grow because the rules are so tight. And does this really make sense from a policy perspective to take on debt while this fund continues to accumulate fund balance? >> No. Yeah, I'd say move forward on this, bring it back and we'll address all those details in the work session. >> Moving on to other special revenue funds, wanna highlight the street improvement fund. You can see what's proposed for 17, 18 in terms of operating revenues growth of about 1.1, 1.2 million. That's two things again, that's the additional 622,000 in franchise fees. Plus all the growth in franchise fees and bond sale savings that's coming over. And I've got, there's kind of a break in this chart if you look at the first column, it's 11, 12, and then we go to 15 , 16. 11, 12 was the first year when this fund was established. Prior to the 2012 election, so there were no bond sales. So you can see we were at about 6.1 million. You can see with the bond funding for 17, 18, we're talking about 21 million. And over the five year projection by 21, 22, we're talking about really a tripling of the amount of ongoing revenue that's going towards street maintenance. So I think over time the impact is going to continue to increase. But it's a significant effort in making some significant impacts, I believe. >> And the only question I have, Chuck, is, and you're gonna get to this slide, it's the other fund supplemental request included in the proposed budget. And it talks about street improvement, concrete pavement curb gutter, sidewalk, crack seal, micro seal for about. >> About 1.4 million or something. You'll explain that and how that relates to this. >> Yeah, it's really the supplemental packages or how are those additional operating funds going to be spent in the street improvement fund. That's really what those are. And I will get to that. In terms of the traffic safety fund, the replacement of three traffic signals, we did two traffic signals in the current year in 16-17. So we're looking at three next year and this is replacement of existing signals. That will draw down the fund balance by about 900,000. So the total expenditures in that fund is about 2.9 million . In terms of a graph, and I brought this graph up last year that's the traffic signals by age. But what I've tried to do this year, if you look at the ones highlighted in red, these are the signals, the city currently has 116 signals that are replaced or funded to be replaced. And this is kind of prior to these three that we're proposing in the budget. If you remember, there was the replacement of 12 signals in the 2014 bond program. We've kind of sped up that funding to be able to do those quickly. Some of them are state replacements. If we put in even a temporary signal on a state roadway when they're upgrading, they'll replace that signal fully. That's where some of them on the lower end of the time frame have been replaced. And then annually budgeting replacements. So you can see the 35 to 39, we've knocked those out pretty well. But unfortunately, there's still a lot in the 30 to 34 category. Every year when I put this chart together, everything gets a year older, unfortunately. But I think at least it shows some significant progress that we're making. We still continue to have needs here, but I think it kind of gives a visual representation of that progress. >> Question. >> May I put it? >> What is the balance of the traffic safety fund? >> The projected balance for next year. We're projecting at 930, 18, it'll be about 860,862. We are keeping some in there. At least so far we've survived, but there's always the risk if the state would take away our ability to do that. That that contract has about another year and a half on it. We've got an obligation under that contract, so we've tried to leave enough of a balance in case that we had to pay off our obligation in that contract. I think it ends in 2019, that obligation. So we're able to draw down a little bit more each year as we move forward. >> Councilmember Hussbett? >> Yeah, depends on one of that. Just a footnote, I'm passionate about having that conversation about the red light cameras. And when that rolls back around, just a note wherever that goes. >> Yep, all right. Cuz that's how this is funded. >> Correct, yeah, the traffic safety fund is kind of the red light camera fund, so to speak. >> Councilmember Ryan? >> Chuck, you mentioned if we put up a temporary when the state is doing construction that they'll replace it with a permanent? >> Sometimes. >> Sometimes. >> [LAUGH] >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Yeah, we would love to be able to do that. If they have funding, they will do that, and they usually know ahead of time. But it's not a certainty. >> So that's why we're having the 400,000 on each of those? >> Yeah, they've had discussions with them, do you have funding to do that? And at least for now, that's what the state has said, that they don't. In terms of the two TURZ zones, we have TURZ number one, the downtown. What's budgeted this year is estimated revenue of 379,000. That's at the current contribution rate. That's actually down a little bit from this year's revenue. Part of that is because of the reduction in the tax rate, as we're proposing a reduction in the tax rate. And we budgeted the one incentive payment out of that fund at 76,000. For the West Park TURZ, this is really the first year where they're going to see significant revenues because of the W ENCO. Their value is a little over 63 million, so their estimated revenues are about 185,000. Those are dedicated under the agreements and budgeted for a grant payment to repay some of the improvements that have been made in that zone. So it's kind of revenue in and revenue out, but it's good news that it's growing. >> And just to give a heads up, probably in about 10, 15 minutes we'll take a break, so we'll try to take one at a slide break. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> In terms of the downtown reinvestment fund, and this is another one that we need a little bit of direction on, we 've had discussions. The current fund balance, there were discussions last year of just using the fund balance toward projects. The current fund balance is at 206,000, but there's four projects that have been committed, but they have not received their funds yet. It's a reimbursement after they complete, and those are 100 ,000. So after those four commitments, it would leave 106,000. The ordinance that established that downtown reinvestment fund was in 2013. That ordinance is still in place and hasn't been changed yet. So this year's transfer has not been made. It's from alcoholic beverage tax funds. 100,000 is dedicated to that fund. So I just bring these two options to the council for direction. I know we've had a lot of discussion in the back. If we don't make any changes to the current ordinance, this year we'll transfer the 100,000 in the current fiscal year and it will call for 100,000 transfer in next year. If the council wishes to amend that ordinance to impact this year's transfer, we'd have to do that prior to 9/30/2017. So really looking for direction on that fund in terms of do we want to maintain it going forward as it was under 2013 or make a change to that ordinance? And I bring this up just because of the discussion during last year's- >> No, I understand that. >> Discussion all of that. >> And I think also this sort of goes in line with, we had a discussion in an open meeting about the downtown T URS. And one of the options was if it stayed in place at its current level of funding and so forth and so on, that would this become part of that funding out of the TURS. So it's hard to give direction on this particular item without knowing exactly how we're going to handle that unless we just make it and say, well, we can always change it. If the transfers occur, we don't do anything. And but we decide that those transfers will start coming out of the, if the TURS. That means that money just stays there until it gets exp ended through various projects. Is that, I mean, you can't recapture that. You can't claw it back, I presume. >> I'm going to look to legal staff for that in terms of once it's in that fund, if the council changes it, even the existing 106,000 that's in there. I think that's a legal question in terms of clawing it back . >> This question we'll have to look into, Mayor. I don't know the answer to that. >> Okay, all right. Mayor Pro Tem, yes. >> I'm having trouble following you. How is this related to the downtown TURS? Because they're two separate funds. >> They are, but we only had the discussion in the open meeting about the TURS. And I believe this Councilmember Gregory had talked about it, because one of the options that staff had presented was if the TURS continues on in its current form. One of the options may be, because everybody's talking about is it being used for what it was originally intended. One of the options was we could begin to fund the downtown reinvestment grant. Because it is for downtown, and the TURS is primarily for downtown. Out of the TURS, which means this fund and these transfers, you wouldn't need to make them. That's why I asked if you did make them, and you made a different decision on the TURS to start funding the downtown reinvestment grant out of the TURS, what do you do with the money you just transferred? Does that make sense? >> Right, but isn't the TURS limited to infrastructure improvements? >> No, no, there's four different- >> You can make facade improvements? I'm getting a head nod yes that you can do that. Okay, so then what are you asking? >> Well, the basic gist of my question or comment is, do we have enough information to make a decision and give direction as to how we want to handle this particular issue before us? In other words, keep the ordinance the way it is and that transfer of $200,000 will occur, both for this current fiscal year and for the upcoming budget year out of the alcoholic beverage fund to this account. Or the other option is we can change it and say the transfer is not going to occur and leave it like that. Or the other is we consider the TURS conversation and if it comes out of the TURS, but if it comes out of the TURS then whatever decision we've made, at least if we allow those transfers this year of the 200,000, what do we do with those funds? Yes. >> So question for Chuck. If we were to modify the ordinance and say, and the alcoholic beverage sales tax transfer into this fund and just allow the fund to dissip ate and no longer continue to fund it, what would happen to the $ 200,000 annually that's put into the fund? >> It would basically be additional revenue to the general fund. >> Alcoholic beverage tax is revenue that comes into the general fund and how we budgeted it is 100,000 of that revenue is transferred to downtown reinvestment. And 150,000 of that revenue is transferred to the economic development, the other economic development fund. So it would basically say you've got 100,000 more in revenue in the general fund if you don't make that transfer . >> So basically we could go to our purple supplemental page and say, all right, we have 200 extra. We want to add an EMS captain or whatever because it's an ongoing fund increase. >> Yes, and it's just 100,000 per year. There's 100,000 this year and next year, but it'd be 100, 000 per year that would be available. >> All right, thank you. >> Council Member Bryan? >> Is there anything that is currently funded through the downtown reinvestment that we couldn't rework the ordinance on the downtown TURS to fund in future? In other words, could we eliminate this fund, let it get drawn down, disappear, and then that 100,000 would then go into the general fund? >> Or remain in the general fund. >> Or remain in the general fund. >> Correct. >> Because I know there was some talk when we were talking about the TURS of the possibility of funding a police officer for the downtown area. And I think it would be much clinger if we took that 100, 000 and used it directly out of the TURS to fund reinvestment in downtown. Let this remain in the general fund and use that money to add an additional officer that would most likely be- >> Well, I'm gonna make it simple for me. >> Dedicated to downtown. >> I'm okay with changing it to defund it. And because the TURS conversation is still yet to occur. And so we could spend an hour talking about that right now. So my direction, doesn't mean it's the consensus of the council, is amend the ordinance by 930 to change the current year's transfer. And we'll deal with that funding issue either through the general fund or through the TURS or however you want to do it with either police officers, but this is really a standalone, that's really why I asked. But I'm the one that convoluted them too, so I'm gonna back up and say I'm for option number two. >> So you'd like me to bring that back to the council for consideration? >> Well, that's just me. There's six other people here that have a- >> I'm in agreement with that. >> Okay, all right. Okay, well, yes. >> Okay, we will do that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. The tree mitigation fund, and these are the budgeted expenditures out of that fund. The park's tree planting, there's a tree rebate program that's run through KDB. And that's funding potentially for those tree rebates. The rebates have not been that high in the current year, but we're funding it at that level. And this is a one time expenditure that's recommended for a comprehensive urban forestry plan for 60,000. It would be run through the development services division. >> Councilmember Gregory. >> If we could just have some information later when I was looking in more detail on the tree mitigation fund, it seemed to me that I didn't see a separate category that I thought that we'd set aside for the possibility of acquisition of land with tree stands on it. So if we could just have it up there. >> Yeah, we did not budget for acquisition of land. We can upon direction of the city council, but we don't have that budget. >> I had assumed that, I seem to have remembered that at one point that we had asked for some money to be set aside for that, maybe we did away with that. And somebody could just go back and do it. >> I think it's available within the fund balance should the council want to fund that. And you can really do it two ways, we could put it in this year's budget, put a dollar amount where the council always has the option . If they find there's a property they'd like to purchase, we can bring back a budget amendment on that same date and amend the budget to expend that fund balance. >> I was just, if somebody could help me, because I thought at one time that we had actually said we wanna keep a portion of this and a certain , I don't know if it was a percentage or a dollar amount for that possibility. So if somebody- >> It is part of the tree policy, tree mitigation fund policy. And we'll put together an informal staff report updating you on the current status of the policy as well as the purpose of the comprehensive urban forestry plan. I think we're hoping that helps facilitate the conversation . >> It has to be 60,000. >> Okay. >> Of course, depending on what the state legislature does, it could impact this fund tremendously. >> [LAUGH] >> I'll just leave it at that. >> I'm gonna continue going through the special revenue funds, but let me know any time, Mayor, you wanna take a break? >> You know what, let's take one now, yeah, it's a big good stopping point. Yeah, we'll take about a five, ten minute, we'll come back, we'll get through these. >> Okay, we're reconvening here at the meeting for the Dent City Council. Today is August the, what is today, third? 2017? 1027? I think Chuck's on his way. So, sorry, I didn't know. >> [LAUGH] >> I should have waited, I thought he was here. So anyway, any questions so far from council? Any comments? >> For who? >> For each other. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> We're good. >> We're good. >> We're good. >> No, we're good. >> It's good, it's all good. >> I do wanna bring up, the budget staff has answered Mayor Pro Tem's question on average home value and taxes back in 2012. The average home value in 2012 was 154,000 and some change. And that year's tax rate was 0.68975, so the average home was $1,064. So this year's average home, 214,000 at the proposed tax rate, 1366 is about $300 higher from that five year period. >> Okay, good. The Tourist and Convention Fund, I'll give a little highlights, but I wanna mention that the committee is gonna get together again in late August. So this one's not finalized, we've just got a preliminary one in the proposed budget. And a couple of things that are a little bit different. The revenue's up significantly because we've estimated the first year of hotel occupancy taxes from the convention center hotel. But to let everybody know, part of the incentive agreement with that property is they'll be remated their hotel occupancy taxes, so the revenues are up. But on the expense side, we've offset that. Both of those are estimated at about 658,000. That was based on their incentive application, what they estimated their first year would be. And the preliminary recommendations, I know there's one project that the county commissioners came, I think it was Commissioner Eads, came and presented to the council about some improvements at the historical park. And that is included within the initial recommendations. And we'll bring those back to the city council before adoption once they're finalized. I'm just kind of the other special revenue funds I've just listed out. Their total expenses here, recreation fund, airport fund, police confiscation, and that economic development incentive fund. They receive 150,000 each year. We've really budgeted the full fund balance there in case a project comes along that the council wants to incentivize. But there's nothing specific in there other than budgeting that fund balance. And these are some of the other- >> Yes, I'm sorry, Council member Gregory. >> We can go back to that, Leslie. >> I'm sorry about that. >> One of the other things in the hot fund is having trouble getting time to meet. >> Yes. >> But one of the other things we talked about was based on the kinds of decisions that we make on reusing City Hall West, the old City Hall on Elm Street, that it may be eligible for funding from hot funds to do some of the work on that. We're wanting to investigate that and we're wanting to protect right now the fund balance that we have there in case that could be a source. But that totally depends on what we decide to do with the building and if the use would qualify for tourism. >> Great. Yes, Councilmember Briggs. >> So on the airport fund, on page three of the supplemental request, there's a couple of airport options there. The air control tower and a restroom, are those coming out of the airport fund or is this- >> Yes. >> Has to be paid? Okay. >> And in a few slides, I'll get to kind of the other supplemental, the requests that are from other funds and go through those individually, but it will come out of the airport fund. Is that the balance that we just saw after these have come out? >> No, this is just the proposed expenditures of each of these funds. 1.7 million is the proposed expenditures of the airport fund, but those two are included within this 1.7 million, those two packages. >> Thank you. >> And I list just the other special revenue funds here. We had some discussion of the parkland dedication and development. There is some funds proposed to be spent, but we would still project that fund balance after these expenditures. And then the donation funds, we have four funds where if individuals donate, goes directly back for the animal adoption center, police and fire and library. And the animal adoption center and the library tend to be our largest too. And here's the slide where I'm going to kind of go over the special revenue fund supplemental packages. I mentioned the recreation fund earlier in terms of drawing down on some of their fund balance for improvements there. There's three on the street improvement and these are really where they're proposing to place the additional funds they're receiving this year from the growth and the transfer into those areas for the street improvement fund. Those are really kind of the areas they are. It's just additional funding to do more of each of those. And then there's the two projects at the airport, the air tower equipment replacement. The airport or the city is really responsible for that equipment in the tower. The FAA hires the personnel and pays for them, but we're responsible for that. And then an additional restroom to service those folks out at the airport. >> Question. >> I'm at report 10. >> The tree mitigation line item for urban forestry comprehensive plan. When is the last time that we had a tree cover plan? Because I thought there was one very recently. Anybody? >> Turn that over. >> It's different. >> Councilperson Beary, good morning. >> You are correct. We did have a state of the Denton urban forestry plan that was presented to council on October 2016. And what that did, it identified the canopy cover and the advantages of doing evaluation with associated trees in the city, our urban forest plan. And the comprehensive urban forest management plan actually identifies the elements associated with what is our current urban forest state and then why do we need the plan? What would it do? What are the functions of the comprehensive urban forestry plan? And one of those is the tree fund and the dissemination of funds of those by line item. >> I mentioned that we're funding some police patrol vehicles and CIB vehicles out of the police confiscation. These are three vehicles out of here and there's four out of the one time money from the general fund. And then the three traffic signal replacements out of the traffic safety fund. I'm going to go over to the internal service funds and this is kind of my attempt to explain exactly kind of how they work. This is one of the larger ones, the technology service fund . And you can see it gets contributions, cost of service contributions from different funds. I'll go over on the next slide kind of how these are done. But you can see, for example, 6.6 million is budgeted this year to come from the general fund. Almost 4 million from the electric fund. The next highest is the water utility and all other funds are about 1.69 million. So in terms of how they flow into the internal service funds, this is a picture of it in terms of the basis for that. Each of these funds, the basis is a little bit different. For technology services, they allocate their cost out and charge the other funds based on the total numbers of computers and devices. The software support costs, for example, software for police and fire is allocated to that. Software that's dedicated for DME is allocated there and some of the other softwares are allocated across all the applications. And then for specific application work they do and for the GIS work they do, they allocate that based on their staff time. So they keep track of their staff time and allocate it that way. For fleet management, they're charged out based on the fuel you purchase. Everybody has a card when they go up there, so it's a direct charge for fuel. And then direct maintenance cost, parts and labor are charged to each department. Each time there's a maintenance that's done. In terms of materials management fund, it's based on goods purchased from the warehouse. So you're charged as you purchase goods. And then for just the staff in purchasing, it's based on purchase orders issued. They allocate that out across the organization. For the risk retention fund, it's based on claims history. In other words, where the loss has been and they do a three year average on that. And then workers compensation, it's on the risk profile. Certain positions have more risk than others and it's charged that way. The health insurance fund, it's just divvied up by employees on a payroll basis, that contribution. Engineering services fund is they track their time and do direct time charges, some to the capital projects and some to the operating funds based on where they're spending their time. In terms of additional types of transfers, there's indirect cost allocations. For example, I mentioned the general fund. Another example is in customer service that's housed out of the water department budgeted. But they allocate out their cost and they get contributions from the other three utilities to cover that cost. Utility franchise fees are another example of transfers where the utilities pay to the general fund. Revenue funded capital, we make a transfer to the capital fund. Now toward the end I'll go over a slide to kind of give an idea of the net budget because a lot of these transfers are somewhat double counted in the budgeting process. Return on investment is another one where the utilities pay to the general fund. >> Okay. Member Gregory. >> I think I might have missed the window. I'm not sure. I had a couple of other questions on the turquoise headed page of supplemental packages. >> I know you only went over a couple of those. Do you have another slide for the rest of those supplemental packages on the turquoise? >> The turquoise is the general fund. >> I don't know if it's turquoise or not. >> Yeah. I think I've got -- >> You went over that. >> This one? >> That's it. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> So that's coming up. >> That's coming up. >> Here's just the budget for the internal service funds in terms of dollars budgeted in expenditures to give you an idea of that. And then here is what we call their supplemental packages. And I'll kind of go through these in general. I'm going to rely on the technology services folks to discuss theirs. The heavy equipment technician and fleet, you may think it 's a little unique that it's a negative cost, but really what's occurring is we're sending some of the heavy equipment, this is mainly at the landfill out for maintenance. And we believe if we hire someone and do that in house, it will actually lower our costs because we're paying for that outside cost. So the net will be a reduction to us. We can do it cheaper in house than we can taking some of that out. There's a piece of equipment for materials management for the warehouse. For technology services. There's several large upgrades. The dispatch recording system. JD Edwards, which is the financial package, payroll accounting, all of the package for the city. Some capital cost out at DME. Some server equipment replacement. Some backup replacement. And a citywide refresh of PCs over time. I will mention that the technology services fund has tried to kind of level out their cost across the organization. So a good portion of these costs are being pulled out of their fund balance. They try to keep their charges level and collect each year for these upcoming replacements that are going to occur and then they draw down on their fund balance. Councilmember Gregory. So this is where I'm I have a couple of questions. What I think I'm seeing and I bet I'm not seeing it the right way is that we're using the technology services fund to buy technology equipment for DME at a cost of $595,000. But I thought that DME had to pay for all of its equipment out of the revenues that it generates through its fees. And basically what they're doing is so that technology services is kind of in control of those things. It's being bought out of technology services and then DME makes a contribution to technology services to cover those costs. If you saw on this slide back here you can see after the general fund the electric fund is the second largest user and payer to technology services . So it's really somewhat so that all of the purchases of software and purchase of equipment can be controlled by technology services versus each department kind of doing their own things so to speak. But those costs are reimbursed into the technology services fund from the associated fund where those services are provided. Thank you. Chuck, on these if you'll go back to that slide that shows the transfer of the internal funds into techno and we'll just use that as an example. So do they go out and negotiate with each one of these sort of funds that transfer in you know costs I mean because I'm sure they're charging like if we were to contract that I'm saying but if you're to have somebody come in and say this is what we're going to do for you they're going to have costs they're going to have is that how they approach that or how do they how they measure those costs and if it 's real lengthy we can we can you know just a real basic overview would be great. That's okay mayor we've we've ordered lunch so I would have brought lunches in case we could take him to go. No lunches for when we're not having a meeting. Good morning mayor, council, city council. City manager. So generally what we do every year is generate an invoice so really the departments are in control of how they spend the technology because generally you know how many PCs do you have, how many phones, how many air cards that's generally in control of what the department uses and maintains and also with the software packages as well too. So you know that's a big initiative we were working along with Todd is trying to reduce some of our applications hopefully centralize that and reduce costs across the board. So I think it's been helping us kind of centralizing some of those procurements in the budget. Okay good all right thank you. Appreciate it. Just real small in terms of engineering some cameras and services for traffic counts if you remember we did kind of an update to the mobility plan and we received kind of a model to keep going on that but one of the things that's necessary to keep updating those models is to be able to go out and do traffic counts over time so they just asked for some equipment and some funding to do that service. The utility funds I've gone over all four utility funds in prior meetings so I've just got the dollars here for the utility funds and then the slide that is necessary each year in terms of what is the impact to the average customer . So this is for electric water, wastewater and solid waste in terms of the average monthly usage and this is the average monthly bill you can see three of them are staying flat we've got that about 1% a little bit more on an average customer 1.2% reduction so on a monthly basis their bill will go down about a dollar seventy. So when we talk about the general fund one of the things that you one of the tools that you use to help us understand the tax rate is you know one cent is 1.033 million dollars of expenditures is there a similar formula that we can use to understand a dollar decrease of the electric rate for instance? In terms of total dollars per fund in some of those we have like a 1% rate increase or decrease how much total revenue that that would be. In terms of the electric fund in terms of a 1% decrease in terms of revenues I'm going to look over to the folks. I think that maybe have something we'll have to get back to you because there's there's kind of growth in customers so versus the other but we can kind of say what's the rate impact of 1% in terms of dollars and get back with you on that. Okay so when we say that we decrease this rate by a dollar seventy four for your average residential customer do we know what that amount represents in terms of the total budget? I think we're going to have to get back with you on that one. Thank you. Oh I'm sorry. Oh I'm sorry. Council Member Hudspeth. Thank you. Not for this budget but as a placeholder because I think it fits here. After we get through with this process my request would be that we get some sort of report or look into how we assess deposits on the rate pay ers. There was a change and I want to revisit that. Thank you. In terms of the capital budget and this is kind of found summarized and given in more detail toward the back of your book there's a tab in terms of the capital budget. The total capital funding kind of new funding is about 154. 33 million. Utility certificates of obligation plan to be issues about a little over 82 million. That breaks down between electric 54 million, water 11, wastewater 8.3 and solid waste right now 9.3. I think that solid waste program is going to be reevaluated and I guess that would go down. Again, these are just estimated amounts when we usually come back to the council in April for the bond issuance and many times we've issued less than what was in the capital budget. In terms of general government debt, 38.5 million. I should back up, there's about 32 million of revenue funded capital from the utilities that's budgeted this year. General government debt is 38.5 with 1.4 million being revenue funded. In terms of the general government debt, a little over 25 million is planned issuance from the 2014 bond election, about 13.3 in COs. Street reconstruction is scheduled at 7.5 million. Street expansion, sidewalks when we talked about sidewalk funding out of the capital budget at 13.8 million. Drainage improvements, park improvements are all part of the 2014 bond program. So that makes up the 25 million. And then in terms of COs that are proposed to be issued on the general government side, we've proposed 1.275 for the additional costs for fire station number three. I know we'll get final costs later on. This is just a budget figure and we hope to have kind of a final number prior to debt issuance so hopefully we'll be issuing less for that. The airport, we need to issue funds, matching funds for that runway expansion. I believe that's an 80/20 grant so 80% of it is paid at the federal level. This is the city's portion for the second runway. Funding of vehicle replacements at 3.5 million and facility improvements at 1.5. And there's also included for an expansion or addition to the fleet maintenance facility at 3.5 million. This would be paid out of the fleet maintenance fund. This would not be paid out of the tax rate. Their debt that they're paying off on their current building is expiring next year so this debt would kind of be covered by as that expires, they'll be able to expand their facility to meet their additional needs. We're getting up into the 40s here. In terms of position additions, this is city wide in terms of the additions. There's eight FTEs for the Denton Energy Center as we bring that online. That one FTE and fleet services which is really a net savings by reducing some outside cost. The six for the EMS unit and the one in internal audit so there's total 16 positions proposed. The net increase because of some other reductions is only about four positions. That's kind of budget to budget. And in terms of all the total budget by fund, 1.139 billion . Now I should point out the largest portion of this is the 5 18 million for the capital program. And I know I've mentioned this before but part of the city 's charter is any funds that aren't spent or encumbered at the end of the year have to be re-budgeted. So a good portion of this capital program is an estimate of what's not going to be spent by the end of this fiscal year and re-budgeting those funds. For example, this has gone down from last year with the Bonnie Bray Mayhill. We had those funds. We'd received them from RTR so we're re-budgeting them every year. As we let that contract, those funds become encumbered so we don't need to re-budget them. Just to let you know on that. The green is the electric fund which is second. The dark blue is the general fund and you can see some of the other funds listed there. >> What question may I put in? >> Can you just, I mean, if you don't know this, that's fine. But what portion of that 45% is generally re-budgeted or at least for this year was re-budgeted? >> Yeah, re-budgeted this year of the 518 million is about 364 million. It was re-budgeted. So somewhere about two-thirds in terms of that. >> Might be helpful for the public if that was visualized somehow on the pie chart. >> I'll do that. I'll do that one of the budget hearings. I can put it up and visualize that. >> A lot of people go to those. I've heard they're very popular. Yeah, that's what I'm hearing. >> Almost as popular as my budget workshops. >> I did want to, this is a new slide so I'm trying this out. What we've tried to look at is we kind of talk about in the charter we're required really to budget each fund to the full amount. But we talked about there's a lot of transfers between funds so it's somewhat overstating what the total budget is. So what we've done here for '16-'17 budget and the proposed is to back out those transfers and give an idea of what's really the net budget. So what we've backed out is all the internal service funds. Those are really transfers from operating funds into it. The franchise fees from our internal utilities, the return on investment from our internal utilities, the debt service transfers. We have one debt service fund that pays all the debt service but all the utilities transfer money into that debt service fund. So just that one alone is an additional 60, 62 million I think from the utility funds that's kind of somewhat double budgeted. The revenue funded capital, it's budgeted as an expense in the operating fund transfer to capital but it's also budgeted in the capital program and the cost of service allocations like the general fund and the water utility fund are somewhat. So you can see of that 1.14 billion, if you net those out, we would estimate this year's proposed budget is net more like 929 million. Still a significant budget but a little bit less. >> Well, and so I want to make sure I understand this slide . So when you look at the bottom numbers, it says net budget ed expenses, net budgeted there's a reduction there as far as in the budgeted revenue. So are those comparing this budget in this proposed budget is what you're saying? >> Yeah. >> You went through and applied sort of the same paradigm to both those budgets. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And part of that reduction I think is the carry forward of the capital is less because we've started a lot of capital project. We think once some of the capital projects we've encumbered during the current year have been pretty significant so there's a reduction in that role forward is mainly the difference in the capital. A couple other questions that have come up recently to put some slides in. There was a question about the economic development funding at the Chamber of Commerce. This is the proposed level for this year. I think it's the same level as last year but a breakdown of where that comes from. General fund and the utility funds and the utility funds are kind of based proportionally on their rate revenues so they pay that amount proportion ally based on their rate revenue and the Chamber also provides some private funding. >> And I know in our meeting when the Chamber presented their budget I got an email, I believe we all did, that there was some additional information coming based upon some questions that were asked at that time. I haven't seen that. Has anybody -- has that come -- okay, that's still outstanding? Okay. If we could, you know, try to get that because I don 't think it was really that -- I think it was just a couple of breakdowns of a couple of those funds so -- all right. Thank you. >> In addition, I think there was a question that came about in terms of the Park Foundation. We fund $77,000 annually for a portion of the executive director salary and I think another part-time administrative staff. This is just in 16, 17 year to date in terms of what they 've collected in donations, a little over $160,000. They've committed $127,000 of those thousand to different park projects and how that works is it's kind of on a reimbursement basis. Once Parks completes the projects, then the funds come in to reimburse us for a portion of those costs. And then you can see these are the -- the detail is the funds received by the city during the current year kind of broken down so they've -- they've remitted to the city $56,000, committed $127,000, if you're trying to add those two together and come to the $160,000, you don't come up there exactly. Some of the funds of the $50,000, about $57,000 that they 've given to us, some of those funds were collected in their prior fiscal year. So that gives you an idea of their collections and I'm on to next steps. And there's a second item on today's agenda under state tax law in order to set a tax rate we have to call public hearings on the tax rate and when we get to that item I'll kind of explain that. But based on the timing when we have to hold these public hearings and put out the advertisements and all of that I'm having to bring this item for council today to consider in order to keep on schedule so to speak. The public hearings are scheduled at August 15th and September 12th. It's kind of a break in meetings because of Labor Day in early September so that's why we've got that schedule. We've got budget discussions set at all work sessions from August 8th through September 19th. And then the budget adoption is scheduled for September 19 th. Okay. And with that, take any questions. Thank you, Mayor. You know, I had written when I opened my notebook, I wrote my concerns. Do we have funding for extra funding for United Way homeless personnel? Yes. Do we have funding for MEDIC for? That was the number one question. Yes. Is there more funding for sidewalks? I think so. I'm not sure. I think I see it in there but it was locked in with some other categories and so I'm not sure how much. For street striping, I looked and there's certainly money for the bike lanes but I didn't see money for general street striping and I know that that was on our supplemental list last year and it didn't make it and I'm a little concerned about that because I think it has some real implications for safety for people who are using the roads, especially when those stripes get old and we just don't have the money to restripe it. So I think what we didn't do in this presentation was go over the - I have no idea what that color is on that last page, which is general fund supplemental request not included in the proposed budget and that's where I see pavement markings program that didn't get funded. There were a couple of other safety issues in there that I wasn't really sure about. It seems like we're keeping up with the traffic signals program but there was some unfunded, I guess, money for traffic signals and then I'm concerned about the early warning sirens that didn't get funded. Where is that and does that mean that there's a portion of the city that's just - when we do those monthly tests that we realize they can't hear any of the sirens from their locations? Has anybody explained that in the pavement markings program that didn't make it? I'll bring those up. I apologize. I meant to go over that before I got to the final questions . And what color is that, by the way? Is that magenta? I'm not sure. Oh, Aaron says lavender and I trust him. He has a great fashion sense. I think the two questions, one was related to fire for the sirens and then we have some folks here to cover the traffic packages too. So I'll sit down and let them come up. And any other questions you have on the unfunded? We don't necessarily need a presentation on that but if there's questions that council members have on the - yeah. So we'll take them linearly. Yeah. One at a time. No. They're going to answer it all. That's right. Yeah. It's okay. So I'll go ahead and start. Mayor and council, with regard to the early warning sirens, we have a total of 16 outdoor early warning sirens. The first 11 were purchased and installed in 1999 and we've added five to the system in 2002. Four that were focused on the University of North Texas campus and one out at Robeson Ranch. Now there are a number of areas within our - certainly within our city limits that are beyond the scope of what our existing early warning systems are. A number of those are beyond or were not in developed areas but as more development is taking place, there are a number of that we project that we need to place and we've talked about this over the last two or three budget proposals. So it's something that we talk about here. It can, in a larger package, be considered as a part of a capital proposal in a bond election or it is something that we might want to catch up with based on available funding. And to follow up on that, Mayor, if you don't mind. Do we have a notion as to when we need to start doing a replacement cycle on these? Well with this proposal, there is also a software change in the way that they function such that we get a different kind of reporting back that gives us a greater degree of understanding of their mechanism and how they work that also makes our testing process more efficient. So we'll be able to monitor them on that basis. And these are basically one-time costs? Yes, sir. Okay. I'm going to keep that in mind. And then if somebody could talk about the pavement markings program. Okay. All right. It's the pavement marking. Who's? Yeah. There is some amount of money set aside for doing what you 're talking about, for restriping, especially after, for example, after roads have been micro sealed, we go back and we paint new stripes on it. So there's money for that. This money or these requests in particular on this supplemental request that were not included in the proposed budget are for personnel. And part of what that is is response time. For example, when a road is worked on and needs to be rest riped, having more personnel allows you to get to that work quicker. As the city annexes out on the fringe and those roads are built from maybe a county standard to a city standard and now intersections are signalized or striped with crosswalks and things like that. So as the city grows, this request was intended to increase staffing to help us to respond to that. If you'll remember from the presentation earlier in the week, the staffing level for that traffic department has been pretty flat over the years and it hasn't grown as the city's grown, but these were not, these were in the not brought forward. So if I may follow up? Sure. Thank you. So the response time now, if we get a call and it's not a road that needs, that's going to be micro sealed, it's just a road where the pavement, where the paint is worn thin and it's, you get a call from a person in the 65 year old range who drives onto it at night and says, I couldn't see where my lane was. What's the timeframe for getting that fixed? Assuming that it wasn't just a person with cataracts who really probably doesn't need to be driving at all. Mr. Duff, thank you for laughing at that. There's some of us that understand these issues. There's not a specific timeframe. We may look to see if other work's going to be done in that area, other utility work that may impact the markings on the street. It's really a case by case analysis. So I can't give you a firm number to say, oh, you know, we meet that request within three days or three weeks or whatever. It really is a case by case analysis of what the situation is. We tend to focus on areas around schools first, obviously for that public safety aspect. And then traffic counts on the road, other work that may be , you know, upcoming on the road, we don't want to go repaint it and then destroy that painting with work. So it really is a case by case analysis. Okay. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem? Oh, Mayor Pro Tem and then you. Go ahead. This is on the same item. I noticed in the backup on this that it said that right now we're doing about 7,000 linear feet of marking and we could increase that to 90,000. But yet when you look at the savings of 83,000 based on the figures in there, it was between 22 and $34,000 a year. So obviously if you're adding to FTEs, there's other things that they would be doing or otherwise we're spending four times as much. Sure. So what other items would they be working on besides just the pavement marking? Just the pavement markings and then and the signals and signs. And so the traffic department has not only the markings that are painted on the road, but the signals as well and the traffic signs along the road. So those are the types of work that they would be doing. That might be why it wasn't. Yeah, yeah, I would think so. Any other questions on the supplemental packages that were not funded? I do have one other one. Sure. On the one of them on the parks of the North Lake dock replacement, there was no backup that I could find in the on the what now on the the North Lakes dock replacement. I didn't see any documentation. We may have missed that. We're going to send out the council of a new supplemental package list. But you want me to open that up? Or we can have the Parks Department answer some questions. I think Mayor Pro Tem has a question on that same item. So yeah, we could have parks maybe come up and talk about the docs. Apologize if we missed putting one of the sheets in wanting to kind of know what that I mean everything else we had information in the back up on . That's too, too bad. Mayor Anderson was sitting in the back corner. As far away as possible, hoping that he would avoid this today. But here in members accounts, that's wonderful to be here. There was a question about that. That capital project that's a replacement for a doc that's out there on the pond that's on the north side of Windsor. The south pond does not have a doc floating knock of any kind. And we just simply it's it's gotten old. The staff has done a number of fairly extensive repairs on it, but it's gotten old. It's it's time to be replaced. This is I will say that although it didn't get funded, it's not recommended for funding at this point. This is the type of project that would typically fall into that $300,000 capital maintenance that was recommended. This is exactly that kind of project. Okay, that was kind of where what I wondered is why we were asking for. Yes, sir. 300,000 over here that was granted in this. Exactly. Which I suspect is why I didn't make the list. My question about that was, is that not something that can be paid for out of one of the rec funds? It's the rec well, the rec fund is the projects are supposed to be tied directly to fee based programming. So, so aren't there isn't there one rec fund that's for fee base and then there's another one that's for like capital improvements, essentially like new new improvements or am I missing it? If you're talking about the the park development fund, maybe that's it. Yeah, it could be paid for out of that one. Yes, even though it's within the current parameters or would we have to expand? We would have to we would have to look and see if there were dollars available specifically for that geographic location. Okay. And then along the same lines with the trails fitness equipment, that was my particular request. Would that be something that could potentially be paid for out of the rec funds? Again, the park development fund, not out of the rec fund. Sorry, park, I keep calling it the wrong name. I'm sorry. I just want to make sure we're all saying the same thing. Yes, those pieces could be paid for out of the park development fund. Again, if there are dollars available in within that geographic confine. Okay, thank you. You bet. Because remember, death. Yeah, I noticed about there are three things here that the police were requesting. I wonder if we could kind of expound on those and hear from police police chief to Mayor Council, the three items on there. One is the crime analyst. We originally requested to crime analysts and if you remember the graciously awarded us a crime analyst out of this fund, and we're the process of hiring that person now. And we believe we'll at least be able to go through and sort out when we get one on board and then see where we need to go from there. The other is the crime scene investigator. We'd requested one out of a staffing study. We received one last year, and we've brought her on board and been able to transfer some more of the work detectives were doing over to a civilian position. And that's worked very well so far. But again, we're trying to plan for the future and we could use one but we're certainly able to meet our needs right now. The last one was civilian jailers. That was a program looked to try to add our staff that we have there now. But again, it was looking for future growth and trying to plan for what we might need to ensure a certain number of staffing at the time. But we've been able to make some internal changes and cover most of that. Thank you. Any other questions on this particular item? The supplemental that's not recommended for funding and then we're at the end of your budget presentation for agenda item 1A. As far as are there any other questions for that? On the fire department, the explosives magazine and security, I'd like to hear a little bit about that. We, Mayor and Council, we had an opportunity to partner with our solid waste department and they have allowed us to move our explosive containment area on part of the property that's maintained by solid waste. We've been able to do that as a part of the last fiscal year. The move and the property was funded. What wasn't funded was additional security on the fence and some security cameras that we think we need to maintain that property effectively and for appropriate utilization of that purpose. A lot of what we do there is funded by grant funding but not the security component. This is something that we would bear responsibility for. Personally, I kind of see that as when you remember being out there back in '09 when you were as part of leadership dent and that's something to me that should be secured. Yeah, I know. But I'm also looking at the grant that you got to cover that we just found out about today with that much additional funds that came through that grant that I think we might want to look at this, which is $14,000 and you managed to get us almost $100,000 over the next, or a million dollars over the next three years with that other grant. I see this as a definite need. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Riggs. So I'm looking at a council initiative for the upgrade downtown Wi-Fi. Could that be something that is covered through the TIF or that the TIF board could look at? It certainly could and if you'd like, Melissa can certainly weigh in on that, on her assessment. We struggled with that one in terms of the return on investment. So if you'd like, we can certainly give you a quick overview of why we didn't fund that. But should the council eventually want to upgrade infrastructure downtown, that would be an eligible expense. Through that? So. Okay. Yep. Thank you. I don't have an issue on the explosive magazine security, the $14,000 because of the additional funding that was received. So I'm okay with that. I mean if y'all want to fund that because obviously the security aspect falls upon the fire department, which is the city. Mayor Pro Tem, you okay with that? All right. Okay. So yeah, we should move forward with that. That one I appreciate you, Council Member Ryan, bringing that up. Any other questions on any of the budget presentation? Yes. So with respect to the $417,000 that we were grant funded this year, if I'm understanding you correctly, with the exception of the improvement that we just funded, that money would go back to general fund reserve balance? Yes. Based on the current budget right now, if there's no additional expenses budget, that'd be projected just to roll into the general fund fund balance. Would it be possible to get any type of rate reduction using the amount that's left over? If you wanted to reduce the tax rate to offset that, you could, yes. It would probably be like .5 if I'm like .4. Yeah, every cent's about a million, so it'd be about four-t enths of a cent. Okay. Just curious. Thank you. So make sure I understand that. If you could go back to your very first slide with the current budget projections, not the ones with the A/B at 4%. Are you talking that show the safer -- Never mind. I know what she's talking -- I visualized it, yes. So your original budget presentation that didn't show the safe grant, is this -- yes, this one. It's not showing there, so with it coming in, you're saying it falls immediately down to the fund balance. And her question was, well, instead of increasing the fund balance by that, do we want to take a tax rate decrease? Okay. You can adjust the tax rate. You can fund some additional supplemental packages, or you could allow it to roll to the fund balance or any combination of the three. And we don't necessarily have to make that decision today. No. We've got a placeholder on every council meeting throughout this whole budget process, so that's something we can begin to sort of think about as we sort of look at this first look. Yes. Well, I like the logic, and I would be basically looking at the lavender sheet in terms of the one-time expenses. And so I would, you know, come back and advocate for us looking at the early warning sirens, putting some money into those. Well, why don't we -- why don't we set as one of our agenda items or just one of our talking points for the next budget discussion, is that -- because we could go through all of it, but I think we've made some pretty good headway. And if we really focus in on that coming back, we can look at that. I'll put a couple slides together and let you focus in on that next time. Give us some options. Yeah, and if you could, on this sheet not funded, maybe send that out with what the one-time -- are these all one-time -- these aren't all one- time expenses, are they? No. Okay. If you would flag which ones are one-time expenses, that would be helpful. Wait. There's a column in here, Mayor. Oh, is there? There's a one-time cost and ongoing cost. Okay. All right. Thank you. And some of them have a combination of both. Okay. Yes, Mayor Portem. Since you're going to make slides -- [Laughter.] -- since you're doing it, if we're talking about potentially a tax rate reduction, can we also get some information about what that might look like if the homestead exemption were increased as opposed to having a rate reduction and what the cost of -- like a cost comparison of those two things? Like every $5,000 change in the homestead exemption or -- Yeah, exactly. Yes, Council Member -- Well, to follow up with that, I think that because of what that has implications for, we would want to see that in terms of a five-year projection -- Right. -- because that could really greatly change the five-year projection in a -- Oh, that's a good question. Chuck, on these five-year projections, because the tax freeze goes in effect this year, is that correct? Yes. All right. That's built into these projections? Well, really it is in terms of for the tax freeze, those properties won't have -- we won't show growth in value. Right. They'll be paying the same dollar amount in taxes, so how the appraisal district kind of does that is they back that out when it's given to us. So how that would impact is if you think of all this growth we have this year, that portion of property that's subject to the tax freeze, we wouldn't have any growth in that value. So that will probably over time, you know, limit the growth in values that we have. Okay. So that's where it's taken -- that's where it's sort of built into this chart is. But if you're saying 2% growth per year in valuations -- And that would be from new property that comes online, the 2%, and the other would be just growth in the remaining properties that aren't subject to the freeze. So whatever the rate that is decided on this year is the one where it's frozen? Correct. Whatever tax they pay to the city, they're frozen at that dollar amount. Okay. All right. Okay. So that's the budget. Okay. Any other questions on this agenda item? And I think we've got to go into the closed meeting before we take up our item for individual consideration. Is that correct? Well, the closed meeting was just a placeholder in case you had any questions. We put that placeholder on all the work sessions in case there's any discussions -- This is on the DME budget. Of the DME budget that would relate to closed sessions. So mainly just discussions of -- Does anybody have a question that we need to go into closed session for on the DME budget at this time? I'm seeing no responses. So I'm going to take that as a no, there's not. So then we don't need to move into the closed session portion of our meeting. So given that, that we've completed our work session reports, the City Council will now convene -- Yes? Real quick before we -- that's a couple of questions on the line item budget that was in our backup. Okay, sure. If I can run through those real quick. I can get down to them. Hey, John, I thought I called for questions when there's questions. What's going on? Well, I thought we were talking about the presentation. The presentation line item is separate. I'm sorry, ma'am. And I'm guessing that some of the items on this line item are passed through -- they're actually billed out to the other departments and they're budgeted to high just in case. For example, we've got $40,000 in there for drug testing. And the last fiscal year, our actual cost was under $9,000. Is that how that is set up? Yeah, it's -- Just in case? Well, it's budgeted there and then it's allocated out based on who's using those in terms of drug testing. Okay. But I think that's in the human resources budget. And it varies depending on hiring practices. But that's in their budget. Okay. And then the other item I had, I noticed in several departments where the airport is an example, gas and oil expense is budgeted at $8,500 and vehicle maintenance is $32,000. I'm just trying to figure out if we've got -- if you've got a vehicle that you're spending $32,000 on maintenance on, why is the fuel that low or why is the maintenance that high? I would normally think that a fuel expense would be higher than a maintenance expense on any vehicle. But I was mentioning it may be and we've got some folks from the airport, yeah, the ARF vehicle. So I'll let them come describe that. And that'd be good because I've got another one on the air field. Councilmember Ryan, I'm not 100% positive on that. We can look into that. But it sounds like that very well could be our ARF vehicle. The ARF vehicle is the airport firefighter rescue vehicle that's stationed out at the airfield. It's an older vehicle that we got at a reduced rate. However there is some ongoing maintenance with that particular piece of equipment. We'll verify that. Okay. And the other question on the airfield or airport fund is on the solid waste. We're paying almost $12,000 over the solid waste. Is that being collected from the tenants that are out there or -- because I know we're -- I think our lease rate right now is 27 cents a foot. And if they're basically leasing the land, are we covering their dumpster at that? No, it's a very good question. We do have several of our tenants are paying for their own solid waste services. However, on some of the smaller leaseholds, typically down on the south end of our airfield where we maximize the real estate, they do not have specific dumpsters. So we do have a public solid waste facility that we collect . And that is one of the things that I've asked our airport manager to look into in terms of adding these solid waste fees to some of the upcoming lease agreements. The point is in terms of trying to add revetments to every single one of the leaseholds, it reduces the usable airside facilities. Okay. Yeah, because I mean the way that downtown works, not every business has their own dumpster, but they all pay for a share of -- correct -- a percentage of the shared dumpsters. I think that's it on that fund. On fleet management, I know it's a substantial increase in the overtime costs. We've gone from -- and I know this is the actual in -- from the prior year was $12,000. Current budget year is $15,000. We're going to almost $20,000 for overtime. We -- If I may, I'd like to ask our fleet superintendent, Terry Kader, to answer that detail. I just know a lot of times when you start adding more overtime, it might be actually time to hire another service tech or is that -- Before you -- I want to make sure I understand because I'm looking on the line. You're saying last year -- what was it budgeted for last year? Last year was budgeted at $15,000. Can they use 12? Well -- or actually this year it's budgeted at $15,000. We don't know what the usage is. Last year they used 12 and the upcoming they budgeted $19, 300. Okay. Well, all right. So when you said substantial, I didn't know what I was going to say. Yeah, I mean it's -- About 4 or 5,000? About 25% increase. Okay. All right. And that's really due to projected maintenance use for next year and a lot of that is solid waste. We are at the point right now where we're able to meet demand with our current technicians, but we know that it's time to hire and that's why we've asked for an additional technician this year. Part of that is field service work, the majority of it, but we do have to cover everything that we have coming into the shop. So we budget that number. It's used if we need it. It's a line item that's not used unless we absolutely need it. So we budget overtime based on customer needs. So we just want to make sure we have enough in there to cover our customer needs basically. Just so that you don't have to come back to us for an amendment. Exactly. You hope you don't need it, but -- It's a pass through cost and so if we don't use it, it's not there. If we use it, it's billed to the department that needs that additional work. Okay. All right. And on the street improvement fund, I've got the same question on the gas and oil versus vehicle maintenance. You're looking at gas and oil expense of 110,000 and vehicle maintenance of 315,000. That just seems out of line to have three times as much. And I appreciate the question, but help me understand the correlation between those two in your mind. Because oil changes aren't that expensive. You get older vehicles. That's the fuel expense of a vehicle. Generally unless we're looking at -- I'm just having a hard time understanding how you could end up with $300,000 -- So it's really a maintenance question. How come we're spending $300,000 on maintenance? Okay. Worth of maintenance on a vehicle that's only using $100, 000 worth of gas. Normally unless your vehicles have gotten to such an age that you should actually be replacing them, your maintenance should always be lower than your fuel. Who can address that? That would be my thought. I think -- Yes. I don't have the streets department budget, but we do furn ish those departments budgetary numbers for maintenance and fuel both. But in the streets department in particular, they have added several pieces of heavy construction equipment to be able to do the street maintenance that's been requested. So those are large pieces of construction equipment that typically cost a lot more to maintain. It's not like a sedan or a pickup truck to support that service, but these are large pieces of equipment. I think what would help in the future -- we don't need to do on this -- but if we had vehicle kind of broken into large equipment, because I think of vehicles as our trucks, and we're actually probably talking about the piece of equipment that takes up the -- The milling. -- Asphalt, the milling machine. Yeah. I don't really understand where you'd have a whole lot more maintenance. If that could just have a budget breakdown in the future, it'd be easy to spot why there was that difference. Sure. That's a good point. Very good point. Okay. Any other questions? Yes. I have a question about the line item budget on Tech-Denton . It has the current at 105,550 and the proposed 253,962. Somebody can explain that. It's Tech-Denton. It's in the line item budget on the backup. Increase. I'm thinking that's for the Stoke project. And are you looking for the -- let me get out of this one. What's the category number? It's exhibit three. But it's got -- Is it loaded to you somewhere? Oh, I sent it to you. It's got a number beside it. 7763. Okay. I can go get it. I can go get it to you. Okay. I think we've got a couple of slides on that to explain that, but we haven't got it loaded in. If you give us a minute, we'll go get it on a thumb drive and load up those slides. Okay. Sure. So can we go ahead and consider our special call session and come back to this one? Yes, Councilmember. One not so much question request for looking into the future. So as a new councilperson and kind of in my analysis, what you have is the legacy numbers. You have a percentage of the last year's numbers. So it kind of perpetuates if last year was off or if there 's a change in approach, change in management, then that kind of -- you don't have anything to associate that with. I'm not going to ask the question for a God rule, if you will, but I'm going to ask for that in the future. I just think that helps the -- for someone to assimilate, right? So if I have a standard of this percent of sales tax is good, this percent of ad loan tax is comparable to that, you know, just some metrics by which to evaluate the data versus last year's, because if last year's is off, then your evaluation is off. So some sort of -- for example, we use the -- in the ethics code, we use the -- whatever that standard was. >> Model city chart. >> Yeah, exactly. So something to at least have a launching point would be beneficial. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Got that? >> I do. >> Okay. All right. Okay. So why she's getting -- any other questions on the line item budget or any other questions on the budget process or the budget in general, whether it 's line item or anything that we've gone over so far or anything we haven't gone over? And the only reason I ask is why she's getting that, we can maybe go ahead and move on to our other session and reopen this particular session. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. All right. Then what we'll do is we'll just temporarily adjourn our work session 1A, and the City Council will now convene in a special call meeting to consider the following items, and it is 1135 a.m. on Thursday, August the 3rd, 2017. First item for consideration is consider approval of resolution of the City of Denton, placing a proposal on the September 19, 2017 City Council public meeting agenda to adopt a 2017 tax rate. >> This item is really under state law. We're required to put out some publications and somewhat kind of publish a maximum tax rate that we would consider so that we can't go above, and it's just to call the public hearings. We've put in this resolution just the current tax rate 6833 4 for advertisement purposes, and then we're required to put out the advertisements and hold the two tax rate public hearings. We're also required under the charter to hold in state law a general public hearing on the budget. >> Sure. >> So this resolution sets forth all three of those, so it just starts it in process, allows us to advertise in the newspaper, on DTV, and on the website for the public hearings to start that process. >> So my understanding is this is -- we're not adopting the tax rate. We're not saying this is what the adopted tax rate's going to be. For state law purposes and the like, we need a resolution that says this is the maximum rate we anticipate, and that's what this is. >> Correct. >> Is that correct? >> Yes. >> All right. Any questions on this agenda item? Chair would entertain action. >> I'll move approval. >> We have a motion. >> Second. >> We have a second. All in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All opposed by like sign. Carries unanimously. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and go on to concluding items, and then we'll come back around to the work session. Any concluding items? Yes, Councilmember Briggs. >> So I would like to request a map of the city in which the areas are affected, not covered by the warning sirens, please. I'd also like to piggyback off of Councilmember Hesbitt's comment earlier and review the DME fee ordinance. I think you mentioned something about it as well on Tuesday . And then last -- I know that last budget, we approved an ADA study, and I'm just kind of curious about the results of that. >> Approved of what study? >> An ADA. >> ADA? >> Yeah, study, I thought. >> Okay. >> Or it was in our discussions. >> Okay. >> If we could get an update on that. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? Yes, Councilmember Ryan. >> I just wanted to announce that I have scheduled my first town hall meeting, and it will be on August 14th at 630 at Fire Station number 7. >> Okay. All right. Any other concluding items? Yes, Councilmember Hesbitt. >> I'd like -- and I don't know where this falls. Maybe, Mr. City Manager, you can take a look at it and evaluate it. But I think the solution to downtown -- or twofold. I think there's a public restroom issue, whereas the Discovery Center is the only public restroom on the -- you know, it's all private businesses, and then you have the county offices, which are closed periodically. So it kind of puts a lot of pressure on that particular business. And so solution to that is one thing, or what we -- do we need public restrooms, some standalone solution or some sort of security, is what I have in mind, to allow us access to the county building more regularly or whatever that is, is kind of a fix. But generally, downtown, I envision some sort of security patrol that we can then kind of expand out. But it helps with the -- there's a -- you know, if there's a homeless issue or that sort of thing, it's not taking resources from the police department, which is maximized as is, gives a greater presence, that sort of thing. And I think maybe we can use it as a launching pad into our police academy or something like that. Maybe it's a betting that kind of feeds into that. But I just want to somehow get our hands on that. And understand what management thinks about the restroom issue, too, instead of looking at another officer, I think, like in the budget, to manage security downtown. Maybe that's something that we can outsource and have a greater presence that way. >> Okay. Great. All right. Those are a couple of things we can get on the agenda. Any other concluding items? Fantastic. All right. We will then adjourn our special call meeting and reconvene our work session meeting at 1139 -- or, yeah, 1139 to address a question. Of course, since we reopened it, we reopened it to any questions. So this question was regarding the non-item budget that Councilmember Briggs had brought up. >> Good morning for 20 more minutes. Caroline Booth, Director of Economic Development. And I believe your question was -- it was about what's the reasoning behind the increase between last year's about 105,000 to now 253,000. The reason for that is that we had an FTE budgeted in this line item -- I'm sorry. >> I think I have to recuse myself. >> Oh, sorry. I forgot. >> Please recognize that Councilmember Gregory is recusing himself. >> That gives me a chance to restate that. So there was an FTE that was attached to the project that was budgeted in personnel services. However, as the project unfolded, as you all have heard, we 've discussed before things didn't go quite according to plan. And so some of that money that was in the personal services line was transferred over into operations. So what you're seeing is a reflection of budgeting what was in personal services and what was already set aside for operations all in operations. Does that make sense? >> It was about $116,000 that was in the personal services category that's now been applied to operations. >> Yes. Mayor Pro Tem. >> Okay. What is the -- do we know what the total amount of membership fees they've collected? >> Yes. >> Because that's all going to the -- >> What I can tell you is what we've gotten back from them are 10%. I have that number right now if you'll let me go walk over and get my folder. I also want to point out that they are going to actually be here for a work session with you guys on the 22nd of August and they'll be able to answer all of these questions. So to date, the 10% of the membership fees that have been remitted to the city is $6,288. So they're keeping 90% of the membership fees and remitting 10% to the city. >> Okay. So they're about $62,000 of fees that they're getting or that are being collected in total. And the 10% that comes back to the city, that's essentially a pass through, correct, if I remember correctly? >> No. Well, it was set up initially to be returned to the Martino group. But when you guys made the amendments to the agreement, we changed it to remit directly to the city because the Martino group didn't want to receive that 10%. So when we get the payments back from them, they just go into -- it goes into the general fund. >> General fund. >> Okay. >> So the Martino's are not collecting the 10% at all? >> No. It comes directly to the city. >> Okay. That's different from what I understood when we changed it. So I appreciate the clarification. And just so I'm clear, the DEC staff payment is a year to date estimate of $48,000? >> Yes. >> Okay. And that's not paid from rent. It's paid from our own personnel line item, correct? Or operations. >> Yes. >> Right. Okay. >> Thank you. >> What is that contract -- are we going to have to revisit that after the budget? >> No. The reason why we're having the work session on the 22nd of this month is so that you all have an opportunity to discuss the contract because it exp ires at the end of this fiscal year. It's on a one-year renewal cycle, which was another thing that was amended the last time the council heard the contract. >> Mayor and council, I want to remind everybody. I mean, we're stirring beyond the posted agenda discussion. We're starting to get into actual contracts. And so those will be coming -- that contract will be coming shortly. >> August 22nd. >> But we'll reserve those questions until then. >> So this slide is regarding the budget, which we are posted for. >> Yes. >> So I guess my question is -- and this is the first time I've seen this slide, as far as today. I mean, I'm sure I've seen some iteration of this in the past. So when I look down there at the net loss, which is you have a yearly total and also a cumulative total, is 706,000. And a lot of that is including because you've got your finish out and all of that. But what I'm hearing you say is we're making year-to-date, the 6,000 in revenue received, I believe you said was 62. Is that year-to-date from the last -- from when it opened or -- >> No, I'm sorry. It's from when it opened. >> And that was -- >> That was a year ago on August 1st. >> Okay. So that spans two fiscal years. So for this fiscal year, I'm just going to -- it's $6,000. >> Yes. >> All right. And we've spent a total of $706,000. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Any other questions? Yes, Council Member Ritchie. >> I have a question. >> Any other questions? Yes, Council Member Ritchie. >> So I guess I'm looking at the amount that I see here on the line item of 253,962, and I'm trying to find it up there on your slide. And can you just explain what -- >> So what I'm not seeing -- >> This information was prepared for the March session in which Trey and the staff from the Dallas Entrepreneur Center was here to discuss the operations in preparation for amending the contract. That's when this information was prepared. So this is what I had at hand to show to you guys. So what you're seeing in your budget, it doesn't align time -wise with what is here. >> But say it is included in that negative 700,000, more than likely, our line item budget. >> I'm going to have to defer to Chuck on that. >> I understand. >> Okay. >> I understand. I was just -- I'll wait for that conversation. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yes, Mayor Pro Tem. >> Okay. The rental space improvements, was that what we paid or what the Martinos paid to improve per our agreement? >> That was what the city paid. >> Okay. All right. And then the other line item, is that just miscellaneous kind of administrative expenses or are we still paying for their snacks and whatnot? >> No. We're not paying for their snacks. But finance prepared this information, which is why I keep looking back at Chuck. I don't know what was categorized as other when you all prepared this. Sorry. >> You all do the waltz around the podium. These are kind of some other miscellaneous charges that didn't really fall into one of the categories in terms of that. Some of it could have been some of the professional services and just something that wasn't easily broken out in terms of that. We can go back and look at that spreadsheet to see what those are. >> I'm assuming -- >> Just miscellaneous charges. I mean, one of the -- I guess you've got building rent and utilities broken down and rental space improvements, but just kind of some of the other related expenses to that. >> Janitorial services or pest control. >> Yeah. I think she's talking like janitorial services, pest control, security, some of those kind of ongoing small maintenance contracts that we have related to that. I guess for our upcoming conversation, I'd probably want to know what it is that DEC's paying for and what we're paying for. Thank you. >> Yes. Councilmember Hadsworth. >> Chuck, if you could help me out. It doesn't matter where it is. I'm just curious. The $76,000 that comes from the TIF, is it captured in that net income? >> Yeah, this downtown TURS grant, that's $76,000 on that downtown TURS grant line. That's that $76,000. >> Sorry. >> So that's not out of the general fund. That comes out of the TURS fund. But it's kind of related to that building. So I think that's why it was included in there. >> So correct me if I'm wrong. Three more payments? Is that what's on the schedule? >> I think it was a five-year agreement. >> Yeah, we've made two payments. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes, Councilmember Briggs. >> It's not regarding this. It's another item. >> I do have one other question. So when I see Stoke revenue and expenditures, and I see that part of the, it's categorized as an expense, the downtown TURS grant. I guess because that's coming from somewhere. It's being paid on behalf. But that was, so that was a grant, yeah, now that I'm thinking back through it. So the economic development grant from the TURS and the city as well was strictly for that space. It wasn't for the whole development. It was strictly for that space, or was this all part of the entire kind of project? >> My understanding is that it was for the entire project. That was made before my time here, but in going back and looking through everything, watching all of the meetings, the idea was that the grant was for the entire rail yard, not just for Stoke as part of the rail yard. >> Okay, I appreciate that. So then my question would be, why are we including the TURS , why are those that and also the ad valorem to downtown TURS? In other words, money that's being generated by the rail yard project altogether, that difference, that delta that's going into the TURS, why are we using those as either a revenue or expense for strictly just the Stoke? I mean, that's really part of. >> I think when this analysis was put together, we were trying to look at what are all the revenues coming from that development and the expenditure. So it was kind of just looking at it in total. We can back those out, but it was really looking at it in total of what occurred overall and not necessarily just the Stoke building revenues and expenses. >> Yeah, well, right. And for me, my preference would be simply just, I mean, if we're referring to the Stoke as that space that we're renting as an incubator space and all the costs associated with that and quote unquote all the revenue, which there's not much revenue. If we take the downtown TURS out and if you net out the downtown grant, you're still going to have a little an offset of $30,000. Because that's for the whole development. So I would like to see, you can keep it in this form, but I 'd also like to see something that shows just for the Stoke, this is what we're spending for this project that the city is sort of involved in and has renting space and the like. I know that the incentives were part of the reason we gave the incentives was to have this space, but we were getting much more than just that single space. We were getting that whole development. So if we wouldn't mind backing that out, that'd be, maybe during the presentation in a couple weeks or whatever it is. >> Absolutely. >> Okay, all right. Any other questions on anything from work session item 1A? Yes, Council Member Briggs, you had something else. >> So just following on the line item budget for advertising, it's about $208,180. And I'm just, is that in addition to our economic development department and the chamber advertising that we do? >> Advertising for? >> That's my question. >> I don't know, there's advertising, marketing, sister cities. Yeah, and that's the last I have on the line item. I'm just curious. >> What page are you on? >> That may be, maybe. >> That's really across all the general funds. >> Okay. >> We can make out of that. >> I know a portion of that is in parks and recreation for their advertising. >> Okay. >> But we'll just give you a breakdown of where those advertising dollars are for different types of projects and different divisions. >> A little more detail would be good, thank you. >> Yeah, and that would also include advertisements for public notices, for either zoning changes, zoning requests, public hearings. I mean, it's city wide. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Well, that one was, I think, general fund wide. >> Right. >> But that would include- >> Right, it would include the planning department. >> The planning department, that. >> Yeah, we'll give a little bit more breakdown of that. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for agenda item 1A? We reopened the work session just in general. So if there's any other questions on our work session 1A? Last call? Seeing none then, we've concluded our special call meeting, so we will now adjourn. And thank you all very much. Great presentation. >> [INAUDIBLE]