The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council-Agenda Packets-7/8/2004 city of ~o.... I\~ TexaS PUBLIC NOTICE JOINT COLLEYVILLE CITY COUNCIL AND SH26 ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORKSESSION AGENDA JULY 8, 2004 6:00 P.M. COLLEYVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY SECOND FLOOR 110 Main Street I. Call to Order and Introductions II. Discussion of SH26 Utility Relocations III. Questions and Answers IV. Adjournment I certify that this public notice was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall on Friday, ~uly 2, 2004, at 4:30 P;!J1' 'J / ;1 ( ~VhlJtt,,^~UL\~{4'"-"i~~~J CYntKi~ Singleton, TRMC '- ! \ City Secretary 100 MAIN STREETCOLLEYVILLE, TEXAS 76034 (817) 503-1000 MEMORANDUM Office of City Manager TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and City Council Bill Lindley CIP worksession May 19, 2004 As a follow up with your CIP planning discussions, the City Council has scheduled a meeting for May 19 for further review of possible capital projects and financing options. The meeting is scheduled to start at 5:30 p.m. in the Executive Conference room at City Hall. This memo and accompanying information is provided to assist in your discussion. In reviewing the various projects, among other things, you will want to give consideration to selecting projects, anticipated public support of projects, funding options, tax/utility rate impacts, and public input-ed ucation for project selection. Utility - At the last worksession, there was general support in the $12,792,611 for capital projects. The Council reviewed possible project funding based on consideration of utilizing $6,392,611 in available cash, allocating $2,229,446 from development fees and issuance of $6,400,000 in debt. As mentioned at previous meetings, the use of available cash and debt related rate adjustments are important policy decisions still to be made by the Council. The Finance Advisor and Finance Director have projected that a debt issuance would not require any additional rate increase above the planned 2005 rate increase (augmenting the program with available cash). The planned rate increase has previously been identified at $0,14 per thousand gallons for water and $0.05 for sewer (per thousand gallons). The following is a quick summary of funding and possible sources of payment: System Improvements $12,792,611 Working Capital Development Fees Debt Issuance Funding: 4,163,165 Cash available above 180 Working Capital 2,229,446 Associated development fees 6,400,000 Proposed Revenue Bond sale $12,792,611 If the City Council were to opt not to utilize available cash and/or development fees, the corresponding additional utility rate increases, by category, would generally be: Source Funds Working Capital $4,163,165 Development Fees $2,229,446 Water $0.20 $0,10 Sewer $0.04 $0.02 Remember though that based on the Utility Development Impact Fee Program, funds not spent within a ten year period of collection are eligible for refund to the developer. You will certainly want to consider then allocating the just over $2.2 million in developer fees to offset system improvements to minimize utility rate adjustments, SH26 - During a previous joint meeting with the SH26 Advisory Committee, Council identified $2,200,000 in funding for hardscape and softscape for the corridor. At the last meeting, the Council discussed breaking down possible overhead utility relocation options into several components. These included: Option 1 Option 2 $18,950,000 10,950,000 8,650,000 13,465,150 5,700,000 2,250,000 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Bury full corridor Bury Business District & acquire full easement Bury Business District Bury from creek to creek Bury intersections & acquire full easement Bury intersections One of the main decisions remaining by the City Council is to determine, at what level if any, are the overhead utility lines to be buried. While the Council can structure the ballot to have multiple options related to this utility question, policy consideration will need to be given to the perceived overall ballot cost (tax rate) by the voter. A criteria will be required to be established by the Council in how it will select the winning ballot initiative under a multiple ballot choice scenario for this category of a possible project. Tax Supported Project Fundinq - During the last worksession, the Finance Advisor presented, as a follow up to a previous Council question, a discussion on current debt obligations and related bond ratings. It was noted that, based on the earlier question, a 3.5% debt tax rate would fund $16,865,000 in capital projects. A 7% debt tax rate would realize $40,865,000 in capital project funding. Both scenarios were based on an average annual 3% TAV growth with no increase in the maintenance tax rate. Other financing sources were noted to include $2,831,537 in excess Fund Balance (above the 90 day threshold). There are various miscellaneous development fees that can be associated with some street improvements. It is important for the Council to make a fiscal policy decision in considering allocation of available cash and tax rate implications as you select projects. The Council has discussed that any property tax based capital program be voted by the public. This philosophy is particularly important when viewed against the Charter limitations for tax rate adjustments. You will recall that the Charter limit in an ad valorem tax revenue increase greater than 7% of the total collected without specific voter approval is prohibited. Along with tax based projects being voter approved, the Council will want to provide clear language for the voter to understand those projects that would be funded above a 7% threshold (staff estimate is that virtually any combination of tax supported projects will do this). Along with the ballot language, detailed and informative educational material would need to be prepared to assist the voter in understanding the ballot and corresponding increase in the tax rates. During the last meeting, Council discussed caution regarding using Fund Balance to "buy-down" financing costs of possible capital needs. This is an important policy point that will need to be decided as you finalize a capital program. While you are considering current capital needs, there too will undoubtedly be future capital projects that could be funded as well by Fund Balance by a future Council. Thus, a decision today in the use of Fund Balance precludes future opportunities. The following table is provided to give the City Council a quick glance of the corresponding debt rate needed to fund various incremental debt issuances, Debt Issuance $ 1,000,000 3,000,000 5,000,000 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 Annual Debt Payment $ 100,000 300,000 500,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 Needed T ax Rate $0.0040 0.0120 0.0201 0.0401 0.0802 0.1203 Summary - The City Council has discussed a possible bond election as early as the September 11, 2004 state approved date, Allowing for a sixty day notice to call an election, a resolution would need to be approved by the July 6, 2004 Council meeting. If the Council were to consider hosting a Special City Council meeting to consider the resolution, a meeting would need to be held by July 12, 2004. To meet either schedule, the City Council will need to finalize the list of projects and identify sources of funding over the next several weeks. The other identified election date for November 2004 gives the Council more meeting opportunity to discuss components of a CIP program. During the May 19, 2004 worksession, items that need to be focused on include: o Selection of projects o Determination on funding options o Tax-utility rate increases (voter acceptance) o Public input on possible projects o Date of election o Direction on general ballot structure I look forward to your continued discussion in considering developing a CIP program. As you have seen over the last several months, the mechanics of building such a program are complex and mingled with multiple policy issues. Please give me, Dianne or Terry a call should you have any questions about the meeting topics or information provided, Attachments: - Possible CIP Tax Supported Projects - Possible CI P Utility Supported Projects CITY OF COLLEVILLE Possible Geheral Fund Projects (Funded by tax rate and related cash) Streets Tara Subdivision Street Rehabilitiation Church Street Bedford Drive retaining wall Subtotal: Sidewalks Pleasant Run $ Assorted locations $ Thompson Terrace (Sect. I & II) Bransford Elementry $ Colleyville Elementry $ Bedford Road Subtotal: $ SH26 Landscaping Overhead Utility Relocation Option 1 (full corridor) Option 2 (Business and full easement) Option 3 (Business only) Option 4 (creek to creek) Option 5 (intersection and full easement) Option 6 (intersections only) Subtotal: $ 3,576,872 $ 7,923,669 $ 1,980,000 $ 227,000 $ 13,707,541 174,500 230,000 117,500 58,600 TBD 580,600 $ 2,200,000 TBD $ 18,950,000 $ 10,950,000 $ 8,650,000 $ 13,465,150 $ 5,700,000 $ 2,250,000 TBD Facilities Central Fire Station $ 4,183,000 Subtotal: $ 4,183,000 EQuioment Outdoor Warning System $ 300,000 Subtotal: $ 300,000 Parks Senior Center $ 1,100,000 McPherson Park $ 1,800,000 Subtotal: $ 2,900,000 TOTAL: $ 21,671,141 CITY OF COLLEVILLE Possible CIP Utility Projects (funded by Utility rates and related cash) Ground Storage Tank (5 MG) High/Low Pressure Main TRA Feeder Main Felps, Acuff, Greenbriar, West waterlines SH26 Utility Relocation John McCain & Oak Knoll Water Lines Warwick & John McCain Water Lines Westcoat Transmission Line TOTAL: $ 4,905,000 $ 693,480 $ 919,948 $ 392,357 $ 4,855,500 $ 271,123 $ 301,603 $ 453,600 $ 12,792,611 city of ~o.... I\~ TexaS PUBLIC NOTICE JOINT COLLEYVILLE CITY COUNCIL AND SH26 ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORKSESSION AGENDA JULY 8, 2004 6:00 P.M. COLLEYVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY SECOND FLOOR 110 Main Street I. Call to Order and Introductions II. Discussion of SH26 Utility Relocations III. Questions and Answers IV. Adjournment I certify that this public notice was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall on Friday, ~uly 2, 2004, at 4:30 P;!J1' 'J / ;1 ( ~VhlJtt,,^~UL\~{4'"-"i~~~J CYntKi~ Singleton, TRMC '- ! \ City Secretary 100 MAIN STREETCOLLEYVILLE, TEXAS 76034 (817) 503-1000 MEMORANDUM Office of City Manager TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and City Council Bill Lindley CIP worksession May 19, 2004 As a follow up with your CIP planning discussions, the City Council has scheduled a meeting for May 19 for further review of possible capital projects and financing options. The meeting is scheduled to start at 5:30 p.m. in the Executive Conference room at City Hall. This memo and accompanying information is provided to assist in your discussion. In reviewing the various projects, among other things, you will want to give consideration to selecting projects, anticipated public support of projects, funding options, tax/utility rate impacts, and public input-ed ucation for project selection. Utility - At the last worksession, there was general support in the $12,792,611 for capital projects. The Council reviewed possible project funding based on consideration of utilizing $6,392,611 in available cash, allocating $2,229,446 from development fees and issuance of $6,400,000 in debt. As mentioned at previous meetings, the use of available cash and debt related rate adjustments are important policy decisions still to be made by the Council. The Finance Advisor and Finance Director have projected that a debt issuance would not require any additional rate increase above the planned 2005 rate increase (augmenting the program with available cash). The planned rate increase has previously been identified at $0,14 per thousand gallons for water and $0.05 for sewer (per thousand gallons). The following is a quick summary of funding and possible sources of payment: System Improvements $12,792,611 Working Capital Development Fees Debt Issuance Funding: 4,163,165 Cash available above 180 Working Capital 2,229,446 Associated development fees 6,400,000 Proposed Revenue Bond sale $12,792,611 If the City Council were to opt not to utilize available cash and/or development fees, the corresponding additional utility rate increases, by category, would generally be: Source Funds Working Capital $4,163,165 Development Fees $2,229,446 Water $0.20 $0,10 Sewer $0.04 $0.02 Remember though that based on the Utility Development Impact Fee Program, funds not spent within a ten year period of collection are eligible for refund to the developer. You will certainly want to consider then allocating the just over $2.2 million in developer fees to offset system improvements to minimize utility rate adjustments, SH26 - During a previous joint meeting with the SH26 Advisory Committee, Council identified $2,200,000 in funding for hardscape and softscape for the corridor. At the last meeting, the Council discussed breaking down possible overhead utility relocation options into several components. These included: Option 1 Option 2 $18,950,000 10,950,000 8,650,000 13,465,150 5,700,000 2,250,000 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Bury full corridor Bury Business District & acquire full easement Bury Business District Bury from creek to creek Bury intersections & acquire full easement Bury intersections One of the main decisions remaining by the City Council is to determine, at what level if any, are the overhead utility lines to be buried. While the Council can structure the ballot to have multiple options related to this utility question, policy consideration will need to be given to the perceived overall ballot cost (tax rate) by the voter. A criteria will be required to be established by the Council in how it will select the winning ballot initiative under a multiple ballot choice scenario for this category of a possible project. Tax Supported Project Fundinq - During the last worksession, the Finance Advisor presented, as a follow up to a previous Council question, a discussion on current debt obligations and related bond ratings. It was noted that, based on the earlier question, a 3.5% debt tax rate would fund $16,865,000 in capital projects. A 7% debt tax rate would realize $40,865,000 in capital project funding. Both scenarios were based on an average annual 3% TAV growth with no increase in the maintenance tax rate. Other financing sources were noted to include $2,831,537 in excess Fund Balance (above the 90 day threshold). There are various miscellaneous development fees that can be associated with some street improvements. It is important for the Council to make a fiscal policy decision in considering allocation of available cash and tax rate implications as you select projects. The Council has discussed that any property tax based capital program be voted by the public. This philosophy is particularly important when viewed against the Charter limitations for tax rate adjustments. You will recall that the Charter limit in an ad valorem tax revenue increase greater than 7% of the total collected without specific voter approval is prohibited. Along with tax based projects being voter approved, the Council will want to provide clear language for the voter to understand those projects that would be funded above a 7% threshold (staff estimate is that virtually any combination of tax supported projects will do this). Along with the ballot language, detailed and informative educational material would need to be prepared to assist the voter in understanding the ballot and corresponding increase in the tax rates. During the last meeting, Council discussed caution regarding using Fund Balance to "buy-down" financing costs of possible capital needs. This is an important policy point that will need to be decided as you finalize a capital program. While you are considering current capital needs, there too will undoubtedly be future capital projects that could be funded as well by Fund Balance by a future Council. Thus, a decision today in the use of Fund Balance precludes future opportunities. The following table is provided to give the City Council a quick glance of the corresponding debt rate needed to fund various incremental debt issuances, Debt Issuance $ 1,000,000 3,000,000 5,000,000 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 Annual Debt Payment $ 100,000 300,000 500,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 Needed T ax Rate $0.0040 0.0120 0.0201 0.0401 0.0802 0.1203 Summary - The City Council has discussed a possible bond election as early as the September 11, 2004 state approved date, Allowing for a sixty day notice to call an election, a resolution would need to be approved by the July 6, 2004 Council meeting. If the Council were to consider hosting a Special City Council meeting to consider the resolution, a meeting would need to be held by July 12, 2004. To meet either schedule, the City Council will need to finalize the list of projects and identify sources of funding over the next several weeks. The other identified election date for November 2004 gives the Council more meeting opportunity to discuss components of a CIP program. During the May 19, 2004 worksession, items that need to be focused on include: o Selection of projects o Determination on funding options o Tax-utility rate increases (voter acceptance) o Public input on possible projects o Date of election o Direction on general ballot structure I look forward to your continued discussion in considering developing a CIP program. As you have seen over the last several months, the mechanics of building such a program are complex and mingled with multiple policy issues. Please give me, Dianne or Terry a call should you have any questions about the meeting topics or information provided, Attachments: - Possible CIP Tax Supported Projects - Possible CI P Utility Supported Projects CITY OF COLLEVILLE Possible Geheral Fund Projects (Funded by tax rate and related cash) Streets Tara Subdivision Street Rehabilitiation Church Street Bedford Drive retaining wall Subtotal: Sidewalks Pleasant Run $ Assorted locations $ Thompson Terrace (Sect. I & II) Bransford Elementry $ Colleyville Elementry $ Bedford Road Subtotal: $ SH26 Landscaping Overhead Utility Relocation Option 1 (full corridor) Option 2 (Business and full easement) Option 3 (Business only) Option 4 (creek to creek) Option 5 (intersection and full easement) Option 6 (intersections only) Subtotal: $ 3,576,872 $ 7,923,669 $ 1,980,000 $ 227,000 $ 13,707,541 174,500 230,000 117,500 58,600 TBD 580,600 $ 2,200,000 TBD $ 18,950,000 $ 10,950,000 $ 8,650,000 $ 13,465,150 $ 5,700,000 $ 2,250,000 TBD Facilities Central Fire Station $ 4,183,000 Subtotal: $ 4,183,000 EQuioment Outdoor Warning System $ 300,000 Subtotal: $ 300,000 Parks Senior Center $ 1,100,000 McPherson Park $ 1,800,000 Subtotal: $ 2,900,000 TOTAL: $ 21,671,141 CITY OF COLLEVILLE Possible CIP Utility Projects (funded by Utility rates and related cash) Ground Storage Tank (5 MG) High/Low Pressure Main TRA Feeder Main Felps, Acuff, Greenbriar, West waterlines SH26 Utility Relocation John McCain & Oak Knoll Water Lines Warwick & John McCain Water Lines Westcoat Transmission Line TOTAL: $ 4,905,000 $ 693,480 $ 919,948 $ 392,357 $ 4,855,500 $ 271,123 $ 301,603 $ 453,600 $ 12,792,611