HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council-Agenda Packets-6/30/2004
city Of
l1A
A~
Texas
PUBLIC NOTICE
COLLEYVILLE CITY COUNCIL
WORKSESSION AGENDA
JUNE 30, 2004
6:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
100 MAIN STREET
EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM
I. Call to Order
II. Discussion of Capital Improvement Projects and Funding Options
III. Discussion of Bond Election
IV. Selection of Future CIP Worksession Date(s)
V. Adjournment
I hereby certify the above agenda was posted on the bulletin boards at City Hall on Friday, June 25, 2004,
at 5:00 p.m.
( \ JJ \ i t~ / l~
',j , \," '.' . '\-
! ~! t \
I.... ". ! .
/ 1,~... L' \.i
f
Cynthia 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
CI P worksession
June 21,2004
In anticipation of your June 30 CIP worksession, I am providing a copy of the
May 19 CIP worksession memo for your reference. You had concluded that the
main focus for next weeks meeting was to continue discussion of modifying tax
supported projects for consideration. Staff will be coordinating the joint meeting
you requested with the SH26 Advisory Committee for July 8, 2004 to discuss
finalizing consideration for burying of the power lines along SH26.
~.
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 yow 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-education for project selection.
Utilitv -
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
5,7QO,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% T A V 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 ca'pital 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
Tax 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 informati.on provided.
Attachments: .
- Possible CIP Tax Supported Projects
- Possible CIP Utility Supported Projects
CITY OF COLLEVILLE
Possible CIP Tax Supported Projects
Streets
Tara Subdivision
Street Rehabilitiation
Church Street
$ 3,576,872
$ 7,923,669
$ 1,980,000
Subtotal: $ 13,480,541
Sidewalks
Pleasant Run
Assorted locations
Thompson Terrace (Sect. I & II)
Bransford Elementry
Colleyville Elementry
$
$
$
$
Subtotal: $
SH26
Landscaping
Overhead Utility Relocation
Option 1 (full corridor)
Option 2 (business and full easement)
Optin 3 (business only)
Optin 4 (creek to creek)
Option 5 (intersection and full easement)
Optin 6 (intersections only)
Subtotal:
174,500
230,000
117,500
58,600
580,600
$ 2,200,000
$ 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
Equipment
Outdoor Warning System $ 300,000
Subtotal: $ 300,000
Parks
Senior Center $ 1,200,000
McPherson Park (Phase I) $ 1,800,000
Subtotal: S 3,000,000
*TOTAL: $ 21,544,141
"NOTE: Does not include possible funding for overhead utility line relocation for SH26
CITY OF COLLEVILLE
Possible CIP Utility Projects
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
l1A
A~
Texas
PUBLIC NOTICE
COLLEYVILLE CITY COUNCIL
WORKSESSION AGENDA
JUNE 30, 2004
6:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
100 MAIN STREET
EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM
I. Call to Order
II. Discussion of Capital Improvement Projects and Funding Options
III. Discussion of Bond Election
IV. Selection of Future CIP Worksession Date(s)
V. Adjournment
I hereby certify the above agenda was posted on the bulletin boards at City Hall on Friday, June 25, 2004,
at 5:00 p.m.
( \ JJ \ i t~ / l~
',j , \," '.' . '\-
! ~! t \
I.... ". ! .
/ 1,~... L' \.i
f
Cynthia 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
CI P worksession
June 21,2004
In anticipation of your June 30 CIP worksession, I am providing a copy of the
May 19 CIP worksession memo for your reference. You had concluded that the
main focus for next weeks meeting was to continue discussion of modifying tax
supported projects for consideration. Staff will be coordinating the joint meeting
you requested with the SH26 Advisory Committee for July 8, 2004 to discuss
finalizing consideration for burying of the power lines along SH26.
~.
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 yow 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-education for project selection.
Utilitv -
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
5,7QO,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% T A V 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 ca'pital 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
Tax 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 informati.on provided.
Attachments: .
- Possible CIP Tax Supported Projects
- Possible CIP Utility Supported Projects
CITY OF COLLEVILLE
Possible CIP Tax Supported Projects
Streets
Tara Subdivision
Street Rehabilitiation
Church Street
$ 3,576,872
$ 7,923,669
$ 1,980,000
Subtotal: $ 13,480,541
Sidewalks
Pleasant Run
Assorted locations
Thompson Terrace (Sect. I & II)
Bransford Elementry
Colleyville Elementry
$
$
$
$
Subtotal: $
SH26
Landscaping
Overhead Utility Relocation
Option 1 (full corridor)
Option 2 (business and full easement)
Optin 3 (business only)
Optin 4 (creek to creek)
Option 5 (intersection and full easement)
Optin 6 (intersections only)
Subtotal:
174,500
230,000
117,500
58,600
580,600
$ 2,200,000
$ 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
Equipment
Outdoor Warning System $ 300,000
Subtotal: $ 300,000
Parks
Senior Center $ 1,200,000
McPherson Park (Phase I) $ 1,800,000
Subtotal: S 3,000,000
*TOTAL: $ 21,544,141
"NOTE: Does not include possible funding for overhead utility line relocation for SH26
CITY OF COLLEVILLE
Possible CIP Utility Projects
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