HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council-Agenda Packets-5/31/2012G��� Y UF
�
COLLEYVTLLE
rI; \ �~
City of Colleyville
City Council Worksession
Agenda
City Hall
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
817. 503.1000
www.colleyville.com
Thursday, May 31, 2012 Executive Conference Room
6:00 p.m. 3rd Floor, City Hall
1.
2.
3.
CALL TO ORDER
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
2g
2h
2i
Update on the financial status of the Tax Increment Financing District
Final citizen survey results
Strategic plan discussion
Update of the General Fund and Debt Service Fund Financial Forecast (FY
2013 - 2019)
Review of Fire Department Staffing Plan (FY 2013 - 2015)
Police Department Priorities and Future Strategies
Presentation and Discussion of a Proposal to Regionalize Animal Control
Services
Update on the street condition assessment and analysis of the results
Review and discussion of the 2012 Compensation Survey
ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify this agenda was posted on City Hall bulletin boards May Z5, ZOZZ, by 5:00
p, m.
Cynthia Singleton, TRMC, CMC
City Secretary
Any matter on this agenda may, at the discretion of the governing body, be opened for
public comment and discussion.
If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special
accommodations, please advise the City Secretary at least 48 hours in advance at
817.503.1133, and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you.
City of Colleyvil/e � Page 1
L '' 'S ]' p F
�
�OL�EYV'�LLE
r E Y A `-'
Agenda Number za
Type Presentation and Discussion
Department Citv Manager
City of Colleyville
Colleyville City Council
Worksession
Agenda Briefing
Agenda Date 05/31/2012
City Hall
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
www.colleyville.com
Title
Update on the financial status of the Tax Increment Financing District
Number za
Explanation
The purpose of this agenda item is for staff to provide an update on the financial status
of the City's Tax Increment Financing District (TIF) and to provide future financial
options.
Attachments
1. Colleyville Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One presentation
City of Colleyville Page 1
o e vi e Tax Increment
y
Rei nvestment Zone N u m er ne
City Council Worksession
May 31, 2012
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Pur ose of a Tax Increment Financin
p g
TIF District
• Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code
• To accelerate com mercia l development i n
an underdeveloped area (geographic zone)
or to renovate existi ng bl ig hted
development in an area
• Provides for debt issua nce for i nfrastructu re
improvements within the zone
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
TI F District Resources/Ex enditures
p
• Entities contribute ad valorem taxes
received from the incremental value
i ncrease on property with i n the zone
• Debt issued for improvements within the
TIF District is repaid from the participating
entity's ad valorem tax contributions
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
o e vi e TIF Histor
y y
• November 1998: Tax Increment Financing
Rei nvestment Zone N u m ber One (Col leyvi I le
TIF) is established by Ordinance 0-98-1124*
— 633 acres a long Col leyvi I le Blvd .(S H 26)
— Base year (1998) taxable value: $75,821,735
— Term i nation to occu r Decem ber
a I I p roj ect costs a re pa i d a n d a I
wh ichever comes fi rst
31, 2018 or when
debt is retired,
*0-98-1131 amends 0-98-1124 and provides for a termination
date of 12/31/2030 if growth in TIF is insufficient
— Esti mated i ncrementa I
term i nation : $246,667
taxable value at
:��
ti i 4�
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
o e vi e TIF Histor
y y
• Decem ber 1998 : Col leyvi I le TIF Project
Pla n adopted by Ord i na nce 0-98-1132
—$27.39 million in public projects, asset
repu rchase ag reements
— $7,938,690 in GCISD school improvements
— Total approved Project Plan $35,328,690
— Amend ments to i n itia l Project Pla n
• Rea I located $626,000 to Joh n McCa i n Road project
from Fire Station project in 2002
• Reallocated funding from various categories to Town
Center agreement in 2003
All taxin
entities pa rtici pati ng
� �.��
C��.L�YV`ILLE
��
�--I�`_--I�!��-�IF�IJ� ;��
""'"' MCCAIN RD
Colleyville TIF District #1 _-o-�
����,, � , __
�� �_, �� � ����� ��
�
m �
n
z -
�
�
r
z
m
�
Q
MCbdNWELL SCHddL R� W
LD LOCKETT RD
���
W GLA�E R�
��,
��
_= �= _ - -.
... .. ... : �
' � �� �■
- -..�■■ _
HALL-JdHNSbN Ra
GLA�E
Contri buted Tax Rate b Entit
y y
Tota I TIF Contri buted Tax Rate : 1. 736767
City of Colleyville
Grapevine-Colleyville ISD*
Ta rra nt Cou nty* *
Tarrant County College
Tarrant County Hospital District**
$.355900
$.740000
;, .�111
$.148970
$.227897
* GCISD contributes 74% of the compressed operations and maintenance tax rate
** Tarrant County and Tarrant County Hospital District participation capped at $4.35M and
$3.85M respectively; participation estimated to end in FY2012 ,��,�
�
CC)LL�LE
���.�,�+.'
FY 2012 TI F Taxa b l e Va I u e Reca
p
FY1998 Taxable Base Value:
FY2012 Taxable Value:
Incremental Value Increase:
FY2012 New Construction:
$ 5,821,735
$313,590,053
$237,768,318
$ 6,776,645
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Col le vi I le TI F District Com m itments
y
.
.
Outstanding Bond Issues:
Series 2011: $5,657,378
(Balance at September 30, 2012)
*Incentified Developer Asset Repurchase
Agreements:
— Village at Colleyville: $4,500,000
— Town Center: $2,582,500
* Payments are only made if the developer builds the specified assets
in the agreement; the annual payment is based on the taxes received
from the increase in the taxable assessed value of the ro ert from
p p Y
the date of the agreement.
ti i ��
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
FY 2012 Pro ert Va I ue Incentified
p y
Asset Re u rchase A reements
p g
• Town Center Va I ue :
• Incremental Increase:
49,637,608
$46, 644, 549
• Vi I la e at Col le vi I le Va I ue : 41,645,826
g Y
• Incremental Increase : $38, 504,687
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Develo er Asset Re u rchase
p p
A reement Pa ment Process
g Y
1. Developer su bm its i nvoices a nd ca ncel led check
copies by reimbursable category
2. City Eng i neer reviews for com pleteness a nd
category eligibility and certifies the improvement
3. Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer
determines amount eligible to be paid annually per
Tarrant Appraisal District TIF value reports
4. TIF payments are reviewed by the City's external
auditors during the annual audit
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
.
.
.
.
.
Tow n Ce n te r Asset Re u rc h a se
p
A reement
g
Total Agreement (March 2003) :
No Term i nation of Ag reement
Tota I Va I u e S u b m i tted to D a te :
Tota I Payments to Date :
Total Remaining Obligation :
$2,582,500
$2,271,631
$2,271,631
$ 310,869
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Vi I la e at Col le vi I le
g Y
Asset Re u rchase A reement
p g
Original Agreement (Dec. 1999) :
Revised Ag reement (]a n. 2001) :
$5,000,000
$7,500,000
Renegotiated Agreement (May 2009) : $4,500,000
Agreement Terminates: May 16, 2014
Total Value Submitted to Date:
Tota I Payments to Date :
Total Remaining Obligation :
� _ ._ _. �,- - .. - -„- --. - -� Funds:
$2,182,179
$2,182,179
$2,316,821
$3,000,000
, �� , �'�,
�
C��.LEYVILLE
��
Cit of Colle ville TIF District
y y
Ado ted Pro �ect Pla n
p J
Colleyville TIF Project Plan Total Village at Colleyville Roadway SH 26 Matching School Improvements City Hall Library Fire Station Town Center
Original Agreement Improvements Agreement
Downtown Im rovements $2,200,000 $2,200,000
Plaza $1,595,000 $1,075,000 $520,000
Professional Services $650,000 $400,000 $250,000
Public Parkin , land, en ineerin $4,371,500 $1,200,000 $980,000 $734,000 $1,457,500
Storm Draina e $200,000 $125,000 $75,000
Libra $240,000 $240,000
Hall-Johnson Road $1,900,000 $1,900,000
Bluebonnet Drive $670,000 $670,000
SH 26 $4,850,000 $4,850,000
Tinker/Sanders Intersection $220,000 $220,000
Bo art $600,000 $600,000
Church Street $2,150,000 $1,100,000 $1,050,000
Riverwalk Drive $250,000 $250,000
Public Parkin Structure $1,800,000 $1,800,000
Main Street $700,000 $700,000
Cit Hall $3,500,000 $3,500,000
Fire Station $867,500 $867,500
John McCain Road $626,000 $626,000
Schoollm rovements $7,938,690 $7,938,690
Total $35,328,690 $7,500,000 $5,146,000 $5,070,000 $7,938,690 $5,250,000 $974,000 $867,500 $2,582,500
ti i {�
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Pro �ect Pla n Status U date :
J p
Co m I eted P ro � ects
p J
• Bluebonnet Drive
• Bog a rt D ri ve
• Ch u rch Street
• Hall-]ohnson Road
• ]ohn McCain Road
• Ri ve rwa I k D ri ve
• City Hall
• Centra I Fi re Station
• L i b ra ry
• School
Improvements
• State H ig hway 26
ti i 4�
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Pro �ect Pla n Status U date :
J p
I n P ro re s s P ro � e cts
g J
■ Tinker/Sanders Intersection
■ Phase II SH26 project
■ Town Center Ag reement
■ Vi I lage at Col leyvi I le Ag reement
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Cu rrent Fi na ncia l Status of the
Col le vi I le TI F
y
• FY2012 Taxable
than the original
the zone
Value of TIF is slightly less
projections for final value of
— Total projected value of incremental increased
value 2018: $246,667,800 (Dec. 1998)
— Total incremental value in 2012: $237,768,318
• Funds in excess of all outstanding obligations
projected by the end of FY2013
— Bonds are callable in 2016 and could be paid
— Asset repurchase agreements
� w w �
iect
Plan
Unallocated Funds
����
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
O tions for Colle ville TIF
p Y
• Option A: Collapse TIF
— 2016: bonds callable
— AI locates a pproxi mately $846, 217 i n ad va lorem
tax revenue to the General Fund annually (based
on FY 2012 incremental taxable value of
properties located in TIF)
— Can be appropriated to City Council priorities,
such as public safety, infrastructure, economic
development, etc.
— GCISD TIF contributions become subject to
recapture/Robin Hood
ti i 4�
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
O tions for Colle ville TIF
p Y
• Option B: Reduce the portion of the tax rate
contribution to the TIF
— A portion of $.3559 tax rate could be allocated to
debt service to red uce cu rrent sha re of ad va lorem
tax rate dedicated to debt service
— Other portion remains allocated to the TIF for
i nfrastructu re projects
• Requires Project Plan amendment
Example Tax Rate Allocation For Taxable Property Located in TIF
To General Debt Service To TIF Total
$0.17795 $0.17795 $0.3559
$423,108. 50 $423,108. 50 $846,217
, {�'`,,
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
O tions for Colle ville TIF
p Y
• Option C: Expand TIF Project Plan
— Futu re projected reven ue cou Id be a I located to
fund an expanded/new project plan :
• $6.7M City of Colleyville (FY 2013-2019)
• $2.8M TCC (FY 2013-2019) *requires approval
— Potential projects:
• SH26 utility relocations
SH26 project enhancements
Cotton Belt III trail
Reconstruction of Thompson Terrace
Little Bear Creek trail extension (Nature Center to Sparger Park)
Economic Development pro�ects
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
uestions a n Discussion
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
L '' 'S ]' p F
�
�OL�EYV'�LLE
r E Y A `-'
Agenda Number 2b
Type Presentation and Discussion
Department Citv Manager
Title
Final citizen survey results
City of Colleyville
Colleyville City Council
Worksession
Agenda Briefing
Agenda Date 05/31/2012
City Hall
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
www.colleyville.com
Number 2b
Explanation
This item is provided for presentation and discussion of the final results of the
2012 Colleyville Citizen Survey. The City used the services of survey firm Raymond
Turco & Associates, and Mr. Turco delivered a presentation on the preliminary results
at the April 17, 2012 Pre Council meeting. At that time, the City had received 1,619
responses. The final results include an additional 46 responses. The addition of these
responses did not significantly change any of the reported results. However, Mr. Turco
did discover an error in the initial April 17, 2012 report that was a result of incorrect
coding of the online survey responses for questions 21 through 27. This data has been
corrected and is included in the final version of the cumulative results attached to this
briefing.
As part of the Fiscal Year 2013 budget process, staff is focused on developing a
community priority based budget. In an effort to ensure that budget decisions and
resource allocation are tied directly to community priorities, staff is using the 2012
Citizen Survey as one tool to aid in the determination of those priorities. To that end,
the majority of the Citizen Survey presentation will focus on survey responses that
provide insight into the priorities of our citizens.
Attachments
1. Citizen Survey Results presentation
2. 2012 Cumulative Results: Final Version
City of Colleyville Page 1
���.�,.E'Y"V'I
Col le vi I le 2012 Citizen Su rve
y y
� �}�
��
� �� _.
�
i 1 '�. �:.
— ' ..� --'_.. N .
_... ��: :
_� -, � � � �,, ��
� ` , � +�� � . r
��� � � -
,.
� `� _ -:�, A .:�.
}� +
. +�, '� ,9 - �
�Y �}��4�� � ��
�v �•'
. ��v K a••- r�." _
� � �Y ,�:°?'.�i
. '� .atL� '7 .
. -�_.FSa' :���i1��, �..
City Council Worksession
May 31, 2012
Fi na u rve Resu ts
� 1,665 responses (1,070 mail and 595 online)
� 59% of mail respondents over age 55
� 45% of online respondents over age 55
� Surveys collected between 2/27 and 4/6
� Statistical validity is +/- 3% based on
collected surveys
� Questions 21 th roug h 27 corrected
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Corrected Customer Service Resu Its
Directed to the correct
department/person for my issue
General courtesy of person
responding
If not available, correct
employee returned my call in a
reasonable amount of time
Employee seemed concerned
about my issue
Issue was adequately addressed
by employee responding
Follow-up from City to ensure
issue was addressed
66%-6%
71%-8%
47%-8%
66%-11 %
62%-13%
39%-17%
76%-5%
78%-7%
58%-12%
73%-11%
70%-13%
52%-16%
76%-4%
81%-4%
50%-8%
70%-10%
71%-12%
44%-15%
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
A Focus on Com m u n it Priorities
y
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
.
�
�
�
Overa I I Satisfaction with
ualitv of �ife in Communit
50% very satisfied (807)
47% satisfied (767)
2% dissatisfied (38)
1% very dissatisfied (16)
• 9 of 16 very d issatisfied respondents have
lived in Colleyville over 20 years and 12
have no children living at home
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
What makes Colleyville a unique place to live?
Rural: country atmosphere / small town feel
Centrally located. close to airport
• People: friendly / involved / family oriented
• Bedroom community: quiet / quaint / peaceful
• Low crime rate: safe feeling / police
• Income level: upscale homes / high property value
• Open areas: space / size / natural beauty
Miscellaneous
School district. good schools
• Convenience: proximity to everything
• Neighborhoods: mix of old & new / well maintained
Good city services: amenities / parks / government
Single family dwellings / rentals
Negative comment
Large lot size
Good variety of shops. Market Street
21%
13%
10%
9%
8%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
, {��`,,
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
What is the most critica I issue faci na Col leyvi I le?
Attracting/keeping quality businesses
Traffic
• SH26 issues: development / appearance
• Vacant stores: closed businesses / lack of restaurants
• Road related issues: expansion / widening / repair
• Overdevelopment: growth / keep rural feeling / P&Z
• Miscellaneous
• School district issues: budgets / declining quality
• Infrastructure: city services / lack of trails / sidewalks
• Taxes : h ig h taxes
• Crime: safety / aggressive police department
• Street repair: maintenance / construction
• Maintaining property values: quality of life
• Revenue: lack of sales tax / budget
• Train: public transportation issues
• City government issues
• Gas drilling
34%
10%
10%
8%
8%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
, {��`�,
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Im ortance in Determinin
ualit of Life in Colle ville
Q v v
Having a safe community
Keeping citizens informed about City
business
Retaining existing businesses
Providing parks and recreation services
Encouraging new business development
Providing an adequate forum for public
input
Encouraging neighborhood beautification
effo rts
Having community events and festivals
Providing mobility to residents traveling
east - west
Encouraging cultural diversity among
residents
100%
97%
97%
95%
94%
93%
88%
73%
68%
43%
2
13
5a
5
53
13
18
0
16
(20)
98%
84%
45%
90%
41%
80%
70%
73%
52%
63%
ti i ��
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Where Does the Cit
M ost N eed to Focu s?
Encouraging new business development
Having a safe community
.;.,
19%
Providing mobility to residents traveling east - west 12%
Retaining existing businesses
11%
Encouraging neighborhood beautification efforts 3%
Providing parks and recreation services
Providing an adequate forum for public input
3%
1%
Keeping citizens informed about City business 1%
Having community events and festivals
1%
Encouraging cultural diversity among residents 1%
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
How Necessary is it to Make Chanqes
i n Order to Im rove You r Satisfaction?
Quality of shopping
Quality of dining/restaurants
Safety of the city
Appearance of neighborhood
Number of entertainment venues
Transportation corridors
Pedestrian friendly thoroughfares
Speed along major thoroughfares
Emphasis on the environment
Amount of open space
Job opportunities in the city
Number of fine arts opportunities
84%
84%
71%
71%
71%
69%
69%
66%
65%
64%
61%
51%
ti i 4�
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Service Areas with Greater
10% Dissatisfaction
tha n
Economic Development 44%
Street maintenance/repairs
Planning and Zoning
Storm drainage/flooding
Traffic Enforcement
Sidewalk maintenance
Trails
Special events organized by the city
Code Enforcement
25%
21%
18%
15%
15%
14%
14%
12%
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Overa I I Satisfaction with
Government Performance
Maintaining quality of life
Value of services for taxes paid
Providing an adequate forum for public
input
Working to keep taxes reasonable
Welcoming citizen involvement
Managing city funds
Effective zoning and land use
regulations
Listening to citizens
Planning for future needs of residents
Developing future vision for the city
Encouraging economic growth
89%
76%
71%
70%
68%
68%
68%
61%
60%
50%
43%
3%
4%
17%
5%
18%
18%
11%
18%
14%
16%
6%
4 � 4�
�f
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Su ort for T es of Econom ic
qq vq
Develo ment i n Col le vi I le
v
Sit-down restaurants
Medium size retail stores
Professional services (medical, legal, etc.)
Major supermarkets
Small retail stores such as local boutiques
General services (i.e. auto, home repair)
Office buildings
Mixed-use developments, including retail and residential
components
La rg e reta i I sto res
Hotel
Fast food restaurants
98%
96%
90%
89%
85%
78%
76%
75%
73%
63%
63%
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
2012 COLLEYVILLE CITIZEN SURVEY
CUMULATIVE RESULTS: FINAL VERSION
PROJECT RAYMOND TURCO & ASSOCIATES MARCH 2O12
INSTRUCTIONS: THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE TO THE
COLLEYVILLE CITIZEN SURVEY. CITIZEN INPUT IS CRITICAL TO MEASURING THE CITY'S
SUCCESS. FOR EACH QUESTION, CHECK THE BOX THAT IS CLOSEST TO YOUR OPINION.
CHECK ONLY ONE BOX PER QUESTION UNLESS INSTRUCTIONS SAY, "CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY." PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING
LOCATIONS: (CITY HALL, PUBLIC LIBRARY, SENIOR CENTER, OR COLLEYVILLE CENTER)
OR MAIL IT IN THE ENCLOSED POSTAGE PAID ENVELOPE BY MARCH 15, 2012. PLEASE
ATTACH A SHEET OF PAPER FOR ANY ADDITIONAL WRITTEN COMMENTS.
SUBSECTOR (ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE ZONE)
O.C. TAYLOR . .
BRANSFORD . . .
HERITAGE . . .
COLLEYVILLE . .
GLENHOPE . . .
ONLINE RESPONSE
l. GENDER AND AGE OF INDIVIDUAL(S) COMPLETING SURVEY.
A. MALE
UNDER 35 YEARS
36-45 YEARS .
46-55 YEARS .
56-65 YEARS .
OVER 65 YEARS
2. LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN COLLEYVILLE:
B. FEMALE
UNDER 35 YEARS
36-45 YEARS. .
46-55 YEARS .
56-65 YEARS .
OVER 65 YEARS
�
. 70
. 210
. 50
. 220
. 80
. 360
. . . . 40
. . . . 130
. . . . 270
. . . . 310
. . . . 250
. . . . 30
. . . . 150
. . . . 300
. . . . 290
. . . . 220
UNDER 1 YEAR . . . .
1-3 YEARS . . . . .
4-7 YEARS . . . . .
8 -10 YEARS . . . . .
11-20 YEARS . . . .
MORE THAN 20 YEARS .
. 20
. 100
. 190
. 100
. 330
. 260
3. DO YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 18 LIVING IN YOUR HOME?
NO CHILDREN . . . . . 580
UNDER AGE 6 . . . . . 90
AGES 7-12 . . . . . . 14 0
AGES 13-18 . . . . . . 19 0
4. OVERALL, HOW SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN
YOUR COMMUNITY?
VERY SATISFIED . . . . 500
SATISFIED . . . . . . 470
DISSATISFIED . . . . . 20
VERY DISSATISFIED . . lo
5. DURING THE TIME YOU HAVE LIVED HERE, DO YOU THINK THAT AS A COMMUNITY,
COLLEYVILLE HAS:
IMPROVED . . . . . . . 50 0
REMAINED THE SAME . . 380
DECLINED . . . . . . . 12 0
6. WHAT ONE THING WOULD YOU SAY MAKES COLLEYVILLE A UNIQUE PLACE TO LIVE?
Rural-country atmosphere/small town feel/good mix of houses/business (210),
Centrally located between Dallas & Ft. Worth/close to airport (130),
People/friendly/laid back, involved/community spirit, caring-family oriented
l00), Bedroom community/quiet/quaint/peaceful/relaxed (90)
7. HOW SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE VALUE OF SERVICES RECEIVED
FROM THE CITY AS IT RELATES TO THE AMOUNT OF TAX DOLLARS YOU PAY TO THE CITY?
VERY SATISFIED . . . . 170
SATISFIED . . . . . . 67 0
DISSATISFIED . . . . . 140
VERY DISSATISFIED . . 20
8. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IS THE MOST CRITICAL ISSUE FACING COLLEYVILLE TODAY?
Attracting/keeping quality business/economic development/commercial tax base
(340), traffic (l00), Hwy 26 issues/development/decline of
business/appearance/renovation upgrade (l00), vacant stores/closed businesses
(80), road related issues/expansion/widening/repair/maintenance (80)
9. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: ��I CAN
GENERALLY FIND WHAT I WANT TO BUY IN COLLEYVILLE."
STRONGLY AGREE . . . . 30
AGREE . . . . . . . . 3 0 0
DISAGREE . . . . . . 530
STRONGLY DISAGREE . . 130
10. THE LAST TIME YOU WERE UNABLE TO PURCHASE AN ITEM IN COLLEYVILLE, WHAT
WERE YOU TRYING TO BUY?
Clothes (330), specific city or store mentioned (80), groceries (80),
shoes/boots (70), Electronics/camera/computer (60), hardware/construction
materials/tools/lawn and garden (60)
11. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: ��I
GENERALLY FIND AMPLE ENTERTAINMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN COLLEYVILLE."
STRONGLY AGREE . . . . 40
AGREE . . . . . . . . 3 8 0
DISAGREE . . . . . . . 48 0
STRONGLY DISAGREE . . 90
12. THE LAST TIME YOU WERE UNABLE TO FIND AN ENTERTAINMENT OPPORTUNITY IN
COLLEYVILLE, WHAT WERE YOU TRYING TO FIND?
Restaurant/fine dining (230), movie/art film/art gallery's/exhibits (210),
concert/live music/bands/entertainment (150), live theater/musical/play (90),
Nightclub/pub/sports bar/night life (70)
13. PLEASE INDICATE IF YOU
INFORMATION ABOUT THE CITY OR
ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER . . 260
FACEBOOK . . . . . . . . 3 0
PRINTED NEWSLETTER/WATER 750
BILL INSERT (COMMUNICATOR)
CITY'S CABLE CHANNEL . . 60
COMMUNITY MEETINGS . . . 90
HAVE UTILIZED ANY OF THE FOLLOWING TO OBTAIN
ITS SERVICES IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS:
CODE RED (TELEPHONE EMERGENCY
NOTIFICATION)
WEBSITE (WWW.COLLEYVILLE.COM)
LOCAL NEWSPAPERS . . . . . .
YOUTUBE . . . . . . . . . . .
34 0
610
740
lo
14. CHECK THE BOX TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE FOLLOWING
ACTIVITIES IN THE PAST YEAR?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
WATCHED OR ATTENDED A MEETING OF LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
WATCHED THE CITY'S PUBLIC CABLE CHANNEL
CONTACTED THE CITY WITH A QUESTION
VOLUNTEERED YOUR TIME TO A LOCAL COLLEYVILLE GROUP
OR GROUP ACTIVITY
VISITED THE CITY WEBSITE (WWW.COLLEYVILLE.COM)
USED A PUBLIC PARK OR TRAIL IN COLLEYVILLE
VISITED THE COLLEYVILLE SENIOR CENTER
PARTICIPATED IN A CITY RECREATION PROGRAM
PARTICIPATED IN A COLLEYVILLE LIBRARY PROGRAM
VISITED THE COLLEYVILLE LIBRARY
VISITED THE COLLEYVILLE CENTER FOR A MEETING OR EVENT
YES
230
140
600
270
740
790
150
220
360
52 0
470
NO
770
860
400
730
260
210
850
780
64 0
480
530
15. HOW IMPORTANT OR UNIMPORTANT IS EACH OF THE FOLLOWING PERFORMANCE AREAS IN
DETERMINING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN COLLEYVILLE? CHECK THE BOX THAT IS CLOSEST
TO YOUR OPINION.
VI I U VLT NO
A. HAVING A SAFE COMMUNITY 960 40 00 00 00
B. HAVING COMMUNITY EVENTS AND FESTIVALS 150 580 210 40 20
C. KEEPING CITIZENS INFORMED ABOUT CITY 410 560 20 00 lo
BUSINESS
D. PROVIDING PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES 550 400 40 00 lo
E. PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE FORUM FOR PUBLIC INPUT 330 600 60 00 lo
F. ENCOURAGING NEIGHBORHOOD BEAUTIFICATION EFFORTS 380 500 100 00 lo
G. ENCOURAGING CULTURAL DIVERSITY AMONG RESIDENTS 130 300 380 140 50
H. PROVIDING MOBILITY TO RESIDENTS TRAVELING 330 350 200 90 40
EAST - WEST
I. ENCOURAGING NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT 670 270 40 lo lo
J. RETAINING EXISTING BUSINESSES 720 250 20 00 lo
16. HOW SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED ARE YOU WITH HOW
FOLLOWING PERFORMANCE AREAS? CHECK THE BOX THAT IS
A. HAVING A SAFE COMMUNITY
B. HAVING COMMUNITY EVENTS AND FESTIVALS
C. KEEPING CITIZENS INFORMED ABOUT CITY
BUSINESS
D. PROVIDING PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES
E. PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE FORUM FOR PUBLIC INPUT
F. ENCOURAGING NEIGHBORHOOD BEAUTIFICATION EFFORTS
G. ENCOURAGING CULTURAL DIVERSITY AMONG RESIDENTS
H. PROVIDING MOBILITY TO RESIDENTS TRAVELING
EAST - WEST
I. ENCOURAGING NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
J. RETAINING EXISTING BUSINESSES
THE CITY HAS ADDRESSED THE
CLOSEST TO YOUR OPINION.
VS S D VD NO
620 360 20 00 00
130 600 170 20 90
170 670 120 l0 30
320 580 60 lo
140 660 110 lo
110 590 170 30
90 540 90 20
90 430 260 80
70 340 380 150
70 380 370 130
30
80
100
250
140
50
50
17. FROM THE TEN TOPICS, PLEASE CHOOSE THE STATEMENT ON WHICH YOU FEEL THE
CITY NEEDS TO FOCUS?
Encouraging new business development (480), having a safe community (190),
providing mobility to residents traveling east - west (120), retaining
existing businesses (llo)
18. HOW SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF YOUR
NEIGHBORHOOD?
VERY SATISFIED . .
SATISFIED . . . .
DISSATISFIED . . .
VERY DISSATISFIED
NO OPINION . . . .
. . 33 0
. . 560
. . 90
. . 20
. . 00
19. DO YOU CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IN OR AROUND YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO
BE A MAJOR CONCERN, A MINOR CONCERN, OR OF NO CONCERN TO YOU? CHECK THE BOX
THAT IS CLOSEST TO YOUR OPINION.
MAJ MIN NO NO OPIN
A. HOUSES IN NEED OF REPAIR 150 320 510 20
B. STRAY ANIMALS 100 290 590 20
C. DOOR-TO-DOOR SOLICITATIONS 280 440 270 lo
D. WEEDS AND UNMOWED GRASS 190 360 440 lo
E. TRASH AND LITTER 160 260 570 lo
F. FENCES IN DISREPAIR 150 320 510 20
G. AVAILABILITY OF SIDEWALKS 280 260 430 30
H. AVAILABILITY OF TRAIL CONNECTIONS 210 320 400 70
I. CONDITION OF NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS 310 320 370 lo
J. CONDITION OF SIDEWALKS 230 260 440 70
K. CRIME 260 350 380 lo
L. CONDITION OF STREET SIGNS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD 110 250 610 20
M. CONDITION OF MAJOR STREETS LEADING INTO YOUR 300 290 400 lo
NEIGHBORHOOD
20. HOW NECESSARY OR UNNECESSARY DO YOU FEEL IT IS TO MAKE CHANGES IN THE
FOLLOWING AREAS TO IMPROVE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH COLLEYVILLE? CHECK THE BOX
THAT IS CLOSEST TO YOUR OPINION.
A. QUALITY OF SHOPPING IN THE CITY
B. PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY THOROUGHFARES
C. SAFETY OF THE CITY
D. NUMBER OF ENTERTAINMENT VENUES
E. QUALITY OF DINING/RESTAURANTS
F. NUMBER OF FINE ARTS OPPORTUNITIES
G. APPEARANCE OF NEIGHBORHOODS
H. SPEED ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES
I. JOB OPPORTUNITIES IN THE CITY
J. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
K. AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE
L. EMPHASIS ON THE ENVIRONMENT
21. (COMBINED HAVE
FOLLOWING SERVICES
CLOSEST TO YOUR
APPLICABLE.
�TN
440
270
470
230
400
140
37 0
260
200
300
250
250
N
400
420
240
480
440
37 0
34 0
400
410
390
390
400
U
140
260
260
250
140
350
270
290
290
220
280
260
W
lo
20
20
20
lo
70
lo
40
30
50
20
60
NO
lo
30
lo
30
lo
70
lo
20
70
40
50
40
AND HAVE NOT USED) PLEASE RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH THE
REGARDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. CHECK THE BOX THAT IS
OPINION. IN ADDITION, CHECK THE ��HAVE USED" BOX IF
VS S D VD NO
A. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 40 390 320 120 130
B. BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES 60 550 70 30 290
C. PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES 50 510 140 70 240
21. (HAVE USED) PLEASE RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH THE FOLLOWING
REGARDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. CHECK THE BOX THAT IS CLOSEST
OPINION. IN ADDITION, CHECK THE ��HAVE USED" BOX IF APPLICABLE.
VS S D
A. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 150 520 00
B. BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES 170 740 00
C. PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES 60 550 160
21. (HAVE NOT USED) PLEASE RATE YOUR SATISFACTION
REGARDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. CHECK THE BOX
OPINION. IN ADDITION, CHECK THE ��HAVE USED" BOX IF
A. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
B. BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES
C. PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES
SERVICES
TO YOUR
VD
300
50
170
NO
40
40
60
WITH THE FOLLOWING SERVICES
THAT IS CLOSEST TO YOUR
APPLICABLE.
VS S D
30 390 320
50 530 60
40 500 130
VD NO
120 130
30 320
70 250
22. (COMBINED HAVE AND HAVE NOT USED) PLEASE RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH THE
FOLLOWING SERVICES REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY. CHECK THE BOX THAT IS CLOSEST TO
YOUR OPINION. IN ADDITION, CHECK THE ��HAVE USED" BOX IF APPLICABLE.
VS S D VD NO
A. FIRE SERVICES GENERALLY 450 430 00 00 110
B. SPEED OF FIRE SERVICES IN RESPONDING TO CALLS 390 380 l0 00 220
C. COURTESY OF FIRE SERVICE 430 340 00 00 220
D. PROFESSIONALISM OF FIRE SERVICE 440 340 00 00 210
E. POLICE SERVICES GENERALLY 380 470 50 20 70
F. SPEED OF POLICE IN RESPONDING TO CALLS 360 430 20 l0 180
G. COURTESY OF POLICE SERVICES 390 400 60 40 110
H. PROFESSIONALISM OF POLICE SERVICE 390 420 60 30 100
VS S D VD NO
I. CODE ENFORCEMENT 180 480 80 40 220
J. ANIMAL CONTROL 240 500 70 20 170
K. MUNICIPAL COURT 170 470 20 l0 320
L. AMBULANCE SERVICE 270 380 l0 00 340
M. TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 180 540 90 60 120
22. (HAVE USED) PLEASE RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH THE FOLLOWING SERVICES
REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY. CHECK THE BOX THAT IS CLOSEST TO YOUR OPINION. IN
ADDITION, CHECK THE ��HAVE USED" BOX IF APPLICABLE.
VS S D VD NO
A. FIRE SERVICES GENERALLY 710 260 lo lo lo
B. SPEED OF FIRE SERVICES IN RESPONDING TO CALLS 750 180 40 l0 20
C. COURTESY OF FIRE SERVICE 860 130 00 00 lo
D. PROFESSIONALISM OF FIRE SERVICE 860 130 00 00 lo
E. POLICE SERVICES GENERALLY 560 350 50 40 00
F. SPEED OF POLICE IN RESPONDING TO CALLS 540 380 20 40 lo
G. COURTESY OF POLICE SERVICES 580 270 60 80 00
H. PROFESSIONALISM OF POLICE SERVICE 580 280 70 70 lo
I. CODE ENFORCEMENT 240 410 200 110 40
J. ANIMAL CONTROL 490 330 130 50 lo
K. MUNICIPAL COURT 220 560 80 110 20
L. AMBULANCE SERVICE 710 230 20 l0 20
M. TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 140 450 280 130 00
22. (HAVE NOT USED) PLEASE RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH THE FOLLOWING SERVICES
REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY. CHECK THE BOX THAT IS CLOSEST TO YOUR OPINION. IN
ADDITION, CHECK THE ��HAVE USED" BOX IF APPLICABLE.
A. FIRE SERVICES GENERALLY
B. SPEED OF FIRE SERVICES IN RESPONDING TO CALLS
C. COURTESY OF FIRE SERVICE
D. PROFESSIONALISM OF FIRE SERVICE
E. POLICE SERVICES GENERALLY
F. SPEED OF POLICE IN RESPONDING TO CALLS
G. COURTESY OF POLICE SERVICES
H. PROFESSIONALISM OF POLICE SERVICE
I. CODE ENFORCEMENT
J. ANIMAL CONTROL
K. MUNICIPAL COURT
L. AMBULANCE SERVICE
M. TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
VS
430
360
400
410
350
32 0
360
360
170
210
170
240
190
S
440
400
360
360
490
430
420
440
490
52 0
460
390
550
D
00
00
00
00
50
20
60
60
70
60
20
lo
80
VD
00
00
00
00
20
lo
40
30
30
20
lo
00
50
NO
120
240
230
230
80
210
120
110
230
200
34 0
360
130
23. (COMBINED HAVE AND HAVE NOT USED) PLEASE RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH THE
FOLLOWING SERVICES REGARDING LEISURE SERVICES. CHECK THE BOX THAT IS CLOSEST
TO YOUR OPINION. IN ADDITION, CHECK THE ��HAVE USED" BOX IF APPLICABLE.
VS S D VD NO
A. TRAILS 170 560 120 20 130
B. SPECIAL EVENTS ORGANIZED BY THE CITY 90 570 130 l0 200
C. MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC PARKS 250 660 30 l0 60
D. CITY RECREATION PROGRAMS 120 590 60 l0 220
E. LIBRARY PRINT MATERIAL COLLECTION 180 550 40 l0 220
F. LIBRARY NON-PRINT MATERIAL COLLECTION 140 500 40 00 320
G. LIBRARY PROGRAMS 160 500 20 00 310
VS S D VD NO
H. LIBRARY SERVICES GENERALLY 250 520 30 00 200
I. SENIOR CENTER PROGRAMS 100 400 20 l0 480
J. COLLEYVILLE CENTER 180 520 20 l0 270
23. (HAVE USED) PLEASE RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH THE FOLLOWING SERVICES
REGARDING LEISURE SERVICES. CHECK THE BOX THAT IS CLOSEST TO YOUR OPINION.
IN ADDITION, CHECK THE ��HAVE USED" BOX IF APPLICABLE.
VS S D VD NO
A. TRAILS 260 580 140 20 00
B. SPECIAL EVENTS ORGANIZED BY THE CITY 200 670 120 lo lo
C. MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC PARKS 330 640 20 00 00
D. CITY RECREATION PROGRAMS 260 650 70 20 00
E. LIBRARY PRINT MATERIAL COLLECTION 300 610 60 l0 20
F. LIBRARY NON-PRINT MATERIAL COLLECTION 310 570 80 l0 30
G. LIBRARY PROGRAMS 410 550 20 00 20
H. LIBRARY SERVICES GENERALLY 460 520 20 00 00
I. SENIOR CENTER PROGRAMS 440 410 30 30 80
J. COLLEYVILLE CENTER 380 570 20 00 20
23. (HAVE NOT USED) PLEASE RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH THE FOLLOWING SERVICES
REGARDING LEISURE SERVICES. CHECK THE BOX THAT IS CLOSEST TO YOUR OPINION.
IN ADDITION, CHECK THE ��HAVE USED" BOX IF APPLICABLE.
VS S D VD NO
A. TRAILS 140 550 110 20 190
B. SPECIAL EVENTS ORGANIZED BY THE CITY 70 540 130 l0 240
C. MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC PARKS 210 670 30 l0 80
D. CITY RECREATION PROGRAMS 100 590 60 l0 250
E. LIBRARY PRINT MATERIAL COLLECTION 150 530 40 l0 280
F. LIBRARY NON-PRINT MATERIAL COLLECTION 110 480 30 00 370
G. LIBRARY PROGRAMS 130 500 20 00 350
H. LIBRARY SERVICES GENERALLY 200 520 30 00 250
I. SENIOR CENTER PROGRAMS 80 400 20 l0 500
J. COLLEYVILLE CENTER 130 510 20 l0 330
24. (COMBINED HAVE AND HAVE NOT USED) PLEASE RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH THE
FOLLOWING SERVICES REGARDING OTHER CITY SERVICES. CHECK THE BOX THAT IS
CLOSEST TO YOUR OPINION. IN ADDITION, CHECK THE ��HAVE USED" BOX IF
APPLICABLE.
VS S D VD NO
A. TRASH SERVICE 490 460 40 l0 00
B. NEW 65 GALLON CART RECYCLING SERVICES 600 290 50 40 lo
C. STREET MAINTENANCE/REPAIR S 150 580 180 70 30
D. SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE 130 560 110 40 160
E. WATER SERVICE 270 640 50 l0 20
F. SEWER SERVICE 270 660 20 l0 40
G. STORM DRAINAGE/FLOODING 180 600 130 50 50
H. MUNICIPAL ELECTION SERVICES 180 640 20 l0 150
I. PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS 130 560 30 l0 270
24. (HAVE USED) PLEASE RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH THE FOLLOWING SERVICES
REGARDING OTHER CITY SERVICES. CHECK THE BOX THAT IS CLOSEST TO YOUR OPINION.
IN ADDITION, CHECK THE ��HAVE USED" BOX IF APPLICABLE.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
TRASH SERVICE
NEW 65 GALLON CART RECYCLING SERVICES
STREET MAINTENANCE/REPAIR S
SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE
WATER SERVICE
SEWER SERVICE
STORM DRAINAGE/FLOODING
MUNICIPAL ELECTION SERVICES
PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS
VS
480
630
150
180
310
32 0
210
37 0
34 0
S
470
290
510
62 0
630
64 0
560
590
500
D
30
40
220
140
50
20
140
30
80
VD
20
40
120
40
lo
lo
80
00
30
NO
00
00
00
lo
00
lo
lo
lo
50
24. (HAVE NOT USED) PLEASE RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH THE FOLLOWING SERVICES
REGARDING OTHER CITY SERVICES. CHECK THE BOX THAT IS CLOSEST TO YOUR OPINION.
IN ADDITION, CHECK THE ��HAVE USED" BOX IF APPLICABLE.
A. TRASH SERVICE
B. NEW 65 GALLON CART RECYCLING SERVICES
C. STREET MAINTENANCE/REPAIR S
D. SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE
E. WATER SERVICE
F. SEWER SERVICE
G. STORM DRAINAGE/FLOODING
H. MUNICIPAL ELECTION SERVICES
I. PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS
VS
490
590
150
120
260
250
180
150
110
S
450
280
590
550
650
67 0
600
650
560
D
50
60
170
110
50
30
120
20
30
VD
lo
50
50
40
20
lo
40
lo
lo
NO
00
20
40
180
20
60
60
180
290
25. PLEASE RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES OF COLLEYVILLE
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE. CHECK THE BOX THAT IS CLOSEST TO YOUR OPINION.
VS S D VD NO
A. VALUE OF SERVICES FOR TAXES PAID 120 640 170 40 40
B. ENCOURAGING ECONOMIC GROWTH 50 380 420 90 60
C. MAINTAINING QUALITY OF LIFE 180 710 70 20 30
D. EFFECTIVE ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS 90 590 160 50 110
E. WORKING TO KEEP TAXES REASONABLE 130 570 200 50 50
F. PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS 80 520 210 60 140
G. MANAGING CITY FUNDS 90 590 110 30 180
H. PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE FORUM FOR PUBLIC INPUT 90 620 90 20 170
I. DEVELOPING A FUTURE VISION FOR THE CITY 60 440 260 70 160
J. WELCOMING CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 90 590 110 30 180
K. LISTENING TO CITIZENS 90 520 160 50 180
26. IF YOU HAD CONTACT WITH A CITY EMPLOYEE DURING THE PAST YEAR, HOW
SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE FOLLOWING CUSTOMER SERVICE
ACTIVITIES? IF YOU HAD NO CONTACT, SKIP TO THE NEXT QUESTION. CHECK THE BOX
THAT IS CLOSEST TO YOUR OPINION.
�.
C.
�
THE GENERAL COURTESY OF THE PERSON RESPONDING
DIRECTED TO THE CORRECT DEPARTMENT/PERSON FOR
MY ISSUE
IF NOT AVAILABLE, THE CORRECT EMPLOYEE RETURNED
MY CALL IN REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME
EMPLOYEE SEEMED CONCERNED ABOUT MY ISSUE
VS S
390 390
320 440
210 370
320 410
D VD NO
50 20 140
40 l0 190
80 40 310
70 40 160
VS S D VD NO
E. THE ISSUE WAS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BY EMPLOYEE 290 410 80 50 170
RESPONDING
F. FOLLOW-UP FROM CITY TO ENSURE MY ISSUES WERE 190 330 90 70 320
ADDRESSED
27. HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT BEING LOCATED IN COLLEYVILLE? CHECK THE BOX THAT IS CLOSEST TO
YOUR OPINION.
SS S O SO NO
A. SMALL RETAIL STORES SUCH AS LOCAL BOUTIQUES 420 430 80 20 50
B. MEDIUM SIZED RETAIL STORES 480 480 20 lo lo
C. LARGE RETAIL STORES 380 350 180 60 30
D. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (MEDICAL, LEGAL, HEALTH 390 510 40 l0 40
AND BEAUTY, ETC.)
E. MAJOR SUPERMARKETS 490 400 80 20 20
F. FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS 200 430 250 70 50
G. HOTEL 230 400 240 50 70
H. SIT-DOWN RESTAURANTS 630 350 l0 00 lo
I. OFFICE BUILDINGS 210 550 140 30 70
J. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS, INCLUDING RETAIL AND 270 480 150 50 60
RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS
K. GENERAL SERVICES (i.e. AUTO, HOME REPAIR) 190 590 130 30 60
28. PLEASE INDICATE BELOW UP TO THREE RECREATIONPROGRAMS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE
PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE.
Runners club/walking team/connect trails (190), Biking/cycling club/lanes and
trails (160), Swimming/aquatics related/water aerobics, natatorium/water park
(l00), Festivals/parades/holiday or themed events (lo), Concerts/choirs/music
related (90), youth activities/camps/day care (90), tennis lessons (80),
Recreation center (80)
29. PLEASE INDICATE IF YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED IN RECEIVING INFORMATION ON
BECOMING PART OF A��COLLEYVILLE 101" CITIZEN ACADEMY. THIS PROGRAM WOULD
CONSIST OF SEVERAL EVENING SESSIONS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A HANDS-ON LOOK AT HOW
THE CITY OPERATES. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, PLEASE PROVIDE CONTACT INFORMATION
SO A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE CITY CAN CONTACT YOU.
(NAMES, PHONE NUMBERS, AND EMAIL ADDRESSES COLLECTED IN EXCEL FORMAT)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. YOUR PARTICIPATION IS APPRECIATED.
L '' 'S ]' p F
�
�OL�EYV'�LLE
r E Y A `-'
Agenda Number zc
Type Presentation and Discussion
Department Citv Manager
Title
Strategic plan discussion
City of Colleyville
Colleyville City Council
Worksession
Agenda Briefing
Agenda Date 05/31/2012
City Hall
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
www.colleyville.com
Number zc
Explanation
This item provides an opportunity to review and evaluate the five strategic points and
the associated objectives that City Council adopted in November 2009 as part of the
City's strategic plan.
After almost three years of progress toward the plan, staff is recommending
modifications to the specific objectives that are currently tied to each of the strategic
points. In an effort to keep the objectives outcome based and less tactical in nature,
staff is suggesting several additional objectives and recommending slight changes in
wording on others. In addition, staff is recommending deletion of a few objectives that
have either been accomplished or have been determined to be a lower priority than
warrants inclusion in the strategic plan document. The strategic plan, with all proposed
changes, and additional objectives highlighted in red, is attached to this briefing. Also
attached is a list of the objectives, which have been proposed for removal from the
strategic plan.
The goal of staff is to ensure the strategic plan is a document that clearly establishes
the vision and priorities of the community. Tactical initiatives that seek to move the
City in the direction of that vision are outlined at the program level in departmental
business plans. As part of the Fiscal Year 2013 budget process, staff is focused on
developing a community priority based budget. Staff is using the 2012 Citizen Survey
as one tool to determine Colleyville's priorities. An equally important tool in this
decision making process is the City's strategic plan, and therefore, it should reflect the
community's and City Council's priorities.
In addition, Mayor Kelly has expressed a desire to include in the strategic plan, an
emphasis on the importance of core service delivery and highlight the desire for
excellence in customer service. Staff will be prepared to assist with that discussion at
the May 31 worksession.
The strategic plan is the guiding vision for the community priority based budget that is
currently being developed for Fiscal Year 2013. As such, staff seeks input, discussion
and direction from City Council.
City of Colleyville Page 1
City Council Worksession Agenda Briefing 2c
Attachments
1. Strategic Plan
2. Proposed Objectives to be Deleted
City of Colleyville Page 2
r�-�
r�
� ��
a '
�
w � v
r"
� �
Q
U
�
■ �
�,
>
�
O
O
t
0
t
,� �
c�
�
.
� �
U �
i 'C
�1 �
� ,w
� ^;
�1 �1
�� �
,\ L
� \
� i
0
� \
�i =
,� �
a o
� �
� �
�1 '�
� ,�
� �
�
�
� ��
3 �
�
�
�U �
� U
0^ �
\ �^
^\,
� �\
Yl �
'� O
\
�\
�
�
\
U
Y/ � � 0
� �i ,U a-+
3 �L i
� � � �
,�� �
I--I
O
■�
■—
`
L �
O O �
� � O
• � i..l�
� O �L
.� � Q �--7
— N '— 'L
O •v cn a1
U L � �
0 � � �
L � �
+-�+ N �, C
� � � �
� � � �
� � � �
a--7 � — a..7
O D U i
� X 0
O 6 � �
� �
'� '� 0 •—
_ �
.� � 0
� � �--�
� •% �
�orLa
Q �i
�
�
■O
�
■V
�
�
L
,�A
V/
�
� �
O L �' v
�, � � �
� o � o u
L 0 �
L a E � �
O � E o �
,p � o � ui w
^ V �
\ � -6 pl� C
�� � C N L �
� � �6 C O —
_ � � C d j
0 L � � 6
\� L � N ��
L �
1r o � ac�
V � �� ���
� � L � � u c
� � �� �vo
� 7 � � � � �'
i L C� � L C
L � � � � N
� 6 �� V � �
�
� 7 �6 N �6 7 i
a;� �° ���
� � �Q ��v
_ �> Q� �v°'
� N � � � � 7
� U a--' �O � � � "�
�1�1 � � Q � � � �
o ��,��,���v-�
4 ��°':N�,��'o
L �6 +� E O C L
a >�� �oUwa
• • • • • •
�
_
�
_
�
i
0
�
�
�
�_
�
�1
�
L
�
�
�
Q
i.i
_
� � �
L L S�
�O � c�
Q% "p V �
N
Q% � p � C
�� � a� a�
� L C . �6 —
I� Q '�O— � 0 � Q
V (6 � L O
� 7 O �6 — N
O N � � — � i
C � � L �
� N O J N E ��
U — v��� `°a�ni
� ° .c-6o 3�
U "6 'V N V O .�
� � ma°� a�i�
_�
� � 0 � 6� � O � r6
� +� c ,� � ,� u
3�>o�n ,�o
� ,� �.--3 �-
������ �o
N a-' a"' V
\ � a� (� 47 Q N � �'
� S� � '� E � "6 � O
� � � � �- �6 N O d
� a--' � V L a 7
O � _ � � � � � �
�% � a.�-� (n �- � N O O"�
� °� � �' E-� E N Q�
� ���uro�= �c
� ��!a�L��' �o
� _ � � Q � �
� O � � O � � U Uj � �
L E�-aLN�
_ � -6 � O 1` C N �
� >�cvc�a�,�Q�a�
\ (6 �6 � � � O L � U +�--�
fQ a� � c°�.� a� � U�' > o�
O A-� C J-� L A-� � � a-'i O
�1C o �,� �� � o� o 0
�a0' o�w�� ��a
. . . . . . . .
�
�
�
�
0
�
.�
�
a..�i L
U � �
�o >
O 'L N
� d �
O � N
y� Q V
�6 Q �
� �
L � �
� v o �
� . a�
� +�
° � p � o
0 o u E Q
V a.-i 61 L �
N 7 C N N
�- p �� >
� U1 �6 O y_�',
T � 61_
� p1 V N �
N � � � 6
V � O � L
��o�
����a�
�ov+�>�c
7 C � � L �
> � � i � N
-p i � ±' V "6
O �p � C
C 61 C � �
�6 � � � L �
L �� '— y� N V
�—� c.> �
' V �
�"6(n� 0 Q
• • • • •
�,w
YI
�
�
�
�
i
i
�
L
�
�
L
�
�
�
� �
� Q
° ° �° �
a�
� � � � � �
*` � a� � � °'
_ °' � c � °
G� � w � +� �
o ° �o �
� �� � ����
� � "6 O a.-�i O �
Q � � O � � 6�
\ � N �w � �6
_ �, � �,��
�, �= �-
� c c . '� � � °�
�C °c' � c � � �c �
� �3 w �����
3 � 3 ���o�
N O (n V � V
N �6 � � �
� �_, ��aa�-�
v O �
� � 7 �6
� (� `n 60 �6� ��
\ � N 7 7 a'� L
� — � � �6 � L �
o ° �> �L�,���
� �_,� �_�-
U o � �� �� � ��
� Q� O � L 0+� � V
U � � L > o �
_�' � C O E�' � j �
i �oLo Ua�o�owa
ry� L +� .
�y a.�-� L N��' N U� N
�o +.� _ ro a� � � +� >
�°����o°�
�� Q�> � c E a�
N O r6 N� O�� O
UwU U aU a�aU
• • • • • •
L �
� �
�
0 �
�,� x
c_ � a; �
U � N �
i � � U C
m � � -� �o
�� � ��°_
�� OV ip � 9 V
N � � N x O
_ (p N � � 61
U� � o�ou
�Q � ;'L N
o� o���o
'a� m���c
�U a�a��no�
� N 'a� O C U 9
� L �6 L '� N
� �a
�-,� c — � � �°
—°o �!09��
;� �L��!
� � N � � 7 �'
�O � L E N� L
.L � � V
� � O � O �
N 'p � w �6 L N
� f6 L O � � �
N � f6 L �—
�, � U p —
o� 3�o c�
�� o� � �w
� � �"� � L �
� � �' N �' O C
(n � N d C a� �6
N� QO � �+�
L y� 0�.i.i 9 V
>
L
"6 N aN Q� �
� �� � � O '� (6
L '—
��x o 3 � � � o
L�i � � L � (n � L
o�Lo�L�no
a ° °�!�a��
�
>
m
�
.�
�
N
O
U
�
�
O
V
C
�
.�
0
V
c
C
�
a
O
N
�
N
�
�
.�
�
0
V
�
C
�6
a�
X
� �
'p V
���
� f6 �
� L U1
� � o
0
v � �
�
W
�A,
W
\r
�
�
�
O
�
YI
/
�
V
�
.p.�
�
O
�
�
�
O
�
0
a
�
■
/�y
li
■V
�w1
W
�
�
L
��p
Vl
0
�-
� `�
� o
� �
��
V �
Q �
� �
0 �
O �
L Q
� �
� �-
��
� 0
z �
� L
� O
N 9
N �
U ��
��
_ �
N �
- c
o a�
U .N
� V
� V
��
��
a�
E °'
-6 -°c c
���
�o a� E
� > L
� Q %
L � O
U ._ �
W,w
YI
�
�
�
4W
T
i
�
�
W
�
�
�
�
L
�
i.i
�
�
�^1
\
�
_
�
�
O
�
\
�
�
,_
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Q
w
�
�
3
a�
c
.�
L
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
0
A-�
��
O L
�
L y
Q �
C L
0 �
V �
C w
N �
L �
� j-,i
V �
7 X
� �
��
N �
� L
� �
A-�j �
U�
+�
a� �
��
3 �o
a� �
� C
� �6
�
�
�
�
�
U
ui �
c +�
o �
_ �
� I
N �
Q L
O U
� L
U �
c '6
L
'_ �
� �
V '—
C p1
�6 C
� �
C �
�
�w
��
L y,i
w V
O �
d
V E
�o �-
a�
a� +'
� �
y� V
C
a.�-i 7
��
� E
� o
�� .
���
���
w w 3
� � O
� � 0
�' �' _
•
i�
i^�
\
�
�
�
�'
_
�
�
�
�3
\
�
�
\
\
U
�
_
i
m
LlT y U�,
�
CC3LLEYVILLE
TF � ,�c
City of Colleyville
Colleyville City Council
Worksession
Agenda Briefing
City Hall
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
www.colleyville.com
Agenda Number 2d Agenda Date 05/31/2012 Number 2b
Type Presentation and Discussion
Department City Manager
Title
Update of the General Fund and Debt Service Fund Financial Forecast (FY 2013 - 2019)
Explanation
Attached is the preliminary General Fund revenue estimate for Fiscal Year (FY 2013)
and below is a discussion of the revenue categories. Also attached is an update of the
General Fund and Debt Service Fund financial forecast.
Ad Valorem Tax: Currently, FY 2013 assessed valuation is projected to be
$3,443,359,686, which is net of frozen valuation. This includes a 1.5% decrease over
the FY 2013 preliminary valuation estimate from Tarrant Appraisal District, and an
estimated value loss of $38,307,509 ($136,336 in ad valorem tax revenue) for the
Over 65 and Disabled Tax Freeze. The collection rate is projected at 98.5%. Projected
delinquent revenues and penalty and interest are based upon FY 2012 estimated
collections. Final assessed valuation figures are expected to be received the last week
of July.
Franchises Tax: The projected franchise revenue for Oncor Electric, Tri-County
Electric, and Atmos Gas is based upon discussions with the franchise holders. A
decrease is projected in AT&T telephone franchise fees, due to elimination of landlines
and conversion to internet cable. For other phone franchise providers, an increase is
projected due to higher receipts due to the bundling of phone services from cable
franchise providers. Refuse revenue is projected to increase due to the
implementation of residential recycling carts over bins, and increased
commercial commercial usage that has been occurring in FY 2012. Cable fees are
projected to increase due to the telephone providers entering into the cable and
internet market, and growth seen in their customer base and services.
Sales Tax: Sales tax receipts are projected to increase almost 3.5% over the current
year budget of $2,580,550, due to FY 2012 trend experience. For FY 2013, an increase
of over 8% is projected over budgeted current year Mixed beverage tax due to FY 2012
trend experience. FY 2012 is the first year that cities have received a lower percentage
of mixed beverage tax receipts, due to recently approved State legislation decreasing
by over 20% the percentage to be remitted to cities.
Fines: While it is anticipated fewer citations will be written in FY 2013, it is anticipated
that enhanced warrant collection efforts through the third party collection efforts will
City of Colleyville Page 1
City Council Worksession Agenda Briefing 2d
yield a slight increase in fine revenue. There is a decrease in alarm revenues
forecasted due to current collection experience. It is also projected that library fines
will decrease due to utilization of on-line collections materials that are automatically
checked -in on the due date.
Licenses and Permits: Revenues are based upon 127 new residential permits, as
compared to the FY 2012 budgeted revenues (82 new residential permits).
Charges for Service: FY 2013 Charges for Service revenue is projected to be over
$36,000 higher than FY 2012, primarily due to projected higher planning and zoning
related revenues and Colleyville Center revenues. Additionally, ambulance revenue is
projected to be higher, due to higher collections from a greater number of transports.
Other revenues within the category are relatively flat for FY 2013.
Miscellaneous / Transfers-In: Due to the investment interest rates to levels around
0.35%, interest income is projected to be $40,000, which is $5,000 more than the FY
2012 budget. The Utility Fund transfer is projected to be the amount for FY 2013
projected in the annual Utility Fund rate study update that is presented to City Council.
Expenditures
As FY 2013 departmental budgets are still being submitted, for contextual purposes the
FY 2012 General Fund, adopted budget in the amount of $18,458,997 is included as
the FY 2012 base for FY 2013 expenditure projection purposes. Current revenue
projections are $19,115,110, with a revenue versus expenditure surplus of $299,106.
Prior to the August 2012 budget worksessions, expenditures will be reviewed and
preliminary revenue projections updated, so that a balanced budget is presented to the
City Council.
Financial Forecast
Also attached is an update of the General Fund and Debt Service financial forecast for
FY 2013 through FY 2019, incorporating preliminary FY 2013 revenue projections and
the aforementioned FY 2012 expenditure base for FY 2013 projections. This forecast
will be updated for City Council in August 2012 at the budget worksession,
incorporating proposed FY 2013 expenditure levels.
Attachments
1. FY 2013 General Fund preliminary revenue estimate
2. FY 2013 - 2019 General Fund and Debt Service Fund financial plan
City of Colleyville Page 2
FY 2013 REVENUE ESTIMATE
GENERALFUND
AD VALOREM TAXES
5101-CURRENT TAXES
5102-DELINQUENT TAXES
5103-PENALTY & INTEREST
TOTAL AD VALOREM TAXES
FRANCH/ SE TAXES
5201-ONCOR ELECTRIC
5202-TRI-COUNTY ELECTRIC
5203-ATMOS GAS
5204-AT&T
5205-VERIZON/OTHERS
5206- G A R BAG E/R E C Y C L I N G
5207-CABLE TV
TOTAL FRANCHISE TAXES
SALES TAX
5301-1 % SALES TAX
5302-MIXED BEVERAGE TAX
TOTAL SALES TAX
LICENSES & PERMITS
5411-BUILDING
5412-PLUMBING
5413-MECHANICAL
5414-ELECTRICAL
5416-CITY LICENSE
5417-BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FEE
5418-NEW BUSINESS
5419-AN I MAL
5420-SIGN PERMITS
5421-FENCE PERMITS
5423-FIRE PERMIT FEES
5424-IRRIGATION PERMIT FEES
5425-GAS AND OIL WELL PERMIT FEES
TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS
FINES
5611-FINES
5612-FINES-ALARMS
5630-LIBRARY FINES
TOTAL FINES
FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 12 FY 13
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROPOSED
10,292,035 10,182,430 10,459,902 10,459,902 10,742,561
77,417 130,136 63,000 95,000 63,000
94,080 103,889 57,000 67,000 57,000
$10,463,532 $10,416,455 $10,579,902 $10,621,902 $10,862,561
818, 484
108, 334
341,528
116,151
43, 822
126, 550
312,196
$1,867,065
2,638,280
75, 365
$2,713,645
348, 471
42, 271
35, 934
38, 537
40, 755
66, 555
3,995
769
5,140
4,350
8,650
11,705
0
$607,132
1,087,155
59, 200
27, 473
$1,173,828
864,130
120, 249
381, 513
99, 534
74, 519
124, 649
366, 674
$2,031,268
2,642,996
80, 731
$2,723,727
536, 534
60,124
37, 812
48, 721
40, 473
90, 790
4,935
677
7,486
3,700
7,250
15, 090
70, 000
$923, 592
860, 707
60, 425
25, 850
$946, 982
919,133
115, 000
355, 000
90, 000
40, 000
122, 000
270, 000
$1,911,133
2,580,550
60, 750
$2,641,300
360, 000
43, 257
28, 868
37, 568
37, 372
55, 207
3,372
800
5,463
3,500
6,500
13, 660
0
$595, 567
795, 000
70, 000
23,124
$888,124
1,024,876
118, 281
333, 098
87, 500
66, 295
122, 000
392, 000
$2,144,050
2,650,000
65, 000
$2,715,000
512, 668
57, 270
27, 450
49, 054
34, 200
76, 086
4,700
800
5,860
3,450
8,000
13, 446
0
$792, 984
825, 000
70, 000
20, 969
$915, 969
840, 000
115, 000
335, 000
86, 500
66, 500
144, 800
395, 000
$1,982,800
2,670,000
66, 000
$2,736,000
435, 768
48, 680
23, 333
41,696
29, 070
64, 673
3,995
800
4,981
2,933
8,000
11,429
0
$675, 358
825, 000
58, 000
20, 969
$903, 969
FY 2013 REVENUE ESTIMATE
GENERALFUND
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
5511-PLANNING AND ZONING
5512-PLAT FEE
5514-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
5711-SALE OF MATERIAL
5712-WEED MOWING
5718-ANIMAL IMPOUNDMENT FEE
5721-AMBULANCE
5722-RECREATION PROGRAM
5811-ENGINEERING & INSPECTION
5812-CHGS & REIMBURSEMENTS
5845-LOT DRAINAGE INSP FEE
5855-FIELD USE CHARGE
5873-COLLEYVILLE CENTER FEES
5874-NON-RESIDENT FEE
TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
5828-DARE OFFICER REIMB
TOTALINTERGOVERNMENTALREVENUE
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
5714-SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY
5716-INTEREST INCOME
5719-MISCELLANEOUS
5832-ANTENNA LEASE
5867-LEASE PROCEEDS
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
TRANSFERS/N
5872-TRANSFER FROM UTILITY FD
TOTALTRANSFERSIN
FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 12 FY 13
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROPOSED
13, 200
3,265
3,250
432
13, 353
3,508
236, 067
208, 997
17, 697
150
10, 375
21,485
189, 030
21,440
$742, 249
89, 793
$96,118
65, 306
29, 252
80, 492
89, 782
981,238
$1,246,070
857, 622
$857, 622
7,893
2,623
4,500
341
7,900
2,632
306, 959
189, 891
0
0
14, 875
23, 860
245, 749
31,470
$838, 693
89, 792
$89.792
7,097
60, 855
55,111
67, 400
0
$190, 463
858, 879
$858, 879
3,690
2,000
1,250
300
4,000
2,000
255, 000
157, 525
0
0
10, 250
23, 870
220, 000
36, 570
$716, 455
36
89, 792
$89.792
3,000
35, 000
45, 000
67, 466
0
$150, 466
901,829
$901,829
13, 880
3,980
1,750
126
6,500
2,000
265, 000
157, 525
11,705
0
10, 250
22,110
220, 000
36, 525
$751,351
89, 792
$89.792
9,000
40, 000
45, 000
67, 466
0
$161, 466
1,081,868
$1,081,868
7,500
4,000
1,250
100
6,500
2,000
275, 000
157, 525
0
0
10, 250
22, 000
230, 000
36, 570
$752, 695
89, 792
$89.792
3,000
40, 000
45, 000
67, 466
0
$155, 466
956, 469
$956, 469
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $19,767,261 $19,019,851 $18,474,568 $19,274,382 $19,115,110
GENERAL FUND/ FIRE STAFFING PLAN FY 2013 - FY 2019
0.50% ESTIMATED ANNUAL VALUATION INCREASE
REVENUE:
AD VALOREM TAX REVENUE
SALES TAX REVENUE
FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE
LICENSES & PERMITS
FINES
CHARGES FOR SERVICE
MISCELLANEOUS INCOME
UTILITY FUND TRANSFER
BRAC **
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES ***
FIRE PERSONNEL
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
NETREVENUE
ENDING FUND BALANCE
DAYS OF WORKING CAPITAL
(FUND BALANCEJ
BUDGETED
2012
$10, 579, 902
$2,641,300
$1,911,133
$595, 567
$888,124
$716,455
$240, 258
$901,829
$0
$18,474,568
PROJECTED
2013
$10,862,561
$2, 736, 000
$1, 982, 800
$675, 358
$903, 969
$752, 695
$245, 258
$956,469
$0
$19,115,110
FISCAL YEAR
PROJECTED PROJECTED
2014 2015
$11,314,916 $11,673,404
$2,763,360 $2,790,994
$2,017,499 $2,052,805
$661,851 $648,614
$913,009 $922,139
$760,222 $767,824
$250,163 $255,166
$975,598 $995,110
$0 $0
$19,656,618 $20,106,057
PROJECTED
2016
$11,779,779
$2, 818, 904
$2, 088, 729
$635, 642
$931,360
$775, 502
$260, 270
$1,015,013
$300, 000
$20, 605,199
PROJECTED
2017
$11,847,643
$2, 847, 093
$2,125, 282
$622, 929
$940, 674
$783, 257
$265, 475
$1,035,313
$300, 000
$20, 767, 666
PROJECTED
2018
$11,920,812
$2,875,563
$2,162, 475
$610,470
$950,081
$791, 090
$270,785
$1,056,019
$300,000
$20, 937, 295
PROJECTED
2019
$11, 980, 540
$2, 904, 319
$2, 200, 318
$598,261
$959,581
$799,001
$276, 200
$1, 077,139
$300,000
$21,095,359
$18,458,997 $18,735,882 $19,016,920 $19,302,174 $19,591,707 $19,885,582 $20,183,866 $20,486,624
$0 $80,122 $320,488 $560,854 $569,267 $577,806 $586,473 $595,270
$18,458,997 $18,816,004 $19,337,408 $19,863,028 $20,160,973 $20,463,388 $20,770,339 $21,081,894
$15,571 $299,106 $319,210 $243,029 $444,225 $304,278 $166,956 $13,465
$10,238,803 $10,537,909 $10,857,118 $11,100,147 $11,544,373 $11,848,650 $12,015,606 $12,029,072
202 204 205 204 209 211 211 208
ASSU MPTIO NS:
REVENUES-
AD VALOREM TAXES - 98.5% COLLECTION RATE (FY 2013 - 2019)
SALES TAX REVENUE-1% ANNUALINCREASE
FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE -1.75% ANNUAL INCREASE
LICENSES & PERMITS - 2% ANNUAL DECLINE
CHARGES FOR SERVICE - 1% ANNUAL INCREASE
MISCELLANEOUSINCOME-2% ANNUALINCREASE
UTILITY FUND TRANSFER - 2% ANNUAL INCREASE
EXPENDITURES-
BASE EXPENDITURE IS LEVEL IS FY 2012 BUDGETED EXPENDITURES OF $18,458,997. ANNUAL INCREASE IN EXPENDITURES FROM 2013 - 2019 IS 1.5%
**BEDFORD RESPONSE AREA CONTRACT WILL END IN FY 2015 - ESTIMATED SAVINGS $300,000
DEBT SERVICE PLAN FY 2013 - FY 2019
ESTIMATED ANNUAL TAXABLE VALUE INCREASE - 0.50%
2012 AVAILABLE
2010 LEASE- CASH FUTURE
LEASE RADIO DRAWDOWN REPLACE- NET
2006 GO 2011 GO 2006 REPLACE- TOWER FOR RADIO MENT FIRE PROJECTED
FISCAL REFUNDING 2007 GO REFUNDING PUMPER MENT FIRE REPLACE- TOWER EQUIPMENT TOTAL DEBT
YEAR BONDS BONDS BONDS LEASE TRUCK MENT LEASE " LEASES SERVICE
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
TOTAL
$150,010 $224,000 $758,200 $49,723 $116,839 $450,000 -$450,000 $40,000 $1,298,772
$36,916 $222,000 $560,850 $49,723 $116,839 $152,666 -$152,666 $40,000 $986,328
$35,824 $318,000 $163,575 $49,723 $116,839 $152,666 -$152,666 $40,000 $683,961
$39,641 $312,000 $169,375 $0 $116,839 $152,666 -$152,666 $95,000 $637,855
$38,367 $306,000 $169,950 $0 $116,839 $0 $0 $95,000 $631,156
$37,093 $300,000 $165,450 $0 $116,839 $0 $0 $95,000 $619,382
$40,728 $294,000 $170,000 $0 $116,839 $0 $0 $95,000 $621,567
$771,890 $2,430,000 $3,884,000 $248,615 $934,712 $907,998 -$907,998 $500,000 $8,462,986
ESTIMATED
TAXABLE
VALU E
$3,443,359,686
$3, 460, 576, 484
$3, 477, 879, 367
$3,495,268,764
$3, 512, 745,108
$3,530,308,833
$3,547,960,377
DEBT
SERVICE
TAX RATE
$0.03917
$0.02850
$0.01967
$0.01825
$0.01797
$0.01754
$0.01752
O&M TAX
RATE
$0.31673
$0.32740
$0.33623
$0.33765
$0.33793
$0.33836
$0.33838
" CURRENT DEBT SERVICE FUND BALANCE $1,188,907 - FY 2013 REPAYMENT OF THE RADIO TOWER LEASE WILL BE THROUGH DRAW DOWN OF AVAILABLE CASH IN DEBT SERVICE
FUND BALANCE. FY 2014 - 2016 RADIO TOWER LEASE REPAYMENTS ARE PLANNED TO BE MADE FROM AVAILABLE CASH OVER A LEVEL OF $750,000 FUND BALANCE.
L '' 'S ]' p F
�
�OL�EYV'�LLE
r E Y A `-'
Agenda Number ze
Type Presentation and Discussion
Department Fire
City of Colleyville
Colleyville City Council
Worksession
Agenda Briefing
Agenda Date 05/31/2012
Title
Review of Fire Department Staffing Plan (FY 2013 - 2015)
City Hall
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
www.colleyville.com
Number ze
Explanation
In February 2005, the citizens of Colleyville approved a bond election to construct one
fire station and purchase a ladder truck. In July 2005, City Council approved a change
to the construction of two fire stations and the future purchase of a ladder truck by
debt issuance. In November 2006, staff presented the City Council with a plan to hire
12 firefighters in FY 2012 in order to increase daily staffing to necessary levels for
manning three fire stations.
The new fire stations opened in January 2008 and the plan remained to add 12
personnel in FY 2012 to complete staffing. In May 2009, staff began to further analyze
the previous staffing plan due to the changes in economic and financial realities.
During this analysis, it became apparent the originally proposed staffing plan would not
be sustainable within the most recent budget projections that included a trend toward
declining revenues. Staff revised the staffing plan in its entirety to include changes to
the rank structure and new positions, all within a sustainable implementation schedule.
The revised six-year staffing plan was presented to the City Council in August 2009
and staff was given direction to proceed with the implementation of the incremental
six-year plan beginning with the FY 2010 budget. In October 2009, the Fire
Department implemented year one of the plan by adding three Battalion Chief
positions within the existing staffing to serve as the overall shift supervisor and
incident commander for each 24 hour shift. The cost for year one implementation was
$36,627. As a component of this part of the plan, one Battalion Chief position was
filled by shifting a Battalion Chief from Fire Administration to Operations and two
additional positions were promoted from within existing staffing. Shift staffing included
one shift with 11 personnel assigned and 10 personnel minimum on duty and two
shifts with 10 personnel assigned and nine personnel minimum on duty.
In October 2010, year two of the staffing plan was implemented with the creation of
nine Engineer positions within existing staffing. These personnel became the
designated drivers and operators of each fire apparatus for their assigned shift. Costs
for year two implementation were $32,500. Shift staffing remained at one shift with 11
personnel assigned and 10 personnel minimum on duty and two shifts with 10
City of Colleyville Page 1
City Council Worksession Agenda Briefing 2e
personnel assigned and nine personnel minimum on duty.
In April 2012, the third year of the plan was implemented when two
firefighter/paramedics were hired to fill out shift staffing to 11 personnel on each shift
with 10 personnel on duty minimum. This staffing increase has allowed the fire
department to have three personnel on Truck 243 (located at Station 3) at all times.
The three remaining years of the staffing plan include full year funding for the two
firefighters hired in April 2012 and the addition of six more firefighters in the final two
years of the plan. Three firefighters will be hired in October 2013 and three firefighters
in October 2014. The Fire Department's staffing at the conclusion of the plan will be 13
personnel assigned to each shift and a minimum of 12 personnel on duty at all times.
This staffing level ensures a minimum of three personnel on all fire apparatus at all
times. The following is a breakdown of the remaining budget years in the current plan
and their implementation costs:
FY 2013 - Fully fund the two firefighters hired in mid-year FY 2012 for FY 2013. Cost of
year four of the plan is $80,122 in addition to the funding included in FY 2012 at the
mid-year point.
FY 2014 - Add three firefighters to increase daily staffing to 12 personnel assigned to
each shift and 11 personnel minimum on duty. Cost for year five of the plan is
$240,366.
FY 2015 - Add three firefighters to increase daily staffing to 13 personnel assigned to
each shift and 12 personnel minimum on duty. Cost for year six of the plan is
$240,366.
The annual cumulative cost of implementation of the fire staffing plan for Fiscal Years
2013 through 2015 is estimated to total $560,854. Total cost of implementation over
the four-year period of 2012 through 2015 is $640,976. Funding for the plan is
expected to be available in future fiscal years within existing revenue sources based on
current financial projections. If financial projections change, the plan will be
reevaluated and potential changes could be recommended in order to fully implement
the plan under future revenue constraints. Once implemented, this plan will likely meet
the minimum staffing needs of the fire department for the next decade.
Future considerations beyond FY 2015 are the addition of one firefighter per shift and
the addition of a second staffed ambulance to meet the long term demands for
ambulance service in Colleyville. Beyond these two long term conditions, staffing in the
fire department will be sufficient and sustainable into the forseeable future.
The additional cost to implement year four of the plan is $80,122.
City of Colleyville Page 2
City Council Worksession Agenda Briefing 2e
Attachments
1. FY 2013 FD Staffing Plan Update
City of Colleyville Page 3
���.�,.E'Y"V'I
a e on
� re e a r men
.
a �n an
Russell Shelley
Fi re Ch ief
City Cou nci I Worksession
May 31, 2012
an oa s
• Provide o ti ma I customer service
p
with the least ossi ble fisca I i m act
p p
• En ha nce fi refi hter safet a nd
g Y
efficienc
y
• Create sust
that rotect
p
term
a i na ble staffi n levels
g
Col le vi I le for the lon
Y g
ti i 4�
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
■
a n m emen a �ons o a e:
• FY 2010 - Created (3)
with i n cu rrent staffi ng
command and control
Battalion Chief positions
to p rov i d e ove ra I I s h i ft
• FY 2011 - Created (9) Eng i neer positions with i n
cu rrent staffi ng to d rive a nd operate the fi re
a ppa ratus each day
• FY 2012 - Added (2) Firefighter/Paramedics in
April 2012 to increase all shifts to 11 personnel
and 10 minimum on duty
ti i 4�
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
:�
.
.
■
urren a �n
All shifts have a minimum staffing
person nel
One Battalion Chief per shift
of 10
Two personnel on the ambulance at all times
• Truck 241 and
two personnel,
personnel
Eng i ne 242 a re staffed with
Truck 243 is staffed with three
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
• Increase
Fi refi hte
g
2012 FY
ye a r to a
i
in fundin
g
fo r
r/Paramedics hired in
2012
full ea
y
two
A ril
p
bud et from a ha If
g
r i n FY 2013 bud et
g
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
i
• H i re th ree add itiona I fi refi hters to
g
i ncrease sh ift staffi n to 12
g
erson nel er sh ift with 11 erson nel
p p p
minimum at all times
• Th is staffi n level wi I I ensu re th ree
g
erson nel on En i ne 242 a nd Truck
p g
243 at a I I ti mes
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
i
• H i re th ree add itiona I fi refi hters to
g
i ncrease sh ift staffi n to 13
g
erson nel er sh ift a nd 12 erson nel
p p p
minimum at all times
• Ensures all fire a aratus are staffed
pp
with at least th ree erson nel at a I I
p
ti m es
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
.
.
.
■
uure os s�maes
FY 2013 - 80,122
FY 2014 - 240,366
FY 2015 - 240,366
• Total Cost: $560,854
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
ummar
• What is accom I ished th rou h
p g
com letion of th is la n:
p p
• 3 person staffing on all fire apparatus
by October 2014
• Battalion Chiefs on each shift
• Eng i neers to operate each fi re
apparatus
ti i 4�
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Futu re Considerations after FY 2015
• H i ri n th ree fi refi hters one er
g g p
sh ift - 240 366
,
• Placi n a second a m bu la nce i n
g
service at Fi re Station # 3- 650,000
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
ues �ons
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
L '' 'S ]' p F
�
�OL�EYV'�LLE
r E Y A `-'
Agenda Number 2f
Type Presentation and Discussion
Department Police
City of Colleyville
Colleyville City Council
Worksession
Agenda Briefing
Agenda Date 05/31/2012
Title
Police Department Priorities and Future Strategies
City Hall
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
www.colleyville.com
Number 2f
Explanation
Over the last several months, the police department has conducted an analysis of the
critical areas of the department including: current staffing levels, staff development,
policy and procedures, technology and equipment. The analysis has culminated in a
strategic initiative for the upcoming fiscal year. The strategies addressed in this
briefing are designed to provide a specific course of action that will assist the police
department in building a bridge to the future, by implementing recognized best
practices, utilizing innovative technology, and investing in recruiting, retaining, and
developing quality employees.
As part of the strategic initiative, staff recommends the continued implementation of
the staffing plan that was approved by the City Council in 2011. The first phase of the
staffing plan was implemented in the current FY 2012 budget by upgrading five officer
positions to the rank of corporal. Four of the positions are assigned to the patrol
division and one corporal position is located in the criminal investigations division. A
patrol corporal was placed on each of the four patrol shifts and it was mandated that
either a corporal or sergeant be on duty at all times. The corporal position provides an
additional career development step for police officers to enhance the department's
personnel development process and succession planning. In addition, the staffing plan
calls for an additional officer position in FY 2012.
The position was added to the department's sworn allocation at mid-year however, as
of this date has not been filled. The department is currently in the process of
interviewing officer candidates from a recently administered Police Agency Combined
Testing exam in an attempt to fill five current and/or anticipated vacancies. Staff is in
the process of analyzing the approved command staff position to determine if the
position remains a high priority and will include the findings in the future.
It is recommended that the department add an additional officer position in FY 2013 to
bring the total sworn staffing to 40, which is consistent with the approved staffing
plan. The additional officer position will assist in maintaining the low crime rate and
high level of police services and assist the department in increasing minimum patrol
staffing levels. In addition, the proposed staffing increase would help in further
City of Colleyville Page 1
City Council Worksession Agenda Briefing 2f
implementing a comprehensive community policing philosophy, facilitate continued
innovation and career development within the department, increase opportunities for
advanced training toward officer safety, and provide for increased minimum staffing in
patrol. The anticipated cost for the additional officer position is approximately $75,704.
It is recommended this position be funded through the Colleyville Crime Control and
Prevention District.
The strategic initiative also addresses current staff development deficiencies by
providing for the identification of career development positions within the department
that will allow officer and supervisor exposure to varied assignments and
responsibilities and better prepare them to become the leaders of the department in
the future. The current recruit training field officer program is also in the process of a
paradigm shift. The current training model has been in place for many years and is
becoming out-dated. The police department will update the training curriculum,
provide field-training officers additional training and resources, and better integrate
technology into the program. The anticipated cost for the additional training is
approximately $1,200 and will be proposed as part of the FY 2012 budget.
The police department will also continue to update current policies and procedures. As
an example of this, the department recently applied to, and was accepted into, the
Texas Police Chief's Association Foundation ��Recognition Program." This program will
ensure the Colleyville Police Department policies and procedures meet or exceed
recognized best practices. The anticipated cost for this is $1,200; however, the Texas
Municipal League provides a scholarship and the Recognition Program will submit an
application on the City's behalf.
Another critical area for the department is technology. The police department has not
fully utilized technology in many areas. Proper utilization of technology will allow us to
improve efficiency, employee training and service delivery. An example is the current
need for crime analysis software to assist in the gathering and disseminating of
criminal intelligence to our officers. The department has the data and the hardware
capability but has lacked the necessary software to do the analysis. The strategic
initiative will implement improvements and innovation in this area by increasing
internal technological capabilities and expand social media presence, develop
innovative e-learning solutions, utilize personal digital cameras, and examine less than
lethal force alternatives. The anticipated cost for this area is $4,000. It is
recommended this be funded through the Colleyville Crime Control and Prevention
District FY 2013 budget.
An additional critical strategic area is recruiting and retaining quality officers. The
police department is experiencing attrition all too frequently. The department has
identified a number of employees who have left or are in the process of leaving the
organization. The vast majority of these officers have left with between five and seven
years of service. Replacing officers is an expensive undertaking. The cost of recruiting,
hiring, training, and equipping officers is approximately $75,000 to $100,000 for the
City of Colleyville Page 2
City Council Worksession Agenda Briefing 2f
first year and approximately $400,000 over five years. Losing officers at the five, six,
or seven-year mark negatively affects the City's bottom line. Officers need to remain
with the department six to seven years to break even on the investment and much
longer to see a real return on the investment. Frequent turnover also negatively affects
the morale of the department. In addition, high turnover makes it difficult to engrain a
culture of excellence throughout the organization. Factors such as market competition,
staff development, and salary compression were identified by staff as contributing to
officer attrition issue.
An analysis of the current salary structure revealed that no Colleyville officers are at
the maximum salary range, in spite of having three officers with more than 21 years of
service. We also currently have a 15-year officer that earns less than a five-year
officer, although they both have the same job function and perform satisfactorily. The
analysis further revealed the department only has four officers that earn more than the
midpoint of the salary range, yet at least nine officers have more than 15 years of
service. The pay range appears on the surface to be competitive however, due to
officers not moving through the salary range, we are falling behind. Addressing the
salary compression issue is critical if we are to be competitive in retaining our quality
employees.
Staff recommends a 14-step compensation plan that will attract and retain quality
employees. It is recommended the plan be implemented in FY 2013 by placing sworn
employees in their proper step through a salary adjustment. This adjustment would
address the compression issue and provide structure and security for officers. In
addition, long-term stability and structure will enable the department to better develop
employees and engrain a different culture in the organization. The estimated cost of
implementation for FY 2013, including benefits, is $246,641.
Attachments
1. Police Department Priorities and Future Stratgies Presentation
City of Colleyville Page 3
o e vi e Po ice De artment
y
trate i c I n iti ative
��Buildin a Brid e to the Future"
g g
�ity �;ou nci I '�orksession
May 31, 2012
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Strate ic Initiative Overview
g
The Strateg ic
specific cou rse
Depa rtment i n
In itiative
of action
��Building
is desig ned to
that wi I I assist
a Bridge to the
provide a
the Pol ice
Futu re"
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Goa Is Statement -��The Futu re"
• Maintain the lowest crime rate in Tarrant County
• Be recognized as the model law enforcement agency in
Ta rra nt Cou nty
• Be recognized as the model law enforcement agency in
North Texas
• Ach ieve Texas Best Practices Recog n ition Status th roug h
the Texas Pol ice Ch ief's Association Fou ndation
• Achieve national accreditation through the Commission on
Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA)
• Recruit, retain and develop employees committed to
excellence
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
CPD Strate ic Initiative ��Brid e
g g
Builders"
Implement
Improvements
&
Innovate
Policy & Procedure
�
Technology &
Equipment
Staffing & Staff
Development
�
_�
_� __ �" __ _ _
Best Practices
��
,� , �
Recruit,
Reta i n &
Train
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Staffi n& Staff Develo ment Strate ies
g p g
Staffing & Staff
Development
• Continue implementation of council approved staffing plan
• Identify career development positions
• Modify employee training paradigm
• Proper policy, procedures, equipment to enhance safety
• Mental Health Police Officer Certification program
• Address identified compensation issues
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
CPD Cu rrent Or Cha rt
g
�����t��,�� -
LIt1LIGt9f�-'u11f�
{7�
1 '3'Wttil "c r+',,�f9� i'�
Wt
{ci'j
I F.luul C�.pr'c_wrils
�4}
Prliul 4fPi�urv �T:'Eif11� - 1�3l3
['1 al ! �°:�
�al[e�y�ilG� F�+�Ci�� C���artr��rtt
�r��r�i��tic���l �F��rt
����
��,��� �� P�����
L namri 17�.rx:nrcl�
� nnr+i E r:�+.c9r
iy s
i'rrr�; r Fl m
tv�?OP'� 6 f11 �4f
�1}
i Sf11r-.G &aalKYan I
[1}
Fi€�m ftl3 �lU 1+3 eld'3
r
{��
R�Vi�:C�r1 hA:l� ?�, ;rC1'C?.
: P_P.fSfIf�P.�
�iallf�Flcif �t
t��
���araonna� t p
C}fri�va
�.�}
vl+�rran! Offia�ur
5�}
� Ofl'lT LJ ft I t'�'
� c r �ic c� .7NI�.e ��
t�9
� .;r:hrs��l C'.rr�wginy�
�u:ar:la� _
[1�,
4: ;�1{e F�'7Yprr,:nr'tr,_r'J
r ar�cr�:,
I'I I
+4rlr^'I:bl C=nr�.I�rcM
[�11i-��ar
�',
�eiminol
li rursli�aaliui i�
��rQ��+ r,'
�_�r
I nvn :�-.ip:�' iti ,n.5
t�c:t FxMr:al
l%?
III � P�V'AS99(;-l�e"iYS
I ���
:3e:1 w..�l Fiero�_���i�.:r
i.��i�?FSnr,'�I
I`�
�1.� p.�4i� �.4?w�.�lal4:�y
LJ � C:°PY
ir�t
t: t ��
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
A roved Staffi n Pla n
pp g
• In 2011 the City Council approved a staffing plan for the police
department that includes;
— Adding an additional sworn staffing position each fiscal year
for four years beginning with FY 2012 (FY 2012 Position was
added mid-year)
— Upgrade five police officer positions to corporals to provide
opportunity for development and greater patrol supervision
(Corporals were appointed in FY 2012)
— Implementing additional command staff position at the rank of
Captain (This position has not been filled nor funded)
• FY 2013 staffing plan recommends the addition of one sworn
position at the cost of $75,704 (It is recommended that this
position be funded out of the Colleyville Crime Control and
Prevention District Budget)
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Challen es to Recruit & Retain ualit
Q
g Y
Em lo ees who fit Col le vi I le
p Y Y
• Changes in Leadership Philosophy
• Competition with other cities for high quality employees
- Police Agency Combined Testing (PACT)
• Compensation Design
- Step Plan (15 steps) prior to 2006
- Merit Based Plan in 2006 - present
• Frozen in 2009
• Training & Development
- Opportunities/variety
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Outcomes of Cha I len es
g
• Officer Recruitment & Retention
— No officers with 7 to 11 years of service
— Return on Investment (ROI)
•�� years ago, the people who got hired would stay and now they're not.
They'll stay five or six years and then move on to other departments
with better benefits.�� (from PERF article re: recruiting officers)
• Salary Compression
— Small difference in pay regardless of experience,
skill level or seniority
• No sworn officers at maximum of salary range
• 14 yr officer ea rn i ng less tha n 5 yr officer
• Only 4 officers earning more than the midpoint of salary
range
• Pay range overlap between ranks
— Low incentive to promote
ti i 4�
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
�°�
��. _
� a
�
� �� �����
�i � �: � _
�
� �. ����
� Y��i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
.
Com ensation Desi n- Ste Pla ns
p g p
Part of public safety culture
• More prevalent in public safety jobs
— Helps with competition/attractiveness
• Allows management to plan & budget long-term,
as wel I as provide structu re & secu rity for officers
• Performance management is a
com ponent from com pensation
develop accou nta bi I ity systems
• May be tied to step plan in
employee does not meet at
performance evaluation
sepa rate
desig ned to
for ou r em ployees
the event a n
least Silver on annual
ti i 4�
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Pa Pla n Com a risons
Y p
Department
Colleyville
Euless
H u rst
Keller
North Richland Hills
Southlake
Grapevine
Arlington
Fri sco
Grand Prairie
Irving
Plano
Pay Plan
Merit
Annual Market Increases
2 Step
Merit
Annual Market Increases
10 Step
6 Step
9 Step
8 Step
8 Step
7 Step
11 Step
Salary Scale
$48,610 - $65,767
$49,644 - $66,024
$58,680 - $64,248
$43,368 - $60,420
$49,200 - $64,752
$40,622 - $53,005
$48,801 - $66,052
$47,153 - $66,372
$44,903 - $68,238
$50,100 - $68,826
$50,892 - $68,208
$57,763 - $75,855
ti L��i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Staff Recom mendation to Bu i Id i n a
g
Bri d e to th e Futu re
g
• Implement a 14 Step Plan for police officers, 8
Steps for Sergeants and Lieutenants
• FY 2013 process would slot employees where
thei r yea rs of service wou Id place them
• FY 2014 and beyond, employees would move
through the steps on their anniversary date
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Ste Pla n Im lementation Outcomes
p p
• Highly competitive for quality employees
• Improves ability to retain quality employees
• Retaining employees will fix the ��gap in the
bridge"
• Return on Investment will improve
• Addresses compression issue/overlapping salary
ranges
• Long-term stability and structure will enable a
culture of excellence to become engrained in the
orga n ization
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Staff Recom mendation FY 2013
Cost
Position
Summar
y
Police Officer
Sergeant
Lieutenant
Current Proposed
Salary Salary
$1,626,601 $1,760,550
$325,754
$160,816
$359,448
$169, 345
Salary
Difference
$133,949
$33,694
$8,529
Total $2,113,171 $2,289,343 $176,172
Benefit Total Cost
Cost Increase
$53,580 $187,529
$13,478
$3,412
$70,469
$47,172
$11,941
$246,641
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
FY 2014 - 2018 Estimated Step Plan Cost
• Approximate forecast of FY14 through FY18 step-plan increase cost for Police Officer
— FY14: $39,467
— FY15: $32,596
— FY16: $32,613
— FY17: $24,021
— FY18: $22,301
Approximate forecast of FY14 through FY18 step-plan increase cost for Police
Sergeant
— FY14: $3,839
— FY15: $1,284
— FY16: $2,563
— FY17 : $1, 280
— FY18: $1,284
Approximate forecast of FY14 through FY18 step-plan increase cost for Police
Lieutenant
— FY14: $1,473
— FY15: $1,473
— FY16: $1,473
— FY17: $0
ti i 4�
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Add itiona I�� Brid e Bu i Iders"
g
�, 3.
Technology &
Equipment
• Procure and implement crime analysis software
• Expand our internal technological capabilities
• Personal digital cameras
• Expand our social media presence
• Develop innovative e-learning solutions
• Examine less lethal force alternatives
Staffing &
Staff
Development
�., ,��
•Proper policy, procedures, equipment to
enhance safety
•Mental Health Police Officer Certification
program
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
uestions a nd Discussion
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
L '' 'S ]' p F
�
�OL�EYV'�LLE
r E Y A `-'
City of Colleyville
Colleyville City Council
Worksession
Agenda Briefing
City Hall
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
www.colleyville.com
Agenda Number zg Agenda Date 05/31/2012 Number zg
Type Presentation and Discussion
Department Police
Title
Presentation and Discussion of a Proposal to Regionalize Animal Control Services
Explanation
As part of the overall strategic plan of the Police Department, staff spent several
months exploring long-term options for Colleyville's animal control services. Currently,
there is one full-time animal control officer and shelter services are contracted with the
City of Hurst. Notification has been received from Hurst that Colleyville's fees will
significantly increase at the end of the current contract in January 2013, making an
alternative solution desirable.
Also seeking a long-term solution to their existing animal control services situation, the
City of Keller brought forward to Colleyville, a discussion regarding the potential of a
regionalization of animal control services based on the model used by Colleyville,
Keller, Southlake, and Westlake for public safety communication and jail services. A
course of action, which included the identification of any other suitable partners, a
cost/benefit analysis, and a level of service study were decided on. The scope of the
research included a review of the annual number of animal service calls for each city,
availability, and compatibility of regional partners, affect on current operations, and an
analysis of possible impacts on service delivery to the citizens, should regionalization
take place.
The initial stage of the regionalization study focused on the identification of suitable
partners to potentially join Colleyville and Keller. This search for suitable partners
focused on similar city population, demographics, and levels of service. It was
determined Southlake would again be a suitable partner.
Regionalization with Keller and Southlake is feasible for several reasons. All three cities
have similar demographics and expectations of service. The police chiefs from the
three cities are committed to successful regionalization and attentive stewardship of
city resources in terms of cost effectiveness and providing enhanced levels of service.
Colleyville, Keller, and Southlake currently share the same records management
systems, operating standards, and operational protocol, as well as contiguous borders
with mutual aid compacts already in place. Colleyville has a need for a long-term
solution to the existing animal control and sheltering services. Keller has an existing
shelter that is in the process of expansion. Once complete, the facility will be 9,465
City of Colleyville Page 1
City Council Worksession Agenda Briefing 2g
square feet and include an adoption center, play yard, and kennel area. The facility is
scheduled for completion in November 2014. The regionalization with Keller and
Southlake would offer all three cities additional hours of service and a shelter with
room for expansion.
Regionalization appears to be the future direction for small and medium size agencies
as a means to reduce redundancy and improve service and staffing levels. The overall
purpose for the regionalization of animal control services is to achieve a more effective
and efficient delivery of services to all three communities, while maintaining excellent
customer service. The advantages of regionalization with Keller and Southlake include:
improved animal services to all three communities, increased agency cooperation,
reduction of redundancy in operations, better utilization of building and technical
resources, increased training time for employees, cost savings and cost avoidance,
sufficient staffing for dedicated shelter and adoption personnel and improved
compliance with state and national standards for humane treatment of animals. If
regionalization does occur, Colleyville residents will experience a seamless transition of
animal control services. Colleyville's current animal control officer will become an
employee of Keller and will be assigned to the regional operation. However, she will
remain the primary responder for Colleyville. As occurred with the prior regionalization
of services, Colleyville's current animal control officer will also receive a regional
stipend that will serve as a salary increase, due to the additional regional
responsibilities.
There are three different models for animal control regionalization proposed. The
short-term model would be scheduled to begin in October 2012. This would involve the
transfer of employees to the City of Keller and will utilize the current Keller shelter
facility. This model would provide for three full-time animal control officers and one
part-time kennel technician. The long-term model would include the opening of the
larger facility and the addition of a shelter manager and an additional part-time kennel
technician in November 2014. The enhanced long-term model would involve
transitioning the adoption management function of the center to the Humane Society,
which would eliminate the shelter manager cost. This is possible due to the Humane
Society providing the service at no cost. Under all these models, increased hours of
field operations and enhanced shelter operations would be realized. The increased
staffing would facilitate more opportunities for training, allow for dedicated shelter
personnel, and provide future cost savings through shared expenditures
The costs under the regionalization model will be based on workload percentages.
Based on an analysis of the current workload of all three cities, Colleyville's cost
percentages will be 24 percent for calls for service and 10 percent for impoundments.
Colleyville's current program costs are approximately $69,632 and first year savings
under the regional short-term model would be approximately $10,625. Long-term
costs will increase slightly to offset the capital cost of the expanded facility. The range
of the expenditure increase will be from $12,850 under the enhanced long-term model,
which includes the anticipation that the Humane Society will manage the adoption part
City of Colleyville Page 2
City Council Worksession Agenda Briefing 2g
of the shelter, to $26,922 if Keller manages the entire operation. However, this
expenditure increase will be offset internally by eliminating the need for anticipated
equipment purchases under Colleyville's existing animal control program
If regionalization occurs, the recommended start date would be October 1, 2012 and
the initial contract would be for an initial term of ten (10) years commencing on
October 1, 2012, and ending September 30, 2022, and may be extended thereafter by
mutual consent for two successive five (5) year terms. The contracts would include an
option for exiting the regional center upon a 24-month written notification. Keller
would make annual notifications to Colleyville regarding the estimated costs for the
upcoming budget year by May 30th and no more than 5% could be added to that
estimate prior to October 1 of the same year. Performance measures would be agreed
upon by all three cities and monthly reports would be provided to each agency.
Keller will form a standing committee consisting of one (1) Southlake Department of
Public Safety employee selected by the Director of the Southlake Department of Public
Safety, one (1) Keller employee selected by the Keller Chief of Police, and one (1)
Colleyville employee selected by the Colleyville Chief of Police to address operational
and policy decisions related to the operation of the Regional Animal Control Services
and Shelter.
Keller will establish an enterprise fund designated to defray the costs of operating
Animal Control and Shelter Services for each of the participating cities, deposit into
such fund all cat and dog annual registration fees, and associated shelter and adoption
fees collected by or for each of the participating cities, and apply all such deposited
funds to the designated purpose. Keller will provide an annual accounting report of the
funds collected, the amounts deposited into such enterprise fund, and the expenditures
from such fund to Southlake and Colleyville.
This item will be placed on a future City Council agenda to address any pending
questions. If an interlocal agreement is approved, the relocation planning process
would begin immediately, along with a public information process.
Attachments
1. Discussion of a Proposal to Regionalize Animal Control Services
City of Colleyville Page 3
���.�,.E'Y"V'I
PR P AL T RE I NALIZE
AN I MAL NTR L E RVI E
Cities of Colleyville, Keller, Southlake
City Council Worksession
May 31, 2012
Wh Re iona I ize Services
Y g
• Enhance service levels and coverage to
the communities of Colleyville, Keller, and
Southlake
• Take advantage of cost savings resulting
from the pool i ng of resou rces
• Expand service offerings to customers
• Provide a long-term sol ution for An i ma I
Control Services
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Cu rrent O erati n Costs
p g
Personnel
Contract Services
Supplies
Building/Vehicle
Maintenance
Training/Dues/Other
Lease Agreement
TOTA L
KELLER
$125, 365
0
$9,365
$2,230
$8,435
$1, 090
$146,485
SOUTHLAKE
$53,730
$14,400
$3,000
$2,500
$400
0
$74,030
COLLEYVILLE
$54,558
$11,339
$935
$2,500
$300
�
$69, 632
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
An i ma I Services Activit
y
Dispatch Calls
for Service
(Projected)
Percentage
Im pounds
(Projected)
Percentage
KELLER
1943
50%
1164
75%
SOUTHLAKE
1010
26%
233
15%
COLLEYVILLE
932
24%
155
10%
TOTAL
..
.
1522
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Enhanced Service Model -
Short Term for FY 2013 - 2014
• 2 Full time Field Animal Control Officers (ACO) to
serve Col leyvi I le, Kel ler, South la ke (ACO Watson
to remain primary for Colleyville)
• 1 Full time Shelter ACO to handle walk-ins,
adoptions, and care for animals
• 1 Part Time Kennel Tech for cleaning and feeding
of animals
• Extended hou rs of field
7:00 p.m. (Monday -
coverage from 9: 00 a. m.
operations 9: 00 a. m.-
Friday) and Saturday
- 12:00 Noon.
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Re iona I izi n An i ma I Services -
g g
Short Term Costs
3 Animal Control
Officers
Overtime
1 Kennel
Technician
(Part Time)
Supplies
Training/Dues
Other
IT
Building/Vehicle
Maintenance
Tota I:
Keller
Southlake
Colleyville
Expenses
Shared @
50/26/24%
$198,555
$ 7,000
$ 9,500
$ 1,090
$ 3,345
$219,490
$109,745
$ 57,067
$ 52,678
G &A
Expenses
$8,976
$4,847
$4,129
Su b-Tota I
$198,555
$ 7,000
$ 12,000
$ 10,000
$ 9,500
$ 1,090
$ 3,345
$228,465
$ 109,745
$ 61,914
$ 56,807
Expenses Shared Total
@ 75/15/10%
$198,555
$ 7,000
$12,000 $12,000
$10,000 $10,000
$ 9,500
$ 1,090
$ 3,345
$22,000 $250,465
$16,500 $126,245
$ 3,300 $ 65,214
$ 2,200 $ 59,007
i ���i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
In itia l Savi n s Short-Term Model
g
Current Operating
Costs
Projected Cost of
Regional Services
Sa vings
KELLER
$146,485
$126, 245
$20,240
SOUTHLAKE
$74,030
$65,214
$8,816
COLLEYVILLE
$69,632
$59,007
$10, 625
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Enhanced Service Model -
Lon Term - Earl FY 2014
g Y
.
.
.
.
.
3 Fu I I ti me Field ACOs (ACO Watson to rema i n
primary for Colleyville)
1 Full time Shelter Manager
1 Full Time Kennel Technician
Kennel Technician
and 1 Part time
Newly constructed 9,465 SF Adoption Center with
play yard. (November 2014)
Extended hou rs of field operations to 8: 00 a. m.-
8: 00 p. m. and Saturday 8: 00 a. m. - 12:00 Noon
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Regionalizing Animal Services -
Long Term Option 1
No participation w/Humane Society
3 Animal Control
Officers
Overtime
Shelter Manager
2 Kennel
Technicians
(2Part Time)
Supplies
Training/Dues/
Other
IT
Building/Vehicle.
Maintenance
Tota I :
Keller
Southlake
Colleyville
Expenses
Shared @
50/26/24
%
$198,555
$ 7,000
$ 10,000
$ 8,000
$ 20,000
$243,555
$121,777
$ 63,324
$ 58,453
G &A
Expenses
$ 19,534
$ 10,733
$ 8,801
Capital Cost
$143,950
$123,950
$ 11,000
$ 9,000
Su b-Tota I
$198,555
$ 7,000
$ 75,000
$ 24,000
$ 14,000
$ 10,000
$ 8,000
$ 20,000
$407,039
$245,727
$ 85,057
$ 76,254
Expenses
Shared @
75/15/10%
$ 75,000
$ 24,000
$ 14,000
$113,000
$ 84,750
$ 16,950
$ 11,300
Tota I
$198,555
$ 7,000
$ 75,000
$ 24,000
$ 14,000
$ 10,000
$ 8,000
$ 20,000
$520,039
$330,477
$102,007
$ 87,554
t. t ��
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Regionalizing Animal Services -
Long Term Option 2
Humane Society Operates Adoption Portion of Shelter
3 Animal Control
Officers
Overtime
Shelter Manager
2 Kennel
Technicians (2Part
Time)
Supplies
Training/Dues/
Other
IT
Building/Vehicle
Maintenance
Tota I:
Keller
Southlake
Colleyville
Expenses
Shared @
50/26/24%
$198,555
$ 7,000
$ 10,000
$ 8,000
$ 20,000
$243,555
$121,777
$ 63,324
$ 58,453
G&A
Expenses
$ 8,976
$ 4,847
$ 4,129
Capital Cost
$143,950
$123,950
$ 11,000
$ 9,000
Sub-Total
$198,555
$ 7,000
$ 12,000
$ 7,000
$ 10,000
$ 8,000
$ 20,000
$396,481
$245,727
$ 79,171
$ 71,582
Expenses
Shared @
75/15/10%
$ 12,000
$ 7,000
$ 19,000
$ 14,250
$ 2,850
$ 1,900
Tota I
$198,555
$ 7,000
$ 12,000
$ 7,000
$ 10,000
$ 8,000
$ 20,000
$415,481
$259,977
$ 82,021
$ 73,482
t. t ��
'!1�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Additional Costs -
Long Term Option 1
No participation w/Humane Society
Current Operating
Costs
Long-Term Regional
Costs
Capital Expense
Cost Increase
KELLER
$146,485
$206,527
$123,950
$183,992
SOUTHLAKE
$74,030
$91,007
11 000
$27, 977
COLLEYVILLE
$69,632
$87,554
9 000
$26, 922
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Add itiona I Costs - Long Term Option 2
H u ma ne Society Operates Adoption
Portion of Shelter
Current Operating
Costs
Long-Term Regional
Costs
Capital Expense
Cost Increase
KELLER
$146,485
$136, 027
$123,950
$113,492
SOUTHLAKE
$74,030
$71,021
11 000
$7,991
COLLEYVILLE
$69,632
$82,482
9 000
$12,850
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Pro osed An i ma I Shelter
p
a nd Ado tion Center
p
� ; � :. . _ _
_ : ,
,
: , , ,
� � �
� _: ;_ _
,
� `�'� ���- - ;--
d ��� � -� � � � -- ;- —
- i c`� � O � _. � -- � �
k , _.._ . .� w � "� J. � .
1
� Y 1.1 � � ;� � * _ . — f "_— . .
� � 1
� . � � � , { 1 i _ . ..
, j �� .. � � � �, � . _ _—1 . .
t . Q .. - . -. �. --� y _
� i } l .�� � ' . .
t # � ` F_..� �.t'{j �_ , '
� � � ;� � �- -4i"�,
� � -- f, � - � -
. , ° ` � td
w:
< � � � _
� � r. --
'�' � - � _ - —_ —_ _ °--�
� � r � --
*� ; x t ` �`� �
o �
� �
' Lv
� M1
� �� `
I �
� . . ' N
V # � i � 1 :
t
�?
� � ; � ;
z + �+�
� 5 i < '"
< .
; ,,� \Z o � � �, I - - - - ..., . . _
�; ;,, --- . .:. �_ ...
�
\� ���' �� � � .
�'`��'�.,� � �� � ° � ! ° � sj; � �, � 4
i � 14 ��
\\ .� � �;
Z ,�. `�.i `sy_,f+� ` \\ �. `�r � � �} i ` :
L \ `\ �
,] ' 4� i�'�� 1\ i �. 1 .1
�%.�� f -
_ . ��,. - . � — . �
i q ii j
i� � � � ,.:: �S�lli` '�;'� � . i��, � I
� ` ' �j } � f
' ti ,1 ' ��I � �
� y �`� �4 - _ ��
��� � -I- " , ��
,, �
:�_�� �- � - `' ' � ��
,ii � �' �
4
,� ,- —
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
. �
ues �ons.
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
L '' 'S ]' p F
�
�OL�EYV'�LLE
r E Y A `-'
Agenda Number 2h
Type Presentation and Discussion
Department Public Works
City of Colleyville
Colleyville City Council
Worksession
Agenda Briefing
Agenda Date 05/31/2012
City Hall
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
www.colleyville.com
Title
Update on the street condition assessment and analysis of the results
Number 2h
Explanation
At a City Council worksession on December 8, 2011, Public Works staff made a
presentation to City Council on the need to develop a long range infrastructure
management plan for the City's streets, water and sewer lines, drainage system, parks
and public buildings. A major focus of the presentation was Colleyville's street
system. In February 2012, a street condition assessment was conducted by Applied
Research Associates (ARA), a national engineering firm that specializes in pavement
management. After the data was collected by driving all of Colleyville's public streets
and using video and radar technology, a pavement condition index rating (PCI) was
assigned to every public street segment in the City. These PCI ratings range from zero
(0) to 100, where 100 indicates new pavement and zero (0) indicates virtually no
pavement. It is important to understand that the PCI is only an evaluation of the
surface condition of the pavement, and does not take into account factors such as
pavement thickness, street width, shoulder width, and drainage conditions such as bar
ditches. In order to develop a long range maintenance and reconstruction program
based on severity of need, it was necessary to use the PCI in conjunction with the
other street characteristics (pavement thickness, street width, etc.) to develop an
overall street condition index (OCI). This index also ranges from zero (0) to 100,
where 100 indicates a new street constructed to current Land Development Code
standards.
The OCI takes into account several factors beyond the just surface condition. The
OCIs were developed by staff after extensive research and data collection efforts that
included taking street borings to determine pavement thickness and field
measurements of street width, shoulder width, degree of shoulder slope, and depth of
bar ditches. The factors that make up the OCI are:
Pavement Condition Index
Pavement Section Thickness
Pavement Width
Presence of Curb and Gutters
Stabilized Sub-grade
Existing Roadside Ditch Safet�
City of Colleyville
40%
20%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Page 1
City Council Worksession Agenda Briefing 2h
By establishing the OCI, a rating system has been developed that looks at several
factors - not just the surface conditions. However, the OCI must be used in
conjunction with the PCI as both the PCI and OCI only tell a portion of the story when
they are viewed independently. Looking at the PCI and OCI together results in a more
complete picture of the overall street condition. For the majority of the street
segments in Colleyville the PCIs and the OCIs are not the same. Some street
segments have a high PCI and a low OCI, while others have a low PCI and a high
OCI. By looking at both of the values in conjunction with each other, a much more
complete understanding of the overall conditions can be determined. This is best
illustrated by looking at the following two different street segments:
Lavaca Trail has a section of street that has a PCI of 13 and an OCI of 25. The
pavement on Lavaca Trail is in very poor shape, but the street has very shallow bar
ditches that act as shoulders and is more than 24 feet wide, resulting in an OCI of 25.
Looking at both the PCI and OCI reveals that the existing pavement is in poor
condition and needs to be replaced (the PCI is too low to justify any maintenance
technique and should be reconstructed), but the street cross section may be safer than
some street sections with higher PCIs because of the width of the pavement and the
shoulders.
L.D. Lockett Road has a section of street that was rehabilitated in the 2011 Street
Rehabilitation Project and thus has a PCI of 100. The OCI of that section, however, is
only 70. The OCI is low primarily because the street segment has deep ditch lines, no
curbs and gutters, no shoulders, and the pavement width is less than 24 feet. The fact
that the OCI score is significantly lower than the PCI score indicates that the road is
not constructed to current standards. The rehabilitation work done in 2011 will extend
the life of L.D. Lockett Road for a few more years, but will not last 50 years, even with
good maintenance.
A sound infrastructure management program has two components - ongoing
maintenance to extend the useful life of what is in place now, and reconstruction to
optimize future investment. While reconstruction is more expensive (approximately
$55 a square yard), a street has a life of at least 50 years when properly maintained.
That means that the average annual cost for reconstruction is $1.10 per square yard
over the 50 year life of the street. When a street is reconstructed to meet the City's
current development standards, it will address drainage issues and safety
concerns such as removing bar ditches at the edge of the pavement and eliminating
sight distance issues where they currently exist. Reclamation, on the other hand,
basically puts back what existed before (narrow width, bar ditches, etc.) but has a
thicker pavement section. At a cost of about $25 per square yard, and a life
expectancy of 15-18 years, reclamation has an average annual cost of between $1.39
and $1.67 a square yard over the reclaimed life of the street. In addition, the
recurring preventive maintenance costs for the reconstructed streets are significantly
lower than for the reclaimed streets, because there is no requirement for ditch and
City of Colleyville Page 2
City Council Worksession Agenda Briefing 2h
shoulder maintenance when a street is reconstructed to City standards.
The City Engineer has calculated the OCI for every public street segment in Colleyville
and analyzed the overall condition of the City's street system. The results show that
the overall network PCI (surface condition only) is 76.4 and the network OCI is 74.2.
This means that the overall system is in good condition, but the high overall ratings
are driven in part by the large number of residential (local) concrete streets that were
constructed during the last two decades when Colleyville was experiencing rapid
residential growth. On the other end of the spectrum, more than 50% of Colleyville's
asphalt arterials and collectors (non-local) are rated below 70. This is because most of
the asphalt streets were constructed by the county before Colleyville was incorporated,
and the maintenance done on those streets did not bring them up to the current
standards required by the Land Development Code. The majority of these streets need
to be completely reconstructed to the current standard required by the Land
Development Code. Attached is a technical report that analyzes in detail the condition
of the City's streets. Among the findings is a determination that in order to maintain
the current PCl/OCI ratings, a minimum of $2.7 million needs to be invested annually
on the city's street system. A portion of that amount needs to be dedicated to
maintenance ($1.1 million) and a portion to reconstruction ($1.6 million). Currently,
$1.15 million annually is dedicated to contract street maintenance.
The Land Development Code requires all new streets to be constructed with either
concrete or asphalt and requires standing curbs and gutters and storm drains. The
minimum width for a local (residential) street is 30 feet and the minimum width for a
minor collector is 42 feet. An arterial street is required to have a total pavement width
of at least 52 feet and have four (4) lanes with a median. Given the rural residential
character of Colleyville, a review of the street design standard requirements as a part
of the comprehensive plan update staff will be recommended in FY 2013. Review may
result in a recommendation for narrower non-local streets and a different curb design
for all streets. The attached presentation includes a proposed cross section for non-
local streets that provides for shoulders, good drainage without deep bar ditches, and
a non-standing curb that protects the edge of the pavement from breaking off when
motorists veer off the road. The suggested cross section is also less expensive to
construct than what is required by the Land Development Code. A nearby example of
this type of road design can be seen on Continental Drive in Southlake and Whitley
Road in Keller. Photographs of these streets are also included in the attached
presentation.
In putting together a long range infrastructure management plan, consideration should
be given to the 2008 Street Capital Improvement Plan. This plan was developed
before the recent detailed analysis of the condition of Colleyville's streets was
completed. Following is a list of the streets in the 2008 Street Capital Improvement
Plan for which improvement work is not scheduled in FY 2012 or was completed in
prior years. Staff recommends that these previously identified projects be re-
evaluated to determine where they rank in the overall priority of the City's
City of Colleyville Page 3
City Council Worksession Agenda Briefing 2h
infrastructure needs.
Street
Ponderosa Lane/
Kingston Dr/ McCain Ln
Black Drive
Frontier Court
Martin Parkway & Cheek
Sparger Intersection
Glade Road & Riverwalk
Dr Intersection
Central Dr
Kenshire Dr
Bettinger Dr
Walter Ln
Acuff Ln
Coachman Ln
Scope
Street Reconstruction/ Utility
improvements/ Sidewalks
renewals/ Drainage
Street Reconstruction/ Utility renewals/ Drainage
improvements/ Sidewalks
� Street Reconstruction/ Utility renewals/ Sidewalks
Street Reconstruction/ Utility renewals/ Drainage
improvements
IStreet Reconstruction/ Drainage improvements/
Sidewalks
� Street Reconstruction/Sidewalks
� Street Reconstruction
� Street Reconstruction/Sidewalks
� Street Reconstruction
IStreet Reconstruction/ Utility renewals/ Sidewalks
Street Reconstruction
The overall condition of the street network is good; however, there are many streets
that fall far below an acceptable level of performance. In order to develop a
comprehensive pavement management program, staff needs direction from City
Council as to the level of service (condition ratings) desired by City Council for the
different types of streets and direction on the dispostion of the remaining streets in the
2008 Street Capital Improvement Plan.
Attachments
1. 2012 Pavement Analysis Presentation
2. Pavement Analysis Report
City of Colleyville Page 4
���.�,.E'Y"V'I
:
2012 Pavement Ana I sis Re ort
y p
�,� ��r �,�� � i�.� � �rr�►� ������v� �
Ma 31, 2012
y
rono 0 o ven s
• Decem ber 8,
City Council o
Infrastructur
2011 - Staff presentation to
n the importance of
e Management
• February 2012 -
Associ ates (ARA)
assessment and
�
Ma rch 6,
proposed
Program
Applied Research
com pleted pavement
provided resu Its to City
2012 - City Cou nci I briefed on
2012 Street Maintenance
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
■ ■ ■
erms a n e � n � �ons
• Loca I Street = Residentia l Street
• Non-local Street = Collector and arterial streets
• Im proved Street = Street with cu rbs a nd g utters
• Unimproved Street = Street without curbs and
g u tte rs
• Level of Service = an index that measures the
quality of service provided by an infrastructure
asset (such as streets) to the user.
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
vera on ition In ex I
• Pavement Cond ition Index 40%
• Pavement Section Th ickness 20%
• Pavement Width 10%
• Presence of Cu rb a nd G utters 10%
• Sta bi I ized Su b- rade
g
• Existi n Roadside Ditch Safet
g Y
10%
10%
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
.�
�
�
�
�
a�
�
�
�
�
�
Pavement
E�c�el I�nt
llery Good
� ��•
F�ir
F'aor
Very P�c�r
Deterioration
(No maintenance)
4�°la of Pa�r�rr��nt Lif�
ha� a��°l� drop in quality
��°l� of pa�rerr��nt lif�
�� �p�nt now �
�ost ��3 if � el ayed
Tirr��
u rve
has a 40°l� drop in quality
+4 � y�
�i
�D�L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Pavement Deterioration Cu rve
(With good maintenance)
Pavement L���e Cycle Curr�e
� '•. '�
`� ��arget Z�rne for Pavement �Reh�bi�ta#ion �'•.,
.
� �"• �•.
..
�..r '•, .
� •e'��. �r�cr�ased Pavemenx Life•r�.
� • �
��q` •
r
•
W •
•!
� �a
!�• •
� �•
•��
� ��� '�•
r�� •�.
•
• �,j�'��'h
�'' • • • �'bilr�,��
P' '''•••. �d
av,�m � , ,
...,,
....�
�'�t P���r�:���e
Tirr�e
t. ti ��
�i
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Overa I I Street Network Cond ition
Overall Condition
Index (OCI)
15
�
16
69
■ 0 to 50 51 to 70
71 to 100
Pavement Condition
Index (PCI)
0
73
18
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Condition Ratings by Classification and Type of Street
.-.
�
�
�n
�
�
�+
�
i
�.7
i
0
V
44 % of Syste m
OCI PCI
1.7
0.� 1.1 13.7
98.7
.-.
0
O�
�
�
�+
f�
t
� 49.6
N
a
oci
,6.5
23.9
84.6
29 % of Syste m
PCI
15.7
.
59.5 24.8
;0 70
OCI
4.3
.1
91.6
7 % of Syste m
20 % of Syste m
OCI
28.3
36.2 ,
� 35.5
71 to 100
PCI
6.5
6.6
86.9
PCI
17.5
,
19.4
63.1
` t�'�,
�
C�LI.E_�YVILLE
���.�,�+.'
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Ove ra I I Co n d i t i o n of St re et N etwo r k
Ex�����nt
ll�ry ��od
���d
�F�i r
���r
�'��-� P��r�
Tim�
�1 �°�� �d�ra�P
c�f p�v�t��n� li�'�
4�°lo dr�p i�n qu�li��
� � ��'`�
�
��L�L�LE
���.�,�+.'
�
�
�
�
C�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Condition of Non-Local Asphalt Streets
E���Il�nt
lf �r� ���d
��od
F�i r
���r
��ry P��r
(Collectors and Arterials)
l� ii"i�
��ty
, ,,��`,,
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Loca I
Cul-de-sac
Minor Collector
Major Collector
(2 lane)
Major Collector
(4 Lanes)
Minor Arterial
Major Arterials
■
es� n an ar s
R2U
R2U
C2U
C3U
C4U
M4D
P4D
(Land Development Code)
50
50
75
75
80
95
120
15
18
12
12
12
13
12
30
36
42
42
48
52
76
2
2
2 w/9' parking or
3 w/o parking
2 w/9' parking or
3 w/o parking
4 undivided
4 divided
4 divided
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
�
��,
n r II r
Sta a Co e cto
�
�
�
�
.�,.--_.: .x•. :�.-.':�.'��'�*-�.•-•=•:E.• _. :-�': - x.a . .
_
.'^'y �� ^�..'�� �*�t _ _ �•:rMi . � � -�X'�JrIi�1 r:!L'a'.F�r:
�� -
,.� s__r:,y..�- �
_ �,'' j�4
� _�� --� _..i�
. .-:Y��A:� s� riS. � � a+� . . -
- - �' -Mr' . .., _ ,..., �. .� �`�iL � *` t.
1�:1z ., : _ ' . ..
�'rc������i T��icak �.r��s
Secti �n c�pti�n �
0
1�1
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
L
Existi n a nd Alternative Cross Sections
g
��,y`�' �"-"y�v �5( • • _ _r,--
�anrwvin�w�.��.•�,�,.�� __
E�isting T�pi cal �ross -_ r�,._;_,
- .,._.�, , �ecti�n '-,
., .��f-�'
0
�
-.-r.+r......�;� _s;_--. .,ai3S,�s• ,r��+'.'�1S?�.7..� e,7v^�r f=�iw�e,rwa'Crs ..�.,..-,.a _�^��'.-i,�. . -.
_ +E�+i;'�� � ��� .� . � +'a.
-w.r `=r �
�Iterr��te T��pic�l �ross
� ��ti c�t �
�
. ..���`�`.�'�"`"�',�,��
a
� + ',��,
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
�A4`Y �. c,7��� �i'rn 4 . : 4 5 �. �a'�
�' ° - � �
1� �� �:
y ,-.
' ;W'ai.v . T � .,�
r •'� �'• ' E is ; i
_ ", t
:. �
e,
�
. -��+..� , w -�.
� � _ �-�i � �!` `� �
��� � ���
..* ��''�� �
�,,a. "rr
'�M1�4'��'�� . . . -�r
� �-: T :�ental
'�
ell
�•',��- �'�°�'.�'�,�:
�°"r°:� �►
��
-�:-- �`� �
,-s�=
� � „_�e� � Sr
,�.
��'•`' � � •MA���
�.. �� • __..-�. J ,
� --�;::
.� A * � �i� -/ �� 'f''��
t_r _ _ "�i � � !� < -i. , . • ,
l !r�"` 3 � , di�
' , , '� i
� �I � , � �. � � � . �� � � _.
4 F�q' � + � ,�'. _- � ,� .m � _ I _ .� � aia ��� � �ZG` � ��+r•
�, � � �.� � , �� ��. _ .�. .��.��,i�; _ , _ r_ � ' '� b:..W.�
_ r,
...._ ,..
��
�
_ J
.
Whitley Road
��:�
;.
,. �
,,�-r
+'.=."'. -;: � .k �
�. v�
�".1�� . . � w��., ` �[i`L
I�.-.- +�
�_. Y �.
': P '�:*�.
�.. �
� •� �
� ••-_. .. "�
�.
..: � �
�_,
�`�.. . `§
�
w I
�
��
=� �
�+'' .'�#
I ✓
�R � �
�:'�+`i �II', Y 4^ ' ---�'-b' -�
t ��,�
.� w
�-���..._.= _ �,
'r .
� rl. iI
�
'���� � -����
�' � . ' ; ' r .. .
J w � .. �; `„ y�. Y
! � �V (1��� � �
n ��� ,1�L 1
�-� w-���
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
■
u m ma r o e na s�s
• Overall, when
good condition
looked at as a system, Colleyville's streets are in
• They are, however, deteriorating at a faster rate than that which
we are offsetting the deterioration with the current level of
funding - in other words, we're losing ground
• Arterials and collectors are where the greatest need exists for
reconstruction
• Consideration should be given to revising the street design
standards in the Land Development Code to more accurately
reflect the desires of the community
• In order to maintain the current service level of approximately 75
(PCI = 76.4; OCI = 74.6) we need to invest approximately $2.7
million annually in ourstreet infrastructure -$1.iM for
maintenance and $1.6M for reconstruction
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
■ ■
o �c ues �ons
• What do we do with the streets remaining on the
2008 Street Capital Improvement Program?
• Does the level of service need to be
residential (local) and arterials and
(non-local) streets?
the same for
collectors
• What should that level of service be?
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
uestions a n Discussion
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
G�� � �.�
��
7' .� � �, �
City of Colleyville
Pavement Ana I sis
v
May 31, 2012
Table of Contents
Project Description ........................................................................................4
City of Colleyville - Pavement Management Program ..........................................7
Difference Between the PCI and the OCI .......................................................... 8
Roadway Network Condition and Findings ........................................................ 9
Summary of the Roadway Network Condition .................................................. 19
Maintenance Techniques .............................................................................. 21
Reconstruction....................................................................................... 21
Rehabilitation........................................................................................ 21
Milland Overlay ..................................................................................... 21
Micro-Resurfacing .................................................................................. 21
CrackSealing ........................................................................................ 21
Maintenance Techniques and the Relation to the PCl/OCI ................................. 23
Rehabilitation Plan and Budget Development .................................................. 24
Fix All Life Cycle Analysis ......................................................................... 24
Simple Asphalt Street Life Costs ............................................................... 25
Summary and Recommendations .................................................................. 26
Page 2 of 26
Index of Illustrations
Figure 1- Deterioration Curve ........................................................................ 5
Figure 2- Pavement Life Cycle ....................................................................... 6
Figure 3- Roadway Classification Distribution ................................................... 9
Figure 4- Roadway Material Distribution .......................................................... 9
Figure 5- All Streets PCl/OCI Distribution ...................................................... 10
Figure 6- Local Streets PCl/OCI Distribution .................................................. 11
Figure 7- Non-Local Streets PCl/OCI Distribution ............................................ 12
Figure 8- Concrete Streets PCl/OCI Distribution ............................................. 13
Figure 9- Concrete Local Streets PCl/OCI Distribution ..................................... 14
Figure 10 - Concrete Non-Local Streets PCl/OCI Distribution ............................. 15
Figure 11 - Asphalt Streets PCl/OCI Distribution ............................................. 16
Figure 12 - Asphalt Local Streets PCl/OCI Distribution ..................................... 17
Figure 13 - Asphalt Non-Local Streets PCl/OCI Distribution ............................... 18
Figure 14 - Summary of Conditions ............................................................... 20
Figure 15 - Maintenance Techniques .............................................................. 22
Figure 16 - PCl/OCI as it Relates to Maintenance ............................................ 23
Figure 17 - Fix All Life Cycle Analysis ............................................................. 25
Figure 18 - Simplified Asphalt Street Life Cost Analysis .................................... 25
Page 3 of 26
Proiect Description
Streets are one of the largest assets owned and maintained by municipal, state,
and federal governments. The City of Colleyville is responsible for the maintenance
and upkeep of over 282 lane miles of publicly-owned streets. This does not include
the streets in private subdivisions that are maintained by Home Owners
Associations, nor does it include Colleyville Boulevard, which is maintained by the
Texas Department of Transportation. At a replacement cost in excess of $500,000
dollars per lane mile, not including the value of the land, the City of Colleyville has
over $150 million invested in its network.
Preservation of the existing street system has become a major priority for the City
of Colleyville. However, there is limited funding available to maintain the current
street system and the current maintenance needs largely outweigh the available
funding. This is due, in part, to the fact that many of Colleyville's streets were built
by the county prior to the City becoming incorporated, and they were not built to
accommodate modern day urban traffic. In order to optimize the funds that are
available, the Department of Public Works is in the process of implementing a
pavement management program as part of an overall infrastructure management
plan. A pavement management program, when used properly, has been proven to
assist decision-makers in optimizing the use of available maintenance and
reconstruction funds. The City of Colleyville Pavement Management Program
(CPMP) is in the first stages of development and will be an ongoing process that will
continue to evolve and be refined as needed to provide the best possible results.
Pavement management is the process of planning, budgeting, designing, funding,
constructing, maintaining, rehabilitating, monitoring, and evaluating the street
network to provide the maximum benefits with the available funding. The CPMP is
a set of guidelines and methodologies that will assist decision makers in
determining optimum strategies for extending the useful life of existing pavement
as long as possible. The key to this is to ensure streets are constructed to existing
standards when they are first built, and then applying the proper maintenance or
rehabilitation techniques during their useful life. As shown in Figure 1, streets that
receive preventive maintenance when they are in good condition will cost less over
their lifetime than streets that are allowed to deteriorate to a poor condition. In the
absence of an adequate routine pavement maintenance program, streets require
more frequent reconstruction, thereby costing millions of extra dollars.
Page 4 of 26
Excellent
Very Gaod
�
3 Good
C�
�
�
� Fair
�
�
�
�
a
Pc�or
1Jery P��r
4i}°I� of pavement life
has a 1�°la drop in quality
'15°I� c�f pau�ment life
�
$1 spent now �
Custs $� if delayed
Tirr�e
Figure 1 - Deterioration Curve
has a 4�°/o drop in quality
c�,�� ����
As can be seen in Figure 1, pavement quality drops over time until the pavement
condition becomes unacceptable. For each street, the shape of the curve, and
hence the rate of deterioration, is dependent on many factors, foremost of which
are the strength of the roadway structure and traffic loading. The key to a
successful pavement management program is to develop a reasonably accurate
performance model of the pavement, and then identify the optimal timing and
rehabilitation strategies. The resultant benefits of this exercise are realized by the
long term cost savings and a slower rate of deterioration over time. As illustrated
in Figure 1, pavements typically deteriorate rapidly once they hit a specific
threshold. A$1 investment after 40% of pavement lifespan is much more effective
then deferring maintenance until more costly rehabilitation or reconstruction is
required just a few years later.
The CPMP will assist staff in developing long-term maintenance and rehabilitation
programs and budgets. The key is to develop policies and practices that will delay
the inevitable total reconstruction as long as practical, yet still remain within the
target zone for cost effective rehabilitation. That is, as each street approaches the
steep part of its deterioration curve, application of a maintenance technique that
extends the pavement life, at a minimum cost, puts off costly rehabilitation and
reconstruction. The goal of the CPMP is to identify the optimal renewal strategies,
then allocate the funds to keep the roadway network at a satisfactory level of
service. Figure 2 illustrates the concept of extending the useful pavement life
through the application of timely preventive maintenance and rehabilitation
activities.
Page 5 of 26
Par�ernent Life Cycle Curv�
� 1
`� Target Zor�e fvr Paaernent Re�akii{jtatian
�
�
�
� `�. Increased Pav�ernent Life �'•.
�
�
�
ro
o.
� ���r����ilt .
p e F �''' • t�t�qr
�we,n.terr �-p,��a���� ��,
Time
Figure 2- Pavement Life Cycle
Page 6 of 26
Citv of Collevville - Pavement Manaaement Proaram
The CPMP is a new system that is currently being developed by city staff to ensure
that the available funding for street maintenance is used to its fullest extent. The
CPMP includes several steps that include:
■ Assessment of existing street conditions
■ Analysis of the data collected in the condition assessment
• Development of an Overall Condition Index (OCI)
■ Establishment of Acceptable Level of Services
■ Development of budgets
■ Execution of plans
The City of Colleyville used the services of Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA),
a national engineering firm, to perform the initial step of the CPMP. ARA was hired
by the City last December to perform a pavement condition assessment and
provide the City with a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for every public street in
the City. The street system was broken into approximately 1,400 individual street
segments. ARA took measurements of every public street and assigned a rating of
0 to 100 for each street surveyed. The PCI is a rating of the surface condition of
the street only. It does not take into account any other factors, such as pavement
thickness, or street width, which contributes to the overall condition of the street.
In order to accurately predict the performance of Colleyville's streets over time, and
develop realistic performance curves, this process will need to be repeated every
three years.
The next step of the CPMP is to analyze the data provide by ARA and establish an
OCI that takes into account more than just the pavement surface condition. City
staff has developed an OCI that takes into account the PCI, the width of pavement,
the pavement thickness, structural stability, safety, and drainage. The average
daily traffic was not considered in the development of the OCI, as the average daily
traffic will be accounted for in the establishment of the acceptable level of services.
The OCI is a numerical value of 0 to 100 that takes the above mentioned factors
into consideration to better represent the status of a particular street segment.
This rating is a tool that will be used to assist in the development of maintenance
programs. The OCI and PCI should be used together in the decision-making
process, as both of these ratings provide useful data.
Page 7 of 26
Difference Between the PCI and the OCI
The OCI was developed in order to look beyond just the surface condition of a
street and provide a rating that more accurately reflects the overall status of a
street segment. The factors and their weighting that contribute to the OCI are:
■ Pavement Condition Index (40%)
■ Pavement Section Thickness (20%)
• Pavement Width (10%)
■ Presence of Curb and Gutters (10%)
■ Stabilized Subgrade (10%)
■ Existing Roadside Ditch Safety (10%)
By establishing the OCI, a rating system is developed that looks at several factors,
not just the surface conditions. However, it should be used in conjunction with the
PCI as both the OCI and PCI only tell a portion of the story when they are viewed
independently. When the PCI and OCI are viewed together a more complete
picture is given as to the condition of the street segment. A street segment may
have a high PCI and a low OCI and vice versa. By looking at both of the values in
conjunction with each other a much more detailed understanding of the conditions
can be determined.
As an example, a portion of Lavaca Trail has a PCI of 13 and an OCI of 25. The
basis for this is that the street segment has shallow ditch lines that act as a
shoulder (10 points) the pavement width is approximately 20 feet, sufficient for two
full lanes of traffic (5 points), the pavement thickness is 2" (5 points) and the PCI is
13 (5 points). Here the OCI equates to 25. By looking at both the PCI and OCI it
can be determined that the existing pavement is in bad condition and needs to be
replaced (PCI is too low to justify any maintenance technique other than complete
reconstruction) but the street cross section may be safer than some street sections
with a higher PCI.
Another example is L.D. Lockett Road, which has a section of street that was
rehabilitated as part of the 2011 Street Rehabilitation Project. It has a PCI of 100
and an OCI of 70. The basis for this difference in the two values is the street
segment has deep ditch lines and no shoulders (0 points), this segment does not
have curbs and gutters (0 points), the pavement width is approximately 24 feet (10
points), the pavement thickness is 4.0" (10 points), the base was stabilized during
the rehabilitation (10 points), and the PCI is 100 (40 points). Therefore, the OCI
equates to 70. By looking at both the PCI and the OCI it can be seen that the
existing pavement is new and in good condition, the street does not meet current
standards, and there are needs along this street section that go beyond the
pavement condition (width of pavement, drainage system).
Page 8 of 26
Roadwav Network Condition and Findinas
The City of Colleyville has over 282 lane miles of streets, including arterials,
collectors, and local (residential) streets. For the purpose of this report, arterials
and collectors will be combined and labeled as non-local streets. The distribution of
Colleyville's street system is shown in Figure 3.
Non-Local
� 2%°� I
1
_ �,
�
Local
73%
Figure 3- Roadway Classification Distribution
Figure 4, presented below, shows the distribution of pavement based on type of
material, either asphalt or concrete.
�,,.
Concrete
51%
Asphalt
Figure 4- Roadway Material Distribution
Page 9 of 26
Figure 5, presented below, shows the distribution of the PCI's and the OCI's for the
complete street network in the City of Colleyville. The average weighted PCI and
OCI for the entirety of the City of Colleyville street system is 76.4 and 74.2,
respectively. From the PCI and OCI distribution, several broad generalizations may
be made:
• This PCI and OCI values show that the overall condition of the network is in
reasonably good condition
■ A large portion of the network has a PCl/OCI rating of 70 or better (71.5%)
• More than 12% of the system has a PCl/OCI rating below 50, which means
the streets in that range have failed and need to be reconstructed
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15 °/a
10%
5%
All Streets
(100% of the Network)
�o� ,,� : � ,_� , i �...i� i � i �� e r�� e �� s �� a � i
0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 90 to 100
CJ PCI J OCI I
�
Figure 5- All Streets PCl/OCI Distribution
Page 10 of 26
Figure 6, presented below, shows the distribution of the PCI's and the OCI's for the
local streets within the street network in Colleyville. The average weighted PCI and
OCI for the local street segments of the system is 77.3 and 77.0, respectively.
From the PCl/OCI distribution, several broad generalizations may be made:
■ Local streets are, for the most part, in good condition overall
• The majority of the local street network has a PCl/OCI rating above a 70
(76%)
■ More than 9% of the system has a rating below 50, which means the streets
in that range have failed and need to be reconstructed
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Local Streets
(73.0% of the Network)
pa� ��- �_c � _ � � — .�
0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60
t�i PCI J OCI
60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 90 to 100
Figure 6- Local Streets PCl/OCI Distribution
Page 11 of 26
Figure 7, presented below, shows the distribution of the PCI's and the OCI's for the
non-local streets within the street network in Colleyville. The average weighted PCI
and OCI for the non-local street segments of the City of Colleyville roadway system
is 74.1 and 68.9, respectively. From the PCl/OCI distribution, several
generalizations may be made:
• The non-local streets have an overall good rating (59.8% above 70)
■ The percentage of non-local streets with a PCl/OCI of 50 or less is 18.46%
■ The PCl/OCI values indicate that many non-local streets are not built to
standard
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% �
0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 90 to 100
Non-Local Streets
(27.0% of the Network)
LI PCI �I OCI
Figure 7- Non-Local Streets PCl/OCI Distribution
Page 12 of 26
Figure 8, presented below, shows the distribution of the PCI's and the OCI's for the
concrete streets within the network. The average weighted PCI and OCI for the
concrete street segments is 81.1 and 84.3, respectively. From the PCl/OCI
distribution, some generalizations may be made:
■ The concrete streets in the network are in very good condition
• Because the concrete streets are newer, they bring the network average up
■ Very few concrete street segments are in need of major repairs
�o�ro
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 90 to 100
Concrete Streets
(50.7% of the Network)
�.9 PCI ' OCI
Figure 8- Concrete Streets PCl/OCI Distribution
Page 13 of 26
Figure 9, presented below, shows the distribution of the PCI's and OCI's for the
concrete local streets within Colleyville. The average weighted PCI and OCI for the
concrete local street segments of the City of Colleyville roadway system is 81.1 and
84.0, respectively. From the PCl/OCI distribution, several broad generalizations
may be made:
• The local concrete streets in the network are in very good condition
■ The local concrete streets are newer and help bring the network average up
■ Few street segments are in need of major repairs
�o�ro
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Concrete Local Streets
(43.8% of the Network)
0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 90 to 100
1.� PCI :J OCI
Figure 9- Concrete Local Streets PCl/OCI Distribution
Page 14 of 26
Figure 10, presented below, shows the distribution of the PCI's and OCI's for the
concrete non-local streets in the City. It should be noted that non-local concrete
streets comprise only 6.9% of the total network. The average weighted PCI and
OCI for the concrete non-local street segments of the City of Colleyville roadway
system is 80.7 and 86.3, respectively. From the PCl/OCI distribution, the following
generalizations may be made:
■ The concrete streets in the network are in very good condition
■ The concrete streets are newer and help bring the network average up
• Few street segments are in need of major repairs
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Concrete Non-Local Streets
(6.9% of the Network)
0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 90 to 100
W PCI �J OCI
Figure 10 - Concrete Non-Local Streets PCl/OCI Distribution
Page 15 of 26
Figure 11, presented below, shows the distribution of the PCI's and OCI's for the
asphalt streets within the network. The average weighted PCI and OCI for the
asphalt street segments of the City of Colleyville roadway system is 71.7 and 63.8,
respectively. From the PCl/OCI distribution, the following generalizations may be
made:
• The asphalt street portion of the network brings the network average down
■ A good portion of the asphalt network is rated below 50 (23.0%)
■ Nearly 50% of the non-local network is rated below 70 (48.6%)
25% -
20%
15%
10% :
5%
0% �
0 to 10
Asphalt Streets
(49.3% of the Network)
10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 90 to 100
I �d PCI ul OCI
Figure II - Asphalt Streets PCl/OCI Distribution
Page 16 of 26
Figure 12, presented below, shows the distribution of the PCI's and OCI's for the
asphalt local streets. The average weighted PCI and OCI for the asphalt street
segments in the network is 71.9 and 66.7, respectively. An analysis of the PCl/OCI
distribution indicates that:
■ The asphalt street portion of the network brings the network average down
• A good portion of the asphalt network is rated below 50 (21.1%)
■ Nearly 55% (54.6%) of the local asphalt streets have a rating above 70
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Asphalt Local Streets
(29.2% of the Network)
0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 90 to 100
Id PCI J OCI
Figure 12 - Asphalt Local Streets PCl/OCI Distribution
Page 17 of 26
Figure 13, presented below, shows the distribution of the PCI's and OCI's for the
asphalt non-local streets within the roadway network in the City of Colleyville. The
average weighted PCI and OCI for the asphalt street segments is 71.8 and 62.9,
respectively. The PCl/OCI distribution reveals the following:
■ The asphalt non-local street portion of the network brings the network
average down
■ A good portion of the non-local asphalt network is rated below 50 (22.9%)
■ Nearly 50% (49.7%) of the non-local asphalt network is rated above 70
• There is a large portion of the non-local asphalt streets that were not built to
current standards (the OCI is much lower than the PCI)
Asphalt Non-Local Streets
(20.0% of the Network)
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5% ---
0% � � i�4��
0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 90 to 100
11 PCI �I OCI
Figure I3 - Asphalt Non-Local Streets PCl/OCI Distribution
Page 18 of 26
Summarv of the Roadwav Network Condition
Looking at the PCI and OCI for the entire network gives a quick look at the overall
condition of the network and shows a street network that is in reasonably good
overall condition. However, when looking closer at the data, it shows that the
network is overloaded with street segments on the high end of the rating system
(local concrete streets) and that brings up the entire network average. This makes
sense when examining history of how the City of Colleyville developed.
■ Most concrete streets are relatively new and were constructed to the
standard required by the Land Development Code
■ A good portion of the asphalt street network was inherited by the City and
has never been built to standard (low ratings and OCIs lower than PCIs)
■ Colleyville grew rapidly in the 1990s and 2000s, resulting in a lot of new
streets being constructed
• Colleyville has several asphalt street sections that have insufficient pavement
thickness that results in a street section that deteriorates rapidly
Even though on average the network is rated in the mid-seventies, it should be
noted that a significant number of the streets are rated below 50. These streets
are already beyond their useful life and maintenance funds should be limited on
those streets until such time that they can be completely reconstructed. Once a
street deteriorates to that level, the integrity of the street is compromised and the
remaining useful life is greatly diminished. A summary of the street conditions can
be seen in Figure 14 which shows the percentage of street sections that are rated
Good (71-100), Fair (51-70), and Poor (0 to 50). The City of Colleyville should
focus on the maintenance of higher rated streets and the reconstruction of lower
rated streets.
Page 19 of 26
Local (73%) Non-Local (27%)
44% of System 7% of System
oci oci
„
�
o �
�
�, �.,
�
�
�
= PCI PCI
0
U
�
�
29% of System 20% of System
oci oci
„
�
0
�
�
.,
�
�
fl, PCI PCI
�
Q
�
51 to 70 71 to 100
Figure 14 - Summary of Conditions
Page 20 of 26
Maintenance Techniaues
The City of Colleyville uses several types of maintenance techniques on its streets.
Each technique differs in cost, effectiveness, application, and functionality. It is
essential that the right technique be utilized at the right time in order to receive the
most effective use of the maintenance funds. The maintenance techniques are
summarized in Figure 15.
�������d����'���
Reconstruction is the maintenance technique that results in the roadway being
completely rebuilt to current Land Development Code standards including utilities,
drainage, and curb and gutter. All existing pavement will be removed or can be
recycled for use as a new sub-base. The street will be widened to meet the
development code standards as established in the Master Thoroughfare Plan. This
technique is the most expensive, but provides a new street section that meets all
standards and with proper maintenance can last at least 50 years.
������������i�r�
Rehabilitation is the maintenance technique that results in the current street
segment being rebuilt in its current configuration. This involves the stabilization of
the existing base material and placement of a new pavement section. This
rehabilitated street segment may or may not meet current standards. This
technique is a cost effective way to revive a current street section; however, it does
not address anything other than pavement, and should only be used where
applicable.
���� ��a� ������
Mill and overlay is the maintenance technique that results in the current street
segment being given a new surFace in its current configuration. This involves the
removal of the top surface of pavement (normally two inches) and the placement a
new top layer of pavement. This should only be used in areas where the existing
pavement thickness is sufficient and the subgrade is in good condition.
���t��- ����������r�
Micro-resurfacing is a cost effective way to address surface issues with asphalt
pavement. This involves the placement of a very thin asphalt sand and oil emulsion
that seals the existing pavement and slows its rate of deterioration. This should
only be used on street segments that are in good overall condition and only have
minor surface issues.
��°� �� ��� ���
Crack sealing is used as a first defense against pavement deterioration because it
offers several important benefits. Effective crack sealing keeps water from entering
and weakening the base or sub-base. It helps preserve the pavement adjacent to
the cracks; prevents sand, stone, and dirt from making its way into open cracks
causing compressive stresses; and extends pavement life by minimizing crack
g rowth .
Page 21 of 26
Proper attention to cracks will prevent problems from spreading and extend the life
of the pavement. Pavement repair in the early stages of deterioration will pay big
dividends later by delaying costly resurfacing. This is the only maintenance
technique that is performed by city staff. All other techniques are more cost
effectively performed by contractors hired by the City.
Maintenance Application Benefits Constraints PCl/OCI
Technique Change
Cost/SY
Reconstruction
$55
This technique is the complete
removal of the existing street
and building a new street system
to the current standards,
including drainage systems,
curbs and gutters, and anything
else required to bring it up to the
current Land Development Code
standard
Rehabilitation This technique is used to rebuild
the street segment using the
$28 existing roadway by reworking
the subgrade and constructing a
new pavement section.
�
Mill and
Overlay
$12
This technique can be used if the
existing pavement and subgrade
is in good condition There must
be adequate pavement
thickness, and the street is just
in need of a new surface. A mill
and overlay is used to remove
the top portion of pavement,
usually 2", and replace it.
Micro- This technique involves the
Resurfacing/ placement of a very thin asphalt
Slurry Seal sand and oil emulsion that seals
the existing pavement and slows
$3.30 its rate of deterioration.
Crack Sealing This is currently being performed
by the Department of Public
$0.06 Works staff and is a preventive
maintenance technique.
Brings the street segment
to current standards, and
if properly maintained can
be expected to last at
least 50 years.
Brings the street surface
to the highest rating and
has reduced traffic
interruptions. This
method addresses
Subgrade issues. Possible
15-18 year life extension.
Brings the street surface
to the highest rating and
has minimal traffic
interruptions. Possible 10
year life extension.
Gives the street segment
a "Like New" appearance,
and removes surface
flaws. Slows the rate of
deterioration of the
pavement.
This seals the existing
pavement and extends the
service life. This is part of
the current maintenance
program.
Figure 15 - Maintenance Techniques
Most expensive
technique requires
the most traffic
interruption and
will often require
additional rights-of-
ways.
Does not address
the street width or
the drainage
system needs.
Often will result in
a street that does
not meet the
minimum
standards.
Does not address
the street width or
the drainage
system needs. This
technique can only
be used where
there is adequate
pavement thickness
and the subgrade is
in good condition.
Only addresses
surfaces flaws and
does not address
any structural
issues that are
present in the
pavement.
Only addresses
surface cracks and
does not improve
the street segment.
Only slows the
deterioration.
Resets
PCI and
OCI to
100
Brings
PCI to
100 and
raises OCI
somewhat
Brings
PCI to
100 and
raises OCI
slightly
Raises
PCI and
OCI
slightly
No
Change
Page 22 of 26
Maintenance Techniques and the Relation to the PCl/OCI
The proper application of the correct maintenance technique is essential to get the
most benefit from the available funds. The PCl/OCI values help in determining the
best maintenance technique for a particular section of street. The figure below
shows the common maintenance techniques within a range of PCl/OCI, as well as
the approximate remaining life of the pavement. It should be noted that the
relative remaining life presented in the table is not the same as pavement age.
Remaining pavement life is the timeframe, expressed in years, in which a street
section will provide a useful street (if properly maintained) before rehabilitation or
reconstruction needs to be done. The relative remaining life can be exceeded with
no rehabilitation or maintenance, and the pavement will continue to deteriorate
until it eventually returns to gravel or is unserviceable.
Condition Potential
PCl/OCI Description Recommended Activities Remaining Life
100
95 Excellent Routine Maintenance Activities 25 to 50 Years
90
85
$� Good Micro-Resurfacing 15 to 30 Years
75
70
65
60 Mill and Overlay, Rehabilitation,
55 Fair Reconstruction 7 to 20 Years
50
45
40
35
30 Poor
25 Full Reconstruction is preferred,
20 Rehabilitation may be an option, 0 to 10 Years
15 depending on the OCI
10 Very Poor
5
0
Figure 16 - PCl/OCI as it Relates to Maintenance
Page 23 of 26
Rehabilitation Plan and Budaet Development
Several methodologies exist for determining the annual cost to maintain the
network PCl/OCI at the current level of 76.4 and 74.2, respectively. A pavement
management software program was not available at the time of the analysis.
Therefore, a simplified method was used to determine a rough estimate until such
time as a computer aided calculation can be performed. The method that will be
used to perform this calculation is referred to as Fix All Life Cycle Analysis. In order
to validate the results of the Fix All Life Cycle Analysis a separate calculation will be
perFormed that is referred to as the Asphalt Street Life Costs.
Fix ��� �.r�� �"���� ���������
The Fix All Life Cycle Analysis involves a calculation that takes into account each
street segment and the appropriate maintenance technique required, as well as, the
life cycle of that technique. The cost of each maintenance technique is determined
for the entire network and is divided by the expected life cycle for the chosen
maintenance technique and the entire network summed up. For example, the Fix
All Life Cycle Analysis for Micro-Resurfacing is estimated at $3.4 million and has an
anticipated life cycle of 10 years. Thus the total contribution to the steady state
budget would be $3.4 million divided by 10 years which is equal to $340,000
annually. The cost to maintain the network PCl/OCI at the current level of 76.4 and
74.2, respectively is estimated at $2,720,000 annually. The following table shows
the breakdown of this calculation.
Maintenance
Technique
Full Reconstruction
Rehabilitation
Mill and Overlay
Micro-Resurfacing
General
Maintenance and
Crack Sealinq
As halt Streets
Percentage Life
of Asphalt Area (SY) Cost Fix All Cycle
Network ($/SY) Estimate ($) �Years)
21.35% 229 308 55.00 12 611 950 25
25.63% 275,277 $28.00 $7,707,762 16
11.11% 119 326 13.00 1 551 240 8
41.91% 450,131 $3.30 $1,485,434 7
NA � NA � NA � $50,000
Concrete Streets
Fix All Life
Cycle
Contribution
504,478
481, 735
193,905
212,205
1 � $50,000
Total = $1,440,000
Area % of Life Fix All Life
Maintenance Cost Fix All Cycle
Techni ue Concrete Area (SY) Cycle
Q Network ($/SY) Estimate ($) �Years) Contribution
$/ r
Full Reconstruction 100.00% 1 074 043 55.00 59 072 365 50 1 181 447
General
Maintenance and
Crack Sealin NA NA NA 100 000 1 100 000
rotal = $1,Z�3U,UUU
AsphaltAnnualCost $1,440,000
Concrete Annual Cost $I,Z80,000
Total Annual Cost $2,720,000
Page 24 of 26
Figure 27 - Fix All Life Cycle Analysis
�i ��� ��,����1� �'�°����° ��f� ���t
A second method of calculation was used to validate the results of the Fix All Life
Cycle Analysis. This method is a simple approach to determine the cost of an
asphalt road over a 99 year period. During this time frame several maintenance
techniques will be applied the street section and are shown in the figure below.
Maintenance
Technique
Micro-Resurfacing
Mill and Overlay
Reconstruction
As halt Road Life C cle Cost
$/SY Years Applied Number of Applications
6, 12, 18, 30, 36, 42,
$3.30 54, 60, 66, 78, 84, 90, 13
96
$12.00
$55.00
. .; .,
72
3
1
Total
Cost
$42.90
$36.00
$55.00
Total Cost for 99 years of maintenance of a single square yard of asphalt paving = $133.90
Total Asphalt Cost per year =$1,452,600
Total Concrete Cost per year =$I,Z80,000
Total Annual Cost = $2,732,600
Figure 18 - Simplified Asphalt Street Life Cost Analysis
Two separate approaches were made to estimate the annual cost to maintain the
current PCl/OCI. The two approaches calculated a similar value and validated the
approach by yielding similar results. The cost to maintain the PCl/OCI is estimated
to be $2.7 million annually. This amount includes both maintenance projects and
total reconstruction projects. It should be noted that the $2.7 million annual
funding amount only maintains the current level of service and if the desire is to
raise the level of service, additional funds will be required.
In order to adjust the PCl/OCI up just one point, a$5.5 million investment would
need to be made. The $5.5 million amount is above and beyond the previously
stated $2.7 million that is required to maintain the status quo. This value was
determined by looking at the amount of reconstructed streets that would need to be
added to the network in order for the overall PCl/OCI to be adjusted upward by a
single point.
Page 25 of 26
Summarv and Recommendations
The Colleyville Pavement Management Program is a new system that is being
developed to address the street network and insure that any available funding is
used to its fullest extent. The process of developing this system requires several
steps including:
■ Assessment of existing street conditions
• Analysis of the data collected in the condition assessment
■ Development of an Overall Condition Index (OCI)
■ Establishment of Acceptable Level of Services
• Development of budgets
■ Execution of plans
This document initiates the second and third step listed above. The analysis was
perFormed without the aid of a pavement management software package and once
a software program is in place, a more detailed analysis will be performed to
validate the results. It should also be noted that the software package will allow for
multiple budget scenarios that will allow staff to evaluate the outcome of different
funding amounts. It is also likely that the PCIs and OCIs used in this report will
change slightly due to the different algorithms used in the software program. An
updated report will be presented once the pavement management software is
available. The findings of this analysis conclude:
■ The street network of the City of Colleyville is in good condition overall
• The amount of funding needed on an annual basis to maintain the current
system at the current PCl/OCI is estimated at $2.7 million
■ In order to raise the PCl/OCI a single point, an investment of $5.5 million
above and beyond the annual $2.7 million is required
• The system will continue to deteriorate as it ages
■ Each PCl/OCI point lost is the equivalent of a$5.5 million dollar decrease in
value
The overall street network is in good condition. However, there are many street
sections that fall far below an acceptable level of service. It is noted that the
current funding levels for street maintenance are below the estimated required
amount of $2.7 million that is necessary to maintain the street system at its current
level. Without adequate maintenance and reconstruction, where appropriate, the
system will continue to deteriorate and each point that the overall rating decreases
is the equivalent to a$5.5 million dollar reduction in asset value. The CPMP, once
fully implemented, will ensure that the City Council has the information required to
make good quality resource allocation decisions.
Page 26 of 26
L '' 'S ]' p F
�
�OL�EYV'�LLE
r E Y A `-'
Agenda Number Zi
Type Presentation and Discussion
Department Human Resources
City of Colleyville
Colleyville City Council
Worksession
Agenda Briefing
Agenda Date 05/31/2012
Title
Review and discussion of the 2012 Compensation Survey
City Hall
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
www.colleyville.com
Number zi
Explanation
This item provides an opportunity for City Council and staff discussion of the annual
compensation survey and analysis.
A compensation survey was conducted in January 2012 to compare Colleyville's salary
ranges and actual salaries with the market. Colleyville's seven bordering cities
including Bedford, Euless, Grapevine, Hurst, Keller, North Richland Hills, and Southlake
were asked to provide comparable salary data for 57 positions surveyed. Out of the 57
positions surveyed, 50 positions were considered ��good" matches and were included in
the analysis. The other seven positions were ��weak" matches, meaning there was
insufficient data to analyze for that position (fewer than four cities reporting data).
Therefore, out of Colleyville's 74 full time job titles, approximately 77% were surveyed
and 68% were analyzed. Most of the remaining job titles do not have a comparable
position in the majority of the seven surrounding cities.
The analysis compared the surveyed mid-points to Colleyville's mid-points of each pay
range. Fifty-two percent (52%) of Colleyville positions had a variance greater than five
percent below the market average. This represents a decline from the prior two years
when 34% (FY 2011) and 26% (FY 2010) of surveyed jobs were below market.
Additional compensation data for the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex area was obtained
this year through three different websites for nine positions that were comparable
private sector positions in Engineering, Finance, Human Resources, and
Administrative/Clerical. It is important to note that the number of position matches
was small and the data obtained from these sites each used their own methodology to
obtain mid-point values. For example, one site which specializes in accounting and
finance-related recruiting, benchmarked over 300 accounting, finance, banking, and
financial services positions in the region. The two other sites average the pay ranges
of vacant positions posted on their website. The analysis compared the mid-points to
Colleyville's mid-points of each pay range. Fifty-six percent (56%) of Colleyville
positions had a variance greater than five percent below the market average of
comprable private sector positions.
City of Colleyville Page 1
City Council Worksession Agenda Briefing 2i
Market comparisons were also analyzed by job family. Overall, the five job families of
public safety, technical/craft, administrative/clerical, management/professional, and
executive are behind the market an average of 5.35%.
Research indicates salary increases are expected to increase two to four percent
nationwide this year. This does not mean every organization will be increasing their
budgets by these amounts, if at all. However, an estimate was calculated to determine
the cost to fund a merit increase pool. If the City were to fund a two percent average
compensation increase, the expense to the General Fund would be approximately
$133,223, and to all funds $159,127. A merit pool would represent an ongoing
operational cost. Funding has not been available for a merit pool in the current and
prior fiscal years due to revenue limitations, although a one-time payment of two
percent was approved by City Council and allocated in the current fiscal year.
Determining a long-term sustainable compensation strategy continues to be difficult
due to the uncertainty of long-term revenue. Therefore, it is recommended the
development of a comprehensive compensation strategy is deferred and compensation
adjustments be determined on an annual basis as resources allow. In the interim,
staff would continue to annually update the compensation study and report the results
to the City Council as part of the budget process.
Attachments
1. FY 2012 Compensation Survey
City of Colleyville Page 2
���.�,.E'Y"V'I
.
2 12 m n � n rv
o e sat o u e
y
.
an Ana s�s
y
City Cou nci I Worksession
May 31, 2012
Com ensation Su rve a nd Ana I sis
a y y
• Th e S u rvey
— Seven bordering cities surveyed
— Compared mid-points of pay ranges and average actual
salaries for 50 out of 74 full-time positions
— Focused on positions with variance greater than 5%
below market
• Add itiona I Su rvey I nformation
— DFW metroplex data
— Compared mid-points of pay ranges for nine positions
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Com ensation Su rve a nd Ana I sis
a y y
City Comparisons — Positions Compared to Market
Be low ma rket (< -5 % )
At ma rket (-5 % <x< 5%)
Above ma rket (> 5%)
FY10
26%
(15/58)
64%
(37/58)
10%
(6/58)
FY11
34%
(17/50)
56%
(28/50)
10%
(5/50)
FY12
52%
(26/50)
42%
(21/50)
6%
(3/50)
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Com ensation Su rve a nd Ana I sis
a y y
DFW Metroplex Comparisons —
Positions Compared to Market
Be low ma rket (< -5 % )
At ma rket (-5 % <x< 5%)
Above ma rket (> 5%)
56%
�5/9)
33%
�3/9)
11%
�1/9)
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Com ensation Su rve a nd Ana I sis
a y y
Job Family Comparisons
Public Safety
Tech n ica I/Craft
Ad m i n istrative/Cle rica I
Ma nagement/Professiona I
Executive
Average
-6.95%
-5.12%
-4.08%
-4.58 %
-6.00 %
-5. 35 °o
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
Com ensation Strate
p gY
• Compensation goal in prior years
— Move employees to mid-point of pay range within
5 years of service
— Not achievable/affordable/sustainable
• Recommendation
— Defer comprehensive compensation strategy
— Determine compensation adjustments annually as
resou rces a I low
�. t z�
�
C��.L�LE
���.�,�+.'
� � "� �' c� x.
�-
COLLEYVTLLE
� F \ A ~
City of Colleyville
City Council Worksession
Agenda
City Hall
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
817. 503.1000
www.colleyville.com
Friday, June 1, 2012 Executive Conference Room
9:00 a.m. 3rd Floor, City Hall
1.
2.
3.
IT WILL BE DETERMINED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING ON
THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2012, IF THIS MEETING WILL BE NECESSARY.
CALL TO ORDER
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
2a Update on the financial status of the Tax Increment Financing District
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
2g
2h
2i
Final citizen survey results
Strategic plan discussion
Update of the General Fund and Debt Service Fund Financial Forecast (FY
2013 - 2019)
Review of Fire Department Staffing Plan (FY 2013 - 2015)
Police Department Priorities and Future Strategies
Presentation and Discussion of a Proposal to Regionalize Animal Control
Services
Update on the street condition assessment and analysis of the results
Review and discussion of the 2012 Compensation Survey
ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify this agenda was posted on City Hall bulletin boards May Z5, Z012, by
5: 00 p, m.
Cynthia Singleton, TRMC, CMC
City Secretary
Any matter on this agenda may, at the discretion of the governing body, be opened
for public comment and discussion.
City of Colleyvil/e Page 1
City Council Agenda June 1, 2012
If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special
accommodations, please advise the City Secretary at least 48 hours in advance at
817.503.1133, and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you.
City of Colleyvil/e Page 2