Proposed FY 2020-21 Budget

1. FY21 PROPOSED BUDGET
July 23, 2020
City of College Station

2. City of College Station
FY21 BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS

3. Covid 19 overshadowed Council’s strategic objectives from January
However, we were able to include several:
✓ Assess opportunities to review local options for property tax levy
✓ Plan for a future bond election
✓ Seek grants and other outside funding
✓ Update the Capital Improvements Program
✓ Examine ways to enhance neighborhood parks for residents and visitors
3
STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES

4. 4
STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES
We focused on the City’s Core Value of Financial Sustainability
O&M Objectives Achieved
• Balanced budget with a diversity of revenue sources
• Seek grants and other outside funding
• TDEM, Cares, Families First, HUD etc. not reflected until awarded
• Developed off of current worst case sales tax scenario
• Reflects reduction of compensation and expenses of ($5,373,000)
Capital Objectives Achieved
• The city will endeavor to maintain or improve its current bond ratings
• Outlook upgraded to Stable outlook
• 1.85% new money and .95% refunding interest rates

5. PROPOSED NET BUDGET SUMMARY
5
FY21 Proposed Net Budget Summary
Fund Type FY 21 Proposed Net Budget
% Change from
FY20
Governmental Funds $ 100,582,186 -4.32%
Enterprise Funds 145,679,212 -0.19%
Special Revenue Funds 19,618,837 3.75%
Subtotal O&M $ 265,880,235 -1.52%
Cash used for Capital Projects 16,870,000 26.78%
Capital Projects 29,871,652 -48.38%
Subtotal Capital $ 46,741,652 -34.32%
Total Net Budget $ 312,621,887 -8.37%

6. 6
2.05% overall increase in
taxable value over last year
• Existing value increase is 0.47%
• New Value increase 1.58%
$1.04 billion still under review
$156 million in new taxable
value
PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS
City of College Sta-on Ad Valorem Valua-ons
0.00%
3.00%
6.00%
9.00%
12.00%
MILLIONS$
0
2,750
5,500
8,250
11,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 prelim
Total Taxable Value % Change in Total Value

7. 7
FY20 YEE is projected under budget by ($1.3M) or (4.3%)
FY21 is Projected ($1.7 to $4.6M) or (6%-16%) below FY20
• FY21 Budget is based off worst case of three scenarios
• Scenarios developed with help of data analytics firm
SALES TAX ASSUMPTIONS
Year over Year Sales Tax Change
-12.0%
-6.0%
0.0%
6.0%
12.0%
FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20* FY21*
-11.51%
-5.79%
4.05%
1.12%
5.01%
1.87%
8.59%
Sales Tax Revenue
Millionsof$
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
FY18 FY19 FY20* FY21* FY22* FY23* FY24* FY25*
$30.3
$29.7
$28.8
$27.7
$25.6
$29.0
$30.7
$29.5

8. 8
UTILITY TRANSFER ASSUMPTIONS
Utility Transfer
• Increase Electric from 8% to 9%
• Increase collection on other utilities to policy of 10%
• Total dollar increase of $1.5M

9. HEADCOUNT REDUCTIONS
Total FTEs per 1,000 Population
7.50
8.13
8.75
9.38
10.00
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Proposed 2021 *
7.88
8.38
8.32
8.45
8.33
8.71
8.77
8.88
8.97
9.36
9.68
9

10. 10
Departmental Travel, Training, Supplies and Other Reductions
EXPENSE REDUCTIONS
Supplies 682,000
Maintenance 280,000
Professional Services 638,000
Travel/Training 447,000
Transportation 78,000
Other Purchased Services 248,000
Direct Capital Contribution 42,000
Misc. 77,000
GRAND TOTAL (2,492,000)

11. PROPOSED TAX RATES
Rates above are stated cents per $100 assessed valuation
Property Values 1 cent = approx. $800,000
Current Rate Change Proposed FY21
Debt Service Fund 22.1444 (0.5000) 21.6444
General Fund 31.3174 0.5000 31.8174
53.4618 0.0000 53.4618
No New Revenue Rate TBD
Voter Approval Rate TBD
11

12. 12
FY21 proposed budget $46 million or a 35% decrease
No new capital projects added for FY21 in either the General Government or Utilities CIP
HOT capital expenditures reflect
• Deferral of Southeast Park until FY23
• Defunding of $5M for Veteran’s Park Phase II
FY21 Bond Issuance – $53 million - March 2021 Council Approval
• Reflects a decrease in the planned issuance of debt – 22%
CAPITAL ASSUMPTIONS

13. 13
HOT Revenue is budgeted 73% below FY20 budgeted
revenue
• FY20 Projected to be ($2.6M) below budget or (44%)
• FY21 Forecasted to be down another ($1.7M) or
(52%)
City tourism department budget is $2.2M and $1.1M Grant
program
HOT FUND ASSUMPTIONS

14. 14
To date, revenues look not to be significantly affected by COVID-19
Growth rate <1% for FY20,
Budgeting a 1% additional payment loss
Subject to the hiring freeze and target budget reductions
Impact will only strengthen fund balance
UTILITY FUND ASSUMPTIONS

15. 15
Currently able to project a balanced budget in FY22 in spite of anticipated revenue declines
• Ad Valorem = projecting a (2.00%) decrease in valuations for COVID effect
• Sales Tax estimate projecting recovery – still below FY20’s projected year end estimate
Strategies to offset include continuing mitigation strategies from FY21:
• Utility Transfer increase continues
• Continuation of hiring freeze at some level
• Continuation of departmental expense reductions at some level
Should these decreases continue beyond FY21, there will be significant service level reductions that
will be implemented that could possibly include public safety, public works, parks programming, utility
services, and other City services.
FY22 BUDGET OUTLOOK

16. Council
Meeting
Budget Amendment
#2 FY20
FY21 Budget to
Council
Call Budget Public
Hearing
Tax Office
No New
Revenue and
Voter Approval
Rate Provided to
City
Council
Meeting
Proposed Ad
Valorem Tax
Rate and
Budget Public
Hearings
Council
Meeting
FY21 Budget
Adoption
FY21 Tax Rate
Adoption
FY21 Fee
Ordinance
Adoption
16
August
27th
August
13th
July 29th
(earliest date)
July 27th
thru July
29th
July 23rd
NEXT STEPS
Budget
Workshops
Call Tax Rate
Public Hearings

17. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A balanced budget in the midst of a pandemic is no easy feat. It took significant effort
from all the individuals below to develop this plan – and it will take continued efforts
from each of them to pull this plan off in this ever changing environment.
✓ Jeff Kersten for his constant patience and for taking a significant project so I could focus
✓ Each Department Director, for the willingness to take a hard look at their department, get creative, and
commit to significant reductions. And for allowing me to vent when needed.
✓ Michael DeHaven, for devising a solid debt plan, being a sounding board and keeping operations going
both remotely and in the office.
✓ The Budget Team - Erik Walker, Debra Matthews, Ross Brady, Tanya Wilson, and
Julie Anna Clark – for enduring the never ending changes in direction as the plan developed
17