The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1977-01-18 Regular Meeting � � k � CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS � ; �. AGENDA � � REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING � � TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1977 AT 7: 30 P. M. � COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN STREET � I. CALL TO ORDER �� II. INVOCATION - Councilman Charles Dunn � s � � � III. PRESENTATION � Y 9 Mr. Joseph Finger, golf architect to present � the preliminary rendering of the golf course. � City Council to then consider approval of the � � proposed plans . � � � i IV. PUBLIC HEARING � � � City Council to hold a public hearing for the � purpose of considering the rate increase requested � � by Lone Star Gas Company. � � i V. CITIZENS REQUEST AND/OR MISC. REPORTS & DISCUSSIONS � VI. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES (January 4, 1977) � ; £: VII. NEW BUSINESS � � A. City Council to consider the 1975-76 audit � report as presented by auditor Jerry Pittman. � F g r B. City Council to consider the auditor' s engage- � � ment letter for audit of the Revenue Sharing Fund. � � C. City Council to consider the retention of a rate � consultant in regard to the Texas Power & Light � rate increase request. � � D. City Council to consider a resolution regarding Texas Power & Light ' s rate increase request, for � � the purpose of consideration of suspension of rates � and to set a date for a public hearing. � 4 � � VIII. OLD BUSINESS � � A. City Council to consider an amendment to the � i Utility Ordinance. - � B. City Council to appoint two members to the Park � Board and consider the appointment of an ex-officio � member. � � � IX. ADJOURNMENT � IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17, V.A.T.C. S. , AS AMENDED BY � CHAPTER 227, ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, THE , CITY COUNCIL REGU7yAR MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1977 AT 1:00 P.M. . � City Secr tary � � i � � k e. t' s p � i � � � � � � � CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS � � � EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEM � � �: , REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING � TUESDAY JANUARY 18 1977 AT 7• 30 P M . . i COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN � � � X. EMERGENCY ITEM ;; City Council to consider a proposed amendment to � Ordinance Number 72-40, which adopted the 1971 � Code of Rules and Regulations of the Dallas/Fort ' Worth Airport Board. � � � ; This emergency item has been placed on the City Council � agenda as immediate action is necessary to insure the � health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of � Grapevine, Texas � � �' s IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17, V.A.T.C. S. , AS ANiENDED � BY CHAPTER 227, ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR � SESSION, THE EMERGENCY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WAS PREPARED x i AND POSTED ON THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, AT 4:40 P.M. � s #. ; �� ; % � € CIT SEC A'RY °' , i q � � i o-g ! � K � � j � � � � 4 i ¢ d I � � , � 3 I i � r � F , � }: z � � � � � I � � � i � �' # � E' � � I � I � I I �; f i i € � :� � � � STATE OF TEX,E�.S � COUNTY OF TARRANT � 3 � CITY OF GRAPEVINE � 1 G The City Council of the City of Grapevine, Texas convened in regular session at 7:45 P.M. on this the 18th day of January, 1977 with the following members present to-wit: William D. Tate Mayor Doil Dalton Mayor Pro-tem Charles Dunn Councilman Willis Pirkle Councilman David F'lorence Councilman Larry Oliver Councilman Charles Gideon Councilman constituting a quorum, v�ath Floy T. Ezell City Manager James L. Hancock Ass ' t. City Manager Shirley Armstrong City Secretary John Boyle City Attorney Mayor Tate called the meeting to order. The invocation was delivered by Councilman Dunn. The first order of business was for Mr. Joseph Finger, golf architect to present the preliminary rendering of the golf course. City Manager Floy Ezell introduced Mr. Finger, and professional golfer, Byron Nelson. .�� Mr. Finger began his presentation by stating that the area below " the dam had been leased from the Corps of Engineers for recreational purposes. He added that the land was highly suitable for many types of recreation other than the golf course. He explained that the golf course had been designed in such a manner that would leave certain areas available for future tennis courts, hike and bike trails, equestrian activities and possible canoeing along Denton Creek. He pointed out that the hill on the north end of the dam was an ideal spot for a club house especially since very little road construction would be necessary to gain entrance. He added that the golf holes would be neither long or short, but a mixtu re of both to add variety and interest. He explained that ladies tees would be provided in certain instances where long drives were necessary. He commented that there were some golf architects dreams for green settings with creeks and trees to add interest and challenge. Mr. Finger further ex- plained that conditions requiring the golfer to cross water were kept to a minimum for the convenience of first time golfers , women, and older players. He ended his presentation by stating that he and Mr. Nelson felt the golf course would be an asset to the city and added that any questions, criticism, or suggestions would be welcomed. Mr. Nelson commented that he was especially proud of the flow � of the holes and felt th�►t the 6750 yards was an excellent �' size for the course. � � Councilman Florence noted that there were no sand traps shown � on the preliminary drawing and asked if those would be added � at a later date. Mr. Finger answered that the traps would be � added in the third or fourth phase of design. He commented that too many traps were not planned because of the expense � ' of construction and the annual maintenance costs. i , �. � . E . $' P 3 �" There was little other discussion. � The City Manager explained that Council approval of the preliminary plan was needed so that the architects could proceed with the second phase of design. He added that with- out any notable problems the plans were to ask for construc- tion bids in March. � Mayor Tate commented that he was delighted with the design and felt it displayed a grea t deal of expertise. I Councilman Pirkle made a motion that the preliminary plan of � the golf course be approved. The motion was seconded by � Councilman Rlorence and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Tate, Gideon, Florence, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle & Dunn Nays: None The next order of business was for the City Council to hold a public hearing for the purpose of considering the rate increase requested by Lone Star Gas Company. Mr. Vernie Henderson, Distribution Manager for the Grapevine Distribution Center of Lone Star Gas Company, briefly discussed some of the increased cost factors which he stated had erroded the company�s earning and made the rate increase request necessary. He explained that Lone Star Gas was operating in a highly competitive environment in an attempt to acquire and make available adequate natural gas supply for their customers. He noted that their average cost for gas continued to be one of the lowest average costs among intra state gas purchasers in Texas. He stated that the increased cost of gas and the rising cost of operations continued to have a detrimental effect on the firm�s earnings in the City of Grapevine. He continued to say, that as a result, the rate of return on the fair value of the investments in the Grapevine system was at a low 3.30 per cent. He added that the rate increase requested was for $98,519 in additional revenues or an increase of 24.33 per cent. Mr. Henderson continued that Lone Star Gas Company was requ�esting permission to charge a reasonable rate for its service which would afford it an opportunity to collect sufficient revenues to cover all operating expenses, taxes, depreciation expenses, and a return of 8% of the fair value of its properties. He added that the requested increase was the minimum required to insure continued adequate service and to provide the necessary expansion to meet future requirements . Mayor Tate then stated that questions were in order from the Council. The City Attorney explained that after reviewing the initial rate increase request it was determined that additional information was needed from Lone Star Gas in order to meet the requirements of the City ordinance. He added that the information had been received, but that he nor the City Staff had sufficient time to review the additional data. He recommended that the Council members ask as many questions as necessary at this point and then extend the public hearing for two to three weeks to allow more time to evaluate the request. Councilman Dunn asked if the expenses mentioned earlier included the cost of gas. Mr. Henderson answered that the firm was trying to recover expenses incurred since 1972, and that gas was part of ' ( the expense. Councilman Dunn stated that he thought the cost of gas was recovered in the gate rate charge. Mr. Henderson ex- plained that the company did recover the increase that was passed . on by the Railroad Commission but that there was a time lapse between the time the GUD588 was passed and the time that action . . was taken by the Council. Mr. Henderson commented that since action taken b th e Council in 2 197 Lone Star Gas h as r Y , ecovered � � � g � � � � � � the gas costs that were passed on to the company. Councilman � Dunn commented that if the gas costs were included as an ex- z � pense in the rate increase request, then it appeared that €' � that cost would be recovered twice. Mr. Henderson answered k � that standard procedure in a rate application was to show the � � expenses as compared to the revenue. � Mayor Tate asked if the proposed rate incorporated all fuel � adjustments through April, 1976. Mr. Henderson answered that � it was through March, 1976. The Mayor then asked if it was � � correct that the figures and the rates would not contemplate an additional fuel adjustment except those that have incurred � � since March, 1976. Mr. Henderson answered that that was � correct. Mayor Tate then observed that Lone Star Gas was � incorporating in the base rate a part of the cost of fuel that was suffered since the last rate increase. Mr. Henderson answered yes, (into the base rate) . Councilman Dunn asked what percentage of gas was classified as lost or unaccounted for. Mr. Henderson answered approxi- � mately 4.9%. � Mayor Tate asked Mr. Henderson what the increase in fuel cost � was since March 1976. Mr. Henderson answered that since � � j GUD588 (June 30, 1975) the base cost was 72.29%. Mr. ; Henderson commented that he had the figures only through � November. Mayor Tate then asked for the November rate. Mr. � Henderson answered that it was 131.74 or an increase of 50.53 ; cents since initiation of GUD588 on June 30, 1975. Mayor E j Tate commented that he was trying to demonstrate the increase � of the fuel cost. He added that there has been a substantial � increase in the pass through rate already. He then observed that if the fuel cost remained the same there would not be an additional cost in the present billing because it was already � � a part of the fuel adjustrnent and that the 24% would be in � addition to the cost of fuel. Mr. Henderson answered that � that was correct. The Mayor then acknowledged that the fuel � cost was figured in that, but that the 24% was not increased ` cost in fuel, but increased cost in other operating expense. He continued to say that the fuel adjustment increase was being passed through already and would continue to be passed � through, and that there had already been an increase of about 50% in eighteen months on that. The Mayor then asked Mr. Henderson if he contemplated any relief to the consumer in the near future in regard to fuel adjustment. Mr. Henderson answered no. � � p, ' Mayor Tate then asked for a breakdown on the 24� requested �' � increase between commercial and residential customers. Mr. � i � Henderson answered that he did not have that information at ; the present time, but that he would furnish that data as quickly as possible. � � Mayor Tate then asked if any gas curtailments were expected � which would effect Grapevine customers. Mr. Henderson � answered that Rate Two and Rate Three customers were curtailed � 100% at the present time (on a daily basis) but that no f curtailments were expected for residents. Councilman Dalton � asked if Mr. Henderson knew the rate of return that was k , established when the rate increase was approved in 1972. � Mr. Henderson answered that it was 7.85%. � City Attorney, John Boyle asked if Mr. Henderson could give an �. explanation of the fact that Exhibit Four (Revenues & Expenses, � Net Income) showed one-third Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Air- � port net income. Mr. Henderson explained that the cost of ` getting service to the majority of the airport facilities was � in other towns, (Irving and Euless) , therefore the expenses � were divided among the three cities. Mr. Boyle then asked, � t � � � � � i � percentage wise, how the customers were broken down for those three cities. Mr. Henderson could not answer the uestion. q The City Attorney then commented that he felt it would be a fair statement to say that the actual income was probably 90% II out of Grapevine. He then commented that essentially two i separate systems are involved in regard to the airport ' facilities and the Grapevine operation. � � � The City Attorney then acknowledged that the increase request ( was based primarily on the 1975 figures and asked when the 1976 � figures would be available. Mr. Henderson explained that the � � j adjusted or projected figures are shown on the Revenue Summary Sheet which set up a test year for the earning statements. I�' Mr. Boyle then asked if the gate� rate provision or the gas pass through provision contained in the present Grapevine City Ordinance was commonly referred to as the 100� pass through. Mr. Henderson answered that what was paid at the city gate was 100%. Mr. Boyle then asked if Lone Star Gas was passing through all that they were allowed. Mr. Henderson answered yes. The City Attorney asked what alternative other cities utilize in the pass through clause. Mr. Henderson answered that other towns have limited gas cost adjustment which would allow Lone Star Gas a certain percentage but that goes in as a deficiency and later is included in a rate application. Councilman Florence asked if Mr. Henderson knew what the expected monthly increase would be for the average residential consumer in the event the rate increase is approved. Mr. Henderson answered that it would be approximately $3.83 per month. There was little other discussion. Mayor Tate asked if there were any guests present who wished to speak for or against the application. There were none. Councilman Dunn made a motion to continue the public hearing � until the 15th day of February, 1977. The motion was seconded � by Councilman Pirkle and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Tate, Gideon, F'lorence, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle & Dunn Nays: None Councilman Dunn then suggested that the members of the Council arrange a work session with the Lone Star Gas representatives prior to the meeting of February 15th. Mayor Tate commented that that could be arranged. The Council then recessed for a short period of time and re- convened with all members present. The next order of business was for the City Council to consider the 1975-76 audit report as presented by auditor Jerry Pittman. E Mr. Pittman then read the Council the firm�s opinion of the financial records of the city. (Exhibit "A�� attached hereto and made a part hereof. ) . Mr. Pittman then pointed out some high- lights of the audit as shown on a combined balance sheet (all �� ; funds) , Exhibits "B�� and "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof. (A copy of the entire audit report is available in the general files of the City of Grapevine. ) Mr. Pittman thanked the Council for the o rtunit to� be of service to he PP� Y t Cit . Y He advised the Council that the accounting department now under the leadership of Mr. Pritt, Finance Director has made dramatic improvements during the past year. He also acknowledged that the new computer system would bring great improvements to the accounting procedures of the city. '' There was little discussion. � ( � Councilman Pirkle made a motion that the resolution adopting � the 1975-76 audit be adopted. The motion was seconded by a Councilman Dalton and prevailed by the following vote: �, r k! Ayes: Tate, Gideon, Florence, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle & Dunn � Nays: None � RESOLUTION NO. 77-2 � A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE AUDIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1975-76. . � � Councilman Dunn made the suggestion that an auditor be = appointed earlier in the year than has been done in the past. � He added that it would make the audit much easier on the � auditor as well as the City Staff. �, ; Mayor Tate asked if the Council could suggest to the City Manager and Councilman 'Dunn that they could pursue the � situation without any specific agenda item. The Attorney �' answered yes. � Councilman Florence made a motion that Councilman Dunn and the City Staff be authorized to begin negotiations and prepara- tions regarding an auditor for 1976-77. The motion was � � seconded by Councilman Oliver and prevailed by the following j vote: � i i � ± Ayes: Tate, Gideon, Florence, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle & Dunn � � Nays: None �� The next order of business was for the City Council to consider � � the auditor�s engagement letter for audit of the Revenue � ` i Sharing Fund. �� The City Manager explained that the Treasury�s Office had set � �� up guidelines which required that separate financial statements € and document census reports be prepared by an independent public accountant in regard to the Revenue Sharing Program. He � acknowledged that Pittman & Harris had agreed to prepare the audit for a ceiling price not to exceed $500 plus out-of-pocket expenses. Councilman Dalton made a motion that a resolution � be passed engaging the services of Pittman & Harris for the � Revenue Sharing Fund Audit. Councilman Pirkle seconded the � motion and it prevailed by the following vote: � F Ayes: Tate, Gideon, Florence, Oliver, Dalton, Dunn & Pirkle Nays: None � RESOLUTION NO. 77-3 € A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE ENGAGEMENT LETTER OF , � PITTMAN & HARRIS REGARDING THE AUDIT OF THE REVENUE SHARING RUND FOR 1975-76. � � � The next order of business was for the City Council to consider � the retention of a rate consultant in regard to the Texas � Power & Light rate increase request. € � The City Attorney explained that he and the City Manager had �, recently attended a meeting in Austin, Texas and met with representatives of other cities who had received similar � rate increases by Texas Power and Light. He acknowledged that }' it was the general consensus that Touche-Ross and Company be ; selected to analyze the rate request for the benefit of all � municipalities on a systemwide basis. He added that under � state law, the utility company is required to pay all consultant fees and that Texas Power and Light has agreed to do so. The City Attorney then recommended that the City of Grapevine � participate in the study. � There was little discussion. Councilman Pirkle made a motion that the City of Grapevine participate with other municipalities in the study of the rate increase requested by Texas Power & Light. The motion was seconded by Councilman Gideon and pre- vailed by the following vote: Ayes: Tate, Gideon, Rlorence, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle & Dunn Nays: None The next order of business was for the City Council to consider a resolution regarding Texas Power & Light 's rate increase re- quest, for the purpose of consideration of suspension of rates and to set a date for a public hearing. There was little dis- � cussion. It was determined that the public hearing be set for February 22, 19�7. Councilman Oliver made a motion that the resolution be adopted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Dunn and prevailed by the following vote: . . � Ayes: Tate, Gideon, Florence, Oliver, Dalton, Dunn & Pirkle Nays: None RESOLUTION NO. 77-1 � A RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE RATES AND SETTING A I DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN REGARD TO TEXAS I POWER AND LIGHT�S RATE INCREASE REQUEST. � � The next order of business was for the City Council to consider an amendment to the Utility Ordinance. The City Manager explained I that the ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney as instructed � by the Council. He stated that the proposed ordinance would delete the 2� deposit on total construction costs due from the developer before construction begins and would reduce the fee for installing and connecting a water meter and meter box to $75.00. There was little discussion. The City Secretary read the caption of the ordinance. Councilman Pirkle made a motion that the ordinance be adopted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Oliver and prevailed by the following vote: ; Ayes: Tate, Gideon, Florence, Oliver, Dalton, Dunn & Pirkle � Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 7?-1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE #76-31 RELATING Z'O WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM CHAR�ES BY AMENDING ART. 7-2-21 RELATING TO THE CHARGE FOR INSTALLING A WATER METER; AND AMENDING ART. 7-3-6 BY DELETING THE REQUIREMiENT THAT A DEVEIAPER PL,ACE A 2°l�0 DEPOSIT WITH THE CITY; PROVIDING A PENALTY, PRO- VIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. � The next order of business was for the Cit Council to a oint Y PP two members to the Parlc Board and consider the appointment of an ex-officio member. Mayor Tate declared that nominations were in order and announced that the names of Larry Jobe and Jim Sweeney had been suggested by members of the Park & Recreation Board. IMayor Tate stated that nominations wouid be taken first to fill the vacancy created by Donnie Kaker. Councilman Oliver nominated Larry Jobe. Councilman Dunn made a motion that nominations cease and that Mr. Jobe be elected by acclamation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Florence and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Tate, Gideon, Florence, Oliver, Dalton, Dunn & Pirkle Nays: None I� � I � � � � � Mayor Tate then stated that nominations were in order to fill � the vacancy created by Gerald Thompson. Councilman Florence nominated Jim Sweeney. Councilman Oliver made a motion that Mr. Sweeney be accepted by acclamation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Gideon and" prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Tate, Gideon, Florence, Oliver, Dalton, Dunn & Pirkle Nays: None � � Mayor Tate then suggested that the ex-officio member, who is to � be a representative of the school system, be appointed by the superintendent of schools. Councilman Dunn made a motion to � authorize the City Attorney to draft an amendment to establish � an ex-officio member of the Park Board to be appointed by the superintendent of public schools on an annual basis with term of office to begin on April lst and extend through March 30th of each year. The motion was seconded by Councilman Dalton and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Tate, Gideon, Florence, Oliver, Dalton, Dunn & Pirkle Nays: None The next order of business was consideration of the. minutes F` of the meeting of January 4, 1977. Councilman Oliver made a � motion to waive the reading of the minutes and accept them as � printed. The motion was seconded by Councilman Dalton and � prevailed by the following vote: r Ayes: Tate, Gideon, Florence, Oliver, Dalton, Dunn & Pirkle � Nays: None � � The City Manager reported that the emergency item regarding an amendment to Ordinance 72-40 would not be discussed until a later date. There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilman Florence made a motion to adjourn. The motion was � seconded by Councilman Oliver and all present voted aye. i PASSED AND APPROVED on this the �_ day of , 1977. �� ; � ��-,.. �i�`` �---��' ' Mayor � ATTEST: � � City Secr ary � � � � E x � � � �; � � w I � � x F � �: � � � ' �` � .. _.��,__�. �._� ..: ��_. .� � - .__ _ _ _ .��, .,. . . ..� _ ..... . _...�__ _ _ _ .�,_ _._ _ ___._., EXHIBIT "A" YITT:�IAN & I�ARRIS CERTIFIEC PVE3LIC ACCOUNTANTS P. O. 6GX 1, 1340 5. MAIN GRAPEVINE, TEXAS 76051 481-1503 �tRRV L. P�TTMAN, CPA �A`.�D A. H�+�RIS� CPA The Honorable William D. Tate, Mayor Plembers of the City Council Grapevine, Texas We have examined the financial statements of the various funds and account groups of the City of Grapevine for the fiscal year ended September 30, 19i6, listed in the foregoing table of contents. Our examination was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and, accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. In our opinion, the aforementioned financial statements present fairly the financial position of the various funds and account groups of the City of Grapevine at Septe�nber 30, 1976, and the results of operations of such funds and the changes in financial position of the Utility Fund for the fiscal year then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year. The accompanying supplemental schedules and related info��nation presented on pages 21 through 29 are not necessary for a fair .presentation of the financial statements , but are presented as additional analytical data. This information has been subjected to the tests and other auditing pr,ocedures applied in the examination of the financial statements mentioned above and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. � I . December 8, 1976 _ .-- - .- � -. �_ . � .- - - - — - -. ._ �._� .,_�.,�_. . . -.�_ ..+�.i-.N.•.- . ... . .� �, ,., .... .. .�.�a,p M* w..�� ..., +._F.' .{ _ . . . . JF .. ... . . .f;h ' , . . • . t .as�: . ' . .. � .. . '. . k� '.� •�. �.:.. ' . . . .. . ✓�� }• � t� sf t...'J'J f.t, '.� a .. . . . . , . .. .. 8`. �f`Y . � .. . � � . 4 i � _�.i �_.�.u ..� -�-� �: ± City of Grapevine - � ; COMBINED BALANCE SHEET -- ALL FUNDS � � September 30, 1976 � ' Trust Debt Capital and Occupancy General General ? General Utility Service Projects Agency Tax Fixed Long-Term Fund Fund Fund Funds Funds Fund Assets Debt ASSETS AND OTHER DEBITS Cash $ 352,762 $ - $ 1,007 $ 28,023 $ 703 $ 4,601 $ $ Investments - 85,000 300,000 - 117,000 Interest receivable on investments - 3,709 2,318 - _ Accounts receivable -- net 29,604 46,956 - 25,318 - _ Taxes receivable -- delinquent 162,9i3 14,469 28,059 - _ � Interest and penalties receivable on taxes 31,489 2,369 6,737 - _ = Due from other funds 8,196 - - 1 ,714 - _ H Inventory of supplies 1,181 - _ _ _ _ _ _ � Restricted assets for construction H Cash 3,791 WInvestments - 77,000 - _ _ _ _ _ Restricted assets for debt service and reserve Cash - 3,269 - _ _ Investments - 300,625 - _ _ Land - 80,872 - - - - 36,113 Buildings - 25,001 - - - - 187 ,685 Improvements other than buildings - 3 ,708,723 - - - - 1 ,263,5i3 Machinery, equipment and other - 16,958 - - - - 434,608 Construction work in progress - 450 - _ _ Amount available for retirement of bonds - - - - - - - 80,976 Amount to be provided for retirement of bonds - - - - - - - 590,899 � TOTAL ASSETS AND OTHER DEBITS $ 586,145 $4,284,192 $ 123,121 $ 355,055 $ 703 $ 121 ,601 $1 ,922,519 $ 671 ,875 ; ! � w. � - �, �, . . e City of Grapevine .,.: .�. ED BALANCE SHEET -- ALL FUNDS = � September 30, 1976 Trust Debt Capital and Occupancy General General General Utility Service Projects Agency Tax Fixed Long-Term Fund Fund Fund Funds Funds Fund Assets Debt LIABILITIES Excess of outstanding checks over bank balance $ - $ 266,206 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Accounts payable 106,066 26,551 - - - - - - Notes payable 16,428 8,000 - - - - - - Contracts payable - 36,001 - - - - - - Due to other funds - 2,562 7,348 - - - - - Customer deposits - 28,914 - - - - - - � Accrued liabilities - 43,552 - - - - - - x Advance from Municipality -- general � obligation bonds - 690,125 - - - - - - y General obligation bonds payable - - - - - - - 671,875 Revenue bonds payable . - 1 ,405,000 - - - - - - � `� TOTAL LIABILITIES 122,494 2,506,911 7 ,348 - - - - 671,875 � I RESERVES AND FUND BALANCES/RETAINED EARNINGS Reserve for encumbrances - - - 119,481 19,404 - - - Reserve for inventory of supplies 1 ,181 - - - - - - - Reserve for taxes receivable -- delinquent 162,913 - 28,059 - - - - - Reserve for interest and penalties receivable 31 ,489 - 6,738 - - - - - Reserve for bond debt service - 3G3,894 - - - - - - Contributions from Municipality - 713,106 - - - - - - Contributions from Federal Revenue Sharing - 182,568 - - - - - - Investment in general fixed assets - - - - - - 1 ,922,519 - rund balance (deficit) 268,068 - 80,976 235,574 ( 18,701) 121 ,601 - - Retained earnings - 577,713 - - - - - - � TOTAL LIABILITIES, RESERVES AND FUND BALANCES/RETAINED EARNINGS $ 586,145 $4,284,192 $ 123,121 $ 355,055 $ 703 $ 121 ,601 $1,922,519 $ 671 ,875