HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 BudgStudySessionCITY CLERK
File # EIS&U-Izu
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 19, 2001
SUBJECT. 2001-2002 Budget Study Session
Report Prepared by: Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS 1. Analysis of Anticipated 2001-2002 Impacts on the
City's General Fund
2. Background Financial Information including
Exhibits 1— 7
RECOMMENDATION: �/
3. Summary of 2000-2005 Capital Improvement
Program by Program Area
4. Budget Issues Worksheet
5. Resolution No. 80-93 (Policy for Management &
Use of General Fund Assets)
1. Receive Staff Report.
2. Review Budget Issues Worksheet and provide Staff with
direction on each of the issues identified in the Worksheet.
3. Establish Budget Hearing Date to consider 2001-2002
Annual Budget and Five Year Capital Improvement Program
Update
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: See attached.
DESCRIPTION: The City's Annual Budget Study Session provides the City Council
with an opportunity to identify those programs, services, and projects the Council would like Staff to
analyze as part of the development of the City's Annual Operating Budget and update to the Five Year
Capital Improvement Program for the upcoming year. The Budget Study Session also serves as a means
of ,providing the Council with early information regarding those items that may have a significant impact
(positive or negative) on the City's expenditures and revenues in 2001-2002.
The Study Session is also designed to minimize last minute budget issues for which there would be
insufficient time to evaluate.
The Study Session will be most productive if individual Councilmembers review the Fiscal Year 2000-
2001 Budget and 2000-2005 Capital Improvement Program documents prior to completing the Budget
Issues Worksheet and bring the completed Budget Issues Worksheet to the Council meeting for
purposes of discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- � --
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO.
\\DiJBLINFS2\CM\CC-MTGS\2001QTR1\MARCH\3-19-01 g&o\as-budget study.doc
ANALYSIS OF ANTICIPATED FUTURE IMPACTS
ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 BUDGET
Staff has identified a number of items which may potentially impact the City' s budget for
Fiscal Year 2001-2002. The information identified below is preliminary and based upon
the information available at this time.
REVENUE
Staff anticipates there could be the following positive and negative impacts on the City's
revenue picture for the upcoming fiscal year:
Property Tax - Staff anticipates at this time modest growth in the City's property
tax as a result of projects that are already in the process and will result in
additional assessed valuation for the upcoming fiscal year.
Sales Tax - It is anticipated that there will be an increase in the City's sales tax as
a result of additional spending attributed to new residents and employees;
however, this growth could be slowed as a result of what appears to be an
economic downturn at this time.
Measure B - The City anticipates that it will receive additional funds for local
road rehabilitation as a result of the reauthorization of Measure B.
Impact of the State Budget -Although the Govemor's Budget is proposing
additional one-time funds from the State for local government this year, it is
unknown what impact the energy crisis and the State' s financial commitment to
solve that crisis could have on the State budget,
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Identified below are items that are anticipated to impact the City' s Operating Budget for
Fiscal Year 2001-2002. This analysis does not include inflationary increases associated
with materials, supplies, equipment nor increased cost of wages and benefits for current
City employees or contract providers.
Police Services - For Fiscal Year 2001-2002, Staff anticipates that additional
police services will be necessary to keep pace with the growth of the community.
It is possible that an additional patrol beat will need to be added east of Tassajara
Road.
,
Utility Costs - It's anticipated that as a result of the lack of energy and the rising
cost of energy that the City could anticipate increased utility costs associated with
its facilities, signals and street lighting for Fiscal Year 2001-2002.
ATTACHMENT 1
Street Maintenance - It's anticipated that the City will experience additional
street maintenance, sweeping, landscape maintenance, tree maintenance, and
signal maintenance costs associated with new infrastructure that is being
completed in the City.
Park Maintenance - Additional park maintenance costs will be incurred as a
result of the full year maintenance costs associated with Emerald Glen Park
Phase I, Martin Canyon Trail Park and Ted Fairfield Park..
Parks & Community Services - Staff anticipates that with the growth of the
City's population and recreational facilities that additional programs and staff to
support those programs and facilities will be necessary for Fiscal Year 2001-2002.
Some recreation programs are currently at capacity with waiting lists. In addition,
facilities such as the City's Swim Center are nearly at capacity to accommodate
more use,
Other items that could have an impact on the City's budget beyond Fiscal Year
2001-2002 are:
a,
The potential adoption of the proposed National Fire Protection
Association Rule 1710, which would increase required minimum staffing
for fire service and minimum response times.
Metropolitan Water District vso Cargill Case which could impact the
City's contract service costs.
G:\CC-MTGSX2001QTR1XMARCI-IX3-19-01 g&o\attl -budget study.doe
'-2-
ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND HISTORICAL TRENDS
INFORMATION / TRENDS
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6:
Exhibit 7:
Historical Comparison of General Fund Operating Revenue Versus Expenditures
Historical Comparison of Per Capita General Fund Operating Revenue & Expenditures
Comparison of Total General Fund Revenues
Actual Trends for Major General Fund Revenues
All General Fund Expenditures
Major Categories of General Fund Operating Expenditures
Capital Project Expenditures in General Fund
$35
$30
$25
$20
$15 ~ ---
i
$10
1994-95
1995-96
HISTORICAL COMPARISON OF GENERAL FUND
OPERATING REVENUE VERSUS EXPENDITURES
(Includes CIP Project Expense and Civic Center Debt Service Payments)
1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01
Revenue -e-Expenditures
Revised
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget
1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01
REVENUES $ 14,841,491 $ 15,853,776 $ 17,438,474 $ 20,894,763 $ 24,051,679 $ 30,673,893 $ 32,573,604
EXPENDITURES $ 12,838,951 $ 14,350,242 $ 15,429,391 $ 18,044,611 $ 20,987,641 $ 21,916,166 $ 28,294,100
ANALYSIS:
3/16/01 8:56 AM
h:\Budget~charts\Rev&exp,xls
The budget figures presented for Fiscal Year 2000-01 do not account for a $2,400,000 operating transfer from the General Fund to the
Retiree Health Care Internal Service Fund, or the allocation of $3,056,628 to reserves for various designated purposes, such as the Emerald
Glen Fire Station, Senior Center, Senior Center Van and Open Space / Downtown projects. The 2000-01 Budget is as adjusted through
February 28, 2001 and includes the Mid Year Budget adjustments from the report presented to Council on March 6, 2001.
EXIflBIT 1 ~
HISTORICAL COMPARISON OF PER CAPITA GENERAL FUND
OPERATING REVENUE & EXPENDITURES
(Includes CIP Project Expense and Civic Center Debt Service Payments)
$1,050
$950
$850
$750
$650
$550
1994-95
1995-96
996-97 1997-98 1998-99
Revenue ,,,a- Expenditures
1999-2000
2000-01
Revised
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget
1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01
REVENUES $565 $596 $662 $818 $900 $923 $980
EXPENDITURES $489 $540 $586 $706 $785 $659 $851
POPULATION 26,581 26,267 25~544 26,725 28,707 33,250 35,339
ANALYSIS: On a per capita basis, General Fund Expenditures have been increasing at a rapid pace over the past four
fiscal years due to: additional public safety costs; new development within the City; and more capital
projects being fimded by the General Fund. On a per capita basis, Revenues and Expenditures have both
increased by approximately 74% since Fiscal Year 1994-95.
Date Printed: 3/16/01 9:01 AM
H:\BUDGETXcharts\Rev&exp.xIs
EXHIBIT 2
$35 -
$30 -
$25 -
$20 -
$1. -
$10 -
$5 -
$0
$14.8
COMPARISON OF TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Last Seven Fiscal Years
$30.7
$15.9
$17.4
$20.9
$24.1
$32.6
1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 t997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000~1
Revised
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget
REVENUES 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 _ 2000-01
Property Taxes $ 3,944,284 $ 3,867,613 $ 3,920,897 $ 4,351,859 $ 4,866,093 $ 5,991,814 $ 6,168,350
Sales Tax 6,470,287 6,760,413 7,108,598 8,025,448 8,687,091 11,548,901 11,300,000
Other Taxes 651,807 865,612 1,128,454 1,297,452 1,522,356 2,142,704 2,215,840
Licenses &Permits 337,551 466,199 1,092,183 1,398,677 2,472,217 3,897,965 3,124,088
Fines & Forfeitures 35,668 38,793 38,492 40,421 60,876 84,543 68,755
Interest and Rentals 1,140,714 1,265,255 1,388,949 1,556,181 1,352,939 1,340,737 1,513,259
Intergovernmental 1,044,002 1,102,494 1,151,275 1,233,812 1,356,234 1,632,441 1,813,500
Charges For Services 1,053,715 1,372,959 1,386,419 2,483,861 3,482,983 3,308,263 3,434, 158
Other Revenue* 163,463 113,782 223,207 507,052 250,889 726,524_ 2,935,654
TOTAL REVENUE $ 14,841,491 $ 15,853,120 $ 17,438,474 $ 20,894,763 $ 24,051,678 $ 30,673,892= $ 32,573,604
ANALYSIS: After experiencing revenue growth between FY 1994-95 through 1999-2000, Staff is projecting continuing growth in FY
2000-01. It is important to note the categories which contributed significantly to the revenue growth (Sales Tax, Property
Tax, Charges for Services and Licenses and Permits). "Licenses and Permits" and "Charges fbr Services" are largely related to
Development Activity. These revenues directly offset current operating oosts. Both of these revenues are highly related to
extemal economic factors. The 2000/01 Budget also includes almost $3 million in "Other Revenue" which typically is from
one-time / non recurring sources.
Date Printed: 3/15/01 11:17 AM
h:\BUDGET%CHARTS\HStrev. Xls
EXHIBIT 3
ACTUAL TRENDS FOR MAJOR GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Last Seven Fiscal Years
$12
$10 -
$8 -
$4-
$2 -
1994-95
II
1995-96
]--I-PropertyTaxes
1996 -97 1997-98 1998-99 1999 -2000 2000-01
+ Sales Tax + Licenses and Permits , Charges For Services~
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
REVENUES 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998 -99 1999-2000
Sales Tax $ 6,470,287 $ 6,760,413 $ 7,108,598 $ 8,025,448 $ 8,687,091 $ 11,548,901
% General Fund Total 43.6% 42.6% 29.6% 26.2% 36.1% 37.7%
Property Taxes $ 3,944,284 $ 3,867,614 $ 3,920,897 $ 4,351,859 $4°866,093 $ 5,991,814
% General Fund Total 26.6% 24.4% 16.3% 14.2% 20.2% 19.5%
licenses and Pertnits $ 337,551 $ 466,199 $ 1,092,183 $ t,398,677 $ 2,472,2t7 $ 3,897,965
% General Fund Total 1.4% 1.9% 4.5% 5.8% 10.3% 12.7%
Charges For Services $ 1,053,715 $ 1,372,960 $ 1,386,4t9 $ 2,483,861 $3,482,983 $ 3,308,263
% General Fund Total 7.1% 9.1% 5.8% 8.1% 14.5% 10.8%
% Total Major Categories 78.7% 78.0% 56.2% 54.3% 81.1% 80.7%
Date Printed: 3/15/01 11:17 AM
h:\BUDGET~CHARTS\MaJrevcm.xls
This chart analyzes four major General Fund Revenues which account for approximately 74% of the total General Fund Revenues collected.
Revised
Budget
2000-01
$ 11,300,000
34.7%
$ 6,168,350
18.9%
$ 3, 124,088
9.6%
$ 3,434,158
10.5%
73.7%
EXHIBIT 4
$30 -
$25 -
= $20-
'-~$15- $12.8
$10 -
$5-
$0~
$14.4
ALL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
(Operating Expenditures / CIP / Debt Service)
$15.4
$18.0
$21.0
$21.9
$28.3
1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01
General Government
Public Safety
Transportation
Health & Welthre
Culture & Leisure
Community Development
Contingent Reserve
TOTAL OPERATIONS ,
Capital Improvement Program
Net Debt Service
GRAND TOTAL
ANALYSIS:
Date Printed: 3/15/01 11:16 AM
h:\BUDGE~CHARTS\Gfexp.xls
Actual Actual
1994-95 1995-96
$ 1,581,140 $ 1,496,978
$ 6,043,221 $ 6,714,808
$ 539,936 $ 691,337
$ 17,412 $ -
$ 1,765,992 $ 1,847,110
$ 1,250,082 $ 1,778,244
N/A N/A
$ 11,197,783 $ 12,528,477
$ 179,719 $ 322,243
$ 1,461,449 $ 1,499,522
$ 12,838,951 $ 14,350,242
Actual Actual
1996-97 1997-98
$ 1,691,687 $ 1,761,643
, 6,723,854 $ 8,204,545
$ 629,264 $ 650,709
$ 15,596 $ 17,039
$ 2,000,560 $ 2,168,994
$ 1,838,558 $ 2,761,133
N/A N/A
$ 12,899,519 $15,564,063
$ 1,033,056 $ 987,200
$ 1,496,816 $ 1,493,348
$ 15,429,391 $ 18,044,611
The chart displays General Fund expenditures by major program area.
Actual
1998-99
$ 2,139,738
$ 8,805,457
$ 776,929
$ 16,969
$ 2,248,580
$ 3,606,401
N/A
$17,594,074
$ 1,779,159
$ 1,614,407
$ 20,987~40
Actual
1999-2000
2,274,915
9,485,166
827,142
19,086
2,827,621
4,116,030
N/A
19,549,960
2,366,207
-
21,916,167
Revised
Budget
2000-01
$ 3,033,057
$ 10,858,374
$ 960,383
$ 19,390
$ 3,472,989
$ 4,894,262
$ 27,500
$ 23,265,955
$ 5,028,145
$
$ 28,294,100
EXHIBIT 5
$12
MAJOR CATEGORIES OF GENERAL FUND OPERATING EXPENDITURES
(Excludes Health Welfare and Civic Center Debt Service)
$10 -
$8 -
$6 -
$4 -
$2 -
$0
1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01
IPublic Safety
IGeneral Government
ICulture & Leisure
IllCommunity Development
Transportation
PROGRAM AREA
Public Safety
General Government
Culture & I ~eisure
Community Development
Transportation
ANALYSIS:
Date Printed: 3/15/01 11:17 AM
H:\BUDGE~CHARTS\MaJeXp. XlS
Revised
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget
1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01
$ 6,043,221 $ 6,714,808 $ 6,723,854 $ 8,204;545 $ 8,805,457 '$ 9,485,166 $ 10,858,374
$ 1,581,140 $ 1,650,777 $ 1,691,687 $ 1,761,643 $ 2,139,738 $ 2,274,915 $ 3,033,057
$ 1,765,992 $ 1,847,110 $ 2,000,560 $ 2,168,994 $ 2,248,580 $ 2,827,621 $ 3,472,989
$ 1,250,082 $ 1,778,244 $ 1,838,559 $ 2,761,133 $ 3,606,401 $ 4,116,030 $ 4,894,262
$ 539,936 $ 691,337 $ 629,264 $ 650,709 $ 776,929 $ 827,142 $ 960,383
This chart analyzes a comparison between General Fund expenditures by the major operating program areas excluding health and
welfare. As shown public safety expenditures have increased substantially in the last five fiscal years. Community Development
spending has also increased over the past seven years due to increased development activity. Culture and Leisure shows an 23%
increase in the most recent year as a result of additional recreational programs being provided. General Government has
increased by 33% due to the funding of retiree health costs for the first time and the addition of new staff in the Central Services
and Administrative Services departments. Transportation has increased by 16% during the most recent year due to due to the
funding of retiree health costs for the first time and the addition of new staff in the Public Works department.
EXHIBIT6
CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN GENERAL FUND
Last Seven Fiscal Years
$6 -
$5 -
$4 -
$3 -
$2 -
$1 *
$0.2
$0~
1994-95
$0.3
$1.0 $1.0
$1.8
$2.4
$5.0
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01
Capital Improvement Program
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000
$ 179,719 $ 322,243 $ 1,033,056 $ 987,200 $ 1,779,159 $ 2,366,207
Revised
Budget
2000-01
$ 5,028,145
ANALYSIS:
In the last three Fiscal Years the General Fund has funded Capital Improvement Projects to a greater extent
than in prior years.
Date Printed: 3/15/01 11:16 AM
H:~BUDGET\Charts\Gfexp.xls
EXHIBIT 7
REVISED AS OF 3/14/2001
SUMMARY 2000-2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - GENERAL
PROJECT NUMBER AND NAME
93150
93155
93157
'93190
93192
93200
93220
93310
93320
93325
93450
93510
93910
93915
93930
93970
94510
Network System Upgrade
Senior Center Computer System
Engineering Equipment
Central Data Processing System Upgrade
Geographic Information System
Automated Building Permit System
Communications System Upgrade
Computers for Our Schools Project
Telecommunications Plan
Automated Notification System
Civic Center Library (Phase I)
Emerald Glen Fire Station
Civic Center Modification Design Services & Construction
Civic Center Automatic Door
· Civic Center Roof ReplaCement
Automated Document Storage & Retrieval System
Fire Fee Study Update
TOTAL COST
PRIOR REVISED
TOTALS YEARS 2000-2001
229,785 $ 191,785 $ 38,000
30,000 $ 30,000
8,750 8,750
96,345 62,845 33,500
77,910 4,529 73,381
24,453 14,953 9,500
114,340 18,340 13,500
299,541 149,541 150,000
46,201 13,581 32,620
41,000 41,000
13,172,092 358,889 2,226,646
3,288,502 22,894 1,471,987
3,816,538 2,009,353 137,435
18,750 18,750
178,374 100,224 78,150
79,673 35,673 22,000
8,859 8,859
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005
$ $ $ $
6,775,317
1,793,621
22,000
$ 21,531,113 $ 2,982,607 $ 4,394,078 $ 8,590,938
82,500
3,811,240
132,250 $1,537,500
$ 4,025,990 $1,537,500 $ 0
General Fund (001 )
Special Criminal Activity (200)
Public Facility Fee Fund (310)
Fire Impact Fee Fund (320)
TOTAL FINANCING
3/14/01 6:06 PM
$ 4,639,978 $ 973,153 $2,646,604 $ 22,000
17,266 17,266
13,576,508 1,969,294 266,628 6,775,317
3,297,361 22,894 1,480,846 1,793,621
$ 21,531,113 $2,982,607 $4,394,078 $8,590,938
$ 998,221 $ $
3,027,769 1,537,500
$4,025,990 $1,537,500 $ 0
SUMMARY 2000-2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - GENERAL
PROJECTS UNFUNDED DURlNG THE FIVE YEAR TIME FRAME
PROJECT NUMBER AND NAME
93450 Civic Center L~rary (Phase II)
TOTALS
ESTIMATED
COST
$ 1,257,085
$ 1,257,085
3/14/01 5:46PM
Part 2 of 2
REVISED AS OF 3/14/2001
SUMMARY 2000-2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NUMBER AND NAME
94051
94192
94226
94230
94250
94251
94255
94261
94290
94615
94641
94701
94956
94960
N/A
Iron Horse Trail Amenities
Dougheny Road Tree Planting
Freeway Underpass An at Dublin Boulevard / Amador Valley Blvd
Arroyo vista Project Improvements - Roof Repair
Sidewalk Safety Repair
Widen Village Parkway Sidewalks
Sidewalk Reconstruction Underneath 1-680
Trash Racks Behind Padre Way
Audible Pedestrian Signals
Village Parkway Median Landscaping
Irrigation Controller Upgrade
Downtown Improvements Plan
Eastern Dublin Banner Additions
Street Name Identification Sign Replacement Program
City Entrance Sign Modifications
TOTAL COST
General Fund (001)
State Gas Tax (206)
CDBG (209)
Assessment Dist (710)
Assessment Dist (711)
Assessment Dist (713)
TOTAL FINANCING
PRIOR REVISED
TOTALS YEARS 2000-2001
$ 18,108 $ 8,208 $ 9,900
27,578 27,578
434,765 152,565
153,997 115,497 38,500
311,614 71,614
93,150 93,150
84,000 84,000
2,980 2,980
9,620 2, 120 7,500
32,500 32,500
17,810 17,810
49,650 49,650
30,258 30,258
101,740 101,740
54,100
$ 1,421,870 $ 125,825 $ 719,745
966,409 $ 8,208 $ 381,901
234,890 234,890
167,731 117,617 50,114
50,000 50,000
870 870
1,970 1,970
$ 1,421,870 $ 125,825 $ 719,745
2001-2002
$
282,200
60,000
54,100
$ 396,300
$ 396,300
2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005
$ $ $
60,000 60,000 60,000
$ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
$ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
$ 396,300 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
3/14/01 6:06 PM
REVISED AS OF 3/14/2001
SUMMARY 2000-2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - PARKS
PROJECT NUMBER AND NAME
95110
95405
95451
95501
95600
95620
95635
95830
95910
95911
95930
N/A
N/A
Comt~nnity Gyrrmasittm at Valley High School
Shannon Park & Coninanity Center Parking Lot Paving
Shannon Center Doors
Heritage Center Storage Building
Emerald Glen Park (Phases I & II)
Camp Parks Park Project
Park Play Area Evaluation
Dublin Sports Grounds Renovation
Swim Center Improvements
Dublin Swim Center Exterior Painting & Fence Replacement
Senior Center
Schaefer Ranch Neighborhood Parks
Dublin Ranch Neighborhood Parks
TOTAL COST
FINANCING
General Fund (001 )
Measure D (224)
Traffic Impact Fee Fund (300)
Public Facility Fee Fund (310)
Park Dedication (315)
TOTAL FINANCING
PRIOR REVISED
TOTALS YEARS 2000-2001
$ 1,053,177 $ 502,545
34,200
16,235
73,775.
14,986,016 7,095,432
1,643,420
8,250
777,529 -215,454
29,107
89,125 10,807
3,273,050
8,153,363
5,409,060
$ 275,316
34,200
16,235
73,775
859,744
8,250
562,075
29,107
78,318
30,000
$ 35,546,307 $ 7,824,238 $1,967,020
$ 5,069,307 $ 528,720 $ 545,201
17,716 8,896 8,820
164,465 164,465
10,803,396 4,849,849 859,744
19,491,423 2,272,308 553,255
2001-2002
$ 275,316
7,030,840
126,350
2002-2003
$
1,517,070
2003-2004 2004-2005
$ $
235,824 1,430,661 1,576,565
5,369,288 2,784,075
1,590,900 3,818,160
$7,668,330 $4,538,631 $ 10,764,013 $2,784,075
$ 1,781,331
1,563,300
1,194,000
$ 637,490
543,830
6,487,010
$ 1,576,565 $
2,292,098 694,575
6,895,350 2,089,500
$35,546,307 $7,824,238 $1,967,020 $7,668,330 $4,538,631 $ 10,764,013 $2,784,075
3/14/01 6:13 PM
SUMMARY 2000-2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - PARKS
PROJECTS UNFUNDED DURlNG THE FIVE YEAR TIME FRAME
PROJECT NUMBER AND NAME
95600
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
New
New
Emerald Glen Park (Phase III)
Comrrnmity Theater
Emerald Glen Park Aquatic Center
Emerald Glen Park Community Center
Emerald Glen Park Recreation Center
Sports Park
Dublin Ranch Neighborhood Parks
Eastern Dublin Neighborhood Parks
TOTALS
ESTIMATED
COST
$ 8,254,646
3,456,000
2,201,500
4,968,000
6,264,000
41,860,263
7,318,140
17,261,265--
$ 91,583,814____
3/14/01 5:46PM
Part 2 of 2
REVISED AS OF 3/14/2001
SUMMARY 2000-2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - STREETS
PROJECT NUMBER AND NUMBER (a)
96010 Dublin Boulevard - Silvergate Drive to Hansen Drive
96015 Areadot Valley Boulevard & Starward Drive Safety Improvement
96021 Bedford Court Subdrain
96023 Hanson Drive Drainage Improvements
96080 Dublin Boulevard Underground Utilities Village Parkway to Sierra Ct
96380 1-580 & San Ramon Road Freeway Interchange Improvements
96400 Eastem Dublin A~erial Street Improvements
96410 1-580 & Hacienda Drive Freeway Interchange Improvements
96420 1-580 & Tassaj ara Road Freeway Interchange Improvements
96430 I-580 & Fallon Road Freeway Interchange Improvements
96560 Traffic Signals Village Parkway at Brighton Tamarack & Davona Dr
96561 Traffic Signal - Hacienda Drive at Summerglen Drive
96562 LED Traffic Signal Conversion
96580 Annual Street Overlay Program
96650 East Dublin ROW Acquisition
96770 Alamo Canal Bike Path Project Amador Valley BIrd/Iron Horse Trail
96772 Alamo Canal Bikepath to I580
96850 Dougherty Road Improvements - North of Amador Valley Blvd
96852 Dougherty Road Improvements - Houston Place to 1-580
96870 Saint Patrick Way- Regional Street to Golden Gate Drive
96890 Dublin Boulevard Widening - Dougherty Road to Scarlett Drive
96920 Dublin Bouicvard Improvements - Village Parkway to Sierra Court
96930 Dublin Boulevard Improvements - Sierra Court to Doughcrty Road
N/A Bike Lane - Amador Valley Blvd- Stagecoach Road to Dougherty Rd
N/A Bike Path - Alamo Creek North to Areadot Valley Boulevard
N/A Dublin Boulevard - Right Turn at Village Parkway
N/A Village Parkway & Lewis Avenue Intersection Improvement
TOTAL COST
General Fund (001 )
State Gas Tax (206)
ISTEA (210)
Transp. Development Act (211 )
Measure B Sales Tax (217)
State Transportation Improvements (219)
SB 300 Fund (220)
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (221)
Traffic Impact Fee Fund (300)
TOTAL FINANCING
3/14/01 6:29 PM
PRIOR REVISED
TOTALS YEARS 2000-2001 2001-2002
$ 719,976 $ 719,976 $ $
24,000 24,000
12,500 12,500
99,400 99,400
602,080 4,160 597,920
1,731,072 87,802 174,220 165,125
20,693,694 469,191 10,564,495 1,160,354
1,631,736 181,398 1,450,338
10,829,621 501,774 623,466 7,278,286
1,118,943 366,001 752,942
508,663 35,898 472,765
99,000 99,000
157,720 157,720
1,435,850 422,250 253,400
4,343,309 78,519 4,264,790
320,882 40,487 280,395
303,950 303,950
574,366 574,366
2,229,309 155,112 104,175 1,497,727
6,786 6,786
2,921,934 151,410 2,770,524
2,747,332 135,647 1,455,685 1,156,000
1,933,334 212,000
220,000
142,210 142,210
385,400 385,400
88,200 88,200
$55,881,267 $3,508,527 $24,630,535 $12,338,702
$ 1,739,679 $ 57,530 $ 1,454,439 $ 35,210
1,493,683 150,783 297,990 284,710
1,097,194 285,044 812,150
65, 125 39, 100 26,025
235,259 88,269 90,100 56,890
2,754,271 194,311 1,311,960 1,248,000
69,340 69,340
154,080 154,080
48,272,636 2,624,150 20,483,791 10,713,892
$55,881,267 $3,508,527 $24,630,535 $12,338;702
2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005
$ $ $
1,303,925
6,65 1,547 924,054 924,053
2,426,095
253,400 253,400 253,400
472,295
556,444 1,164,890
220,000
$11,883,706 $2,342,344 $1,177,453
$ 192,500
253,400 $ 253,400 $ 253,400
11,437,806 2,088,944
$11,883,706 $2,342,344
924,053~
$1,177,453
SUMMARY 2000-2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - STREETS
PROJECTS UNFUNDED DURING THE FIVE YEAR TIME FRAME
PROJECT NUMBER AND NUMBER
96010
96400
96430
96850
96870
N/A
N/A
N/A
Dublin Boulevard - Silvergate Drive to Hansen Drive (Phase II)
Eastern Dublin Arterial Street Improvements
1-580 & Fallon Road Freeway Interchange Improvements
Dougherty Road Improvements - North of Amador Valley Boulevard to
North of Houston Place
Saint Patrick Way - Regional Street to Golden Gate Drive
Dougherty Road Improvements - Amador Valley Boulevard North to City Limits
Scarlett Drive - Iron Horse Trail Extensions
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee - Regional Transportation Projects
TOTALS
ESTIMATED
COST
$ 1,450,000
56,826,303
12,385,071
3,875,217
FEES
AVAILABLE
SHORTFALL
$ 35,690 $ 1,414,310
56,826,303
228,960 12,156,111
6,826 3,868,391
4,384,055 1,227,406 3,156,649
3,592,629 226,961 3,365,668
8,321,777 215,795 8,105,982
17,166,940 17,166,940
$ 108,001,992
$ 1,941,638 $106,060,354
3/14/01 5:47 PM
Part 2 of 2
.BUDGET ISSUES WORKSHEET
FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
loA.
The City Council adopted a level of service for each Budget Activity (i.e., Police, Park
Maintenance, Library, etc.) in Fiscal Year 2000-2001 (See 2000-2001 Preliminary
Budget).
For the purpose of developing the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Operating Budget, should the
service levels adopted in the 2000-2001 Budget be used as the starting point (i.e., base
level of service)?
YES or
NO (Please circle one)
If you circle "NO" what service modification or new programs would you like to see
added or dropped from the base level of service?
ADDED SERVICES
DROPPED SERVICES
1.B.
To the extent the City Council' s 2001-2002 Goals & Objectives require additional
resources not included in the current budget, should the 2001-2002 Budget fund only
High Priority Objectives?
YES or
NO (Please circle one)
If "YES" should High Priority Objectives only be identified in a higher service level
when additional funding is required?
YES or
NO (Please circle one)
-1-
ATTACHMENT 4
loCo
COMMUNITY GROUP FUNDING REQUESTS
During Fiscal Year 2000-2001, the City funded a number of community groups which
are identified below, Please indicate with a check (4') which community groups
should be included in the base level or in a higher service level of the Budget Fiscal
Year 2001-2001o
Commtmity Group
Alameda County Green Program
Childcare Links Childcare Support
Crayons to Computers
Dublin Fine Arts Foundation
Drag Substance Abuse Council
Red Ribbon Week
Dry Grad Night
Dublin Partnerships in Education
Parent Education Program
Emergency Services Network of
Alameda County
Save Money & the Environment, Too
Campaign
Tri-Valley Convention & Visitors
Bureau
Tri-Valley One-Stop Career Center
Valley Crisis Center
2000-2001 Base Level Higher
Funding of Service Level
of Service
In addition to the groups identified above, Staff has already received funding requests
from two groups which were not funded in 2000-2001o Please indicate with either
YES/NO if the Council will consider funding requests from the following two
groups. If the request should be included in the base service level or a higher
service level (check one).
Should City
Consider
Subsidy for FY
2001-2002
(Yes/No)
Higher
Base Level Level
of Service of Service
SCORE
Tri-Valley Classical Philharmonic
-2-
2.Ao
Attachment 3 (see attached) is a summary of the capital improvements adopted as part
of the City's Five-Year C°I.P. as revised.
Of those projects currently identified in the Five-Year C.I.Po, are there any projects
which you would like to see funded in Fiscal Year 2001-20027 If so, please indicate
below,
2.B.
During the current year, the Council has received requests from the public to consider
Capital Projects, i.e., Dublin Boulevard/Inspiration Drive traffic signal, which are not
the current Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.
Are there additional Capital Projects which are not included in the adopted Five-Year
C.I.P. which you would like to have Staff evaluate?
If so, please identify projects below,
2,C°
In the 2000-2001 Budget (as adjusted), a total of $5,028,145 was allocated from the
General Fund for Capital Projects.
If this funding is necessary for Operating Expenditures in 2001-2002, which of the
following alternatives do you prefer for funding Capital Projects in 2001-2002?
Please check preferred method,
1o Defer 2001-2002 Capital Projects to a later year°
2. Utilize unallocated Reserves.
3. Utilize Debt Financing.
4. Other
-3-
2-,/
CONTRACT SERVICES
The following service contracts are scheduled to be evaluated at the end of Fiscal Year
2000-2001o Are you interested in Staff evaluating any aspect of the service other than
the cost of providing the service for Fiscal Year 2001-2002? If so, please indicate
below.
If "Yes"
CONTRACT Cost Only Identify
(Yes/No) Other Issues
Ao Building & Safety
1) Linhart'Petersen Powers &
Assoc.
2) BJY Associates
B. Crossing Guard Services
(All City Management)
RESERVES
The City' s policy on use of reserves (see Attachment #5) establishes appropriate use for
these ftmds.
A. Currently funds are not reserved for future costs associated with:
1o Future major renovation of existing facilities, i.e., Shannon Center, Civic
Center, etc.
2. Unfunded future Capital Proj eels which are not to be fully funded by
Development Impact Fees.
Catastrophic losses (i.e., City currently does not have property damage
protection due to earthquake).
Should the City consider reserving funds for any of the above items (4A 1-3)? If
soy please indicate which items below°
.B.
ShOuld use of Reserves be limited to Capital or other one-time expenditures?
YES or NO (Please circle one)
-4-
BUDGET CALENDAR
In order to ~nalize the budget calendar for preparation of the 2001-2002 Budget and Five-
Year CoI.Po update, it is necessary to establish a budget hearing date.
In order to provide Staff with enough time to complete the budget, Staff would recommend
that the Council identify a day during the week of June 25, 2001 as the Budget Hearing date.
Please indicate preferred date below,
\\DUBLINFS2\CMXRCAX2001-02 FiscalBudget issues worksheet. doe
-5-
RESOLUTION NO. 80 - 93
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR, MANAGEMENT AND USE OF GENERAL FUND ASSETS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin recognizes the
importance of General Fund Reserves; and
WHETS, General Fund Reserves are an important asset of the City
and it is prudent to have an established policy to guide their use; and
WHEREAS, typically, General Fund monies are a discretionary funding
source which can be appropriated as enacted through-the annual budget
process; and
WHEREAS, interest earnings from City General Fund Reserves can
provide an independent local revenue source; and
WHEREAS, it is not possible to exactly predict over time how
economic conditions may impact either the interest earnings (income) or
the need to utilize reserves to provide the level of municipal services
deemed adequate by City Council policy; and
WHEREAS, prudent management would dictate that the City have a
general policy for the management of its assets, including the
anticipated purpose of General Fund Reserves.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Dublin does hereby establish the attached Policy for the Management and
Use of General Fund Reserves (Exhibit A), attached hereto and by
reference made a part hereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Staff are hereby authorized and
directed to undertake all administrative steps necessary to implement
said "Policy" and present periodic reports to the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 1993.
AYES:
Councilmembers Burton,-Houston, Howard, and Mayor Snyder
NOES: None
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
'~Ci.~ Clerk
psRnss a: Res~0."ige~a#~ 2:
Councilmember Moffatt
None ~~
M
'~ ' ayor/
ATTACHMENT 5
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF DUBLIN
GENERAL FUND RESERVE POLICY
PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to formally outline the City Council
policy 'of maintaining General Fund Reserves and designating the
potential types of uses for such reserves. General Fund Reserves
shall not be considered as being readily available for appropriations
towards operating expenses, except as allowed for in this policy and
through explicit action by the City Council.
_A_MOUNT OF RESERVES
The amount of General Fund Reserves will fluctuate over time. The
City Council recognizes that there are numerous events which could
place a legitimate demand on the reserves.
INTEREST EARNINGS
All interest earnings on the General Fund Reserves shall accrue to the
City's General Fund Unreserved F~nd Balance, for appropriation by the
City Council in accordance with local and State laws, regulations and
policies.
ABiLiTY TO ACCOMMODATE CITY NEEDS
The City. Council recognizes the importance of maintaining flexibility
at this time as well as in the future. Proper maintenance of the
City's General Fund Reserves will accommodate a response to economic
conditions affecting earnings on said funds as well as unanticipatad
events which require an appropriation.
POTENTI~T. USE OF RESERVES
Any appropriation of General Fund Reserves is subject to action by the
City Council. The following events are the basis for a policy- to
protect and carefully plan for any expenditure from General Fund
Reserves:
City Indebtedness: Reserves may be utilized to reduce or.
eliminate the need for current or future debt service payments-
The limitation of debt service as an annual operating expense
allows for available monies to be expended for other public
purposes. This shall be considered the highest priority for the
use of General Fund Reserves.
Economic Uncertainty: A prudent reserve can be used to finance
municipal services in the event that economic conditions have
deteriorated to the extent that traditional revenue sources can
no longer support the services.
Response to Reductions in Revenues: in recent years, State
Government has taken revenues which were previously considered to
be local revenues. Development of a locally controlled 'revenue
source can be important.-
Catastrophic Loss: The City currently 'participates in a pooled
self-insured liability and property program. A catastrophic
event may require additional appropriations in order to attain a
full recovery.
Preservation of Funds as Eevenue Generator: The preservation of
General Fund Reserves provides revenue as a result of investment
income. This is an important discretionary income source.
Economic Development Stimulus: A locally controlled funding
source could become one cOmponen~ of an investment plan, which
would provide a positive return to the City and a public benefit.
This listing is not intended to be '~11 inclusive; however, it is
generally reflective of the types of considerations to.be made when
proposing the use of such funds. Proposed uses which are inconsistent
with this policy should demonstrate a public benefit and a finding
that it is in the best interest of the City.
~Vi S i ON S
Revisions to this policy shall be approved by the City Council in the
form of a Resolution.
PSP,/[ss a: FundExbA.agenda#12