Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 8.2 BudgStudySession
CITY CLERK IL bll©l- lb"l AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 19, 2001 SUBJECT: 2001-2002 Budget Study Session Report Prepared by: Richard C Ambrose, City Manager ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATIO~ Analysis of Anticipated 2001-2002 Impacts on the City's General Fund Background Financial Information including Exhibits 1 - 7 Summary of 2000-2005 Capital Improvement Program by Program Area Budget Issues Worksheet Resolution No. 80-93 (Policy for Management & Use of General Fund Assets) Receive Staff Report. Review Budget Issues Worksheet and provide Staff with direction on each of the issues identified in the Worksheet. 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. ~ \XDUBLINFS2\CIVIXCC-MTGSX2001QTR1\MARCH~-19-01 g&oXas-budget study. doe 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