Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout119-92 Ordinance , . RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank Co. Form No. 30043 Ordinance No._ _ull_9_~_?_~__ Passedm_m__um_m_m__ _m_U_U__ ____ _.19____ AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 1992 - 1996 ,.. ~ WHEREAS, SECTION 5.04(b)(5) of the Dublin City Charter requires the City Manager to prepare and submit a proposed capital improvement program to City Council; and, - WHEREAS, City Council has received and reviewed this proposed capital improvement program; and, WHEREAS, the Administration has incorporated all corrections and modifications as required by City Council's review process in the attached document. NOW, THEREFORE'lE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, Ohio, State of Ohio IJ of the elected members concurring: SECTION 1. That the "Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1992 - 1996 " attached as Exhibit "A" be, and hereby is, approved. SECTION 2. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this ~ /5- -r day of ~ ,1992. f"" ~/~ f \..... M~ residing 0 . er ATTEST: ~ a ~ Clerk of Council he b rtify that copies of this Ordinaoce/Resohltion were posted in the 1 re Y ce .' 731 25 of the Ohio Revised code. City of Dublin in accordance With SecMn . /J AA --A _ (Q _ (1 ~AA ~.A--. Clerk of Council, Dubhn, OhiO '-" ,,^",~ -.... ---.-.--.-- 1992-1996 "'" ,~ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS oW ik~ ";<4' PROGRAM ~ "tlIII: !;iliI ('^'Ill ~,... """'" -"'~ "" .- ,. ,.. - .. .. ... ,,IiIJ ~- ;aw #'"'" ~ ...-- ... ". - ~~ '~.<iIjlj ~ "~Il!! ""* ".,,,,,,, v_ .i. ~- ."W FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS ,'. ~- ;co"*,, <.~ i',.~ ~ {'\"" ... .... .. - .. - .,. - - '.~ ~.. - ~,.." """'II- ." FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .- 1992 - 1996 FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS ~';iii-1lI '. The Five-Year Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) establishes the City's blueprint for investments in its capital infrastructure. This document is used as a tool to help .- ensure that the City's long and short term capital investments are made in the context ,- of careful consideration of the City's needs as well as the resources available to fund all projects. The financial assumptions used in the preparation of the CIP will provide assurance that the City can meet, in a full and timely manner, both our debt service obligations ~... and all the other obligations competing for the available resources. It is our objective ~ to complete as many needed capital improvement projects as financially possible while maintaining flexibility and the ability to adapt to changes as they occur. .... "-~ There are several key assumptions which the administration utilized in determining the City's fiscal capacity to complete capital projects over the next five years. These are ,4IMt summarized as follows: ~... . 25 percent of the income tax revenue shall be made available to fund - capital improvements. This allocation is in accordance with Ordinance No. 17-87 and the ballot language approved by the voters in November --!Iil"lI@l 1987. We have examined the possibility of using or dedicating a higher !.4M percentage of total income tax revenues to fund capital improvements. At this time, we feel the 25% allocation for capital improvements is - appropriate. ;i;WrIi . We are projecting a rate of growth in income tax revenue as follows: ;'- 1992 - 10% -<$ 1993 - 8% fIl""'" 1994 - 8% 1995 - 6% - 1996 - 6% -WllllI Our projections may appear to be conservative in light of previous ,~ trends; however, these projections are being used to determine the .. amount of long-term debt that can be retired using income tax revenues. To incur substantial long term debt based upon a high rate of growth - could result in a serious financial strain on the City if those growth projections are not achieved. Issuing long-term debt, in most cases, will - result in debt service payments over a 20 year period. Issuing long-term .. debt based on less than conservative growth estimates would not be a financially sound approach. .. - . To the degree that the rate of growth exceeds our projections in any given year, the unspent cash reserves should be utilized to fund projects - on a cash basis the following year. Again, it would not be fiscally ,.. prudent to incur long-term debt based upon sporadic peaks and valleys which might occur in income tax growth in future years. We anticipate - that we will have years where income tax revenues will exceed our - projections . 1-1 r'" III "'" . . Of the 25 percent of the total income tax revenues which are utilized for .. capital improvements, no more than two-thirds of that amount will be II utilized to fund long-term debt, with at least one-third left available to fund projects and capital expenses on a cash basis. The reasons for this .. assumption are: .. a) It is important to stress that funding projects with long-term debt - obligates the use of public funds for the next 20 years. The more long-term debt which is incurred now significantly reduces II the options available to future Councils to fund needed projects. ...-. . . .. b) The City has determined that paying cash for projects where ...... " financially possible (pay-as-you-go financing) will increase our .. flexibility in the future. II c) It is not economical to issue debt for some projects. .. d) The estimated life of some projects does not meet the criteria to l1li issue long-term debt. .. . A significant portion of the major projects included in the CIP will be " paid for using cash reserves. In determining the projects to be .. completed using cash reserves, the following elements were taken into consideration: " a) The estimated December 31,1992 fund balances for the General iii Fund and the Capital Improvements Tax Fund in the 1992 .. Operating Budget are reasonably accurate based on the first six months of the year. iii b) Each year, 10 percent of the estimated revenue in the General .. Fund will be reserved. - ~ c) In 1992, $1,500,000 will be reserved in the Capital I . Improvements Tax Fund. Each year after 1992, the reserve in ... - . this fund will be evaluated taking into account opportunities that are likely to occur but are not reflected in the CIP. The reserve, .. in any given year will be at least 10 percent of the estimated - revenue in the Capital Improvements Tax Fund. . d) The $3,190,000 shown as cash reserves (uncommitted) will be - reserved until such time projects are designated. III . The maximum amount of debt to be issued reflects a 10% reserve in - comparison to the maximum amount of debt that can be supported by income tax, see page 4-1 . . ... .. .. II 1-2 lilt .~ *~, ,~. . Since many of the needed capital improvements now, and in the future, .. are utility (water and sewer) related, we evaluated the related fees and determined rate adjustments were needed. Council adopted legislation '. in April 1992 increasing the water surcharge, the capacity charges for water and sewer taps, and establishing a sewer surcharge. These fees - will provide funding for operations and capital needs. Within the five- i" year program, there is no question that portions of the improvements will be subsidized in part by income tax revenues. A General Fund ,,~ subsidy will still be required; however, the level of subsidy will be significantly reduced as a result of the rate increases. . As a matter of general policy, the City will do the following in order to ~.4;d be able to fund additional projects needed to serve the citizens of Dublin: .,~ ,.~ a) Pursue federal and state assistance in the form of grants, low interest loans, etc. b) Utilize assessment procedures for projects which have a "iilUIli reasonably well defined group of beneficiaries and which legally o~.. lend themselves to this type of financing. ;"liiAA c) Look increasingly at ways to obtain revenue through user fees as JI!"'. a way to fund capital projects or as a way to free-up other income tax dollars so that they can be used to fund capital projects. d) Continue to evaluate use of impact fees, zoning exactions, or ~ other mechanisms to ensure developers help to provide the new "" infrastructure needed to serve their new developments. It should be noted that the recommended five-year program is an aggressive program. These projects need to be distributed over the five-year period so that as we update our capital program each year, we can evaluate the capital needs, revenue growth, and ~- unforeseen problems to be able to respond to new priorities as they may occur. - ~.. .,. - ',. ,- - - ~- ... ,~ .... 1-3 ~i-' -'--""'~..~-- 'l~ - .. ... .. ... ... - ~ ~:iIli/Iif "'&Ill .;iWIiIIt MIIIIIt VOTED DEBT .. .. AUTHORITY - ';'" dM "'~ lid ilM!t Mtili8 ";;;- '~ ~- '.. ,,. .- ,. .. - - - ,~ 1_ ;'4'1: FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1992-1996 MIt!t VOTED DEBT AUTHORITY .,HI<. As outlined in the 1991-1995 Capital Improvements Program (CIP), the City received .... voter approval in the spring and fall of 1990 to issue voted debt for transportation improvements, parkland acquisition, municipal facilities construction/expansion and a community center. In effect, these bond issues all dealt with giving the City the capacity to incur additional debt, for certain types of public improvements, which ,~ would exceed statutorily established non-voted debt limits. In May 1990, voted debt authority was approved for $34 million in transportation improvements, $7 million in municipal facilities construction/expansion projects, ...... including a Justice Center, and $4.5 million in parkland acquisition. In November ..".,,""" 1990, voted debt authority was approved for $11.5 million for the construction of a community center. ,'II:iiOlil ,""'" The 1991-1995 CIP outlined several factors which were emphasized during the campaigns that were critical to the bond issues. It is important to include those ;.~ factors in this year's CIP to provide continued clarity in regard to those bond issues. ~ As was stated repeatedly at the public meetings and within the . "''8 literature, the bond issues simply enabled the City to incur increased debt to perform specified types of public improvements. It clearly did .. not reauire that the City perform every capital improvement which had ,. been mentioned as part of the transportation, parks, municipal facilities or community center issues. When asked at the public meetings how ,. the City could insure it would be able to afford all of the projects - identified, we indicated to the public that the City was preparing a five- year capital improvement program, and that it would only perform those projects that it had the financial capability to perform. The voted bond - issues simply removed one of the impediments; that being the ten-mill limitation which is imposed by state statue. Obviously, the other main ". variable which affects our ability to perform these projects, is the - revenue which is available to pay for them. - . All of the projects which were identified as part of the campaigns for the bond issues in the spring and the fall of 1990 cannot be included within - the five-year program. The City cannot afford to do all the projects ,. within the five-year time frame. It is clearly Council's obligation to evaluate all of the City's capital needs and choose those projects which - need to be funded within the next five years based upon identified - priorities and adopted goals and objectives. - - 2-1 - - -- "w' ... . The bond packages which were approved did !lQ1 represent a referendum of which projects should and should not be performed by WI the City over the next five years. The City did not list every conceivable public improvement which could be performed, describe the merits of t;;j., each project, and ask the voters to prioritize them accordingly. The projects were largely illustrative based upon typical needs identified at I!III! the time. iitdl- . Although the voted issues did not constitute a referendum on all of our .. capital needs, there was a significant variation in the expressed voter ,..., a support for the various functional areas of public improvements. Of . those issues subject to this public review, transportation improvements '-'.- received, by far, the highest level of voter approval when compared to .. the other categories of public improvements. This is consistent with the results of the community-wide survey which was done as part of the '" City's community plan in 1987. The categories of public improvement .. needs as reflected in voting pattern, for the bond issue, received the following voter approval: .. .. Transportation Improvement............ 7 2 % Park Acquisition............................. 66 % II Municipal Facilities/Justice Center....60% .. Recreation Center............... ......... ... 58 % It was clearly represented to the public that the voted debt would be '" . retired from income tax revenues and not via increased property taxes. - Projects would only be implemented when it was determined that . sufficient funding is available without increasing property taxes. - As stressed when the issues were presented to the voters, we have completed or . initiated those projects for which adequate funding has been determined available. . The following represents a breakdown of the voted debt authority approved by the ~ voters and debt issued against that authority: . - . . Transportation improvements - $34 million in authority was approved and we have issued $465,000 against that authority. Several projects . on the CIP project list have been transportation related; however, other . sources of revenues have been used, such as cash reserves, assessments, and permissive tax. Currently, the S.R. 161 - Dale to . Sawmill is the only project which we anticipate using the voted . authority for the issuance of long-term debt. . . Municipal facilities - $7 million in debt authority was approved by the . voters, and we have issued $1,190,000 in debt against that authority. In October, 1992, we will be issuing $4,100,000 in long-term debt for . the Dublin Justice Center. This debt will use the voted authority. After . the bonds for the Justice Center are issued, we will have approximately $1,700,000 in voted authority remaining. . . 2-2 , . .... ---------- -.----------- '!Ill!! . Parkland acquisition - $4.5 million in authority was approved and we J., have issued $1,225,000 against that authority. The CIP project list does not include any additional parkland acquisition. However, it should ;,ij<t be noted, that in 1991 an additional 29.05 acres were purchased using r!IM available cash reserves. dIU . Community Center construction - $11.5 million in authority was - approved and we have not issued any debt against this authority. The CIP project list reflects $4.0 million for Phase I of the Community Center. This debt will use the voted authority. "'*"' The voted authority received when the voters approved these issues will expire - January 1, 1996. Section 133.18(1)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code states in part "No securities authorized at an election under this section may be initially issued after the ~..... first day of the sixth January following the election. This means our authority to issue \diiIItI "new" debt would expire on January 1, 1996. Bonds would not have to be issued by that date, but bond anticipation notes would need to be issued. .~ - However, Section 133.18 (1)(5) of the Ohio Revised Code states "The limitations of divisions (I) (1) and (2) of this section do not apply to any securities authorized at an ,- election under this section if at least ten percent of the principal amount of the -,.., securities, including anticipatory securities, authorized has theretofore been issued, or if the securities are to be issued for the purpose of participating in any federally or -'il!lflI! state-assisted program." This code section allows our unused voted debt authority as of January 1, 1996 to remain available as long as at least ten percent of the amount - authorized, by category, has been issued. There will be some limitations on the ~ number of years for which that debt be issued. -~ Our five-year CIP has taken Section 133.18 (1)(5) of the Ohio Revised Code into '.~ consideration. By January 1, 1996, at least ten percent of the principal, for each category of voted authority will have been issued. This will allow the unused portion of the voted authority to remain available for future years. As previously stated, the voted debt authority was obtained to reduce the effect of the "~ "ten-mill limit. " At June 30, 1992, the required tax rate in mills to retire current debt ,~.... outstanding was 4.9541. The only project on the CIP project list that would affect this millage is the construction of the water tower. At the current assessed value, this .. project would require approximately. 73 mills to retire the long-term debt. This would bring our overlapping total "inside millage" to 5.6819. We feel this millage, if needed, .. would not adversely affect the financial health of the City or any of the overlapping .. subdivisions. .. The City's statutory allocation for inside millage is 1.75 with the current millage - distribution as follows: - General Fund 1.17 Safety Fund .50 - Bond Retirement Fund .08 - - The City increased the water system user fees with the intent to fund the operational costs of the water system as well as future capital improvements. Using water - revenues to retire the debt service related to the water tower will result in the millage not being assessed. - 2-3 r"'-" --~~-.. _~_._.._.>___."w_. lilt ,.. .. .. .. .. .. .. - ifMIl 'I!lM --- -, FUNDED ... \M PROJECTS .. ~ "~ ~ '.1i\1iiII ":'M ._'" .- '... - .. .. ,- .. .""" -i!fliIIl '\lMlt. '*' ... FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM i""'lIlP. 1992 - 1996 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION i_ '. Method of Proiect Identification .. Capital needs of the City were identified in the process of developing the Capital i_ Improvements Program (CIP) for 1991-1995. The funded list for 1991-1995 was carried forward for the updated CIP. In addition to the 1991-1995 funded projects, we have identified additional funding and have added the projects that were listed as "priority projects" to the 1992-1996 program. - Proiect Prioritization ,.- The 1991-1995 CIP outlined in great detail how the projects were prioritized. In order ,.. to provide clarity for this document, it is felt that a portion of that information needs "'" to be included in this year's CIP. JlJliii In regard to prioritization, staff submitted to Council a list of 30 possible objectives, anyone or more of which a public improvement project would be designed to "1IllIS accomplish. Council prioritized those objectives, and a summary of that process was - completed. Several of the objectives clearly surfaced as the highest priorities of Council. These objectives included the following: JIlIdfIl liiolIiI . The project solves or addresses a problem which poses a critical threat to public health or safety. ..~ . The project is mandated by law, court order, or administrative order. - - . The project addresses a service which is a critical basic need for the daily operation of the City. The system was used by the Administrative CIP Committee as an overall guide in ".... establishing high-priority and low-priority projects. The Committee gave strong preference to projects which addressed problems for facilities which; 1) were already - significantly over their design capacity; 2) involved the delivery of a critically needed public service which if not done could have a significant negative effect on the - community; and 3) affect a substantial portion of the residents within the City of - Dublin. This kind of policy tends to become heavily biased towards needed infrastructure improvements such as sewer, water and roads. The policy also lowered - the prioritization of projects which did not significantly improve the delivery of a critical - service of the City; therefore, projects like Municipal Building expansion which orimarilv benefit the daily operations of the administration, were given lesser priority. Also, - proposed recreation projects, which met less of a critical basic need, received a lower priority rating. - - The following pages include the major projects to be funded during the 1992-1996 period, along with project descriptions. - - - - 3-1 ,..... .. Filename:CIPDIST.WQ1 1992.1998 ."~ August 22. 1992 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAl IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 'f;/.;-,. MAJOR PROJECTS 1Ii'!t' TOTAL PROJECT COST(1) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 :.t;,A 1996 1 Muirfield Drive Connector Design $65,000 . Legal ~ 95.000 Acquisition 850,000 302.000 lUlii Construction 1,353,000 1,189,000 150,000 Total 2,363.000 . 2 Dublin Village Center Ughting Design 18,800 1fIJi"", Legal ~ 5.000 ;41to', Construction 305.000 265.000 40,000 , Total 328.800 ....., .1 3 Sewage Detention Basin Design 126.000 126.000 .. Acquisition 125.000 125.000 Construction 1.300,000 1.300.000 , Total 1.551.000 4 West Branch Sewer (tunnel) III Design 600.000 600,000 Acquisition II Construction 13.600,000 6,800.000 6.800.000 Total 14.200,000 .. 5 Tuller Road Reconstruction Design 80,000 Acquisition 645.000 645,000 III Construction 1,450,000 900,000 550.000 Total 2,175,000 .. 6 Water Tower & Related ImprovemenlB Design 275,000 40,000 235,000 .. Acquisition 0 Construction 4,100,000 2,260,000 1,840,000 .. Total 4,375.000 7 S,R.161-Franklin to Dale Design 115,000 115.000 II Acquisition 200,000 200,000 .. Legal expenses 30,000 30.000 Construction 1.300,000 900,000 400,000 Total 1,645.000 . 8 S.A. 161-Dale to Sawmill Design 375,000 375,000 ~- Acquisition 500,000 500.000 Legal expenses 50,000 50,000 . Construction 1.600.000 1.200.000 400,000 Total 2.525,000 .....c - 9 Dublin Justice Center Design 300.000 Acquisition 890.000 . Construction 4,100.000 2,200,000 1,900.000 Other exoenses 750,000 750,000 - Total 6.040,000 10 Community Center . Planning and design 100,000 100,000 Design 300.000 300,000 - Construction 3.700,000 3,700.000 Total 4.100,000 . 11 Reserve for Contingencies 3.000.000 600,000 600.000 600,000 600.000 600,000 - TOTAL $42.302,800 $1,715.000 $7,277,000 $7,935,000 $11.240,000 $11.500,000 $600,000 . (1) Total project costs are based on actual costs incurred to date. estimated costs based on design work completed and .. preliminary estimates. The following project descriptions will detail the status of the projeclB. . 3-2 .. . ... ~ ,. FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 1992-1996 ... PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS . 1. Muirfield Drive Connector ,. \."., This project involved the construction of a four lane road with a grass median connecting Muirfield Drive north of Sells Mill Drive and Mojave Street t.o the intersection of Muirfield Drive and Brand Road. The project also included the installation of a bikeway and bikeway underpass as well as waterlines, - sewerlines and storm sewers. The construction was completed in the fall of ~ 1991. The land needed for completion of this project was obtained by appropriation action in 1990. The three property owners involved initiated ,... court action in regard to the value of the real estate obtained. Litigation is ~ ongoing in two cases and the City is hopeful these cases will be settled in 1992. - .,tM, This is an assessment project with 48% of the construction costs and 50% of other costs being paid by assessing the adjacent property owners. Legal costs - incurred as a result of the litigation will be assessed at 100%. - The City has paid design costs and legal expenses as incurred. - Short-term notes totalling $2,120,000 have been issued for acquisition and - construction costs. The notes will be rolled over until the litigation involving .. the real estate appropriation is settled. - The City received $215,000 in Permissive Tax fund from Franklin County for - this project. This will be applied against the City's share of the project. r - - - - - .. - .. - - 3-3 - - - r" .... , f'i" 2. Dublin Villaae Center Liahtina This project involves the installation of street lighting on Village Parkway from IIW Sawmill Road to Tuller Road, Banker Drive from Sawmill Road to Dublin Center Drive, Dublin Center Drive from West Dublin-Granville Road to Sawmill Road, tJ... and Tuller Road from Dublin Center Drive to Village Parkway. 1/11" This is an assessment project with approximately 50% of the cost of the ~ improvement being paid by assessing the adjacent property owner. ~ , ,!II The City has paid design costs and legal expenses as incurred. &, Short-term notes in the amount of $325,000 have been issued for the " construction costs. The project is to be completed in mid-1992, thus allowing ,. long-term debt to be issued in October 1992. The special assessment bonds will be issued for a period of 1 5 years. " . Interest costs associated with the short-term notes will also be included in the final project costs and 50% of those costs will be recouped through .. assessment. The interest costs to-date have been paid by the City as incurred. .. The City's share of the project costs will be paid with cash reserves with no .. long-term general obligation debt being incurred. - .. - .. ~. .. """ . . .. . .. . .. .. .. 3-4 . . . .. ..... ;.. ..".,_.....-',~.""",.""'""'.........,.,~"'.~.........~.'"T,..',"'''''''''"~",.,;;.,,"~.,, ~'fIii 'M:.l' "".-";'. ..... 3. Sewaae Detention Basin "1\ This project involves the construction of a sewage detention basin to detain .... excessive flow within the sanitary sewer system which occurs during periods of heavy rainfall. The basin's intended purpose is to eliminate overflows and '.<iN! the discharge of sewage into the Scioto River. The sewage detention basin is a requirement of the September 14, 1990 Consent Order imposed by the Ohio EPA. - The original construction date required by the Consent Order was July 1, 1991. The City obtained a deferral to July 1, 1992 because of the excellent progress ~- the City had made in improving the system. In 1992, the city received another - one year deferral until July 1993. We are hopeful that the City of Dublin will continue to improve its sanitary system at such a rate that the detention basin - will not need to be built. However, it is important to reserve the necessary ... financing capacity to fund this project if its construction is required. - The design of the basin has been completed. The acquisition and construction costs will be paid from cash reserves. The necessary funds have been - transferred from the General Fund to a fund, the Sewage Detention Basin Fund, ~ established specifically for the construction of the basin. Those funds will be reserved for construction of the Sewage Detention Basin until such time as the - West Branch Sewer is completed and the need for the basin is eliminated or "- construction of the detention basin is completed. MIl - - "- - - - - - - - - 3-5 - - - r .. 4. West Branch Sewer (deeD tunnel) The Upper Scioto West Branch Interceptor has always been planned to provide '"' the main sewer interceptor to transfer the sewage from the Dublin collector system to the Columbus treatment facility. The current service agreement with lW~ the City of Columbus requires the City to pay for construction costs associated .' with the portion of the Upper Scioto West Branch Interceptor that lies within , the Dublin corporate boundaries. This project involves the construction of a 72- .J inch deep tunnel gravity sewer line parallel to Dublin Road. The deep tunnel method minimizes surface disruption and adverse impacts on properties within ftl! the construction zone; however, the capital cost involved is significant. Design ... of the project is being handled by the City of Columbus and is ongoing. . The City is pursuing a low-interest loan through the Ohio EPA to fund the .. project and based upon preliminary information from the Ohio EPA, we are confident that our application will be approved. II .. City Council passed legislation in April 1992 increasing the sewer capacity charges and establishing a sewer surcharge. The intent of .the legislation is to . provide a revenue stream to significantly reduce the subsidy needed from the .. General Fund to the Sewer Fund for operating and capital costs. The revenues for the increased capacity charges are expected to retire 50% of the cost of . this project and the user fees are expected to pay for the operating costs of the - system. The rate increases approved were based on a rate study analysis completed by the CPA firm of Coopers & Lybrand. . - The estimated cost of design and construction is based on our service agreement with the City of Columbus. . The construction of the West Branch Sewer has been included in the City of ~. ., Columbus' Five-year capital plan. The construction of the interceptor within the ""-- Dublin corporate boundaries is scheduled to begin in 1994. . The completion of the West Branch Sewer will eliminate the need to . construction the Sewage Detention Basin. . . . . .. . . 3-6 . . . II ~ .._ _........._..._._'..MO.__....,.__ _"'._ ~,_...~. ".- .. ._..._-~_._-~_._-_._-_._.."_.~" -~ 5. Tuller Road Reconstruction This project involves the reconstruction of Tuller Road from Riverside Drive east to the existing intersection with Village Parkway and Village Parkway from the existing intersection with Tuller Road to a point approximately 410 feet south. '''~I This project also includes the installation of water lines, fire hydrants and storm sewers as well as relocating utility lines and constructing a bikeway. This is an assessment project with 50% of the project costs being paid by assessing the adjacent property owners. ,~ The City has paid design and legal expenses as incurred. """" Short-term notes totalling $1,950,000 have been issued for acquisition costs in obtaining right-of-ways and easements and the construction costs. Interest costs associated with the short-term notes will also be included in the final -~ project costs and 50% of those costs will be recouped through assessment. '-~- The interest costs will be paid by the City when the notes mature. The City has received $279,000 in Permissive Tax funds from Franklin County e,,'iOJ; for this project. This will be applied against the City's share of the project. The remaining portion of the City's share of the project will be paid from cash ;;;.>>jl reserves. .~ - ~ .~ - - - .. ~ ... - - '1IIl!IIt 3-7 ". ~ ,&iiMII ",., . 6. Water Tower & Related Imorovements This project involves the construction of a water tower and booster station in ~ifi'l the 1-270 and Rings Road area. City Council passed legislation in April 1992 increasing the water capacity "~! charge and water surcharge in order to fund needed improvements. The intent 1fI' of the legislation is to provide a revenue stream to significantly reduce the subsidy needed from the General Fund to the Water Fund for operating and ..J capital costs. The rate increases approved were based on a rate study analysis \lt~ completed by the CPA firm of Coopers & Lybrand. ~"i The project assumes no land acquisition costs. The City previously purchased .. land for the extension of Blazer Parkway in 1990 and there is sufficient residual .., land to use as the water tOwer site. This land is wit$in the identified area where a tower is needed. '" .... The construction costs estimates are preliminary estimates from the City's design consultant. II .. The design for the project is on-going and is being paid for from the Water Fund. Short-term notes will be issued for the construction period. General II , .,., obligcition long-term debt will be issued when the construction nears lIIIi completion. . The long-term debt for this project would be unvoted debt and would therefore - be subject to the ten-mill limitation. Based on the $4,100,000 estimated costs, the required estimated millage to retire the debt would be .7278 based on the . 1992 assessed valuation of $675,961,251. Additional discussion on "inside millage" is included on page 2-3. ~,. 1: .. - . . .. " . " . . . 3-8 . iii . .. , .'L'_'~'_'_'_~'" ""c' .,~"______~",,~_",.^__,-''"_"~_'''' ~ ~"c" '. ~"T ;<,- .. - - - - - 7. S.R. 161 - Franklin to Dale - This project involves the widening of S.R. 161 from Franklin Street to Dale - Drive and the addition of various streetscapes including brick sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. The construction will result in the elimination of the left .. hand turn lane to travel northbound on Riverside Drive from S.R. 161. The project will add significant west bound capacity to S.R. 161 in this area, alleviating a significant traffic congestion problem. ~I"_', - The project also includes the cost of acquiring additional right-of-ways and easements to implement the project. ll!!I!IIIIt - Short-term notes in the amount of $1 50,000 have been issued for design. These notes mature in October 1992 and they will be retired. The project will - be funded with General Fund reserves. - ~ - - ~ ~ .. - '~ - .. .. - .. - .. .. .. 3-9 - - - ,'-" . .. II III . 8. S.R. 161 - Dale to Sawmill III This project involves the widening of S.R. 161 from Dale Drive to Sawmill . Road. The completion of the project will result in two continuous eastbound III and westbound lanes from Sawmill Road to Avery Road. Project costs reflected are the City's local share. The project has been ",. .. approved by Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission and is included in the ..J Regional Transportation Improvement Program. The State/Federal funds will be I utilized to significantly offset the total project costs. City Council passed legislation in April 1992 to establish a cooperative agreement with the State of II Ohio, Department of Transportation for this project. " Design of the project has been initiated and the cost is being paid from General III Fund reserves. Depending on the estimated local share, (based on design and " final state approvals) the local share could potentially be paid from City reserves. To be conservative, we will reflect the funding source as proceeds III from long-term voted general obligation debt. II .. II .. . .. . ~.. .. "'" .. II III . .. . III . .. 3-10 . - . .. ... ~ .' ,_.'"'~".,,~~_........- -" ..'_.. ~~~~~___~~,.~'_._~~.~o,.~_._.....~,_'_'~~~"""_ -- ... ,MiMI """ 9. Dublin Justice Center ;!;i6 ..~ This project involves the construction of a facility to house the Division of Police and Mayor's Court. d The design of the project was completed in late 1990 and early 1991. The construction of the project was not started because after the 1991-1995 CIP was completed, it was determined that adequate funding was not available. In April 1992, City Council passed legislation increasing water and sewer fees ,~ which allows a larger portion of the sewer and water projects to be completed using sewer and water revenues. This increases the income tax funds available ,..B:!I for other major projects such as the justice center. Construction of the facility was initiated in June 1992. ~ Other expenses include such items as interior furnishings, ... electronic/communications systems, telephone system and contingencies. II!~ Short-term notes in the amount of $4,400,000 have been issued for design and j'W construction. These notes will mature in October 1992 and long-term voted general obligation bonds in the amount of $4,100,000 will be issued. In .,~ December 1990, long-term voted general obligation bonds in the amount of $890,000 were issued for land acquisition. 'j;;i<i '~ We anticipate using General Fund and Capital Improvements Tax Fund reserves to fund the "other expenses". '8 "'" "'" ,"'"' - ... .. ... .. ,. .. 3-11 .. - - ~ .. ~ . .. 10. Community Center . .. The 1991-1995 Capital Improvements Program did not include the Community - Center because it had been determined that funding was not available. Based on the General Fund and Capital Improvement Fund reserves, as well as the .. increased amount of water and sewer projects being financed from water and ~'. sewer revenues, it has been determined that funding for planning, design, and Phase I of the center is available. - A committee has been meeting to look at what should be included in the . facility, the area to be served by the facility and project phasing. Another area ... that the committee will be reviewing as part of the design phase is the operating costs. Membership/program fees will be reviewed and policies lit established. Both staff and City Council are aware that operating costs will be ... significant and establishing the funding sources is critical. lit Short-term notes will be issued during the construction of Phase I with long- ... term voted general obligation debt issued when construction is completed. . ... ,.- . ... . - . IfI'# ... '., - <ill' ... . - . ... . III . iliIiIII 3-12 . - . . .... .--..------.-.....--..---.-..----.- . dll Filename:RECCIP.WQ1 August 22,1992 "'t'.1! FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM MAJOR PROJECTS i>-!tl 1992-1996 ~ Total Debt Debt .. Project Already lobe Project Funding Proiect Cost Incurred Incurred Source Amount """" 1 Muirfield Drive Connector $2,363,000 Cash $993,560 Permissive tax funds 215,000 1,154,440 Assessments 1,154,440 0 Voted G,O. bonds 0 2 Dublin Village Center Ughting 328,800 Cash 164,400 ,rt;W 164,400 Assessments 164,400 3 Sewaae Detention Basin 1,551,000 Cash 1,551,000 4 West Branch Sewer (deeD tunnel) 14,200,000 14,200,000 Ohio EPA loan 14,200,000 5 Tuller Road Reconstruction 2,175,000 Cash 808,500 Permissive tax funds 279,000 1,087,500 Assessments 1,087,500 0 Voted G.O. bonds 0 6 Water Tower & Related Improvements 4,375,000 Cash 275,000 ,~ 4,100,000 Unvoted G.O, bonds 4,100,000 7 S.R. 161-Franklin to Dale 1,645,000 Cash 1 ,645,000 8 S.R.161-DaletoSawmill 2,525,000 Cash 425,000 -.!Iit 2,100,000 Voted G.O bonds 2,100,000 .. 9 Community Center 4,100,000 Cash 100,000 4,000,000 Voted G.O, bonds 4,000,000 10 Dublin Justice Center 6,040,000 890,000 Cash 1,050,000 :;;l(;ll 4,100,000 Voted G,O, bonds 4,100,000 11 Reserve for Continaencies 3,000,000 3,000,000 G.O. bonds 3,000,000 -~ Total $42,302,800 $890,000 $33,906,340 LONG-TERM DEBT CAPACITY RECAP: !oW Recommended maximum amount of debt to be issued(page 4-1) $32,273,546 ".. Less: Existing debt supported by income taxes for capital projects (12,035,000) Long-term debt capacity available $20,238,546 Debt to be incurred(see above) $33,906,340 .~ Amount to be supported by water and sewer revenues(1) (11,200,000) Amount supported by assessments (2,406,340) ''MIll! Income tax debt to be incurred $20,300,000 '. .. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL OUTSTANDING @ 12-31-96 Existing principal outstanding (see above) $12,035,000 - Principal to be issued (see above) 20,300,000 Principal to be retired (see page 5-3) (4,290,000) ;1't!!iIf Principal outstanding@ 12-31-96 (see page 5-3) $28,045,000 (2) ,. ... (1) Projects to be supported by water and sewer revenues are the water tower and 50% of the West Branch sewer. (2) Does not take into account the $3,190,000 reserved for capital improvements and not committed. .. '. 3-13 - '!1M .,01iiiiI' -- ""-~ ",""'''''''''',W, T:1 'f rwdi1! ] ,.-....""'~" .. - ... - 'it4;-j ~ ... .~,<jo ~~ "" ... ~ REVENUE PROJECTIONS -. (Income Taxes) 1'\.mt ;'U - ". ,M '.- ~ .. ... ,.. '. ,. .. .. .. '* .. - '.. tliIIIit to It') to ,... co co C\i:g in f2 ~:; co 8. 0 N ~ m M en It') M _ It'),... en 0 ~ ,... It') to ~ - _ ~ ~ M ~ N ~ M CO) ~ ,... ~ _ _ M ~ ~ to It') M - V It') to V V ,...,... It') _ N fa- to m w ,<>, en _ It') - ~ v en to en M to V - m. ~ M M 0 _ M M ~ en 0 It') It') v- _ M M en ~ v _ It') en It') to M V 0 N ~ 0 . M w en en,... v CO) - ~ en co co It') _ en,... - ~. ~ M - ~ _ CO) ~ ... (f) ~ Z ... Q CO,..."" en CO) co ~ co _ _ en co to o co. v. "":. co. "'":. co. . ~ ~:g ~ l:\i ~ g ~ Ow ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a:~ ,... v - ~ en co - ... a..m; ~ ~ 1! w~ - ~d ]] Z ... zo:( It') _ _ _ ,... co in iii iii CD w~ co ~ co to - &l ~ C C C "0 > "'":. en_ en. en. to.. 0 0) .2l lIS a """ Wa:cn ~ M It') - CO) ...... It') =0 'in fIl "0 W en ~ 0 ~ ex) co ~ _ CD CD E ~~ en q q ~ ~ ~ ~ fIl "0 "0 ~ ~ ~z - co ~ - N ,... ~ lIS ~ ~ fIl E '.... w...... N N ~ CD .t:. - ,- > ~ lIS.t:. 1:: C ~ ~w CD 1:: ~ CD E ,. Oa: >- .2 - E a:~ en It') ~ N en.......~ fIl .S!! ~ CD a.. It') co to ex) ,... ~"Oo - fIl Cl. .t:. (f) 0,..."" en CO) en CD_ ~ - - ... 1-1-' _ ~ _ ; m ~ w u~ C 16 iii 16 Zw en co ~ 0 CO) ,... to CD~ CDE E Cl. CD ~ en It') co ~ V to CO) -Cl. ~ ~ ~O ...... ~ M ~ N ~ N 8CD CD ~ c i """0...... N N fIl.t:. > 0 ~ ...' w ~ CD- 0 ~ Cl. ...."0 >~ ~~ Q. Cl. iii "O! o C> E E ~ CDfIl a: to CDO - = CT .s;,!!! a.. It') ~CD iii II CD SfIl ... ~ 0 N. ~~ 'a. '5. .t:. .s;:: ~ en CO) ~CD lIS II ~ lIS II 0:( en ~ -~ U U ~ E= I-' ....... CDC ~ ~ c CD- · 0:: ~ E .- .2 .2 .2 .JJ .JJ < ~ 0]"0 "00iii CD~ .... 0 giii CD $u,~ ~- _ -E iii ~~~ CDO o iii~ C O)eE ~c .... -=' c.3~'~ 'inCl.lIS ~5 ! _ 5 ~s ~ ~~c ~E c.t:. - lIS"O E CD'" .....Cl.CD ......11 - fIl~ ~ ~ =$ lIS CU ~ ~II>- lISCD u~ U "0 n~ E fIl~ N0N~~ iii= ,~ ... ~ CD Ol=- ~ C Qj CD U CD 0 .t:. "0 '"~ .. e ~.2 .2 "0 'in t2 E ~ ~ .t:. ~= - ~ . - c CDCl.- CD CD _CDCD-~ o~ -0_"0 E'*'"O II ~_CD:C ::Cfll o"O~~';:" EllS OQ.O!~It')CD"O .. ~ 16:E lISCl) lISU c>-cEn lIS CD ___IIII11~-gCD w > 'Cl. 0 = u = ~ ~.JJ CD CD ...... >- ~ lIS ga.S!! III _ CD 1:: a:~ CDlISu lIS lIS 0 0"0>"0"0 enOl _=~_lISoEo ^~ a:uS ~~o ~~ ECD~~C ens -&T.JJCCDE~ ... ~ WI ... _ ~ .. ,= x v ...... C ..... "0 "'"0 CD 0 - ~ 0- xOO CDCl. CD"O lIS~lISCS "O~~""':.lt:.lt..... ~u~"O~eo~ .. _ lIS _ ." ~ ~ CD E ~ - CD "0 C 0 ~ 0 0 ~ .t:. .t:..t:. CD II _ U III CD~ I-CDO" Ciii Cu CDCDEc IIE......tOtOcoco "i'CIl-~"5C1lCDCD .. ~~ ~~~ ~g. ~~ .~~~~E ~~~~~~~ 8~f!~i.~~ . ~Ol 8~ ~u~; ~lIlg~~ ~.t:..................._...... _Sl-sOs~B .. ,_ ~ Ca:...... N """ u'-a: 0 I- ...... (\j" ~ - LL.< -......... -.-:; .. --- - ~ ~ ,. ''III ... , , ""'.,"",,-,,"~-- ~.~,~~. ii11 . .. .. fllII - '1lIIII k_ '.'$ ... $% ,- -.wi,!, i(Mi .,. MUNICIPAL DEBT "" "" ''''"' -"M! .~ 'W! ,--;,,;it; '. ,,- ... - .. .- - ... ;~ ;foiiIl -- ------ -- ._..-..-._---'-,-_._--------~~~ ",,,, T..~~'.'.If;.. n-r, Filename:CURDEBT.WQ1 October 16, 1992 LONG- TERM DEBT OBUGATIONS Dec::ember 31, 1991 '~ Date Paid From Income Taxes of Original OIS General Capital Other .... Unvoted G.O. Boncls Issue Amount Principal Fund Imp, Fund Sources(1) ','li~ #1Sewer 11.01-75 $200,000 $85,000 $0 $0 $85,000 Coffman-SawmiU Waterline 04-15-78 509,405 175,500 175,500 0 0 Old Dublin Waterline 12.01-79 487,249 223,249 0 0 223,249 Water Tower Construction 05-01-83 859,000 520,000 520,000 0 0 Post Road Waterline 05-01-83 575,000 355,000 355,000 0 0 Frantz/Post!33 Improvements 05-01-83 545,000 325,000 325,000 0 0 '.- Glick Road Improvements 11.01-85 200,000 150,000 150,000 0 0 Frantz Rd. Blvd, 11.01-85 590,000 450,000 450,000 0 0 .... Avery Road Waterfme 11.01-85 383,000 295,000 0 0 295,000 Municipal Bldg. ExpansIon 11.01-85 800,000 600,000 600,000 0 0 ,. Water Tower Constuction 12.01-90 2,200,000 2,200,000 0 2,200,000 0 Swimming Pool Construction 12.01-90 1 ,200,000 1,200,000 0 1,200,000 0 '. Water System Improvements 12.01-90 1,550,000 1,550,000 0 1,550,000 0 Frantz Road Improvements 12.01-90 455,000 455,000 0 455,000 0 iillil' Service Complex 12.01-90 2,400,000 2,400,000 0 2,400,000 0 Sanitary Sewer Uft Station 12.01-90 1,800,000 1,800,000 0 1,800,000 0 ~ Total 12,783,749 2,575,500 9,605,000 603,249 .... Unvoted Special Assessment Bonds Riverforest Waterline 10.03-n 181,950 50,000 0 0 50,000 Coffman-Sawmill Waterline 04-15-78 143,678 49,500 0 0 49,500 *".. Old Dublin Waterline 12.01-79 312,715 136,751 0 0 136,751 Phase II Sewer 07.01-81 400,000 200,000 0 0 200,000 Shier-Rings Waterline 09-01-87 95,623 80,000 0 0 80,000 T ota! 516,251 0 0 516,251 .,. Voted G,O. Bonds '~ #1 Sewer 100,000 44,000 0 0 44,000 #2 Sewer 225,000 140,000 0 0 140,000 Coffman Road Extension 315,000 315,000 0 315,000 0 Justice Center(Lancl) 890,000 890,000 0 890,000 0 N.E. Quadrant Parkland Acq. 1,225,000 1,225,000 0 1,225,000 0 Total 2,614,000 0 2,430,000 184,000 '. Voted Special Assessment Bonds #1 Sewer 652,095 225,000 0 0 225,000 '. Total Long-term Debt $16,139,000 $2,575,500 $12,035,000 $1,528,500 .., ,. (1) .Other Sources. include special assessment collections and real estate property taxes. ,. .- !. 5-1 ... .. - ~ ,..., ... Filename:CURDEBT.WQ1 August 22. 1992 SHORT-TERM DEBT OBUGATlONS(1) June 30, 1992 pi-_~ Date Date of of Original Outstanding !l!H Issue Issue Maturity Amount Principal III I Series A-Unvoted Notes .~ Muirfield Drive Improvements(2) 04-14-92 10-14-92 2,120,000 2,120,000 ......,. Dublin Village Center(3) 04-14-92 10-14-92 325,000 325,000 .. Series B-Voted Notes .. Justice Center(design)(4) 04-14-92 10-14-92 300,000 300,000 .... Transportation Imp.(SR161)(5) 04-14-92 10-14-92 150,000 150,000 .. Justice Center Notes(6) 06-02-92 10-15-92 4,100,000 4,100,000 ... Tuller Road Improvements(7) 06-30-92 06-30-93 1,950,000 1,950,000 .. $8,945,000 $8,945,000 - . (1) Notes currently outstanding for major projects. ... (2) At maturity, the notes will be reissued with a maturity date of June 30,1993. (3) At maturity, the notes will be retired with the issuance of special assessment bonds .. and cash reserves. (4) At maturity, the notes will be retired with cash reserves. - (5) At maturity, the notes will be retired with cash reserves. . (6) At maturity. the notes will be retired with the issuance of bonds. (7) At maturity, if the project is complete, the notes will be retired with the issuance ~ .' of special assessment bonds and cash reserves. If the project is not complete, the . notes will be reissued based on the estimated completion date. - .. . lIIIo . ... . .. . 5-2 .. . .. . . ~ _.__"~._n " Filename:CURDEBT.WQ1 October 16, 1992 ,,ij LONG-TERM DEBT SCHEDULE 'flit Oncome tax supported debt only) ~1i4ii 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 \ Principal outstanding at the beginning of the year $12,035,000 $12,035,000 $16,350,000 $16,290,000 $23,260,000 $28,855,000 Principal retired(1) 0 385,000 660,000 730,000 1,105,000 1,410,000 ~. Principal issued(2) 0 4,700,000 600,000 7,700,000 6,700,000 600,000 "" Principal outstanding at the ,.... end of the year $12,035,000 $16,350,000 $16,290,000 $23,260,000 $28,855,000 $28,045,000 (3) - .. "'" Recap of long-term debt service payments due(4) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ,. Water Tower Construction $222,048 $221,448 $240,448 $232,448 $224,448 Swimming Pool Construction 128,120 129,520 130,520 126,120 121,720 ,. Water System Improvements 152,205 168,605 168,405 162,805 157,205 .- Frantz Road Improvements 41,145 40,345 39,545 43,745 42,545 Service Complex 235,840 245,240 263,440 254,640 245,840 .- Sanitary Sewer Lift Station 194,788 199,188 197,788 190,988 184,188 Coffman Road Extension 31,615 30,815 30,015 29,215 28,415 .. Justice Center(land) 81,190 84,590 87,590 100,190 96,590 N,E, Quad. Park Land 129,893 136,293 131,893 127,493 123,093 'M!Il!l Justice Center Construction 0 451,432 399,495 394,770 384,920 SR 161-Dale to Sawmill 0 0 0 0 252,000 West Branch(deep tunneO 0 0 0 724,200 705,740 Community Center 0 0 0 0 480,000 Total $1,216,844 $1,707,476 $1,689,139 $2,386,614 $3,046,704 Income tax revenue available for -- debt retirement(from page 4-1) $2,683,981 $2,898,699 $3,130,595 $3,318,431 $3,517,537 ... "lIII .. (1) Based on debt outstanding at December 31, 1991 and debt scheduled to be issued for major projects. ,.. (2) Issuance of debt based on major project listing. The following issues are planned: 1992-Justice Center construction and the amount for contingencies. ;iM 1993-Contingencies amount. 1994-50% of West Branch project and the amount for contingencies. ,. 1995-SR 161-Dale to Sawmill, the Community Center, and the amount for contingencies, .. (3) Does not reflect the use of $3,190,000 in uncommitted cash reserves. (4) Payments include both principal and interest. '... ;. 5-3 <~ ~ -~ .. .. - "" .. - .... ~ ... "~ .. ". GENERAL OPERA TIONS .... ''"* "" ~ '~ +8 . - ... .. - .. - .. - "!'!mI ,... ~ '" iil4 FiIename:ANNEXP.WQ1 November 8. 1992 "" COMPARISON OF OPERATING EXPENDITURES .. 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1992 1993 Expenditure Function Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Estimate Budget ... - City Council. Boards and Commissions $39,744 $73,430 $88.127 $97,121 $91,860 $116.800 $115,550 $137,100 Total 39.744 73.430 88,127 97.121 91.860 116.800 115.550 137,100 V~ Office of the City Manager 224,047 271.997 289,286 388,781 368.321 402,200 417.424 499,960 Miscellaneous accounlll 33,964 109,998 232.169 311,224 285,876 336,200 375.203 333,050 Total 258,011 381.995 521,455 700,005 654.197 738,400 792.627 833.010 Administrative Services -<Miilt Personnel 0 0 21,445 45.189 237,083 343,400 321,861 346.950 Purchasing 109,804 102.881 160.737 203,190 389,436 250,700 249,794 287,470 ,~* Solid waste management 184.318 291,367 302.687 365,435 471.048 582.800 492,190 669,900 Self.insurance cant 0 0 0 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 ... Total 294.122 394.248 484,869 863,814 1,347.567 1,176.900 1,063,845 1.304,320 ""'llo Department of Finance Finance Administration 92,2n 122.308 200,087 298,466 337,010 378,200 348.060 416,600 ~ Taxation 45.n8 70.444 498,464 804,005 692,540 932,500 766.565 835,800 Mayor's Court 41,817 80.043 144,374 151,697 190,166 226.830 209,148 248,260 Miscellaneous accounlll 148,939 180,540 155,694 132,143 139,204 165,000 158,645 171,000 ~,~ Total 328,811 453,335 998,619 1.386,311 1,358.920 1,702.530 1,482,418 1,671,660 Department of Law Legal services 97,219 104,308 139,421 187,374 345,575 300,000 381,000 405,000 '~ Total 97.219 104,308 139,421 187,374 345,575 300,000 381,000 405,000 Alii Department of Development Development Director 0 0 87,412 279,853 451,488 493,500 533,000 522,100 Planning 238,951 328,348 393,542 428,964 421,595 490,500 399,600 638,900 '... Engineering 433,nO 858.023 761,264 851,705 580,738 639,250 567,340 867,600 Building 0 0 123.806 102,422 385,580 432,000 462,000 472,100 ... Total 672,721 1.186,371 1,366,024 1,662,944 1,839,401 2,055,250 1,961,940 2,500,700 .~ Department of Service Maintenance Lands & Buildings 112,662 130,698 362,887 331,807 330,254 327,380 284,580 258,965 Vehicles & Equipment 0 0 131,867 237,640 354,626 454.500 408,400 425,500 Street Maintenance 410,317 670,641 754,239 1,066,695 1,232,928 1,638,500 1,298.980 1,660,285 Cemetery 15,553 20,689 30,229 20,483 13,961 39,250 37,190 39.250 Total 538,532 822,028 1,279,222 1,656,625 1,931,769 2,459,630 2,029,150 2.384,000 Parks and Recreation ~ Recreation 183,672 2n,519 370,515 475,355 545,149 608,100 621.292 653,300 Parks 132,814 247,208 383,423 4n,587 596,830 707,085 656,950 816.nO ,.. Swimming Pool 0 81,200 116,438 152,451 195,513 245,200 207,000 242,350 Total 316,486 605,927 870,376 1,105,393 1,337,492 1,560,385 1,485,242 1,712,420 ... Department of Safety Police 932,687 1.333,425 1,751.335 2.174,092 2.562,068 2,989.900 2,716,559 3,299,150 ,. Special Events ". Special Events 0 0 0 22.596 82,551 150,250 118,975 242.340 City Sponsored Projects 0 0 0 6,116 31.888 0 45,000 20,000 - Grants/Comm.Organizations 0 131.572 281,827 397,534 565,031 350,000 400,000 350,000 Total 0 131,572 281,827 426,246 679,470 500.250 563,975 612,340 "<!Ill Total Operating Expenditures $3,478,333 $5.486,639 $7,781,275 $10,259,925 $12,148,319 $13,600,045 $12,592,306 $14,859,700 "* Annual rate of increase 57.74% 41.82% 31.85% 18.41% 11.95% 3.65% 9.26% (2) (1) 18.01% (3) ,. (1) Percent of increase compared to 1991 Actual. (2) Percent of increase compared to 1992 Budget ". (3) Percent of increase compared to 1992 Estimate. 6-3 ~ ,~ _^..'~r~""~_.'~"_ U] }""rr:'-- 'till.' Wl:,"'f''tlnif''l,':'' ,'" '" '~-- ~ ,. 'lIIII ,~ ',~ - ... ,- :~ CITY OF DUBLIN REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE GROWTH 18 16 14 #<ilI' _ 12 en ~ c .. .0 10 ~ ;8: - 8 '0. "0- 6 4 2 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992* 1993* "~ Year ... ,. \--- REVENUES ~ EXPENDITURES I .. - .- '"- ,. ... - ,"'" ...