City of
Pleasanton
California
Budget
2005- 06/ 2006- 07
ABOUT THE COVER …
The City at Work
The cover of the 2005- 2007 Budget portrays just a few of the many City services offered
by the City of Pleasanton. Benefiting from the contributions of dedicated elected
officials, appointed commissioners, volunteers, active citizens and dedicated employees,
the City maintains a “ can do” approach leading to a high quality of life that makes
Pleasanton a highly desirable place to live, work and play.
Using the vision of a dedicated Mayor and City Council, the guidance of City
Commissioners and the well articulated interests of involved residents, the City continues
to provide a broad range of focused services including community oriented policing,
award winning library programs, year round daycare services, quality parks and sports
programs, affordable housing opportunities, extensive senior services, and
technologically current fire and emergency services. Be it maintaining the City’s streets
and utility infrastructure or providing forums for community involvement regarding
planning and development issues, each City employee takes pride in working as part of a
team that encompasses the entire community.
This Budget and the City’s Capital Improvement Program are intended to provide the
community with a clear understanding of the broad range of programs, services and
facilities that will be provided over the next two years. During this time, the City will
continue to stress customer services, public involvement and cost efficient operations to
assure community needs and interests are addressed as effectively as possible.
a- 1
ABOUT PLEASANTON . . .
Pleasanton is a premier place to locate. The City has strong residential and business foundations
that support it as it matures into a well- balanced community at build- out. Pleasanton is known as
the City of Planned Progress, a philosophy that is applied to all areas of municipal management,
from developing neighborhoods, to building infrastructure to coordinating City programs.
To remain competitive, it is important for Pleasanton to build upon its strengths while
realistically addressing challenges that can be directly controlled or influenced by the City. The
City’s conservative fiscal policies have helped keep the budget balanced despite economic
uncertainty due to State budget impacts and changing market cycles. Pleasanton will continue to
manage its funds with a commitment that the City remains in a sound and healthy financial
position.
Pleasanton’s business community is noted for its productivity and progressiveness. There are
over 58,000 employees working within the more than 22 million square feet of commercial,
office, and industrial space throughout the City. Pleasanton boasts five distinct business parks,
among them the nationally recognized Hacienda Business Park. Businesses indicate they are
attracted to Pleasanton for the highly educated and skilled workforce. In addition to the
diversified regional labor force, the Pleasanton area has a good base of executive, managerial and
professional people giving employers access to people with a wide range of skill levels including
one of the nation's largest concentrations of scientific and engineering talent.
CITY OF PLEASANTON
Year Population Pleasanton Jobs
1898 900 N/ A
1960 4,203 N/ A
1970 18,328 N/ A
1980 35,160 N/ A
1990 50,553 27,686
1998 60,700 54,240
1999 62,200 56,743
2000 63,654 54,863
2001 65,100 58,931
2002 65,900 57,803
2003 66,600 56,950
2004 67,102 57,997
2005 67,650 58,670
2006* 68,100 60,146
2007* 68,560 61,662
* Projected
Sources: California Department of Finance ( Demographic Research
Unit), California Economic Development Department and “ Projections
2005” ABAG
a- 2
Geographic location is a strong factor in Pleasanton’s economic position within the greater Bay
Area. Being at the intersection of Interstates I- 580 and I- 680, Pleasanton is conveniently linked
to important markets: Sacramento to the north, San Francisco and Oakland to the west, the
Silicon Valley to the south, and the San Joaquin Valley to the east. As the regional workforce
moves east to secure housing, Pleasanton’s proximity to the Central Valley makes it an excellent
place for companies who want to be accessible to their employees and to the sizable markets and
resources within the Bay Area.
Pleasanton’s access to transportation alternatives is ideal. In addition to the I- 580 and I- 680
freeways, the Bay Area Rapid Transit ( BART) provides direct service to San Francisco and
Oakland. Pleasanton is also an important destination for workers on the Altamont Commuter
Express ( ACE), which provides commuter service between the San Joaquin Valley and Silicon
Valley. The local bus company, Wheels, offers timely service to BART and ACE, as well as
throughout Pleasanton and the neighboring cities of Dublin and Livermore.
TOP 20 EMPLOYERS IN 2005
* Headquarters
No. of Year
Employer Employees Established
Oracle 3,628 1979
Safeway Inc.* 1,760 1996
Providian Financial 1,560 1985
AT& T 1,407 1984
Pleasanton Unified School District* 1,350
Clorox Services Company 956 1973
Valley Care Medical Center 925 1991
Robert Half International 920 1985
Pro Business* 820 1984
E M C Corp 769 1990
E- Loan 750 2003
Macy’s 750 1980
Kaiser Permanente 530 1983
Farmers Insurance 480 1983
City of Pleasanton* 441
SBC 389 1996
Nordstrom 384 1990
Fireside Thrift* 364 1998
Acosta Sales & Marketing 350 1998
Wal- Mart Pleasanton 340 1995
Source: City of Pleasanton Economic Development Division
a- 3
Very often the decision to locate in Pleasanton, for business and residents alike, is the
exceptional quality of life. Pleasanton is an attractive and friendly city with a strong heritage.
They cite the low crime rate, the moderate climate, the award- winning schools, the long- term
value of the housing stock, the well- planned business areas, the abundant parks and recreational
areas, and the charming historic downtown.
The diversity of Pleasanton’s business community has kept it consistently strong over the past
two decades. A regional retail mall is the destination for Bay Area shoppers and the downtown
district is home to many boutiques, contemporary gift shops, antique stores and fine restaurants.
Business clusters from software development to medical device manufacturing to corporate
headquarters add to the mix. Most of the businesses are small to mid- size, and research has
shown that the Tri- Valley has a high entrepreneurial spirit that generates many locally grown
companies. This diversity is the backbone of Pleasanton’s stable economy and has sustained the
City through changing economic seasons. These corporate citizens help to support the
community by contributing goods, services, and amenities desired by the City’s residents.
Pleasanton companies have positively impacted the City’s financial health as well. Over 60% of
Pleasanton’s General Fund tax revenues come directly or indirectly from business. This revenue
helps pay for police and fire services, public works operations, and community services
activities. Commercial revenues contribute to the funding needed to maintain and operate
popular recreation areas, including Northern California’s largest active sports park, the aquatics
and tennis complexes, and the active senior center.
People move to Pleasanton for many of the same reasons as businesses and feel welcomed upon
arrival. Residents have given Pleasanton high marks as a quality community, rating Pleasanton
as a good to excellent place to live. Those results reflect well on the City and on its community
members. Residents and business people alike are actively engaged in local activities and issues.
Community spirit is a vital part of Pleasanton. It has kept Pleasanton closely- knit and moving
forward during the good and the challenging times.
a- 4
CITY OF PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA
Community Profile
Incorporated June 25, 1894
Form of Government Council- Manager
Population 67,650
( Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit)
Area 24 square miles
( Source: City of Pleasanton Geographic Information Systems)
Climate Rainfall – Annual Average 17 inches
Mean Daily Temperature – 72° maximum / 42° minimum
Community Facilities Acres of Developed Parks 373
Libraries 1 Main Branch
Fire Stations 5
Education Elementary Schools 9
Middle Schools 3
High Schools 2
Continuation Schools 2
( Source: Pleasanton Unified School District)
Household Information Medium Income as of 2005 $ 82,200
Housing Units as of 2005 25,459
( City of Pleasanton Planning Department)
Median Home Price as of Apr 2005 $ 825,000
( Source: Bay East Association of Realtors)
FY05 Tax Rate 1.1292%
( Source: Alameda County Auditor Controller)
a- 5
a- 6
BUDGET
2005- 06/ 2006- 07
City Council
Jennifer Hosterman, Mayor
Steve Brozosky, Vice Mayor
Cindy McGovern, Council Member
Matt Sullivan, Council Member
Staff
Nelson Fialho, City Manager
Steven Bocian, Deputy City Manager
Susan Rossi, Director of Finance
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
BUDGET MESSAGE................................................................................................................ b- 1
SUMMARY
Estimated Changes in Fund Balances All Funds ................................................................. 2
Summary of Four Year Operating Fund Balances............................................................... 4
Summary of Revenues and Transfers by Funds ................................................................ 13
Revenue by Source and Fund Type ................................................................................... 22
Projected Debt Ratios Through 2007................................................................................. 23
Proposition 4 Analysis and Calculation............................................................................. 24
Growth of Major Revenues Chart...................................................................................... 27
Revenue by Major Revenue Source Chart......................................................................... 28
Operating Revenues By Fund Chart .................................................................................. 29
Summary of Expenditures by Funds.................................................................................. 31
Summary of Expenditures by Type ( All Funds)................................................................ 34
Operating Expenditures by Type Chart ............................................................................. 40
Operating Expenditures by Function Chart ....................................................................... 41
Staffing Levels ................................................................................................................... 43
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
City Council ....................................................................................................................... 45
City Manager ..................................................................................................................... 47
Law ............................................................................................................................... .... 55
Finance........................................................................................................................ ...... 61
Human Resources .............................................................................................................. 71
General Government.......................................................................................................... 79
General Services ................................................................................................................ 83
PUBLIC SAFETY
Livermore- Pleasanton Fire ( Pleasanton- Only Allocation) ................................................ 91
Police......................................................................................................................... ........ 99
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning ........................................................................................................................... 111
Housing........................................................................................................................ ... 123
Economic Development................................................................................................... 129
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PUBLIC WORKS
( Includes the following divisions: Engineering, NPID, Traffic Engineering,
Building and Safety, Field Services Maintenance, Water, Sewer, and Storm Drain).................. 135
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
Parks & Community Services.......................................................................................... 163
Library Services ............................................................................................................... 177
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Employee Benefits Fund.................................................................................................. 185
LPFD Replacement Fund................................................................................................. 186
Public Art Acquisition Fund ............................................................................................ 187
Public Art Maintenance Fund .......................................................................................... 188
Vehicle Replacement Fund .............................................................................................. 189
Equipment Replacement Fund......................................................................................... 190
Facilities Renovation Fund .............................................................................................. 191
Information Systems Equipment Replacement Fund ...................................................... 192
Fire Apparatus Replacement Fund................................................................................... 193
Police Vehicle Replacement Fund ................................................................................... 194
Assessment District Administration Fund ....................................................................... 195
Park and Median Renovation Fund.................................................................................. 196
Street Light Replacement Fund ....................................................................................... 197
Traffic Signal Replacement Fund .................................................................................... 198
LPFD Retirees’ Medical Reserve Fund ........................................................................... 199
Workers Compensation Fund .......................................................................................... 200
Self- Insurance Retention Fund ........................................................................................ 201
LPFD Workers Compensation Fund................................................................................ 202
Retirees’ Medical Reserve Fund...................................................................................... 203
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
D. A. R. E. Fund ................................................................................................................. 205
Street Trees Fund ............................................................................................................. 206
Asset Forfeiture Fund ...................................................................................................... 207
Downtown Parking In- Lieu Fund .................................................................................... 208
Recycling and Waste Management Fund ........................................................................ 209
Senior Center Donation Fund .......................................................................................... 210
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Miscellaneous Donation Fund ......................................................................................... 211
Youth Master Plan Fund .................................................................................................. 212
Downtown Economic Development Loan Fund.............................................................. 213
Lower Income Housing Fund .......................................................................................... 214
Ridgeview Mortgage Fund .............................................................................................. 215
Livermore- Pleasanton Fire Department ( LPFD) Fund.................................................... 217
Used Oil Grant Fund........................................................................................................ 225
Law Enforcement Fund.................................................................................................... 226
Miscellaneous Federal Block Grant Fund........................................................................ 227
Lemoine Geologic Hazard District Fund......................................................................... 228
Laurel Creek Geologic Hazard District Fund .................................................................. 229
Ponderosa Landscape District Fund................................................................................. 230
Windsor Landscape District Fund ................................................................................... 231
Moller Geologic Hazard District Fund ............................................................................ 232
Oak Tree Farm Geologic Hazard District Fund............................................................... 233
Bonde Landscape District Fund....................................................................................... 234
Moller Ranch Landscape District Fund ........................................................................... 235
Ridgeview Commons Housing Fund............................................................................... 236
Oak Tree Farm Landscape District Fund......................................................................... 237
Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG) Fund ................................................... 238
H. O. M. E. Program Fund.................................................................................................. 239
H. B. P. O. A. Maintenance District Fund ........................................................................... 240
Abandoned Vehicle Fund ................................................................................................ 241
Urban Forestry Fund........................................................................................................ 242
Library Donation Fund .................................................................................................... 243
OTHER FUNDS
2003 Certificates of Participation ( C. O. P. s) Fund ........................................................... 245
Pleasanton Township County Water ( PTCWD# 3) Fund................................................. 246
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Five Year Summaries....................................................................................................... 247
Detailed Financial Tables by Year................................................................................... 254
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPENDIX
A 2005 City Council Priorities ............................................................................... A- 1
B Budget Calendar and Terminology
Financial Reporting Versus Budgetary Accounting ................................ B- 1
Budget Preparation Process and Budget Documents............................... B- 2
Budget Calendar....................................................................................... B- 3
Glossary of Terms.................................................................................... B- 5
Accounting System and Fund Structure .................................................. B- 8
C Financial Policies
General Financial Policies ....................................................................... C- 1
Water Enterprise Financial Policy ........................................................... C- 5
Sewer Enterprise Financial Policy ........................................................... C- 6
Fee Policy................................................................................................. C- 7
Investment Policy and Guidelines ......................................................... C- 14
D Discussion of Revenues and Revenue Forecasting............................................. D- 1
E Statistical Data
Comparative Information 1993 – 2007.................................................... E- 2
History of Full- Time City Staffing .......................................................... E- 4
History of General Fund Revenue ........................................................... E- 6
Historical Financial Trends...................................................................... E- 9
General Fund Five- Year Net Income Projection ................................... E- 18
Performance Standards .......................................................................... E- 21
F Debt Summary ..................................................................................................... F- 1
G Assessment Districts ........................................................................................... G- 1
H Discussion on Retiree Medical Accounting and Funding................................... H- 1
I Public Employees Retirement System ( PERS)..................................................... I- 1
J Revolving Loan Funds.......................................................................................... J- 1
K Youth Programs and Activities........................................................................... K- 1
L Resolution ............................................................................................................ L- 1
Attachment A - Operating Budget Estimated Changes in Fund Balance ............ L- 2
Attachment B - CDBG Funding .......................................................................... L- 4
INDEX.......................................................................................................................... ............. M- 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 27, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Nelson Fialho, City Manager
RE: City Manager’s Budget Message
____________________________________________________________________________________
I am pleased to present the Proposed 2005- 06/ 2006- 07 Budget. The City of Pleasanton has a tradition of
long- range financial planning, which has been invaluable in helping us provide sustainable services to
the community. This budget continues the City’s practice of providing high quality municipal services
while maintaining the ability to adapt to local, regional and statewide economic issues and challenges.
This budget also provides a financial education for the reader: it covers our budget goals, policies and
history; describes all revenue sources and department functions; and forecasts revenue and expenditure
trends over the next several years. The budget will be discussed in a City Council study session on June
8, and is scheduled for adoption on June 21, 2005.
SHARED VISION
Before shifting focus to the Operating Budget, it is important to note that the Pleasanton City Council
adopted its annual work plan for fiscal year 2005- 2006. The work plan, which is comprised of 13 broad
categories and individual projects, was developed in close cooperation with the Mayor, City Council and
City Manager. Collectively, these vision categories are intended to inform the community of the
Council’s shared vision and to provide the City Manager with the policy direction needed to direct City
resources, including preparation of the annual budget. I am confident that this budget properly reflects
these goals as follows:
• Bernal Property -- Plan for the future development of the Bernal Property, which includes
300 acres of City- owned property for public use.
• General Plan Update -- Complete a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan, and
coordinate the remaining development in the City as it approaches General Plan buildout.
• City Finances – Plan for and react to future State fiscal issues; maintain the City’s fiscal
sustainability.
• Affordable Housing – Address affordable housing issues; where and how to plan for it.
b- 1
• Traffic Circulation – Implement improved traffic circulation measures.
• Callippe Golf Course and Happy Valley Open Space – Complete the Callippe Golf Course;
including a solution to the bypass road.
• Economic Development – Pursue economic vitality, including the recruitment and retention
of quality business.
• Youth Programs – Strengthen youth programs, services and activities.
• Public Safety -- Provide a safe environment for the people and property in Pleasanton.
• Quality of Life – Provide programs and services that enhance the quality of life for
Pleasanton residents.
• Environmental Awareness – Pursue environmental awareness, health, land use and
preservation issues.
• City Services – Provide effective and efficient municipal services.
• Public Information – Develop a comprehensive public information program.
2005– 2007 BUDGET PLAN SUMMARY
This budget maintains core service levels, addresses all new program and project initiatives prioritized
by the City Council and implements measures to promote long- term fiscal stability. These goals can be
achieved with a spending plan that still operates within our fiscal means. Careful planning and a
diversified local economy have allowed us to balance this budget without reductions in service or
increases in fees or taxes.
Even with our impressive financial standing compared to most jurisdictions, the City’s spending patterns
for the next few years should be closely monitored to ensure that our operating position remains
positive. While revenue growth remains positive as the City’s various business sectors continue to pay
dividends and property values continue to grow, the economic benefits are being offset by rapidly
escalating labor costs, ever- present threat of State revenue diversions and the sluggish economic
recovery throughout the Bay Area region.
Labor Costs
As is the case with all public and private sector employers, the single greatest factor driving expenditure
growth in this budget is labor costs. Specifically the costs of retirement, medical benefits and workers’
compensation are growing beyond the rate of inflation. The impact of these cost increases is identified
in greater detail in the Budget Plan immediately following.
State Impacts
In addition to employee benefit costs, which are largely beyond the control of the City, other external
factors can have a significant negative impact on the City’s fiscal health in the years to come. The most
significant, and unfortunately recurring, threat to the City’s financial security is the State. The State is
once again facing a budget crisis, and continues to utilize one- time revenues to balance its budget. This
b- 2
practice continues to erode the State’s fiscal position and continues to expose local governments to the
practice of diverting local revenues to address staggering State deficits. This has become a standard
practice during every downturn in the economy since the early 1990s.
Pleasanton has lost over $ 70 million to the State since 1992 -- funds which could have been earmarked
for local services and/ or capital improvements.
Economic Recovery
Although there are indications that the economy is recovering, it is doing so at a slow pace with
emerging new obstacles to overcome, such as rising interest rates, sluggish job growth and higher oil
prices.
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE HIGHLIGHTS
Some significant revenue elements of the 2005- 2007 budget include:
• Sales tax revenues projected to increase 5% in each of the next two years.
• Property tax revenues projected to increase 5.9% in 2005- 06 and 5.3% in 2006- 07.
• Transient occupancy tax revenues projected to increase 9% in 2005- 06 and 6% in 2006- 07.
The following are highlights of the expenditure elements in the 2005– 2007 budget:
• Total City appropriations for expenditures in 2005- 06 are $ 158 million, a 1.6% increase as
compared to the 2004- 2005 fiscal period’s $ 155 million. Appropriations in 2006- 07 are $ 169
million, a 7% increase over 2005- 06.
• General Fund operating expenditures in 2005- 06 total $ 76.8 million, a 0.3% increase from
the prior budget period’s $ 76.6 million. In 2006- 07 the increase is $ 83.3 million, an 8.5%
increase.
• The 2005– 2007 budget includes contributions to the Reserve for Economic Uncertainties that
maintain it at 10% of annual revenues, which is consistent with the City’s fiscal policies.
The budget keeps the Temporary Recession Reserve intact with a balance of $ 5.1 million.
Staff is recommending that this reserve be kept in place at least through the next two years,
or as long as uncertainty exists in the State’s budget and the economy. When appropriate, the
funds can then be made available for one- time purposes such as capital improvements.
• The Capital Improvement Plan budget totals $ 14.5 million and $ 15.5 million, in fiscal years
2005- 06 and 2006- 2007, respectively. A $ 5 million contribution from the General Fund
occurs each year to fund capital projects.
• Baseline staffing is increased by four full- time equivalent positions in the Police Department
to address additional impacts from growth, both in Pleasanton and regionally. No other
staffing increases are included in the budget.
• Non- personnel costs remain flat, as compared to the previous budget cycle.
b- 3
• Internal Service Funds remain fully funded to assure timely replacement of capital
equipment, depreciated technology needs and major facility maintenance.
• Benefit expenses are increasing citywide by an estimated $ 4.2 million in 2005– 06, and
another $ 2.0 million in 2006- 07, with the largest portion of the increase due to rising pension
costs.
CONCLUSION
In closing this budget message, I would like to express my appreciation to the City Council for
providing the positive leadership and direction on behalf of the community. Members of the City’s
commissions, through their expertise and input, have also provided valuable assistance in the
development of the Capital Improvement Plan. I also want to recognize the City staff for their
dedication and effort, not only in the preparation of this budget, but in their commitment to providing
the highest quality service to the Pleasanton community.
I would like to specifically acknowledge the work of the City’s budget team. They have successfully
assembled a budget document that is comprehensive, accurate and easy to read. Steve Bocian, Sue
Rossi, Jacqui Diaz, Kathy Kitterman, Mike Patrick, Sharon Svitak and Lois Webb were responsible for
all the detailed coordination, design, compilation, analysis, photography layout and graphics.
I would also like to thank the following individuals for the assistance they provided: Sally Madrid, Pat
Heath, Dave Iremonger, Carolyn Barley, Mary Lu Campbell, Pam Ott, Cindy Seerley, Mary Wayda and
Melissa Winsby.
I look forward to working with the City Council, staff and the Pleasanton community as we implement
this operating budget and policy document. I am confident that the result of our efforts will be the
continuation of high quality public service, an excellent City staff and a secure financial position for our
community.
b- 4
THE BUDGET PLAN
I. THE BUDGET PLAN SUPPORTS THE CITY’S FINANCIAL POLICIES
This document is the City's comprehensive budget plan for all programs and services for fiscal
years 2005- 06 and 2006- 07. The budget is also a statement of financial policy. This fiscal plan
demonstrates the City Council's leadership commitment of providing quality services. The
continuation of quality services to the residents of Pleasanton has been possible because of solid
community land- use planning which created a diverse revenue stream from the business and
residential community to support the cost of providing services to both the business and
residential populations.
In 1996, an Economic/ Fiscal Element was added to the City’s General Plan. In December 1997,
the City won a League of California Cities Helen Putnam Award of Excellence for Financial
Management for its program “ Financing Our Future”, which is the City’s long- term strategy to
ensure its fiscal health. This plan is based on the goals and policies contained in the
Economic/ Fiscal Element. One of many components in this long- term strategy is the City’s
Replacement Plan, which plays an integral part in the Budget Plan. The City was granted an
Award of Excellence for its last ( 2003- 04/ 2004- 05) Operating Budget from the California
Municipal Finance Officers Association. Since 1997 the City has annually prepared an award-winning
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report ( CAFR).
II. BUDGET PLAN PROCESS AND DOCUMENTS
Budget preparation began this year with the midyear review of the current year’s operating
budget. The departments were then asked to complete program budget requests for the coming
two years, keeping in mind the priorities developed by the City Council, which are outlined in
Appendix A.
Revenue projections were prepared by the Director of Finance ( as outlined in Appendix D). The
City Manager and Director of Finance reviewed the budget requests, and the budget was
assembled as recommended by the City Manager.
The Budget document provides financial summary and trend information, as well as department
summaries of prior year accomplishments, and goals/ objectives for the upcoming two budget
years. In addition, the document contains organization charts, personnel staffing summaries, and
program revenue detail. Appendices to the document provide historical and projected future
trend information, financial comparisons to other Alameda County cities, City financial policies,
glossary of terms, City debt summary, financial status report on the City’s affordable housing
loan program, information on the City's system of accounts, and a discussion of the basis for
revenue projections.
Throughout the budget document, the City Departments have included in their goals and
objectives the City Council’s priority projects in support of the adopted Shared Vision, and have
included the resources needed to accomplish them in their budget requests.
b- 5
The line- item budget requests prepared by the departments have been bound together in a second
document, the Budget Workbook. This Workbook is intended to provide the program and line-item
detail used by the City Council and public for initial review of the budget. In addition, the
Workbook is used as a reference by the departments throughout the two budget years.
Staff is once again recommending that the City Council adopt a two- year operating budget, with
quarterly updates and a mid- term review. Therefore, the following Budget Plan summarizes the
City's current financial position and proposes suggested services for the upcoming two years.
The Budget preparation process and the budget calendar are described in more detail in
Appendix B.
III. FINANCING THE BUDGET PLAN
The City's financial goal is to support and enhance services to the community with locally
generated revenue. While Pleasanton’s General Plan sets the framework for a diverse revenue
system, many factors impact Pleasanton’s finances, including external circumstances over which
the City has little control.
While the San Francisco Bay Area’s economy is still feeling some lingering effects of the “ dot
com” bust, the East Bay including Pleasanton has fared better than much of the region. Of the
over 18 million square feet of commercial space in Pleasanton’s business/ industrial parks and
mall area, approximately 87% is occupied. While business to business taxable sales transactions
are down significantly from their high, the diversity of Pleasanton’s sales tax base has resulted in
a gradual recovery. This is an important change, as sales tax is the City’s second largest revenue
source. Hotel taxes in Pleasanton experienced a significant decline ( 25% in 2001- 02) like much
of the Bay Area. Revenues continued to decline through 2003- 04, and only this last fall ( late
2004) starting to show some increases.
Property tax revenues are the primary funding source for Pleasanton’s General Fund. This
revenue source has grown significantly with new commercial development in the last few years,
as well as the strong resale housing market, and the recent completion or near completion of
residential projects such as Bridle Creek and the Bernal property. While commercial
development has slowed significantly, some housing development continues, including the early
stages of Vineyard Avenue corridor development, Sycamore Heights and Mariposa Ranch in
south Pleasanton, and Ironwood at the Busch property. Quite significantly, housing resales
continue to set records in the Bay Area, including Pleasanton. Unless there is a sudden
significant decline in property values due to market or other external factors, Pleasanton should
experience continued growth in property tax revenues for the next few years. However, as
Pleasanton approaches full buildout of its General Plan, the year to year increases will likely be
less than experienced in years of more significant growth. Even without growth and only a
“ normal” resale market, City staff projects that property tax revenues would still trend on
average toward an annual 4.5 to 5% growth rate.
In addition, with the high demand for land in the Bay Area, older developments in Pleasanton
will naturally start undergoing a reformation that will contribute to stronger property and sales
tax bases. Some of this has started already, as evidenced by the demolition of the Galaxy
Theatre and recent studies to determine the feasibility of high density housing in underused areas
b- 6
of Hacienda Business Park. In addition, a new Stoneridge Mall co- owner brings the potential
for expanding operations there with more retail space.
However, Pleasanton will always be subjected to factors outside its control, such as the
economy, State Budget impacts, and potential future restructuring of local revenues.
Since 1991- 92, the City has lost $ 76.5 million in revenue combined with increased costs for
added responsibilities, as a result of statewide property tax shifts initiated by the State during the
recession of the mid 1990s. Included in the above is the latest round of State Budget impacts
that started in 2003- 04 and extend at least through 2005- 06. These include $ 1.1 million in
Vehicle License Fees in 2003- 04 (“ VLF Gap Loan”); $ 1.9 million in additional property tax
shifts in 2004- 05 (“ ERAF III”); and an additional $ 2 million of ERAF III funds in 2005- 06.
However, the State is scheduled to pay back the VLF Gap Loan in 2006- 07, as required in
Proposition 1A adopted by the voters in November 2004.
In addition to the sluggish economic recovery, State budget deficit, and planning for General
Plan buildout, increases in personnel costs add to the list of items that will impact the City’s long
term financial future. There are three factors that have driven personnel costs upwards over the
last few years. These factors are: workers’ compensation, medical premiums, and the City’s
required contribution rates to the State’s Public Employees Retirement System ( PERS). All
three factors have grown at rates higher than inflation. As the City concerns itself with fiscal
sustainability for the long term, personnel costs like all other costs will have to stay in line with
revenue growth to make the equation work.
But there is much to be optimistic about. While mixed, there are signs of an improving
economy, and the City is positioned well to capitalize on it. The City has an opportunity in the
300 acre Bernal property to provide an incredible amenity for the community and future
generations. Long desired plans to renovate the Veterans Memorial Building, convert the
historic downtown fire station into an arts center, and continued revitalization of our downtown
are all moving toward fruition. In addition, the much anticipated Callippe Preserve Golf Course
and Open Space is scheduled to come on line later this calendar year.
The City’s long- term planning has continued for years to be a key factor in its financial strength.
While the City has been doing long term fiscal modeling for years in many forms, for the first
time, a General Fund five- year projection model is included in the Budget Plan ( in Appendix E).
One of the City Council’s goals for the coming year is to develop a short and long- term analysis
to ensure financial planning remains consistent with expenditure and revenue projections, and
this 5- year projection model is one of the first steps in that process. In addition, efforts are under
way as part of the General Plan update process, to develop a strong and proactive economic
development attraction and retention program, a component which the City Council has
recognized in its Shared Vision as vital to the City’s continued fiscal health.
b- 7
IV. SUMMARY OF 2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
A. OVERVIEW
1. Total Revenue: All Operating Budget Funds
Total annual operating revenue for all Funds for fiscal year 2005- 06 is estimated to be
$ 170.3 million or 6.4% more than the fiscal year 2004- 05 projection of
$ 160.0 million. For 2006- 07, the projection is $ 185.5 million, or 8.9% higher than
the 2005- 06 projection. However, if we exclude the Internal Service Funds and the
LPFD Fund from the table below, the total projected revenue increase in 2005- 06
over 2004- 05 is $ 4.1 million or 3.7%, and the total projected revenue increase in
2006- 07 over 2005- 06 is $ 8.0 million or 6.9%.
The summary by Fund type is provided below:
REVENUE BY FUND TYPE
2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
General Fund $ 78,220,336 $ 81,919,570 $ 89,192,776
Enterprise Funds 28,782,274 29,346,258 29,987,056
Internal Service Funds 25,551,127 29,898,141 35,743,084
Special Revenue Funds 27,400,511 29,096,430 30,534,663
Other Funds 14,000 8,000 8,000
TOTAL REVENUES $ 159,968,248 $ 170,268,399 $ 185,465,579
It should be noted that, in the revenue graphs displayed in the Summary Section of
the Budget, the Internal Service Funds and LPFD Fund revenues are excluded
because they distort the comparisons. This is the result of reporting, what is in
essence, duplicate revenue. For example, the General Fund receives taxes, fees and
other revenues. From these revenues it funds operating costs, including “ internal”
charges or “ accruals”. These internal charges then result in revenue being credited to
the Internal Service Funds. Thus the revenue is not new, additional revenue, but only
internal revenue. Therefore, internal revenues need to be taken out when
comparisons of revenue are made from year to year.
Similarly, Livermore and Pleasanton fund the LPFD Fund. This funding shows as
“ revenue” in the budget. However, the source of Pleasanton’s share is still the taxes,
fees and other revenues already accounted for. The revenue in the LPFD Fund from
Livermore offsets its share of the expenditures, so there is a net zero effect on
Pleasanton’s budget, if both revenue and expenditure are netted out. Therefore, the
LPFD revenue also has been taken out when doing comparisons.
A detailed discussion of the City's major revenues and the methods used for
forecasting them for 2005- 06 and 2006- 07 is contained in Appendix D.
b- 8
2. Total Expenditures: All Operating Budget Funds
Recommended Operating Expenditures for all Funds for fiscal year 2005- 06 total
$ 158.0 million, or a 1.6% increase over the fiscal year 2004- 05 appropriation of
$ 155.5 million. Recommended expenditures for 2006- 07 total $ 169.0 million, or a
7.0% increase over the 2005- 06 recommendation. However, if we exclude the
Internal Service Funds and the LPFD Fund from the table below, then 2005- 06
expenditures reflect a decrease of $ 1.92 million or 1.8% compared to 2004- 05, and
2006- 07 reflects an increase of $ 7.32 million or 6.9% compared to 2005- 06.
The summary by Fund type is provided below:
EXPENDITURES BY FUND TYPE
2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
General Fund $ 76,558,040 $ 76,839,570 $ 83,362,776
Enterprise Funds 24,458,401 25,185,293 26,267,243
Internal Service Funds 24,499,993 27,108,651 29,463,979
Special Revenue Funds 28,441,871 26,842,784 27,932,505
Other Funds 1,499,740 2,013,415 2,017,615
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 155,458,045 $ 157,989,713 $ 169,044,118
Similar to the discussion above about the revenue graphs, in the expenditure graphs
displayed in the Summary Section of the Budget, the Internal Service Funds and
LPFD Fund expenditures are excluded, because they distort the comparisons.
3. Net Transfers- out from All Operating Budget Funds
Net transfers- out ( transfers of cash between Funds) from all Operating Funds are
projected to be $ 8.4 million in 2005- 06, and $ 6.9 million in 2006- 07.
Interfund reimbursements and payments for overhead are reflected as “ interfund
revenues” and “ interfund expenditures” between Funds rather than transfers.
Therefore, the items that remain classified as transfers- out reflect movement of
resources from one Fund to another rather than payment for something specific. In
most of the cases shown below, the funds are being transferred to the CIP for either
debt service payments, capital replacement reserves ( water and sewer) or capital
improvement projects ( streets, facilities, parks).
In addition, and as will be discussed later ( beginning on page b- 21), the budget
provides for General Fund transfers to preserve the Golf General Fund Debt Service
Reserve and add a cash flow reserve component to it. This action is recommended to
provide a layer of protection to the General Fund and CIP against any potential future
shortfalls in golf course net revenues. Even if the golf course turns a profit beginning
on day one of operations, this reserve is a good idea going forward, and is consistent
with reserves that were established and maintained in the Water and Sewer Funds.
b- 9
Also discussed later, additional transfers from the General Fund to support Storm
Drain Fund operations are included in this budget, the need for which was projected
in the last two- year budget.
2004- 05 reflects the transfer back from the Housing Loan Fund to the Lower Income
Housing fund of about $ 1.56 million. Staff did an accounting update on the loan
funds and determined that this amount is now available for other Lower Income
Housing purposes.
The summary by Operating Fund is provided below:
NET TRANSFERS IN/( OUT)
2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
From General Fund to the CIP $( 5,800,000 ) $( 5,000,000 ) $( 5,000,000 )
From General Fund to the Golf
General Fund Debt/ Cash Flow
Reserve 0 ( 1,600,000 ) 0
To 2003 COP debt ( Callippe
Preserve) from the Golf Fund* 0 1,593,095 1,592,120
To 2003 COP debt ( Sr. Center) from
Misc CIP 392,470 393,020 398,195
From General Fund to the Storm
Drain Fund ( operating subsidy) ( 100,000 ) ( 100,000 ) ( 100,000 )
To Storm Drain ( operating subsidy)
from the General Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000
From Water & Sewer Funds to CIP ( 4,042,467 ) ( 3,776,295 ) ( 3,857,413 )
From Park & Median Renovation to
the Park CIP ( 770,500 ) 0 0
From Downtown Economic
Development Loan Fund to
Community Development Block
Grant ( CDBG) 0 ( 10,000 ) 0
To CDBG from Downtown
Economic Development Loan Fund 0 10,000 0
From Housing Loan Fund to Lower
Income Housing Fund 1,555,273 0 0
TOTAL NET TRANSFERS- OUT
FROM THE OPERATING
BUDGET $( 8,665,224 ) $( 8,390,180 ) $( 6,867,098 )
* Source of funding will be a combination of existing debt service reserve funds and golf course
operations revenue. As part of the budget to be prepared in September or October 2005 for the
golf course operations, the breakdown will be better defined.
b- 10
4. Net Change in Fund Balance for all Operating Funds is a $ 3.9 million increase in
2005- 06, and a $ 9.6 million increase in 2006- 07. These changes are summarized by
Fund type in the follow table. In the case of the General Fund, the $ 1.6 million
reduction in 2005- 06 represents the transfer of funds to the Golf General Fund
Debt/ Cash Flow Reserve, as discussed above. In 2006- 07, the increase of $ 730,000
in the General Fund represents additions to the 10% Reserve for Economic
Uncertainties.
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
2005- 06 2006- 07
General Fund $( 1,600,000) $ 730,000
Enterprise Funds 484,670 ( 37,600)
Internal Service Funds 2,789,490 6,279,105
Special Revenue Funds 2,253,646 2,602,158
Other Funds ( 19,300) ( 19,300)
TOTAL CHANGE $ 3,888,506 $ 9,554,363
The following sections provide a more detailed overview of the Budget Plan. Further details
are provided in the body of the Budget document and the Budget Workbook.
B. GENERAL FUND
1. General Fund Revenue
Projected General Fund revenues total:
􀂾 $ 78.2 million in 2004- 05
􀂾 $ 81.9 million in 2005- 06 ( a 4.7% projected increase)
􀂾 $ 89.2 million in 2006- 07 ( an 8.9% projected increase).
The following sources comprise over 70% of the General Fund’s revenue:
􀂾 Secured property taxes
􀂾 Sales taxes ( including compensation for 25% of Sales Tax lost as part of State
“ Triple Flip” plan)
􀂾 Hotel taxes
􀂾 Vehicle License Fees ( VLF) combined with Property Taxes In Lieu of VLF.
Both housing and non- residential construction, and strong housing resales in the last
couple of years have resulted in increased secured property assessments. As a result,
secured property taxes are projected to grow more than the City’s other tax revenues.
Based on estimates from the County Assessor’s office, staff is projecting an increase
of 7.2% in 2005- 06 to $ 32.9 million. Given the lag time in County processing of new
assessed values after resales, staff is projecting growth of at least 6% in 2006- 07 to
$ 34.9 million, even if the resale market cools later this year.
b- 11
Secured Property Tax Revenue
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
97- 98 98- 99 99- 00 00- 01 01- 02 02- 03 03- 04 04- 05* 05- 06* 06- 07*
Millions
* Projected
While the City saw a sharp one- time increase in sales tax revenue from $ 17.5 million
in 1999- 00 to $ 21 million in 2000- 01, the revenue fell back to $ 17.3 million in
2001- 02, due primarily to the loss of significant business to business sales tax
activity. In the subsequent three years, this revenue has starting to slowly grow again.
The current projection for 2004- 05 is $ 18.7 million, and for the two- year projected
budget, staff is assuming sales taxes will show moderate growth of about 5%
annually, to $ 19.6 million in 2005- 06 and $ 20.6 million in 2006- 07. While the City
now only gets 75% of its former sales tax directly as part of the “ Triple Flip”
implemented by the State last year, under this plan the City will be compensated for
the 25% loss. Therefore, for the purposes of year- to- year comparisons, staff is
including the 25% sales tax compensation as part of the total projected sales tax in the
table below and throughout the budget document.
Sales Tax Revenue
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
97- 98 98- 99 99- 00 00- 01 01- 02 02- 03 03- 04 04- 05* 05- 06* 06- 07*
Millions
* Projected
b- 12
Hotel taxes also fell sharply in 2001- 02, from a high of $ 4 million down to
$ 3 million, and continued to decline through last fiscal year. However, beginning in
the winter of 2004, the revenue source started to show some recovery. Therefore,
staff is projecting a 9% growth in 2005- 06 from $ 2.75 million to $ 3.0 million, and a
6% growth in 2006- 07 to $ 3.18 million.
Hotel Tax Revenue
1
2
3
4
5
97- 98 98- 99 99- 00 00- 01 01- 02 02- 03 03- 04 04- 05* 05- 06* 06- 07*
Millions
* Projected
Beginning in January 1999, the State lowered the Vehicle License Fees ( VLF), but
backfilled the revenue to local agencies. Without a budget yet in the summer of
2003, the State failed to make three months of VLF backfill payments to cities and
counties resulting in a VLF funding gap. This time period is known as the “ VLF
Gap” period, during which the City lost about $ 1.14 million in VLF allocations. In
2004, the State reduced the VLF rate and replaced the backfill to cities and counties
with “ Property Tax in Lieu of VLF” funds that are now tied to future property tax
growth. As was previously discussed, Proposition 1A requires the State to repay the
VLF Gap period loan no later than August 2006.
The following chart shows the changes in the VLF allocations to the City, as well as
the start of Property Tax in Lieu of VLF receipts in 2004- 05. The “ dotted” line
shows the total of the two. Note that the dip in 2003- 04 total revenue reflects the loss
of the $ 1.14 million during the VLF Gap period. The 2006- 07 projections reflected in
the chart include the required State repayment of this loan.
As part of the Governor’s May Budget revision for 2005- 06, he has proposed funding
about half of the VLF Gap loan repayment in 2005- 06 rather than waiting until 2006-
07. The final outcome will not be known until the State ultimately adopts its budget
for next year. In any event, if any of the VLF Gap loan repayments are made earlier
( in 2005- 06 rather than 2006- 07), the proposed City budget already assumes their use
in 2006- 07. Therefore, any early payment is not additional revenue.
b- 13
Vehicle License Fees ( VLF)
and Property Tax in Lieu of VLF
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
97- 98 98- 99 99- 00 00- 01 01- 02 02- 03 03- 04 04- 05* 05- 06* 06- 07*
Millions
VLF Prop Tax in Lieu TOTAL
* Projected
Note: For budget and accounting presentation, the Property Tax in Lieu of VLF is
classified as property tax. Its growth going forward will be tied to the City’s assessed
value growth. It is combined with VLF in the graph above only to demonstrate the
change that has taken place in VLF as a revenue source and to show the VLF Gap
loan’s cash flow impacts.
Most other General Fund revenues are projected to grow moderately in the coming
two years, as discussed in more detail in Appendix D.
2. General Fund Expenditures
Recommended General Fund appropriations total $ 76.84 million for 2005- 06 and
$ 83.36 million for 2006- 07, as compared to the adjusted 2004- 05 budget of
$ 76.56 million. This represents a slight 0.4% increase in the first year, and an 8.5%
percent increase in the second year.
A number of items were in process at the end of 2003- 04, and so the appropriations
were carried forward to 2004- 05 to complete them. General Fund carryover
appropriations totaled $ 3.70 million. Therefore, the 2004- 05 budget without the
carryovers would be $ 72.86 million, and the increase in 2005- 06 compared to this
adjusted base figure is about $ 3.98 million or 5.5%.
The resulting increase in 2005- 06 compared to 2004- 05 ( without the carryovers) is
due in part to:
􀂾 Personnel cost changes include increased personnel costs of $ 5.9 million per
existing Memorandums of Understanding ( MOUs) and three additional
positions in the Police Department.
b- 14
􀀹 Salary increases of $ 1.97 million
􀀹 PERS cost increases of $ 2.1 million
􀀹 Other Benefit cost increases $ 1.8 million
􀂾 Reduction in replacement accruals of $ 2.0 million due to their prefunding in
2004- 05, and a reduction of $ 1.2 million due primarily to elimination of old
carryover appropriations, updated cost projections, and re- evaluated
replacement cycles.
The increase in 2006- 07 compared to 2005- 06 is due in part to:
􀂾 Personnel cost changes include increased personnel costs of $ 3.7 million per
existing Memorandums of Understanding ( MOUs) and one additional position
in the Police Department.
􀀹 Salary increases of $ 1.52 million
􀀹 PERS cost increases of $ 500,000
􀀹 Other Benefit cost increases $ 1.4 million
􀂾 Replacement accruals return to a more normal level in 2006- 07, an increase of
$ 2.5 million.
Expenditure recommendations reflect the resources needed to meet the Council’s
highest priority goals for the coming year, as well as the continuation of existing high
service levels. The following is a summary of recommended expenditures. More
details are contained in the individual department narratives contained later in the
Budget document.
a. Managing Staffing Levels as City Approaches General Plan Buildout
The City’s annual budget includes the hours necessary to accomplish each
program. These hours can be translated into authorized positions. The City’s
workforce includes a total of 439.18 full- time equivalent ( FTE) positions as of
July 1, 2004 ( excluding those LPFD firefighters positions allocated to Livermore).
The actual number of City employees varies throughout the year, as employees
leave City employment to take a promotion, to retire, or as a result of termination.
It is common to have positions vacant at any one time throughout the fiscal year.
Once a vacancy occurs in an existing position, the Human Resources Division, in
conjunction with the City Manager, may delay filling the position in order to
examine potential reorganization options in recognition of the approaching
General Plan buildout, and in a continual effort to produce a more effective,
efficient and customer- centered organization.
b. Staffing Levels in the 2005- 06/ 2006- 07 Budget
The two- year budget reflects additional positions only in the Police Department
and reorganizations in other departments that result in no additional net staffing.
[ However, the Livermore- Pleasanton Fire Department Fund reflects the addition
of three Firefighter/ Paramedic positions to increase staffing from a three- person
b- 15
crew to a four- person crew for three engine companies in the City of Livermore
( similar to what was done previously in Pleasanton). The costs for these positions
will be funded by the City of Livermore].
The Fiscal Impact analysis that was completed in 1999 for the Bernal Property
contemplated the addition of a Police beat to service the South Pleasanton area.
This translated to about 7 officers, a traffic officer, and support staff. Plans were
made to phase in the staffing on average of one per year.
However, at the time the fiscal report was prepared, the projected development on
the Bernal property included 1900 housing units. Subsequently, only 581 housing
units were approved. But other factors have changed in Pleasanton, the Tri-
Valley area and the greater region that still suggest the need for the additional
staffing levels previously envisioned. Some of these factors include traffic, the
growing violent nature of crimes, and the significant growth in the region with its
inevitable impacts on Pleasanton as a neighboring city.
Therefore, staff believes that the numbers of personnel originally suggested might
still need to be added. Based on current needs, staff is recommending a total of
four additional personnel in this budget cycle to bring the total increase since
2001- 02 to six people over the last six years. Staffing levels will continue to be
monitored and future recommendations will be based on need and financial
ability.
The following discussion outlines the most significant staffing changes:
Police Department
Last fiscal year ( 2003- 04) the vacant Police Investigator II position was replaced
with a Police Officer position to help support increased calls for service, bringing
the total number of Police Officer level positions from 62 to 63. For the coming
2005- 06 year, two Police Officer positions and one Records Clerk position are
added to support increased workloads and calls for service. An additional Police
Officer position is added in the second year of the budget ( 2006- 07) to help
support increased services and program demands on the Traffic Unit. This will
bring the total number of Police Officer positions to 66.
City Manager and Human Resources Departments
The Deputy City Manager position left vacant October 2004 is being replaced
with a Director of Administrative Services position. It is anticipated that this
position will be filled in 2005- 06 and is funded half- time in the City Manager’s
Office and half- time in the Human Resources Division in the budget plan.
In 2005- 06 plans are to reorganize the Human Resources Department, and the
City Clerk and Central Services Divisions of the General Services Department to
be divisions in an Administrative Services Department. The Director of
Administrative Services will manage the department.
b- 16
In 2004- 05, the Sr. Office Assistant position left vacant in the Human Resources
Department was replaced with an Assistant to the City Manager position and was
funded half- time in the City Manager Department and half- time in the Human
Resources Department. In 2005- 06 this position will be fully funded in the City
Manager Department.
c. Status of Limited Term Positions
For several years, the City has employed limited term employees in Development
Services, which includes the Departments of Planning and Public Works. These
employees are limited to five years of employment with the City. At one time,
the City employed as many as 17 positions, but now has only two.
The limited term Assistant Planner position was reclassified to a limited term
Associate Planner position, and funded in 2005- 06 to be dedicated to the General
Plan. This position is not funded in 2006- 07.
The only other limited term position is in the Traffic Engineering Division. This
position was added full- time in 1999- 00 and reduced to three- quarter time in
2002- 03. The position assists with Federal grants and traffic administration
duties. Although this position is shown in both 2005- 06 and 2006- 07, the actual
extension beyond June 30, 2006 will be contingent upon a number of factors,
including workload, and a determination made by the Department Head with
concurrence of the City Manager.
d. Public Employees Retirement System ( PERS)
In good times, the City enjoyed very reduced ( even 0%) contribution rates for
many years. We continued to budget at the normal level and used the difference
to fund the long- term liability of other employee costs such as workers’
compensation, and retiree’s medical, as well as making additional contributions to
the CIP.
We are facing significant increases in PERS rates, due primarily to consecutive
investment losses in its portfolio in 2000- 01 and 2001- 02, and underperformance
in the following year. PERS benefit increases also contributed to increases in
annual normal rates in the range of 3- 4%. Normal rates are the rates we would
expect to pay on average over the long term provided PERS meets its average
7.75% earnings goal.
There are reports almost daily of the significant problems local and state agencies
are having in funding these sudden PERS increases. Many agencies took
advantage of the long period of lower interest rates to balance their budgets, and
they are now little prepared to pay even small rate increases let alone these higher
rates. Because Pleasanton assumed the rate reductions were temporary and
continued to budget for their costs, these large increases have been somewhat
mitigated. Of course the portfolio losses have been large and happened very
b- 17
quickly, but the City’s long- term financial planning will continue to normalize or
level– off these PERS spikes over the long- term. In hindsight, while the City
budgeted for its full normal costs, it should have also set the funds aside for future
increases. While increases were expected, no one predicted the sudden large
swings.
As a result, the City’s Economic Vitality Committee ( EVC) has recommended
that the Economic Development/ Fiscal Element of the City’s General Plan be
amended as part of the current update process, to require the City to fund ( not just
budget) for at least its normal PERS costs each year. By setting the dollars aside
in years that the rates fall below normal, future rate increases above normal levels
can be at least partially funded from this source, thereby smoothing the ups and
downs of PERS rates.
Since the time the EVC made this recommendation, the PERS Board has started
the review of a plan to better normalize rates. If the plan is adopted, rates for
local agencies could be reduced as early as 2006- 07. However, it may still be a
number of years before we see normal rates again, and even less likely that rates
in the near term will approach the 0% experienced in the mid 1990s.
The following table reflects the employer rate fluctuations in the last decade.
More detailed information is provided in Appendix I.
PERS Rate History
Misc Fire Police
Fiscal Year
2006- 07* 18.3% 25.4% 27.0%
2005- 06 18.5% 25.0% 27.0%
2004- 05 15.2% 23.2% 23.5%
2003- 04 10.2% 9.1% 2.9%
2002- 03 0.3% 0.6% 0.1%
2001- 02 0.0% 0.0% 7.5% 10 mos
0.0% 2 mos
2000- 01 0.0% 0.0% 1.4%
1999- 00 2.7% 0.0% 4.6%
1998- 99 7.4% 16.9% 12.1%
1997- 98 7.3% 0.5% 11.0%
1996- 97 4.5% 6.8% 12.1%
1995- 96 6.4% 12.0% 11.7%
1994- 95 6.5% 12.2% 11.8%
1993- 94 5.5% 13.4% 15.4%
1992- 93 4.9% 12.7% 13.9%
* projected
e. Medical Premiums
Providing quality, affordable health care for City employees has become a
difficult challenge. The basic problem is the rapidly rising cost of health care,
b- 18
particularly hospital and prescription costs, compounded by the lack of
effectiveness of managed care to keep prices in check.
For the sixth year in a row, the City’s medical premiums will continue to climb
faster than inflation in fiscal year 2005- 06. The City’s two health carriers have
informed the City that they will increase their premiums by approximately 18%,
beginning July 1, 2005.
The City also provides limited retiree medical insurance coverage. Only
employees hired after April 1986 participate in Medicare, the date when the
Federal government brought city employees into the system. Approximately 20%
of the City’s current workforce was hired before that date. Approximately 70% of
current retirees were hired before that date and did not participate in Medicare.
For those retirees who do qualify for Medicare Parts A & B, the City’s benefit
coordinates with it.
There has been much information in the news lately about local agencies having
difficulties funding retiree medical benefits. Besides increasing medical costs,
many agencies provide full benefits to employees after only a few years of
service. However, Pleasanton employees accrue the benefit at the rate of 4% per
year. Therefore it takes a full 25 years of service to attain the highest level, which
represents payment for the employee and spouse at Kaiser rates. In addition,
employees must retire from the City to keep the benefits they have accrued. That
means, for example, if an employee works for Pleasanton for ten years, then
leaves the City to take a job elsewhere without actually retiring, they forfeit the
benefit earned.
Another issue facing government agencies is a change in accounting rules that
will require that the cost of benefits be reflected as they are earned rather than
when they are paid out later. Pleasanton, in accordance with its long- term
financial policies and unlike most agencies, has been estimating this accrued cost
and setting dollars aside in reserve to fund the future expenditures.
A more detailed discussion on retiree medical accounting required by the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board ( GASB), use of actuarial studies to
project long- term liabilities, and funding is contained in Appendix H.
f. Workers’ Compensation
Despite the reform measures contained in SB899 passed by the legislature in the
Fall of 2004 the City continues to sustain considerable costs associated with
workers’ compensation injuries. Spiraling medical treatment costs, and the salary
continuation costs mandated by Labor Code 4850 are two of the primary reasons
for increasing expense. The City is self- insured for workers’ compensation
expenses, and has a Workers’ Compensation Fund to account for and fund the
liability arising out of workplace injuries. From this Fund, the City makes
payments on all recorded and approved claims. The City also participates in the
Bay Cities Joint Powers Insurance Authority for excess insurance to cover
significantly larger claims.
b- 19
The City has an active Illness and Injury Prevention program that includes three
safety committees made up of employees that review injuries and determine
preventability to avoid similar injuries in the future. Over the last several years,
the ergonomic and return to work programs have been implemented in an attempt
to address both injury prevention and cost management measures. Active
management of claims in collaboration with our third- party administrator is
employed to assure fiscal responsibility in this area.
g. Significant Projects and Program Changes/ Enhancements
The City Council adopted its priority projects for 2005- 06 on April 19, 2005. A
listing of the City Council Priority Projects is provided in Appendix A. Staff has
identified in this two- year budget the resources necessary to carry out those
projects as well as other program changes and enhancements. Included with each
department budget is a description of 2003- 04/ 2004- 05 accomplishments, and
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 goals and objectives, and budget highlights.
The priority that the City Council and community have given to Pleasanton youth
is clearly reflected in the number of programs/ services that are included in this
two- year budget period. Over $ 4.5 million is included in each year of the budget.
An outline of the currently proposed programs and activities is shown in
Appendix K.
The General Government Department contains numerous recommended
expenditures to support services and events that are of great benefit to the
community. These include among other things, the community grant program;
funding for senior and youth scholarships to participate in City activities offered
through the Parks & Community Services Department; funding for community
access television; support for the Chamber’s Leadership Pleasanton Program and
its annual Business Expo, and the Tri- Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau
( TVCVB). Also included are funding for downtown banners, lights and seasonal
decorations, and matching funds to augment the assessments paid by downtown
merchants for activities and events organized by the Pleasanton Downtown
Association for the benefit of local merchants and the community.
3. General Fund Transfers
As was previously mentioned, interfund reimbursements and payments for overhead
are no longer reflected as transfers- in and transfers- out, but rather interfund revenues
and interfund expenditures. Therefore, the items that remain classified as transfers-out
reflect the movement of resources from one Fund to another rather than payment
for something specific.
Transfers to the CIP
It is recommended that the General Fund transfer from operations to the Capital
Improvement Program in 2005- 06: $ 3 million to the Miscellaneous CIP project
category, and $ 2 million to the Park CIP.
b- 20
In 2006- 07, the recommended General Fund transfers from operations to the CIP
include $ 2 million to the Miscellaneous CIP, $ 2 million to parks projects, and
$ 1 million for street maintenance and improvements.
The City started phasing in contributions from General Fund operations to the CIP, in
order to meet funding requirements for the General Fund’s share ( up to $ 62 million)
of projects that were identified in the Development Impact Fee Report prepared in
September 1998. At the time it was estimated that it would take at least 20 years to
provide this level of funding. In addition to these contributions from General Fund
operations, one- time funds have also been transferred to the CIP, to help fund the
projects identified plus an expanding list of projects. Since 1997- 98 and projected
through 2006- 07, the General Fund will have contributed $ 67.5 million to the CIP.
In the General Fund, there are two proposed transfers to other Operating Funds in the
two- year budget period.
Transfer to Increase Golf General Fund Debt/ Cash Flow Reserve
Due to the delayed opening of the golf course to late this fall, the first year of full
debt service will need to be paid largely ( if not completely) from a $ 1.6 million Golf
General Fund Reserve already set aside for future uncertainties. The proposed Budget
provides for this reserve to be backfilled in a like amount with one- time monies.
Besides meeting the need for a cash flow reserve, this action also provides a layer of
protection to the rest of the budget and CIP from potential future impacts.
Specifically, the Budget uses the existing $ 1 million in General Fund Capital Reserve
funds from last fiscal year and $ 600,000 in savings resulting from the Midyear 2004-
05 budget update to be transferred in 2005- 06 to the Golf General Fund Reserve for
debt service/ cash flow. This action will provide complete protection through the two-year
budget time frame against any debt service impacts not met from golf operating
revenues. No matter how well or how poorly the course performs financially, these
funds will ensure the debt service can be paid. Certainly the hope would be that as
few funds as possible would be drawn from this reserve in the coming two years, so
that it can be kept intact as a future layer of protection for the General Fund. This
transfer also provides initial cash flow dollars, as needed by most start up companies.
While the start up of the golf course has raised many concerns about the General
Fund’s involvement, it should be pointed out that the City also subsidized the Water
Fund initially ( through the sale of bonds, cash contributions and subsidized overhead
costs such as accounting, legal, etc.) until it became a self- sustaining enterprise over
the course of several years. The golf course will very likely have difficulties breaking
even in its early years. A lot will depend on the demand, competition from other
courses, and decisions that are made regarding rates and services associated with it.
Staff will be presenting to the Council a formal golf course budget in the
September/ October time frame, in advance of its anticipated opening in November
2005.
b- 21
Transfer to Storm Drain Fund as an Operating Subsidy
The primary revenue source to the Storm Drain Fund is a property assessment
charged to each developed and undeveloped parcel within the City. In addition, the
General Fund pays for 50% of the storm drain maintenance costs. However, with the
assessment fee currently capped but costs growing, there is a need for a continued and
growing General Fund subsidy, unless the assessments are increased or other revenue
sources identified. Faced with only a dwindling fund balance to draw upon, staff has
included in the budget beginning in 2004- 05, an additional transfer of $ 100,000 to
subsidize the operations of this Fund. This is not an unexpected event, as the
potential need was identified in the last two- year budget.
Thus General Fund net transfers- out are $ 6.7 million in 2005- 06 and $ 5.1 million in
2006- 07.
4. Projected General Fund Ending Reserves
Concurrent with the preparation of this document, staff has completed a midyear
financial review for 2004- 05. This report will be separately submitted to the City
Council for approval. However, all of the tables contained in the 2005- 06/ 2006- 07
budget assume that the 2004- 05 budget has been amended per the midyear report.
Key elements of the midyear report include:
􀂾 An increase in revenue estimates of $ 1.3 million and a decrease in
expenditures of $ 600,000; offset by the partial prefunding of 2005- 06
Replacement accruals in the amount of $ 2 million ( to help mitigate the loss of
$ 2 million in 2005- 06 due to additional shifts of local property taxes ( ERAF
III).
􀂾 Use of $ 500,000 in carryover funds from 2003- 04 fee revenues that were
collected at the end of that year, that will now be used to fund the associated
Public Works services in 2004- 05.
􀂾 Use of $ 300,000 in carryover funds from 2003- 04 personnel savings to
partially offset employee benefit rate increases.
􀂾 Addition of $ 600,000 to the capital reserve to be used ( in addition to its $ 1
million existing balance) to fund the transfer in 2005- 06 of $ 1.6 million to the
Golf General Fund Debt/ Cash Flow Reserve.
􀂾 Transfer of $ 100,000 to subsidize Storm Drain operations that do not have a
funding source.
􀂾 Maintenance of the Temporary Recession Reserve with a balance of $ 5.1
million.
􀂾 Total projected General Fund reserves at the end of 2004- 05 are $ 14.95
million.
As a result of the staff recommended budgets for 2005- 06 and 2006- 07, the Reserve
for Economic Uncertainties will be fully funded at the 10% level required by City
policy. The Temporary Recession Reserve balance is projected to remain at $ 5.1
million through the end of 2006- 07, barring any unforeseen need to draw upon it.
b- 22
Total projected General Fund reserves are $ 13.3 million at the end of 2005- 06, and
$ 14.1 million in 2006- 07. The breakdown of these recommended reserves is as
follows:
GENERAL FUND ENDING RESERVES
6/ 30/ 05 6/ 30/ 06 6/ 30/ 07
Reserve for Economic Uncertainties ( 10%) $ 7,810,000 $ 8,190,000 $ 8,920,000
Reserve for Capital Projects 1,600,000 0 0
Reserve for Carryovers 400,000 0 0
Reserve for Inventory and Prepaids 44,607 44,607 44,607
Temporary Recession Reserve 5,100,000 5,100,000 5,100,000
TOTAL $ 14,954,607 $ 13,334,607 $ 14,064,607
5. General Fund Five- Year Net Income Projection
For the first time, the Budget Plan contains a five- year projection of General Fund
revenue and expenditure trends. The assumptions used are neither aggressive nor
conservative. The results reflect projected positive net income for the General Fund
through the five- year period ( through 2011- 12). However, the net income starts to
slowly trend downwards as a result of assumed higher than inflation trending for
employee costs. This is due mostly to the inflationary trends in medical costs, as
previously discussed. The longer term nature of this projection suggests that the City
has time to adequately address this trend.
The projection model is shown on page E- 18.
C. ENTERPRISE FUNDS
1. Water Fund
Projected 2005- 06 Water Operating revenues are $ 17.7 million. Net transfers- out are
projected to be $ 2.3 million. Transfers- out include $ 1.85 million for replacement
funding and $ 485,000 for the 2004 Water Bonds. Fiscal Year 2005- 06 expenditure
requests total $ 14.5 million, including $ 9.3 million as payment to Zone 7 for
purchased water. Thus net income is projected to be $ 925,000, increasing the July 1,
2005 projected beginning fund balance to $ 9.6 million by year- end June 30, 2006.
However, this fund balance is needed for bond reserves, cash flow, contingency, and
future replacement.
Water rates will be reviewed this fall to consider the impacts of Zone 7 rate increases.
Recent analysis indicates that replacement reserves also need to be increased.
However, staff will first analyze how much of this need can be addressed by
transferring any excess that might exist in the Water Operating reserves to
replacement reserves, before considering rate increases in the short term. In the long
term, funding for replacement will need to be continually reviewed.
b- 23
Projected 2006- 07 revenues are $ 18.0 million. Net transfers- out are projected to be
$ 2.4 million. Transfers- out include $ 1.95 million for replacement funding and
$ 473,000 for the 2004 Water Bonds. Fiscal Year 2006- 07 expenditure requests total
$ 15.3 million, including $ 9.85 million as payment to Zone 7 for purchased water.
Thus net income is projected to be $ 338,000, increasing the July 1, 2006 projected
beginning fund balance from $ 9.6 million to 9.9 million by year- end June 30, 2007.
2. Sewer Fund
Sewer user charges contain two components. The City of Pleasanton charges users
for sewage collection, and the Dublin San Ramon Services District ( DSRSD) charges
Pleasanton users to provide sewage treatment and treated wastewater export, through
its participation in the Livermore- Amador Valley Water Management Agency
( LAVWMA).
Replacement transfers from the Sewer Operations and Maintenance Fund are made to
the Sewer Replacement Fund, where dollars are accumulated and used for capital
replacement. The amount of the replacement transfer is based on periodic
replacement studies that look at projected future costs over a thirty to fifty year
period, similar to the City’s Replacement Plan for equipment, vehicles, parks, etc.
Projected 2005- 06 revenues are $ 11.0 million. Net transfers- out are projected to be
$ 1.4 million. Transfers- out include $ 1.1 for replacement funding, $ 181,000 for the
2002 Sewer Bonds, and $ 160,000 for the 2004 Sewer Bonds. Fiscal Year 2005- 06
expenditure requests total $ 9.80 million, including $ 7.4 million as payment to
DSRSD for its services. Thus, net income is projected to be slightly negative
($ 287,000). This will decrease the July 1, 2005 projected beginning fund balance to
$ 3.4 million by year- end June 30, 2006.
This trend toward negative net income will be addressed in an upcoming rate study,
and can be sustained only for a year or two, given that desired reserves for debt
service, cash flow and contingency should be at least $ 3.2 million. Recent
replacement fund analysis indicates the need to increase replacement reserves, so the
rate study will consider that also.
Projected 2006- 07 revenues are $ 11.3 million. Net transfers- out are projected to be
$ 1.4 million including $ 1.1 million for replacement funding, $ 183,000 for the 2002
Sewer Bonds, and $ 151,000 for the 2004 Sewer Bonds. Fiscal Year 2006- 07
expenditure requests total $ 10.0 million, including $ 7.5 million as payment to
DSRSD for its services. Thus, net income is projected to be slightly negative
($ 204,000). This will decrease the July 1, 2006 projected beginning fund balance to
$ 3.2 million by year- end June 30, 2007
3. Storm Drain Fund
The Storm Drain Fund reflects the City’s efforts to control and improve urban runoff
( storm water runoff) water quality before it reaches the local Arroyos and ultimately
flows into San Francisco Bay. The primary revenue to the Fund is a property
b- 24
assessment charged to each developed and undeveloped parcel within the City
( including City- owned parcels), based upon formulas that approximate each parcel’s
runoff. The General Fund pays for 50% of the storm drain maintenance costs.
Projected revenues are $ 667,126 in 2005- 06, and $ 674,868 in 2006- 07. As was
mentioned earlier and discussed in the last two- year budget, with the assessments
capped, and unless additional funding sources can be found, the General Fund will
need to contribute an increasing share to the Storm Drain Fund over time. Beginning
in 2004- 05 and through this two- year budget, staff has included in the budget an
additional transfer of $ 100,000 to subsidize the operations of this Fund.
D. INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Internal charges ( accruals) are costs reflected in the operating budgets that represent
accumulating liabilities. These liabilities may not result in actual expenditures in the
short term, but they will result in future expenditures. There are several examples of
future expenditures for which we charge ourselves now, as the liability is accruing.
These include accruals for the future replacement of equipment we are now using ( similar
to charges for depreciation). They also include accruals for renovation of parks and City
facilities that age with usage, and employee costs that are accruing now but will be paid
out later, such as unused vacation and retiree medical costs. In accordance with the
City’s adopted Financial Policies and the City’s General Plan, the City recognizes these
costs as they accrue, and sets the money aside to fund the future expenditures, rather than
allowing these costs to accumulate and become a burden on future generations.
In accordance with its financial policies and the General Plan, the City maintains various
Replacement/ Renovation Funds. The purpose of these Funds is to provide ongoing
replacement of City equipment, vehicles, and streetlights, and to make major repairs and
renovations to City facilities, parks and medians in order to extend their lives. The
funding sources are interest earnings and replacement accrual charges placed on the
departments for their existing equipment, vehicles and facilities. These replacement
charges are determined by the replacement cost and estimated life ( similar to
depreciation) of the capital involved.
In June 1999, the City completed its first formal “ Replacement Plan” and has continued
to update it on a regular basis. Staff has once again completed a major bi- annual update
of the Replacement Plan as part of the Operating Budget preparation process this spring.
Updated estimates were made of the timelines and costs for replacing/ renovating each
City asset in the program, over a twenty- year time frame. The cash flow analysis was
then updated using this information, and assuming inflation and interest income. From
the cash flow analysis, the base annual accrual rate was updated, to ensure it would be
adequate to fund the long term plans, without allowing the replacement/ renovation fund
balances to become negative or to build excessive reserves.
As was mentioned earlier, as part of this update, staff reviewed and eliminated a number
of carryover expenditure appropriations, updated and reduced estimated costs in a
number of areas and reviewed asset replacement cycles both in the short term and over
b- 25
the next twenty years. As a result, some beginning fund balances were determined to be
greater than needed to support the long- term plans, and therefore current replacement
accruals ( charges to the departments) were reduced, resulting in a reduction of about $ 1.3
million to the Replacement Funds in 2005- 06, and $ 665,000 in 2006- 07. A similar
approach has been used in prior years as part of the bi- annual update.
Also, as part of this update and mentioned earlier, the Budget uses current dollars to
prefund about $ 2 million of replacement accruals in 2004- 05. This will then reduce
Replacement contributions in 2005- 06 to help smooth out other negative impacts on the
budget, such as the additional loss of property tax revenue to the State in that year as part
of the ERAF III shifts.
In most cases, the annual funding levels have started to stabilize and will grow more in
line with inflation. As a result, the City is able to not only achieve and maintain high
standards of maintenance for its capital assets, but the replacement/ renovation needs of
the City are now being met on an ongoing basis without competing in the budget process
against dollars needed in the CIP or diverting resources from ongoing operations or
expanding services. However, staff would recommend that we continue reviewing the
funding levels every two years as part of the budget process, to be able to adjust the
annual contributions as factors change. For example, new facilities and parks will need
to be added to the renovation programs as they come into use, thereby increasing costs
over time.
While some of the Replacement/ Renovation Funds reflect large projected fund balances
at of the end of this two year budget cycle ( June 30, 2007), the cash flow analyses show
that these fund balances will be needed in the future, both near and long term.
The purpose of each of the Internal Service Funds and the adequacy of its fund balance
are discussed in more depth in the Budget document.
E. LIVERMORE- PLEASANTON FIRE DEPARTMENT FUND
In November of 1998, Pleasanton assumed personnel, payroll, accounting and liability
risk management responsibilities for the Livermore- Pleasanton Fire Department ( LPFD).
In 2001 Pleasanton also assumed Workers’ Compensation Administration.
Funding comes from the two cities based on an established cost sharing formula. Other
joint revenues are also reflected in the LPFD Fund, but if received, they are credited back
to the two cities at year- end. In addition, separate Funds have been established to
account for LPFD Workers’ Compensation, LPFD Retirees’ Medical, and LPFD
Information Systems Replacement.
Pleasanton’s share of the costs is also shown in the Fire section starting on page 91. In
addition to LPFD shared costs, Pleasanton’s budget also reflects costs for contracted
dispatch service provided by Livermore, apparatus replacement accruals, gasoline and
other miscellaneous costs.
b- 26
Because the LPFD Fund results in a duplication in the presentation of Pleasanton’s
revenues and costs, it is excluded from the revenue and expenditure graphs in the budget
summary section, as was discussed previously.
F. ALL OTHER OPERATING FUNDS
Recommended uses for the 2005- 06 and projected 2006- 07 Community Development
Block Grant Program ( CDBG) are shown in Appendix L, Attachment B, page L- 4.
Projected revenues and expenditures for all other Operating Funds, including Special
Revenue and Other Funds ( Trust and Debt Service Funds), are contained in the body of
the Budget Document.
V. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
The four- year Capital Improvement Program Budget for 2005- 06/ 2008- 09 will be forwarded to
the City Council separately for review, and is outlined in the Budget document after the section
tab " Capital Improvement Program".
b- 27
• NOTES •
b- 28
This page intentionally left blank.
1
2005- 06 OPERATING BUDGET
ESTIMATED CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
JUNE 30, 2005 PROJECTED NET PROPOSED NET JUNE 30, 2006
BALANCE REVENUE TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES INCOME BALANCE
GENERAL FUND $ 14,954,607 $ 81,919,570 ($ 6,700,000) $ 76,839,570 ($ 1,620,000) $ 13,334,607
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Storm Drain 639,065 667,126 100,000 920,058 ( 152,932) 486,133
Water Operations and Maintenance 8,676,887 17,722,942 ( 2,335,138) 14,463,239 924,565 9,601,452
Sewer Operations and Maintenance 3,687,314 10,956,190 ( 1,441,157) 9,801,996 ( 286,963) 3,400,351
Enterprise Funds $ 13,003,266 $ 29,346,258 ($ 3,676,295) $ 25,185,293 $ 484,670 $ 13,487,936
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Employee Benefit Fund 279,259 20,509,851 20,759,851 ( 250,000) 29,259
LPFD Info System Replacement 210,464 84,829 81,000 3,829 214,293
Public Art Acquisition Fund 143,591 44,500 5,000 39,500 183,091
Public Art Maintenance Fund 20,436 10,400 10,000 400 20,836
Vehicle Replacement Fund 1,726,798 379,172 407,000 ( 27,828) 1,698,970
Equipment Replacement Fund 2,174,591 520,924 411,500 109,424 2,284,015
Facilities Renovation Fund 1,709,903 55,672 636,200 ( 580,528) 1,129,375
Info Systems Replacement Fund 1,967,812 470,212 473,100 ( 2,888) 1,964,924
Pleas Fire Apparatus Replacement 1,275,988 51,040 51,040 1,327,028
Police Vehicle Replacement Fund 610,883 41,153 229,000 ( 187,847) 423,036
Park & Median Renovation Fund 3,388,919 133,236 133,236 3,522,155
Street Light Replacement Fund 1,225,999 60,016 206,000 ( 145,984) 1,080,015
Traffic Signal Replacement Fund 732,084 23,103 309,000 ( 285,897) 446,187
LPFD Retirees Medical Reserve 8,173,431 1,460,000 210,000 1,250,000 9,423,431
Workers Compensation Fund 1,285,865 718,100 942,000 ( 223,900) 1,061,965
Self- Insurance Retention Fund 8,595,667 1,240,000 926,000 314,000 8,909,667
LPFD Workers Comp Fund 1,117,429 820,933 793,000 27,933 1,145,362
Retirees Medical Reserve Fund 19,524,717 3,275,000 710,000 2,565,000 22,089,717
Internal Service Funds $ 54,163,836 $ 29,898,141 $ 0 $ 27,108,651 $ 2,789,490 $ 56,953,326
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
DARE Fund $ 17,542 4,200 6,000 ( 1,800) 15,742
Asset Forfeiture Fund 59,144 500 35,800 ( 35,300) 23,844
Downtown Parking Fund 215,266 6,000 6,000 221,266
Recycling & Waste Mgmt. Fund 1,311,211 307,600 794,400 ( 486,800) 824,411
Sr Center Donation Fund 5,808 1,500 ( 1,500) 4,308
Miscellaneous Donation Fund 58,610 500 500 59,110
Youth Master Plan Fund 1,965 0 1,965
Downtown Economic Devel Loan Fund 22,165 ( 10,000) ( 10,000) 12,165
Lower Income Housing Fund 10,118,196 3,098,200 364,367 2,733,833 12,852,029
Ridgeview Mortgage Fund 380,918 6,000 6,000 386,918
LPFD Fund 0 24,922,267 24,922,267 0 0
Used Oil Grant Fund 0 45,649 45,649 0 0
Law Enforcement 0 0 0
Misc. Federal Block Grant 0 0 0
Lemoine Geologic Hazard District 6,986 13,000 11,400 1,600 8,586
Laurel Creek Geologic Hazard District 279,807 37,107 12,803 24,304 304,111
Ponderosa Landscape District 66,971 16,320 14,150 2,170 69,141
Windsor Landscape District 25,044 24,200 22,300 1,900 26,944
Moller Geologic Hazard Dist 45,540 9,389 7,900 1,489 47,029
Oak Tree Farm Geologic Hazard Dist 16,469 12,834 8,900 3,934 20,403
Bonde Landscape District 86,409 27,353 24,495 2,858 89,267
Moller Ranch Landscape District 138,675 59,022 59,285 ( 263) 138,412
Ridgeview Commons Housing 24,677 3,100 2,400 700 25,377
Oak Tree Farm Landscape Dist 28,649 18,366 17,895 471 29,120
Community Develop Block Grant 0 321,586 10,000 331,586 0 0
HOME Program Fund 0 57,237 57,237 0 0
HBPOA Maint District 0 75,000 75,000 0 0
Abandoned Vehicle 168,777 29,000 12,000 17,000 185,777
Urban Forestry Fund 102,962 2,000 15,450 ( 13,450) 89,512
Library Donation Fund 4,554 0 4,554
Special Revenue Funds $ 13,186,345 $ 29,096,430 $ 0 $ 26,842,784 $ 2,253,646 $ 15,439,991
OTHER FUNDS
2003 Certificates of Participation 18,341 1,986,115 1,986,115 0 18,341
PTCWD # 3 Trust Fund 522,223 8,000 27,300 ( 19,300) 502,923
OtherFunds $ 540,564 $ 8,000 $ 1,986,115 $ 2,013,415 ($ 19,300) $ 521,264
TOTAL - ALL FUNDS $ 95,848,618 $ 170,268,399 ($ 8,390,180) $ 157,989,713 $ 3,888,506 $ 99,737,124
2
2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
ESTIMATED CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
JUNE 30, 2006 PROJECTED NET PROPOSED NET JUNE 30, 2007
BALANCE REVENUE TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES INCOME BALANCE
GENERAL FUND $ 13,334,607 $ 89,192,776 ($ 5,100,000) $ 83,362,776 $ 730,000 $ 14,064,607
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Storm Drain $ 486,133 674,868 100,000 946,750 ( 171,882) 314,251
Water Operations and Maintenance $ 9,601,452 18,045,998 ( 2,423,173) 15,284,347 338,478 9,939,930
Sewer Operations and Maintenance $ 3,400,351 11,266,190 ( 1,434,240) 10,036,146 ( 204,196) 3,196,155
Enterprise Funds $ 13,487,936 $ 29,987,056 ($ 3,757,413) $ 26,267,243 ($ 37,600) $ 13,450,336
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Employee Benefit Fund $ 29,259 22,667,679 22,667,679 0 29,259
LPFD Info System Replacement $ 214,293 88,524 40,200 48,324 262,617
Public Art Acquisition Fund $ 183,091 46,000 5,000 41,000 224,091
Public Art Maintenance Fund $ 20,836 10,400 10,000 400 21,236
Vehicle Replacement Fund $ 1,698,970 472,514 546,000 ( 73,486) 1,625,484
Equipment Replacement Fund $ 2,284,015 577,430 599,900 ( 22,470) 2,261,545
Facilities Renovation Fund $ 1,129,375 799,794 516,100 283,694 1,413,069
Info Systems Replacement Fund $ 1,964,924 453,600 443,100 10,500 1,975,424
Pleas Fire Apparatus Replacement $ 1,327,028 245,373 245,373 1,572,401
Police Vehicle Replacement Fund $ 423,036 265,933 297,000 ( 31,067) 391,969
Park & Median Renovation Fund $ 3,522,155 1,236,233 1,236,233 4,758,388
Street Light Replacement Fund $ 1,080,015 216,989 230,000 ( 13,011) 1,067,004
Traffic Signal Replacement Fund $ 446,187 321,251 288,000 33,251 479,438
LPFD Retirees Medical Reserve $ 9,423,431 1,560,000 250,000 1,310,000 10,733,431
Workers Compensation Fund $ 1,061,965 810,920 942,000 ( 131,080) 930,885
Self- Insurance Retention Fund $ 8,909,667 1,320,000 926,000 394,000 9,303,667
LPFD Workers Comp Fund $ 1,145,362 1,000,444 843,000 157,444 1,302,806
Retirees Medical Reserve Fund $ 22,089,717 3,650,000 860,000 2,790,000 24,879,717
Internal Service Funds $ 56,953,326 $ 35,743,084 $ 0 $ 29,463,979 $ 6,279,105 $ 63,232,431
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
DARE Fund $ 15,742 4,200 6,000 ( 1,800) 13,942
Asset Forfeiture Fund $ 23,844 500 7,500 ( 7,000) 16,844
Downtown Parking Fund $ 221,266 8,000 8,000 229,266
Recycling & Waste Mgmt. Fund $ 824,411 307,600 747,400 ( 439,800) 384,611
Sr Center Donation Fund $ 4,308 0 4,308
Miscellaneous Donation Fund $ 59,110 500 500 59,610
Youth Master Plan Fund $ 1,965 0 1,965
Downtown Economic Devel Loan Fund $ 12,165 0 12,165
Lower Income Housing Fund $ 12,852,029 3,225,750 232,205 2,993,545 15,845,574
Ridgeview Mortgage Fund $ 386,918 6,000 6,000 392,918
LPFD Fund $ 0 26,302,526 26,302,526 0 0
Used Oil Grant Fund $ 0 45,649 45,649 0 0
Law Enforcement $ 0 0 0
Misc. Federal Block Grant $ 0 0 0
Lemoine Geologic Hazard District $ 8,586 13,000 11,400 1,600 10,186
Laurel Creek Geologic Hazard District $ 304,111 37,107 12,803 24,304 328,415
Ponderosa Landscape District $ 69,141 16,320 14,150 2,170 71,311
Windsor Landscape District $ 26,944 24,200 22,300 1,900 28,844
Moller Geologic Hazard Dist $ 47,029 9,389 7,900 1,489 48,518
Oak Tree Farm Geologic Hazard Dist $ 20,403 12,834 8,900 3,934 24,337
Bonde Landscape District $ 89,267 27,353 24,495 2,858 92,125
Moller Ranch Landscape District $ 138,412 59,022 59,285 ( 263) 138,149
Ridgeview Commons Housing $ 25,377 3,100 2,400 700 26,077
Oak Tree Farm Landscape Dist $ 29,120 18,366 17,895 471 29,591
Community Develop Block Grant $ 0 300,000 300,000 0 0
HOME Program Fund $ 0 7,247 7,247 0 0
HBPOA Maint District $ 0 75,000 75,000 0 0
Abandoned Vehicle $ 185,777 29,000 12,000 17,000 202,777
Urban Forestry Fund $ 89,512 2,000 15,450 ( 13,450) 76,062
Library Donation Fund $ 4,554 0 4,554
Special Revenue Funds $ 15,439,991 $ 30,534,663 $ 0 $ 27,932,505 $ 2,602,158 $ 18,042,149
OTHER FUNDS
2003 Certificates of Participation $ 18,341 1,990,315 1,990,315 0 18,341
PTCWD # 3 Trust Fund $ 502,923 8,000 27,300 ( 19,300) 483,623
OtherFunds $ 521,264 $ 8,000 $ 1,990,315 $ 2,017,615 ($ 19,300) $ 501,964
TOTAL - ALL FUNDS $ 99,737,124 $ 185,465,579 ($ 6,867,098) $ 169,044,118 $ 9,554,363 $ 109,291,487
3
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
SUMMARY OF FOUR YEAR
OPERATING FUND BALANCES
GENERAL FUND
ACTUAL ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
July 1, Reserves $ 15,842,514 $ 19,192,311 $ 14,954,607 $ 13,334,607
Total Revenue 77,431,867 78,220,337 81,919,570 89,192,776
Transfers In/( Out) 40,678 ( 100,000) ( 1,700,000) ( 100,000)
CIP Contributions 7,180,000 5,800,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Total Expenditures 66,942,748 76,558,041 76,839,570 83,362,776
Reserve for Economic Uncertainties 7,800,000 7,810,000 8,190,000 8,920,000
Reserve for Carryovers 5,247,704 400,000 0 0
Reserve for Inventory & Prepaids 44,607 44,607 44,607 44,607
Capital Projects Reserve 1,000,000 1,600,000 0 0
Temporary Recession Reserve 5,100,000 5,100,000 5,100,000 5,100,000
June 30, Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ -
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
ACTUAL ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
STORM DRAIN FUND: 343
July 1, Fund Balance $ 954,785 $ 810,922 $ 639,065 $ 486,133
Total Revenue 623,319 657,495 667,126 674,868
Net Transfers - 100,000 1 00,000 1 00,000
Total Expenditures ( 767,182) ( 929,352) ( 920,058) ( 946,750)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 810,922 $ 639,065 $ 486,133 $ 314,251
WATER FUND: 381
July 1, Fund Balance $ 6,682,943 $ 7 ,913,679 $ 8 ,676,887 $ 9,601,452
Total Revenue 16,976,621 17,328,429 17,722,942 18,045,998
Net Transfers ( 2,535,287) ( 2,517,862) ( 2,335,138) ( 2,423,173)
Total Expenditures ( 13,210,598) ( 14,047,359) ( 14,463,239) ( 15,284,347)
June 30, Fund Balance* $ 7,913,679 $ 8,676,887 $ 9,601,452 $ 9,939,930
SEWER FUND: 383
July 1, Fund Balance $ 3,629,761 $ 3 ,897,259 $ 3 ,687,314 $ 3,400,351
Total Revenue 10,982,276 10,796,350 10,956,190 11,266,190
Net Transfers ( 1,426,763) ( 1,524,605) ( 1,441,157) ( 1,434,240)
Total Expenditures ( 9,288,015) ( 9,481,690) ( 9,801,996) ( 10,036,146)
June 30, Fund Balance* $ 3,897,259 $ 3,687,314 $ 3,400,351 $ 3,196,155
* Fund Balance includes debt service reserves as well as contingency and cash flow reserves.
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
ACTUAL ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT FUND: 006
July 1, Fund Balance $ 364,706 $ 643,965 $ 279,259 $ 2 9,259
Total Revenue 13,502,537 1 6,149,630 2 0,509,851 2 2,667,679
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 13,223,278) ( 16,514,336) ( 20,759,851) ( 22,667,679)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 643,965 $ 279,259 $ 29,259 $ 29,259
( CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
4
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
SUMMARY OF FOUR YEAR
OPERATING FUND BALANCES
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS ( continued)
ACTUAL ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
LPFD REPLACEMENT FUND: 037
July 1, Fund Balance $ 148,031 $ 176,881 $ 210,463 $ 214,292
Total Revenue 78,948 80,082 84,829 88,524
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 50,098) ( 46,500) ( 81,000) ( 40,200)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 176,881 $ 210,463 $ 214,292 $ 262,616
PUBLIC ART ACQUISITION FUND: 038
July 1, Fund Balance $ 128,812 $ 1 01,591 $ 1 43,591 $ 1 83,091
Total Revenue 47,779 42,000 44,500 46,000
Net Transfers ( 75,000) - - -
Total Expenditures - - ( 5,000) ( 5,000)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 101,591 $ 143,591 $ 183,091 $ 224,091
PUBLIC ART MAINTENANCE FUND: 039
July 1, Fund Balance $ 9,788 $ 15,036 $ 20,436 $ 20,836
Total Revenue 5,248 10,400 10,400 10,400
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures - ( 5,000) ( 10,000) ( 10,000)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 15,036 $ 20,436 $ 20,836 $ 21,236
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND: 041
July 1, Fund Balance $ 1,691,663 $ 1,800,063 $ 1,726,798 $ 1,698,970
Total Revenue 320,535 285,000 379,172 472,514
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 212,135) ( 358,265) ( 407,000) ( 546,000)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 1,800,063 $ 1,726,798 $ 1,698,970 $ 1,625,484
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND: 042
July 1, Fund Balance $ 2,394,060 $ 2 ,524,629 $ 2 ,174,591 $ 2,284,015
Total Revenue 381,657 2 75,000 5 20,924 5 77,430
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 251,088) ( 625,038) ( 411,500) ( 599,900)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 2,524,629 $ 2,174,591 $ 2,284,015 $ 2,261,545
FACILITIES RENOVATION FUND: 043
July 1, Fund Balance $ 1,139,435 $ 1,952,739 $ 1,709,902 $ 1,129,374
Total Revenue 1,207,670 1,051,600 5 5,672 799,794
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 394,366) ( 1,294,437) ( 636,200) ( 516,100)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 1,952,739 $ 1,709,902 $ 1,129,374 $ 1,413,068
INFORMATION SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND: 046
July 1, Fund Balance $ 3,912,668 $ 3 ,544,082 $ 1 ,967,812 $ 1,964,924
Total Revenue 120,942 1 10,000 4 70,212 4 53,600
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 489,528) ( 1,686,270) ( 473,100) ( 443,100)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 3,544,082 $ 1,967,812 $ 1,964,924 $ 1,975,424
( CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
5
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
SUMMARY OF FOUR YEAR
OPERATING FUND BALANCES
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS ( continued)
ACTUAL ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
FIRE APPARATUS REPLACEMENT FUND: 047
July 1, Fund Balance $ 1,094,074 $ 955,289 $ 1 ,275,989 $ 1,327,029
Total Revenue 235,865 375,700 5 1,040 245,373
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 374,650) ( 55,000) - -
June 30, Fund Balance $ 955,289 $ 1,275,989 $ 1,327,029 $ 1,572,402
POLICE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND: 048
July 1, Fund Balance $ 727,617 $ 825,186 $ 610,884 $ 423,037
Total Revenue 223,421 252,845 4 1,153 265,933
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 125,852) ( 467,147) ( 229,000) ( 297,000)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 825,186 $ 610,884 $ 423,037 $ 391,970
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION FUND: 049
July 1, Fund Balance $ 44,837 $ - $ - $ -
Total Revenue 379 - - -
Net Transfers ( 43,216) - - -
Total Expenditures ( 2,000) - - -
June 30, Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ -
PARK & MEDIAN RENOVATION FUND: 050
July 1, Fund Balance $ 1,914,166 $ 3,248,419 $ 3,388,919 $ 3,522,155
Total Revenue 2,061,069 986,000 133,236 1,236,233
Net Transfers ( 709,400) ( 770,500) - -
Total Expenditures ( 17,416) ( 75,000) - -
June 30, Fund Balance $ 3,248,419 $ 3,388,919 $ 3,522,155 $ 4,758,388
STREET LIGHT REPLACEMENT FUND: 052
July 1, Fund Balance $ 1,129,666 $ 1,275,999 $ 1,225,999 $ 1,080,015
Total Revenue 148,899 150,000 6 0,016 216,989
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 2,566) ( 200,000) ( 206,000) ( 230,000)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 1,275,999 $ 1,225,999 $ 1,080,015 $ 1,067,004
TRAFFIC SIGNAL REPLACEMENT FUND: 053
July 1, Fund Balance $ 348,008 $ 4 39,334 $ 7 32,084 $ 4 46,187
Total Revenue 133,442 3 22,750 23,103 3 21,251
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 42,116) ( 30,000) ( 309,000) ( 288,000)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 439,334 $ 732,084 $ 446,187 $ 479,438
LPFD RETIREES' MEDICAL RESERVE FUND: 216
July 1, Fund Balance $ 6,385,823 $ 7,296,431 $ 8,173,431 $ 9,423,431
Total Revenue 1,034,886 1,040,000 1,460,000 1,560,000
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 124,278) ( 163,000) ( 210,000) ( 250,000)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 7,296,431 $ 8,173,431 $ 9,423,431 $ 10,733,431
( CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
6
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
SUMMARY OF FOUR YEAR
OPERATING FUND BALANCES
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS ( continued)
ACTUAL ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND: 217
July 1, Fund Balance $ 1,828,695 $ 1,530,745 $ 1,285,865 $ 1,061,965
Total Revenue 717,281 585,120 718,100 810,920
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 1,015,231) ( 830,000) ( 942,000) ( 942,000)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 1,530,745 $ 1,285,865 $ 1,061,965 $ 930,885
SELF- INSURANCE RETENTION FUND: 218
July 1, Fund Balance $ 8,144,561 $ 8 ,370,667 $ 8 ,595,667 $ 8,909,667
Total Revenue 1,154,594 1 ,150,000 1 ,240,000 1,320,000
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 928,488) ( 925,000) ( 926,000) ( 926,000)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 8,370,667 $ 8,595,667 $ 8,909,667 $ 9,303,667
LPFD WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND: 219
July 1, Fund Balance $ 1,134,418 $ 1,052,429 $ 1,117,429 $ 1,145,362
Total Revenue 737,753 735,000 820,933 1,000,444
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 819,742) ( 670,000) ( 793,000) ( 843,000)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 1,052,429 $ 1,117,429 $ 1,145,362 $ 1,302,806
RETIREES' MEDICAL RESERVE FUND: 222
July 1, Fund Balance $ 16,098,169 $ 18,129,716 $ 19,524,716 $ 22,089,716
Total Revenue 2,435,705 1 ,950,000 3 ,275,000 3,650,000
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 404,158) ( 555,000) ( 710,000) ( 860,000)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 18,129,716 $ 19,524,716 $ 22,089,716 $ 24,879,716
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
ACTUAL ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
D. A. R. E. FUND: 221
July 1, Fund Balance $ 16,011 $ 16,478 $ 17,543 $ 15,743
Total Revenue 5,267 7,065 4,200 4,200
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 4,800) ( 6,000) ( 6,000) ( 6,000)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 16,478 $ 17,543 $ 15,743 $ 13,943
STREET TREES FUND: 223
July 1, Fund Balance $ 142 $ - $ - $ -
Total Revenue 1 - - -
Net Transfers ( 143) - - -
Total Expenditures - - - -
June 30, Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ -
ASSET FORFEITURE FUND: 225
July 1, Fund Balance $ 71,107 $ 44,387 $ 59,144 $ 23,844
Total Revenue 6,904 30,770 5 00 5 00
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 33,624) ( 16,013) ( 35,800) ( 7,500)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 44,387 $ 59,144 $ 23,844 $ 16,844
( CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
7
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
SUMMARY OF FOUR YEAR
OPERATING FUND BALANCES
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ( continued)
ACTUAL ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
DOWNTOWN PARKING IN- LIEU FUND: 226
July 1, Fund Balance $ 207,286 $ 211,266 $ 215,266 $ 221,266
Total Revenue 3,980 4,000 6,000 8,000
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures - - - -
June 30, Fund Balance $ 211,266 $ 215,266 $ 221,266 $ 229,266
RECYCLING & WASTE MANAGEMENT FUND: 230
July 1, Fund Balance $ 1,992,111 $ 1,975,266 $ 1,311,211 $ 824,411
Total Revenue 464,382 367,687 307,600 307,600
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 481,227) ( 1,031,742) ( 794,400) ( 747,400)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 1,975,266 $ 1,311,211 $ 824,411 $ 384,611
SENIOR CENTER DONATION FUND: 234
July 1, Fund Balance $ 4,447 $ 4 ,607 $ 5 ,807 $ 4 ,307
Total Revenue 160 1 ,200 - -
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures - - ( 1,500) -
June 30, Fund Balance $ 4,607 $ 5,807 $ 4,307 $ 4,307
MISCELLANEOUS DONATION FUND: 235
July 1, Fund Balance $ 54,341 $ 57,610 $ 58,610 $ 59,110
Total Revenue 3,269 1 ,000 500 5 00
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures - - - -
June 30, Fund Balance $ 57,610 $ 58,610 $ 59,110 $ 59,610
YOUTH MASTER PLAN FUND: 238
July 1, Fund Balance $ - $ 1 ,830 $ 1,965 $ 1,965
Total Revenue 1,830 135 - -
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures - - - -
June 30, Fund Balance $ 1,830 $ 1,965 $ 1,965 $ 1,965
DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND: 263
July 1, Fund Balance $ 21,403 $ 21,815 $ 22,166 $ 12,166
Total Revenue 412 3 51 - -
Net Transfers - - ( 10,000) -
Total Expenditures - - - -
June 30, Fund Balance $ 21,815 $ 22,166 $ 12,166 $ 12,166
LOWER INCOME HOUSING FUND: 271
July 1, Fund Balance $ 10,403,565 $ 8,805,761 $ 10,118,197 $ 1 2,852,030
Total Revenue 1,088,398 2,822,781 3,098,200 3,225,750
Net Transfers - 1 ,555,273 - -
Total Expenditures ( 2,686,202) ( 3,065,618) ( 364,367) ( 232,205)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 8,805,761 $ 10,118,197 $ 12,852,030 $ 15,845,575
( CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
8
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
SUMMARY OF FOUR YEAR
OPERATING FUND BALANCES
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ( continued)
ACTUAL ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
RIDGEVIEW MORTGAGE FUND: 273
July 1, Fund Balance $ 367,854 $ 374,918 $ 380,918 $ 386,918
Total Revenue 7,064 6,000 6,000 6,000
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures - - - -
June 30, Fund Balance $ 374,918 $ 380,918 $ 386,918 $ 392,918
LIVERMORE- PLEASANTON FIRE DEPARTMENT FUND: 280
July 1, Fund Balance $ 59,777 $ 37,500 $ - $ -
Total Revenue 20,206,188 2 3,040,710 2 4,922,267 2 6,302,526
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 20,228,465) ( 23,078,210) ( 24,922,267) ( 26,302,526)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 37,500 $ - $ - $ -
USED OIL GRANT FUND: 515
July 1, Fund Balance $ 4,727 $ 7 $ - $ -
Total Revenue 24,242 76,199 45,649 45,649
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 28,962) ( 76,206) ( 45,649) ( 45,649)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 7 $ - $ - $ -
LAW ENFORCEMENT FUND: 517
July 1, Fund Balance $ 99,961 $ 157,632 $ - $ -
Total Revenue 102,662 1 02,000 - -
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 44,991) ( 259,632) - -
June 30, Fund Balance $ 157,632 $ - $ - $ -
MISCELLANEOUS FEDERAL BLOCK GRANT FUND: 518
July 1, Fund Balance $ 5,333 $ 2,791 $ - $ -
Total Revenue 12,405 13 - -
Net Transfers 2 ,632 - - -
Total Expenditures ( 17,579) ( 2,804) - -
June 30, Fund Balance $ 2,791 $ - $ - $ -
LEMOINE GEOLOGIC HAZARD DISTRICT FUND: 527
July 1, Fund Balance $ - $ 3 ,986 $ 6 ,986 $ 8 ,586
Total Revenue 3,986 13,000 13,000 13,000
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures - ( 10,000) ( 11,400) ( 11,400)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 3,986 $ 6,986 $ 8,586 $ 10,186
LAUREL CREEK GEOLOGIC HAZARD DISTRICT FUND: 528
July 1, Fund Balance $ 222,570 $ 2 55,500 $ 2 79,808 $ 3 04,112
Total Revenue 37,572 37,100 37,107 37,107
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 4,642) ( 12,792) ( 12,803) ( 12,803)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 255,500 $ 279,808 $ 304,112 $ 328,416
( CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
9
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
SUMMARY OF FOUR YEAR
OPERATING FUND BALANCES
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ( continued)
ACTUAL ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
PONDEROSA LANDSCAPE DISTRICT FUND: 531
July 1, Fund Balance $ 60,202 $ 64,801 $ 66,971 $ 69,141
Total Revenue 16,689 16,320 16,320 16,320
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 12,090) ( 14,150) ( 14,150) ( 14,150)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 64,801 $ 66,971 $ 69,141 $ 71,311
WINDSOR LANDSCAPE DISTRICT FUND: 532
July 1, Fund Balance $ 28,496 $ 23,285 $ 25,045 $ 26,945
Total Revenue 25,747 24,060 24,200 24,200
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 30,958) ( 22,300) ( 22,300) ( 22,300)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 23,285 $ 25,045 $ 26,945 $ 28,845
MOLLER GEOLOGIC HAZARD DISTRICT FUND: 533
July 1, Fund Balance $ 37,391 $ 44,067 $ 45,539 $ 47,028
Total Revenue 9,576 9,372 9,389 9,389
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 2,900) ( 7,900) ( 7,900) ( 7,900)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 44,067 $ 45,539 $ 47,028 $ 48,517
OAK TREE FARM GEOLOGIC HAZARD DISTRICT FUND: 534
July 1, Fund Balance $ 51,854 $ 12,269 $ 16,469 $ 20,403
Total Revenue 9,457 1 2,835 12,834 12,834
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 49,042) ( 8,635) ( 8,900) ( 8,900)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 12,269 $ 16,469 $ 20,403 $ 24,337
BONDE LANDSCAPE DISTRICT FUND: 537
July 1, Fund Balance $ 71,721 $ 83,547 $ 86,409 $ 89,267
Total Revenue 27,538 27,357 27,353 27,353
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 15,712) ( 24,495) ( 24,495) ( 24,495)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 83,547 $ 86,409 $ 89,267 $ 92,125
MOLLER RANCH LANDSCAPE DISTRICT FUND: 539
July 1, Fund Balance $ 136,666 $ 138,933 $ 138,675 $ 138,412
Total Revenue 60,656 59,027 59,022 59,022
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 58,389) ( 59,285) ( 59,285) ( 59,285)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 138,933 $ 138,675 $ 138,412 $ 138,149
RIDGEVIEW COMMONS HOUSING FUND: 541
July 1, Fund Balance $ 36,009 $ 32,476 $ 24,676 $ 25,376
Total Revenue 5,167 3 ,000 3 ,100 3 ,100
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 8,700) ( 10,800) ( 2,400) ( 2,400)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 32,476 $ 24,676 $ 25,376 $ 26,076
( CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
10
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
SUMMARY OF FOUR YEAR
OPERATING FUND BALANCES
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ( continued)
ACTUAL ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
OAK TREE FARM LANDSCAPE DISTRICT FUND: 542
July 1, Fund Balance $ 20,469 $ 28,170 $ 28,649 $ 29,120
Total Revenue 19,592 18,374 18,366 18,366
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 11,891) ( 17,895) ( 17,895) ( 17,895)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 28,170 $ 28,649 $ 29,120 $ 29,591
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND: 548
July 1, Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Revenue 329,994 525,629 321,586 300,000
Net Transfers - - 10,000 -
Total Expenditures ( 329,994) ( 525,629) ( 331,586) ( 300,000)
June 30, Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ -
H. O. M. E. PROGRAM FUND: 560
July 1, Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Revenue 144,253 6 3,864 57,237 7,247
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 144,253) ( 63,864) ( 57,237) ( 7,247)
June 30, Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ -
H. B. P. O. A. MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FUND: 566
July 1, Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Revenue 82,019 73,000 75,000 75,000
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 82,019) ( 73,000) ( 75,000) ( 75,000)
June 30, Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ -
ABANDONED VEHICLE FUND: 569
July 1, Fund Balance $ 131,070 $ 1 49,977 $ 1 68,777 $ 1 85,777
Total Revenue 30,907 30,800 29,000 29,000
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 12,000) ( 12,000) ( 12,000) ( 12,000)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 149,977 $ 168,777 $ 185,777 $ 202,777
URBAN FORESTRY FUND: 570
July 1, Fund Balance $ 26,268 $ 115,463 $ 102,963 $ 8 9,513
Total Revenue 100,822 4 ,000 2,000 2,000
Net Transfers 1 43 - - -
Total Expenditures ( 11,770) ( 16,500) ( 15,450) ( 15,450)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 115,463 $ 102,963 $ 89,513 $ 76,063
LIBRARY DONATION FUND: 571
July 1, Fund Balance $ 27,870 $ 8 ,092 $ 4 ,554 $ 4 ,554
Total Revenue 14,166 22,862 - -
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 33,944) ( 26,400) - -
June 30, Fund Balance $ 8,092 $ 4,554 $ 4,554 $ 4,554
( CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
11
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
SUMMARY OF FOUR YEAR
OPERATING FUND BALANCES
OTHER FUNDS
ACTUAL ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
2003 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION ( C. O. P. s) FUND: 026
July 1, Fund Balance $ 2,066,501 $ 1 ,088,311 $ 18,341 $ 18,341
Total Revenue 11,104 6 ,000 - -
Net Transfers 3 48,437 3 92,470 1 ,986,115 1,990,315
Total Expenditures ( 1,337,731) ( 1,468,440) ( 1,986,115) ( 1,990,315)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 1,088,311 $ 18,341 $ 18,341 $ 18,341
PLEASANTON TOWNSHIP COUNTY WATER ( P. T. C. W. D. # 3) FUND: 276
July 1, Fund Balance $ 866,648 $ 5 45,524 $ 5 22,224 $ 5 02,924
Total Revenue 17,637 8 ,000 8 ,000 8 ,000
Net Transfers - - - -
Total Expenditures ( 338,761) ( 31,300) ( 27,300) ( 27,300)
June 30, Fund Balance $ 545,524 $ 522,224 $ 502,924 $ 483,624
12
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
SUMMARY OF
REVENUES AND TRANSFERS BY FUNDS
GENERAL FUND
ACTUALS ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
PROPERTY TAXES
Secured Property Tax 2 8,750,500 30,685,991 32,887,680 34,860,941
Unsecured Property Tax 2 ,107,069 2,080,000 2,184,000 2,293,200
Delinquent Taxes 1,000,586 760,000 5 81,400 6 10,470
Supplemental Assessment 1,452,621 1,638,750 1,556,813 1,401,132
VLF ( In- Lieu) - 3 ,579,806 3,836,654 4,066,853
ERAF III - ( 1,881,089) ( 2,003,360) -
SUBTOTAL $ 33,310,776 $ 36,863,458 $ 39,043,187 $ 43,232,596
OTHER TAXES
Sales and Use Tax 18,555,644 1 8,700,000 1 9,635,000 2 0,616,750
Public Safety Sales Tax 343,147 3 55,000 3 72,750 3 91,388
Hotel and Motel Tax 2,528,156 2,750,000 2,997,500 3,177,350
Business Licenses 2,662,803 2 ,950,000 3 ,097,500 3,097,500
Other Taxes 1 ,150,733 1,205,000 1,015,250 946,013
SUBTOTAL $ 25,240,483 $ 25,960,000 $ 27,118,000 $ 28,229,001
LOCAL REVENUES
Licenses and Miscellaneous Permits 72,384 57,080 59,934 62,932
Building Permits 2,340,851 2,360,000 2,478,000 2,601,900
Fines and Forfeitures 5 13,301 5 25,000 5 51,250 5 78,813
Interest Income and Rent 380,713 401,525 420,571 440,538
Franchise Fees 1,403,790 1 ,458,598 1 ,531,528 1,608,105
Planning and Zoning 4 20,701 152,067 9 5,529 97,807
Plan Check Fees 1 ,149,384 1 ,004,050 1 ,054,253 1,106,966
Public Works Fees 554,576 313,305 328,971 343,105
Miscellaneous Revenue 2,811,635 1 ,935,964 1 ,819,411 1,901,758
Library Fee Revenue 78,333 79,767 83,755 87,944
Recreation Revenue 3,142,721 3 ,082,486 3 ,383,290 3,508,301
SUBTOTAL $ 12,868,389 $ 11,369,842 $ 11,806,492 $ 12,338,169
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES
Vehicle License Fee 2,916,339 700,000 4 00,000 1,556,257
Homeowners Tax Exemption 396,718 380,000 399,000 418,950
Other 3 30,352 3 60,882 1 74,960 2 52,708
SUBTOTAL $ 3,643,409 $ 1,440,882 $ 973,960 $ 2,227,915
INTERFUND REVENUES
Reimbursements 1,245,409 1 ,326,244 1 ,599,629 1,691,978
Overhead 1 ,123,399 1,259,911 1,378,302 1,473,117
SUBTOTAL $ 2,368,808 $ 2,586,155 $ 2,977,931 $ 3,165,095
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 77,431,865 78,220,337 81,919,570 89,192,776
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
13
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
SUMMARY OF
REVENUES AND TRANSFERS BY FUNDS
GENERAL FUND ( continued)
ACTUALS ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
OPERATING TRANSFERS
Transfers In - From:
Transit Fund 94 - - -
AD Admin Fund 43,216 - - -
Transfers ( Out) - To:
Storm Drain Fund ( Operating Subsidy) ( 100,000) ( 100,000) ( 100,000)
Law Enforcement Fund ( 2,632) - - -
NET OPERATING TRANSFERS $ 40,678 $ ( 100,000) $ ( 100,000) $ ( 100,000)
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
AND OPERATING TRANSFERS $ 77,472,543 $ 78,120,337 $ 81,819,570 $ 89,092,776
CAPITAL TRANSFERS
Transfers ( Out) - To:
Miscellaneous C. I. P. Fund:
From General Fund Operations ( 4,170,000) ( 2,075,000) ( 3,000,000) ( 2,000,000)
Park C. I. P. Fund:
From General Fund Operations ( 1,455,000) ( 2,425,000) ( 2,000,000) ( 2,000,000)
Street C. I. P. Fund:
From General Fund Operations ( 1,555,000) ( 1,300,000) - ( 1,000,000)
Golf Debt/ Cash Flow Reserve: - - ( 1,600,000) -
NET CAPITAL TRANSFERS $ ( 7,180,000) $ ( 5,800,000) $ ( 6,600,000) $ ( 5,000,000)
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
REVENUES AND TRANSFERS $ 70,292,543 $ 72,320,337 $ 75,219,570 $ 84,092,776
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
ACTUALS ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
STORM DRAIN OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE ( O& M) FUND: 343
Urban Runoff Fees 4 92,353 4 94,000 4 96,000 4 98,000
Misc Reimbursements - 3 60 - -
Interest Earnings 1 6,054 12,000 10,000 10,000
Penalties 2,830 940 - -
Interfund Reimbursement 112,082 150,195 161,126 166,868
Total Revenues $ 623,319 $ 657,495 $ 667,126 $ 674,868
Transfers In - From:
General Fund
- Operating Subsidy - 100,000 100,000 100,000
Net Operating Transfers $ - $ 100,000 $ 1 00,000 $ 1 00,000
TOTAL STORM DRAIN O& M
REVENUES AND TRANSFERS $ 623,319 $ 757,495 $ 767,126 $ 774,868
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
14
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
SUMMARY OF
REVENUES AND TRANSFERS BY FUNDS
ENTERPRISE FUNDS ( continued)
ACTUALS ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
WATER OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE ( O& M) FUND: 381
Water Sales 15,419,481 15,705,000 16,005,000 16,305,000
Meter Sales 97,560 75,000 75,000 75,000
Interest Income 176,491 1 80,000 2 00,000 2 00,000
Misc Reimbursements 11,921 - - -
Interfund Water Sales ( General Fund) 989,639 1 ,087,238 1 ,128,210 1,132,710
Interfund Reimbursement ( Sewer Fund) 281,529 281,191 314,732 333,288
Total Revenues $ 16,976,621 $ 1 7,328,429 $ 1 7,722,942 $ 1 8,045,998
Transfers ( Out) - To:
Water Replacement Fund
- Annual Replacement Accruals ( 1,850,000) ( 1,850,000) ( 1,850,000) ( 1,950,000)
- Polybutylene Repairs ( 100,000) ( 100,000) - -
- 2004 Water Revenue Bonds ( 585,287) ( 567,862) ( 485,138) ( 473,173)
Net Operating Transfers $ ( 2,535,287) $ ( 2,517,862) $ ( 2,335,138) $ ( 2,423,173)
TOTAL WATER O& M
REVENUES AND TRANSFERS $ 14,441,334 $ 14,810,567 $ 15,387,804 $ 15,622,825
SEWER OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE ( O& M) FUND: 381
Sewer Service Charges 1 0,806,701 1 0,650,000 1 0,800,000 1 1,100,000
Interest Income 102,516 80,000 90,000 1 00,000
Other Revenue 1 4,291 5,000 5,000 5,000
Interfund Sewer Usage ( General Fund) 5 8,767 61,350 61,190 61,190
Total Revenues $ 10,982,275 $ 10,796,350 $ 10,956,190 $ 11,266,190
Transfers ( Out) - To:
Sewer Replacement Fund
- Annual Replacement Accruals ( 1,097,000) ( 1,197,000) ( 1,100,000) ( 1,100,000)
- 2002 Sewer Revenue Bonds ( 178,038) ( 180,253) ( 181,020) ( 183,302)
- 2004 Sewer Revenue Bonds ( 151,725) ( 147,352) ( 160,137) ( 150,938)
Net Operating Transfers $ ( 1,426,763) $ ( 1,524,605) $ ( 1,441,157) $ ( 1,434,240)
TOTAL SEWER O& M
REVENUES AND TRANSFERS $ 9,555,512 $ 9 ,271,745 $ 9 ,515,033 $ 9,831,950
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUND
REVENUES & TRANSFERS $ 24,620,165 $ 2 4,839,807 $ 2 5,669,963 $ 2 6,229,643
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
ACTUALS ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT FUND: 006
Benefit, Retirement, & Leave Revenue 13,393,094 16,024,630 20,374,851 22,517,679
Interest Income 109,444 125,000 135,000 150,000
TOTAL $ 13,502,538 $ 16,149,630 $ 20,509,851 $ 22,667,679
LPFD REPLACEMENT FUND: 037
Revenue 75,000 76,500 76,500 78,030
Interest Income 3,948 3,582 8,329 1 0,494
TOTAL $ 78,948 $ 80,082 $ 84,829 $ 88,524
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
15
2005- 06/ 2006- 07 OPERATING BUDGET
SUMMARY OF
REVENUES AND TRANSFERS BY FUNDS
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS ( continued)
ACTUALS ADJUSTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07
PUBLIC ART ACQUISITION FUND: 038
Transfers In/( Out) ( 75,000) - - -
Revenue 45,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Donations - - - -
Interest Income 2,779 2 ,000 4 ,500 6 ,000
TOTAL $ ( 27,221) $ 4 2,000 $ 44,500 $ 46,000
PUBLIC ART MAINTENANCE FUND: 039
Revenue 5,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Interest Income 248 400 400 4 00
TOTAL $ 5,248 $ 1 0,400 $ 10,400 $ 10,400
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND: 041
Vehicle Replacement Revenue 250,000 250,000 312,000 399,360
Sale of Property & Other 38,133 - - -
Interest Income 3 2,403 35,000 67,172 73,154
TOTAL $ 320,536 $ 2 85,000 $ 3 79