HomeMy WebLinkAboutH.B. PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY 1994 - 1995 - Resolution 9REQUEST FOR PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ACTION
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
Prepared by: Ray Silver, Assistant City AdministratopowV
Date: March 20, 1995
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Meeting Time - Public Financing Authority of the City of Huntington
Beach
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE: There is a need for the Huntington Beach Public Financing
Authority of the City of Huntington Beach to meet more frequently than the current one meeting
per year.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 5, and thereby change the time and place of
the Huntington Beach Public Financing Authority of the City of Huntington Beach to the first and
third Monday of each month at 6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers at 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA.
ANALYSIS: The regular meetings of the Huntington Beach Public Financing Authority was set
by their Resolution No. 2, adopted May 16, 1988, to meet one time per year (the third Monday in
December). By approving the attached resolution, the regular meeting of the Huntington Beach
Public Financing Authority will coincide with the regular meetings of the City Council and/or
Redevelopment Agency.
FUNDING SOURCE: N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Provide direction to staff on an alternative meeting schedule.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution for adoption
2. Huntington Beach Public Financing Authority Resolution No. 2
RS:CC:DEB:ee
G:RCA.Form\PubFin. doc
RESOLUTION NO. 9
RESOLUTION OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DESIGNATING
TIME AND PLACE OF REGULAR MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Huntington Beach have heretofore entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
dated March 7, 1988, (the "Agreement'), establishing the Huntington Public Financing
Authority (the "Authority"), and pursuant to Section 2.04(a) of the Agreement, the Board of
Directors of the Authority is required to provide for the date, hour and place of holding regular
meetings;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the Board
of Directors of the Huntington Beach Public financing Authority that the Board shall hold a
regular meeting on the first and third Mondays of each month in each year, coinciding with the
regular meetings of the Redevelopment Agency and/or City Council, including any meeting
which is adjourned to another date at the hour of 6:30 p.m., at 2000 Main Street, Huntington
Beach, California. The Secretary is directed to cause a certified copy of this resolution to be
filed with the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and the Secretary of the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to Section 2.04(a) of the
Agreement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting held thereof on the 20th dav of Mar 1994.
ATTEST: Chairman
e�� ajbo�
Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
REVI AND APPROVED 3 -f5 5 Authority Attorney �Ne 7 I519
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
Executive Director
Deputyi0ecutive Director
3/k/pubfin/3/15/95
Res. No. 9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, Secretary of the Huntington Beach
Public Financing Authority of the City of Huntington Beach, California
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the
Public Financing Authority of the City of Huntington Beach at a special meeting
of said Huntington Beach Public Financing Authority held on the 20th day of
March 1995, and that it was so adopted by the following vote.
AYES: Directors:
Harman, Bauer, Sullivan, Leipzig, Dettloff, Green, Garofalo
NOES: Directors:
None
ABSENT: Directors:
None
resopfa
Secretary of the Huntington Beach
Public Financing Authority of the
City of Huntington Beach, California
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/FINANCE BOARD MEETING / 3�
June 6, 1994
Finance Board Observations Reaardina Current Consultina Proiects
1. There was an organizational study done on the Community
Development Department last year. A final report was
provided by the consultant on 4/26/93. The report is approx
150 pages long. It included lots of interviews,
questionnaires, data collection, etc. The consultant made 91
distinct recommendations. The report included a work flow
analysis (before and after recommended changes).
2. The city has initiated an extensive "quality improvement"
program; it is broad in scope and has a time dimension
several years long. It includes many of the same ingredients
that were covered in the study on the Community Development
Organization as well as the scope envisioned under 3. below.
3. It has been proposed that the City launch another consulting
project with three objectives; (a) regionalization, (b)
privatization, and (3) an organizational review of the
Administrative Services Organization.
4. The Finance Board has recommended that the city pursue a
"process improvement" program. The board notes that all of
the above programs contain the basic building blocks that
are inherent to "process improvement". All of them start
with the need to define what tasks/services are to be
provided by the departments and how they are accomplished.
These are steps that can be accomplished by the departments
without the need for the consultants. Moreover, the benefits
gained from having the employees do this work go beyond the
cost savings.
5. There was a wide range in the proposals submitted in
response to the RFP for 3. above. (from approx $60K to
approx $400K); the best proposal, from the standpoint of
benefits to the city, was from Peat Marwick; however, it
only proposed an hourly rate schedule. The Peat Marwick
proposal outlined a "process improvement" program without
calling it that. In general, the lower priced proposals will
provide the city with an overview of the problem or solution
and then (later) propose to do the real work; we need to
decide whether we want to evaluate the current conditions or
start the process of making the organization become more
effective. While we don't necessarily recommend the Peat
Marwick proposal, it is well conceived and does propose to
do real work. (probably at a very substantial price)
I
Page 2. Joint Council/Finance Board Meeting
6. From a practical standpoint there are some simple guidelines
that should be followed in order to get the most benefit
from a consulting assignment:
a. The senior level management team must work with the
consultant very closely so that they understand what is
going to be done, how it is to be done, & why it
necessary to do it; they should do as much of the work
as possible and "gain ownership" of the project.
Consultants should only be asked to perform those tasks
which are beyond the capability of staff to perform.
Failure to follow these guidelines frequently results
in weighty reports which hardly anyone understands or
believes in ---which collect dust until the next
consultant comes along.
b. overlapping projects should be avoided; it's time
consuming and wasteful.
C. Projects should be challenged to determine if they are
clear and contain directly measurable improvements to
the effectiveness of the organization. There scope of
projects should be divided into bite sized "modules" so,
that improvements are captured reasonable soon.
7. The current agenda's of proposed consultant project appear
to overlap substantially. The scope of the "quality
improvement" program appears to be much too broad and long
in duration. We have made recommendations to deal with this.
8. The regionalization study would best be preceded by an
attempt to get a number of the potential "partners" to join
in the process from the beginning.
C. D. Bohle
6-6-94