Loading...
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