Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
FY 1992/1993 Budget - Resolution 6339 - Resolution 6398 - MS
City of Huntin g ton Beach Annual Budget Fiscal Year 1992/1993 * The fund balance is available for other projects in 1992/93 or future years. Of significant note is the Waterfront Project, an Agency commitment in excess of$30,000,000 which has not been included in the fiscal year 1992/93 Redevelopment budget because the timing for the project has not been determined. A separate Redevelopment bond issue will be required when Phase II of this project commences. GENERAL FUND FINANCING This budget represents the fourth consecutive year that it has been very difficult to balance the General Fund budget. In each of the four years, no new positions have been added except where supported by revenue increases or cost reductions. Three years ago equipment purchases were deleted from the General Fund budget in order to balance the revenues and expenditures. Equipment purchases were financed in the Capital Improvement Fund beginning in 1989/90 as a legitimate use of capital funds in that newly created fund. This year, operating expenses (non personnel costs) have been reduced $623,145. This obviously has an impact on department operations because some increases are uncontrollable. Some examples of uncontrollable increases have been offset by reductions in controllable operating costs such as: training, supplies, contract services, travel and meetings, and similar expenses. General fund revenues are up 8.4% from last year including 2.6% resulting from the recommended new revenues of$2,341,000. Following is a chart of three fiscal years, including estimated 1992/93 revenues by major categories: General Fund Revenue Summary Actual Estimated Estimated % Change Description 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 (91/92 to 92/931 Property Taxes $27,917,608 $29,815,000 $31,855,000 6.8% Sales Tax 16,874,874 16,600,000 17,500,000 5.4 Utility Tax 9,973,357 12,281,000 12,800,000 4.2 Transient Occupancy Tax 1,031,170 1,100,000 1,200,000 9.1 Other Local Taxes 3,669,857 4,572,000 4,814,000 5.3 Licenses & Permits 3,111,755 3,490,385 3,640,000 4.3 Fines/Forfeitures/Penalties 1,903,751 1,520,000 1,650,000 8.6 Use of Money & Property 4,227,470 5,326,000 6,289,000 18.1 Revenue from Other Agencies 9,451,371 8,013,000 8,279,000 3.3 Charges for Current Service 8,340,954 4,430,000 6,657,000 50.3 Other Revenue 728,317 668,200 651,200 -2.5 Transfer from Other Funds 2,151,359 2,952,000 3,060,000 3_7 Total Ongoing General Fund Revenue $89,381,843 $90,767,585 $98,395,200 8.4% One Time Revenues: Retirement System Refund 5,917,183 2,600,000 0 Retirement System Litigated Credit 0 500,000 3,265,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $95,299,026 $96,867,585 $101,660,200 32.4% of the General Fund revenue is from property tax while 17.8% is from sales tax. Most well financed cities in California have sales tax revenues, not property tax, as their primary General Fund revenue source. In 8 most cases a sizable portion of these sales tax revenues are generated from people living outside the City thereby reducing the tax burden on people within the City. The lower sales tax revenue in Huntington Beach is due primarily to the nearby shopping centers such as South Coast Plaza, Westminster Mall and Fashion Island drawing many Huntington Beach shoppers and the resultant "loss" of sales tax dollars to our neighboring cities of Costa Mesa, Westminster and Newport Beach. A new emphasis has been placed on business retention/attraction and expansion by the City's Economic Development Department. Programs have been initiated in the last 6 months after filling vacant positions in this priority area. A talented and enthusiastic staff plans to carefully allocate their limited hours and budget to the most effective programs to meet the needs of businesses that generate significant sales tax revenue for the City. Refuse Collection Costs /Fees/Subsidy Refuse Collection User Fee General Fund COST REVENUE SUBSIDY Actual1987/88 $3,500,00 $ 0 $3,500,000 Actual1989/89 3,900,000 1,828,000 1,972,000 Actual 1989/90 4,803,636 3,692,055 1,111,581 Actual1990/91 7,399,134* 5,196,700 2,202,434* Estimated 1991/92 7,835,060* 5,650,000 2,185,060* Adopted 1992/93 8,129,560* 6,336,000 1,793,560* *The MSI study (see discussion below) documented all costs for this service including billing, overhead, supervision, collection, accounting and street repair. All of these costs are included in the above summary for fiscal years after 1989/90. The first three fiscal years listed above include only the Rainbow Disposal contract costs. MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM As indicated previously, if the City is to adequately finance service demands in the community, an expanded revenue base for the General Fund is needed. Potential major new revenue sources were identified in the MSI Study. MSI completed their report in August, 1991. An estimated $2.2 million of new revenue will be generated from new and/or increased fees in 1992/93. An implementation period of several years is anticipated to fully implement this program, which identified potential new revenues of over $30 million to cover costs. Following is a phased program for consideration of some of these new revenues: SUMMARY - MULTI YEAR PROGRAM TO IMPLEMENT MSI COST CONTROL SYSTEM PHASE I - By July 1, 1992 Revenue (Annual) New and Increased Fees $1,800,660 New General Fund Charges to Enterprise Funds 381,000 Subtotal Phase I (1992/93 revenues) $2,181,660 PHASE II - During Fiscal Year 1992/93 9 New and Increased Fees $632,000 REVENUES FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION- 1993/94 AND THEREAFTER Other Potential New and Increased Fees $4,199,684 Assessment Districts - Maintenance Services 12,173,000 Enterprise and Utility Cost Recovery 11,385,200 Total for Future Consideration after 1992/93 $27,757,884 Total Potential Revenue - All Phases $30,571,544 The MSI system represents a "different way of doing business"than is traditional in governmental agencies. The system calls for full cost recovery of governmental services from specific users benefiting from the services. Exceptions are services generally available for the benefit of all of the community such as police protection, fire protection, general park maintenance, street maintenance, and library services. GENERAL FUND SALARY AND BENEFIT EXPENDITURES A primary source of the increase in costs in the General Fund is the $3,185,959 increase in personnel costs. This cost is the result of compensation and benefit cost increases and decreases as follows: Category of Cost FY 1991/92 FY 1992/93 Increase/Decrease Salaries: Permanent $44,001,869 $46,205,974 $2,204,104 Temporary 3,049,523 2,872,621 -176,902 Overtime 3,751,407 4,006,000 254,593 Retirement Cost 7,936,483 8,334,030 397,547 Medical Insurance 5,446,326 5,719,138 272,813 Workers' Compensation 2,373,499 2,492,390 118,891 Retiree Medical Benefit 428,781 450,259 21,478 Holiday Pay 710,498 746,088 35,590 Educational Pay 688,780 723,282 34,502 Medicare/Deferred Compensation 466,012 489,355 23,343 TOTAL $68,853,178 $72,039,137 3 185 959 A net reduction of 29.20 General Fund permanent positions is recommended for 1992/93, reducing General Fund permanent staffing from 981.25 to 952.05 positions. Total permanent positions city wide would decrease from 1,120.50 to 1,103.50 in fiscal year 1992/93, a net reduction of 17 permanent full-time positions. Some positions previously funded by General Fund revenues will be funded by Enterprise funds or Capital Projects funds in 1992/93. Enterprise or other funds have their own revenue sources to finance positions transferred from the General Fund. 10 CONCLUSION This budget will diminish the quantity and quality of city services as the demands for City services increase while budget realities require that City programs and expenses be reduced The proposal is to balance the budget by (1) reducing expenses by $3,061,544 and (2) adding new revenue of$2,341,000. These budget balancing measures were required because of the recession and the fact that the growth of city revenues is not keeping pace with City service demands. The City should focus on the development of a long-range financial management program that will result in meeting future City service needs. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the Administrative Services staff for their efforts in preparing this document. The budget was prepared under the direction of Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrator/Administrative Services. He was assisted principally by John Roulette and Jim Lewis, Budget Analyst Seniors, Dan Villella, Finance Director; Sarah Aughton, Word Processing Systems Coordinator, Liane Nakasone, Word Processing Systems Assistant, and Jeff Frankel, Duplicating Equipment Operator. Additionally, I extend my thanks to department heads and all of the other dedicated City employees who have worked diligently over the past year to develop a balanced budget for fiscal year 1992/93. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA' City Administrator ADDENDUM TO THE BUDGETMESSAGE The State of California adopted its budget over 60 days after the beginning of the fiscal year. The State decided to take property tax and other revenues away from cities to balance the State budget. The estimated impact on the City of Huntington Beach is a General Fund revenue loss of $2,248,647 and a loss of $805,000 of redevelopment revenues. The Following actions were taken by the City Council_ on September 8, 1992 in reaction to the State's actions: 1) Reduce General Fund appropriations by $1,689,033 and utilize $559,614 of the estimated budget surplus to maintain a balanced General Fund budget. 2) Extended the hiring freeze to July 1, 1993. The actions needed to amend the redevelopment budget to reflect the State's actions will be considered by the City Council in November, 1992. 11 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Distinguished Budget Presentation Award PRESENTED TO City of Huntington Beach, California For the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1 , 1991 Y2G President Executive Director CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ANNUAL BUDGET FY 1992193 TABLE OF CONTENTS City Administrator's Budget Message ............................................. 1 Budget Charts and Graphs ............................................................................ 14 Executive Management ............................................................................ 22 OrganizationChart ............................................................................ 23 City Goal and Objectives ............................................................................ 24 FiscalPolicies ............................................................................ 25 Revenue Summary ............................................................................ 26 Expenditure Summary ............................................................................ 28 Permanent Personnel Chart ............................................................................ 30 General Fund Expenditure Reductions ................................................ 31 City-wide Departmental Summaries: GeneralFund ............................................................................ 32 CityCouncil ............................................................................ 34 Non-Departmental ............................................................................ 36 Administration ............................................................................ 38 CityTreasurer ............................................................................ 40 CityAttorney ............................................................................ 42 CityClerk ............................................................................ 44 Administrative Services ............................................................................ 46 Library ............................................................................ 48 Economic Development ............................................................................ 50 Community Development ............................................................................ 52 Fire ............................................................................ 54 Police ............................................................................ 56 Community Services ............................................................................ 58 PublicWorks ............................................................................ 60 Capital Improvement Program ............................................................................ 62 City Debt and Payment Schedule ....................................... 64 Interfund Transfer Schedule ............................................................................ 65 EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 ELECTED --- COUNCILMEMBERS 7 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL T EXHIBIT A ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 --- 638 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 1 NREP 601 ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR 1 NREP 519 DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRATOR 1 MEO 481 PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER 1 MEA 443 VIDEO TECHNICIAN SUPERVISOR 1 NREP 427 PRODUCTIVITY TECH. II 1 NREP 427 TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR 1 MEA 416 INFORMATION SPECIALIST II 3 NREP 416 MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT 1 NREP 414 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 369 INFORMATION SPECIALIST I 1 NREP 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 1 MEA 349 OFFICE SPECIALIST, TYPING 1 MEA 294 OFFICE ASSISTANT I, NON-TYPING 1 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL - EXHIBIT A CITY TREASURER PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 ELECTED/NREP 519 CITY TREASURER 1 MEO 510 DEPUTY CITY TREASURER, SENIOR 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 374 CUSTOMER SERVICE REP. SPVSR. 2 MEA 354 CUSTOMER SERVICE REP. SR. 2 MEA 334 CUSTOMER SERVICE REP. 6 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL �� EXHIBIT A CITY ATTORNEY PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 ELECTED/NREP 587 CITY ATTORNEY 1 MEO 537 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY III 7 MEO 455 LAW OFFICE MANAGER 1 MEO 416 INVESTIGATOR 1 MEA 400 PARALEGAL 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 373 SECRETARY, LEGAL SR. 1 MEA 354 SECRETARY, LEGAL 2 MEA 317 OFFICE ASSISTANT II, TYPING 1 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL -IT EXHIBIT A CITY CLERK PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 ELECTED/NREP 507 CITY CLERK 1 MEA 396 DEPUTY CITY CLERK II 2 MEA 347 DEPUTY CITY CLERK I 2 MEA 334 SECRETARY TYPIST 2 MEA 327 OFFICE ASSISTANT II, TYPING 1 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL 77.5 0 EXHIBIT A ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP 573 DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRATOR / CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1 MEO 540 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 1 NREP 519 PERSONNEL DIRECTOR 1 MEO 519 DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE SERVICES 1 MEO 519 INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGER 1 MEO 513 RISK MANAGER 1 MEO 510 ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1 NREP 492 PERSONNEL MANAGER 1 MEO 490 SUPVR. SYSTEMS & PROGRAMMING 1 MEO 482 PURCHASING/CENTRAL SERVICES MGR. 1 NREP 477 PERSONNEL ANALYST, PRINCIPAL 1 MEO 475 ACCOUNTANT, PRINCIPAL 2 NREP 469 BUDGET ANALYST SR. 2 MEO 462 SYSTEMS ANALYST, SR. 1 MEA 460 MICRO & DATABASE COORDINATOR 1 MEA 448 REAL ESTATE AGENT 1 MEA 443 PROGRAMMER SR. 2 MEA 443 COMPUTER OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR 1 NREP 438 PERSONNEL SERVICES COORD. 1 MEA 434 ACCOUNTANT 5 MEA 431 LIABILITY SAFETY ANALYST 1 MEA 431 CLAIMS EXAMINER SR. 2.5 MEA 423 MICRO TECH. AIDE 1 MEA 422 BUYER 1 MEA 400 WORD PROCESSING COORDINATOR 1 MEA 390 PRINTING/FORMS COORDINATOR 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 374 ACCOUNTING TECH. IV 2 MEA 369 REAL PROPERTY ASST. 1 MEA 369 BUYER ASSISTANT 1 MEA 369 WORD PROCESSING SYSTEM ASSISTANT 1 MEA 357 COMPUTER OPERATOR 1 MEA 354 ACCOUNTING TECH. III 2 NREP 353 PERSONNEL ASSISTANT 3 MEA 353 PRINTING SERVICES TECH. 1 MEA 349 OFFICE SPECIALIST, TYPING 2 MEA 343 STOCK CLERK 1 MEA 334 ACCOUNTING TECH. II 3 MEA 334 SECRETARY TYPIST 1 MEA 349 MEDICAL CLAIMS PROCESSOR 1 MEA 333 PURCHASING TECH. 1 MEA 316 OFFICE ASSISTANT II, NON TYPING 1 MEA 314 INVENTORY CLERK 1 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL 3T-5 EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NR P _= DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP7. -1 MEO 543 PLANNING DIRECTOR 1 MEO 524 DIRECTOR HOUSING/BUILDING 0.5 MEO 509 BLDG OFFCL. ASST/STRUCTURAL ENGR 1 MEO 487 PLANNER SENIOR 3 MEO 481 PLAN CHECK BUILDING SR. 2 MEO 466 INSPECTOR STRUCTURAL, CHIEF 4 MEO 461 PLANNER ASSOCIATE 5 KEA 443 PLAN CHECKER SR. 2 MEA 443 INSPECTOR STRUCTURAL SR. 7.5 MEA 433 ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER 1 MEA 433 PLANNER ASSISTANT 6 MEA 422 CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 4 MEA 400 PERMIT & ZONING TECHNICIAN 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 2 MEA 380 PLANNER DRAFTING 1 MEA 376 PLAN CHECK COORDINATOR 1 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 2 MEA 343 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AIDE 4 MEA 333 WORD PROCESSOR SR. 1 MEA 327 OFFICE ASSTISTANT II-TYPING 1 TOTAL PERMANENT PERSONNEL -3T- EXHIBIT A ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 DEPUTYCITY ADMINISTRATOR DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1 MEO 524 DIRECTOR HOUSING/BUILDING 0.5 MEO 502 PROJECT MANAGER 3 MEO 478 CIVIL ENGINEER ASSOCIATE 1 MEA 448 HOUSING REHABILITATION MANAGER * 1 MEO 444 PROJECT MANAGER, ASSISTANT 2 MEA 444 DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST 2.5 MEA 444 DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST * 1.5 MEA 423 HOUSING REHAB. SPECIALIST 1 MEA 422 CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER * 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 1 MEA 339 OFFICE SPECIALIST-TYPING 1 MEA 334 SECRETARY TYPIST * 0.5 TOTAL PERMANENT PERSONNEL * Assigned to Community Development Department A � EXHIBIT A FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NRrP- _= FIRE CHIEF T MEO 540 FIRE CHIEF, DIVISION 2 MEO 519 FIRE BATTALION CHIEF 4 FA 456 FIRE MARSHALL DEPUTY 6 FA 456 FIRE CAPTAIN, PARAMEDIC 3 MEO 469 FIRE PROTECTION ANALYST 1 FA 434 FIRE CAPTAIN 27 FA 434 SUPERVISING FIRE CONTROLLER 1 MEO 455 DEPARTMENT ANALYST, SR. 1 MEO 452 FIREMED COORDINATOR 1 FA 422 FIRE ENGINEER, PARAMEDIC 3 MEA 443 CREWLEADER MECHANICAL MAINT. 1 FA 410 FIRE PROTECTION SPECIALIST 6 FA 410 FIRE PARAMEDIC 27 FA 400 FIRE ENGINEER 30 MEA 408 MECHANIC HEAVY DUTY 1 MEA 406 EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR 1 MEA 406 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AIDE * 1 MEA 404 FIRE EDUCATION SPECIALIST 2 FA 375 FIREFIGHTER 36 MEA 396 MECHANIC SR. 1 FA 359 FIRE CONTROLLER (4 LEADWORKERS) 12 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 375 STOREKEEPER 1 MEA 369 AUDIO VISUAL/MEDIA SPCLST. 1 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 2 MEA 358 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER 1 MEA 357 FIRE DATA COORDINATOR/RMS 1 MEA 349 OFFICE SPECIALIST-TYPING 1 MEA 344 COMMUNICATIONS TECH. ASST. * 0.75 MEA 334 ACCOUNTING TECH. II 3.5 MEA 333 WORD PROCESSOR SR. 1 MEA 327 OFFICE ASSISTANT II-TYPING 2.5 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL * Budgeted in Non-Departmental LP EXHIBIT A POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 CHIEF PMA 549 POLICE CAPTAIN 4 MEO 518 CRIMINALIST CHIEF 1 PMA 517 POLICE LIEUTENANT 11 MEA 510 INFORMATION SYSTEM MGR. PS 1 MEO 484 CRIMINALIST SUPERVISOR 1 MEA 476 RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR 1 POA 472 POLICE SERGEANT (2 MOTORCYCLE) 29 MEA 469 CRIMINALIST SR. 2 MEA 460 CAD SPECIALIST 2 MEA 459 HELICOPTER TECH. 1 MEO 455 DEPARTMENT ANALYST SR. 1 POA 445 GENERAL SERVICE OFFICER 1 MEA 443 CREWLEADER MECHANICAL MAINT. 1 POA 437/425 POLICE OFFICER SR/REG (19 MTRS) 184 MEA 429 CRIMINALIST 1 MEA 421 IDENTIFICATION TECHNICIAN 2.5 MEA 416 INFORMATION SPECIALIST II 1 POA 414 COMMUNICATION SUPERVISOR 6 POA 411 DETENTION OFFICER SR. 5 MEA 411 COMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIAN 2 MEA 408 MECHANIC HELICOPTER 1 MEA 406 POLICE PHOTOGRAPHER 1 POA 403 DETENTION OFFICER NURSE 6 MEA 400 WORD PROCESSING COORDINATOR 1 MEA 396 MECHANIC SR. 3 POA 395 DETENTION OFFICER 6 MEA 390 SERVICE OFFICER/ALARM 1 MEA 390 SERVICE OFFICER/FIELD 8 . MEA 390 PROPERTY OFFICER SR. 1 POA 387 COMMUNICATIONS OPERATOR 16 MEA 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 380 PLANNER, DRAFTING 0.5 MEA 375 PROPERTY OFFICER 1 MEA 375 MECHANIC 1 MEA 374 EDUCATION SPECIALIST 2 MEA 366 SHIFT SUPERVISOR 3 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 4 MEA 356 CIVILIAN CHECK INVESTIGATOR 2 MEA 356 COURT LIAISON TECHNICIAN 1 MEA 354 ACCOUNTING TECH. III 2 MEA 353 SERVICE OFFICER/LAB 1 MEA 350 POLICE SPECIALIST(4 INVESTGTVE) 14 MEA 344 COMMUNICATIONS TECH. ASSISTANT 1 MEA 343 PARKING CONTROL OFFICER 7 MEA 333 WORD PROCESSOR SR. 4 MEA 339 POLICE CLERK SR. 10 MEA 328 CUSTODIAN 3 MEA 319 WORD PROCESSOR 3 MEA 317 POLICE RECORDS TECH. I 10 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL - EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY SERVICES PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP 573 DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SERVICES 1 MEO 535 BEACH SERVICES MANAGER 1 MEO 503 SUPT. REC. & PARK DEVELOPMENT 1 MEO 503 SUPT. REC. & HUMAN SERVICES 1 MEO 503 MARINE SAFETY CAPTAIN 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR, BEACH OPERATIONS 1 MEO 478 ARTS/CULTURAL AFFAIRS MANAGER 1 MEO 468 RECREATION SUPERVISOR, SR. 2 MSO 465 MARINE SAFETY LIEUTENANT 2 MEO 464 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR 0.25 MEA 443 INSPECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS SR. 0.5 MEA 438 SUPVSR. PKING/CAMPING FACILITY 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER, BEACH MAINTENANCE 2 MEA 422 EQUIPMENT MAINT. SPECIALIST 1 MSO 418 MARINE SAFETY OFFICER 7 MEA 416 PARK NATURALIST 1 MEA 406 CULTURAL AFFAIRS SUPERVISOR 1 MEA 401 CONSTRUCTION & MAINT. WORKER 1 MEA 401 RECREATION LEADER SR. 5 MEA 401 HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATOR 2 MEA 398 LEADWORKER, PARKING FACILITY 2 MEA 391 PARKING METER REPAIR TECH. 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 380 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR 1 MEA 375 METER REPAIR WORKER 1 MEA 375 MECHANIC 1 MEA 369 MAINTENANCE SERVICE WORKER 1 MEA 368 COMMUNITY CENTER LEADER 1 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 3 MEA 358 MAINTENANCE WORKER SR. * 3 MEA 354 ACCOUNTING TECH. III 1 MEA 343 PARKING/CAMPING ATTENDANT 1 MEA 343 MAINTENANCE WORKER 1 MEA 338 OFFICE SPECIALIST, NON TYPING 1.5 MEA 333 WORD PROCESSOR SR. 1 MEA 328 CUSTODIAN 2 MEA 327 OFFICE ASSISTANT II, TYPING 1.75 MEA 264 OUTREACH ASSISTANT 7 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL * To become Custodian upon separation of encumbent. ---m- EXHIBIT A LIBRARY PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP 544 DIRECTOR, LIBRARY 1 MEO 485 LIBRARY SERVICES MANAGER 2 MEO 422 LIBRARIAN SR. 2 MEA 399 COMPUTER OPERATOR COORDINATOR 1 MEA 390 LIBRARIAN 5.5 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 369 LIBRARY ASSISTANT 5 MEA 369 AUDIO VISUAL COORDINATOR 1 MEA 366 COMPUTER OPERATOR ASSISTANT 1 MEA 358 FACILITY MAINTENANCE WORKER 1 MEA 353 LIBRARY CLERK, PRINCIPAL 3 MEA 334 LIBRARY CLERK, SENIOR 11.75 MEA 328 CUSTODIAN 1 MEA 327 OFFICE ASSISTANT II, TYPING 1 MEA 314 LIBRARY CLERK 1 MEA 296 LIBRARY CLERK, SPECIAL 0.5 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL T8775 EXHIBIT A PUBLIC WORKS PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP 591 DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS 1 MEO 558 CITY ENGINEER 1 MEO 544 WATER OPERATIONS MANAGER 1 MEO 525 MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS MANAGER 1 MEO 519 TRAFFIC ENGINEER 1 MEO 513 WATER OPERATIONS MANAGER ASST. 1 MEO 503 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER 1 MEO 503 CIVIL ENGINEER PRINCIPLE 2 MEO 503 SUPT. PARKS, TREES & LANDSCAPE 1 MEO 492 TRAFFIC ENGINEER ASSOCIATE 2 MEO 488 CIVIL ENGINEER ASSOCIATE 2 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR SEWER/STREET MAINT. 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR STREET TREE MAINT. 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR MECHANICAL MAINT. 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR PARKS 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR WATER DISTRIBUTION 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR WATER PRODUCTION 1 MEO 464 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR 0.5 MEO 464 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 1 MEA 470 GIS TECHNICIAN 1 MEA 459 CIVIL ENGINEER ASSISTANT 3 MEO 455 DEPARTMENT ANALYST SR. 2 MEA 454 PLAN CHECKER PUBLIC WORKS SR. 1 MEA CAD TECHNICIAN 1 MEA 443 CREWLEADER, PESTICIDE ADVISOR 1 MEA 443 CREWLEADER, TRAFFIC 1 MEA 443 ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR SR. 1 MEA 443 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 9 MEA 443 SURVEY PARTY CHIEF 2 MEA 443 TRAFFIC TECHNICIAN 3 MEA 443 INSPECTOR PUBLIC WORKS SR. 4.5 MEA 443 CREWLEADER ELECTRICAL MAINT. 2 MEA 443 CREWLEADER MECHANICAL MAINT. 1 MEA 443 CREWLEADER PAINTING 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER STREET LANDSCAPE 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER PARK MAINT. 2 MEA 438 CREWLEADER STREET TREES 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER STREET MAINT. 2 MEA 438 CREWLEADER WATER DISTRIBUTION 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER METER OPERATION 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER SEWER MAINT. 1 MEA 438 WATER QUALITY COORDINATOR 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER WATER PRODUCTION 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER IRRIGATION 1 MEA 434 BUILDING MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN 1 MEA 431 CROSS CONN. CONTROL SPEC. II 1 MEA 424 LEADWORKER MECHANIC HEAVY DUTY 1 MEA 424 LEADWORKER WATER SYSTEMS 2 MEA 424 EQUIPMENT SUPPORT COORDINATOR 1 MEA 424 VEHICLE BODY SHOP COORDINATOR 1 MEA 422 LEADWORKER BUILDING MAINT. 1 MEA 422 INSPECTOR WATER SERVICES, SR. 2 MEA 412 LEADWORKER STREETS 4 MEA 412 LEADWORKER WATER CONSTRUCTION 3 MEA 412 LEADWORKER MECHANICAL (PARKS) 1 MEA 412 LEADWORKER WATER SVCS REPAIR 1 MEA 412 LEADWORKER PAINTER 1 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) e� EXHIBIT A PUBLIC WORKS PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION (CONTINUED) BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 MEA 411 ELECTRICIAN TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT 1 MEA 411 ELECTRICIAN 6 MEA 411 BUILDING MAINTENANCE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 408 MECHANIC HEAVY DUTY 3 MEA 408 WATER SYSTEMS TECH. III 3 MEA 406 PLUMBER 1 MEA 406 SURVEYOR 4 MEA 400 PHOTOMITOGRAPHER 1 MEA 396 LEADWORKER TRAFFIC STRIPING 1 MEA 396 CARPENTER 4 MEA 396 ; BLOCK MASONRY WORKER 1 MEA 396 PAINTER 5 MEA 396 MECHANIC SR. 8 MEA 396 VEHICLE BODY REPAIR WORKER 2 MEA 396 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR HEAVY DUTY 4 MEA 396 LEADWORKER LANDSCAPING 11 MEA 396 LEADWORKER SEWER MAINT. 2 MEA 396 LEADWORKER WATER 1 MEA 391 LEADWORKER HYDRANT & VALVES 1 MEA 391 LEADWORKER WATER METER REPAIR 1 MEA 390 ENGINEERING AIDE 1 MEA 390 CONCRETE FINISHER 2 MEA 390 WATER QUALITY TECH. II 1 MEA 390 WAREHOUSEKEEPER 3 MEA 388 WATER SYSTEMS TECH. II 4 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 380 ELECTRICAL REPAIR WORKER 1 MEA 380 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR 25 MEA 380 TREE TRIMMER AERIAL 2 MEA 380 CHEMICAL APPLICATOR 4 MEA 380 MECHANIC SEWER PUMPS SR. 1 MEA 376 WATER QUALITY TECHNICIAN 0.5 MEA 375 SERVICE WORKER (WATER) 8 MEA 375 MECHANIC 1 MEA 375 STOREKEEPER 1 MEA 375 MECHANIC SEWER PUMPS 1 MEA 375 METER REPAIR WORKER 4 MEA 369 BUILDING MAINT. SERVICE WORKER 1 MEA 369 TIRE SERVICE WORKER 1 MEA 369 AUTOMATED IRRIGATION WORKER 4 MEA 369 MAINTENANCE SERVICE WORKER 23 MEA 369 METER READER SR. 1 MEA 369 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE WORKER 3 MEA 363 CARPENTER TRAINEE 1 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 4 MEA 358 FACILITY MAINTENANCE WORKER 1 MEA 358 MAINTENANCE WORKER SR. 2 MEA 354 SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE * (Wtr) 1 MEA 353 CUSTOMER SERVICE FIELD REP. 1 MEA 353 METER READER 2 MEA 349 OFFICE SPECIALIST - TYPING 2 MEA 343 MAINTENANCE WORKER 5 MEA 343 STOCK CLERK 2 MEA 328 CUSTODIAN 1 MEA 327 OFFICE ASSISTANT II - TYPING 4.5 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL --Tb$— e *Position to be eliminated upon separation of incumbent. V EXHIBIT C ADDENDUM TO PRELIMINARY BUDGET FY 1992/93 (GENERAL FUND) DEPARTMENT ITEM COST FUNDING Non-Departmental Departmental Capital .$644,033 General Fund Outlay Reduce Capital for <50,000> Narcotic Police; (to be paid Forfeiture by Narcotic Fund) * Fund * See Police Memo Police Department Communications Tech. 47,710 New Revenue Transfer Operating costs 50,000 General Fund from Narcotic Fund Fire Department Oil well consolidation 22,720 General Fund Program Printing costs for 18,500 General Fund Hazardous Materials Control promotion Temporary salaries for 1,500 General Fund hazardous materials control promotion. A9/� Soo City Clerk Overtime Salaries for General Fund Council Meeting Coverage Increased Election Cost 2,018 General Fund Community Services Delete Tram Insurance <10,000> Community Addition of 1 Code 46,800 New Revenue Development Enforcement Officer Revenue Amendments Code Enforcement Officer <47,000> Radio Maintenance <48,000> NET GENERAL FUND REVISIONS $680,281 -1- �� ADDENDUM TO PRELIMINARY BUDGET fY 1992193 (OTHER FUNDS) I DEPARTMENT ITEM COST FUND Administrative Departmental Capital <$644,033> CIP Fund Services Outlay Administration Temporary Salaries 68,536 Cable TV Increase Appropriation 5,000 Cable TV for "Grass Valley Switcher" component Community Services General Plan Update 77,000 Park Acq. & Contribution Development Main Promenade carry- 32,834 Parking over funds Fund Newland Barn carry-over 20,000 Park Acq. funds Development City Clerk Community Bulletin Board Computer 3,000 CIP fund Public Works Net revisions to Gas Tax 539,039 Gas Tax Project List Net revisions to <233,000> Transportation Transportation Fund Fund Project List Police Department Mobile Task Force 276,000 Narcotic Forfeiture R.N.S.P. Police Officer 78,000 Narcotic Forfeiture Fire Department Carry-Over of Unused 36,625 CIP Fund 91/92 funds for Butler Building Methane mitigation; 76,171 Grant Fund funds provided by a state grant. NET REVISIONS OTHER FUNDS $335,172 TOTAL NET REVISIONS / ALL FUNDS $1,015,453 • TJ -2- GENERAL FUND RESERVE ( FUND BALANCE) CONTINUATION RECOMMENDED BUDGET BUDGET ESTIMATED 6-30-92 FUND BALANCE $ 5,854,463 $ 55854,463 BUDGET (SHORTFALL)/SURPLUS (411847689) 7665769 ESTIMATED 6-30-93 FUND BALANCE $ 1 ,669,774 $ 6,621 ,232 RESERVE 1 .7% 6.7% RESERVE ACCOUNT: PERS CREDIT $ 6,765,000 I 06/04/92 Page 1 TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR 06/15/92 --------------------------------- Submittal deadline: 06/03/92 Agenda review date: 06/08/92 Delivery date: 06/10/92 Public Notice Title / Description Staff Contact Date Comments -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- ADMINISTRATION -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- South Coast Air Quality Barnard Reviewed: PD, Mgmt. Dist. Std. Contract for discre. grant funds . -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- 92/93 Budget Adoption Franz MATERIAL CANNOT BE FINALIZED UNTIL AFTER 6/8/92 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Amendment to Osness Reviewed: PD, RS Classification plan -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Annual appropriation limit Franz Reviewed: PD, NEEDS for fiscal year 92/93 RESO -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Reappointment of two Osness Reviewed: PD, RS Personnel Commissioners: Buhler & Castry -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- CITY ATTORNEY -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- CLOSED SESSION: Griffin Hutton Related Properties -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Coastal Commission Hutton Approval of zoning on the Whitehole property -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- 1 06/04/92 Page 2 TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR 06/15/92 --------------------------------- Submittal deadline: 06/03/92 Agenda review date: 06/08/92 Delivery date: 06/10/92 Public Notice Title / Description Staff Contact Date Comments -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Support Amicus Curiae Hutton Reviewed: PD, Brief -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- COMMUNITY SERVICES -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Sublease of Portion of Hagan ENGLE REWRITING RCA TO Central Park Equestrian REFLECT ACTION NEEDED Center -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Auto Dealers Association - Kaiser Reviewed: PD, RS Request for assistance est. a Busin. Imp. Dist. -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- CLOSED SESSION: Coultrup Bohr DDA Deal Points Grant Agreement for HBC&VB Gifford STILL EXPECTED - AWAITING CONTRACT FROM HBC&VB -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Keyser Marston Contract Runzel Reviewed: PD, RS -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- POLICE DEPARTMENT -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Parking Citation Lowenberg NOT RECEIVED BUT URGENTLY Collection Contract NEEDED ON THIS AGENDA - REVENUE TO THE CITY -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- 06/04/92 Page 3 TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR 06/15/92 --------------------------------- Submittal deadline: 06/03/92 Agenda review date: 06/08/92 Delivery date: 06/10/92 Public Notice Title / Description Staff Contact Date Comments _ -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Tattooing Establishment & Lowenberg REVIEWED: PD, RS Operation Ordinance -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- PUBLIC WORKS -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- City Gym & Pool Sandoval HOLDING FOR SIGNED Structural/renovations Hagan CONTRACT analysis -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Palm Tree Removal on Main Sandoval Reviewed: PD, RS Street -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Parcel Map 90-286 Approval Sandoval Reviewed: PD, RS -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Parking Structure Sandoval Reviewed: PD,RS Restrooms - Bid Award Hagan -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Surface Impr. Gothard from Kiser SENT BACK FOR SIGNATURES Edinger to McFadden & ON CONTRACT Center, Gothard to 405 -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Townlot Street Sewer Kreiger Reviewed: PD, RS Rehab. Prog. - Approv plans & specs. ; CC-837 -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Vacation on Coral Cay Ln. Sandoval Reviewed: PD, RS -------------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- Vacation on Lake Street Sandoval Reviewed: PD, RS THE H .O.M .E . COUNCIL 6881 Presidio Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (714) 536.8853 Dear City Council Member: Enclosed please find my recommendations on the FY 92/93 Huntington Beach budget. I have tried to keep all of these issues stated simply yet specific enough that you could act on any or . all of these recommendations should you choose to do so. My overall concerns relate to the revenue projections by the city staff and their consultants. It's one thing to hold a manager at any level responsible for the monies spent, but it is entirely 'different. to hold .him or her responsible and accountable for revenue projections which form the basis of those expense projections. It is so because only at the very senior levels (department managers and above) is. there a real appreciation for "the big picture. " If a revenue projection for a particular category fails to materialize, the budget as passed by Council becomes tainted immediately. Monies start .to get transferred from account to account and by the time the year is over, only Bob Franz and Mike Uberuaga really know what happened. So, since we're paying department heads lots of money to forecast accurately on both the revenue and expense side, we should be willing to hold them responsible for those projections and accountable as well. Responsibility and accountability have been a basic business tenet for hundreds of years. My major concerns lie in .6 areas: 1. Business: License Revenue 2 . Sales Tax Revenues 3 . Property Tax Revenues 4 . Community Development Fee Amounts and Timing 5. Infrastructure- Repair/Replacement 6. City Employee Wage and Benefit Increases I'll paraphrase these during public hearings and be available to answer any questions you might develop between now and then. Very truly yours, ack A. Bowland 960-3492 1 - AN ORGANIZATION OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS IN HUNTINGTON.BEACH � t BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUE As of June 8, 1992 there were 16, 431 current business licenses issued in Huntington Beach. Staff tells us on page xxxvii (37?) that the city has had somewhere between $900, 000 and 973 , 000 in revenue from this account since 1988 , expects to receive $1, 375, 000 in revenue this current year and is budgeting for $1, 560, 000 in 1992/93 . If one makes the calculation $1, 375, 000 16, 431 then the average revenue to the city for a business license, at least in 1991/92 is $83 . 68. The city is planning to raise its business license fee $10. 00 per license next year. $10 times 16,431 (number of business licenses) equals $164 , 310.00 in incremental revenue to the city. Add $164 , 310 to the $1, 375, 000 91/92 revenue and we get $1, 539 , 310 or very close to the city's 92/93 estimate of $1,560, 000. Is the city then saying that the growth in new business licenses for fiscal year 92/93 will be essentially zero? It appears so. Flat income levels or revenues not up to expectations would seem to be the case during recessionary times. People just don't spend more. However, I would submit that one phenomena occurs during the early parts of a recession: People who are laid off or fired or who are afraid they will be laid off or fired if the recession continues, tend to start their own business. They want to help "recession-proof" them and their families and maybe do something on their own. I would suggest that this phenomena is causing the artificial growth in business license applications over the past 12 months or so. If this phenomena is operating here, then one other must as well. 70% of those businesses started by small business people fail in the first two years, mostly because capitalization is not adequate. There is no provision in this budget to accommodate that issue. SHOULD THERE BE A REDUCTION OF PLANNED BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUE FROM THE ONE ESTIMATED FOR 1992/93 FISCAL YEAR? ti G SALES TAX REVENUES Sales tax revenues in Huntington Beach have been declining for years. City Manager Michael Uberuaga presented a slide to the council 2 months ago that showed it declining for 4 or 5 years anyway. one anomaly year (FY 89/90) skews this slightly. City staff now feels that sales tax revenue for our present fiscal year will again decline to $16 million from $16. 9 million in fiscal year 91/92 or a decline of 5. 6%. Staff now wants us to accept that sales tax revenues in fy 1992/93 will RISE 5.4% and will again rise by another 2 . 9% in fy 93/94. I question this logic for a number of reasons: 1. The southern California area is expected (by all regional forecasters that I'm aware of) to languish in this recession at least through 1st calendar quarter 1993 and probably through 2nd calendar quarter 1993. . . .year end for our fiscal year 92/93 . 2. Sales tax revenues do not climb during recessions, they fall, sometimes precipitously. 3 . The city is forecasting no "new businesses" in FY 92/93 so this growth must come on the backs of existing businesses. 4 . The city has not taken into account the (author' s estimate) that fully 3 , 000 of the 4800 new businesses added in Huntington Beach since last fiscal year will fail, at least statistically. 5. No major business (like a WalMart or Price Club) is scheduled to come to Huntington Beach in the next few months. Accordingly, I think the sales tax revenue forecast is far too aggressive. It should be cut back to some reasonable number. Author's suggestion: $950, 000 PROPERTY TAX REVENUES Property tax revenue in FY 92/93 is scheduled to increase 7 . 8% over expected FY 91/92 levels. This just seems like a massive number given the source of those property taxes. First, the property taxes are allowed to rise a minimum of 2% annually, so I am really questioning the incremental 5. 8% over and above it. . . .and dealing with only that 5 . 8% number. Property taxes are highest during periods of high real estate turnover, new high-end housing projects coming on stream regularly and during periods of high price inflation in the used house market. We saw that happen in the period 1987-1990. However, in the last year or so, the vacant and remaining to be sold housing stock in Huntington Beach is at one of its highest ever levels. The houses being sold this past year (and assumably for the coming year) are in the low-end markets in Huntington Beach. The houses that sell for $150, 000-$225, 000. These houses sell to both first-time home buyers as well as "move to Huntington Beach upgraders" from other cities. They do so because low interest rates allow those first time buyer to locate here for the first time in many, many years. Always before, the housing stock has been so expensive and that, combined with mid-range interest rates, has precluded many from buying in our city. There is also tremendous downward price pressure exerted on house sellers by the real estate agent community. Arguably because the agent knows more about what your house is worth than you do, but realistically, the agent works on straight commission and needs to sell stock to make a living. No new major housing tracts are scheduled to come on stream in FY 92/93 . IN A CONTINUING RECESSION, IS IT REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT PROPERTY TAXES WILL RISE INSTEAD OF REMAIN CONSTANT OR EVEN DECLINE. ISN'T THE ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR NOW TELLING COUNTY RESIDENTS THEY CAN APPEAL THEIR TAX BILLS IF THEY FEEL THEIR PROPERTY HAS DECLINED IN VALUE RATHER THAN REMAINED CONSTANT OR RISEN IN THE PAST YEAR? THE AUTHOR STRONGLY URGES CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT A 7 .8% INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FORECAST AND RETURN IT TO SOMETHING THAT MARES COMMON SENSE. I SUGGEST 3% INCREASE IN TOTAL SHOULD BE USED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES. c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTS FEE INCREASES The MSI study said that basically our city's refusal to put into effect "fees to cover real user costs" amounts to tax subsidy of those services by the citizens, something that is at least questionable and may even be illegal. Community Development had a revenue shortfall of $2 , 400, 000 in FY 90/91 according to MSI. Basically, subsidies required to provide services through this department exceed revenues by a 2-1 margin. A Community Development department must maintain a delicate balance in it providing of service since if its fees are too low, demand for service will outstrip the department's capability of providing it and if the fees are too high, some believe developers will go to other cities to build their projects, cities where fees on the developer are lower. The citizens of Huntington Beach know this and understand it. In a time where 97% of the city has been developed, where the giant Holly Sea Cliff project has a development agreement on it and now a specific plan on it, does it make sense to keep fees the same, does . it make sense to raise them a little yet still require subsidy or should a -.development department pay its own way? Since our city is "built out" and since only one major project (the Bolsa Chica) may come up for approval in the next year or so, I believe the Community Development Department must immediately raise its fees for services to be more in line with other cities. Mike Adams stated on 6/8/92 that some south county cities charge $26,000 for services that Huntington Beach charges $13,000 for which "puts Huntington Beach right in the middle." THAT'S NOT TRUE! IT PUTS HUNTINGTON BEACH AT THE LOW END BECAUSE ADAMS ASSUMES THAT SOME CITIES DON'T CHARGE ANY FEES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES! The author's recommendation to council is that the Phase I of new fee schedule implementation is inadequate and cannot be justified. I would suggest council look at a fee structure that would be 85% of full price in phase I and 100% in Phase II which should be implemented 11/1/92. iI INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR/REPLACEMENT The FY 92/93 budget as proposed does, I feel, an inadequate job of addressing this significant issue in our city. While sources for funds to do these repairs and/or replacements are of a concern to all, I feel the only way we can develop the funds to do so is to implement the MSI study at a faster-than-proposed rate. A discussion was held at the June 8 council meeting wherein Mr. Uberuaga stated that there was a great deal of work involved in changing fees for services in Community Development. That' s true, but an argument could certainly be made that changing all the required fees at one time is more efficient and effective than doing so in multiple steps and the revenue enhancement from making these changes earlier rather than later could be used to provide at least current service levels during FY 92/93 and provide cash for capital repair/replacement projects that are much needed in Huntington Beach. Relatively speaking, another $lmm in fees for services is $lmm in capital projects, preserving our city's assets, creating jobs and providing the highest possible service levels to the citizens and business community. The author's recommendation is to reconsider MSI for implementation twice as fast as currently planned. Current levels of service can be maintained and/or improved, infrastructure repaired or replaced and jobs created. V SALARY/WAGE/BENEFIT The idea of a mandatory or voluntary return of salary and wage increases has been discussed at some length but each time I believe those discussions have missed the point entirely. If salaries, wages and benefits were negotiated as part of a bargaining unit/management practice, then to mandate a return of those wages because of unforeseen economic conditions at the time of those negotiations and agreement would be held invalid, I believe by NLRB and most courts. Additionally, bargaining unit members and leadership would be able to make a case about the city not bargaining in good faith. Senior city managers would be open to criticism about their trustworthiness. I would take exception with city management entering into those negotiations without the benefit of competent economic advice. At the time these negotiations were underway, the recession had begun in other parts of the United States and some would say were already here in southern California as early as 4th calendar quarter 1989. I would agree with that 1989 timing. My business saw a significant downturn in 4th quarter, fully 20% greater than expected. Those senior managers who were part of the negotiating team for the city should be given the economic tools necessary to "see out into the last day of the proposed contract" as clearly as possible. To conclude, a voluntary program to cut wage and salary increases should come from the top. The 7 senior managers slated for the upcoming $100, 000 in wage increases should begin this voluntary program by forgoing these increases with the proviso that once the city is clearly out of its recession, that these will be reinstated retroactively (without interest or penalty) . Should an employee affected by this program leave the city during this time, he/she would become ineligible for this increase as it would be treated as extraordinary compensation. With senior staff starting this, there is a chance that bargaining unit members and middle managers may follow suit on a voluntary basis. It would be, however, catastrophic should a senior manager volunteer to not accept a raise and to pressure a middle or junior manager to follow suit, when the economic influences on that middle or junior manager may be much more severe. The city should adopt the posture that we' ll set the example and hope that everyone follows. Whatever happens then, happens. t C' 7 ± REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION AND PARKING AUTHORITY ACTION Date June 15, 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrator/ Subject: Public Hearing — 1992/93 Budget /] Yes #Consistent with Council Polic ? New Polic or Exce tion 6398v [ [ ] y p �' �99 � � 6 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVE: Conclude the continued budget public hearing and adopt the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 1992/93 as required by the City Charter. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1 . Conduct the continued public hearing on the budget and fee increases for 1992/93, and 2. Acting in your capacity as the Parking Authority, waive the requirement for the City to pay $170,000 to Authority in 1992/93, and 3. Introduce Ordinance <IV) increasing the City' s basic Business License fee from $65 to $75 per year, and 4. Adopt Resolution 430 implementing Phase I of the MSI System by increasing various City fees, and 5. Adopt Resolution 0" approving the City budget for 1992/93 including the "Addendum" to the proposed budget. BUDGET OVERVIEW Consistent with the City Charter, a public hearing is conducted each year to receive public input on the proposed budget. The proposed budget has been available for review since the first week of May. A study session with the City Council was held on May 11 , 1992 and public hearing was held June 1 , 1992. The budget message outlines the basic changes recommended in the Fiscal Year 1992/93 budget which include the following General Fund expenditure reductions and revenue increases: General Fund Amount Expenditure Reductions $ 3,254,491 Revenue Increases 2,341 ,000 Total $ 5,595.491 I REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION AND PARKING AUTHORITY ACTION Public Hearing 1992/93 Budget The above described expenditure reductions and revenue increases are needed in view of the projected $4,184,689 General Fund shortfall that would occur if no expenditure reductions or revenue increases were implemented in 1992/93. The recommended actions would result in a surplus of $1 ,410,802. A surplus is recommended for the following reasons: A. The uncertainty of the impact of the state budget actions on the City' s General Fund, and B. the uncertainty of the positive impact of economic recovery on City General Fund Revenues, and C. the uncertainty of realizing all of the recommended new revenues due to the timing of the approval/implementation process, and D. the need to consider funding priorities such as unfunded capital improvements and deferred infrastructure repair/replacement. In addition, as indicated in the budget message, the staff will be recommending an amendment to the proposed budget to fund capital outlay expenditures of $644,033 in the General Fund Budget as opposed to the practice of the last three years to fund such expenses from one-time revenue in the Capital Improvement Fund Budget. If this amendment and the Addendum (which includes several minor General Fund budget changes) are approved by the City Council , the projected surplus would be reduced to $730,521 . PHASE I - MSI SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION A public hearing was also conducted on for June 1 , 1992 on the proposed Phase I implementation of the Management Services Institute (MSI) Cost Control System. Attachment 3 is separate report and complete review of the Phase I recommended fee increases which total $1 ,800,660 in annual revenue. This amount is the recommended Phase I implementation of the potential new fee revenue that MSI identified which totals $30,571 ,544. Although staff will not be recommending the full implementation (i .e. , $30 million of new revenue) of the MSI System, attached is a summary of the recommended multi-year phased approach identifying those areas that we do anticipate reviewing in 1992/93 and fiscal years thereafter. The staff recommendations for Phase I of the implementation have been reviewed on numerous occasions with community and business groups since last October through formal and informal sessions. Included in the attachments is a listing of the meetings and groups that have received presentations from MSI and City staff on the proposals. In order to move forward with Phase I it is necessary to conclude the a public hearing and then approve the resolution implementing the Phase I increases. AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSED BUDGET The attached list of amendments (Addendum) to the proposed budget includes correction of errors discovered in the document since it was delivered to the City Council , changes necessary to reflect updated information that was not available at the time the budget was prepared, and other changes reflecting new Proposals for consideration by the City Council . V -2- WPADSERT:913 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION AND PARKING AUTHORITY ACTION Public Hearing - 1992/93 Budget Included in the addendum is funding for a Police Department Mobile Task Force. The Police Chief has prepared a summary of this issue that was reviewed by the City Council on May 18, 1992 and June 8, 1992. ANNUAL REVIEW - NEW FEES/TAX REVENUES Following adoption in 1991 of the extension of the City's Utility Tax to cable TV services, the City Council adopted a resolution requiring an annual review of new fees/taxes adopted in 1991/92 to determine whether a continuation of those new fees/taxes are necessary for fiscal years following 1991 /92. As indicated in the budget message, the 5% utility tax on cable TV services is necessary in 1992/93 in order to avoid further expenditure reductions in addition to the recommended $3,254,491 of General Fund reductions. This new utility tax was utilized in 1991/92 to avoid expenditure reductions in the Police and Fire Departments. For 1992/93, if the estimated $900,000 cable TV utility tax revenue were not available, these two safety departments and other city departments would be requested to further reduce their budgets. The estimated $900,000 cable TV utility tax revenue in 1992/93 covers only a portion of the combined $2,266,356 additional revenue needed to continue the Police and Fire Department operation at levels comparable to 1991/92. You will note in the departmental summary of expenditure reductions that the Police and Fire Departments are the only major City departments whose budgets are recommended for less than a 4.5% reduction. The reduction in the Fire Department amounts to 0.9% and the reduction in the Police Department amounts to 1 .1% of the continuation budget levels. In addition, in regards to the need for new fee/tax revenues, it should be noted that even with the recommended expenditure reductions of $3,254,491 it is necessary to find new revenue sources in order to eliminate the $4,184,689 projected budget shortfall that would result if there were no expenditure decreases or revenue increases. Therefore, staff believes it is appropriate to continue not only the utility tax on cable TV services, but also to recommend new fees to reduce the fiscal year 1992/93 estimated budget shortfall . A finding has been included in the 1992/93 budget resolution which documents the necessity for a continuation of the utility tax on cable TV services. ALTERNATIVES: As determined by City Council ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Schedule/Timetable: Budget Adoption 2. List of Presentations of MSI Study 3. Report and Resolution - Implementation of Phase I of the MSI Cost Control System 4. Ordinance - Business License Fee Increase S. Memorandum Waiver of Payment to Parking Authority 6. Budget adoption Resolution including Addendum -3- WPADSERT:913 .� TENTATIVE SCHEDULE/TIMETABLE: 1992/93 BUDGET Public Hearing Date: June 1 , 1992 Public Hearing Topics: City Administrator' s Budget Presentation Refuse Fee Increase Including Adoption of Resolution MSI Fee Increases Capital Outlay Funding - Budget Amendment Addendum - Proposed Changes to Recommended Budget Mobile Task Force - Police Department Annual Review - New Fees/Taxes Budget Study Session Date: June 8, 1992 Agenda Items: Response to City Council 's Questions (4/27, 5/11 & 6/1 ) Addendum - Proposed Changes to Recommended Budget Mobile Task Force - Police Department Budget Adoption Date: June 15, 1992 Agenda Items: Resolution - Adopting Budget including Addendum Ordinance - Business License Tax Increase Parking Authority Lease Payment Waiver Resolution - Adopting MSI Fee Increases WPADSERT:912 r � LIST OF PRESENTATIONS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM GROUP DATE COMMENTS City Council 9/30/91 Joint Study session with Budget Review Task Force 1/27/92 Study Session on Overall Budget Issues 2/27/92 PUBLIC HEARING — Budget Issues 3/16/92 Adoption of Policy Guidelines for '92/93 Budget 4/27/92 Study Session — Infrastructure/MSI Huntington Beach/Fountain 10/08/91 Local Government Committee Valley Board of Realtors 2/20/92 Local Government Committee 5/21/92 Local Government Committee Community Services Commission, 10/09/91 Joint Meeting of Boards/Commissions Allied Arts, Human Resources, Feb./92 Budget Report Sent (Info. Only) Historic Resources and Youth Boards Planning Commission 10/08/91 Regular Meeting Agenda Item Amigos Bolsa Chica and 10/24/91 Joint Meeting — City Council Chambers itington Beach Tomorrow Chamber of Commerce 10/17/91 Government Relations Committee 10/24/91 Board of Directors 2/12/92 Government Relations Committee 5/14/92 Government Relations Committee Budget Review Task Force 9/30/91 Joint Session with City Council Nov./91 Meetings with Individual Departments City Employees Aug./91 Meetings held w/Small Groups of all City Employees Feb./92 Meetings held w/Small Groups of all City Employees WPPERST:197 . � JUN 04 '92 12: 18 LCC.-91E✓444-8671 F. 1 " 411 F League of California Cities CaMomis cnles work Together URGENT URGENT URGENT Sacramento, CA June 4, 1992 TO: City Managers and Clerks in Non-Manager Cities RE: State Budget Deliberations:Local Government Working GrouR motions:City Revenues In Jeonardvl As noted in the last two Legislative Bulletins, the Legislature recently formed a "Local Government Budget Working Group" to explore options to close the State Budget gap that involve local government programs. The members of the Working; Group are: Senators Marian Bergeson and Charles Calderon; and, Assembly Members Sam Farr, Bob Frazee, Phil Isenberg and Richard Mountjoy. This morning, the Working Group made available a 'Briefing Paper and Options" for consideration of the Group in its deliberations. The Group is scheduled to present any recommendations it develops to the joint Senate and Assembly Budget Conference Committee on Tuesday of next week - June 9th, 1992. The members of the Budget Conference Committee are: Senators Alquist, Mart and Hill; Assembly Members Vasconcellos, Hannigan and Wright. There are approximately 76 options listed in the paper. Many constitute the worst possible scenarios for cities. Others resemble the legislative program from the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) for the last twenty years. Some are incomprehensible and need further clarification. Among the most disturbing 'options" are: 1. Reduce or eliminate the city share of VLF revenues and instead shift the revenues to counties and dedicate the funds to further program realignment (up to $900 million). 2. Transfer VLF revenues from cities to counties and shift the same amount of the county share of the property tax to schools (up to $900 million). 3. Reverse AB 8 property tax allocation scheme (i.e., "Bailout") and shift property tax revenues to schools ($2.8 billion). 4. Redistribute revenue from the 1 percent local sales tax rate to cities and counties based on population or need rather than site of sales. ' CONFERENCE REGISTRATION OFFICE HEADQUARTERS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE BOX 7009,LAFAVETTE.CA 94549 1400 K STREET, SACRAMENTO,CA 85814 802 EAST MUNTINGTON DR.,SUITE C l47 At InI-51.1 —_. .. . _-__ MMICIM11A cA OiAiA • JUN 04 '92 le: 1j 5. Take redevelopment agencies unreserved capital projects funds. 6. Take property tax from No- and Low-property tax cities. 7. Place a one-year moratorium on new redevelopment agencies or project areas, 8. Place a one-year moratorium on incorporations. 9. Require cities to share in county jail detention operating costs (this is in addition to 'booking fees"). Not to sound entirely negative, the working paper also includes some proposals for increasing city revenue raising authority and flexibility, but this pales in comparison to the options listed above. Now is the time to discuss with your Senator and Assembly Member and the members of the State Budget Conference Committee the impact of the above proposals on city services. The state budget deficit is very real and will be difficult and painful for all levels of government and its citizens, but many of these proposals do nothing to solve the state budget process. They are merely proposals which further some group's agenda at the expense of others. The myth persists in the Legislature that cities are relatively "well off" financially. It is time to dispel this myth. Contact your Assembly Member and Senator toft . ._ t RESOLUTION NO. C0 3�8 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 5159 ENTITLED, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING A CITY FEE SCHEDULE" WHEREAS, On October 4 , 1982, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5159 establishing a fee schedule for the City; and The City Council desires to reflect new fees and all changes in fees charged to the public for City services, facilities and activities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that Resolution No. 5159 is hereby amended to incorporate the changes set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the fee additions and amendments set out in this Supplemental Fee Resolution No. shall be effective during fiscal year 1992/93 starting on the dates denoted in Exhibit "A" and thereafter; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that except as amended herein, the fees contained in Resolutions No. 5159, 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339 , 5493 and Supplemental Fee Resolutions 1 through inclusive, shall remain in full force and effect . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of June, 1992 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM �= �c v7 0j 8�! - `2 City Clerk City Attorney . REVIEWED AIJD,BPPROVED: TED D� OVED: dli y Administra or Deputy pity Adminis ator Chief, Administrat' a Servi es SLk 5/92308 •01 H �4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator FROM: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrato �. SUBJECT: Public Hearing — Revisions to Comprehensive Fee Sche u e / DATE: MAY 20, 1992 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Fees, permits and fines are reviewed annually to ensure that they are appropriate. There is a need to revise selected fees within the City' s Comprehensive Fee Schedule for FY 1992/93 in order to implement Phase I of the Management Services Institute (MSI) System. ANALYSIS: The fees recommended for implementation/increase are derived from the MSI Cost Control System report completed in August, 1991 . As you know, this study identified potential new revenue of $30,571 ,544 if the MSI System were fully implemented. Several presentations of the MSI System have been made since August of last year to the City Council , the Budget Review Task Force and numerous community groups (see attachment). This public hearing is for the purpose of receiving formal input on the proposed implementation of Phase I fee increases which would result in annual new revenue of $1 ,800,660 from new fees and increases to existing fees. Although the Phase I recommendations are a minor part and small step towards the full implementation of the MSI System, the additional annual revenue of $1 ,800.660 is a significant new source of revenue that is needed in the current budgetary situation to balance the General Fund budget. Hopefully, when public hearings on future implementation phases are held, the new revenue generated from such phases will D-Qt be needed for balancing the budget. Under this more desirable situation, the following alternative uses of new revenues can be considered: Restore Expenditure Reductions Infrastructure Maintenance Reduce Taxes Capital Improvement Projects Increased Services to the Public Although the above potential uses of new revenues are not presented in any particular priority order, it is significant that the listing does not include "balance the General Fund budget" which is the primary use for which the Phase I additional revenues are recommended. The MSI Study documented that the City is spending over $30 million more for fee related services than the amount of `O PUBLIC HEARING - REVISION TO COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE fees or revenues that are being collected. . Although there is probably no City that fully charges users for all of the costs of services, it is not unrealistic to think that a City the size of Huntington Beach could reduce tax subsidies of these services by $10 million or more. Staff believes this amount of potential new revenue could be realized and thereby reduce the general taxpayer subsidy of special services such as hazardous material cleanup, plan check services, false alarm responses, drunk driver arrest procedures, zone change reviews, and many other services provided to specific users of services. To reiterate, the Phase I implementation of the MSI System will provide non-tax revenue to cover existing costs for these services. Without such fee increases, the general taxpayer would continue to subsidize these services and additional expenditure reductions in general tax supported programs would be required in order to balance the 1992/93 fiscal year budget. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND: Since 1982/83, staff has submitted, annually to the City Council , recommendations for revisions to City-wide fees, permits and fines. Each year, as a result of the City Council approving general fee increases, the General Fund has received additional revenue of between $150,000 and $300.000. In addition, from time to time, single issue fees have been approved by the City Council such as the community enrichment library fee and the planning permit processing fee. The incremental effect of these increases means that the City is now receiving (1991/92) approximately $2.3 million more each year than before the annual City-wide review was instituted. This process has helped keep pace with rising City costs for manpower and expenses related to the provision of services for which these fees are charged. The MSI Study has provided a comprehensive documentation of the full costs of these services. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1 . Do not.approve fee increases. 2. Approve only selected fee increases. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Summary charts 2. Summary listing of Phase I (MSI) new and increased fees. 3. Resolution amending the City' s Comprehensive Fee Schedule. 4. Seventeen (17) page listing of detailed fee increases. 0 RJF:skd WPADSERT:911 SUMMARY - MULTI YEAR PROGRAM TO IMPLEMENT MSI COST CONTROL SYSTEM Potential New Revenue (Annual) Phase I - By July 1, 1992 New and Increased Fees" 8 1,800,660 Charges to Enterprise Funds 381,000 S 2,181,660 Phase II - During Fiscal Year 1992/93 632,000 R venues for Future Consideration 1993/94 and Thereafter 27,757,884 i Total Potential Revenue $_30,521,544 *Public Hearing On These Increases: June 1, 1992 MSI/REPORTS w PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION OF MSI SYSTEM BY JULY 1 , 1992 ANNUAL NEW DEPARTMENT REVENUE i Public Works $ 505,000 Library 23,240 Fire 351,000 Community Services 52,000 Police 330,000 City Clerk 5,850 Community Development 533,570 Sub-Total $ 1.800.660 Public Hearing: June 1 , 1992 , �3 PHASE IMPLEMENTATION OF MSI SYSTEM BY JULY 1 , 1992 NEW GENERAL FUND CHARGES ANNUAL NEW TO ENTERPRISE FUNDS REVENUE Golf Course Fund $ 25,000 CATV Fund 85,000 Fire Med Fund 21,000 Refuse Collection Fund (�0.50/month rate increase) 250.000 Sub-Total S 381,000 i Phase I Total S 2,181.660 No Public Hearing required on these items except refuse collecction fee portion which is covered separately PHASE I SUMMARY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM Department Recommended New and Increased Fees Current Present Full Cost Rcmnded Annual MSI . Page Fee Subsidy Fee Fee New No. No. Department/Fee Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Revenue PUBLIC WORKS: S-055 15 Public Improvement Inspection 218.27 208.67 426.94 425 135,000 S-110 8 HazMat Clean-Up 434.79 1 .791 .17 2,225.96 2,225 25,000 S-173 15 Water Connection Inspection 0 153.42 153.42 150 76,700 S-054 14 Public Improvement Plan Check 250.00 860.99 1 ,110.99 1 ,110 74,900 S-051 14 Grading Plan Check Inspection 365.69 541 .26 906.95 900 52,300 S-043 16 Landscape Inspection 0 449.76 449.76 450 42,300 S-169 16 H/A Vacuum Damage Repair 240.00 686.34 926.34 925 34,700 S-172 16 Meter Rental Processing 25.00 118.22 143.22 140 20,100 S- 25 Sign & Striping Service 665.00 290.35 955.35 950 11 ,600 S,_ 16 Wide/Overweight Load Review 22.33 30.37 52.70 52 9,000 S-053 17 Final Tract Map C/T 456.00 272.12 728.12 725 6,800 S-058 16 Street Construction Review 1336.07 18.16 354.23 354 5,500 S-042 15 Landscape Plan Check 0 58.65 58.65 60 5,500 S-159 12 Showmobile Rental 257.14 558.43 815.57 800 2,000 S-041 15 Prelim. Landscape Plan Check 0 40.24 40.24 40 1 ,700 S-168 17 Hydrant Flow Test Witness 0 109.08 109.08 110 1 ,300 S-077 17 Obstruction Permit 30.00 21 .75 51 .75 50 400 S-160 17 Banner Hanging Service 74.99 31 .01 106.00 105 200 Total Public Works $ 505,000 i , l7 i f SUMMARY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM Department Recommended New and Increased Fees PHASE I Current Present Full Cost Rcmnded Annual MSI. Page Fee Subsidy Fee Fee New No. No. Department/Fee Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Revenue LIBRARY: S-152 13 Late Materials .10 * 1 .75 .15 10,000 Children .25 * 1 .75 .50 100 Encyclopedia Maximum Fines 4.00 * 1 .75 5.00 1 ,000 Adult 2.00 * 1 .75 3.00 300 Children 7.50 * 1 .75 10.00 500 Encyclopedia 1 .00 * 1 .75 2.00 Replacement Cards Children S-153 13 Reserve Book 1 .00 12.92 14.95 1 .00 2,145 S-155 13 Typewriter Rental 1 .00 * * 1 .50 1 ,500 S-156 13 Compact Disks 1 .00 2.43 3.78 1 .25 3,000 48 Hours 1 .75 2.43 3.78 2.00 1 ,500 7 Days Computer Usage PC Leading Edge/Apple/IBM 3.00 * * 4.00 1 ,000 MacIntosh/386/2CX 4.00 * * 5.00 11000 Slide Projector 4.00 * * 6.00 50 Overhead Projector 5.00 * * 10.00 100 Opaque Projector 6.00 * * 15.00 100 Screens 2.00 * * 5.00 50 PA System 0 0 0 10.00 120 Dissolve Unit 10.00 * * 15.00 2 Total Library * See Text of MSI Study -2- IPADSERT:869 SUMMARY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM Department Recommended New and Increased Fees PHASE I Current Present Full Cost Rcmnded Annual MSI. Page Fee Subsidy Fee Fee New No. No. Department/Fee Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Revenue FIRE S-108 8 Fire False Alarm Response 100.00 439.42 539.42 * 35,000 S-109 9 Hazardous Materials Rev/Insp 219.91 192.85 412.76 * 85,000 S-111 9 Fire Incident Report Copies 9.00 4.38 13.38 13 400 S-115 10 Risk Management Program 0 1 ,045.55 1 ,045.55 1 ,000 21 ,000 S-119 10 Fire Alarm & Sprinkler Rev. --- * 116,000 S-"'q 10 Underground Tank/Install/ Removal Inspection 164.31 164.31 100 10,800 S-148 10 Oil Well Inspection 49.97 159.64 209.61 * 50,000 S-129 10 Oil Well Vent Inspection 25.00 495.36 495.36 375 26,000 S-131 10 Abandoned Oil Well Inspection 30.00 1 ,065.76 1 ,090.76 100 3,800 S-132 11 Wastewater Permit Fees 0 67.95 97.95 65 3.000 Total Fire $ 351 ,000 COMMUNITY SERVICES S-137 12 Contract Recreation Fees 30.59 27.77 58.36 * 20,000 S-133 12 Adult Sports 256.88 62.48 319.36 10% incr. 30,000 S-149 12 Senior Center Rentals 21 .33 44.03 65.36 10% incr. 2.000 Total Community Services $ 52.000 *See referenced page number for details of staff recommended fee changes. • -3- WPADSERT:869 SUMMARY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM Department Recommended New and Increased Fees PHASE I Current Present Full Cost Rcmnded MSI. Page Fee Subsidy Fee Fee Annual No. No. Department/Fee Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit New Rev. POLICE S-082 11 Special Business Regulation 18.56 99.83 118.39 * 20,000 S-083 11 Temp Alcohol Beverage Permit 0 60.18 60.18 60 22,500 S-091 11 Noise Disturbance Response 120.00 208.20 328.20 330 11000 S-093 1 Clearance Letter 10.00 16.28 26.28 26 2,000 S-095 1 Video Tape Reproduction 0 43.96 43.96 * 8,000 5-096 2 Crime Statistic Report 0 71 .18 71 .18 70 7,000 S-097 Subpoenas - PD Personnel 150.00 349.57 499.57 150 0 5-099 1 Vehicle Inspection Fees 0 7.22 7.22 10 11 ,00 S-100 1 Crime Scene Photos 10.00 .54 10.54 10.54 50t, S-102 1 DUI Accident Response/Invstgtn 130.56 301 .38 431 .94 * 43,500 S-103 1 DUI Arrest Procedure 75.01 205.00 280.01 280 214,500 Total Police $ 330.000 CITY CLERK S-210 2 Council Video Tape Sales 25.00 9.80 34.80 35 350 S-208 2 Address Map Book Fee 35.00 55.64 90.64 90 1 ,400 S-206 2 City Code Mailing 28.33 58.36 86.69 * 3,000 S-205 2 Agenda/Minute Mailing 8.59 65.79 74.38 * 1 .100 Total City Clerk 5.850 'See referenced page number for details of staff recommended fee changes -4- IPADSERT:869 SUMMARY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM Department Recommended New and Increased Fees PHASE I MSI. Page Current Present Full Cost Rcmnded No. No. Department/Fee Fee Subsidy Fee Fee Annual Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit New Rev. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT S-001 4 Prelim. Plan Review (SFR) 40.00 476.00 516.00 500 1 ,000 S-001 4 Prelim. Plan Review (MFR 10-) 100.00 403.80 503.80 500 2,000 S-003 5 Prelim. Plan Review (MFR 100 150.00 1016.83 1 ,166.83 750 3,600 S-0045 5 Prelim. Plan Review (Non-Res) 200.00 805.50 1 ,005.50 750 4,400 S-005 5 Tentative Parcel Map Review 300.00 480.53 780.53 500 7,200 S-007 5 Tentative Tract Map Review 680.00 1437.00 2.117.00 1 ,200 6,760 S-110 5 Site Plan Amendmt by 300.00 102.00 402.00 350 50 Planning Commission S-012 5 Development Agreement Review 200.00 16,592.25 16,792.25 10,000 39,200 S-016 5 Conditional Use Review 750.00 2,419.68 3,169.88 1 ,200 7,650 S-017 5 Special Permit Review 140.00 222.80 362.80 150 200 S-020 5 Cndtnl Exception Review (ZA) 103.00 239.80 342.67 250 8,;967 S-^'l 6 Categorical Exclusion Letter 10.00 63.17 73.17 25 90 S 6 Temporary Use Review 0.00 219.58 219.58 125 1 ,500 S-vc3 6 Temp. Outdoor Event Permit 75.00 200.96 275.96 125 1,,:400 S-026 6 General Plan Amendmt Rvw/Rvsn 1 ,000.00 9,501 .73 10.501 .73 5,000 44,1000 S-027 6 General Plan Conformance Rprt 100.00 525.24 625.24 250 2,550 S-028 6 Zoning Code Amendmt Review 650.00 4,592.00 5,242.00 2,500 5,;550 S-029 6 Zoning Letter 10.00 124.68 134.68 25 4,620 S-030 6 Zone Change Review 800.00 4.837.86 5,637.86 2,500 239800 S-031 6 Envirommntl Assessment Study 400.00 862.84 1 ,162.84 500 69300 (Neg Dec) S-032 7 Environmental Impact Rprt Rvw 1 ,500.00 6,425.67 7.925.67 2,500 61000 S-033 7 E.I.R. Preparation 2,000.00 1 ,852.00 3,852.00 2,500 500 S-031 7 Planned Sign Review 100.00 781 .53 781 .53 250 4.500 S-039 7 Processing of Appeal to PC 200.00 677.80 877.80 300 500 S-040 7 Processing of Appeal to 125.00 1 ,469.75 1 .594.75 500 3,060 City Council S-041 7 Prelim. Landscape Plan Check 0.00 40.24 40.24 25 1 ,025 S-042 7 Landscape Plan Check 0.00 58.65 58.65 125 11 ,750 S-044 2 Final Occupancy Rvw/Inspctn 40.00 109.97 149.97 125 82,875 S-045 7 Mobile Home Park Cnvrsn Rvw 1 ,200.00 3,947.00 4,947.00 5,000 4,500 S-046 7 Entitlement Extension Review 100.00 160.96 260.96 125 575 S-048 8 Address Change Review 112.00 44.67 166.67 125 78 S-049 8 New Address Assign. Processing 0.00 151 .00 151 .00 125 8,750 S-050 8 Design Review Board Hearing 100.00 209.33 309.33 250 6,000 S-053 8 Final Tract Map Check 456.00 272.12 728.12 500 6,800 -5- Wf�AQSEk f SUMMARY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM Department Recommended New and Increased Fees PHASE I MSI. Page Current Present Full Cost Rcmnded No. No. Department/Fee Fee Subsidy Fee Fee Annual Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit New Rev. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (CONT) S-057 8 Compliance Review & Letter 3.29 135.84 139.13 50 3,290 S-060 2 Precise Plan St. Alignment 650.00 2,214.00 2,864.00 2,864 4,400 S-061 N/A Building Plan Check 743.46 655.58 1 ,399.04 909 375,600 S-062 3 Plumbing Plan Check 75.86 133.64 209.50 84 19,400 S-063 3 Electrical Plan Check 53.57 150.83 304.40 122 84,300 S-064 3 Mechanical Plan Check 24.82 160.18 185.00 74 45,200 S-067 3 Plumbing Inspection 44.15 33.53 77.68 55 67,600 S-068 3 Electrical Inspection 66.20 63.45 129.65 83 162,9' S-069 4 Mechanical Inspection 32.59 117.33 84.74 41 97,6u_ S-070 3 Building Permit Extension 35.00 48.37 83.37 85 1 ,500 S-071 3 Building Re-Inspection 40.00 33.89 73.89 75 3,400 S-073 4 Bldg Demoltn Rvw & Inspctn 30.00 30.08 60.08 50 1 ,060 S-075 4 Swimming Pool Plan 193.44 152.33 345.77 245 6,344 Ck/Inspctn Total Community Development $ 533,570 TOTAL PHASE I RECOMMENDED REVENUES $ 1 .8e IPADSERT:869 /") ._ V -6- PADSERT:869 M.S.I. FEE INCREASES — PHASE (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) SECTION 2 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee ,iesolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: SECTION 2. Fees to recover the costs of providing copies of public records which fees do not exceed the cost of providing the service or making the copy. POLICE DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Clearance Letter FEE CHARGED: Per Letter $26 FEE TITLE: Video/Audio Tape Reproduction FEE CHARGED: Video Tape $170 Audio Tape $ 20 FEE TITLE: Crime Statistic Report SEE CHARGED: Per Report $70 FEE TITLE: Vehicle Inspection Fees FEE CHARGED: Per Inspection $10 FEE TITLE: Crime Scene Photos FEE CHARGED: Photo contact prints of collisions - $ 6.50 8" x 10" black & white photo enlargements - $10. 50 8" x loll color enlargements - $16. 00 4" X 5" photo contacts or enlargements - $ 4 .25 FEE TITLE: DUI Accident Response & Investigation FEE CHARGED: Investigation fees $280 Plus $22 per hour 'EE TITLE: DUI Arrest Procedure F'9E CHARGED: Investigation/Booking Fee $280 Plus $22 per hour �1 -1- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 611192) OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Council Video Tape sales FEE CHARGED: $35 per CounciL meeting videotape FEE TITLE: Address Map Book Fee FEE CHARGED: $90 FEE TITLE: City Code Mailing FEE CHARGED: 1 Yr. Subscription Muni Code - $70 1 Yr. Subscription Ord. Code - $70 1 Yr. Subscriptint Zoning Maps - $30 FEE TITLE: City Council Agenda/Minute Mailing FEE CHARGED: $45/yr - Agendas $45/yr - Minutes SECTION 6 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: SECTION 6. Fees to be charged for building and construction services furnished by the city under Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapters 17.02, 17.28 and 17.48. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVE AUGUST 25, 1992 FEE TITLE: Planning Commission Agenda/Minute Mailing FEE CHARGED: $45/yr - Agendas $45/yr - Minutes FEE TITLE: Final Occupancy Review and Inspection FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: Precise Plan Street Alignmant - FEE CHARGED: $2 , 864 n A -2- 1 / M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A 6/1/92 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Con t. FEE TITLE: Plumbing Plan Check FEE CHARGED: 40% of inspection fee FEE TITLE: Electrical Plan Check FEE CHARGED: 40% of inspection fee FEE TITLE: Mechanical Plan Check FEE CHARGED: 40% of inspection fee FEE TITLE: Plumbing Inspection FEE CHARGED: Increase existing fees by 25% Examples include: Issuing each Permit - $20. 00 Each plumbing fixture of trap or set of fixtures on 1 trap - $ 7. 50 Building and Trailer Park Sewer - $18.75 Rainwater Systems - $ 7. 50 Each Cesspool - $28.00 FEE TITLE: Electrical Inspection FEE CHARGED: Increase existing fees by 25% Examples include: Permit - $20 Service Meter - $25 Min. Sub-panel - $14 Self-contained, approved unit - $ 4 each Signs, each - $50 Temporary service - $19 FEE TITLE: Building Permit Extension FEE CHARGED: $85 EE TITLE: Building Re-inspection FEE CHARGED: $75 -3- ' M.S.I. FEE INCREASES PHASE 1 (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Con ' t. FEE TITLE: Mechanical Inspection FEE CHARGED: Increase existing fees by 25% Examples include: Permit - $18 .75 Air-handling unit over 10, 000 cfm - $13 .75 Installation/relocation floor furnace - $11. 25 Installation/relocation suspended heater - $11. 25 Installation/relocation appliance vent - $ 5.75 Installation/relocation of each commercial or industrial type incinerator - $56. 25 FEE TITLE: Building Relocation Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: $500 FEE TITLE: Building Demolition Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: Inspection - $25 Processing - $25 FEE TITLE: Swimming Pool Plan Check & Inspection FEE CHARGED: Permit issuance - $20 Building Inspection Permit - See appropriate revised fees Plan Check Fee - See appropriate revised fees Electrical Items - $60 Plumbing Items - $50 Section 7 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 7. Fees for processing various planning and zoning matters: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Con ' t. ) EFFECTIVE AUGUST 25, 1992 FEE TITLE: Preliminary Plan Review (SFR) FEE CHARGED: $500 FEE TITLE: Preliminary Plan Review (MFR <10) FEE CHARGED: $500 7 -4- - M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Con t. FEE TITLE: Preliminary Plan Review (MFR >10) FEE CHARGED: $750 FEE TITLE: Preliminary Plan Review (Non-Res) FEE CHARGED: $750 FEE TITLE: Tentative Parcel Map Review FEE CHARGED: $500 FEE TITLE: Tentative Tract Map Review FEE CHARGED: $1, 200 FEE TITLE: Site Plan Amendment/Planning Commission FEE CHARGED: $350 FEE TITLE: Development Agreement Review FEE CHARGED: $10, 000 FEE TITLE: Conditional Use Permit FEE CHARGED: $1, 200 FEE TITLE: Special Permit Review FEE CHARGED: $150 EE TITLE: Conditional Exception Review (ZA) FEE CHARGED: $250 -5- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES PHASE 1 (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Con t. FEE TITLE: Categorical Exclusion Letter FEE CHARGED: $25 FEE TITLE: Temporary Use Review FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: Temporary Outdoor Event Permit FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: General Plan Amendment Review & Revision FEE CHARGED: $5, 000 FEE TITLE: General Plan Conformance Report FEE CHARGED: $250 FEE TITLE: Zoning Code Amendment Review FEE CHARGED: $2, 500 FEE TITLE: Zoning Letter FEE CHARGED• $25 FEE TITLE: Zone Change Review FEE CHARGED: $2, 500 FEE TITLE: Environmental Assessment Study (Negative Declaration) FEE CHARGED: $500 M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I Exhib t A 6/1/92 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Cont. FEE TITLE: Environmental Impact Report Review FEE CHARGED: $2 , 500 FEE TITLE: E. I. R. Preparation FEE CHARGED: $2 , 500 FEE TITLE: Planned Sign Review FEE CHARGED: $250 i i i FEE TITLE: Processing of Appeal to Planning Commission FEE CHARGED: $300 FEE TITLE: Processing of Appeal to City Council FEE CHARGED: $500 FEE TITLE: Preliminary Landscape Plan Check FEE CHARGED: $25 FEE TITLE: Landscape Plan Check FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: Mobile Home Park Conversion Review FEE CHARGED: $5, 000 SE TITLE: Entitlement Extension Review FEE CHARGED• $125 -7- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES — PHASE 1 (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Con ' t. FEE TITLE: Address Change Review FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: New Address Assignment Processing FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: Design Review Board Hearing FEE CHARGED: $250 FEE TITLE: Final Tract Map Check FEE CHARGED: $500 FEE TITLE: Compliance Review & Letter FEE CHARGED: $50 Section 9 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 9. Fees for permits required under Huntington Beach .Municipal Code section 15.12.090 based on projected costs of administering and enforcing the oil code and all provisions relating to oil operations in the city, and other Fire Department related fees: FIRE DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 11 1992 FEE TITLE: Hazardous Materials Clean-Up FEE CHARGED: MSI "fully-burdened" rate FEE TITLE: Fire False Alarm Response FEE CHARGED: In any 12-month period: Third False Alarm $50 Fourth False Alarm $100 Fifth False Alarm $250 Each Addl Alarm $500 -8- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1992-1993 CITY COUNCIL Jim Silva,Mayor Grace Winchel:,Mayor Pro Tern Submitted By: COUNCILMEMBERS Michael T. Uberuaga Don MacAllister Jack Kelly City Administrator Peter Green Earle Robitaille Linda Moulton-Patterson CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BUDGET MESSAGE 1992/93 Fiscal Year Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: INTRODUCTION (Note: since the adoption of this budget, which is described in the following budget message, the State of California has taken over $3 million of the City's revenue to balance the state budget. An "addendum" to the budget message is included on page 11 describing the impact on the City's 1992/93 approved budget.) This document represents the City budget for the 1992/93 fiscal year. Total appropriations for all funds for fiscal year 1992/93 are $204,425,807 which includes interfund transfers of $27,339,911. General Fund appropriations are $97,771,379 or 3.5% greater than the prior year approved General Fund Budget. Summary statements that describe the budget are as follows: 1. The budget is a comprehensive financial plan for all services and programs provided by the City of Huntington Beach. 2. The City is slowly recovering from the recession. Demand for current services is "expanding". This budget will represent a reduction in the quantity and quality of service provided to the community because of the expense reductions occurring while demands and requirements for city service are growing. 3. If no action had been taken to reduce staffing or approve new/increased revenue sources, an estimated budget shortfall of$4,184,689 would have occurred in the General Fund in 1992/93. 4. Approved expenditure reductions total $3,061,544 or 73% of the estimated General Fund shortfall. 5. A net reduction of 27.20 full time and eighty (80) part time positions is included in the General Fund budget. A more detailed description of the impact of the budget reductions is included in department summaries in this budget. 19.75 vacant permanent positions are eliminated. 10.45 positions are funded by new funding sources (gas tax, developer funds, Measure M) and 3 are transferred to other vacant positions. Three new positions (Paramedics) are included in the Fire Department, funded by the Holly/Seacliff developer in accordance with the Development Agreement for that project. No layoffs are included, but it must be emphasized that the reductions are permanent reductions in General Fund staffing. 6. Approved new General Fund Revenues total $2,341,000. 7. The estimated General Fund reserve (Fund Balance) at the end of fiscal year 1992/93 is $4,037,821, or 4.1%. An additional $6,765,000 retirement system (PERS) refund/credit is being held in reserve pending the outcome of litigation against the State of California. 8. An estimated budget surplus for 1992/93 will occur as indicated in the following summary: Continuation Recommended Bud„,et Budget Difference General Fund Revenue $96,054,200 $98,395,200 +2,341,000 Salary and Operating Expenses 100,238,890 97,177,346 -3,061,544 Capital Outlay Expense 0 594,033 Total General Fund Expenses 100,238,890 97,771,379 (Shortfall)/Surplus ($4,184,690) $623,821 9. Without the $2,341,000 of new revenues, the General Fund budget would have a shortfall of$1,717,179. 10. A Capital Outlay budget of $594,033 is included in the General Fund. For the last three years these expenses have been budgeted in the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) fund and funded by one-time revenues. It is preferable to treat these expenses as ongoing expenses funded by ongoing revenues. 11. The General Fund budget surplus is needed due to (a) the uncertainty of the positive impact of economic recovery on city General Fund revenues, (b) the uncertainty of realizing all of the recommended new revenues due to the timing of the approval/implementation process, and (c) the need to consider funding for priorities such as unfunded capital improvements and deferred infrastructure repair/replacement. 12. Following is a listing by General Fund department reductions included in this proposed budget: Continuation Recommended Increase/ Department Budget 1992/93 Budget 1992/93 Decrease % Chanee City Council $262,331 $262,163 $-168 -0.1% Non Departmental 11,256,384 10,851,775 -404,609 -3.6 Administration 1,306,623 1,012,235 -294,388 -22.5 City Treasurer 816,752 773,689 -43,063 -5.3 City Attorney 1,633,314 1,409,639 -223,675 -13.7 City Clerk 420,092 483,884 63,792 15.2 Administrative Services 4,500,883 4,299,501 -201,382 -4.5 Community Development 4,023,430 3,818,780 -204,650 -5.1 Fire Department 15,900,856 15,807,643 -93,213 -0.6 Police Department 32,244,331 31,992,129 -252,202 -0.8 Community Services 7,233,696 6,856,005 -377,691 -5.2 Library 3,422,321 3,221,947 -200,374 -5.9 Public Works 17,217,877 16,387,956 -829,921 -4.8 Sub Total 100,238,890 97,771,346 -3,061,544 -3.1% Capital Outlay 0 594,033 594,033 Total $100,238,890 $97,771,379 $-2,467,511 -2.5% 2 13. The $3,061,544 of proposed General Fund expenditure reductions is significant not only in terms of the number of positions reduced and services impacted, but also because these reductions are being made after significant expense reductions were implemented last year. 14. Following is a listing of the new revenues included in the 1992/93 General Fund estimates: Proposed New Revenue Business License Fee Increase $160,000 This represents a $10 per year increase in the basic fee for businesses New and Increased User Fees 1,800,000 Phase I of implementation of MSI system Charges to Enterprise Funds 381,000 Refuse collection, Fire Med, Golf Course, CATV funds payment of General Fund costs. TOTAL NEW REVENUES 2 341 000 15. The City's revenue estimates for 1992/93 are based on an assumption that there will continue to be a slow recovery from the national economic recession which has negatively affected revenues for 2 years. We believe the budget places the City in a sound financial position for any of the following three economic recession scenarios: (a) continuation of recession, (b) slow recovery from the recession, or (c) faster than expected recovery from the recession. Under (a) or (b) the City's reserve in excess of 5% provides protection from lower than estimated revenues. The continuation of the hiring freeze to December ensures careful monitoring of expenditures. Under (c), we are well positioned to move quickly to restore expenditure reductions, fund new priorities or reduce taxes. Under any of the three scenarios, the potential availability of the $6,765,000 litigated PERS refund/credit provides the City with additional financial security and options if the $6,765,000 becomes available for use by the City. 16. Much credit should be given to the Citizen's Budget Review Task Force for the role they have played in bringing renewed emphasis throughout the organization to cost control and budget restraint. In addition, many of their specific recommendations are included in the proposed budget for 1992/93. 17. Last year a new revenue source was approved by applying our 5% utility tax to Cable-TV services. This increased General Fund revenues an estimated $800,000 in 1991/92 and will generate an estimated $900,000 in 1992/93. This new revenue was adopted in response to the City Council directive in March of 1991 to exempt Police and Fire budgets from expenditure reductions in 1991/92 by developing new revenue sources. The new revenue permitted police and fire departments to be exempt from reductions in operating and temporary/overtime expenditures amounting to about $500,000 and provided additional funds ($300,000) for new services such as a downtown footbeat patrol in the Police Department and other service requirements in the Fire Department. 18. For 1992/93 the 5% Utility Tax on Cable TV services is again used to avoid further expendinnre reductions. The budget for the Police and Fire departments is $1,431,972 (Police) and $365,318 (Fire) greater than last year's adopted budget for these departments even though each department has reduced controllable expenses wherever possible. If the estimated $900,000 Cable TV Utility Tax revenue were not available in 1992/93, these departments and other City departments would be requested to further reduce their budgets. The estimated $900,000 Cable TV Utility Tax revenue in 1992/93 covers only a portion of the combined $1,797,290 additional revenue needed to continue the Police and Fire department operations at levels comparable to 1991/92. 3 19. While the recovery from the recession may restore some of the revenues which are causing the shortfall, the City still has an urgent need for additional staffing, funding for capital improvements and infrastructure repair/maintenance. I would estimate that an additional $5-7 million per year in General Fund revenue is needed to fund the desired level of services in our City. If additional, new revenues are not adopted, we will continue to experience (a) difficult budget balancing problems (b) the incremental reduction in the quantity and quality of existing City services provided to the community, and (c) the continued delay in adding services to meet the expanding community needs. 20. The estimated current year General Fund reserve (1991/92) is $3,414,000. The fund balance on June 30, 1993 is estimated to be $4,037,821 or 4.1% of the 1992/93 General Fund budget. The City's adopted fiscal polices require a 3% - 5% reserve. 21. A 6% increase in salaries and benefits for all full-time employees has been included in the budget. The increase is the amount agreed to in the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with all employee groups. MOU's will not expire until fiscal year 1993/94. 22. General Fund salary and benefit costs will increase an estimated $3,185,959 in fiscal year 1992/93. This total includes salary and benefit increases, full funding for vacation and retirement payments, and full funding for all budgeted positions even though salary savings will occur due to the continuation of the hiring freeze and normal vacancies. This savings offers us additional protection against revenues being lower in fiscal year 1992/93 than currently estimated. 23. For 1992/93, total ongoing General Fund revenues will increase an estimated $7,627,615 or 8.4% including the recommended new revenues which represents 2.6% of the increase. The fiscal year 1992/93 revenue estimates are as realistic as possible, based on an assumption of slow economic recovery, with a deliberate attempt to be neither conservative nor aggressive. 24. The City's sales tax revenue is not projected to return to pre-recession levels for several years. After recovery from the recession, we expect sales tax to increase at the 2 - 3% annual growth rate unless new directions are pursued by the City to attract sales tax "producers" in our industrial and retail areas. In the retail sector, significant revenue growth potential may not exist because of many factors including: 1) existing regional shopping facilities in Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and Westminster, 2) the lack of available land in freeway accessible locations for new retail facilities, 3) the loss of lumber businesses, and 4) projected stable or declining auto sales on Beach Boulevard. 25. Included in the General Fund revenues are allocations from the Water Fund ($1,100,000), and Redevelopment Fund ($1,217,000), to reimburse the General Fund for services provided to the Water Fund and Redevelopment Agency by General Fund departments. In addition, transfers from the Gas Tax Fund, Golf Course Fund, Fire Med Fund, Refuse Collection Service Fund and Cable-TV Fund are to fund a portion of the General Fund costs of these services, respectively. All of these allocations have been increased significantly from prior year levels, and are based on the documented costs of the Management Services Institute (MSI) study. 26. We have not proposed the use of any one-time revenues to balance the budget or support ongoing expenses in the General Fund. 27. Monthly refuse rates increased from $10.89 to $12.00 per month per residence effective July 1, 1992. Currently, costs for billing overhead/supervision etc. in the General Fund total $923,816 or $1.75 per month per residence. A three to four year phase-in program to fully cover these costs is proposed, with a 50 cents per month increase included in the 1992/93 rate, resulting in an estimated $250,000 reduction in 4 this General Fund subsidy. 28. The equipment replacement budget is $1,670,935. This total is greater than the 1991/92 equipment replacement budget and about equal to budgeted amounts of two years ago. 29. The City will receive the balance of the litigated refund/credit from the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) in 1992/93. This amounts to an estimated one-time revenue of$3,265,000 in 1992/93 in addition to the $3,500,000 estimated to be received in the current year (1991/92). These amounts are not included in the General Fund revenue estimates since City policy has been adopted to place these funds in a reserve account. 30. Federal/State/County budget deficits preclude any realistic hope of financial assistance from these governmental agencies. Transferring of Federal/State/County costs to cities, new fees from the County, or cancellation of revenue traditionally provided to cities is the trend cities have experienced recently and can expect to continue in the future. The 1992/93 budget includes an estimated $2 million of such transfers that were imposed by these levels of government in the past two years in order to assist in balancing their budgets. OVERVIEW The following charts show a comparison of the budgets for 1990/91, 1991/92, and the 1992/93 budget. Although the General Fund budget necessarily receives most of the attention during budget review, it is obvious from reviewing the summaries that there are significant City expenditures other than those in the General Fund. Some of these other funds, such as the Water and Refuse funds, are enterprise operations that are operated on a "business-within-a-business"basis whereby expenditures are limited to the amount of revenue produced. Use of other types of funds are restricted to capital purposes, such as the Sewer Fund, Drainage Fund and Debt Service Funds. More detail about most of these categories will be provided in subsequent sections of this budget message. Actual Budgeted Adopted % Change Description 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 91/92 to 92/93 General Fund $93,788,922 $94,483,785 $97,771,379 3.48% Water Fund 13,524,992 17,383,333 21,992,328 26.51 Refuse Collection Svc. Fund 0 5,645,648 6,185,929 9.57 Other Enterprise Funds 2,195,015 3,132,423 3,450,266 10.15 Transp./Street Projects 7,438,286 12,003,326 11,597.269 (3.38) Redevelopment Funds 6,035,599 14,868,766 21,435,665 44.17 Debt Service Funds 7,453,603 8,441,234 8,188,500 (3.99) Internal Service Funds 12,944,604 13,010,991 13,603,167 4.55 Other Capital Projects Funds 4,211,154 22,869,217 13,892,024 (39.25) Other Funds 2,985,558 4,718,068 6,309,281 33.73 Total City Expenditures $150,577,733 $196,556,791 $204,425,807 * 4.00% Less Interfund Transfers -27,399,911 Net City Expenditures $177,025,896 * Includes Interfund Transfers 5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1992/93 Recommended Project Category Appropriation Funding Sources Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund $3,966,850 Carryover Funding, CIP Fund Balance, Center Foundation and Loan from Energy Commission. Park Acquisition Development Projects 660,826 Park Acquisition and Development fees, and grants. Transportation Projects 11,597,269 Gas Tax, Federal Aid Urban, Orange County Transportation Commission, Measure M, and Traffic Impact fees Sewer Projects 1,130,136 Development Fees Drainage Projects 1,914,925 Development Fees Water Utility Projects 4,640,000 Water Fund Housing and Community Projects 5,504,000 Federal Government. Redevelopment Tax Increment Redevelopment Projects 10,812350 Bond Proceeds, Land Sales, Developer Advances Total $40,226,356 As indicated above the major capital improvement projects in the City are funded by Redevelopment, Transportation Funds, Sewer Fund, Drainage Fund, Housing and the Capital Improvement Projects Fund. In addition, General Fund revenues are used to repay debt issues that provided Capital Improvement funding for the Library, City Hall and the downtown parking structures. The total General Fund revenues allocated for these capital improvement purposes was $2,100,000 in 1988/89, $2,600,000 in 1989/90, $2,600,000 in 1990/91, $1,700,000 (net) in 1991/92, and $1,700,000 (net) in 1992/93. These expenditures are reduced in 1991/92 and 1992/93 due to the transfer of$900,000 in these years from the Parking Structure fund. This transfer is to fund the debt service on unused Certificates of Participation (C.O.P.'s) from the interest earnings on the unused C.0.P.,s. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND In the current year adopted budget (fiscal year 1991/92), no General Fund transfer was made to the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund for new Capital Improvement Projects. The capital improvements recommended in the CIP Fund for 1992/93 are carry over projects from 1991/92, $664,033 for capital outlay expenditures in General Fund departments and other high priority projects described below. The total CIP fund budget is $3,966,850 and includes $487,000 for Public Works infrastructure repair/maintenance projects, $700,000 for the Cultural Arts Center improvement project, the 4th payment on a Police/Public Works 800 Mhz radio system ($421,000), and 3 computer automation projects: (1) optical disk systems ($200,000), (2) pilot study for a geographic information system (GIS) and (3) networking of city computers ($400,000). 6 These automation projects, (Optical disk, GIS and networking of City computers) are critical projects for the upgrade to current computer technology systems. Implementation will further improve our efficiency and will eliminate manual systems and duplication of efforts. These projects will move the City towards a greater ability to quickly capture, store and use information within the organization. This should result in better decision making and improved service to the public. As citizens and employees become more familiar with advanced computer technology in their day-to-day dealings with business, schools and at home, expectations are that the City will use these new technologies to serve the community. The City has kept pace with these needs and expectations in some areas such as our new phone system and the Computer Aided Dispatch system for Police and Fire operations. In other areas such as a (GIS) data base with all geographic information, projects are ready to begin implementation, as are optical disk systems and networking of existing and new city computers. The CIP fund budget of $3,966,850 is funded from the prior year funding for the carry over projects, a $1,117,000 loan from the California Energy Commission, donations from the Arts Foundation, fund balance, and interest earnings on those funds. The Cultural Arts Center Project to improve the City-owned building on Main Street is scheduled to begin construction in August or September of this year. The Arts Foundation has raised about $500,000 of the $700,000 estimated cost for this project. This budget does not include funding for operation of the Arts Center which is scheduled to open in July of 1993. A separate presentation will be made to the City Council on alternative approaches to funding the operational costs for the Center. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The chart below describes the proposed 1992/93 Redevelopment revenues and expenses: 6/30/92 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE $11,122,423 1992/93 Estimated Revenues Tax Increment Revenue $5,716,000 Transient Occupancy Tax 500,000 Estimated Interest Income 842,000 Rental Income 50,000 Land Sale Proceeds 6,920,000 Developer Advances 500,000 Loan Payments 200,000 Total Estimated Revenue $14,728,000 1992/93 Recommended Expenses Debt Repayments 4,221,500 Capital Projects 3,916,120 Developer Projects 6,920,000 Housing Set Aside 4,561,907 Salaries and Benefit 701,259 Operating Expenses 1,114,879 Total Estimated Expenditure $21,435,665 1992/93 NET INCOME - $6,707,665 6/30/93 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE* $4,414,758 7 REQUESTED APPROPRIATIONS - ALL FUNDS Fiscal Year 1992/93 General Fund $97,771,379 >;>........ ; €€€ i€ ;;€;; ;.€ €H€€€ ;........ ;,, ,,,,;;;,;,;;;,:;,:;,;: ; ........... Water Fund Other Funds 21 992 328 6 309 281 Capital Projects P 1 13 89 2 024 Refuse Fund $6,185,929 Jther Enterprise Funds $3,450,266 Internal Service Funds Transportation/Street Project $11,597,269 $13,603,167 Debt Service Funds Redevelopment $8,188,500 Funds $21,435,665 Total Appropriations Requested - $204,425,808 14 TOTAL RESOURCES - ALL FUNDS Fiscal Year 1992/93 Transportation/Street Improvements Redevelopment $6,035,000 Internal Service Funds Funds $11,916,000 $14,728,000 Other Enterprise Funds $3,304,000 Other Funds Refuse Collection Service Fund $6,385,100 ::.>::y. ::y::>::>::>::y. $6,336,000 Capitol Projects Funds . P 1 3 Net Use of Reserve w. 9 806 418 19 343 088 •.'«t : vkf2y � £ Water Fund { `< $17,402,500 Debt Services $7,509,500 General Fund Ongoing Revenue $ 98,395,200 Pers Refund 3,265,000 $101,660,200 Total Resources = $204,425,806 15 PROJECTED GENERAL FUND REVENUES Fiscal Year 1992/93 Utility Tax Other Other Taxes $12,800,000 $651,200 $4,814,000 "$""""$ Sales Tax Transient Occupancy Tax fr $ -;:%-• $17,500,000 Licenses and Permits !: '; % % ; ; ..... $> -; :: $3 640 000 Use of Money and . .. :Property : .... .. f ; ..;... Transfers 6 289 000 3 060 000 $ $ :.. .. .,: :. ........................ .;:.;;:.;..;::.;:.:.:......;: .. f..: :>. :ei3fh: C ;;:S:S::i;S:::;isk%:;;;;;;;i;;;;; ::::::: +:i'::5:i;i::%v:::Y?::::i;;::iS:%::::;ii;;:::::::::>::>;::;:: .....:::::: ..... ;i.... .f Fro m Other A9 encie 8 2 79 000 :,Fi nes and Forfeiture 1 650 000 Charges har es for Cu rrent Services $6,657,000 Property Taxes $31,855,000 Total General Fund Revenue = $98,395,200 16 i MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES General Fund $ Millions 35 Property Tax Sales Tax 30 --. --.-. ---- 25 b 20 15 _ . . _... 10 -_ . 5 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Fiscal Year (est.) (est.) 17 I GENERAL FUND BUDGET Adopted Appropriations by Department Fiscal Year 1992/93 City Council $262,163 Nor}Departmental $11,445,808 Administration $1,012,235 City Treasurer $773,689 City Attorney $1,409,639 City Clerk $483,884 Administrative Services $4,299,501 Library $3,221,947 Community Service $3,818,780 $15,807,643 Fire $31,992,129 Police $6,856,005 Community Service $16,387,956 Public Works 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 $Millions Total Adopted General Fund Budget = $97,771, 379 18 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Budget Full-Time Employees Fiscal Year 1976/77 to 1992193 Employees 1,150 Total Employees General Fund Employees _ ,10 1,100 1 ,059 1 ,065 1,050 1 ,007 1,000 946 950 952 900 - 888 850 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Fiscal Year 19 BUDGET HISTORY General Fund $ Millions _. .__ ............._..... . .. .. ................__ ............... 120 ............................_......_..............._._................. 100 ;•::•>::• ... 60 ss£ #` s`s'sss s ssss .3' sss s ss,s 40 s sssssuss 20 ri Adopted Budget Adjusted for Inflation Adjusted for Inflation & 0 Population 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Fiscal Year 20 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEA CH EXECUTIVE MANA GEMENT Michael. T, Uberuaga City Administrator Ray Silver Assistant City Administrator Rober J. Franz Deputy City Administrator/ Administrative Services Barbara A. Kaiser Deputy City Administrator/ Economic Development Donald L. Watson City Treasurer Gail Hutton City Attorney Connie Brockway City Clerk Michael P. Dolder Fire Chief Ronald E. Lowenberg Police Chief Ron Hagan Director, Community Services Ron Hayden Director, Library Services Louis F. Sandoval Director, Public Works 22 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Organizational Chart PEOPLE CITY COUNCIL ASSISTANT CITY CITY ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATOR DEPUTY CITY CITY CITY CITY ADMINISTRATOR TREASURE I ATTORNEY CLERK PUBLIC FORMATION PUBLIC ADMIN. ECONOMIC POLICE FIRE WORKS SVCS. LIBRARY DEV. Uniform Fire EngineeringPublic TEconomic Division Prevention Finance Service Dev, -E Admin. Operations Water Information Support RedevJ Division Systems Services Housing Investigation 4 Emergency Landscape Personnel Division Services Services Tele- Real Division communica- Maintenance Property COMMUNITY DEV. Insurance& Benefits Planning El � Building • HUNTINGTON BEACH 23 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTED CITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES -MAINTAIN A SAFE COMMUNITY -EXPAND THE CITY'S REVENUE BASE -PROVIDE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE (E.G., SEWERS, FLOOD CONTROL, WATER SYSTEM, STREETS, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND BUILDINGS) -ENHANCE AND MAINTAIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE COMMUNITY -IMPROVE THE COMMUNITY'S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM -ESTABLISH POLICIES AND STRATEGIES TO INSURE A VIABLE DOWNTOWN -ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE CITY'S SOCIAL ISSUES -PROVIDE FOR DIVERSE HOUSING STOCK THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AND MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF HOUSING STOCK -IMPROVE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS 24 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FISCAL POLICIES -ON-GOING EXPENDITURES SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY ON-GOING REVENUES -THE GENERAL FUND RESERVES SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AT NO LESS THAN 3%, WITH A 5% RESERVE BEING DESIRABLE -NO NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE APPROVED UNTIL ASSOCIATED OPERATING COSTS ARE FUNDED BY RECURRING REVENUES -EACH ENTERPRISE FUND SHOULD REFLECT THE TRUE COST OF OPERATION INCLUDING DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS SUPPORTED BY THE GENERAL FUND -IF THE CITY'S BUDGET IS BALANCED, GENERAL, FUND RESERVES IN EXCESS OF 5% SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND ON AN ANNUAL BASIS -TO IMPLEMENT THE ABOVE FISCAL POLICY STATEMENTS, A PHASE-IN PERIOD WILL BE REQUIRED 25 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY FISCAL YEARS 1988/89 TO 1992/93 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1991/92 1992/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET REVISED ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAXES 23,071,836 26,061,747 27,917,608 29,000,360 29,815,000 31,855,000 OTHER TAXES 30,518,602 32,377,982 31,549,258 34,792,250 34,553,000 36,314,000 FINES AND FORFEITURES 2,457,611 2,256,414 1,903,751 2,374,500 1,520,000 1,650,000 USE OF MONEY AND PROP 6,362,955 4,149,480 4,227,470 5,738,500 5,326,000 6,289,000 FROM OTHER AGENCIES 8,540,702 8,979,005 9,451,371 8,607,518 8,013,000 8,279,000 CHARGES FOR CURRENT SVC 5,642,886 6,781,414 8,340,954 4,365,113 4,430,000 6,657,000 OTI-II.R 1,027,032 335,296 728,317 593,715 668,200 651,200 TRANSFERS 1,726,325 1,298,970 2,151,359 1,635,000 2,952,000 3,060,000 ONE-TIME REVENUES 6,191,317 0 5,917,183 2,400,000 6,100,000 3,265,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $89,322,507 S85,202,156 $95,299,026 S92,711,801 $96,867,585 S101,660,200 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS HTG BCH PUB FIN AUTHORITY 2,974,215 2,160,341 2,093,892 2,547,000 11,449,000 3,096,000 CIVIC IMPROVEMENT CORP 1,746,875 3,700,512 2,225,789 2,965,000 2,935,000 2,935,000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CORP 428,975 465,090 622,340 419,000 434,000 437,000 PARKING AUTHORITY 82,376 90,168 96,924 50,000 72,000 84,500 RESERVIOR HILL ASSESS DISTRICT 0 444,512 195,282 147,000 152,000 157,000 MELLO-ROOS 0 0 0 209,000 280,000 280,000 1970 PARK BONDS 530,263 545,138 579,139 519,000 519,000 520,000 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS $5,762,704 S7,405,761 $5,813,366 S6,855,000 $15,841,000 S7,509,500 ENTERPRISE FUNDS WATER FUND 14,262,530 15,741,996 17,228,631 17,680,000 17,716,000 17,402,500 REFUSE FUND 0 0 0 5,637,600 5,650,000 6,336,000 FIRE MEDICAL PROGRAM 0 478,730 2,758,878 2,503,500 2,103,800 2,040,000 EMERALD COVE HOUSING 838,787 856,667 864,816 825,699 833,499 824,000 MEADOWLARK GOLF COURSE 368,588 396,595 414,858 405,000 434,000 440,000 TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS $15,469,905 $17,473,988 $21,267,183 $27,051,799 $26,737,299 S27,042,500 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 1,880,429 4,681,077 2,957,335 3,144,000 3,146,000 3,266,000 INSURANCE FUNDS: -MEDICAL INSURANCE 1,810,009 2,872,946 3,292,576 3,231,000 3,914,715 3,645,000 -WORKERS COMPENSATION 2,867,446 2,868,175 2,772,146 2,256,660 2,256,660 2,380,000 -LIABILITY INSURANCE 2,984,288 2,822,265 2,076,783 1,950,000 1,770,000 1,670,000 -RETIREE MEDICAL INS. 620,706 1,275,764 623,064 675,000 650,000 700,000 RETIREMENT SUPPLEMENT 0 184,084 410,578 240,000 255,000 255,000 TOTAL INTERNAL SVC FUNDS $10,162,878 $14,704,311 $12,132,482 $11,496,660 $11,992,375 S11,916,000 26 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY FISCAL YEARS 1988/89 TO 1992/93 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1991/92 1992/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET REVISED ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS DEBT SERVICE-TAX INCREMENT 3,073,158 3,771,749 5,662,734 4,616,200 4,415,000 4,813,000 CAPITAL PROJECTS 53,440,747 19,972,229 7,416,221 6,002,000 5,997,982 8,565,000 LOW INCOME HOUSING 2,281,703 1,977,857 1,468,814 1,719,412 1,193,000 1,350,000 TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT FUND $58,795,608 $25,721,835 $14,547,769 $12,337,612 $11,605,982 $14,728,000 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS PARKING STRUCTURES 0 15,924,684 978,174 900,000 700,000 700,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 4,356,000 6,256,584 2,043,349 1,600,000 2,828,000 1,854,418 PIER REBUILDING 0 2,162,429 5,090,587 3,591,000 4,596,000 955,000 PARK ACQUISIT&DEVELOPMENT 3,260,502 2,301,271 556,619 890,000 442,000 541,000 SEWER FUND 705,787 836,935 367,275 435,000 285,000 295,000 MELLO-ROOS 0 100,000 2,486,337 0 40,000 20,000 PARKING AUTHORITY 174,355 176,189 180,329 178,000 187,000 16,000 DRAINAGE FUND 1,210,557 697,029 388,006 440,000 315,000 325,000 FLOOD FUND 14,000 0 118,162 7,000 0 0 LIBRARY SERVICE 0 0 0 7,792,000 2,164,000 5,100,000 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJ FUNDS $9,721,201 $28,455,121 S12,208,838 $15,833,000 S11,557,000 S9,806,418 OTHER FUNDS HSG&COMM DEN BLOCK GRANT 2,550,795 1,045,902 1,330,944 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 OTHER GRANTS 965,000 418,185 466,212 157,500 134,000 142,000 HUD SUBSIDY 479,604 401,331 349,954 338,000 354,000 354,000 DONATIONS 0 242,064 116,693 20,000 20,000 20,000 CABLE TV 224,358 350,334 353,848 366,525 423,000 431,000 HOME PROGRAM FUND 0 0 0 0 0 881,000 NARCOTICS FORFEITURE 522,308 811,601 1,347,234 1,080,000 850,000 1,075,000 AIR QUALITY FUND 0 0 0 147,000 122,000 182,500 FIRE DISPATCH/JOINT POWERS 0 0 0 1,431,144 1,573,000 1,673,000. COMMUNITY RELATIONS 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 PRIVATE PROJECT SERF SUFF 0 16,057 11,748 7,000 16,560 16,600 CULTURAL ARTS CENTER FUND 0 0 0 0 400,000 200,000 TOTAL OTHER FUNDS $4,742,065 $3,285,474 $3,976,633 S4,957,169 S5,302,560 S6,385,100 STREET PROJECTS GAS TAX 8,743,149 4,531,821 4,150,964 6,885,721 6,061,937 4,815,000 TRANSPORTATION FUND 0 0 0 1,238,000 1,565,000 1,220,000 TOTAL STREET PROJECTS $8,743,149 $4,531,821 $4,150,964 $8,123,721 $7,626,937 S6,035,000 TOTAL REVENUE CITY WIDE S202,720,017 $186,780,467 $169,396,261 S179,366,762 S187,530,738 S185,082,718 27 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY FISCAL YEARS 1988/89 TO 1992/93 1990/91 19 91/92 1991/92 1992/93 1992/93 ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIM. DEPT. ADOPTED ACTUAL REQUEST GENERAL FUND City Council 197,851 256,636 237,559 264,087 262,163 Non-Departmntal 10,912,172 10,585,870 10,254,146 11,097,159 11,445,808 Adminstration 1,283,386 1,217,125 1,191,962 1,025,814 1,012,235 City Treasurer 706,644 755,707 736,307 785,396 773,689 City Attorney 1,373,885 1,516,861 1,347,074 1,431,603 1,409,639 City Clerk 461,640 389,309 393,862 485,607 483,884 Administrative Svcs 3,995,336 4,162,573 4,061,760 4,353,254 4,299,501 Library 3,025,086 3,224,031 2,933,759 3,269,817 3,221,947 Community Dev 3,237,557 4,167,103 3,825,971 3,909,518 3,818,780 Fire 12,703,593 14,659,427 14,391,441 16,209,626 15,807,643 Police 28,275,120 30,598,153 29,880,870 32,863,330 31,992,129 Community Services 6,063,978 6,730,010 6,633,570 7,449,755 6,856,005 Public Works 21,552,674 16,220,979 15,686,315 16,578,544 16,387,956 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $93,788,922 $94,483,785 $91,574,596 $99,723,508 $97,771,379 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS H B Pub Financing Auth 2,820,116 3,780,000 3,772,000 3,774,000 3,774,000 Civic Improvement Corp 3,104,903 3,296,234 2,940,000 2,937,000 2,937,000 Facilities Corp 895,413 392,000 387,000 391,000 391,000 Parking Authority 164,675 168,000 168,000 248,500 248,500 Reservoir Hill Fund 0 137,000 137,000 170,000 170,000 Mello Roos 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Debt Service-Park Bond 468,496 468,000 468,000 468,000 468,000 TOTAL DEBT SCV FUNDS $7,453,603 $8,441,234 $8,072,000 $8,188,500 $8,188,499 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water Fund 13,524,992 17,383,333 16,196,271 22,054,222 21,992,328 Refuse Fund 0 5,645,648 5,645,170 6,185,929 6,185,929 Fire Medical Program 1,792,201 2,129,187 2,083,774 2,473,745 2,469,139 Emerald Cove Housing 268,519 825,699 790,469 824,590 778,590 Meadowlark Golf Course 134,295 177,537 177,537 202,537 202,537 TOTAL ENTERPR FUNDS $15,720,007 $26,161,404 $24,893,221 $31,741,023 $31,628,524 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Equipment Replacement 4,466,757 2,672,352 2,672,352 4,972,127 3,011,935 Insurance Fund 8,477,847 10,338,639 9,315,504 10,591,232 10,591,232 TOTAL INT SVC FUNDS $12,944,604 $13,010,991 $11,987,856 $15,563,359 $13,603,167 28 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY FISCAL YEARS 1988/89 TO 1992/93 1990/91 1991/92 1991/92 1992/93 1992/93 ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIM. DEPT. ADOPTED ACTUAL REQUEST REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS Rdv Agcy-Tax Increment 3,366,345 3,274,500 3,275,000 4,221,500 4,221,500 Redevelopment-Projects 2,669,254 11,594,266 3,881,594 17,369,180 17,214,165 TOTAL REDEVELOP FUNDS $6,035,599 $14,868,766 $7,156,594 $21,590,680 $21,435,665 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Parking Structures 48,090 0 900,000 5,900,000 5,900,000 Capital Projects Fund 2,234,821 7,187,360 6,704,462 5,764,556 3,966,850 Pier Rebuilding Fund 0 3,212,000 3,212,000 300,000 300,000 Park Acq&Dev Fund 152,521 1,283,708 1,015,293 530,992 660,826 Sewer Fund 682,650 1,002,661 427,148 1,130,136 1,130,136 Drainage Fund 1,093,072 1,697,864 1,357,375 1,914,925 1,914,925 Library Service Fund 0 8,485,624 17,536 19,287 19,287 TOTAL CAP PROJ FUNDS $4,211,154 $22,869,217 $13,633,813 $15,559,896 $13,892,024 OTHER FUNDS Donations 0 27,000 0 0 0 Grants Fund 0 136,050 54,461 301,645 377,816 Housing & Comm Dev 643,765 1,405,000 676,335 1,459,000 1,459,000 Cable TV Fund 282,707 331,866 295,583 334,592 489,473 Narcotics Forfeiture F 864,967 1,124,200 1,103,462 1,406,854 1,393,057 Air Quality Fund 11,614 129,058 73,865 180,958 180,035 Fire-Jt Pow Authority 1,178,424 1,371,145 1,315,019 1,498,199 1,498,199 PD-Community Relations 4,081 100,000 20,000 100,000 100,000 Fourth of July Fund 0 93,750 97,091 111,700 111,700 Art Center Fund 0 0 0 0 700,000 TOTAL OTHER FUNDS $2,985,558 $4,718,068 $3,635,816 $5,392,948 S6,309,281 STREET FUNDS Gas Tax Fund 7,438,286 10,252,944 5,601,863 7,785,100 7,785,100 Transportation Fund 0 1,750,382 115,172 3,812,169 3,812,169 TOTAL STREET FUNDS $7,438,286 $12,003,326 $5,717,035 $11,597,269 $11,597,269 TOTAL EXP CITY WIDE $150,577,733 $196,556,791 $166,670,930 $209,357,183 $20 t,425,806 29 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PERMANENT POSITIONS B Y DEPAR TMENT FISCAL YEAR 1992193 DEPARTMENT 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 City Council 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Non-Departmental 1.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 Administration 20.00 20.00 20.00 17.00 City Treasurer 12.00 14.00 14.00 13.00 City Attorney 18.00 18.00 18.00 16.00 City Clerk 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 Administrative Services 58.50 60.25 61.25 58.50 Economic Development 16.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 Community Development 49.00 50.00 53.00 51.00 Fire Department 178.25 177.25 179.00 182.00 Police Department 366.00 371.00 374.00 373.00 Community Services 61.25 62.25 64.50 64.00 Library Services 40.75 40.75 40.75 38.75 Public Works 258.50 260.50 268.75 268.00 Total Permanent Positions 1087.75 1099.50 1120.50 1109.50 Funding of Permanent Positions General Fund 995.00 997.00 981.50 954.05 Other Funds 92.75 102.50 139.25 155.45 Total 1087.75 1099.50 1120.75 1109.50 30 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS FISCAL YEAR 1992193 NET PERSONNEL -FULL TIME POSITION REDUCTIONS- REDUCTIONS EXPENDITURE OTHER CURRENT FULL TIM TEMPORARY DEPARTMENT REDUCTION FUNDS VACANC REASSIG POSITION POSITIONS CITY COUNCIL ($168) 0.00 0.00 ADMINISTRATION (294,388) 1.00 3.00 (4.00) 0.00 NON-DEPARTMENTAL (404,609) 0.00 0.00 CAPITAL OUTLAY 594,033 0.00 0.00 CITY TREASURER (43,063) 1.00 (1.00) 0.00 CITY ATTORNEY (223,675) 2.00 (2.00) 0.00 CITY CLERK 63,792 * 0.00 0.00 ADMINISTRATIVE SVCS (201,382) 2.75 (2.75) 0.00 LIBRARY (200,374) 2.00 (2.00) (1.00) COMMUNITY DEVELOP (204,650) 3.00 (2.00) (1.00) FIRE DEPARTMENT (93,213) 3.00 (25.00) POLICE DEPARTMENT (252,202) 6.00 (5.00) (11.00) COMMUNITY SERVICES (377,691) 1.00 (1.00) (32.00) PUBLIC WORKS (829,921) 8.45 2.00 (10.45) (10.00) SUB TOTAL ($2,467,511.00) 10.45 18.75 3.00 (27.20) (80.00) Explanations of FULL TIME POSITION REDUCTIONS: OTHER FUNDS: Positions indicated in this column will be funded by non-General Fund revenues. CURRENT VACANCIES: These positions are currently vacant due to the Hiring Freeze. REASSIGNED: These positions will be reassigned to existing vacant positions. *Budget increase due to November, 1992 election costs. 31 GENERAL FUND The General Fund is made up of 11 departments plus City Administration. General Fund revenues can be used for "any municipal purpose". Services funded by the General Fund revenues include Police, Fire, paramedics, beach operations, street maintenance, sewer services, parks, recreation, planning, building, safety, libraries, and many others. 32 special purpose funds and enterprise funds collect revenue that is restricted either legally or by policy. Those funds provide infrastructure needs and attendant financing requirements, development, Parking Structures, Library Service Fund (library expansion), seniors' housing project (Emerald Cove), a capital and equipment replacement program, a prepaid paramedic program, pier rebuilding, air quality program, a city- wide refuse service, water utility, cable TV, golf course franchise, and Narcotics Forfeiture fund. GENERAL FUND SUMMAR Y AC UAL BUDGET EST tCT(M DEPT REQ AQ�PTED DESCRIPTION:: FY:90/9 f FY1f92 PY 9I/92 FY 92/93 PY 92/93 _. . . .. - . PERSONAL SERVICES $63,163,565 $68,853,178 $66,400,633 $73,884,280 $72,148,847 . .. .. . ..:. .. . . OPERATING EXPENSES 30,460,408 25,568,406 25,111,762 25,685,953 25,028,499 .... ... ......:.... ..... CAPITAL OUTLAY 164,949 62,200 62,200 153,275 594,033 .. . TOTAL GENERAL FUND $93,788,922 $94,483,785 $91,574,596 $99,723,508 $97,771,379 ACTUAL BUDGET EST ACTUAL.: DE.PT REQ ADOPTED PERSONNEL FY9Ql99 s FY 91/9:2 fY 99/92 FY 92I93 FY 9.2/93,. :: ELECTED COUNCIL 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 . i SAFETY 364.75 361.75 361.75 364.75 365.75 ....... .. ... ............ ......... _.. NON-SAFETY 632.25 619.50 619.50 596.05 588.30 .: TOTAL 997.00 981.25 981.50 960.80 954.05 RESRV FIRE FIGHTERS 50.00 50.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 SEARCH AND RESCUE 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 32 s dak s� �a r, a =�t g , n 7"1 ,. w CITY COUNCIL The City Council adopts overall City goals and establishes policies to provide effective and efficient municipal services, including policies to address the community's development, economic, physical and social conditions. 4r ; .: � i ;- v � r � f lye' a§a R CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY A.... .. BUDGET EST ACTUAL DEPT;REQ .: ADOPTEDD.. DESCRIPTION fY90/91 ..... >FY 91192 FY91/92 FY92%93 FY 92%931 __.. .. ............. ........... ._ .. ... .. PERSONAL SERVICES.. $66,648 $103,270 $101,768 $112,252 $110,328 _.. _ .._ _..... . . _....... ...._... ....... _...... _. ... ..... ......... ....... .. _.... . _ ..... ..... . OPERATING EXPENSES 131,203 153,366 135,791 151,835 151,835 CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 0 0 0 ......._ ._ _ _.. _ _ ...._ .. TOTAL EXPENDITURE 197,851 256,636 237,559 264,087 262,163 _.._..._. _... ......_. _ _. _.. ......_. _.... _.. . _._ _. ... EQUIP. REPLACEMENT $250 $263 $263 $276 $276 ACTUAL BUDGET EST ACTUAL DEPT REQ ADOPTED: PERSONNEL FY 90I9 ; FY 91I92 FY 91/92 FY 92193 FY 92/93 ELECTED COUNCIL 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 ......... NON-SAFETY 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 TOTAL 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 34 r- HIGHLIGHTS The City Council budget will maintain membership in professional organizations of benefit to the City, and continue to expand the role of the city in regional, state and federal issues. 773 Al fi 71 177 _s -3 + ,S$ NA9 35 NON-DEPARTMENTAL The Non-Departmental budget group contains appropriations for expenses which are City-wide in nature, including Utility costs, the Civic Center land payment, contractual services, and the cost of the City's liability self insurance program. Several other funds are included in the Non-Departmental program group. Major expenditures of these funds include: The Debt Service program, which provides funding for service of the 1970 Park Bond, The Civic Improvement Corporation, which provides funding for debt service payments for Certificates of Participation issued in 1986 and 1989. The revenue to make these payments are derived from a transfer from the General Fund. The Huntington Beach Public Financing Authority, which provides funding for debt service payments for the $33.5 million revenue bonds issued by the Authority in 1992. The revenue to make these payments is derived from tax increment revenue of the Redevelopment Agency. 4G PASO ' PIJOLIC; NON DEPARTMENTAL ---------------- DESCRIPTION ::....F1 1V .:. < .........1..1 9 EY91192; :.... ;Y 219.3.::: . E 92193 PEIMOIVAt Stet`is.... $122,725 S. 2;76 ..$213,711 .........$878;68$ $875,804 .................................. OPERATING EXPENSES 10,789,447 10,2139103 10,030,435 10,2189471 9,975,971 CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 0 0 594,033 TOTAL NON-DEPARTM $109912,172 $10,585,870 $10,2549146 $11,097,159 $11,445,808 ................ tCTAI~ BUDGET.....:... ST.AGFUAL :aEP7"RE ::':: AIJQPTED PERSONNEL F. Y 9tJlff7 FY 91192 �Y 91192 .. Y.92/53. .. FY 52193 SAFETY 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 :::::::. ............................................ TOTAL .................................................................................... .............................. ................................................................... 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 36 HIGHLIGHTS A reduction in funds for contract services will mean that department head and division head recruitments will be conducted in-house. The transfer to the liability self insurance fund is reduced $100,000 and a projected savings of $100,000 is included to reflect the implementation of the energy efficiency recommendations submitted by the California Energy Commission. Also included is estimated savings of $67,500 from refinancing Civic Center debt to take advantage of current low interest rates. 4 Al c t. e a. r A NMTEML COMM NONDEPARTMENTAL-other funds :_: :>:::: ;:::>:..:::;::>:.>::.;:.::»>:>:::<:: »>:::::>::::>::::>:::>::>:.>:.:.:.>:::: TCIA :` BUDGET EST ACTUAL DFf?T RE' ADOPTED ..:: ................................................................... .:: DESCRIPTION FY l III,EI f.:> PY`9 192.::: ><. EY 9 182 F'Y 9 2/93 FY 921 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... <:<<::; fl 0 $468 000 $46$ 4Ufl 5468 UQO . :::::::::::::::.:::::.:::..:::.:::::::::::::.::..:::.:.:.......................................................................................................................... ....................... CIVIC IMPR CORP 3,104,903 3,296,234 2,940,000 2,937,000 2,937,000 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. . PAIOTR TURES 48 090..::< «0.:;>;:::. 9:0.0 000 5 900 000 5 900 000 ..::::...:::::...::...:......:.:.::::.:..:.::.:: ..::..::..:..:.:..::::::..:::::...:::::...:......f.::::..:::::...::::.......:.........:...:: .)....::::...:.:.:::.....::::f...:....:.. :::.........:..::.::::..::t..:::::::.i.::.:.....:: HB PUB FIN AUTHORITY 2,820,116 3,780,000 3,772,000 3,774,000 3,774,000 LQr. O .S. UND..::..: :<` ' < <: ' . :> .... . 2 Q ..�Q.. .. . : .....2 .�fl .1l . ;:`:::::..20. 0.. fl y:::::::..:::::.:::::::::::::::.::::a:::::::::.::::::.:::::::.::::::.::�::::.:::::::.::::::::.:.::::::.......... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................:.:. RESERVOIR HILL FUND 0 137,000 137,000 170,000 170,000 O ON . .N .:1UN3`>> ':»... >:> >:>:: OOQ':;::> `'. 0::::: :;: .::. :.: ..: 0 . 0 ... ............. ....... ................... ..... .... ..... .... TOTAL OTHER FUNDS $6,441,605 $7,908,234 $8,417,000 $13,449,000 $13,449,000 37 ADMINISTRA TION Administration is responsible for the supervision of all city departments, except City Attorney, City Treasurer, and City Clerk departments. Under the direction of the City Administrator, the policies of the City Council are carried out. Along with the day to day operations of the City, the City Administrator is also charged with submitting an annual budget to the City Council for approval. The City Administrator coordinates development of policy recommendations, carries out City policy by providing leadership to the departments, and establishes systems and procedures to effectively and efficiently utilize available resources in providing services to the residents and visitors of the community. The City Administrator also coordinates development of specific goals and objectives for each department and provides direction to improve internal communication and effectiveness. 1.4 Mil. ADMINISTRATION BUDGET 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 ADMINISTRA TION ... .. ...... ACTUAL BUDGET EST A>CTUOUW DEPT REQ ADOPTED :> DESCRIPTION FY90/91 FY91l92 F.Y.....9119Z FY91/9:3 FY92M .3 PERSONAL SERVICES $1,104,132 $1,015,871 $1,021,230 $883,058 $869,479 OPERATING EXPENSES 1779554 2019254 1701732 1429756 1429756 ...... _. .. _ .. .. ....... ... ... . .. . CAPITAL OUTLAY 19700 0 0 0 0 TOTAL ADMIN $19283,386 $192179125 $1,191,962 $19025,814 $1,012,235 ACTUAL 6UDGET fST ACTUAL; DEPT RE.Q `ADAPTED PERSONNEL FY90191 FY9i/92 FY91/92 FY919.3 FY92/93 ... ..... ......... . . ..... .......... ...... .. NON-SAFETY 16.00 16.00 16.00 12.00 12.00 . TOTAL 16.00 16.00 16.00 12.00 12.00 38 HIGHLIGHTS A 17% reduction in the General Fund budget for this office will occur in 1992/93. One full-time position will be eliminated in the Public Information office which is transitioning to a focused public relations program to market city programs and services to the community at large. General Fund support for the Productivity Division is being reduced from four positions to one position. The division will no longer provide general analytical support to Administration or perform other programs and,tasks. The remaining position will focus on the city's records management system. One other position.from the Productivity Division will be funded by Air Quality Funds to manage the program. 4 x �K^ i K f 3 d �g4',-4rpm w- "`qy 4 A- o- g� ep MOW ADMINISTRATION-other funds P ADOPTED :<:::::::;::: ::>::::>:.:::::::> ::::::.: �GF EST ACTUAL_.. 17E T RE .. . ;;:.;;:...:::::::::.:::::::::::.:::AG?UJ L..:.::.:....... .BU :...:...T:::::::.:...... Q....::: .. .: .;; DESCRIPTION :. fY 90191 •.. .:> FY 91f9Z 1=Y 91/92 FY 92193 1=Y 92/93 73 :. ..:.:..:.::::::: ,;�:... . ' N :::> 8 �7Q' $33I866 $29S,S83 :......... $ 34,592489,4 : .............................................................................. . AIR QUALITY FUND 11,614 129,058 73,865 180,958 180,035 .. . .. TOTAL OTHER.FUNDS $294,321 $460,924 $369,448 $515,550 $669,508 39 CITY TREASURER The City Treasurer is an elected official and severs a four year term. The City Treasurer is also recognized as a Department Head. The Central Cashiering and Treasury Management program collects, deposits and invest daily receipts on the same day received, or on the next business day. The City Treasurer invests the City's cash to earn interest as great as safety of principle practices will allow. The department processes water service documents at the rate of approximately 20,000 annually and receivable payments at the rate of approximately 250,000 annually. The Department utilizes micro-computers to maximize and enhance overall efforts and increase efficiency of cash flow planning, thus allowing longer term investment and higher percentage interest yields. The days to day operations of the Business License program is also managed by the City Treasurer's office. Business License is responsible to oversee and provide follow-up in obtaining the maximum revenue and licensing compliance possible for business licenses, oil severance and permit ordinance. $1,600,000 Business License Revenue $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 CITY TREASURER G DU TD A Y9 F F9939 pY9PT%i=3DESCRIPTION Y 9 2Y 4 .. ..... ......... . .... .... .. .... ... ............................ PERSONAL SERVICES $525,915 $569,233 $576,443 $624,336 $614,968 . . OPERATING EXPENSES 180,729 186,474 159,864 161,060 158,721 .... . CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 0 0 0 . . . TOTAL TREASURER $706,644 $755,707 $736,307 $785,396 $773,689 A E DT O PERSONNEL _FY92/93FY - .... NON-SAFETY 14.00 14.00 14.00 13.00 13.00 TOTAL 14.00 14.00 14.00 13.00 13.00 40 HIGHLIGHTS The elimination of one position will reduce our field enforcement of business licenses. The primary responsibility of the remaining three full-time employees will be to administer the program for over the counter and telephone inquiries. It is not possible to quantify the loss of revenue due to decreased enforcement. A new business license ordinance is being prepared in house. xr .............. $1,200,000 Occupancy Tax $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 41 CITY ATTORNEY The City Attorney is an elected official and serves a four year term. The City Attorney is also recognized as a Department Head. The City Attorney's Department represents the City in all legal matters and before administrative bodies. The department provides legal counsel and services to the City Council and to all officers of the City. The City Attorney represents the City in court litigation and prosecutes on behalf of the people, violations of the City Charter and Municipal Code. The department prepares ordinances, resolutions, leases, contracts and other legal documents and approves as to form all bonds, insurance and contracts made by the City. Formal and informal legal opinions are prepared. Responsibilities include attendance at meetings of the City Council, Planning commission and Personnel commission to provide legal advice to ensure City activities comply with all pertinent laws. 1.47% 1.47% Portion of General Fund 1.46% 1.46% 1.45% 1.45% 1.44% 1.44% 1.43% 1.43% FY 1990/91 FY 1991/92 FY 1992/93 CITYATTORNEY ACTUAL ;BUDGET EST ACTUAL :DEPT REQ ADOPTED DESCRIPTION FY 9U/91... F1'91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92%93 FY<92/93 PERSONAL SERVICES $1,194,188 $1,336,183 $1,160,896 $1,342,211 $1,320,247 ... ... OPERATING EXPENSES 179,697 180,678 186,178 89,392 89,392 CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CITY ATTORNEY $1,373,885 $1,516,861 $1,347,074 $1,431,603 $1,409,639 EQUIP. REPLACEMENT $278 $278 $278 $292 $292 ACTUA : : UDT : ESTA CTULDEP T REQADOPTEDL AE PERSONNEL FY9192 FY9 /93 FY9293 9 ; 2 . ./ : .. .. .. - NON-SAFETY 18.00 18.00 18.00 16.00 16.00 __. TOTAL 18.00 18.00 18.00 16.00 16.00 42 HIGHLIGHTS One Deputy Attorney I position will be eliminated. A vacant Secretary Legal-Typist will be eliminated as well and a $50,000 reduction to the Legal Services account will occur. k k F 43 CITY CLERK The City Clerk is an elected official and serves a four year terns. The City Clerk is also recognized as a Department Head. It is the objective of the department to fulfill the duties mandated by the State and Federal Government and the City Charter. Services provided include response to departmental, citizen and public counter and/or telephone request. The City Clerk's office will prepare, print, and distribute 48 agendas for City Council meetings per year. The department records all code changes and meeting minute action. The department is divided into three programs; Public and Departmental Support, records Management, and Elections, with the latter funded only on alternate years. The City Clerk conducts the general municipal elections consolidated with the county in even numbered years. Also conducted are special elections, referendums, initiatives or recall elections if necessary. CITY CLERK AG<T1JA .... . BUDGET . EST ... .. DEPT REQ AD PTEp DESCRIPTION .FY90/S!1 FY 91192 PY'< T/9 '; FY 9219..3 FY 92/93 ... ......... .. __..... ....... -... ......... _..... ... -..... _..... ... ... .... . .. ............. PERSONAL SERVICES $347,957 $367,610 $372,163 $401,257 $397,516 .. OPERATING EXPENSES 113,683 21,699 21,699 84,350 86,368 . ._ .: .. ....... .. CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 0 0 0 - .. . .. ... ... TOTAL CITY CLERK $461,640 $389,309 $393,862 $485,607 $483,884 ACTUAL $UQGET 'EST ACTUAL DEPT REQ ADOPTED PERSONNEL fY;901^9l: FY 9.1192. PY 9I/92 FY 92I9..3 PY 92/93 -..._... _ __..... _ ......... . ......:: _.... ... ........ .. . ... . NON-SAFETY 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 TOTAL 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 44 HIGHLIGHTS An estimated $60,000 is required this year to meet the City's election requirements in November. IS k 4 � g f t It av � f I qq t k 45 ADMINISTRA TIVE SERVICES The department is responsible for the annual budget process plus staff support and internal operational functions necessary for the City to conduct business, structured into five divisions: Finance: All accounting functions including payroll, accounts payable, audits, and preparation of the City's Annual Financial Report. Purchasing is responsible for competitive bidding to provide materials, contract services and equipment for City Departments in a timely manner. The Print Shop provides a variety of duplication services for City Council and Planning Commission agendas as well as other department needs. Information Systems: Provides data and word processing services and strives to maintain a lead in automation technology in a cost effective manner. Provides technical expertise for micro-computer based applications. Personnel: Responsible for the administration of a centralized personnel system including recruitment, examination, affirmative action, labor relations, training, classification, and employee records. Propertnagement: Management services relating to the acquisition and disposition of real property, and management of properties owned by the City. Self-Insurance: Insurance and claims services in the areas of liability, and worker's compensation. Also, administers the self insured employee medical indemnity plan. Other: Also responsible for the Equipment Replacement Fund. The Equipment Replacement Fund is to replace, on a planned basis, city vehicles and equipment that has reached the end of their service life. A DMINISTRA TI VE SER VICES ACTUAL BUDGET ESTACTUAL ...EPT R..E..(;Q ;ADOPTED....;; DESCRIPTION FY 90/9 f `FY 91192 FY 9.1192 FY,92193 FY 92193 .. _..... .. _.. ... ... ......... .. ... PERSONAL SERVICES $2,892,391 $3,115,108 $3,025,704 $3,244,124 $3,190,371 ............. ............ . ... _ ... ........ ......... -.... ......... ......... ......... . ......... ...... ......... ......... . ......... ....... ... ............ ... ....... ......... .......... ..... ........ ......... ......... ......... ...... ... ......... ............... .. - ............ . .... ......... ........... _ ...... ......... ......... .... _ ..... ....... ... ... ... .. ... ... ........ ......._ ....... . OPERATING EXPENSES 1,088,232 1,047,465 1,036,056 1,109,130 1,109,130 .. .. _.. .. _ .. ....... ... CAPITAL OUTLAY 14,713 0 0 0 0 ....... ............. ... ......... ......... ......... _ ......... ... TOTAL ADMIN SVCS $3,995,336 $4,162,573 $4,061,760 $4,353,254 $4,299,501 . ... ... ......... _. ......... .................. _. _. .. .. .... .. EQUIP. REPLACEMENT $211,641 $223,935 $224,017 $235,181 $235,181 ACTUAL BUDGET EST ACTUAL. DEPT REQ ADOPTED ;::: PERSONNEL FY:90/9I .:: FY 91192 FY 91192...... FY 92193 FY 92193....... .... .. .. .... ...... . ........ ..... ....... .. ......... ... ... ... _ ...... _ .... ........... ..... _ ....... ... . ........ ... TOTAL NON-SAFETY 52.75 51.75 51.75 49.00 49.00 46 HIGHLIGHTS Reduce permanent staffing by 1.75 positions in the Information Systems Division. The primary impact is slower response to needs to update/improve computer programs used for city-wide applications. Eliminate one of 3 positions in the Print Shop and reassign our Stock Clerk approximately 1/2 time to the Print Shop. The stores function would be performed by a vendor supplying stationary items, thereby transitioning to f a stockless storeroom. Reduce Personnel division by l position, or,a 12.5% of total division staff. The primary impact of eliminating this position is reduced ability to respond to operating departments requests to review classification matters, delay in processing grievances, and less research and preparation for "meet and confer" sessions. Charges for Real Estate services provided by the City to the developers for right of way acquisition will reduce General fund costs an estimated $50,000. Cost of Administrative Service % of General Fund 4.54% 4.52% 4.50%, 4.48% fa _ 4.46% 14 4.44% 4.42% 4.38% �► § �: 1990/91 1 1991/92 1 1992/93 1 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES-other funds ....................F.......Y.......7:..s......1..7..L..A..9......L........................................B..F........Y............9.......?......I.....9........2............................................F........Y........9........1..../....9......2....................................F...Y.... . .. .......................O....P...TA . ' 2DESCRIPTION ......... . .........../..E...3D... ..... ........................ ...........F .........9...... .................2..9.... ..... .... :. : . 1GLF INURNE FUND $10338,639 $9,315,504 $10;59i,23210,591,232 EQUIPMENT REPL FUND 4,466,757 2,672,352 2,672,352 4,972,127 3,011,935 TOTAL OTHER FUNDS $12,944,604 $13,010,991 $11,987,856 $15,563,359 $1------------------------- 3,603,167 47 LIBRARY The Library Department operates the Central Library and three branches. The Central Library is a full service facility, offering library materials and diverse forms of media, special events for children, with cultural and educational events for all ages are offered. u LIBRARY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ;:::.. A.CTUAL. .BUDG:ET fST AiCTUAL D:EPTREG?.: ADOPTED::::.>: .........................................................................................:....................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................::. .........::::...:...:..:.::::.:......:....:.:.:::::.:.:....::::.............. .....:......::::::..:::::.:.............:....:..:.:::::::::::::..:.::.::::.:...,.::.::....:...:..:....,........ PERSONAL SERVICES $1,986,260 $2,158,535 $1,868,263 $2,261,948 $2,214,078 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 457 1 065 OPERATING EXPENSES 1036 496 1 065 496 1,007,869 1,007,869 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................I............................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:..:............................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CAPITAL OUTLAY 2,369 0 0 0 0 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. TOTAL LIBRARY $3,025,086 $3,224,031 $2,933,759 $3,269,817 $3,221,947 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .....................................................................................................................................................................::: ''..................... EQUIP. REPLACEMENT $83,977 $88,175 $88,175 $92,584 $92,584 ... . ...:.: ..; . A.C.:TL/AL BUDGET NEST A;CTUA DEPT.REQ AD:O.PTED ii .:.....::::................. ... PERSQNNEL. ..;:::::,.; ° F :90%97 FY 9 /92 F..Y9Z/92::> FY 92f93 FY:92193 .: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. _. _ .. . _ ............. . .. ......... .. .......... . ...... ........ . ........ .... ..._ ........ .. .... ........... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ NON-SAFETY 40.75 40.75 40.75 38.75 38.75 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .::::.::::::::::::::::::::.:::.......:.:::::::::.:::::::.::::.:::.:::::..:::.::.:::::.::::::::::::...::::::::_:.::::::..::::........::: ::.........,:::::........,::::.::::::.::::: ::::: ::::::.......:............ TOTAL 40.75 40.75 40.75 38.75 38.75 48 HIGHLIGHTS One Librarian Senior position will be eliminated, reducing the ability to write grants and, participate in marketing and fund-raising. The eliminated position will also reduce the daily supervision of staff including training, scheduling, coordination of collection; and the research in computer technology. Additionally, a 20 hour temporary clerk will be eliminated resulting in slower magazine processing. A reduction of $59,000 in books purchased will result in 2,000 less adult circulating books for public checkout. 380 fewer reference books will be purchased reducing access to the latest information. Fifty-four books on cassette, 75 fewer videos, 288 fewer CD's and 9 fewer software items will be available for circulation. A Librarian Assistant position will be eliminated, resulting in no direct supervision available for scheduling, training, and evaluating the 8 full time equivalent persons in Reception/Information. Quality of service will be decreased due to lack of staff training in answering questions both in person and through central to.l.ephones. { s # V 4}}F e *� 8r, k d^ �}¢s 4 h3 qq A�-i shy ...✓ ::.; _$4I h g " a t j LIBRARY-other funds (grants) ....... . .. ... . ... �iGTU�t . BUDGET EST;!ACTUAI. DEPT;REQ ,AD;OPTEf7 DESCRIPTION FY 9019:1 FY 9:1192 FY 9 i192 .: FY 92/93 FY 92/$:3 TOTAL OTHER FUNDS $0 $136,050 $54,461 $301,645 $377,816 49 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (NON GENERAL FUND) The Department of Economic Development is responsible for the overall administration and coordination of Economic Development, Redevelopment, and Neighborhood Enhancement efforts. The department is organized into two functional areas; Economic Development and Redevelopment. The goal of the Office of Economic Development is to establish activities to enhance the City's economic base. The City Council serves as the Redevelopment Agency. Huntington Beach is actively pursuing redevelopment in five areas of the City. The Oakview Project area is located within two miles of the San Diego Freeway and includes the Charter Centre complex; a fourteen story professional office building surrounded by theaters, restaurants, and businesses. The Huntington Center Redevelopment Project Area with recent additions to the commercial shopping mall include an expansion designed to increase business and offer Huntington Beach and surrounding residents more variety. In the Main Pier Project Area major projects include a 300 room luxury hotel, a six- plex theater, and major new development on Main Street. Two other redevelopment areas, Talbert/Beach and Yorktown/Lake are primarily residential developments where several housing developments are now operating including Emerald Cove, a 164-unit senior citizen apartment complex. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ...... ....... .. .. .. ... ... .. .......... ... .. : ESTACT ADQTE RA .A .:... : < ;DESCRIPTION FY90L91 FY91/92 FY912 Y. PERSONAL SERVICES $521,354 $890,742 $872,718 $781,742 $701,259 ........................................................._.........................................................................................................................._......................... -........................................................._............._..............._._................................................................. ..................................................._..........._._............ ......... .... _ _ . ...... ..... ... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..... OPERATING EXPENSES 1,085,265 1,042,625 832,476 1,114,851 1,114,879 ....................._......................_....._.........._____......._..._..............................................................._...........................................__... ............................. .. . ... .. ......... ... . ........ ....... .. .. ....... ......... ......... . ........ . ......... ...... ... . ............................................ ._................._..........._.........._................................................................................._............................_............................_. ......... .......... _ ........ . ......... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ...... . . . _ .. ........ ..... .... ... ...... ......... ............ . ..... ... ......... ............. .- ......... ...._-........ .... . ......... ......... ................. ......... ......... ......... ........ .............. .. ..... ........... . . ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .... .. .. ......... ........ ........ _. . ......... ........... ................................................_......................._................................................................. .. _.................. ............ ..................................... . ......... ... ... _...... ........ DEVELOPER PROJECTS 0 0 0 6,920,000 6,920,000 ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... .......... ... ... ... ...... .._.... ........................... ......... . ................ . ........ ....... ..... ......... _ _ _ . ........ . ... .......... ...... ......... .................- ........ . . . ..... ......... . ........ . ........ ......... .. ....... ....... ........... .. ............... ... .. ......... ... ........ . ... ....... ... .. ........... ........ ....... ......... ................ . - ........._ _ ...... ......... ......... ... - - - ......... .... ..... ......... ......... . .. ...... ......... .. .. ..... .. _ . .. ........ . ...... .................. ......... ...... ....... .........- ..........- ........ ......... ......... ........ . .. ........... _ ... -....... ......... ......... ............... ... ......... ........ . ......... ......... .. ..... ......... ........ ......_. ......... ......... ......... ......... ............ ... . .. .. ..... ......... . ... ......... ......._. ......... ............ . ......... . ...................................................... ......... ......... ........_........ . ......_... ......... ..... _ ......... ........ ......... ........... ... ....... .. .......... . ... . .... .......... ... . . . ... .......... ... .......... . ..... ... . ........ .. ....... ......... ......... -........ ......... ......... ......... . ..._... ......... ..._._. ........ ... ...... .......... ...... -............ ...... .. ..... ....... .. ......... _ . .. ..... .. . . ........ ..........._ ....... ......... ..... _ ...... .. .... CAP OUTLAY PROJECTS 528,112 9,057,400 1,624,900 3,917,820 3,916,120 . .........._ ._........._.._..................._............................__.....____.......__............................. ... ............................... ...... ....... ...... ......... ......... .. . . ..... . . . -.. ...... DEBT REPAYMENTS 3,366,345 3,274,500 3,275,000 4,221,500 4,221,500 .............._ ....... ........... ...................._............................................................................................_..................... ......................................._.._................ .......... . .. ......... ........ . ......... .... _ ...... .......................... ................. _............................_............................._............................................................ ............ ............ ......... .................................... .. ....... ......... .... .... . . . ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _.._...__..... .... ..... ........ ......... ........ .. ........ . ......... ......... ......... ........_. ......._ .. .......... - ............. ... ....... .. .. .... ...... .... ... .... ......... _ ......... _........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... ... . ........... ...... ......... _ .... . .. .. _ ......... ......... ......... ...... ... _ ..... 20% SET-ASIDE 534,523 603,499 ......5... 51,500 4,634,767 4,561,907 _..... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... - ....... ... . ..............._ ... ._........ . ............. ..._. ......... ...... I. ......... . ..... . .... ......... _............. ... . ... .... ........ .. ....... ........._ ................. ......... ................. ..... ....... ............ .. ........ ........... ....... TOTAL RDV AGENCY $6,035,599 $14,868,766 $7,156,594 $21,590,680 $21,435,665 .. ............ _..... ........ ......... ......... ......... ...__.. ......... ........ ......... ......_... ...... ... ........ . ......... .. ............. AGENCY REVENUE $14,547,769 $12,337,612 $12,031,982 $14,728,000 $14,728,000 ACTUAL BUDGET ESTACTUAL :DEPT REQ ADOPTED PERSONNEL FY 90L97 FY 1/92 FY 91/92: FY 92%93 . .: FY 92/93: ....... ._. ... ......... . .. ........ NON-SAFETY 10.50 13.00 13.00 12.50 11.50 ......... _. ......... ........... - -.... . ........ .. ....... ......... - ... _..... ....._.. ......... ......... ......... .......... . ..... ....... . .. _ ........ ............ ..... . _ ........... ...... . .... _... _..........._........................................._.._..................................................................._......... .................. -......... ........................._................_................ ......... ......... ........ ._ . .... _ ......... . _ ..... .. ... .. ........ ..... .... . .... .. .. ... _ .. .... .. _. ... . .. TOTAL 10.50 13.00 13.00 12.50 11.50 50 HIGHLIGHTS A new program, Business Development, has been established to pro-actively increase City sales .tax and Transient Occupancy Tax (hotel bed tax). The department will continue to develop additional housing programs for the 20% Set-Aside Redevelopment funds to provide housing opportunities for low and moderate income households within the community. The transfer of Redevelopment funds to the General Fund will increase $244,500 from $972,500 to $1,217,000 for fiscal year 1992/93. Within the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the rehabilitation loan program, code enforcement, and LOGOS program have been moved to the Community Development Department. To reflect this, the loan origination staff are now funded as part of the program/CIP budget rather than under administration. A *� k� # 5Mk � �#h �, 'r'§�Vwf�h8h#4JnR#'�� &fr#��k ��W"Y.#.. #. y�•'W � d&'!pW � .%.. �g�.�•�+w #�''n * ' 7 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-other funds -------------- BU©GEF`..;: .. ..A.CTUAL DEPT REQ: ADOPTED DESCRIPTION FY90/91>: :'' ;;;;FY99192' . :.;::' E ' 1f32.: FY..92/93.. . :FY.32193:. HSG & COMM DEV $643,765 $1,405,000 $676,335 $1,459,000 $1,549,000. ..... ..........::.....:::........... ::..::: .::: ...:. :: ::...... ... .:.. TOTAL OTHER FUNDS $643,765 $1,405,000 $676,335 $1,459,000 $1,549,000 51 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Community Development Department is divided into two divisions, Planning and Building. The department is responsible for ensuring that proposed development within the City conforms to all applicable laws and regulations embodied in state and local codes. It is also responsible for the enforcement of land use and zoning regulations. The Department is responsible for revising elements of the City's General Plan to assure internal and zoning consistency in accordance with state law. Planning Division: Processes General Plan amendments and plan conformances. Within the Current Planning section, the department processes code amendments, and development applications. Provides staff support to the Planning Commission. Also responsible for Land use enforcement. Building Division: Within the Building Division, the department performs plan checks, inspections to ensure conformance with applicable codes. Approximately 9,000 permits are issued annually for electrical, mechanical, plumbing and structural improvements. Construction inspectors have been trained for combination inspection, thereby,creating greater efficiency in the provision of this service. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTUAL; :BUDGET EST.ACTUA`L DEPTREQ ADOPTED DESCRIPTION FY 90/9 t:; FY 91l92 FY 91/92:: FY 92f93 FY 92/93 .. PERSONAL SERVICES $2,668,472 $3,223,149 $2,997,881 $3,381,522 $3,323,834 ...... OPERATING EXPENSES 549,746 943,954 828,090 494,946 494,946 CAPITAL OUTLAY 19,339 0 0 33,050 0 .. TOTAL COMM DEV $3,237,557 $4,167,103 $3,825,971 $3,909,518 $3,818,780 EQUIP. REPLACEMENT $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $28,750 $0 ... PGRM REIMBUSEMENT $1,629,522 $2,177,304 $2,056,496 $2,007,017 S2,004,985 ACTUAL.; BUDGET EST ACTUAL DEPT REQ ADOPTED; PERSONNEL FY90/91 FY91192 FY91/92:; FY92/93 FY92/93 ;;:;; NON-SAFETY 50.00 53.00 53.00 50.00 50.00 TOTAL 50.00 53.00 53.00 50.00 50.00 52 HIGHLIGHTS By not hiring the Senior Plan Checker, the planning processing time could increase. Planners would be required to perform plan checks for building permits, grading permits, landscape plans, environmental monitoring as well as zoning compliance checks in addition to completing project reviews. Underfilling positions and eliminating one Intern position will cause senior members of the staff to perform minor assignments and spend more time training and assisting Planning Aides and Assistant Planners to become more familiar with City and State planning laws and processes. Reducing operating expenses for contract services will prevent special planning studies and study of the downtown area to be performed. The elimination of 2 Senior Structural Inspector positions (over a two year period ) may result in delays in inspections. The position of Building Official has been replaced through the transfer of a position from Redevelopment. This position has been retitled to Housing/Building Director and will be funded 1/2 by the General Fund, for the building related functions, and 1/2 by Redevelopment 20% Set-Aside funds, for the housing function. A major project that was started in 1991/92 and will continue, is the update of the City's General Plan. r A . �i R fi 53 FIRE DEPAR TMENT The Huntington Beach Fire Department operates and maintains seven fire stations within City boundaries, plus the Joint Powers Facility. The Department provides a fire protection and rescue/paramedic system. The Huntington Beach Fire Department is the lead agency in a joint powers fire control agreement with the neighboring cities of Westminister, Fountain Valley, County of Orange, and Newport Beach. The Huntington Beach Fire Department maintains an aggressive fire prevention and education program as an integral part of the fire control mission. The Fire Department also operates the Civil Defense Emergency Services facility which is located in a blast-protected underground vault below the Civic Center. The Department maintains a Hazardous Materials Response Unit (HAZMAT) which operates in accordance with the Orange County Master Plan for hazardous materials response. The Fire Department operates a subscription based paramedic program called FireMed. This voluntary membership program offers a mechanism for residents and businesses . to cap their emergency medical service and ambulance transportation costs while supporting the expansion of the City's paramedic system. FIRE DEPAR TMENT .. ........ .......>:...... .. .. .3UQGTSTCTUAt . L?EAT RQ Al?OPTI DESCRIPTION 1=.9dJS► : . . FY 9.1192 �Y 9I/SZ:.. :: 92I93 �Y:92/93 < :; ....... ....... .. ......_.. .. . ..... ... . . ......... ......... ............... .. . -....... ........ .. . . ... .... .. ... . . .... ... .. .: PERSONAL SERVICES $11,616,353 $12,991,043 $12,747,801 $14,405,606 $14,082,627 ..... .......................................... . . .. . ..:.. .. .:............. ....... .... . OPERATING EXPENSES 1,064,596 1,606,184 1,581,440 1,683,794 1,725,016 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................`.`............................................................. % % % . .. ..: .....:.::.:::....::....:...:.. .... ...%. .......... ............ ... ... . .................... ......................................... CAPITAL OUTLAY 22,644 62,200 62,200 120,225 0 _.......................................... . ............._.................................... ..... ...... .................... ........... ......_.........................................- .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................_._....... .............. .......................................... . .................................._.................. ._...... ............ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............... ............._..._................................... ...... . ..................... .......... ........... -.... ...._............................_._..........__...... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ...._.._............. ... ................_._......... ....._..................................._......... ............................................ _..............__............................................_..._................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............... . .. ........... ........_.................................................__..._.._.. . .... ........_.......... .._.._................................. -._.............. _. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ...................... ... ..... ..................... .. . .. .. ......:... ... ..... ... .. ........ TOTAL FIRE DEPT $12,703,593 $-14,659,427 $14,391,441 $16,209,626 $15,807,643 ..... .............. ......... .. ................................................ ..................................................................:..................................................................................................::.. EQUIP REPLACEMENT $500,000 $147,600 $147,600 $824,235 $0 .......__..................... ................. ..._...._....................._........................._....._..................... .............................. ......_._......................................................... .................................................................................................................._........................._....................................__....................._........................................................... - ......... .......... .. ... .......... ......... ..... ......._ ............. .... ............... ...............:...................................... ... .. .: . PGRM REIMBUSEMENT $355,000 $416,900 $416,900 $691,000 $691,000 ... ..... ......... .. ... -> ::... :ACT#!A :::: :. .....BU QET ::ESTACTUA.L .. DEP.TR..E4 ADOPTED-. . .::...................................... :::: _.......:::....* PERSONNEL FY 90J91.:. .:.. . ...FY91192 FY 9T/92 FY 92193 .................... I ............. ........ ......... ......... ........ . .._ . _ __. ......... ..... ......... ...... . ... ......... ......... ..... ............... .................................................. .......... .... .. .. ... ...... .... .. . . . . .... . .. ... .. .. SAFETY 132.75 132.75 132.75 135.75 135.75 :.::::::::::::.::. ... ::.::...:>:::>::.::..... .:. ..::. .. ................ . .:: NON-SAFETY 16.50 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 ... ................................ ....... .. .... .. . .. .. ....... ...... .. ..... ........................ TOTAL 149.25 149.75 149.75 152.75 152.75 .................._......................_..........................._..._..............................._....._............................ _...._............ ...... ................ ......._ .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .............:....::.:...:........:.::...:.....:..::.:............................................:....:................................................................................................................................................................. ..... RESRVE FIRE FIGHTER 50.00 50.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 ........... . .. ............... . . ... ........................................... ........ ..... ............................. ...................... ............ .......................... ...................... ........... .::.....::..:..:..........:.......:......................... ...................:................................................................................................. ........................................ ........................... ...... SEARCH & RESCUE 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 54 HIGHLIGHT' Elimination of the Fire Reserve Program will reduce General Fund costs by $108,000 per year. Impact of the cut will have a significant effect, but will not compromise basic fire protection services. Elimination of the program will result in less efficient use of sworn Firefighters and a reduction in fire prevention and emergency preparation activities. Three new Paramedic positions will be added in fiscal year 1992/93 to address expanded service needs due to the development of the Holly/Seacliff area. The positions will be developer funded, until new property taxes are sufficient to cover the cost, in accordance with the Development Agreement for this r project. Efforts will continue to formalize a Joint Powers agreement to provide cooperative dispatch and training services with neighboring cities. This would replace an informal relationship. Plans are in progress to replace the 30 year old Heil Fire Station with a modern structure on a site better located to enhance emergency response in north Huntington Beach. The station relocation will be coordinated with future development plans. .� -� �-.�'�w:a �,€ 'P-�•�i-�fr a+a���� �0 k--w 'a�":3'�F'�a� wk aa� �e **� �F��' ���� �4�:+��4 �-?� -�4.s��'f' +.��,. ``��, � �r��x�� �m ��•a.a art$�.a k,:awr!w� ��rx-§� s� .�� ,�.:���a ,�r r. ��5 ��;,t� 'q,.�:#.� ���� �z� •� 'k�-��+�' ,� � - �� "�� +�'��� �a���'���a��.����'�'-�'�^.���+�,�•��� a��:_�.r « t.gay � ��-�,�„�,�' ���:s•�,��a,�:w��.,;� � �'�'����� ��'`����„�`� �� � �s:;��aa "'yam.•.i �� ���°��� '`��' �u���w s- � m� �� �'� F t FIRE DEPARTMENT-other funds RGTi�t1lL....... ... .BU17F : ......EST�4TUl[G..... .t7Ef'TR? Q. /1DFTEa .. D SCR/P O > >!` .>.:.: » `>'<'>< F f :9 ><><« <9 f1S2>>< > <'< 1 ::.;?193 .....g E TI N ..... ....9fl/ ..................... 12.......................Y. ...........................F..... .... ................_.......Y...._/_3........ .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ... .. . ............................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 c y;>::> :<:>:>:$ :;y.ryQ :>' ::¢4 U�19 1 1 .$1 ...S.......:.:...:. V.:....... L).41.::......::.:::::.::�i../.4i.:. .:::..:.......?,i.4.�:::�....::��...:..::.:........... 5........::.:.:..............................:.:.........:...:.......s..........Y............ .....:......................:..................:...........:.:....:.........................:.:..:...:.:.........................::............................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. FIREMED FUND 1,792,201 2,129,187 2,083,774 2,473,745 2,469,139 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .. ... . ... ... .. TOTAL OTHER FUNDS $2,970,625 $3,500,332 $3,398,793 $3,971,944 $3,967,339 55 POLICE DEPARTMENT The Department has, for many years, been a leader in the implementation and use of advanced technology for the provision of safety services. Examples of these are computer aided dispatch, quiet technology helicopters with infra-red night viewing capability, and an advanced Scientific Investigation laboratory complete with the purchase in 1988 of CAL-ID computer equipment, a fingerprint cross-matching system. The Department began using helicopters in 1969 as an augmentation to the traditional patrol function. The City recently put into service two new helicopters with quiet technology. The helicopters will eventually be equipped with television transmission capability to be used for major emergencies or disasters, and other non-emergency events. The Police Department's main base of operation is housed in a modern, three level structure located at the Civic Center complex. The Department maintains a full service jail facility which, in addition to serving local needs, is also at the main facility used to house prisoners and trustees from other jurisdictions. Other operations located include the communications center, the training center and all administrative and investigative activities. Nearby, a heliport facility provides a permanent base of operations for the helicopters. A police sub-station was established in 1990 to address crime problems in the Oakview neighborhood and a substation to serve the downtown area was added in 1991. Organizationally, the Police Department consists of four major divisions; Uniform, Administration, Investigation, and Services. The Narcotic Forfeiture Fund is a separate fund that receives asset seizure funds from convicted narcotic violators. The Department uses the money to augment police enforcement activities. POLICE DEPARTMENT .. .. .. ACTUAL., ;BUDGET ESTtCTl1A'L DEPT REQ ADOPTFL), DESCRIPTION FY 90/91;' FY91Y92 FY91/92 FY92/93 FYi92/93 ... PERSONAL SERVICES $24,902,880 $27,122,889 $26,399,378 $29,030,769 $28,359,568 . .. OPERATING EXPENSES 3,324,638 3,475,264 3,481,492 3,832,561 3,632,561 ........ ..: .. .. ... . CAPITAL OUTLAY 47,602 0 0 0 0 .................................... TOTAL POLICE DEPT 28,275,120 30,598,153 29,880,870 32,863,330 31,992,129 .. EQUIP. REPLACEMENT $636,500 $709,300 $709,300 $851,608 $649,500 .. ... ..... . ......... PGRM REIMBUSEMENT $2,272,674 $2,802,250 $2,317,550 $2,531,000 $2,531,000 .. .. ... ACTUAL.... BUDGET ESTACTUAL DEPT<REQ ADO...PTED PERSONNEL FY SO/9 FY9 /92 FY91/92 . FY 92193 FY:92/93 _: ... . . _ .... . .:. SAFETY 222.00 219.00 219.00 219.00 219.00 ... NON-SAFETY 149.00 148.00 148.00 143.00 143.00 ::...:..... .... ..... .. . . TOTAL 371.00 367.00 367.00 362.00 362.00 56 HIGHLIGHTS Six vacant permanent full time positions will be eliminated from the budget as well as eleven temporary positions. The impact of these reductions is briefly described as follows: Administrative Aide II: This position is responsible for identifying and applying for outside funding sources. Police Clerk Seniors (2): Reduction of clerical positions coupled with no growth for several years places a burden on the remaining employees. Maintenance Worker Sr.: The department no longer has any employees to handle building maintenance. All work requests will be handled by the Public Works Department. Elimination of Temporary Positions: Clerks This adds to the shortage of needed clerical help. Parking Enforcement Officer: Eliminates a potential revenue generating source. Student Workers (5): The department relies upon these positions in tasks that have become crucial because of personnel shortages. Photo Assistant: Loss will delay the processing of evidence. By consolidating Police maintenance with that of Public Works, we have estimated an operational savings of at least $35,000 annually. This savings is primarily a reduction of supplies duplication. 10 a..r k , - 01 AAW POLICE DEPAR TMENT other funds >:: >::::>::::>::>:::: >:;:ACUA >:> >... ::BUDGET: EST ACTUAL :: DEFT O DESCR1PTlOi1� ;:> 1= 90/9 >::::> F 9.1192;:::: ... Fly 9Yl9 FY:.92193:: PY 37%93 :. . . .. . :.:7..... 1,� 4, 00: , ..:3.4:.:z..... : pG S ;$14393,457 , :......:.:.:.:.:........... .......... ::...::.::::::: : ..... .:? .....:.:....................................... .... ................................................ POLICE COM RELATNS 4,081 100,000 20,000 100,000 100,000 ........ ....... ............. . .. TOTAL OTHER FUNDS $869,048 $1,224,200 $1,123,462 $1,506,854 $1,493,057 57 COMMUNITY SERVICES The Department of Community services provides recreational and cultural activities, human services programs, and beach supervision and maintenance on a year-round basis. Organizationally, the Community Services Department consists of five divisions: Beach Operations, Park Development , Recreation and Human Services, Arts and Cultural Affairs. The Beach division provides for the activities of the Marine Safety Program (Lifeguards), Beach and Pier Maintenance, Parking Facility, Junior Lifeguards, the Central Park Surveillance-Nature Center Program, and the City landfill. The Park development and Recreation Division supervise all recreation activities, with the exception of Adult sports, throughout the City's Parks and Community Center system. The Recreation and Human Services Division supervises various Special Events Programs, Adult sports, Emerald Cove senior housing facility, Oak-view Center, and Rodgers Senior's Center. The Arts and Cultural Affairs Division operates programs throughout the city and is coordinating improvement of the Cultural Arts Center. Recreational Fees Revenue $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 i $0 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 COMMUNITY SERVICES EE TAL 3 U U 9. FJ FYFDESCRIPTION . FY 91192 Y: 9f/92 Y91 92/93 PERSONAL SERVICES $4,547,421 $5,033,231 $4,921,293 $5,604,446 $5,268,892 _.. OPERATING EXPENSES 1,502,093 1,696,779 1,712,277 1,845,309 1,587,114 ... .. . CAPITAL OUTLAY 14,464 0 0 0 0 . TOTAL COMM SVCS $6,063,978 $6,730,010 $6,633,570 $7,449,755 $6,856,005 . . .:. EQUIP. REPLACEMENT $220,140 $169,800 $169,800 $178,290 $178,290 AOTURL $UDGET EST ACTUAL DEPT REQ ADOPTED Y F2PERSONNEL Y992 FY.919 3 . SAFETY 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 . .. NON-SAFETY 52.25 54.25 54.25 60.00 53.25 .. _ ... TOTAL 62.25 64.25 64.25 70.00 63.25 58 HIGHLIGHTS n ie i i COMMUNITY SERVICES-other funds S: A DEP E DOPlE:::>:::>::::::: ruA snEr:... T. ervA�, _r R a a ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................... DESCRIPTION €`: ;;FY'901J1;:::.::' ..FY::91�92 < ;:: FY 9 %92 FY92/93 :.. .. :..FY 921,53 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............... . .............. _. _ . .......... __... .... ... . ...__ .. _.... _. _..._ .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. EMERALD C3E3COUSI .::> :> �2 'S :': ..... $ 25 6 .....::.. $ 94 4G9 $824 59:0 $778 590: , :.:.:.:::..:.... : �:.:.. �.......... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. MEADOWLARK GOLF 134,295 177,537 177,537 202,537 202,537 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. P K C VTSx�' ON 8r ► 15 'SZ: : 2 j70:8 ,0 5 93 53p 9�2 66U 826 ..:..:..... .. ................ ......................................... .................................................................. ...... . ....: ....... ............r..... . ...... ....: .......................................................................................................................................................................... ......: PARKING AUTHORITY 164,675 168,000 168,000 248,500 248,500 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 00 Ht P�L�l+ :<FACI, TIES................... 93................... 9Z.+DQD...................J. ...0. .Q...................39� QpU...................39 0 .:::::.::.::::..::::::::::::.....................................................................................r................................................:::: ::::.:::::.:::::::::::.:::::::.:::. ::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::................................................................................................................................................................................. FOUTH OF JUL PARADE 0 93,750 97,091 111,700 111,700 :.>.:.;:.:.. ... ... .. 00 tT:O�NTE :FUND..........:::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::+ .::.;.:;.;;.;:;.....;:.;:.::.::.::.::.::.::.:::..................................... .......U....................................0...................7. . p . . ........................... ............................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. TOTAL OTHER FUNDS $1,615,423 $2,940,694 $2,635,390 $2,309,319 $3,093,153 59 PUBLIC WORKS Department Overview: Operations supervised by the Public Works Department equal nearly 401/o of the City Budget. There are several separate funds within the scope of department responsibility. These include General Fund operations to cover City landscape, engineering-design and maintenance needs, and other funds including the Water Fund, Drainage Fund, Sewer Fund, Gas Tax Fund (transportation projects), the Capital Projects Fund, The Pier Rebuilding Fund, the Flood Fund, and the S.B.821 Fund (handicapped improvements and bike trails). These 'Other Fund' operations, with the exception of the operating portion of the Water Utility, are part of the City's Capital Improvements Program. General Fund operations are divided into three divisions -- Engineering and Design; Parks, Tree and Landscape Maintenance; Building and Facility Maintenance Operations. Other funds: (Projects details for most of these funds are contained in the Capital Improvement section of the budget). The Water Utility Fund provides production, transmission and distribution of water to the community as well as construction of water facilities and water meter reading and repair. The Transportation Projects Fund (Gas Tax Fund) which, in cooperation with other governmental agencies, provides for the development and maintenance of an adequate system of public streets. The Sewer Fund provides for the development and preservation of an adequate and functional sewer system. The Drainage Fund assists in the development of an adequate storm drain system by funding storm drain construction and reconstruction as resources permit. PUBLIC WORKS ACTUAL; EUDGET EST_ACTUAL DEPT REQ...:;. AODPTED i. .: DESCRIPTION FY90/9fY91l92 FY91f92 FY 92191. FY92193 :. ...... ... PERSONAL SERVICES $11,044,344 $11,301,654 $10,865,080 $11,598,157 $11,407,568 OPERATING EXPENSES 10,466,212 4,919,325 4,821,235 4,980,387 4,980,388 CAPITAL OUTLAY 42,118 0 0 0 0 - . TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS $21,552,674 $16,220,979 $15,686,315 $16,578,544 $16,387,956 EQUIP. REPLACEMENT $539,800 $230,000 $230,000 $1,384,150 $258,250 ... .. PGRM REIMBUSEMENT $7,926,875 $2,344,500 $2,344,500 $2,380,500 $29380,500 ... .. _ - .. ... _ ....... ACTUAL. BUDG..ET EST.ACTUAt DEPT REQ ADOPTED; : . PERSONNEL FY 80/91. FY 91192 PY91/92 FY 92193 FY:92/93 . ..... .. -... NON-SAFETY 211.50 196.50 196.50 187.05 186.05 .. TOTAL 211.50 196.50 196.50 187.05 186.05 60 HIGHLIGHTS Engineering Division: The reorganization of the division will continue in fiscal year 1992/93. A net reduction of 9.45 General Fund supported full time positions will occur in the Engineering Division through a combination of transfers to Capital Improvement Project funds, and reallocations. Maintenance Division: The Supervisor Building Maintenance and Crewleader Building Maintenance will be eliminated per the budget reduction plan. An 8% reduction will occur in the total number of work orders completed this year. An additional time delay of up to 2 weeks will occur for those work orders which are completed. A reduction in Civic Center janitorial service from 5 to 3 days per week. Park, Trees & Landscape Division: Highway landscape maintenance may be affected because of budget reductions, to replace 10 controllers, 20 backflow devices, and about 5,000 feet of pipe. Tree maintenance may be impacted with storm damage and vehicle accident cleanups being delayed. Park services will be affected due to the elimination of one (of two) annual complete fertilization of the entire system, reduction of the replanting of damaged plants and shrubs by 10%. r t i q%` t �`$sr'� but pia�ttfi N Rp 321 3 � ' k PUBLIC WORKS-other funds ::: :::: .......::.::::.:<.>:.::: ::::>:. ATtI#�.......... BttpGEl ....... ST/tCT..UA :..D�F'T RE OPTED :;.. DESCRIPTION F'Y. l9 »'::....FY9: 192.. Y 9:1f92............. PY 82/93...: ........ FY 92I19 . ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ...................................................................................................................................................................... ..:....:::::.:::........:;.:::::::;.::.::.:::.::;:::.....:;:.::............................ VYrE2::U I11L :: > :: :::::; 1(X::::::::::::::::::..:........$I °52 �9 ..::;:: $ 73$ ,333:;;.> �6►,.�....Cr,�?� ::: $2����2�2 $2�,99�s�2$ :.... ......a...:............................... :::::::::::: . . ..::::::.::::,:.:.:::::.:::...::::., }::.::::.:::..::.:::::.:::.::.:.::::::::............ ...:.........::. GAS TAX FUND 7,438,286 109252,944 5,601,863 7,785,100 7,785,100 :;:;;:::> ::>:>::>::::> ::: :::: .. 2: > U... ;.:.::::.::.:..:........:::: 2 ISSi�.;::::.::..:.. . 112 66. ...................4.2.... .48..............E 1111. t�............... . � ._ . ... ....................................:.......................................................................... . . .................... .........a............ ........ ... . ......... �. . ... ............................:::........,....................................... ......................................................................................................y......... ................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... DRAINAGE FUND 1,093,072 1,697,864 1,357,375 1,914,925 1,914,925 1PITAL IR ,T 'I 2,24 821 7.1 a.87 360 >::......� 6,7Q4462 5,'764,556 3,966850 PIER RECONSTRUCT 4,133,850 3,212,000 3,212,000 300,000 300,000 1?. UND :: :.: ..... ... .......................... . .. ........ 0 .... ... LIBRARY SERVICES 0 8,485,624 17,536 19,287 19,287 »::>'::> :.:: <:;:: ;::..........:n �«.p...�}: :::><:><.>:: :<::: .{<. 6 ... :....:3 8 2 6 <:.:."::;::;::::>::::> :::.::;;;;;:;;:<,;;U�:::... .. S JVa4 ......... .. t Sy .:.. ...::.. f4. kf .: #..�;;;;� :9:::: ......................................... ..........:....................................................................................:.......:...............................................................:......:..................................................... REFUSE FUND 0 5,645,648 5,645,170 6,185,929 6,185,929 TOTAL OTHER FUNDS $29,107,671 $56,617,816 $39,276,996 $48,966,324 $47,106,724 61 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS DE?7 R (, tDOP7ED PROJEIC7'ED PRDJECTFD <PRC�►JECQ; DE.SCRIPTIC3N FYi9�l99.< FY92/93 fY93/94..'... i=XJ4XJ .: ... :':: Y9S/96..: ... ..... . ....:... ..... . . .. ......... . .. GAS TAX $7,246,061 $7,785,100 $391449846 $3,280,838 $3,418,630 __ _ .................... . .. _. . . .......... - _. ...... .... _..............._. __. .. .............._..................................................._....................................... ........ ...._... _. _.. _.._._....._. __..............._....._ ... ................. .... ...... ..._._. . -....... . _ . .. _ - _.. - .. ................._ _. ..... ...... _...... ......................_.................. ... ... ... .. CAPITAL IMPROVEMNT 5,764,556 3,966,850 6,070,062 1,4919250 1,280,000 ... .. ..... PARK, AQ, & DEVELPM 5309992 6609826 613,946 1,0179043 920,292 .......... . .. . . ....... .... - ......... ......... ...... ......... ......... ......... .......... .. .. .. ... ... .... TRANSPORTATION 4 ---- - ._ ......... ........ ..._..... .. ._....... - _... ....... _..... . SEWER FUND 19130,136 191309136 6569449 686,897 437,741 ..... . .... .... .............. .. ....... . ... . ....... ... .. . DRAINAGE FUND 1,914,925 1,914,925 553,636 1,006,492 684,742 .... .... _............................ ... ....... LIBRARY EXPANSION 19,287 19,287 0 0 0 .....::: .. PIER RECONSTRUCTIO 3009000 300,000 0 0 0 .... ......... . .... ......... _. _...... - .. _ ........... ....... ........... .. _... _. .. ........._.... .-.... _.. .... --. _..... ....... _....._.. ......... ........ _...._... .. .......... ....... ... ....... ..... ... .... HSG & COMM DEV 194599000 1,4599000 1,454,160 19482,220 1,511,620 _.. _....... _ ......... . ........ ........_.. __............ .. .................._......... .........._..............................._............................................................................................................. ............. _ _. .... ...... _........_... ................_......................_.. ._........................_....... ... ....................................................................._......................................._.................................... _. ..... _ . ......... . . . REDEVELOPMENT: Main/Pier 891909000 8,190,000 0 0 0 Huntington Center 1,040,000 1,040,000 0 0 0 Talbert/Beach 60,000 60,000 0 0 0 Oakview 1,400,000 1,4009000 0 0 0 Yorktown/Lake 1229350 122,350 1449835 1509000 0 20% Set-a-Side 49045,000 49045,000 196009000 4,600,000 1009000 _.. .. ........ _.. ... .. ... .. . WATER UTILITY 496409000 4,640,000 6509000 3,750,000 0 _. ..: . GRANT FUND 2259813 3779816 23,121 24,277 259491 _. .. ...... TOTAL CIP PROJECTS $42,133,289 $40,923,459 $16,613,834 $18,8299435 $9,758,455 62 HIGHLIGHTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Like the General Fund Budget, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is prepared in the multi-year format. The CIP is divided into several major categories such as Transportation, Parks, Drainage, Sewer, Redevelopment, General Facilities, Sewer Projects, Drainage Projects, Pier Reconstruction, etc. Projects are budgeted Capital Improvement Program only when a funding source has been identified. A significant portion of the CIP is.projected to be funded from revenues restricted to use for the types of projects for which they were originally collected, i.e., Parks, Streets, Drainage, etc. Other funding sources, both restricted and non-restricted, are water revenues, moneys available from the prior issuance of Bonds or Certificates of Participation, and grants from other governmental agencies. Each project category is presented as a budget program cost center. Although under the supervision of various City departments, the CIP programs were grouped together in this manner to provide a comprehensive Capital Improvement Program section. A summary schedule of project expenditures for FY 1992/1993, and projected expenditures for the following three years, has been provided to help put he Capital Improvement Program into perspective in terms of total dollars. Some of the future year projects are unfunded, as noted. i t 63 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FUTURE DEBT REQUIREMENTS UTH REPA YMENT SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 1992193 AMOUNT ANNUAL YEARS TO SOURCE OF DESCRIPTION OUTSTANDING PAYMENT MATURITY PAYMENT General Obligation Bonds: 1970 Park Bonds $1,255,000 $475,000 3 Property Tax Levy Revenue Bonds: Parking Authority Bonds 275,000 170,000 2 General Fund Public Financing Authority 33,495,000 2,655,000 26 Tax Increment Revenue, Redevelopment Lease Hold Mortgage Bonds: HBPFC Library 2,000,000 399,000 6 General Fund Notes Payable: Meadowlark Golf Course 1,601,000 150,000 17 Golf Course Revenue County of Orange-Equip 92,000 92,000 1 General Fund Certificates of Participation: Civ. Impr. Corp.-1986 18,875,000 1,524,000 24 General Fund Civ. Impr. Corp.-1989 14,710,000 1,076,000 28 General Fund Pub. Fin. Auth.-Equipment 5,510,000 1,337,000 4 Equipment Replacement Fund Emerald Cove Housing 5,740,000 460,000 25 Rental Income Reservoir Hill 1,647,000 170,000 19 Assessment Levies Mello Roos 2,400,000 190,000 30 Assessment Levies 64 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-FUND TRANSFERSIEXPENDI T URES FISCAL YEAR 1992193 FUND PURPOSE PAID FROM: PAID TO: General Fund Civic Improvement Corp $2,632,500 Debt Service-Civ Ctr (COP's) General Fund Public Facilities Corp 399,000 Dbt Svc-Libr(Lease Rv Bonds) General Fund Joint Powers Authority 571,911 City Share-Jt Powers Dispatch General Fund Self Insurance Fund 1,600,000 Liability Costs General Fund Self Insurance Fund 2,250,000 Workers Comp Costs General Fund Self Insurance Fund 3,050,000 Employee Medical Costs General Fund Equipment Replacement Fund 2,250,000 Capital Asset Replacement GENERAL FUND SUB TOTAL $12,753,411 PAID FROM: PAID TO: Parking Projects Library Service Fund $5,000,000 Funding for Libra Expansion Water Fund General Fund 1,100,000 Svcs Provided to Water Dept Redevelopment General Fund 1,217,013 Redev Agency Loan Payment Redevelopment H B Pub. Financing Authority 2,696,000 Debt Svc (Redev Bonds) Redevelopment Water Fund 35,487 Repay of Water Fund Advance Gas Tax Fund General Fund 1,600,000 Street Maint & Improvements Enterprise Fund Self Insurance Fund 698,000 Employee Benefit Costs Parking Projects General Fund 900,000 Debt Svc on Unused COP's Refuse Collection General Fund 250,000 Billing/Collection/Overhead Fire Medical General Fund 200,000 Billing/Collection/Overhead Cable Television General Fund 85,000 Building Occupancy Charge Meadowlark Golf Course General Fund 25,000 Accounting/Administration Housing Set-A-Side Emerald Cove 80,000 Rent Subsidy Art Center Capital Improvement Fund 700,000 Art Center Construction FUND OTHER FUNDS SUB TOTAL $14,586,500 TOTAL CITY INTER-FUND TRANSF/EXPEND $27,339,911 65 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTIO Date February 16, 1993 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator ikf - z Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrator — "rn f) Subject: CURRENT YEAR (1992/93) BUDGET S APPROVED BY CITY LJNGIL Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [X] IN ew Policy or Exception /] Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Fundii Attachments: OBJECTIVE: To amend the current year budget to reduce expenses or increase revenue to eliminate a $2.2 million estimated budget shortfall . RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1 . Amend the Water Fund Budget to authorize payment to the General Fund of an additional $1 ,500,000 in fiscal year 1992/93 to cover costs for services provided by General Fund Operations, and 2. Instruct the City Administrator to implement additional expenditure control programs to reduce purrent year expenses by an additional - $300,000 to. $700,000 and C -t{4f COA--s be G(ctv,-A-b'U2I-)0q, 000 3. `lu t-h—rtze— e u s e-e--Ce.n a r a 1 F u n die s-e•r_v sic o v e r thQ-- r e_i n ni g- estimated 1992/93 shortfall ($0 - 400,000) , and 4. Instruct the City Administrator to provide an updated shortfall estimate by May 1 , 1993. ANALYSIS: Revised 1992/93 General Fund revenue estimates are $3.8 million lower than projected at the time of budget adoption. In addition, the State has taken $2.25 million of the City' s General Fund revenue for a total revenue reduction of roughly $6 million. Approved expenditure reductions of $1 .7 million and anticipated expenditure savings of $2. 1 million will not fully offset the $6 million revenue reduction, leaving a estimated budget shortfall of $2.2 million. Revenue and expenditure projections will be further revised upon receipt of additional "actual " information (most significantly; sales tax information) in March and April . Significant improvements in revenue are not anticipated, nor are further significant expenditure reductions anticipated, unless actions such as those recommended above are approved. Attached is a review of options to reduce the estimated current year budget shortfall of $2.2 million. Also attached is the quarterly budget report for the first two quarters of the fiscal year. Approximately eight months of the current fiscal year will be completed prior to any additional expenditure reduction methods being implemented, therefore the potential savings from the various expenditure reduction programs is limited. Similarly, the PIO 5/85 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Current Year (1992/93) Budget Shortfall implementation of new fees or revenues as a result of the MSI Study would have limited impact on increasing revenues in the current year. Therefore, cost recovery through charges to Enterprise Funds is a primary option to review in order to avoid use of General Fund reserves to address the current year budget shortfall . Although the attached list of options to reduce the shortfall provides a review of many different options, recommendations for implementation are limited to the following three: 1 . Additional General Fund Charges to the Water Fund. 2. Expenditure Reductions. 3. Use of General Fund Reserves. 1 . Additional Charges to the Water Fund The costs of General Fund services to the Water Fund is approximately $2.6 million per year. This includes billing, collection, vehicle maintenance, building maintenance, liability insurance, accounting, personnel , plus general and administrative overhead as documented by the MSI Study. Traditionally, payment by the Water Fund for these services has been limited to the direct costs as estimated in a prior cost allocation study done in the early 1980' s. The MSI Study updated that prior study, significantly expanding the analysis to insure inclusion of all costs, including fixed asset depreciation and overhead rates. Current estimates are that Water Fund revenues for 1992/93 will be $2 million greater than estimated expenditures. In addition, the fund balance and reserve in the Water Fund is in excess of $12 million. Future year costs for the Water Fund operation are expected to increase as state and regional water agencies increase their charges for purchased and pumped water. Careful projection of future year revenue and expenses and incremental rate increases to keep pace with mandated cost increases will insure that the Water Fund remains financially viable. 2. Expenditure Reductions The attached report identifies additional expenditure control measures through the expansion of the selected hiring freeze and non-salary expenditure reductions that could result in $200,000 to $300,000 additional savings in the current year budget. Although a recommendation to modify the selective hiring freeze to a total hiring freeze is not being made, the intent is to expand the hiring freeze to prohibit the filling of any vacancies except where minimum staffing levels are mandated. While this will greatly hamper departmental operations, it is preferable to more significant service level reductions or elimination of City services. In addition, departments have been controlling and reducing overtime and temporary employee salary expenses which may result in additional expenditure savings. These measures, combined with a request that department heads personally review/eliminate discretionary expenses, is estimated to result in $300,000 to $700,000 in additional expenditure reductions. -2- WPADSERT: 1265 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Current Year (1992/93) Budget Shortfall 3. Use of Reserves The City' s General Fund reserves are at an all time high due to the PERS refund of $6.7 million now being available for use by the City. The $10. 1 million estimated reserves (if the $2.2 million shortfall is eliminated) gives the City flexibility to address the current year shortfall . It is appropriate to use some of this reserve to meet the current year budget shortfall (if required) due to the following reasons: a. Revenue and expenditure estimates are still subject to change. While the economic picture could get worse, hopefully there will be a positive economic upturn (sales tax revenue for the Christmas quarter will be received in late March, with complete analysis available in late April ) . b. One reason it is important to have an adequate reserve is to have money available when revenues fall short of projections. The use of a small portion of the revenue is appropriate under the current year' s circumstances of reduced revenue. FUNDING SOURCE: As indicated. ALTERNATIVES: See list of options. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Options to Reduce Shortfall 2. Quarterly Budget Report -3- WPADSERT:1265 OPTIONS TO REDUCE 1992/93 GENERAL FUND BUDGET SHORTFALL (Estimated $2.2 Million Shortfall ) BACKGROUND As indicated in the Quarterly Budget Report, a General Fund budget shortfall of $2.2 million is currently estimated for the General Fund for fiscal year 1992/93. (Copy of Quarterly Budget Report attached) . Following is information and estimates on options to reduce the current year $2.2 million shortfall , as follows: GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS INCREASED GENERAL FUND CHARGES TO ENTERPRISE FUNDS USE OF GENERAL FUND RESERVES NEW GENERAL FUND REVENUES GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS - As part of the adoption of the current year budget in June of 1992, General Fund expenditure reductions of $3,061 ,544 were approved so that the adopted budget would be balanced. In addition, current year expenses were reduced $1 ,689,033 following the adoption of a State budget, by eliminating General Fund capital expenses and reducing appropriations for the cost of employee benefits. Lastly, the City's selective hiring freeze and other expenditure control efforts are estimated to result in current year expenditures being about $2 million less than authorized budget levels. Even with the above expenditure reduction efforts, a $2.2 million estimated General Fund budget shortfall will occur this year (as outlined in the quarterly budget report) unless General Fund revenues increase due to economic recovery occurring more rapidly than currently projected. Since eight months of the current fiscal year will be completed by the time additional expenditure reductions can be approved/implemented, the amount of savings that will result in the remaining four months is less than if the same actions were taken at the beginning of the fiscal year. Following are comments on these expenditure reduction options: Expenditure Reduction Options: 1 . Total Hiring Freeze 2. Spending Freeze 3. Service Level Reductions 4. Salary/Benefit Reductions 1 . Total Hiring Freeze - (Estimated Potential 1992/93 Savings: $100,000)The City currently has a selective hiring freeze which is estimated to be saving the City about $1 ,500,000 in the current fiscal year. A modification of the selective hiring freeze to a "total " hiring freeze would result in additional savings in salaries and benefits. We estimate that approximately $100,000 of additional expenditure savings could occur with a total hiring freeze in place for the remaining four months of the fiscal year. On an annual basis, the additional savings from a total hiring freeze (compared to a selective hiring freeze) is an estimated $700,000. The impact of a total hiring freeze would be to prohibit WPADSERT: 1255 the hiring of new employees in positions that are currently being approved under the selective hiring freeze, such as; Police Communications Operator, Police Officer, Firefighter, Deputy City Clerk, etc. Extending the hiring freeze to some of these positions results in additional overtime costs (at time and a half regular salary costs) to meet minimum staffing requirements. Therefore, net cost savings would not occur in some frozen positions. However, in other cases, the vacancies would generate true salary savings. The impact would be a reduction in services to the community. If a total hiring freeze is combined with a direction to reduce levels of service where positions are frozen, then the savings in next year' s budget could be as much as $1 million. For example, if vacancies were to occur in recreation center positions and no replacements were hired, the Community Services Department would be forced to reduce hours or programs. Similarly, maintenance schedules would be reduced if unfilled vacancies occur in park or beach maintenance operations. Additional unfilled vacancies in any department will be difficult to absorb without an impact on public services, particularly vacancies in police, fire, library, maintenance operations, development services and community services. 2. Spending Freeze - (Estimated Savings: $200,000) General Fund expenses for non-salary and benefit costs total roughly $25,000,000 per year. Some of these expenditures are uncontrollable, such as roughly $3 million for debt service obligations, $5 million for utility costs (gas, electricity, water, etc.) , liability insurance costs, public safety vehicle operating costs, street repairs, and contract services for mandated costs. Through the first eight months of the fiscal year, an estimated $18 million of the total non-salary/benefit budget of $25 million will be expended, either through actual expenses or contractual obligations. Current projections are that total expenses for the fiscal year will be $24 million, representing a savings of $1 million. If a "selective spending freeze" were imposed for the four months remaining in the fiscal year, it is estimated that $200,000 of additional savings of non-salary and benefit costs could be generated (over and above our current estimate of $1 million of savings in these categories) . The impact of such additional cuts would be significant in some areas such as maintenance, supplies for departmental operations, and delay or cancellation of outside contracts for approved projects. For example, maintenance contracts for office/computer equipment and copy machines could be cancelled and equipment that fails would be repaired at hourly costs or taken out of service. Outside contracts for services (tree and landscape maintenance, General Plan update, organizational analysis, advertising, labor relations, training, etc. ) could be reviewed to determine if cutback, delay or cancellations are possible. 3. Service Level Reductions - (Estimated Savings: Unknown) City staff and the Budget Review Task Force reviewed a variety of service level reductions, including program eliminations that could WPADSERT:1255 5. Cable TV Fund 6. Self Insurance Funds 7. Equipment Replacement Fund 8. Gas Tax Fund 1 . Water Fund - (Potential New General Fund 1992/93 Revenue: $1 ,500,000) The MSI Study documented annual General Fund costs of roughly $2.6 million to provide services to the Water Fund. Currently the Water Fund is paying $1 ,100,000 (1992/93) for these services leaving a $1 .5 million per year General Fund subsidy of water operations. Based on the latest audited financial report (6/30/92) for the Water Fund and projected revenues and expenses for the current year, the Water Fund could pay the additional $1 ,500,000 in General Fund costs in the current year without a water rate increase. In addition, the Water Fund has reserves/cash balances totalling over $12 million. Therefore, full cost recovery from the Water Fund for General Fund costs will not affect the fiscal integrity or soundness of the Water Fund. 2. Refuse Collection Service Fund - (Potential New General Fund 1992/93 Revenue: $60,000) The MSI Study documented annual General Fund costs of roughly $2 million to provide services to the Refuse Collection Fund. The City Council adopted a 500 per month per resident fee last June (as part of the $12 per month total refuse collection fee) to pay $250,000 per year of the General Fund costs. To fully cover the General Fund costs would require an additional monthly fee to residents of $3.77. The staff proposal in last year' s budget was to incrementally increase the refuse fee by 500 per year to cover $1 .85 of the total General Fund cost of $3.77 per month per residence. The next such increase is scheduled for an effective date of July 1 , 1993, resulting in an additional $250,000 revenue to the General Fund in 1993/94. An acceleration of the implementation date of an additional 500 per month to be effective March 1 , 1993 would generate approximately $60,000 additional revenue for the General Fund in the current year. 3. Fire Med Fund - (Potential New 1992/93 General Fund Revenue: None) The MSI Study documented $1 ,300,000 of annual General Fund costs to provide services to the Fire Med Fund. Currently the Fire Med Fund is paying $200,000 for these services. The Fire Med Fund annual revenues and expenses are balanced and, therefore, no additional charges can be made to this fund to cover General Fund costs unless a fee increase (current fee is $3 per month) is implemented to cover such costs. In addition, there are some limitations in current adopted ordinances relating to the Fire Med Fund that would need to be changed to fully recover the $1 ,300,000 General Fund cost identified in the MSI Study. 4. Fire - Joint Powers Dispatch Center - (Potential New 1992/93 General Fund Revenue: None) The MSI Study documented an additional net revenue to the City' s General Fund of roughly $200,000 if the Joint Powers Dispatch Authority Fund were fully charged for the General Fund services for this operation. To implement this part of the MSI Study would require agreement from the other cities in the Joint Powers Dispatch Authority (Westminster, Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa) . WPADSERT:1255 This part of the MSI Study could not be implemented for the current fiscal year since budgets have already been approved by all of these cities for the current year. 5. Cable TV Fund - (Potential New 1992/93 General Fund Revenue: None) The MSI Study documented an $85,000 per year building occupancy charge for the cable TV operations which is now being fully paid by this Fund. To implement any additional charges for the MSI documented overhead costs (approximately $50,000 per year) for this operation would place the fund in a budget shortfall status for the current year and future years. Since the revenue for this fund is "fixed" by the 2% portion of the cable franchise fee revenue paid by Paragon Cable TV, there is no opportunity to increase the basic revenue source. Expenditure reductions to pay for additional General Fund charges would take a number of months to implement and would result in cutbacks in local cable Channel 3 programming. 6. Self Insurance Funds - (Potential New 1992/93 General Fund Revenue: None) The MSI Study establishes overhead rates for various City operations that could be applied to the City' s Self Insurance Fund which pays for insurance programs such as liability, workers ' compensation, and employee health plan administration/claims payments. While the implementation of the overhead rates would result in additional revenue to the General Fund to offset costs, net General Fund revenues would not increase since most of the cost of the self insured programs are paid by transfers from the General Fund. Therefore, increasing the expenditures in Self Insurance funds would result in new General Fund revenue being offset by new General Fund costs. Although implementation of these new charges is planned as part of the full implementation of the MSI System, such implementation will not generate significant new General Fund revenues. 7. Equipment Replacement Funds - (Potential New 1992/93 General Fund Revenue: None) The above analysis of Self Insurance Funds would also apply to the City' s Equipment Replacement Fund, which is an internal fund established to properly finance the replacement of City equipment. 8. Gas Tax Fund - (Potential New 1992/93 General FundRevenue: $500,000) State law permits cities to utilize gas tax revenue (received from the State) for maintenance of City streets. Currently the City utilizes $1 ,680,000 (1992/93) of gas tax revenue for these street maintenance costs. Total General Fund street maintenance costs are in excess of $6 million per year which means additional gas tax revenues could be utilized for General Fund street maintenance costs. Total Gas Tax revenues for 1992/93 are about $2,300,000. Therefore an additional $620,000 could be transferred from the Gas Tax Fund to the General Fund. This would require the cancellation of street projects for which the $620,000 is currently budgeted. Gas tax street projects include Golden West widening, Bridge retrofit program, traffic signals and Garfield reconstruction (Beach to Newland) . Most of these gas tax projects are "matching funds" projects which means we would have to cancel projects totalling $1 million or more (and lose the matching funds from other revenue sources) in order to transfer $620,000 to the General Fund during the current fiscal year. WPADSERT: 1255 In addition, the City' s entitlement to voter approved new State gas tax revenue (Proposition 111 ) and County sales tax revenue (Measure M) , requires the City to continue to spend the annual amount of General Fund revenue that we were spending when these measures were approved (called "Maintenance of Effort") . Therefore, our ability to reduce General Fund spending for street maintenance purposes is limited. Although this "Maintenance of Effort" requirement has been waived by the State for Proposition 111 entitlement purposes for the current fiscal year, it has not been waived for Measure M funding. Due to this Measure M requirement, our ability to utilize additional gas tax revenues is limited to an estimated $500,000 in fiscal year 1992/93, and a similar amount in 1993/94. USE OF GENERAL FUND RESERVES - If the current budget year shortfall of $2.2 million is eliminated, the estimated General Fund reserve (fund balance) at June 30, 1993 is $10. 1 million. The City can use a portion of this reserve to address current year budget shortfall . While the adopted budget projected no use of General Fund reserves to balance current year budget, if expenditure reductions, charges to Enterprise Funds, or new revenues are not sufficient to meet the shortfall estimates, then the current economic conditions are adequate reasons to utilize a portion of the reserves. Up to $5 million of the reserve could be used without reducing the reserve below the 3-5% City policy for General Fund reserves. NEW GENERAL FUND REVENUES 1 . MSI System Implementation - (Potential New 1992/93 Revenue: $100,000) The MSI Study documented new and increased cost recoveries, fees, and other revenues of over $30 million that could be implemented by the City. In the current year, $2.2 million of this $30 million cost recovery revenue was implemented. Staff is currently working on Phase II of the implementation of this system which is estimated to generate a minimum of between $500,000 and $1 million of additional annual revenue. The current schedule calls for presentation of Phase II to the City Council in March (a Study Session is tentatively scheduled for March 22, 1993) and implementation with the adoption of the 1993/94 budget in June 1993. The implementation of new MSI revenues could be accelerated to April , resulting in some additional General Fund revenue in the current fiscal year. Rough estimates are that an additional $100,000 to $200,000 could be generated in the current fiscal year by such an action. 2. Other General Fund Revenues - (Potential New 1992/93 Revenue: None) Other new or increased General Fund revenues could be generated from further review of City controlled taxes and/or fees. Unfortunately, local control of our revenues is limited. An estimated 22% (or $22 million) of General Fund revenue comes from taxes or fees controlled by the City. The City has no control over the tax rates of our two major General Fund revenue sources, property tax and sales tax. Major categories of revenue that we do control in some way are the following: WPADSERT: 1255 Revenue Source Rate Current Annual Revenue Utility Tax 5% $ 12,800,000 Transient Occupancy Tax 10% 1 ,200,000 Business License Tax $75/year minimum 1 ,400,000 Parking Fees Beach: $5 ($6 weekend) 2,041 ,000 Permits/Building Fees Varies 2,800,000 Recreation Fees Varies 1 ,400,000 Oil Production Tax 16¢/Barrel 575,000 Fines/Forfeitures Varies 1 ,380,000 The further implementation of the MSI System will result in increased revenue from several of the above revenue sources. Taxes can be increased by City Council approval (5 votes required) . SUMMARY Potential Reduction Shortfall Reduction Option of 1992/93 Shortfall General Fund Expenditure Reductions $ 300,000 Increased Charges to Enterprise Funds 2,000,000 Use of General Fund Reserves 5,000,000 New General Fund Revenues 100,000 Clearly, options are available to close the $2.2 million estimated current year General Fund budget shortfall . While the above summary of options is intended to provide a realistic total for each category, there are policy and practical issues/barriers to implementing the various options. The staff recommendation is included in the RCA. WPADSERT: 1255 [tagCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator FROM: ROBERT J. FRANZ, Deputy City Administrator SUBJECT: QUARTERLY BUDGET REPORT: 1992/93 DATE: JANUARY 19, 1993 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC ISSUES The first half of the fiscal year 1992/93 was significant because of two major factors negatively affecting City revenues: 1 . The State of California took over $3 million of the City' s revenues ($2.25 million in the General Fund) . The General Fund loss is a permanent reduction in the City' s annual property tax revenue. 2. A Reduction of General Fund revenue estimates by $3.8 million due to a variety of factors including the continuation of a lethargic to non—existent recovery from the economic recession. 3. Additional expenditure authorizations (General Fund budget amendments) of over $700,000 have offset a portion of our estimated $2.1 million expenditure savings due to the hiring freeze and normal vacancies. While action has been taken to reduce expenditures to absorb the impact of the State take—aways of City revenue, the $3.8 million reduction in revenue estimates is more difficult to absorb. Currently, we project General Fund expenditure savings of roughly $2. 1 million this year which will help offset the revenue reduction. Unfortunately, approved General Fund budget amendments totalling about $700,000 will partially offset the projected expenditure savings. The result is a projected General Fund budget shortfall of $2:2 million that will occur unless General Fund expenditures are further reduced or economic conditions improve. Our General Fund reserve of $8 million (estimated) provides some safety for this type of shortfall , but the economic stagnation is cause for concern for this year' s budget and future years. REVENUE/EXPENSE SUMMARY 1992/93 Adopted Revision General Fund Due to Current Budget State Budget Estimates Revenue Estimates $ 98,490,200 $ 96,236,500 $ 92,454,500 Expense Estimates 97,771 ,399 96,082,346 94,661 ,190 Surplus/(Shortfall ) $ 718,821 $ 154,154 ($ 2,206,690) QUARTERLY BUDGET REPORT: 1992/93 EXPLANATION OF CHANGES TO REVENUE ESTIMATES Our first quarter revenue has been revised downward by $341 ,000 to bring the total estimated revenue reduction to $6,035,700, including the impact of the State take-away of City revenues. The reduced General Fund revenue estimate is a combination of changes to budget estimates as summarized below: Change Adopted from General Fund 1992/93 First Quarter Mid Year Original Revenue Source Budget Estimate Estimate Estimate Property Tax $ 31 ,855,000 $ 28,417,000 28,578,000 $ -3,277,000 Sales Tax 17,500,000 16,500,000 16,500,000 -1 ,000,000 Other Local Taxes 4,814.000 4.303,000 4,308,000 - 506,000 Fines/Forfeitures 1 ,650,000 1 ,430,000 1 ,380,000 - 270,000 Use of Money & Property 6,289,000 5,517,000 5,328,000 - 961 ,000 Other Changes - 21 ,700 Net Revenue Estimate Reduction $ -6.035.700 EXPLANATION OF CHANGES: Property Tax (- $3,277,000) The State took $2,081 ,000 of our current year property tax revenue to balance the State budget. Orange County will take an estimated $300,000 for "administration costs". The Orange County Assessor's Office submitted actual assessed valuation and property tax levy data in August and September. The original budget estimate was based on projections prepared in April of this year. Our April estimate was 1 .8% too high resulting in a $600,000 reduction in the estimate for 1992/93. The balance of the reduction in the 1992/93 estimate is due to Orange County changing their method of estimating supplemental and other tax revenues. Sales Tax (- $ 1 ,000,000) The revised estimate reflects a continuation of the non-existent recovery from the recession and is based on our sales tax consultant's review and input. It reflects a conservative outlook on Southern California/Orange County/Huntington Beach economic recovery. Other Local Taxes (-$506,000) The State is taking all of our cigarette tax revenue which was estimated to total $172,000 for fiscal year 1992/93. Current year estimated franchise fee revenue was over-estimated by $350,000 due to one time revenue received in 1991/92. Fines Forfeitures (- $270,000) The State of California took 50% of our citation revenue last year to balance the State Budget, resulting in a continuing loss of an estimated $500,000 per year. In addition, courts are levying fewer fines. Estimated Parking citation revenue generated by parking tickets written by the Police Department has been decreased $100,000. -2- WPADSERT:1177 be approved to reduce General Fund expenditures. Many of those reductions/eliminations were included in the $3.1 million of expenditure reductions approved prior to the adoption of the current year budget. Additional reductions of services that would reduce annual costs by $1 million or more could be approved/implemented during the current fiscal year. The savings during the current fiscal year from such actions would be minimal (less than $100,000) due to the complexity of reducing levels of service. Last year the City staff and Budget Task Force reviewed over $5 million of potential expenditure reductions. The final budget included approval of $3.1 million in such reductions. The programs included in the $5 million list of options that were not implemented could be reviewed again. Most of the remaining options were rejected as being too speculative as to the savings or too detrimental to basic service levels. Some of the reductions/eliminations not implemented are: regional helicopter program, closing branch libraries, changing paramedic service delivery, closing the City Gym/Pool , elimination of park surveillance, eliminate arts/cultural affairs program, and reduction of the allocation to the visitor' s/conference bureau. It is clear why these expenditure reductions were not implemented. Each is difficult to implement and should be considered only as a last resort. 4. Salary/Benefit Reductions - (Estimated Savings: None) Except for about 40 Non-Associated employees, all of the City' s permanent full-time employees are represented by employee organizations. Salaries and benefits for these employees are obligations of the City in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each employee group. Modification of MOU' s require the approval of the employee groups. Since the current MOU' s expire on October 1 , 1993, (Police, Fire and Marine Safety) and January 1 , 1994 for all other groups, significant cost savings through negotiated reductions in salaries/benefits prior to the expiration of current MOU's is unlikely. CHARGES TO ENTERPRISE FUNDS - The Management Services Institute (MSI) Study documented the General Fund costs related to the City' s various enterprise operations. The Enterprise Funds could be charged for the full burden of these General Fund costs upon approval (by the City Council ) of additional charges to those funds which would increase General Fund revenues. In some cases, as pointed out below, increasing the charges would result in the need to increase fees in those other funds. In other cases, most significantly in the Water Fund, existing fees adequately provide enough revenue to absorb additional charges. The following Enterprise and Internal Service funds are included in this summary: POTENTIAL CHARGES TO ENTERPRISE FUNDS: 1 . Water Fund 2. Refuse Collection Service Fund 3. Fire Med Fund 4. Fire - Joint Powers Dispatch Center WPADSERT:1255 QUARTERLY BUDGET REPORT: 1992/93 Use of Money and Property (- $961 ,000) Estimated interest earnings revenue has been reduced $250,000 because the State take-away of General Fund revenue and the reduction in overall General Fund revenue means we will have a lower amount (averaging over $4 million) invested in interest earning accounts. Estimated jail rental revenue has been reduced $510,000 due to the Federal Government's drastic reduction in referring INS detainees to our jail facility. The current inoperative status of the City three Civic Center oil wells has prompted a $125,000 reduction in the estimated revenue from the wells. Other Changes ($21 ,700) Parking lot, parking meter and recreation program revenues are higher than original projections, but are offset by numerous minor reductions in other revenue estimates. EXPENDITURES Current estimates for fiscal year 1992/93 are that General Fund expenses will be $2.1 million less than budget authorizations. This reflects the estimated cost savings from the hiring freeze, normal vacancies, and control of expenditures by departments. Although departments are controlling costs better then the trend data of the first quarter, General Fund budget amendments authorizing new expenses of about $700,000 have offset the improved controls. See Attachment 2 for more detail on expenses. Current projections of total fiscal year expenditures for overtime and temporary salary expenditures use the first six months actual expenses to project totals for the fiscal year. Several one time events, including the Pier opening, resulted in unusually high first quarter expenses in these categories. RESERVES The estimate of our General Fund reserve (fund balance) for the end of the current fiscal year is summarized in the following chart: Amount July 1 , 1992 Fund Balance (Audited) $ 3,414,000 Less 1992/93 Budget Shortfall (Current Estimate) -2,206,690 Sub Total $ 1 ,207,310 Litigated PERS Reserve 6,731 ,604 Estimated Fund Balance - June 30, 1993 $ 7,938,914 PERS Litigation _Update In 1991 (eighteen months ago) the State budget included an action to transfer Public Retirement System (PERS) reserves to the State General Fund and to cities. This refund to the City will total an estimated $6.7 million. Lawsuits against the State, including appeals to the State Supreme Court, failed to -3- WPADSERT:1177 QUARTERLY BUDGET REPORT: 1992/93 invalidate these transfers. Somewhat unexpectedly, the litigants filed an appeal in the U. S. Supreme Court. The court -refused to hear the case, and this litigation is now final . The City may utilize these funds for any purpose approved by the City Council . CONCLUSION The recession's impact has caused further reduction in City revenue estimates. While expenditures appear to be in control , cost cutting efforts need to be expanded and General Fund budget amendments must be controlled. Economic trends must be monitored closely. W09RT J. NZ Deputy City Administrator RJF:skd —4— WPADSERT: 1177 —Est/93 ATTACHMENT 1 1/21/93 ......................................:..~:..............................................................,......,...........,...........,.,t,,....,.....,..\.....,,•:::;t:::.�.::.�...:�r:tr.r;>..•r::>.;;:.;r\•�r.ri:�::::tx.�:;•rrr.•.�::�:.: :...:.. .........................................................................::::::::::::::::::::::.�/:...,.......;...........,.,..;:...:.::...........:. .: ..., •:•.R�r::::::�.a::r:.,+r:.ra:.r::;rr:�rr`.tii::i;�r:�;:::�;: � ...........:................:..:..::..........::::::::::.....:....:::::::::.,..::.:::.:::...:.......:.......:...:.................. _''..-.:r':%�:6Si:°sii:ii:';.'�'i:;:2:Cii:rrr:.>:r::::r'r:'::r:>:.>:r.:::r%s:.>::{:;...>:.>:.>� ..;.....r•::o-ro-r'�:::::.:.:: THIS YEAR LAST YEt�►R _. RECENEA RECEIVED ItEViSED ADOPTED;: RST HALF PERCEN' FIRST RAGE ESTIMATE . REVENUE BUDGET: ..... ...... 199ZI93 ;RECEIVED .; 1.99I19z 1992/93 Property Tax $31,855,000 $12,806,609 40% $13,767,000 $28,578,000 Sales Tax 17,500,000 8,166,000 47% 8,080,000 16,500,000 Utility Tax 12,800,000 5,404,000 42% 5,153,000 12,800,000 Transient Occupancy Tax 1,200,000 564,000 47% 526,000 1,200,000 Other Local Taxes 4,814,000 1,555,000 32% 1,924,000 4,308,000 Licenses & Permits 3,640,000 1,739,134 48% 1,814,605 3,496,000 Fines/Forfeitures &Penalties 1,650,000 496,902 30% 738,995 1,380,000 Use of Money &Property 6,289,000 2,741,769 44% 3,747,340 5,328,000 Revenue From Other Agencies 8,279,000 3,424,707 41% 4,188,730 8,212,000 Charges for Current Service 6,657,000 2,759,229 41% 2,761,869 6,694,000 Other Revenue 651,200 272,879 42% 313,000 598,000 Transfers from Other Funds 3,060,000 3,264,023 107% 1,696,096 3,360,000 TOTAL $98,395,200'` $43,194,252 44% $44710,635 $92454000: —Est/93 ATTACHMENT 2 1/21/93 .:-:::::•::::.:........................:i:::` ;•Yaa;:::+a-:l•......:.:.:...::::.:::: ti:+:;ti:: :?:.?:ii:::.::.:M1..::.:....\'.:V..\?:::\:.....:?\\1..1.1.� ..\ \.\.\+:�\...\. XP ND _ ?.�::: . .�..+ i�����:i��i:':'���<i����i v i'i!is ��'`��?: ''Ci:ii�}4:':::i:::��:::�::::�:��:::ii'�'j��.': .i% .. ... .. .::.... .............. .............. ...... i:?:i'ri::i:: • ••i:. i::::'::::ii}:::::i::i`v:`::•isi'}}::::}:':F:•j::::jj}:::i:::::}i::Y'•:+.::::i::::: :'::.. ':....::::{:::ii}i'<.:4ii:is iir.::.:is?s;>:.:;:iiiiiii::i:i:•: ':.:. -::..'.:._..•:.::.:::i::it�::iiiii:�:::i::'::•::>:::•:::.C:':?:i::::i:::::ii::::i:::::ii.. .............�� ... ................:..... .:r..... ............. ........... .......... :iy,.�.};::::::v;}ii:Li?iii:v:iv+:!!8iiii:4:+.!4i::4:4:^i}iiii}is6i}i:!•?:4:Lii:viiiiii:L::hi:�iiii:?i:<:::: .. !.`f�i:?:!'.{r!•:}}}}iF�ii!iii�:i)i}T?i};::}:iij:i:?ii'iii`<y!::!:::?`:�ii'4:is�i},'�i:�Y::i}}};i:i'r'r'r:v+:'i+:jii: :ti'frr:v>vYi}:v+:i is i :ii ti?C{.. ......«::::::•:::::::::::::ii:«:...:::::::'v'!;G:l4i?i:i?•:::::::::::::. ii::::::: :::::::.....••: .......:. •.....• ..•• 'isi':?iii:i~i?::ti�ti!!!ti!!^.Y�iiiii:{iii}'ri:i}i'riiii::iiiiXi?�iX�:iij::ijYiiiiiiY�:y:........... ..... ............. ........:...............: i}iiii is:::iji}iiiiiiii:•::^?:i:ii:�i:> .....::.::::::::..........:::::::.:::..:........ 1992/93* 1992/93 % I991/92 1992/93 EST. EXPENDITURES APPROPRIATIONS is 6 MO EXP EXP. .i 6 MO EXP. EXPENDITURE AST YR.) Salaries/Benefits $64,287,391 $30,090,077 47% $28,507,465 $62,852,741 Overtime 3,931,600 2,124,861 54% 1,770,338 $4,335,723 Temporary Salaries 2,897,979 1,524,488 53% 1,542,268 $2,882,875 Operating Expenses 21,377,180 10,488,454 49% 9,883,110 $20,308,321 Transfers/Interest 4,281,530 3,108,877 73% 2,962,516 $4,281,530 Capital Outlay 0 0 0% 99,073 $0 Total $96,775,680 $47,336,757 49% $44764,770 $94661,19.0:: ... ... .. ....... ... .. .... .. ...... ... .......... ... Estimated%to be ex ended: 978%0 ...... ... . ... .... ..... ... .. .. . ..... Pro'ected E;.; ense:Sav�n s $2114,490 * Includes the following approved budget amendments: DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Legal Counsel -Griffin $40,000 Legal Counsel -Bloom 150,000 Legal Counsel - Oil Spill 51,105 Operational Evaluation - Community Development Dept. 47,600 Criminal Apprehension Program 215,953 Reimbursement - CDBG Program 96,000 Police Motorcycle Radios 37,000 Communications Maintenance Facility 55,000 $692,658 ` v t CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH T0: Michael T. Uberauga, City Adiministrator FROM: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Ad minis SOBJDCT: $10.00 nxREmm iN BUSIImSS izaa E FEES DATE: June 2, 1992 S'I'ATII�T!' OF ISSUE: In keeping with the preliminary budget goal of submitting a balanced budget to the City Council for adoption, a $10.00 increase in the Business License fee has been recammended to be incorporated with the Fiscal Year 1992/93 budget to be submitted to Council on June 15. ANALYSIS: Currently there are 1,600 Business Licenses issued in the City. The basic Business License Fee is $65.00 and generates $1,375,000 in annual revenue. The current basic fee of is well below the average for comparable cities. If a $10.00 increase were approved by the City Council, the City would remain below comparable cities and the anticipated revenue increase would be $160,000. Many of the City's Business License fees are less than $65.00. They include limited time licenses, special use licenses, and supplemental licenses to the basic annual license. In those cases the $10.00 increase has been pro rated to-the basic fee. OMXLUSICV: Since the Business License fee is technically and legally a tax, implementation of an increase requires adoption of an ordinance (introduction on June 15th, adoption July 6th) , and would be effective immediately there after. The proposed modifications of Chapters 5.16 and 5.48 of the Business License ordinance to enact a $10.00 increase has been completed by the City Attorney's Office and is attached. Attachment: Survey of Business License Fees t . TO: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator FROM: DONALD L. WATSON, City Treasurer �� - DATE: January 17, 1992 SUBJECT: BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUE The:..following . is a summary of our. business license revenue as. _of January 16, 1992. Our basic license fee is $65.00 but that has exceptions includ-in' no fee permits, more than 3 employees, and some licenses are based upon the number of vehicles, machines or spaces. Total number of active licenses 16,517 . Number of no fee licenses ill TOTAL FEE LICENSES 16,406 TOTAL FEES $1 ,265,471 . 28 AVERAGE LICENSE FEE $77. 13 We do not have an update of the information we provided in 1990. At that time we had the survey information for 88 cities. Many of these cities, including Huntington Beach, have increased their business license fee since that report. The following is a summary of that report: SURVEY* SUMMARY AVERAGE LICENSE FEE All 88 Cities $306.00 Cities over 250,000 population 462.00 Cities under 250,000 population 161 .00 Cities between 100,000 and 250,000 172.00 Cities in Orange County 96.60 Huntington Beach 56.00 Even with our average fee now at $77.13, we. still trail most cities in our geography and of our size. Please let me know if you need any additional information. DLW:bb bc � �d(� t • t ORDINANCE NO. / L AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTERS 5 . 16 AND 5 .48 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASE IN RATES NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain: SECTION 1: That Chapter 5 . 16, of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows : 5,16,010 Rates per employees. The following rates shall apply to business licenses : First three employees $ 75 . 00 Next nine persons, per employee 4 .00 Next forty persons, per employee 3 . 00 All other employees in excess of forty, per employee 2 .00 5,16.020 Rates per employees--Minimum license. The minimum license in each classification shall be $75 . 00 per year. In any case where a licensee or an applicant for a license believes that this individual business is not assigned to a proper classification under this chapter because of circumstances peculiar to it, he may apply to the finance director for reclassification. Such application shall contain such information as the finance director may deem necessary and require in order to determine whether applicant ' s individual business is properly classified. The finance director shall then conduct an investigation, following which he shall assign the applicant ' s individual business to the classification shown to be proper on the basis of such investigation. 5,16.060 Advertising. The fees for advertisers shall be as follows : (a) By distributing samples or handbills; provided that this section shall not apply to any person, employee, agent or representative of any person who already has a city license as provided elsewhere in this chapter. . . . . . . . . . . . . .$75. 00 A (b) By sign or bill posting, sign erection or installation, or any form of outdoor advertising as defined in Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. . . . . .$112 . 50 A (c) By vehicle containing amplifier, phonograph, loudspeakers, etc: AJFk 6/92147 1 for each vehicle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$112 . 50 A Or at the option of the licensee, for each vehicle. . . . .$49 . 50 D If any such vehicle is used by a city licensee to advertise solely his own business and such vehicle is regularly registered and licensed by the state to such licensee, then the fee for each such vehicle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$58 . 00 A Or at the option of the licensee, for each such vehicle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$40 .00 D (d) By means of stereopticon, biograph, moving pictures or similar device (not moving picture theaters) used outdoors . . . . . . $225 . 00 A Or, used indoors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$112 . 50 A 5, 16,070 Amusement activities. License fees are imposed for amusement activities as follows : (a) For any bowling alley, the first six lanes, a minimum fee of $337 . 50 per year; for each lane over six (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $58 . 00 A (b) For boxing or wrestling exhibitions per exhibition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $58. 00 (c) Carnival, tent show or open-air show or in hall or building constructed for theatrical purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $187 . 50 D In addition, for five concessions or less. . . . . . . . .$66 . 00 D In addition, for each concession in excess of five. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $39 . 00 D (d)' For each juke box, phonograph or motion picture device operated by insertion of coin, per machine . . . . . . .$26 . 00 A (e) The owner of the business shall be held responsible for the full amount of the license fee if the operator, exhibitor, machine owner, lessee or other person has not paid the fee when due and payable. 5, 16.090 Bankrupt sale. For the conducting, managing or carrying on the business of selling, offering for sale or otherwise handling by special retail sale the stock in trade of any bankrupt or insolvent person, the fee shall be $58 . 00 D. 5, 16,100 Bath. For every person conducting, managing, or carrying on the business of giving steam baths, electric light baths, shower baths, electric tub baths, sponge baths or operating any public bath which maintains in connection therewith a steam room, plunge, bath or sleeping accommodations, the fee shall be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $112 . 50 A �� AJFk 6/92147 2 5,16, 110 Circus. With seating capacity under four thousand, the fee shall be: First day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $262 . 50 D Each additional day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $187 . 50 D With seating capacity over four thousand, the fee shall be: First day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $337 . 50 D Each additional day $187. 50 D for every sideshow in conjunction with a circus, the fee shall be . . .$49 . 50 D For every concession in conjunction with a circus, the fee shall be . . .$40. 00 D 5-:16,120 Contractors. Every person engaging in business in this city as a contractor, as defined in subsections (e) , (f) , and (1) of section 5 . 04 . 010, who does not engage in such business from a fixed place of business within this city, and who elects to exercise the option provided for in section 5 . 16 . 040, shall pay a license fee as indicated herein: General engineering and/or general building contractor . . . . . . . . . . . $142 . 50 A Specialty, subcontractor, or other . . . . . . . . . . . . $90 . 00 A 5,16,130 Dancing teacher. Every person engaged in the profession of dancing teacher who has no regularly established place of business where instruction in dancing is given, shall pay a fee of . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $75 .00 A 5.16,140 House moving. Every person engaged in house moving or wrecking of buildings and/or structures, shall pay a fee of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $112 . 50 A 5,16.160 Junk collector. (a) For every person conducting, managing or carrying on the business of junk collector, the fee shall be. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $187. 50 A or at the option of the licensee . . . . . . . . . . . .$40 . 00 D (b) For the purpose of this section, a "junk collector" means any person, other than a junk dealer engaged in the business of buying or selling, either at wholesale or retail, rags, bottles, papers, cans, metal or other articles of junk. AJFk 6/92147 3 5, 16, 170 Junk dealer and auto wrecking. (a) For every person conducting, managing or carrying on the business of junk dealer or auto wrecker, the fee shall be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $187 . 50 A (b) For the purpose of this section an "auto wrecker" means and includes any person who buys any motor vehicle for the purpose of dismantling or disassembling, or who dismantles or disassembles any such motor vehicle whether for the purpose of dealing in the parts thereof or using the same for the purpose of reconditioning any other vehicle, or for the purpose of selling or otherwise dealing in the materials of such vehicle or vehicles . 5. 16.180 Music or fine _arts teacher. Every person engaged in the profession of teaching music, dramatics, art, designing, dressmaking, mechanics or any other trade or fine art who has no regularly established place of business where such teaching is carried on, shall pay a fee of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$75 . 00 A. 5. 16.190 Office building, For every person conducting, managing or carrying on the business of operating an office building, for each office therein the fee shall be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $32 . 50 A and for each unit/office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$7 . 00 5. 16,210 Outdoor theaters. For every person conducting, managing or carrying on an outdoor theater where moving or motions pictures are exhibited the license fee shall be: Number of Stalls Fee per Year First 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . .$337. 50 All over 500 (per stall) . . . . . . . . . . . 500 A separate license shall be obtained for snack bars, foodstands and other concessions . 5.16,220 Pawnbroker. For the purpose of this section the term "pawnbroker" shall include every person conducting, managing or carrying on the business of lending money either for himself or for any other person, upon any personal property, personal security or purchasing personal property and reselling or agreeing to resell such property to the vendor or other assignee at prices previously agreed upon. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to the lending of money or personal property or personal security by any bank authorized to do so under the laws of the state or of the United States . The license fee shall be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $487. 50 A 5, 16,230 Peddler. Peddlers of flags, banners, balloons, cones, horns, kites, noise-making instruments, toys, notions, 1,V( AJFk 6/92147 4 souvenirs or similar goods or novelties of any description other than from a stand, tent, wagon or other vehicle shall pay afee of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17 .00 D or by vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $97 . 50 A Peddlers of any article or commodity not mentioned in this section, including every person, firm or corporation conducting the business of selling and delivering any goods for human consumption directly to the consumer thereof , by means of a regular system of delivery vehicles for the purpose of making sales and deliveries upon a fixed route, or in the case of food catering vehicles, from place to place, within this city shall paya fee of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$17 . 00 D or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $97 . 50 A Provided, however, that issuance of a license to any person, firm or corporation under this section shall not be construed to permit violation by such person, firm or corporation of Chapter 9 . 64 . The license tax prescribed by this section shall cover one person and in the case of route peddlers, one vehicle only and an additional like fee shall be paid for each additional such person or vehicle so engaged. Prior to the issuance of any license under this section, such applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 9 . 64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and with the provisions of sections 5 . 12. 050 and 5. 12.060 . 5.16.240 Public dance hall, public dance and dinner dancing place. Every person conducting, managing or operating a public dance hall or dinner place shall pay a fee of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$337. 50 A Every person conducting, managing or operating a public dance shall pay a fee of (per dance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$58 . 00 For the purpose of this section, certain words and phrases shall be construed as hereinafter set forth: (a) "Public dance hall" means a place open to the public upon payment of admittance fee, wherein music is provided and people are allowed to dance which is so open at regular intervals or on regular days of the week. (b) "Public dance" means a dance open to the public for an admittance fee or charge, which is held on one day only. (c) "Dinner dancing place" means a place where music is provided and the public is permitted to dance without payment of a fee. AJFk 6/92147 5 U� 5,16,260 Rooming house, apartment house, motel, bungalow or auto court, For every person conducting, managing, or carrying on the business of operating- an apartment house, rooming house, motel, bungalow court or auto court consisting of three or more rental units, the fee shall be $32. 00 A and $7 . 00 per unit . 5,16,270 Skating rink. For every person conducting, managing or carrying on any ice or roller skating rink, enclosure or park, the license fee shall be $187. 50 A. 5,16,280 Small stands and businesses--Temporary and permanent, Every person, not having a regularly established place of business in this city, who sells or offers for sale goods or articles of any description in his possession, or services, at, on or from a stand upon any public street, alley or public place, or in or from a doorway of any room or building, or unenclosed or vacant lot or parcel of land, which business is not otherwise licensed by the terms of this chapter shall pay a fee of $75; or, at the option of the licensee, $17 .00 D. 5,16,290 Solicitor or canvasser, For every person conducting, managing, carrying on or engaging in the business of telephone solicitation or canvassing, for each such person employed or so engaged, the fee shall be. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $49 . 00 D Prior to the issuance of any license under this section, each applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 9 . 64 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and with the provisions of sections 5 . 12 .050 and 5. 12.060. This section shall not apply to any person, or employee or agent or representative of any person whose principal place of business is in and who has a license in the city as provided elsewhere by this title, or who takes orders only from businesses licensed under this title. 5,16,300 Soliciting on streets for hotels or dining rooms, For every person conducting, managing or carrying on the business of soliciting customers, or patronage upon any public street, alley or other public place, for any hotel, inn, rooming house, lodging house, apartment house, restaurant, dining room or house or place where meals or board or lodging are furnished for compensation, the fee shall be $112 . 50 A. 5,16.310 . Stockyard auction, For every person conducting, managing or carrying on any stockyard, sales, stable or corral where horses, cattle, goats, sheep, mules and other livestock are bought, sold or exchanged at public auction, the license fee shall be $187. 50 A. 5, 16,320 Trailer parks, For every person conducting, managing or carrying on the business of trailer park or mobilehome park the license fee shall be $112. 50 annually for the first twenty-five (25) trailer spaces and $7. 00 for each additional trailer space. IN% AJFk 6/92147 6 5,16,330 Transportation, trucking and hauling--Established Place of business. Every person engaged in the business, in whole or in part, of using or operating any motor vehicle in connection with the conduct of their business, for the transportation of any goods, wares, merchandise, products of any nature, raw materials, pipe or castings, tanks or machinery or tools of any description, when .said person has an established place of business within the city, shall pay an annual license fee in accordance with the following schedule for each and every motor vehicle so used or operated in excess of one vehicle: for vehicles with a manufacturer ' s rated capacity of under one ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12 . 00 A for vehicles with a manufacturer' s rated capacity of under three tons, but one ton or over . . . . . . . . $35 .00 A for vehicles with a manufacturer ' s capacity of three tons or over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $46 .00 A 5, 16,340 Transportation, trucking or hauling--No business location. Every person engaged in the business, in whole or in part, of using or operating any motor vehicle in connection with the conduct of their business, and who uses the public streets or highways of this City for the purpose of such use or operation for the delivery or transportation of any goods, wares, merchandise, products of any nature, raw materials, waste materials, pipe or casting, tanks, machinery or tools of any description or in connection with rendering services for fees, when said person does not have an established place of business within this City, shall pay an annual license fee of $75 for each and every vehicle so used or operated . other than those vehicles described in sections 5. 16 .330 and 5 . 16 .350 . 5,16,360 Transportation, trucking or hauling--Dump and tank trucks. Every person engaged in the business , in whole or in part, of . using or operating motor vehicles for the transportation, hauling or delivery or removal of crude oil, petroleum products or petroleum byproducts in any form, rotary mud, sand, dirt fill, asphalt, water, machinery of any description, or any other articles or commodity not otherwise classified in sections 5 . 16 .330 and 5. 16 .340, who uses the public streets or highways of this city for the purpose of such use or operation, who is not required to pay the license or fees as set forth in sections 5 . 16 . 330 and 5 . 16 .340, shall pay an annual license fee based upon each motor vehicle so used or operated, of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $75 . 00 for each vehicle with single rear axle . . . . . . . . $49 . 00 A for each vehicle with dual rear axle . . . . . . . . . . $49 .00 A l AJFk 6/92147 7 (b) Tank Truck or Tank Wagon (semi-tractor and front trailer as one tank truck or tank wagon) . for each tank truck or tank wagon . . . . . . . . . $97. 50 A for each additional tank truck, wagon or trailer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $23 .00 A 5, 16,370 Truck rental or leasing, (a) Every person conducting, managing or carrying on the business of renting or leasing the use of any truck or motor-propelled vehicle for the transportation of materials, commodities or products, or the transportation of any other object, to be driven by the person or employees or other representative of the person hiring the same at rates per mile, per trip, per hour, per day, per week, per month, per year or any greater period of time, .and the truck or vehicle is under the directional control of the person hiring the same, shall pay an annual license fee of $75 . 00 plus $23 . 00 for each truck or vehicle over one used in the business . (b) In the case of persons operating trucks or vehicles in this city, within the meaning of sections 5 . 16 .330 through 5. 16 .350, when such truck or vehicle has been rented from a truck rental business or agency, the person having rented or hired such truck or vehicle shall pay the license fee prescribed in sections 5. 16 .330 through 5 . 16 .350, whichever is applicable, and the person in the business of renting or leasing such truck or vehicle to the renter or lessee shall not be required to pay an additional fee for each such truck or vehicle so rented or leased over one used in the business . 5,16,380 Passenger vehicle rental or leasing. Every person conducting, managing or carrying on the business of renting or leasing the use of any motor-propelled vehicle for the transportation of persons to be driven by the person or employee or other representative of the person hiring, renting or leasing the same at rates per mile, per trip, per hour, per month, per year or any greater period of time, and where such vehicle is under the directional control of the person hiring the same, shall pay an annual license fee of $75 plus $11 . 50 for each vehicle over one used in the business . Provided that where a person conducts, manages or carries on the rental or leasing of both trucks and passenger vehicles as one and the same business, from the same place of business, the payment of only one annual license fee of $75 will be required in addition to the prescribed fees for each vehicle over one used in the business . 5.16.390 Trailer rentals. Every person conducting, managing or carrying on the business of renting the use of trailers AJFk 6/92147 8 designed to be attached to motor-propelled vehicles shall pay an annual license fee of $75 . 00 plus $2.00 per wheel for all trailers used in the business . 5. 16.400 Transvortation--Water. Every person engaged in the business, in whole or in part, of using or operating any boat or barge in connection with the conduct of their business for the transportation or accommodation of passengers, whether fee for such transportation or accommodation is paid directly or indirectly, or for the transportation of any goods, wares, merchandise, products of any nature, raw materials, waste materials, pipe or castings, tanks or machinery or tools of any description, shall pay an annual license fee in accordance with the following schedule: for the first vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $75 . 00 A for each and every vessel so used or operated in excess of one vessel : less than sixteen feet in length . . . $40 . 00 A Sixteen feet or over but less than twenty-six feet in length. . . . . . . . . . .$49 . 00 A Twenty-six feet or over but less than forty feet in length. . $58. 00 A Forty feet or over in length . . . . . . . $66 . 00 A 5,16,410 Vending. bulk-vending and amusement machines. (a) Every person owning, conducting, transacting, managing, operating or carrying on the business of providing, furnishing, letting the use of, distributing or maintaining any vending machine, bulk-vending machine and/or amusement machine, as defined in this title, and not prohibited by law, shall pay an annual license fee in accordance with the following schedule: (1) Vending Machines: Service machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $11. 50 A and for each machine charging 1¢ to and including 4¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2 . 50 A for each machine charging 5¢ to and including 9¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7. 00 A for each machine charging 100 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14 . 00 A for each cigarette vending machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $29 . 00 A Stamp-vending machines dispensing United States postage stamps for mailing purposes are hereby exempt from the terms and provisions hereof . (2) Bulk-vending Machines : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $11 . 50 A AJFk 6/92147 9 .�\ for each machine charging 1¢ to and including 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2 . 50 A for each machine charging 50 to and including 9¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4 . 50 A for each machine charging 100 or over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7 .00 A (3) Amusement Machines : for each pinball machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $50. 00 A for each pool/billiard machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $50 . 00 A for all other amusement machines $50 .00 A (b) In the event any license fee provided by this section on any vending or bulk-vending machine is not paid when due and payable, the owner of the business on whose business premises such vending or bulk-vending machine is located, shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the full amount of such license fee. (c) A person having a business license in connection with a fixed place of business in this city is not exempt from payment of license fees otherwise imposed by this chapter. (d) A minimum annual license fee of $337. 50 shall be paid by each game arcade, amusement center room, business or parlor containing an aggregate of four or more pool tables, billiard tables, pinball machines, electronic video screen game machines, and/or other amusement devices . The fees levied under this section shall be credited toward such minimum. 5,16,420 Water companies. An annual fee of $32 . 00 and 850 per customer for the maximum number of customers at one time during the preceding calendar year . SECTION 2: That Chapter 5 .48 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, pertaining to Taxicabs--Vehicles for Hire is hereby amended to read as follows : 5,48.120 Annual vehicle fee. Each holder of a certificate issued hereunder shall pay an annual fee for each fiscal year or portion of a fiscal year for each vehicle operated in accordance with the following schedule: . For one taxicab. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$110 For each additional taxicab. . . . . . . . . .$ 30 For one vehicle other than taxicab, defined in section 5 .48 .010 . . . . . . . $ 25 For each additional vehicle other than taxicab so defined. . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 10 AJFk 6/92147 10 SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after aoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1992 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk t tto, REVIEWED AND APPROVED: AT I OVED: City A inistrato ir-e--b r of Finan AJFk 6/92147 11 j, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Michael T. Uberauga, City AdiministratoZ=QM FROM: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administ SUBJECT: MAIVER OF GENERAL F= PAMTP TO DATE: June 2, 1992 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: As part of the City's effort to present a balanced budget for Fiscal Year 1992/93 the Budget Review Task Force rec mTended waiver of the General Fund payment to the Parking Authority of $170,000 in the 1992/93 annual budget. ANALYSIS: The 1968 Parking Authority Bond will be retired in September of 1993. Currently, the fund balance for this bond fund is $1,168,000. There are two payments of $170,000 (Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994) remaining to satisfy this bond obligation. CONCLUSIONd: If the City Council, acting in the capacity of the Parking Authority, were to waive the the General Fund payment to the Parking Authority in Fiscal Year 1992/93, the reserve for this fund would be reduced to $998,000. e 45 RESOLUTION NO. 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992/93 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does resolve as follows: SECTION 1. That the budget for the City of Huntington Beach for fiscal year 1992/93 as hereinafter set forth, is hereby adopted: Appropriations and Department Transfers Out ---------- ------------------ City Council 262,163 Non-Departmental 11,445,808 Administration 1,012,235 City Treasurer 773,689 City Attorney 1,409,639 City Clerk 483,884 Administrative Services 4,299 ,501 Library Services 3,221,947 Community Development 3,818,780 Fire 15,807,643 Police 31,992,129 Community Services 6,844,305 Public Works 16,387,956 Sub-Total General Fund Appropriations 97,759,679 Other Funds Parking Structures 5,900,000 Capital Projects Fund 3,966,850 Art Center Fund 700,000 HB Public Financing Authority 3,774,000 Civic Improvement Corporation 2,937,000 HB Public Facilities Corporation 391,000 Debt Service Fund-Park Bond 468,000 Reservoir Hill Fund 170,000 Parking Authority 248,500 Fire-Med Fund 2,469,139 Emerald Cove Housing Fund 778,590 Meadowlark Golf Fund 202,537 Water Fund 21,992,328 Grants Fund 377,816 Housing & Community Development 1,459,000 Insurance Fund 10,591,232 Equipment Replacement Fund 3,011,935 Mello Roos Fund 200,000 Pier Reconstruction Fund 300,000 Redevelopment-Tax Increment Fund 4,221,500 Redevelopment-Projects Fund 17,214,165 .Gas Tax Fund 7,785,100 Cable TV Fund 489,473 Park Acquisition & Development 660,826 Sewer Fund 1,130,136 Drainage Fund 1,914,925 Fourth of July Fund 111,700 Narcotic Forfeiture Fund 1,393,057 Transportation Fund 3,812,169 Air Quality Fund 180,035 Library Service Fund 19,287 Fire-Joint Powers Authority 1,498,199 Police-Community Relations 100,000 Refuse Collection Fund 6,185,929 Sub-Total Other Fund AppropriationsIU6,654,42-9 Total City Appropriations 204,414,107 SECTION 2. The estimated revenue and transfers for Fiscal Year 1992/93, which when combined with reserves is sufficient to fund the above appropriations, are a follows: Revenue and Transfers in ------------ General Fund 98,490,200 Parking Structures 700,000 Capital Projects Fund 1,854,418 Donations 20,000 HB Public Financing Authority 3,096,000 Civic Improvement Corporation 2,935,000 HB Public Facilities Corporation 437,000 Debt Service Fund-Park Bond 520,000 Reservoir Hill Fund 157,000 Parking Authority 16,000 Parking Authority 84,500 Fire-Med Fund 2,040,000 Emerald Cove Housing Fund 824,000 Meadowlark Golf Fund 440,000 Water Fund 17,402,500 Grants Fund 142,000 Housing & Community Development 1,400,000 Hud Subsidy Fund 354,000 Self-Insurance Fund 8,650,000 Equipment Replacement Fund 3,266,000 Mello Roos Fund 16,000 Mello Roos Fund 280,000 Pier Reconstruction Fund 955,000 Redevelopment-Tax Increment Fund 4,813,000 Redevelopment-Projects Fund 8,565,000 Redevelopment-Low Income Housing 1,350,000 Home Program Fund 881,000 Gas Tax Fund 4,815,000 Cable TV Fund 431,000 Park Acquisition & Development 541,000 Sewer Fund 295,000 Drainage Fund 325,000 Cultural Art Center Fund 200,000 Narcotic Forfeiture Fund 1,075,000 Transportation Fund 1,220,000 Air Quality Fund 182,500 Library Service Fund 5,100,000 Fire-Joint Powers Authority 1,673,000 Police-Community Relations 10,000 Refuse Fund 6,336,000 Private Project Self-Sufficiency 16,600 Use of Reserves 22,505,389 Total City Revenues 204,414,lU7 SECTION 3. That the Preliminary Budget for fiscal year 1992/93, Exhibit B, providing the detail for appropriations and estimated revenue, is hereby approved as amended by Exhibit C. SECTION 4. That the City Administrator may transfer funds from one object to another within the same department, fund, office or agency without increasing approved total appropriations contained in the budget. SECTION 5. That the attached Table of Organization, Exhibit A, is incorporated herein and hereby adopted. The City Administrator, subject to compliance with Charter section 403, may revise the table of organization as long as the authorized personal service appropriations are not exceeded. SECTION 6. That the City Council, by affirmative action of a majority of the Council, may authorize all appropriation transfers 00 not described in Sections 4 and 5 herein by minute action. I SECTION 7. Acquisition of new capital items shall be limited to the specific items included in the approved budget. Acquisition of capital items to replace existing capital equipment shall not exceed the total appropriation for the Equiment Replacement Fund. Changes to the procurement of specific items may be authorized by the City Administrator as long as the total appropriations for any department, fund or agency are not exceeded. SECTION 8. That it is necessary to continue the levy of a 5% Utility Tax on Cable T.V. services in order to avoid additional budget reductions in Police and Fire Departments, and further reductions in other city department budgets. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of June, 1992. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attor ,,y g 64-/SL. REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I ED D P VED: ty Aaministrator eputy Admifkistrator J I M.S.I. FEE INCREASES — PHASE (Exhibit A 6/1/92 FIRE DEPARTMENT COn ' t. FEE TITLE: Hazardous Materials Review a Inspection FEE CHARGED: # of Chemicals Quantity of Chemicals Range Range 1 2 3 1 $ 313 $ 378 $ 559 2 377 443 624 3 484 . 550 730 4 644 710 890 5 857 923 1, 103 6 1, 123 1, 189 1, 369 7 1,310 1, 376 1, 556 8-15 1,500 1, 600 1, 700 16-50 2,500 2 ,800 3,000 51-100 3,000 3 , 500 4,000 101-500 $5, 000 regardless of quantity > 500 $6,500 regardless of quantity Range Quantity of Chemicals Range Gallons Cubic Feet Pounds 1 55-1,000 200-1, 000 500-1, 000 2 1, 001-10, 000 1, 001-5, 000 1, 001-5, 000 3 10, 001 + , 5, 001 + 5,001 + i Those businesses that do not file Business Emergency Plans shall pay a flat annual rate of $150. The fee assessed to each business shall be computed on the above chart. Charges for substances measured in gallons, cubic feet, and pounds shall be computed individually and then added to arrive at the annual fee. FEE TITLE: Fire Incident Report Copy FEE CHARGED: $13 . 00 - reports of less than 7 pages $ 2. 00 - each additional page -9- • M.S.I. FEE INCREASES — PHASE (Exhibit A 6/1/92 FIRE DEPARTMENT on ' t. FEE TITLE: Risk Management Program FEE CHARGED: MSI "fully-burdened" rate or pass-through cost FEE TITLE: Fire Alarm & Sprinkler Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 Base Fee* Multi-Family Residence $250 $325 $400 Single Family Residence 150 250 335 Tenant Improvement 75 105 135 Commercial Industrial 250 325 400 I *Plus per sprinkler or initiation charge of 3 .50 5. 00 6.75 Commerciasl/Industrial calculation 100 135 135 Underground 200 275 335 other 150 225 270 Water Dept. Review 26 26 26 CD Billing Review 13 13 13 FEE TITLE: Underground Tank Installation Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: Installation - $100 Removal - $200 FEE TITLE: Oil Well Inspection FEE CHARGED: Annual Inspection - $100 lst Reinspection - No Charge Subsequent - $200 FEE TITLE: Oil Well Vent Inspection FEE CHARGED: 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 $250/well $375/well $495/well FEE TITLE: Abandoned Oil Well Inspection FEE CHARGED: $100/well -10- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A 6/1/92 FIRE DEPARTMENT Con t. FEE TITLE: Wastewater Permit Fees FEE CHARGED: 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 $65/well $85/well $100/well FEE TITLE: Central Net Training Center/Use of Facilities, Equipment, and Personnel FEE CHARGED: Fees contained in Attachment 1; attached. j Section 11 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 11. Fees for operation of adult entert-ainment businesses pursuant to Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 5.70: POLICE DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 11 1992 FEE TITLE: Special Business Regulation FEE CHARGED: Taxi Driver $45 Bingo Permit $75 Gun Dealer Permit $100 original Masseuse Permit $120 Masseuse Renewal $ 50 Establishment Renewal $200 change of Location or Name $ 45 FEE TITLE: Temp. Alcohol Beverage Permit FEE CHARGED• $60 FEE TITLE: Noise Disturbance Response Call-Back FEE CHARGED• $330 M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) Section 13 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and al Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 13. Maximum rates for towing services and garage impounds pursuant to police direction. POLICE DEPARTMENT (Con ' t. ) EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Vehicle Abandoment Charge FEE CHARGED: Release Fee $340 This fee is not on the MSI Phase I, but recommended on Memo dated 10/17/91 I Section 19 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 19. Fees for use of City buildings & facilities. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Showmobile Rental FEE CHARGED: Fees to include all available equipment, delivery, set-up and transportation. First day - $800 Additional day - $160 Attendants to operate special equipment-fully burdened rate plus overtime if applicable NOTE: Costs for preparation and clean-up of showmobile are relatively stable, therefore, a flat fee is recommended. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 11 1992 FEE TITLE: Contract Recreation Fees FEE CHARGED: $2 . 00 administrative fee FEE TITLE: Adult Sports FEV CHARGED: 10 percent increase FEE TITLE: Senior Center Rentals FEE CHARGED: 10 percent increase ��/ -12- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE 1 Exhibit A,. 6/1/92 Section 21 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 21. Fees for the use of library facilities and equipment authorized by Huntington Beach Municipal Code section 2.30.050. i LIBRARY SERVICES DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Late Library Materials processing FEE CHARGED: Late Materials Children - $.15 per day/$3 maximum Encyclopedias - $.50 per day/$10 maximum Adult - $.25 per day/$5 maximum Replacement Cards Children - $2 FEE TITLE: Reservation of Material/Interlibrary Loans FEE CHARGED: Reservation - $1 per Item Interlibrary loan - $1 per Item plus any fees vharges by lending library FEE TITLE: Typewriter Rental FEE CHARGED: $1.50 per half hour FEE TITLE: Media Rental FEE CHARGED: Compact Disks 48 Hours - $1. 25 7 Days - $2.00 Computer Usage PC Leading Edge/Apple/IBM - $4.00 MacIntosh/386/2CX - $5. 00 Slide Projector - $6.00 Overhead Projector - $10.00 Opaque Projector - $15.00 Screens - $5. 00 PA System Disolve Unit - $15. 00 -13- �� M.S.I. FEE INCREASES — PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) Section 25 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 25. Fees for installation of traffic delineation for private developers pursuant to Huntington Beach Municipal Code section 12.12.140: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992! i FEE TITLE: Sign and striping Service FEE CHARGED: Use MSI "fully-burdened" rate charged against a minimum deposit of $1, 000. Section 26 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 26. Fees for checking plans for improvements to be constructedin the public right of way: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (Con ' t. ) EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Public Improvement Plan Check FEE CHARGED: Single Family Residence: Basic Plan Charge - $ 90 Additional Charge per Sheet of Plans - $ 20 All Others: Basic Plan Charge - $ 890 Additional Charge per Shhet of Plans - $ 220 FEE TITLE: Grading Plan Check & Inspection FEE CHARGED: To include plan check and inspections: 0 - 1,000 c.y. - $201 for 1st 100 c.y. + $33 . 50 ea add' 1 100 c.y. or fraction thereof 1, 001-10, 000 c.y. - $536 for 1st 1, 000 c.y. + $58 . 60 ea add' l 1,000 c.y. or fraction thereof Over 10, 000 c.y. - $1, 063. 65 for 1st 10, 000 c.y. + $92 ea add'1 10, 000 c.y. or fraction thereof PLUS - 5% of estimated on-site improvements -14- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES — PHASE (Exhibit A, 611192) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Con ' t. FEE TITLE: Landscape Plan Check FEE CHARGED: Minimum $55 - Single Family Residential $45 - Multiple Family Residential, less than 10 units $60 - Multiple Family Residential, 10 or more units PLUS $15 - For each page of plans FEE TITLE: Preliminary Landscape Plan Check FEE CHARGED: $30 - Single Family Residential $65 - Multiple Family Residential $20 - Non-residential i ' I Section 27 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 27. Fees for services performed by the Department of Public Works pursuant to Huntingtion Beach Municipal Code sections 10.32.060, 12.12.060, 12.12.110, 12.16.010, and Huntington Beach Ordinance Code section 9906: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (Con ' t. ) EFFECTIVE JULY 11 1992 FEE TITLE: Public Improvement Inspection FEE CHARGED: Subdivision - MSI "fully-burdened rate" charged against an initial deposit of 8% of improvement bond or $17, 000, whichever is greater FEE TITLE: Water Connection Inspection FEE CHARGED: A fee of $150. -15- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE 1 ( hlblt A, 611192) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Con t. FEE TITLE: Landscape Inspection FEE CHARGED: $ 30 - Single Family Residential $ 480 - Multiple Family Residental, less than 10 units $ 965 - Multiple Family Residential, 10 or more units $1, 600 - Non Residential FEE TITLE: Hydrant/Air Vacuum Damage Repair i FEE CHARGED: Use MSI "fully-burdened" rate charged to responsible individual, if identifiable. FEE TITLE: Temp Meter Rental Processing/Replacement FEE CHARGED: $700 meter damage deposit collected and permit issued prior to meter set $ 55 set fee $ 55 each hydrant meter move $ 70 monthly rental PLUS water usage (included in water bill) FEE TITLE: Wide, Overweight, Overlong Load Review FEE CHARGED: One day permit - No Charge Temporary Permit - $ 35 plus $5 for each day permit required Annual permit - No change Fleet operations - No change FEE TITLE: Street Construction Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: Excavation/ Construction Permit - $32 + 8% of the total cost of construction, as determined by the Dept. of Public Works. Cable Television - $32 + $.04 per lineal foot of mainline and laterial reach PLUS actual replacement/repair of City infrastructure replaced or repaired by City �� -16- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES — PHASE I (Exhibit A, 611192) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT on ' t. FEE TITLE: Hydrant Flow Test witness i FEE CHARGED: $110 FEE TITLE: Obstruction Permit FEE CHARGED• $50 FEE TITLE: Banner Hanger service FEE CHARGED: $105 i FEE TITLE: wide/Overweight/Loading FEE CHARGED: 1 day permit $15 Temporary Permit $35 Plus $ 5 day Annual permit $75 Fleet Operations $75 Section 31 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 31. Fees for processing parcel and final subdivision maps. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (Con ' t. ) EFFECTIVE JULY 11 1992 FEE TITLE: Final Tract Map Check FEE CHARGED: $480 or $40 per lot, whichever is greater -17- • �� Attachment 1 - oaae 1 CENTRAL NET TRAINING CENTER FACILITIES USE FEE SCHEDULE Note:Full payment for use of facilities due in advance. Class 1 users Class 2 users Class 3 users Class 4 users Fire Props basic fee no charge no charge $100 $200 addl.time no charge no charge 20%ea.hour 20%ea hour set up fee no charge $23 per hour $23 per hour $23 per hour set up after hours no charge $40 per hour $40 per hour $40 per hour lus staff enonjf needed Fuel diesel no charge $1.50/gal. $1.50/gal. $1.50/gal. propane no charge $4.00/pcnt $4.00/pcnt $4.00/pcnt tank tank tank Tower basic fee no charge no charge $100 $200 addl.time no charge no charge 20'/a ea.hour 200/6 ea.hour lus staff rson if needed Classroom 1 -Auditorium Style(cap. 100) basic fee no charge no charge $60 $70 addl.time no charge no charge 20%ea. hour 20%ea. hour set up fee no charge $23 per hour $23 per hour $23 per hour set up after hours no charge $40 per hour $40 per hour $40 per hour plus staff person if needed Classroom 1 -Classroom Style (cap.50) basic fee no charge no charge $60 $70 addt,time no charge no charge 20%ea hour 20%ea hour set up fee no charge $23 per hour $23 per hour $23 per hour set up after hours no charge $40 per hour $40 per hour $40 per hour plus staff 22rson if needed Classroom 2 -Classroom Style (cap.30) basic fee no charge no charge $45 $55 addl.time no charge no charge 20%ea. hour 20%ea. hour set up fee no charge $23 per hour $23 per hour $23 per hour set up after hours no charge $40 per hour $40 per hour S40 per hour lus staff gerson if needed Simulator-(cap.20) 1/2 day only basic fee-2 hours no charge no charge unavailable unavailable addl.time no charge no charge set up fee no charge $50 per hour set up after hours no charge $40 per hour lus staff person H needed -18- Attachment 1 - Qage 2 Video Sound Lab Class 1 users Class 2 users Class 3 users Class 4 users basic fee-1 hour no charge $50 $100 $150 addl.time no charge same same same nonbusiness hrs $50 $75 $125 $175 dubbing fee no charge matt.chg.only $15 per tape not available above fee includes staffing audioMsual s ec.and use of ui ment Training Grounds basic fee-1 hour no charge no charge $80 $100 addl.time no charge no charge 20%ea hour 20%ea.hour lus staff person if needed Administrative Costs basic fee no charge no charge $1 per person $1 per person attending attending NOM TOM FEES 00 MM WRY 10 XDM vM SEiEIOOE FOWL►QED)M Attachment 1 - cane 3 CENTRAL NET PROPOSED RENTAL CHARGE Personnel & Equipment Charges User Definitions: Class 1=Central Net Member City Fire Departments Gass 2=Member City Non-Fire Departments(e:Police.Commur*Svcs..etc.) Gass 3=Non-Prola(includes govl.agencies,service organizations.schools.etc.) Class 4=Al then Not idenliled In Above Categories p.:Commercial Vendors,etc.) Training Center Business Hours are 0800 to 1700 Monday through Friday Charges not included in basic fee: Personnel reg.hrs. non-bus.hm. IT A 4M CENTER MGi. $ag $96 FACL MAINT.WKR $23 $40 AUDIO VISUAL.COORD. $23 $40 OFRCF MGR. $23 $ao Equipment' (per day)/(Class 1&fl exempt) overhead prof. $7 microphone 10 1/2 vor 20 color tv 25 color tv camera 40 vhs eamoorder 35 leclem 10 side projector 5 tripod screen 3 smoke ganeralortUd $35 use plus$50 per gallon ootloe $1 per person1day •equipment avalabdly guaranteed only U reserved at tirne of scheduling Reservation&Cancellation policy Reservations elective upon reoeipt of FEE. FEES we fully rokxW"upon canoelation it notice is received ad)east 90 calendar days prior to scheduled use. However.a penalty of W%of IM required FEE will be assessed it canoalation Is reQuesled loss than 3D calendar days prior to use City of Huntington Beach . Fiscal Year 1992/93 Budget .................. June 1 , 1992, COMPARISON OF GOVERNMENT BUDGET Fiscal Year 1991 /92 Per Capita Budget and Shortfall 7,000 5 814 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 - 1 848 29000 - 1 129 1 447 1 044 1 ,000 JL490 0 29 17 0 i1A.17 MWAIWW Federal County-Orange _ State-California City-Huntington Bch 0 Budget E Shortfall COST MANDATES & TRANSFER SUMMARY Estimated From Annual Cost Federal Government $ 114905000 State Government 259453000 County Government 1 ,390,000 Special District 1291000 Combination of Govern . 905,000 Total Estimated Annual Cost: $ 6,859,000 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH "CITY FISCAL CONDITION " ' SUMMARY > INTERDEPENDENT ECONOMY PRECESSION > SHORT AND LONG TERM SOLUTIONS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS FISCAL STABILITY OF THE CITY > EVALUATE CITY EXPENDITURE BASE AND IMPROVE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS EXISTING REVENUE BASE NEEDS TO BE STABILIZED AND SEOND TO BE EXPANDED TO MEET SERVICE FISCAL STRATEGIES • ADOPT FISCAL POLICIES - JUNE 1990 ` USE A PHASED APPROACH TO BALANCE BUDGET - GENERAL FUND RESERVES USED UNTIL BUDGET IS BALANCED - 1992/93 BUDGET BALANCED WITHOUT USING RESERVES � USE A BALANCED APPROACH - REDUCE EXPENDITURES AND INCREASE REVENUES FISC AL STRATEGIES ( CONTINUED ) - PROCESS - Budget Review Task Force - Community Input - Employee Input - Department Recommendation - Mid Year City Council Review - Adoption of Policy Guidelines - March 1992 FISCAL STRATEGIES (CONTINUED) PROGRAMS - Selective Hiring Freeze - Streamlining and Efficiency Committee - Expenditure Reduction Committee - MSI Study - Revenue Audits CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FISCAL POLICIES ■ On-going expenditures should be supported by on-going revenues. ■ The General Fund reserves should be maintained at no less than 3%, with a 5% reserve being desirable. ■ No new capital improvements should be approved until associated operating costs are funded by recurring revenues. Each enterprise fund should reflect the true cost of operation including direct and indirect costs supported by the General Fund. ■ If the city's budget is balanced General Fund reserves in excess of 5% should be transferred to the Capital Improvement Project Fund on an annual basis. ■ To implement the above fiscal policy statements, aphase-in period will be required. - ALL FUNDS -TOTAL RESOURCES Fiscal 1992/93 General Fund - 49% Debt Service gpill Water Fund Capital Projects Refuse Collection 9% EJ Other Enterprise Internal Services = • f : 3 W © Trans/Street Improve % .... I m Funds 4 :::< ::::.. 7 ° R u Rede velopment o ent p Other Funds 9% ° 3% Net Use of Reserves 5% 3%2% 6 �° Total Resources = $20313031654 REQUESTED APPROPRIATIONS - ALL FUNDS Fiscal Year 1992/93 General Fund - 47% Water Fund Ed Refuse Fund 3% Other Enter_ Fund 0 Trans/Street Project t - 7u�° t ��:�...5 lFf ff.: ••.c:,? }::''k:•.'iti::2;;%::5:. LRedevelopment Funds s : W ,3f; ,. f. .v f sr H ,.c : a/ttee F Ff S: :£ ��: Debt Service Funds tSY. 0 /0 Internal Svcs Fund 0 11 0 0 0 4 P /o Capital ro cts�e 11 Other Funds 3%% 6% 10% Total Appropriations Requested - $203,303654 PROJECTED GENERAL FUND REVENUES Fiscal Year 1992/93 Property Taxes Transfers 3% 32% Sales Tax Other 18% Utility Tax ti t Y Other taxe s k M Transient Occupancy Licenses and Permits 1 /° %�� : 7 /° c ;:� # 11 Use of Mone & Pro ` 2°�° p { 13% From Other encies 811/0 Fines and Fo eiture 5% 1% 4% 6% F4ti Charges Current Svcs Total General Fund Revenues = $ 98 ,395,200 MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES General fund $ Millions 35 - Property Tax 30 — 25 _ Sales Tax 20 15 10 - 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 Fiscal Year GENERAL FUND BUDGET t_ Recommended Appropriations by Department CI t Council Non-Dep rtmental dmil3istration it reasurer C i y Atto m e Cit Cler Admin S rvices Library Community Deve ie Police Communitv Services Public Works 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 $Millions $969984.398 GENERAL FUND BUDGET SUMMARY CONTINUATION RECOMMENDED DIFFERENCE BUDGET BUDGET REVENUE $ 96,0541200 $ 98,3957200 +$273417000 EXPENSE $ 100,238,889 96,984,398 ( 352547491) _ SUBTOTAL ( 49184,689) 114103802 CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSES 0 644,033 (SHORTFALL)/SURPLUS ( 4,1841689) $ 766,769 GENERAL FUND SURPLUS/SHORTFALL Fiscal Years 1980181 thru 1992/93 $ Millions 4,000,000 Am 2,000,000 slim N ow (250005000)(4,000,000)(6y0009000) 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 Fiscal Year 1991 Estimated 1992 Recommended SUMMARY: GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE l REDUCTIONS EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT REDUCTION CITY COUNCIL $ -168 ADMINISTRATION -249,388 NON-DEPARTMENTAL -404,609 CITY TREASURER -43,063 CITY ATTORNEY -223,675 CITY CLERK +59,774 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES -2012382 LIBRARY -2007374 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -2515450 FIRE DEPARTMENT -1352933 POLICE DEPARTMENT -349,912 COMMUNITY SERVICES -379,391 PUBLIC WORKS -8299921 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REDUCTIONS -$3,254,491 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Budgeted Full -Time Employees Fiscal Year 1976/77 to 1992/93 Employees 17150 - Total Employees 1 ,100 17050 _ General Fund Employees 1 ,000 - 950 900 - 850 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 Fiscal Year 1993 Recommended GENERAL FUND PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS PERSONNEL FULL EXPENDITURE TIME TEMPORARY DEPARTMENT REDUCTION POSITIONS POSITIONS ADMINISTRATION $ -235,827 -4.0 CITY TREASURER - 43,063 -1 .0 CITY ATTORNEY -143,675 -2.0 ADMIN. SVCS. -133,171 -2.75 LIBRARY -1777226 -2.0 - 1 .0 COM. DEVELOP. -230,814 -3.0 - 1 .0 FIRE DEPARTMENT -135,933 -25.0 POLICE DEPARTMENT -292,875 -6.0 -11 .0 COMMUNITY SVCS. - 85,000 -1 .0 -32.0 PUBLIC WORKS -573.402 -10.45 -10.0 TOTAL GF REDUCTIONS: $ 11990,986 -32.20 -80.0 FIRE DEPARTMENT NEW POSITIONS: +3.00 NET REDUCTIONS: 29.20 1992/93 GENERAL FUND BUDGET SERVICE LEVEL REDUCTIONS Administration + ELIMINATION OF FOUR POSITIONS WILL REDUCE SCOPE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SERVICES AND INTERNAL PRODUCTIVITY STUDIES Non-Departmental * REDUCTION OF $100,000 TRANSFER TO LIABILITY SELF INSURANCE FUND 1992/93 GENERAL FUND BUDGET SERVICE LEVEL REDUCTIONS (continued ) Treasurer * ELIMINATION OF ONE POSITION WILL REDUCE FIELD ENFORCEMENT OF BUSINESS LICENSE COLLECTION City Attorney * LOSS OF ONE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY POSITION MAY INCREASE COSTS FOR OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNCIL 1992/93 GENERAL FUND BUDGET SERVICE LEVEL REDUCTIONS , (continued) dministrative Services * LOSS OF 1 .75 POSITIONS IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS WILL SLOW RESPONSE TO DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS * LOSS OF PERMANENT POSITION IN PRINT SHOP WILL PARTIALLY BE OFF SET BY REDUCING STOCK ROOM HOURS AND ASSIGNING THAT LABOR TO THE PRINT SHOP * LOSS OF ONE POSITION IN PERSONNEL WILL SLOW ALL FUNCTIONS IN THE DIVISION IN VARYING DEGREES 1992/93 GENERAL FUND BUDGET. SERVICE LEVEL REDUCTIONS (continued ) ibrary * REDUCTIONS OF TWO POSITIONS AND $59,000 IN BOOKS PURCHASED WILL REDUCE SUPERVISION, TRAINING, PUBLIC RESPONSE, BOOK PROCESSING, AND FURTHER REDUCE NEW BOOK ACQUISITIONS 1992193 GENERAL FUND BUDGET SERVICE LEVEL REDUCTIONS (continued ) ommunity Development * ELIMINATE PLAN CHECKER POSITION AND UNDER FILL OTHER POSITIONS WILL INCREASE PROCESSING TIME * ELIMINATION OF TWO INSPECTORS MAY RESULT IN INSPECTION DELAYS 1992/93 GENERAL FUND BUDGET .` SERVICE LEVEL REDUCTIONS (continued ) Fire Department * ELIMINATION OF FIRE RESERVE PROGRAM ELIMINATES FOURTH PERSON ATTACHED TO FIRE COMPANIES * ADDITION OF THREE NEW PARAMEDICS WILL IMPROVE SERVICE IN DEVELOPING AREAS 1992193 GENERAL FUND BUDGET SERVICE LEVEL REDUCTIONS (continued ) Police Department * ELIMINATION OF SIX PERMANENT POSITIONS AND ELEVEN TEMPORARY POSITIONS * IDENTIFICATION AND APPLICATION FOR GRANTS AND REIMBURSEMENTS WILL BE CURTAILED * PHOTO EVIDENCE PROCESSING WILL BE DELAYED 1992/93 GENERAL FUND BUDGET ` SERVICE LEVEL REDUCTIONS Community Services (continued ) * CITY'S ART AND CULTURAL PROGRAM PROGRESS WILL BE IMPAIRED * LIFEGUARD SERVICE IN THE HARBOR WILL BE REDUCED * CITY TRASH PICKUP ON THE BEACH WILL BE REPLACED FROM OCTOBER THROUGH MARCH BY A VOLUNTEER ADOPT-A-BEACH PROGRAM * COMMUNITY CENTERS WILL CLOSE ON SUNDAYS AND EARLIER ON WEEK NIGHTS 1992193 GENERAL FUND BUDGET . SERVICE LEVEL REDUCTIONS (continued ) Public Works * GENERAL FUND REDUCTION OF 9.45 POSITION THROUGH TRANSFER AND REALLOCATION TO OTHER FUNDS * REDUCTION OF TWO POSITIONS IN MAINTENANCE WILL REDUCE BY 8% THE TOTAL NUMBER OF WORK ORDERS COMPLETED * TREE MAINTENANCE, STORM DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE, AND VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLEANUP WILL BE DELAYED BY VARIOUS DEGREES DUE TO CAPITAL CUT BACKS 1992/93 GENERAL FUND BUDGET SERVICE LEVEL REDUCTIONS (continued) Economic Development * TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL FUND FROM REDEVELOPMENT WILL INCREASE BY $2445500 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS PROGRAMS DEVELOPED SINCE 1990/91 1990/91 & 1991/92 One-Time Programs Ongoinq Programs (Estimated Totals) (Annual Amount) Selective Hiring Freeze $21000,000 Cancellation of Approved Expenses 540,000 Transfer of Costs to Other Funds $ 193325000 Increased Charges to Other Funds 256855000 Departmental Expenditure Reductions 195005000 1992/93 Proposals: Expenditure Reductions 35254,491 Increased Charges to Other Funds 3815000 Total $275405000 $ 91152,491 Streamlining and Efficiency Programs - see separate summary Streamlining & Efficiency Programs ■ Departmental programs to be reviewed ■ Alternate Work Schedules ■ Analyze Consolidated Helicopter Program ■ Consolidated City Vehicle Maintenance ■ City-wide Computerized Optical Disk Improve Efficiency of Parking Meter Program ■ Improve Delinquent Collections Process ■ Improve Computer Technology ■ Privatization of City Services PROPOSED REVENUE INCREASES SUMMARY Implementation of IVISI System - Phase I $ 1 ,800,660 Increased Charges to Enterprise Funds 3811000 Business License Fee Increase 1605000 Total Proposed Increases $ 253415660 PROPOSED REVENUE INCREASE ( CONTINUED) Increased Charges to Enterprise Funds Fund Annual Revenue, Golf Course $ 25,000 CATV Fund 859000 Fire Med Fund 215000 Refuse Collection 2509 00 SubTotal 381 , 000 Business License Fee Increase 160,000 GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE HISTORY ( $ Millions ) Year (June 30) Fund Balance 1983 $ 3.5 1984 $ 4.6 1985 $ 5.6 1986 $ 3.6 1987 $ 6.7 1988 $ 1 .4 1989 $ 2.0 1990 $ 1 .1 1991 $ 3.9 1992 $ 5.9 (estimated) 1993 $ 6.6 (estimated) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ------------------------ ------------------------ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY BUDGET HEARING FY 1992/93 and NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION TO INCREASE VARIOUS FEES AS RECOMMENDED IN THE BUDGET Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday, the 1st of June, 1992, for the purpose of considering the Fiscal Year 1992/93 City Budget. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday, the 1st of June, 1992, for the purpose of considering an increases to various fees and permits as recommended in the Preliminary Budget for 1992/93 . The proposed budget for FY 1992/93 totals $203 , 303 , 654 including General Fund expenditures proposed at $96, 984, 398 . The complete, proposed budget for FY 1992/93 can be inspected by the public from 8: 00 A.M. to 5: 00 P.M. , Monday through Friday at City Hall, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach. Copies of the proposed budget are also available for public review at the City's Central Library located at 7111 Talbert Avenue (Goldenwest St. and Talbert Ave. ) . All interested persons (especially senior citizens and handicapped individuals) are invited to attend the budget hearing, and hearing on fee increases to express their opinions for, or, against the proposed City budget for FY 1992/93 and fee increases. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 - Phone # (714) 536-5227. The City of Huntington Beach endeavors to accommodate persons of handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, City programs or activities. The City of Huntington Beach is an equal opportunity employer. DATED: 5/12/92 City of Huntington Beach by: Connie Brockway, City Clerk i [:A,Me CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH tea" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH I i TO: Michael T. Uberauga, City AdiministratoZAUTHORM FROM: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City AdministSUBJDCI': WAIVER OF GENERAL FMM PA�TP TO DATE: June 2, 1992 STATII T OF ISSUE: As part of the City effort to present a balanced budget for Fiscal Year 1992/93 the Budget Review Task Force recarrunex ded waiver of the General Fund payment to the Parking Authority of $170,000 in the 1992/93 annual budget. ANALYSIS: The 1968 Parking Authority Bond will be retired in September of 1993. Currently, the fund balance for this bond fund 'is `,$1,168,000. There are two payments of $170,000 (Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994) remaining to satisfy this bond obligation. oON=SIC N: If the City Council, acting in the capacity of the Parking Authority, were to waive the the General Fund payment to the Parking Authority in Fiscal Year 1992/93, the reserve for this fund would be reduced to $998,000. li I I i i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Micbael T. Uberauga, City Adiministrator FROM: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administra SUBJECT: $1o.o0 ma mm IN BUSiNESS LIC'EwE FEES DATE: June 2, 1992 I STATEII ff OF ISSUE: j In keeping with the preliminary budget goal of submitting a balanced budget to the City Council for adoption, a $10.00 increase in the Business License fee has been recamvnded to be incorporated with the 'Fiscal Year 1992/93 budget to be submitted to Council on June 15. i ANALYSIS: Currently there are 1,600 Business Licenses issued in the City. The basic Business License Fee is $65.00 and generates $1,375,000 in annual revenue. The current basic fee of is well below the average for comparable cities. If a $10.00 increase were approved by the City Council, the City would remain below ccmparable cities and the anticipated revenue increase would be $160,000. Many of the City's Business License fees are less than $65.00. They include limited time licenses, special use licenses,i. and supplemental licenses to the basic annual license. In those cases the $10.00 increase has been pro rated to the basic fee. OONCLUSION: Since the Business License fee is technically and legally a tax, implementation of an increase requires adoption of an ordinance (introduction on June 15th, adoption July 6th) , and would be effective itmnediately there after. The proposed modifications of Chapters 5.16 and 5.48 of the Business License ordnance to enact a $10.00 increase has been completed by the City Attorney's Office and is attached. Attachment: Survey of Business License Fees TO: MLCHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator FROM: DONALD .L. . WATSON City Treasurer DATE: January.. 17, 1992 SUBIECT: BUSINESS .LIC_ENSE REVENUE The following is 'a-:summary of our =business: 11-cense_revenue. as of January 16, 1992 Our, basic. icense fee .is $65.00 but that has..exceptions includin' no, fee permits, more. than' 3. employees, and some licenses are based upon the _number of vehicles, machines or spaces. Total number of active licenses 16,517 . . .Number of no fee licenses ill TOTAL FEE LICENSES 161406 TOTAL FEES $1,265,471 .28. f AVERAGE LICENSE FEE $77. 13 We do not have an update of the .information we provided in 1990. At that time we had-the survey information for 88 cities. Many of these cities, including Huntington Beach, have increased their business license fee since that report: : The following is a summary of that report SURVEY`SUMMARY . _ AVERAGE LICENSE FEE ✓ All 88Cities $306.00 - ` Cities over 250,000 population 462.00 Cities under. 250,00.0 population 161 .00 Cities between 100;000 and 250,000 172.00 Cities in Orange County 96.00 =`y Huntington Beach 56.00 Even with"our average fee now at $77.13, we, still trail most cities in our geography and .of our size. Please let me know if you need any additional .information. DLW:bb Attachment 1 - taace 1 CENTRAL NET TRAINING CENTER FACILITIES USE FEE SCHEDULE Note:Full payment for use of facilities due in advance. Class 1 users Class 2 users Class 3 users Class 4 users Fire Props basic fee no charge no charge $100 $200 addl.time no charge no charge 20%ea. hour 20%ea. hour set up fee no charge $23 per hour $23 per hour $23 per hour set up after hours no charge $40 per hour $40 per hour $40 per hour lus staff 22rson if needed Fuel diesel no charge $1.50/gal. $1.50/gal. $1.50/gal. propane no charge $4.00/pcnt $4.00/pcnt $4.00/pcnt tank tank tank Tower basic fee no charge no charge $100 $200 addl.time no charge no charge 20'/o ea.hour 20%ea. hour lus staff 22rson if needed Classroom 1 -Auditorium Style(cap. 100) basic fee no charge no charge $60 $70 addl.time no charge no charge 20%ea hour 20%ea. hour set up fee no charge $23 per hour $23 per hour $23 per hour set up after hours no charge $40 per hour $40 per hour $40 per hour lus staff 22rson if needed Classroom 1 -Classroom Style (cap.50) basic fee no charge no charge $60 $70 addl.time no charge no charge 20%ea. hour 20%ea.hour set up fee no charge $23 per hour $23 per hour $23 per hour set up after hours no charge $40 per hour $40 per hour $40 per hour plus staff person if needed Classroom 2 -Classroom Style (cap.30) basic fee no charge no charge $45 $55 addl.time no charge no charge 20%ea.hour 20%ea. hour set up fee no charge $23 per hour $23 per hour $23 per hour set up after hours no charge $40 per hour $40 per hour $40 per hour plus staff Rerson if needed Simulator-(cap.20) 1/2 day only basic fee-2 hours no charge no charge unavailable unavailable addl.time no charge no charge set up fee no charge $50 per hour set up after hours no charge $40 per hour plus staff rson if needed -18- �� Attachment 1 - t:ac e 2 Video Sound Lab Class 1 users Class 2 users Class 3 users Class 4 users basic fee-1 hour no charge $50 $100 $150 addl.time no charge same same same nonbusiness hrs $50 $75 $125 $175 dubbing fee no charge matl.chg.only $15 per tape not available above fee includes staffing audio/visual spec.and use of equipment Training Grounds basic fee-1 hour no charge no charge $80 $100 addl.time no charge no charge 20%ea. hour 20%ea. hour lus staff person if needed Administrative Costs basic fee no charge no charge $1 per person $1 per person attending attending NOTE TMESC FaS DO NOT!?R.Y TO I04M V M 5U4Tf FOWX X1MWS V -19- Attachment 1 - nArye 3 CENTRAL NET PROPOSED RENTAL CHARGE Personnel & Equipment Charges User Definitions: Class 1=Central Net Member City Fire Departments Class 2=Member City Non-Re Departments[e:Police,Community Svcs.,etc.) Class 3=Non-Profd(includes govt.agencies,service organizations,schools,etc.) Class 4=All Users Not Identified in Above Categories(e:Commercial Vendors,etc.) Training Center Business Hours are 0800 to 1700 Monday through Friday Charges not included in basic fee: Personnel reg.hrs. non bus.hrs. TRAINING CENTER MGR. $ag $86 FACL MAINT.WKR $23 $40 AUDIO VISUAL COORD. $23 $40 OFRCE MGR $23 $oo Equipment' (per day)/(Class I&N exempt) overhead prof. $7 microphone 10 Inv« 20 color tv 25 color tv camera 40 vhs camcorder 35 lectern 10 slide projector 5 tripod screen 3 smoke generalorlAuid $35 use plus$50 per gallon coffee $1 per personlday •equipment availability guaranteed only N reserved al time of sling Reservation&Cancellation policy Reservations effective upon reoeipt of FEE. FEES are t*refundable upon canoelialion N notice is received at least 30 calendar days prior to scheduled use. However,a penalty of 50%of the required FEE will be assessed N canoellation is requested less than 30 calendar days prior to use REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date March 16, 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrat Subject: Policy Guidelines - Preparation of 1992/93 General Fu d Bud e APPROVED BY CITY .3 _ Consistent with Council Policy? V1 Yes [ ] New Policy or Exceptio a +/ Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative ac mentsfoxzY OBJECTIVE: City staff and the Budget Review Task Force have prepared reports on potential expenditure reductions and revenue increases that could be implemented to balance the 1992/93 General Fund Budget. The potential General Fund budget shortfall , if no action is taken to reduce expenses or increase revenues, is currently estimated to be $4,986,925 in fiscal year 1992/93. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1 . Instruct the City Administrator to present a balanced General Fund Budget for 1992/93 by reducing expenses by a minimum of $3 million (60% of the estimated $4,986,925 shortfall ) and utilize revenue enhancements to address the balance of the estimated shortfall . 2. Adopt the attached strategies for preparation of the 1992/93 budget (Attachment 1 ) . 3. Schedule a special study session for Monday, April 27, 1992 to review the issues of infrastructure maintenance/replacement and implementation of the Management Services Institute (MSI) System. 4. Instruct the Finance Director to place any PERS refund/credit resulting from AB 702 in a reserve account pending the result of litigation on the refunds. BACKGROUND If no action is taken to reduce expenses or increase revenues, the staff estimates a budget shortfall in the General Fund of $4,986,925 for 1992/93. � N [� c, o }wc-t tad n3 Plo 5/85 Although this is a preliminary estimate and will change as revenue estimates are further refined in the next few months, it is clear that a significant expenditure reduction or increase in revenues is necessary to balance the 1992/93 budget. Anticipating this 1992/93 General Fund shortfall , the City Council appointed an eleven (11 ) member citizens Budget Review Task Force in August 1991 to review alternatives and make recommendations to the City Council . In addition, the City staff has been working since last July on the same issues in order to fully analyze all potential expenditure reductions, streamlining and efficiency opportunities, perform audits of existing revenues, and identify potential additional revenue. The City Council has been involved in this process as follows: Date 1992/93 Budget Planning - City Council July 1991 City Council requests applications for citizens Budget Review Task Force. August 1991 City Council appoints Budget Review Task Force 9/30/91 Study Session with Budget Review Task Force and City Council to initiate Task Force review. Initial public presentation of MSI Study was also included in study session. 12/16/91 Study Session with City Council and Budget Review Task Force to review preliminary findings of Task Force 1/21/92 Budget Review Task Force/City Council Study Session to review Task Force recommendations. 1 /27/92 City Council Study Session to review alternative Policy Guidelines for addressing the 1992/93 Budget shortfall 2/18/92 Public presentation of Budget Review Task Force report. 2/24/92 Public Hearing - input on Policy Guideline alternatives. POLICY ISSUES Through the above described meetings, study sessions and public hearings, the following issues have identified for additional review as a part of balancing the City' s issues General Fund Budget: 1 . Amount of Expenditure Reductions for 1992/93 2. Salary Issues 3. Infrastructure Maintenance/Replacement Issues 4. Development Fee Issues AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS FOR 1992/93 The preliminary staff report recommended General Fund expenditure reductions of $2.6 million for 1992/93 while the Budget Review Task Force recommended reductions of $4.6 million (Primary Plan) and $4.0 million (Secondary Plan) . -2- WPADSERT:799 Therefore, the primary difference that has been identified between the two reports is that the Task Force has recommended that 80% of the shortfall be addressed by expenditure reductions, while the staff has recommended that roughly 50% of the shortfall be addressed through expenditure reductions. The revised staff recommendation included in this report is that a minimum of $3 million (60% of the estimated shortfall) be addressed through expenditure reductions. Attachment 2 is a list of the expenditure reductions identified by the Budget Review Task Force that were not included within the City Administrator' s $2.6 million expenditure reductions. An additional $400,000 could be implemented from Task Force recommendations (Attachment 2) without a significant negative effect on services to the public. For instance, the following Task Force recommendations which were not a part of the City Administrator's $2.6 million expenditure reduction could be implemented in 1992/93: Task Force Recommended Reduction Amount Reduce Transfer to Liability Insurance Fund $ 100,000 Reduction due to audit of electricity usage 100,000 Reduce Transfer to Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund 125,000 Refinance Civic Center Debt 67.500 Total $� There are other differences between the Task Force Expenditure reductions and staff expenditure reductions that can be reviewed in further detail as part of the City Administrator' s March and April review of budgets with City Departments. It is quite likely that more than $3 million in expenditure reductions can be identified through this type of detailed review. The policy guideline recommended for the City Council adoption is that a minimum of $3 million of the estimated shortfall be addressed through expenditure reductions. SALARY ISSUES Several salary issues have been the subject of review and public discussion. Some of these issues are, a) whether the current three year Memorandums of Understanding (MOU's) with employee groups provide too much of a salary increase compared to the City' s ability to pay, b) whether a "rollback" or "cap" on salaries should be attempted as a part of the budget balancing efforts, c) retirement reporting issues, and d) the development of an Employee Incentive Program. Staff input on the issue of the current three year MOU' s has been that the MOU's are contracts with employees and that the MOD's should be honored. Whether the amounts negotiated in 1990/91 for those MOU' s are appropriate amounts is a matter of judgment and reflection of what we know today compared to what we knew at the time the contracts were offered. By the time of the 1992/93 budget adoption, the MOD's will be eighteen to twenty—one months —3— WPADSERT:799 completed (out of thirty-six month terms) . To request renegotiation of those MOU' s midway through their term would probably have a detrimental impact on the City's credibility in future years with employee organizations and would have questionable impact in terms of ability to actually reduce City costs. While the City can request a reopening of the negotiations, there is no guarantee that agreement can be reached on modifying the three year MOU' s to reduce salary increases. If no agreement is reached on reducing salaries, then the current MOD' s would stay in place and the City would have a legal obligation to honor them. One comment that has been made about the current MOU's is that no more than a one year MOU should be negotiated between the City and employee organizations. While this would have given the City additional options in the current budget situation, as a general rule multi-year agreements benefit both the employee organization and the City. The City benefits from the predictability of labor costs, and employee organizations benefit from the same predictability. Both sides benefit from the ability to concentrate on providing public services as opposed to the negotiation process. While suggestions to freeze or rollback salaries are based on the comparability to what is occurring in some non-unionized businesses in the private sector, it needs to be pointed out that private sector compensation principles have not, and in some cases cannot, be applied to public sector. For instance, bonuses/commissions of 20% to 100% of an employee' s salary are not uncommon in the private sector. Such bonuses/commissions in the public sector either do not apply or are not accepted by the public as legitimate compensation programs funded by taxpayer funds. On the other hand if the issue being suggested by critics of the current MOU's is that current employees are paid too much in comparison to other jurisdictions or "too much" in light of the current economic conditions, then a review of the entire meet and confer process that leads to salaries/salary increases for public employees should be reviewed. A three member City Council Committee is recommended for this purpose. Since the next meet and confer cycle begins in the Spring of 1993, it is recommended that the proposed committee present recommended changes to the process/approach by January 1993. The Chief City Negotiator for the meet and confer process is an outside negotiator from a private firm who receives policy direction directly from the City Council on the basic meet and confer issues. The City has utilized several different private firms in the past 20 years to serve as the Chief Negotiator in the meet and confer process. The City has experienced significant difficulties in completing the meet and confer process in a timely manner in the last five years. As the Council will recall , the current MOU' s were not approved until four to nine months after expiration of the prior MOU' s. One group (Fire Association) is still unsettled in terms of an MOU seventeen months after their prior MOU expired. While on the one hand it has been difficult to reach agreement with employee organizations, on the other hand specific elements of the agreements that have been reached (salary increases and retirement reporting) are now being criticized as inappropriate agreements for the City to have entered into with employee organizations. By revising the City' s approach to the meet and confer process, some of these issues may be addressed in the future. INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE/REPLACEMENT The MSI Study has quantified the value of the City' s infrastructure at over $1 billion. The study also indicates that we should be putting aside $44 million per year for the maintenance/replacement of the existing -4- WPADSERT:799 I infrastructure. In order to fully implement the recommendations of the MSI System, staff has indicated that a multi-year, multi-phased approach would be needed. Rather than utilize one-time revenues to address infrastructure problems, the need is to identify significant new, ongoing revenue/funding sources for infrastructure maintenance/replacement. Public Works and Administrative Services Departments will prepare a comprehensive report for City Council review at a study session in late April (prior to presentation of the preliminary budget for 1992/93) to address infrastructure issues. The purpose of the staff report will be to identify the critical areas of need in terms of maintenance/replacement of infrastructure and how a phased approach to implementation of the MSI System will assist in addressing those needs. DEVELOPER FEES The MSI System would require implementation of $30 million per year in new fees/assessment districts, etc. , if fully implemented. Obviously this cannot be done in a short period of time. An issue that has been raised during the budget review process is the impact of proposed increased fees on the developers. The Budget Review Task Force has recommended implementation of MSI fees of over $900,000 less than the $1 ,800,660 recommended by City staff. The primary difference between these two recommendations is that staff has recommended implementation of fees relating to new development, while the Task Force has not. Whether the development related fees should be excluded or not is an issue that needs to be addressed by the City Council . The Chamber of Commerce input to the City (letter dated February 21 , 1992) is that the City should get "back to basics". While the Chamber supports the "fair pricing" of services, they suggest a comprehensive review by the City of whether certain services should be discontinued by the City. Staff intends to include a complete review of these issues as well as a multi-phased implementation of the MSI System as a part of the April 27, 1992 study session on infrastructure and MSI related issues. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Strategies for Preparation of 1992/93 General Fund Budget 2. Summary - Budget Review Task Force Expenditure Reduction Recommendation 3. Comparison of Budget Review Task Force and City Administrator Recommendations 4. Follow up/Response to City Council Requests: February 24 Public Hearing 5. Follow up/Response to Public Comments: February 24 Public Hearing 6. Timetable - Budget Adoption -5- WPADSERT:799 ATTACHMENT 1 Strategies for Preparation of 1992/93 Budget 1. No new positions in the 1992/93 Budget unless the following criteria are met: a. An offsetting revenue is created as a result of the creation of the new position, or b. There is a documented cost reduction as a result of the new position at least equal to the cost of the new position, or c. The new position is not funded by the General Fund, and is fully justified by the department. 2. The current hiring freeze to be continued until at least July 1992, for all General Fund positions, exceptions to require approval by City Administrator. 3. Implement additional expendituree reductions by 7/1/92 as identified in the City's Streamlining and Efficiency Report of January, 1992. 4. Implement additional charges to enterprise funds to cover the full cost of General Fund services, consistent with the MSI Study. 5. Complete the new audits of major revenue sources (property tax and utility tax/franchise fees) prior to 7/1/92. 6. Maintain a minimum 3% reserve with 5% being desirable, at the end of Fiscal Year 1992/93, consistent with the City Council's adopted fiscal policies. 7. Ongoing General Fund Revenues and Expenses to be fully balanced in fiscal year 1992/93. Attachment #2 SUMMARY - EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS FOR FY 1992/93 RECOMMENDED BY BUDGET REVIEW TASK FORCE (BRTF) A. Salary Reductions: AMOUNT -Reduce Employee Salary Increases from 5% to 2% $1, 657, 604 -Reduce Department Head Salaries by an additional 3% 40, 000 -Reduce City Council Salaries by 3% 1, 691 SUB-TOTAL $1, 699, 295 B. Other BRTF Expenditure Reductions NOT included in City Administrator's recommendations for 1992/93 General Fund reductions: DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION OF REDUCTION AMOUNT Undesignated Reduce # of management positions $130, 000 All Reduce conference expenses by 25% 20, 000 CITY COUNCIL Reduce Expense Allowance by 25% $17 , 250 INTERGOVT. Reduce Dues/Conference Expenses 20, 000 NON-DEPT. Reduce Transfer to Liability Self Ins. Fund 100, 000 Est. reduction due to ELECTRICAL AUDIT 100, 000 Reduce Transfer to Worker's Comp. Fund 125, 000 Refinance Civic Center Debt 67,500 ADMIN. Eliminate 1 Position - P.I.O. 78,700 CITY CLERK Eliminate 1 Part Time Deputy City Clerk 20, 000 LIBRARY Reduce Temporary Employee funding 10, 000 COM. DEV. Reduce Full Time Sec. position to 1/2 Time 24, 919 POLICE Eliminate Range Officer Position 76, 000 Regionalize Helicopter Services 300, 000 COM. SVC. Reduce Cultural Affairs budget by 20% 26, 634 Eliminate Sister Cities budget 10, 555 SUB-TOTAL $1, 126, 558 C. Reductions Recommended by BOTH BRTF and City Administrator: SUB-TOTAL 1, 813 , 083 TOTAL BRTF RECOMMENDED REDUCTIONS $4, 638, 936 Pg 1 of 4 Attachment #3 COMPARISON OF BUDGET REVIEW TASK FORCE (BRTF) AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDED EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS BRTF BRTF CITY PRIMARY SECONDARY STAFF DESCRIPTION OF REDUCTION PLAN PLAN PLAN City Council/Intergovernmental Relations Reduce City Council salaries by 3% $1,691 $0 $0 Reduce Expense Allowance by 25% 17,250 17,250 0 Reduce Intergov. Dues/Conference Expenses 20,000 20,000 0 Sub total 38,941 37,250 0 Non-Departmental Reduce Transfer to Liabilty Self Ins. Fund 100,000 100,000 0 Est. reduction due to ELECTRICAL AUDIT 100,000 100,000 0 Reduce trannsfer to Worker's Comp. Fund 125,000 125,000 0 Reduce # of management positions 0 100,000 Reduce Visitors Bureau budget 130,000 130,000 0 Refinance Civic Center Debt 67,500 67,500 0 Reduce contractual services 0 0 40,000 Reduce Contingency 0 0 40,000 Sub total 522,500 622,500 80,000 Administration (and Undesignated Departmental reductions) 5% salary increase reduced to 2% 27,056 0 0 Reduce Dept. Head salaries by an additional 3% 40,000 40,000 0 Cut PIO and Special Promotions budget 135,000 225,000 56,300 Reduce Productivity & Research budget 0 183,700 137,775 Reduce conferences expenses by 25% (all dept's) 20,000 20,000 0 Sub total 222,056 468,700 194,075 City Treasurer 5% salary increase reduced to 2% 23,674 0 0 Eliminate vacant Business License position 37,335 37,335 38,000 Sub total 61,009 37,335 38,000 Pg 2 of 4 Attachment #3 COMPARISON OF BUDGET REVIEW TASK FORCE (BRTF) AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDED EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS BRTF BRTF CITY PRIMARY SECONDARY STAFF DESCRIPTION OF REDUCTION PLAN PLAN PLAN City Attorney 5% salary increase reduced to 2% 30,438 0 0 Eliminate one vacant attorney position 82,916 82,916 82,916 Eliminate one vacant sec-typist position 0 0 52,594 Reduce operating expenses 0 0 50,000 Sub total 113,354 82,916 185,510 City Clerk 5% salary increase reduced to 2% 12,683 0 0 Eliminate one Part-Time Deputy City Clerk 20,000 20,000 0 Sub total 32,683 20,000 0 Administrative Services 5% salary increase reduced to 2% 87,509 0 0 Eliminate vacant Info. Services Div. Position 56,055 56,055 56,055 Eliminate vacant Purchasing/Cent Services Pos. 35,626 35,626 35,626 Eliminate Peronnel Department Position 0 59,604 59,604 Transfer funding of Real Estate Svcs Pos. 0 0 48,715 Sub total 179,190 151,285 200,000 Library 5% salary increase reduced to 2% 68,908 0 0 Eliminate vacant Library Asst. position 46,033 46,033 46,000 Eliminate vacant Library Sr. position 50,568 50,568 60,000 Reduce Temporary Employee budget 10,000 10,000 0 Reduce Miscellaneous Funds 35,000 35,000 35,000 Book purchases reductions 0 0 59,000 Sub total 210,509 141,601 200,000 Pg 3 of 4 Attachment #3 COMPARISON OF BUDGET REVIEW TASK FORCE (BRTF) AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDED EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS BRTF BRTF CITY PRIMARY SECONDARY STAFF DESCRIPTION OF REDUCTION PLAN PLAN PLAN Community Development 5% salary increase reduced to 2% 89,623 0 0 Reduce Full-time Secretary Pos. to Part-time 24,919 24,919 0 Eliminate vacant plan checker position 54,550 54,550 46,894 Eliminate Intern position 10,600 10,600 10,600 Reduce Assoc. Planner pos. to Asst. Planner 7,800 7,800 7,800 Reduce 2 Asst. Planner pos. to Plan. Aides 19,900 19,900 19,900 Reduce contract services 20,050 20,050 20,000 Eliminate 2 Bldg positions 0 93,861 146,256 Sub total 227,442 231,680 251,450 Fire Department 5% salary increase reduced to 2% 256,187 0 0 Eliminate 2 Positions-Fire Education (394) 0 107,000 0 Eliminat 1 positions-Fire Protection 0 99,000 0 Eliminate Fire Reserve Program 0 0 108,000 Sub total 256,187 206,000 108,000 Police Department 5% salary increase reduced to 2% 620,597 0 0 Eliminate Range Officer position 76,000 76,000 0 Eliminate frozen positions 292,000 292,000 292,000 Eliminate 1 Education Specialist Pos. (364) 0 44,881 0 Eliminate Information Specialist positon 0 55,350 0 Consolidate Vehicle Maintenance 45,000 45,000 35,000 Regionalize Helicopter Services 300,000 300,000 0 Eliminate 2 Pos. - Public Affairs (364, 329) 0 90,000 0 Eliminate 2 Pos. -Planning/Research (344,329) 0 80,000 0 Sub total 1,333,597 983,231 327,000 Pg 4 of 4 Attachment #3 COMPARISON OF BUDGET REVIEW TASK FORCE (BRTF) AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDED EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS BRTF BRTF CITY PRIMARY SECONDARY STAFF DESCRIPTION OF REDUCTION PLAN PLAN PLAN Community Services 5% salary increase reduced to 2% 108,647 0 0 Eliminate Public Art Collection Bgt. 6,300 6,300 6,300 Reduce Cultural Affairs division by 20% 26,634 26,634 0 Eliminate Sister Cities Budget 10,555 10,555 0 Transfer Project Self Sufficiency funding* 0 55,000 55,000 Reduce Winter Beach Maintenance 38,700 38,700 38,700 Reduce Community Centers hours of operation 35,000 35,000 70,000 Eliminate Debt Svc. on Parking Fund Debt 170,000 170,000 170,000 Eliminate Harbor Guard Program 0 0 30,000 Sub total 395,836 342,189 370,000 Public Works 5% salary increase reduced to 2% 332,282 0 0 Transfer expenses to Transportation Fund 149,543 149,543 149,543 Eliminate 2 Permanent Pos. , 8 Temp. Pos. , & reduce operating Bdgt. in Maint. Div. 367,350 367,350 354,000 Eliminate 2 Temp. Pos. , downgrade 2 Pos. , & reduce Oper. Bdgt. in Pk/Tree/Landscape Div. 196,457 196,457 196,457 Sub total 1,045,632 713,350 700,000 TOTALS $4,638,936 $4,038,037 $2,654,035 * PSS issues are being addressed as directed by the City Council on February 24th and March 2nd. Attachment #4 CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS 1992/93 BUDGET 1 . Concern about neglecting infrastructure. Staff Response: See separate summary of infrastructure. 2. Requested that staff provide an analysis of the salary issue. Is it possible to place a cap on salaries for the 1992/93 budget. Discuss the differences between the staff and Budget Task Force recommendations and explain what options are, and are not, available relative to salaries. Staff Response: See separate summary of salary issues. 3. Staff to provide written discussion on the need for a reserve fund, what percentage of the budget should it be, and how this is established. Staff Response: A reserve fund is needed primarily for two reasons. One is for emergencies which require the expenditure of funds that are not budgeted. Examples are earthquakes, floods, oil spills, pier damage, etc. The second primary reason a reserve fund is needed is to provide a protection against actual revenues being less than projected at the time of budget adoption. Final revenue estimates are made in March and April of each year for the 12 months that will begin in July of the year. If actual revenues are 2-3% lower than projected, then a balanced budget can become "unbalanced" by $2-3 million (assuming a budget of $100 million) . The determination of what constitutes an "adequate" reserve depends on the stability/reliability of a city' s revenues, the existence of other reserves or cash that can be used in emergencies, growth trends, percent of expenses that are controllable, and other more subjective factors such as willingness to risk revenue shortfalls, financial "wealth" of the City, future economic projections, and level of "comfort" with a small reserve. Some (very "wealthy") cities have a reserve as high as 100% of their annual budget while other cities have no reserve. Most experts suggest that a "prudent" reserve is in the range of 3-7%, with variations due primarily to the stability of City revenues. 4. How long should the City maintain vacant positions rather than eliminating them? Staff Response: Current plans are to maintain vacancies through at least June 1992. If 1992/93 adopted budget is "balanced" then the hiring freeze could be lifted in July and vacancies would be filled during 1992/93. Vacancies or a continuation of the hiring freeze are not planned as part of the budget balancing strategy for 1992/93. 15 of the 25 positions recommended for elimination in 1992/93 are currently vacant. 5. How does the City plan to implement the MSI Study? Staff Response: See separate summary of MSI. I CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS 1992/93 BUDGET 6. Take a closer look at Community Development Fees. Staff Response: See separate summary of MSI . 7. Two major differences between Task Force and staff recommendations: A. Major difference in expenditure reductions is Task Force recommendation to reduce salaries. Requested staff comment/analysis. Staff Response: See separate summary of salary issues. B. Major difference in revenue enhancements is fees for developers recommended by staff. Agrees with staff recommendation. Staff Response: See separate summary of MSI. 8. Suggested a possible need for higher developer fees. Staff Response: See separate summary of MSI. 9. Requested that staff review the funds spent on outside consultants. How much is the City spending annually on outside consultants and is it possible to reduce this in the 1992/93 budget to avoid eliminating staff positions? Staff Response: A summary of consultant costs was previously prepared by staff and will be updated in the next month. This subject will be scheduled as a separate study session item on April 27, 1992. 10. Staff to bring back information and a recommendation on the implementation of employee incentive program. Staff Response: See separate summary of salary issues. 11 . Suggested that the City modify and improve the employee suggestion program as a form of incentive. Staff Response: See separate summary of salary issues. 12. Budget Task Force 80/20% vs. staff 50/50 split between expenditure reductions/revenue increases: Somewhere in between the two may be appropriate. Staff Response: Revised staff recommendation is to address at least 60% of projected shortfall through expenditure reductions. 13. Governmental costs must be contained. Staff Response: See recommended expenditure reductions including elimination of 25 full time and 80 temporary positions. 14. Expressed concern re: PSS exclusion from HRB competitive process. Staff Response: PSS issues are being addressed as directed by City Council on February 24 and March 2, 1992. —2— CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS 1992/93 BUDGET 15. Make sure that the boards and commissions have an opportunity to comment on the budget and provide their recommendations. Staff Response: 60 page report on budget issues was submitted to departments in early February for review with boards/commissions prior to 2/24/92 public hearing. 16. Staff to look into the placement of one-time money, such as the PERS refund, in a reserve fund. Staff Response: PERS refund is recommended to be placed in escrow/reserve fund. Current Fiscal Policies are to use reserves in excess of 5% for capital expenses only if the budget is balanced. 17. Requested an annual update on capital improvement projects. Staff Response: Will be incorporated in annual budget review process. 18. Review the advisability of delay of funding on projects, such as the pier plaza project and south beach parking until the City is in better financial shape. Staff Response: Only adequately funded capital projects, including debt service, maintenance, operations, etc. ,will be brought forward for City Council review. 19. Implementation of the MSI recommendations, favoring a point somewhere between the staff and Budget Task Force recommendations. Staff Response: See separate summary of MSI . 20. Compromise between staff and the Budget Task Force on expenditure reductions. Staff Response: See recommendations on expenditure reductions. 21 . Clarification to be provided on the difference between a user fee and a tax. Staff Response: A user fee is generally defined as a fee charged for a specific service such as water usage or refuse collection, whereby consumption or "use" by the user can be measured and the fee set accordingly to cover all costs related to the "use". Taxes, generally, are based on "ability to pay" rather than "use". Sales taxes, property taxes, and income taxes are typical examples. Tax revenue is then allocated to "non-user fee" services such as fire, police and park maintenance. These are services available to the public whether or not the service is "used" and therefore cannot be funded from "user" fees. 22. Opposed to the General Fund subsidizing the cost of development, determination should be made as to whether the cost of providing the service can be reduced as well . Staff Response: See separate summary of MSI. -3- CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS 1992/93 BUDGET 23. Expressed concern about social services funding procedures: A. How did $95,000 payback to HUD get included in reductions to HRB allocation? B. Why was $109,000 PSS cost subtracted from HRB funding allocation without the normal HRB competitive process? C. What is the validity of the handwritten funding summary given to the City Council? Staff Response: PSS issues are being addressed as directed by the City Council on February 24 and March 2. 24. Expressed concern regarding the disparity between the Budget Review Task Force and staff recommendations. Comments: A. 80% of shortfall solution from expenditure cuts is not realistic. Staff Response: Revised staff recommendation is to address a minimum of 60% of shortfall from expenditure reductions. B. The disparity puts the City Council in an awkward position, causing disunity. Staff Response: Concur. -4- WPADSERT:795 Attachment #5 .LIST OF PUBLIC COMMENTS February 24, 1992 Public Hearing Policy Guidelines for Preparation of 1992/93 Budget 1 . The City should not be shortsighted in regards to budgeting for economic development within the City. A comprehensive economic development plan is needed. A citizen' s action committee was suggested. Response: Staffing for Economic Development has been increased in the last year and a new emphasis has been placed on this program activity. 2. Increases for Planning Commission should be approved. Response: Community Development Department is including this request as part of the 1992/93 budget. 3. Infrastructure issues should be addressed. Response: Recommended for review at a special study session on April 27, 1992. 4. Employee incentive program should be developed. Response: See separate summary of salary issues. 5. Reserves should be increased to 8.5% which is equal to one month' s revenue. Response: A 5% reserve is adequate for the City of Huntington Beach. 6. The City should adopt an ordinance requiring a balanced budget. Response: Adoption of an ordinance does not address the basic budget issues. The City has already adopted a policy requiring a balanced budget. 7. Request for the City to look at the "Phoenix Plan" . Response: Staff has incorporated the concepts of the "Phoenix Plan" in its approach to privatazation. 8. The question was asked as to whether the PERS refund would have to be repaid by the City. Response: Only the future refund/credit from PERS (estimated $6.5 million) is subject to refund. No other PERS refunds are subject to repayment. 9. Opposition to user fees was expressed. Response: Staff supports the concepts of the MSI Study as a different way of doing business. The multi-phased, multi-year implementation of this approach should minimize the impact on citizens. LIST OF PUBLIC COMMENTS 10. Employee' s should give back 1992 salary increases. Response: See separate discussion of salary issues. 11 . The City should review developer fees per costs identified by MSI Study. Response: Special study session on MSI/infrastructure issues is recommended for April. 27, 1992. 12. Park development fees should be reviewed by City. Response: These fees were reviewed in 1990 and are not scheduled for further review this year. -2- WPADSERT:797 I ATTACHMENT 6 BUDGET PLANNING - FISCAL YEAR 1992/93 BUDGET TENTATIVE TIMETABLE - BUDGET ADOPTION DATE SUBJECT December 9, 1991 Budget Review Task Force - Interim Report to City Council (DONE) January 10, 1992 Departments submit 1992/93 Budget Requests to Administrative Services (DONE) January 21 Budget Review Task Force submits Recommendations to Balance 1992/93 Budget to City Council (DONE) January 27 City Council Study Session - 1992/93 Policy Guidelines Re: Revenue Increases/Expenditure Reductions (DONE) February 18 City Council Meeting: Public Presentation of Budget Review Task Force Report (DONE) February 24 Public Hearing on Policy Guidelines (DONE) March 16 City Council adopts policy guidelines for preparation of 1992/93 Budget March City Administrator and Departments Develop Proposed Budget for 1992/93 April 15 Proposed Budget Finalized by City Administrator May 1 Preliminary Budget Submitted to City Council May 11 First Budget Session (Others to be Scheduled) (Tentative) June 1 Public Hearing - 1992/93 Budget June 15 Adoption of 1992/93 Budget (Must be adopted by June 30) REPORTS/RJF-7 Page 10 - Council/Agency Agenda - 3/16/92 F-1. (City Council) POLICY GUIDELINES - PREPARATION OF 1992/93 GENERAL FUND BUDGET 320 .30 Communication from Robert Franz, Deputy City Administrator, regarding establishment of Policy Guidelines for Preparation - of 1992/93 General Fund Budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1 . Instruct the City Administrator to present a balanced General Fund Budget for 1992/93 by reducing expenses by at least $3 million (60% of estimated $4 , 986, 925 shortfall) and utilize revenue enhancements to address the balance of the estimated shortfall . 2. Adopt strategies for preparation of the 1992/93 budget as set forth in Attachment I of the RCA dated 3/16/92 3 . Schedule a special study session for Monday, April 27, 1992 to review the issues of infrastructure maintenance/replacement and implementation of the Management Services Institute (MSI) System. 4 . Instruct the Finance Director to place any PERS refund/credit resulting from AB 702 in a reserve account pending the result of litigation on the refunds . • -- - QQ 4c be a "4.'/!iles✓ �+S% Dmac►C.►�6Gr /99Z, s//�ence4W 1_ �si�ifr�s,CY�epfiv»1 �a re9wi�e atoPriva/ rf 6it ��n.,�►is�iv7s�'-/gjo��ovec,/ y/-3 (/Po6i�SR://e', A,�AcliG//� 4�tew - n0 4*74n k dlrea 7 ir�ir�iy/r1,�7�i" C'�rJ75/!ZC 'GLbt�i1Q•{/ery -- — = o� C�jo�'15e rrs�lK .ers a s a a.r7 'ked ` Ad lt.�u� �ec�siiiwc i i7 Y%e A res o�ser►vl es -Mai 6e ��danddn'f May no-1- 6�ne�cssorry, grid mid � ` sera;eG n of have olvda&Itle: jQ,/ue -/o F-2. (City Council) MAIN STREET PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - ARTISTIC LANDSCAPE 600.50 Communication from the Director of -Public Works regarding the concerns of the merchants along Main Street relative to the time frame of the Main Street Public Improvements . RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Authorize Staff to direct the Contractor to perform the Main Street Project in a phased manner, with construction to take place only between May 4th and June 12th, 1992, and between September 8th and November 25th, 2. Authorize the staff to execute a unange mercer ror me phased construction in the amount of $64 , 500 . 4/opr+o veto/ -D F-3. (City Council) BICYCLE LANES ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Communication from the Director of Public Works regarding the 930.20 widening of Pacific Coast Highway and the requests to cancel the plan for additional lanes between Golden West Street and Beach Boulevard in order to create bicycle lanes for commuters'. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion item. ej-,"mrllree_ s *4e CitJ-Ti�«s, �►,��i.ttfrc/ (J/Mrlritf�os� -!o dCAAWc �a4/ ilProrid� .�a�'e li�...,vrier . (3/16/92feyess �, f�N, ��nseeo✓ 7,o 10) t , THE H .O. M .E . COUNCIL 6881 Presidio Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-8853 1, 1 t� Dear City Council Member: Enclosed please find my recommendations on the FY 92/93 Huntington Beach budget. I have tried to keep all of these issues stated simply yet specific enough that you could act on any or all of these recommendations should you choose to do so. My overall concerns relate to the revenue projections by the city staff and their consultants. It's one thing to hold a manager at any level responsible for the monies spent, but it is entirely different to hold him or her responsible and accountable for revenue projections which form the basis of those expense projections. It is so because only at the very senior levels (department managers and above) is there a real appreciation for "the big picture. " If a revenue projection for a particular category fails to materialize, the budget as passed by Council becomes tainted immediately. Monies start to get transferred from account to account and by the time the year is over, only Bob Franz and Mike Uberuaga really know what happened. So, since we're paying department heads lots of money to forecast accurately on both the revenue and expense side, we should be willing to hold them responsible for those projections and accountable as well. Responsibility and accountability have been a basic business tenet for hundreds of years. My major concerns lie in 6 areas: 1. Business License Revenue 2 . Sales Tax Revenues 3 . Property Tax Revenues 4 . Community Development Fee Amounts and Timing 5. Infrastructure Repair/Replacement 6. City Employee Wage and Benefit Increases I'll paraphrase these during public hearings and be available to answer any questions you might develop between now and then. Very truly yours, ack A. Bowland 960-3492 I i � r L/ AN ORGANIZATION OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS IN HUNTINGTON BEACH BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUE As of June 8, 1992 there were 16,431 current business licenses issued in Huntington Beach. Staff tells us on page xxxvii (37?) that the city has had somewhere between $900, 000 and 973 , 000 in revenue from this account since 1988, expects to receive $1, 375, 000 in revenue this current year and is budgeting for $1, 560, 000 in 1992/93 . If one makes the calculation $1, 375, 000 16,431 then the average revenue to the city for a business license, at least in 1991/92 is $83 . 68 . The city is planning to raise its business license fee $10. 00 per license next year. $10 times 16, 431 (number of business licenses) equals $164, 310. 00 in incremental revenue to the city. Add $164 , 310 to the $1, 375, 000 91/92 revenue and we get $1, 539, 310 or very close to the city's 92/93 estimate of $1, 560, 000. Is the city then saying that the growth in new business licenses for fiscal year 92/93 will be essentially zero? It appears so. Flat income levels or revenues not up to expectations would seem to be the case during recessionary times. People just don't spend more. However, I would submit that one phenomena occurs during the early parts of a recession: People who are laid off or fired or who are afraid they will be laid off or fired if the recession continues, tend to start their own business. They want to help "recession-proof" them and their families and maybe do something on their own. I would suggest that this phenomena is causing the artificial growth in business license applications over the past 12 months or so. If this phenomena is operating here, then one other must as well. 70% of those businesses started by small business people fail in the first two years, mostly because capitalization is not adequate. There is no provision in this budget to accommodate that issue. SHOULD THERE BE A REDUCTION OF PLANNED BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUE FROM THE ONE ESTIMATED FOR 1992/93 FISCAL YEAR? SALES TAX REVENUES Sales tax revenues in Huntington Beach have been declining for years. City Manager Michael Uberuaga presented a slide to the council 2 months ago that showed it declining for 4 or 5 years anyway. One anomaly year (FY 89/90) skews this slightly. City staff now feels that sales tax revenue for our present fiscal year will again decline to $16 million from $16.9 million in fiscal year 91/92 or a decline of 5. 6%. Staff now wants us to accept that sales tax revenues in fy 1992/93 will RISE 5.4% and will again rise by another 2 .9% in fy 93/94. I question this logic for a number of reasons: 1. The southern California area is expected (by all regional forecasters that I'm aware of) to languish in this recession at least through 1st calendar quarter 1993 and probably through 2nd calendar quarter 1993 . . . .year end for our fiscal year 92/93 . 2 . Sales tax revenues do not climb during recessions, they fall, sometimes precipitously. 3 . The city is forecasting no "new businesses" in FY 92/93 so this growth must come on the backs of existing businesses. 4 . The city has not taken into account the (author's estimate) that fully 3, 000 of the 4800 new businesses added in Huntington Beach since last fiscal year will fail, at least statistically. 5. No major business (like a WalMart or Price Club) is scheduled to come to Huntington Beach in the next few months. Accordingly, I think the sales tax revenue forecast is far too aggressive. It should be cut back to some reasonable number. Author's suggestion: $950,000 1 , PROPERTY TAX REVENUES Property tax revenue in FY 92/93 is scheduled to increase 7.8% over expected FY 91/92 levels. This just seems like a massive number given the source of those property taxes. First, the property taxes are allowed to rise a minimum of 2% annually, so I am really questioning the incremental 5. 8% over and above it. . . .and dealing with only that 5.8% number. Property taxes are highest during periods of high real estate turnover, new high-end housing projects coming on stream regularly and during periods of high price inflation in the used house market. We saw that happen in the period 1987-1990. However, in the last year or so, the vacant and remaining to be sold housing stock in Huntington Beach is at one of its highest ever levels. The houses being sold this past year (and assumably for the coming year) are in the low-end markets in Huntington Beach. The houses that sell for $150, 000-$225, 000. These houses sell to both first-time home buyers as well as "move to Huntington Beach upgraders" from other cities. They do so because low interest rates allow those first time buyer to locate here for the first time in many, many years. Always before, the housing stock has been so expensive and that,. combined with mid-range interest rates, has precluded many from buying in our city. There is also tremendous downward price pressure exerted on house sellers by the real estate agent community. Arguably because the agent knows more about what your house is worth than you do, but realistically, the agent works on straight commission and needs to sell stock to make a living. No new major housing tracts are scheduled to come on stream in FY 92/93 . IN A CONTINUING RECESSION, IS IT REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT PROPERTY TAXES WILL RISE INSTEAD OF REMAIN CONSTANT OR EVEN DECLINE. ISN'T THE ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR NOW TELLING COUNTY RESIDENTS THEY CAN APPEAL THEIR TAX BILLS IF THEY FEEL THEIR PROPERTY HAS DECLINED IN VALUE RATHER THAN REMAINED CONSTANT OR RISEN IN THE PAST YEAR? THE AUTHOR STRONGLY URGES CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT A 7.8% INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FORECAST AND RETURN IT TO SOMETHING THAT MARES COMMON SENSE. I SUGGEST 3% INCREASE IN TOTAL SHOULD BE USED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTS FEE INCREASES The MSI study said that basically our city's refusal to put into effect "fees to cover real user costs" amounts to tax subsidy of those services by the citizens, something that is at least questionable and may even be illegal. Community Development had a revenue shortfall of $2 , 400, 000 in FY 90/91 according to MSI. Basically, subsidies required to provide services through this department exceed revenues by a 2-1 margin. A Community Development department must maintain a delicate balance in it providing of service since if its fees are too low, demand for service will outstrip the department's capability of providing it and if the fees are too high, some believe developers will go to other cities to build their projects, cities where fees on the developer are lower. The citizens of Huntington Beach know this and understand it. In a time where 97% of the city has been developed, where the giant Holly Sea Cliff project has a development agreement on it and now a specific plan on it, does it make sense to keep fees the same, does it make sense to raise them a little yet still require subsidy or should a development department pay its own way? Since our city is "built out" and since only one major project (the Bolsa Chica) may come up for approval in the next year or so, I believe the Community Development Department must immediately raise its fees for services to be more in line with other cities. Mike Adams stated on 6/8/92 that some south county cities charge $26, 000 for services that Huntington Beach charges $13, 000 for which "puts Huntington Beach right in the middle." THAT'S NOT TRUE! IT PUTS HUNTINGTON BEACH AT THE LOW END BECAUSE ADAMS ASSUMES THAT SOME CITIES DON'T CHARGE ANY FEES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES! The author's recommendation to council is that the Phase I of new fee schedule implementation is inadequate and cannot be justified. I would suggest council look at a fee structure that would be 85% of full price in phase I and 100% in Phase II which should be implemented 11/1/92. INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR/REPLACEMENT The FY 92/93 budget as proposed does, I feel, an inadequate job of addressing this significant issue in our city. While sources for funds to do these repairs and/or replacements are of a concern to all, I feel the only way we can develop the funds to do so is to implement the MSI study at a faster-than-proposed rate. A discussion was held at the June 8 council meeting wherein Mr. Uberuaga stated that there was a great deal of work involved in changing fees for services in Community Development. That's true, but an argument could certainly be made that changing all the required fees at one time is more efficient and effective than doing so in multiple steps and the revenue enhancement from making these changes earlier rather than later could be used to provide at least current service levels during FY 92/93 and provide cash for capital repair/replacement projects that are much needed in Huntington Beach. Relatively speaking, another $lmm in fees for services is $1mm in capital projects, preserving our city's assets, creating jobs and providing the highest possible service levels to the citizens and business community. The author's recommendation is to reconsider MSI for implementation twice as fast as currently planned. Current- levels of service can be maintained and/or improved, infrastructure repaired or replaced and jobs created. SALARY/WAGE/BENEFIT The idea of a mandatory or voluntary return of salary and wage increases has been discussed at some length but each time I believe those discussions have missed the point entirely. If salaries, wages and benefits were negotiated as part of a bargaining unit/management practice, then to mandate a return of those wages because of unforeseen economic conditions at the time of those negotiations and agreement would be held invalid, I believe by NLRB and most courts. Additionally, bargaining unit members and leadership would be able to make a case about the city not bargaining in good faith. Senior city managers would be open to criticism about their trustworthiness. I would take exception with city management entering into those negotiations without the benefit of competent economic advice. At the time these negotiations were underway, the recession had begun in other parts of the United States and some would say were already here in southern California as early as 4th calendar quarter 1989. I would agree with that 1989 timing. My business saw a significant downturn in 4th quarter, fully 20% greater than expected. Those senior managers who were part of the negotiating team for the city should be given the economic tools necessary to "see out into the last day of the proposed contract" as clearly as possible. To conclude, a voluntary program to cut wage and salary increases should come from the top. The 7 senior managers slated for the upcoming $100, 000 in wage increases should begin this voluntary program by forgoing these increases with the proviso that once the city is clearly out of its recession, that these will be reinstated retroactively (without interest or penalty) . Should an employee affected by this program leave the city during this time, he/she would become ineligible for this increase as it would be treated as extraordinary compensation. With senior staff starting this, there is a chance that bargaining unit members and middle managers may follow suit on a voluntary basis. It would be, however, catastrophic should a senior manager volunteer to not accept a raise and to pressure a middle or junior manager to follow suit, when the economic influences on that middle or junior manager may be much more severe. The city should adopt the posture that we'll set the example and hope that everyone follows. Whatever happens then, happens. CA 9 z-8 A, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH -s c v✓u e'D TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS .s FROM: MICHAEL T-.- UBERUAGA, City Administrator SUBJECT: BUDGET — STUDY SESSION x DATE: MAY 6, 1992 ::. C, The proposed budget for Fiscal Year 1992/93 was delivered to the City Counc.ilion Monday, May 4, 1992. In view of the numerous previous City Council budge' planning sessions since August of last year, the staff presentation at your May 11 , 1992 Study Session will be brief. Following are the currently scheduled dates for review of the 1992/93 budget: May 11 , 1992 Study Session June 1 , 1992 Budget Public Hearing (Regular City Council Meeting) June 15, 1992 Budget Adoption (Regular City Council Meeting) You may want to schedule one or more additional study sessions to review budget issues. The above timetable can be modified to schedule additional budget reviews. The City Charter requires adoption of the budget by June 30, 1992. As I have mentioned previously, we have attempted to summarize the issues in the budget message. I would encourage you to review the message and summaries that are placed in the first section of the budget. WPADSERT:895 CA 92-11 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH T0: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administra r —�— SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING INPUT: 1992/93 BUDGET DATE: JUNE 4, 1992 Attached is a summary of the public comments at the June 1 , 1992 public hearing on the 1992/93 budget. Also attached are written communications received in regards to the budget. WPADSERT:943 � . SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS JUNE 1 , 1992 PUBLIC HEARING 1992/93 BUDGET 1 . Comments were received from representatives of the Council on Aging regarding the closing of Rogers Senior Citizens Center on Fridays. The request was made that the City restore the $8,500 reduction so that this Friday closing would not occur. 2. A resident of the Huntington Landmark Residential Community commented on paramedic service reductions that he had heard were occurring and requested that no such reductions occur. City Council comments in response to this speaker clarified that the City is increasing paramedic staffing in the 1992/93 budget and that no reductions are occurring. 3. Comments were received regarding the proposed refuse fee increase and the speaker indicated that he believed that the refuse fund should not be considered a Enterprise Fund or a "business within a business". Suggestions were made to not approve the rate increase for refuse as proposed and that staff be directed to provide detail on the direct costs, get a proposal from Rainbow Disposal for the billing process, and schedule this subject for a study session. 4. A representative of the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors spoke and provided input consistent with their letter dated June 1 , 1992 (attached). 5. A resident commented in opposition to closing Oakview at 6:00 P.M. versus 9:30 P.M. , indicated he supported adding code enforcement staffing, and questioned if the MSI System were fully implemented whether there would be a tax refund. 6. A resident spoke expressing concern regarding any reductions relating to Marine Safety, community centers, youth services, or senior services. In addition, she commented on the recycling program for refuse, suggesting the City pursue the availability of grants and review the program of the City of Grand Rapids, Michigan. 7. A resident spoke suggesting that the fee increase proposals relating to development be further reviewed. He expressed his opinion that the City should go further in increasing fees relating to development. 8. A resident spoke requesting cuts not occur in regards to senior citizens, city gym and pool , Oakview and other community centers. He suggested that the City eliminate the cable TV tax and not increase refuge fees. He further suggested City employees not accept salary increases and that the City consider a furlough program. 9. A resident commented on the trash fee increase and its impact on fixed income residents who cannot afford an increase. 10. A resident spoke regarding the recycling program of the City, suggesting that the City review the program of the Village of LaGrange who he indicated had experienced a 50% reduction in recyclable material since February 1 . WPADSERT:945 N ASSOCIATION of REALTORS® 8707 Stater Avenue•Huntington Bench,CA 92647•t774184.7-6093 •FAX(714)841-3375 June 1, 1992 Mayor Jim Silva and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Agenda Item C-1, 1992-93 Budget Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the 1992/93 City Budget, but first, we would like to express our appreciation (1) to the City Council, for appointing a Citizens Budget Review Task Force to address this issue, (2) to the Task Force chairman, Mr. Inglee and one of its members, Mr. Cooper, for meeting with us to discuss their concerns and recommendations, and (3) last but certainly not least, to Mr. Uberuaga and his staff for meeting with us several times to discuss both the budget process and content of their recommendations. We have never been involved in a more thorough public review of the City's budget and we appreciate very much the opportunity to learn and participate. Our comments this evening are a reflection of our understanding and we give credit to your leadership in making this possible. You may recall that our February 24, 1992 letter to you on the City Budget stated our support for the proposals of the Citizens Budget Review Task Force which described a greater reduction in expenses and fewer proposals for revenue increases than that proposed by city management. As taxpayers, we certainly support reducing the cost of city government wherever possible, and we believe that the City Administrator is sincerely trying to respond to that concern. We have reviewed the proposed fee increases, some of which are very substantial, and while we cannot argue with the premise that those who use the service should pay for it, if the City is going to increase these fees, they must also be concerned with providing better, more efficient and more effective services. We agree with Mr. Uberuaga's recommendation that the City conduct a management study to review these services, particularly those related to development of new housing, because as we all know, these fees are ultimately paid by those who purchase the product, and we are,very concerned with the tremendous costs associated with development of housing. There are two ways to reduce housing costs--one is to reduce impact fees and the second is to speed up processing. You may be interested to know that Orange County's excessive impact fees have the dubious honor of being frequently used as a "bad example" by HUD Secretary Jack Kemp when he discusses the high cost of housing. We urge Huntington Beach to do everything possible to insure that we are not contributing to this problem. We fully acknowledge that the City cannot continue to provide all of the same services with fewer resources, and we encourage the City to conduct a comprehensive review of what G FLORENCE LUBOW-BELL, President • PAT PAULK, First Vice President LUCILLE HARMON, Second Vice President •JOHN CLOUGHEN, Secretary/Treasurer u Directors: JAMES RIGHEIMER •JOE GNAS • TERRY REAY • ANNE PUGH •JACIUE CORDARY .........- WILL L. WOODS, Executive Vice President • JUDITH A. LEGAN, Vice President/Public Affairs services the City is providing, which are essential and which are not, and look for new ways to accomplish these services or new delivery systems for these services, including, where possible, PRIVATIZATION. Lastly, we support the joint recommendation of the Task Force and the City Administrator that the City focus on development of a long-range financial management strategy to meet the future needs of our community,and we offer our assistance in this process. Sincerely, Florence Lubow-Bell Association President cc: Michael Uberuaga,City Administrator �ua`fi��a f3eacl�C Ckameer-vfr ommeeee May 28 , 1992 The Honorable Jim Silva , Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St . Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Subject : 1992 - 1993 Budget Dear Mayor Silva: We would like to commend the city staff for their efforts in presenting a_balanced _budget to the City Council for fiscal 1992 - 1993 We feel that overall the budget presents a balanced approach to meeting the city' s current fiscal needs . Our Chamber Board recently adopted a policy guide for our interaction with the city called "Back to Basics : Meeting Future Challenges Through Action Today. " The key point in this guide is to encourage the city administration to take the long term view in meeting today ' s problems and tomorrow' s challenges . Where we feel the budget has missed the mark is in the proposed fee increases which take a short view on balancing the budget . We feel the proposed fees would be detrimental to the long term development of the sales and property tax bases of the city . The Chamber of Commerce agrees with the basic philosophy that those that benefit from a service should pay for it . However , the first step in this process should be to ask the.. question , " Does the city need to provide this service?" The Chamber feels that there are a number of areas where there is duplication of services , or where the private sector can better provide the services . We encourage the city to undertake a department by department review of services they offer asking the question , "Does the city need to provide this service?" , and is the service being provided as efficiently as possible before there are any increases in fees . 2213 Main Street, Suite 32 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714/536-8888 Budget 5/28/92 - p . 2 Another item on our legislative agenda is the need for the city to encourage the economic development of the city . This is where we differ with the presented budget . The economic well being of the city is dependent upon two groups , the business community and homeowners ( particularly new home owners paying the higher property tax that comes from sales of new homes and resale of existing homes) . The proposed fee increases in the budget will disproportionally affect both of these groups compared to the effect on existing homeowners . These fee increases will adversely affect the economic base of the city by discouraging businesses from locating here and by making the cost of housing rise , shifting the make up of residents from a balanced group to one where only upper middle and upper class families can afford to move to our city. The Chamber feels that any fee increase should be carefully examined as to its effects not only on the current budget situation but its impact on future business development and housing in the city. We have identified those fees we feel are either det- rimental to businesses or homebuyers , that are duplications , or are for services that provide no real benefit to the public ; and we would like to work with city staff to eliminate or modify these fees . Sincerely, Stephen K. Bone Chairman of the Board SKB:mmd cc : Mike Uberuaga , City Administrator RayNSilver , Assistant City Administrator Bob Franz , Deputy City Administrator 3eaeA, �/ani6er oJ`Conrarer�e May 28 , 1992 The Honorable Jim Silva, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St . Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Subject : Legislative Agenda Dear Mayor Silva: Our Board of Directors has unanimously approved the enclosed legislative agenda . It will act as a guide for our Business/- Government Relations Committee over the coming year and reflects the position of our Chamber on major legislative issues affecting businesses in Huntington Beach . Please review the agenda and use it as a guide to reflect our position when making decisions on legislation affecting business . Our Chamber chose this approach due to the speed at which legislation sometimes moves through the legislative process . All too often a proposal which we would initially support is changed during the process to one which we would not support . Although the agenda rr broad in scope we would appreciate your consideration of our position in deciding your vote . We will. continue to review and take positions on individual bills , but will base our decisions on our stated position and rely on you and your staff to decide when a bill is amended and no longer warrants our support . 2213 Main Street, Suite 32 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714/536-8888 Legislative Agenda - 5/28/92 - p . 2 Please feel free to contact our office whenever you need clar- ification on our position or when you need added support for a proposal you are supporting. Sincerely, C_ Stephen K. Bone Chairman of the Board SKB:mmd enclosure : Back to Basics : Meeting Future Challenges Through Action Today BACK TO BASICS "Meeting Future Challenges Through Action Today" Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce As the city faces a revenue shortfall and works to balance their budget a theme of "Back to Basics" would be an appropriate element in their deliberations . The concept of "basics" is defined as providing the community with the basic services needed to assure the health , safety and welfare of the residents of the community. Community services (beach, recreation and cultural services) and development services ( zoning , permiting and inspections ) are secondary basics that enhance the quality of living in the community. Public Safety - Huntington Beach has prided itself in providing outstanding Police, Fire (including emergency medical and hazardous materials emergencies ) and Marine Safety services. As the costs of providing these services increases , especially the cost of specialized equipment, regionalization of these services becomes an increasingly popular solution to providing these services . The Chamber of Commerce encourages the regionalization of Public Safety Services provided it does not decrease the availability of these services to the residents and businesses of our community , and can be shown to be cost effective . Public Works - The recent Management Services Institute Study identified over $1 billion in city infrastructure that will need to be maintained and replaced over the coming decades. These costs were allocated by the study to the various services currently provided by the city. The Chamber of Commerce agrees with the basic philosphy that those that benefit from a service should pay for it . Since the city' s infrastructure benefits the entire community , the costs of maintaining and replacing the existing infrastructure should be borne by the entire community ; not just businesses , developers and new home buyers. After careful review of the study and presentations by city staff , the Chamber feels that the first step in meeting the future needs of the city is in asking the question , "Does the city need to provide this service?" Once the basic services have been identified new cost allocations can be made to these services and then fees can be adjusted as necessary to meet these costs and infrastructure replacement costs. The Chamber would encourage city staff to identify ways to meet the infrastructure maintenance and replacement costs by spreading the burden over the largest possible base since the entire community both benefits and uses the public works . Community Services - While basic to the quality of life of a community , Community Services is an area that could use careful scrutiny and application of the "Do we need to provide it?" question . The services that are provided should be only those that an individual or private entity cannot reasonably provide . These services should not be exempt from the principal that those that benefit should pay for the cost (or a reasonable portion ) . While the Chamber often takes an interest in these services they normally do not fall under the program of the Chamber. The Chamber encourages the city to maintain a level of service that provides a high quality of life for its citizens . Development_ Services - This is the area which most directly effects business through the issuing of permits , regulations and inspections . These services are secondary to public safety and public works , but they are vital for providing the homes and employment opportunities for the city' s residents. A careful review of the services now provided would be beneficial to both the city and business community since it would identify services which could be eliminated or consolidated to improve the efficiency of the services provided . A complete review of this area is beyond the scope of this basic program . The Chamber has a number of members that are actively involved in reviewing the city' s proposed changes in both fees and services , and will continue to take an active role in identifying ways in which the city can improve the business climate of the community. Economic Development - An important area that does not neatly fall into any of the above categories is that of business and economic development. The key to the long term fiscal health of the city� is a strong and vibrant business community . There are several factors to encouraging the building of such an economic base and the Chamber applauds and encourages the city ' s recent strides in this area . The Chamber pledges to continue its partnership with the city in encouraging businesses to stay , expand and locate in Huntington Beach . Education - Another area of great concern to our Chamber on the local level is education . Our Chamber has been actively involved for many years in forging Business/Education Partnerships through Cal Compact , Youth Leadership Conference and Principal for a Day. In the works are other programs to increase the inter- action between the business and education community. In the past the Business/Government Relations Committee has recommended positions on a variety of education related issues . The committee should continue to monitor the issues at all levels of government , but asks that the Business/Education Committee meet to establish an agenda for the upcoming year. The agenda would act as a guide for the Business/Government Relations Committee and when adopted by the Board of Directors as a guide for our legislators . One area that the Chamber could become more active in is in the area of School Board elections and deliberations . While the Chamber would not actively promote candidates it could take a more active role in encouraging member involvement in the process . 28 May 1992 Mayor Jim Silva 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject : FY 1992/93 Preliminary Budget Dear Mr. Mayor , Some years ago I had a friend who, from time to time, had "meaningful dialogues" with the IRS . My friend had an interesting attitude toward his federal income tax. He said, "Each year I religiously submit my tax return on time, as required. If the IRS does not recognize it ' s my first offer, that 's their problem. " As I was scanning the FY 1992/93 Preliminary Budget it occurred to me that Mike Uberuaga is somewhat like my friend. Each year he religiously submits his budget on time, as required. If the Council does not recognize it' s his first offer, that ' s the Council ' s problem and, ultimately , mine. A particular item that caught my eye is the proposed support charge to be applied to the contract between the City and Rainbow Disposal for trash pickup in the city. I realized last year that Mike was setting us up for such a charge when he initiated the action to treat trash collection as an "enterprise fund. " Mike is , indeed, "enterprising" since he went far beyond my wi.ldest dreams . He has simply taken the total dollars in this new Service Center (practically all of which is the fee collected by the city and directly transferred to Rainbow Disposal ) and blithely applied the support percentage determined by the MSI Study. Voila, the General Fund is supporting trash collection to the tune of $924 ,000 this year . (This number will , of course, automatically increase each year and in FY 93/94 will be about $1 Million. ) Since, of, course, the citizen should pay the "full cost" of any services he receives , the trash bill must go up accordingly. However, Mike does not propose implementing the full $924 ,000 this year . Instead, he proposes to increase the trash fee only 50 cents per month each year (in addition to the normal expected contract increase) until the "actual total support cost" has been phased in. This is akin to slowly bleeding the citizen to death, as opposed to killing him with one quick slash to the jugular . I presume it is hoped that the citizen will not even recognize that his life blood is being drained, if it is done slowly enough. Come on, Mr . Mayor ! Do not perpetuate this idiocy by blessing it with your imprimatur . The city has so little to do with trash collection that it is patently absurd to charge the citizenry nearly $1 Million for support . I don' t object to paying the full costs of "services" I get . On the other hand, I don' t particularly like being "serviced. " Yes , I know that the MSI Study talks about applying a single fixed support percentage- to the total dollars in a Service Center as being "the most accurate, equitable, and practical as well as the least costly and least confusing to apply. " Least costly to apply and least confusing--sure. Practical--sure, since it is least costly and least confusing . Most accurate and equitable--nonsense . Or as Councilmember Robitaille might say, "That ' s a bunch of baloney! " Reiterating , the MST Study proposes using a percentage method to apply overhead costs to all non-overhead costs of operation. I have no problem with that approach. The key point here, however, is that overhead costs should be applied to non-overhead costs of operation. It is ridiculous to try to categorize the $5 . 8 Million collected by the City and transferred to Rainbow Disposal as "a non-overhead cost of operation. " The simple fact of the matter is that the City guarantees a certain amount of money to Rainbow Disposal each month and then uses its police power to collect the money from the citizenry and transfer it to Rainbow Disposal . As an aside, we could probably philosophize for a while about the morality or even, perhaps , legality of a city using its police power to collect the fees which a private company charges for its services . However, I should not be too hasty to condemn this approach. There may be a possibility here for additional city revenue. I believe that most companies have an accounting category called "uncollectible accounts receivable. " Perhaps we could use the city ' s police power to assist these companies in their collections and get a percentage of the amount collected. I leave it to Mr. Uberuaga to flesh out this skeleton of an idea and present it to the City Council at some time in the future for possible action. In summary, I say again that there is no rational way that the $5 . 8 Million of fees collected in the course of the year and transferred to Rainbow Disposal can be treated as "a non-overhead cost of operation" and loaded with $924,000 of support costs . I urge you, Mr . Mayor, to give this proposition the death it so richly deserves . Sincerely yours , Chuck Sc eid cc: Councilmembers 8062 Ebbtide Circle Mike Uberuaga Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 536-7077 James A. Rush ,T'M� 6851 Jardines Driv , Huntington Beach Ca. f -714/847-2N1 r AA AY 2 may 28 1992 The Honorable Jim Silva, Mayor Ci ! Cr HUNi I City of Huntington Beach, 0 D1M1Pfl 2000 Main Street, STRA:.. - Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Dear Mayor Silva: On Mondays Council Agenda is a public hearing to revise the fees for refuse collection. I recommend that you and the Council members delay adapting Resolution 6389 until you look at alternatives. Here is an alternative that is working and will result in a reduction in volume of residential refuse which is a .mandated requirement for future landfill. I met with staff members of the Village of LaGrange Illinois city management,and I will be glad to discuss this further if you wish. I am including for each of you a copy of their bulletin"Guide to New Comprehensive Volume-based Refuse Collection" and a copy of the "sticker" they use.The details of the system are simple and complete, has reduced the refuse volume about 50%and has cost the residents much less than the monthly flat fee basis like used in Huntington Beach. It is called; Volume-based "Pay-Per-Container" collections system 1. Residents put a refuse container(s) on the curb with one "sticker" on each container. 2. "Stickers" cost $1 .48 each, are self adhesive labels obtained from local merchants, who make 20 cents per sticker commission. 3. Pick-up truck drivers loan the refuse and remove and collect the tags and tun them into the re use company. 4. The refuse company collects $1 .90 for each tag. The remaining 28 cents per container goes to the city treasury. 5. Rec Table items ar placed essential) non- orted in an ther container on the curtb Ind there is no charge for pickup. The refuse company sorts and ses the recycles and Keepss-tthe money. 6. Landscape collection is $1 .75 r "L ndsca a Ticket" is different color and receives 58 cents pea i scape icket for the treasury. AND IT WORKS - REFUSE VOLUME IS DOWN - COST TO RESIDENTS IS LESS AND THE CITY REVENUES ARE UP LET'S PUT THIS•SYSTEM TO WORK IN HUNTINGTON BEACH! cc: Councilmembers Green, Winchell, Kelly, Moulton-Patterson, Robitaille, MacAllister and M.Uberaga, L.Sandoval, C. Brockway eJa=mesRush AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY { CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1992 Adjourned Regular meeting /Z 7 : 00 P. M. - Council Chamber CALL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Silva, Green, MacAlliste , Kelly 1 4-411 BUDGET STUDY SESSION - FY 1992/93 1 . PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 1992/93 BUDGET 2 . RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS/COMMENTS 3 . PUBLIC HEARING INPUT: 1992/93 BUDGET CALL CLOSED SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 120 . 80 CLOSED SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957. 6 TO MEET WITH ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING LABOR RELATIONS MATTERS - MEET & CONFER 120 . 80 CLOSED SESSION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956 . 9(a) TO CONFER WITH ITS ATTORNEY REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION - GRIFFIN/RELATED PROPERTIES-1 ET AL - OCSCC 65 40 39 RECESS COUNCIL/AGENCY TO CLOSED SESSION RECONVENE COUNCIL/AGENCY COUNCIL/AGENCY ADJOURNMENT: Monday, June 15, 1992 at 5 : 30 P.M. - Room B-8, Civic Center, Huntington Beach, California Council/Agency Agendas and Minutes are available at no charge to the public at the City Clerk' s Office and by mail through paid subscription. CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK Office of the City Clerk 2000 Main Street - 2nd Floor (536-5227) CA 92-10 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH l TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS / •FROM: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administr SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO 1992/93 PROPOSED BUDGET DATE: JUNE 4, 1992 Attached is a summary (addendum) and back—up materials for amendments to the proposed budget. The net impact of the recommended amendments is as follows: Amount General Fund $ 680,281 Other Funds - 335,172 Total $ 1 .015.453 The General Fund surplus of $1 ,410,802 as summarized in the preliminary budget will change as follows if the attached amendments are approved: General Fund Budget Surplus Projected Surplus — Preliminary Budget $ 1 ,410,802 Net Effect of Proposed Amendments 680,281 Projected 1992193 Surplus $ 730,521 The primary change to the proposed budget is to recommend funding $644,033 of Capital Outlay expenses in the General Fund instead of the Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) Fund in Fiscal Year 1992/93. Other changes reflect, 1) correction of errors discovered after the budget was delivered to the City Council in early May, 2) changes necessary to reflect updated information that was not available at the time the budget was prepared, and 3) other changes such as the Mobile Task Force reflecting new proposals for consideration by the City Council . WPADSERT:942 � ADDENDUM TO PRELIMINARY BUDGET FY 1992/93 (GENERAL FUND) DEPARTMENT ITEM COST FUNDING Non-Departmental Departmental Capital $644,033 General Fund Outlay Reduce Capital for <50,000> Narcotic Police; (to be paid Forfeiture by Narcotic Fund) * Fund * See Police Memo Police Department Communications Tech. 47,710 New Revenue Transfer Operating costs 50,000 General Fund from Narcotic Fund Fire Department Oil well consolidation 22,720 General Fund Program Printing costs for 18,500 General Fund Hazardous Materials Control promotion Temporary salaries for 1,500 General Fund hazardous materials control promotion. City Clerk Overtime Salaries for 2,000 General Fund Council Meeting Coverage Increased Election Cost 2,018 General Fund Community Services Delete Tram Insurance <10,000> Community Addition of 1 Code 46,800 New Revenue Development Enforcement Officer Revenue Amendments Code Enforcement Officer <47,000> Radio Maintenance <48,000> NET GENERAL FUND REVISIONS $680,281 -1- ADDENDUM TO PRELIMINARY BUDGET FY 1992/93 (OTHER FUNDS) DEPARTMENT ITEM COST FUND Administrative Departmental Capital <$644,033> CIP Fund Services Outlay Administration Temporary Salaries 68,536 Cable TV Increase Appropriation 5,000 Cable TV for "Grass Valley Switcher" component Community Services General Plan Update 77,000 Park Acq. & Contribution Development Main Promenade carry- 32,834 Parking over funds Fund Newland Barn carry-over 20,000 Park Acq. funds Development City Clerk Community Bulletin Board Computer 3,000 CIP fund Public Works Net revisions to Gas Tax 539,039 Gas Tax Project List Net revisions to <233,000> Transportation Transportation Fund Fund Project List Police Department Mobile Task Force 276,000 Narcotic Forfeiture R.N.S.P. Police Officer 78,000 Narcotic Forfeiture Fire Department Carry-Over of Unused 36,625 CIP Fund 91/92 funds for Butler Building Methane mitigation; 76,171 Grant Fund funds provided by a state grant. NET REVISIONS OTHER FUNDS $335,172 TOTAL NET REVISIONS / ALL FUNDS $1,015,453 -2- INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION TO: Michael T. Uberauga, -- -FROM: Robert J. Fra , City Administrator Deputy City d r for SUBJECT: Transfer of Department DATE: June 2, 1992 Capital Outlay to General Fund from Capital Projects Fund Per your direction, the transfer of Departmental capital outlay appropriations from the Capital Improvement Projects Fund to the General Fund has been included in the Addendum to the Preliminary Budget. The total to be transferred is $644, 033 and represents an amount which is traditionally considered to be an ongoing expense of the General Fund. The appropriations will be included in the Non-Departmental budget for 1992/93 . In the future, these appropriations will be included in the General Fund as a part of each departmental budget. -3- H B CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE7RW. INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIO &IR HUNTINGTON BEACH To ROBERT FRANZ From ROGHAM, Public Safety Deputy City Administrator Information Systems Manager Subject ADDENDUM TO 1992/93 BUDGET Date May 14, 1992 REFERENCE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIAN POSITION An addendum needs to be made to the City budget to include the position of an additional Communications Technician for program 339 Systems Group. This position was previously approved by Ray Silver to provide a coordinated radio maintenance plan for all City radio equipment as well as service to the cities of Seal Beach, Fountain Valley, and Westminster. The position was included in the original modification to the Table of Organization for the 339 program. However, the position was somehow dropped during the budget process . The City of Huntington Beach will charge labor to other cities at a minimum rate of $39 an hour, which would generate revenue in excess of $80,852 per year. The City will also save an additional $96,829 in County radio charges from Police, Fire, Lifeguards, and Public Works . A total cost savings of $49, 119 will result after subtracting the employee cost of $47 ,710, which equals a total benefit to the City of $129,971 . The City of Seal Beach has contacted us numerous times for a contract to start July 1, 1992, for repair of all Seal Beach City radio equipment. Other cities will join in on this maintenance program, as it provides a cost effective alternative to County maintenance services . Mr. Silver has also asked that we establish a contractual agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and any other cities wishing to subscribe to this radio maintenance program. RWH:aa cc: ' Ray Silver, Asst. City Administrator Chief Lowenberg Captain Schneblin Lieutenant Kelly Jim Moore John Roulette -4- J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To: ROBERT FRANZ, From: JIM MOORE, Deputy City Administrator Sr. Department Analyst Subject: Changes in Narcotic Date: May 28, 1992 Forfeiture Subsidies During our meeting yesterday, Chief Lowenberg presented an alternative method for using the Narcotic Forfeiture Funds that fits within the state and federal guidelines for its use. It will involve making the following_ changes. 1) Transfer money from Narcotic Forfeiture (E-SN-PD-831 ) in Operating Expense accounts that was to be used to augment the FY92/93 budget back into the appropriate General Fund accounts . These transfers are: FROM TO NFF Account Amount GF Account Amount 221 Supplies $ 24, 100 324-221 $ 10, 000 330-221 1, 100 331-221 10,000 335-221 3, 000 $ 24, 100 247 Gasoline $ 30,000 327-247 $ 30,000 250 Travel Costs $ 1, 100 330--247 $ 1, 100 320 Books $ 2,000 325-320 $ 2, 000 390 Cont. Serv. $ 41,025 323-390 $ 6, 000 329-390 20,215 330-390 4 ,410 332-390 10 ,400 $ 41, 025 434 Maint. Dept. $100, 000 327-434 $100, 000 460 Meetings $ 765 330-460 $ 765 540 Train/Schls $ 27,765 325-540 $ 27 ,765 545 Dues/Mbrshps $ 495 330-545 $ 495 583 Spcl Invest $ 22 ,750 330-583 $ 22 ,750 Total $250,000 $250, 000 2 ) Redistribute money compiled in Narcotic Forfeiture's FY92/93 Miscellaneous account (593 ) to the appropriate Narcotic Forfeiture expense accounts. FROM TO NFF Account Amount NFF Account Amount 593 Miscellaneous $209,000 221 Supplies $ 30,000 320 Books 2 ,000 390 Cont. Serv. 5,000 540 Train/Schls 12,000 593 Miscellaneous 160,000 $209,000 3 ) The police department will purchase the following Capital Outlay items using Narcotic Forfeiture Funds in FY92/93 allowing for the equivalent reduction from the General Fund. ITEM AMOUNT GF Account Description NFF Account Amount E-CP-PD-321-657 Light Bars E-CP-PD-831-657 $21,000 E-CP-PD-321-657 Sirens E-CP-PD-831-657 16, 000 E-CP-PD-321-657 Prisoner Seats E-CP-PD-831-657 7,000 E-CP-PD-334-659 Washing Machine E-CP-PD-831-659 6,000 Total $50, 000 The next two items are contingent upon the timely commitment to purchase the new helicopter. 4 ) The police department will pay all lease/purchase payments on the new helicopter replacement from Narcotic Forfeiture Funds. Once the commitment is delivered, the Department can reduce the amount budgeted in Aero's Equipment Usage account (327-553 ) beginning in FY92/93 and subsequent years by $100, 000 each year until the helicopter is paid. 5 ) Once the helicopter is delivered, during the following twelve consecutive months, Aero's Maintenance account (327-434 ) can be reduced by $100, 000 because of parts and maintenance warranties. As a result of these changes, the overall department budget for FY92/93 will remain constant. cc: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Chief Lowenberg, Chief of Police Capt. Young, Investigation Division Commander John Roulette, Budget Analyst -6- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To: Robert Franz, Deputy City Administrator From: Michael P. Dolder, Fire Chief Date: June 2, 1992 Subject: BUDGET CORRECTIONS & ADDITIONS This memo consolidates, at your request, the Fire Department budget issues in one communication and supersedes my memos of April 27, 1992 and June 1 1992. Please include the following budget adjustments and corrections in the list submitted for City Council approval: Account Project Tie Account Number ,Amount Oil Well Consolidation Contractual E-AA-FR-309-3-90-00 $ 22,720 Services Methane Mitigation Contractual E-GG-ND-309-3-90-00 $ 76,171 State Grant Services Cable Tax Funds for Printing E-AA-FR-309-4-07-00 $ 18,500 Haz Mat Education Cable Tax Funds for Temporary E-AA-FR-309-1-20-00 $ 1,500 Haz Mat Education Services Fire Station #1 (Gothard) Butler Building E-CP-AS-191-6-31-00 $ 36,625 Butler Building Completion The above items reflect City Council approved projects which have not been completed. MPD/MM/cgs B:ROLLOVER.RED cc: Jim Vincent, Fire Marshal Bill Cooper, Operations Chief Richard Grunbaum, Deputy Fire Marshal - Petro Chem Mark Miller, Fire Department Analyst Senior -7- .t H �!4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Mike Uberuaga, City Administrator FROM: Connie"Brockway, City Clerk C-p SUBJECT: (1) Election budget (2) Overtime budget DATE: May 20, 1992 (1) Election Budget — I recently attended the County Election Meeting for City Clerks and received the attached estimate for our city's election. The county's estimate is $63.018. I had budgeted $61.000. (2) Overtime Budget — Also I made an error and did not include a budget for overtime. Last year's budget was $2.700. After reviewing the overtime use this year, I believe $2,000 will be sufficient for 1992-93. The overtime is nearly exclusively used for City Council meeting attendance. Will you inform me as to what steps to take to place the above.in the final budget. CC: Bob Franz, Deputy City Administrator !/ Jim Lewis, Senior Budget Analyst Z,� 11146LAI' 0 00 1992 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE @I fICE 1362K -8- H �IE4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO Jim Lewis From Jim Way SubjeCt BUDGET CORRECTION . Date May 5, 1992 Per-our telephone conversation on May 4th, regarding the 1992/93 budget for Beach Maintenance (343) , the budget numbers have been moved up one line starting with 314 through 460 which results in funding improper accounts. Also, $10,000 in account 460 (Meetings & Conferences) is incorrect, it should be $400. The $10,000 submitted in the original budget was for account 483 (Insurance for the Tram) which has been deleted for fiscal year 1992/93. I have attached a corrected copy of the budget. If you have any questions please call me. cc: Jim Engle JBW/p —9— [Lj, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: RVdlefsky Administrator FROM: tor SUBJECT: ENFORCEMENT OF EXPIRED BUSINESS LICENSES BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: June 1, 1992 The Code Enforcement section of Community Development has agreed to assist the City Treasurer ' s office with the enforcement of expired business licenses . The Code Enforcement staff, which currently consists of four field officers, would respond to referrals from the City Treasurer, as well as check for business licenses in the field while performing certificate of occupancy inspections or zoning violation inspections . Each Code Enforcement Officer is presently assigned a section of the city. Each officer would be responsible for enforcing the Zoning Code, Municipal Code, Housing Code and Business License Code. Five cities in Orange County combine general code enforcement with business license enforcement. These cities include; Anaheim, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Irvine and Costa Mesa. Each of the cities contacted agreed that combining Code Enforcement and business license enforcement is the most efficient method currently in use. The City Treasurer has indicated that approximately 30 expired business licenses would be referred to Code Enforcement per month. The Code Enforcement staff would conservatively generate another 30 expired business licenses as part of their daily enforcement duties . A basic business license in Huntington Beach costs $65 . 00 therefore the Code Enforcement staff would generate approximately $3, 900 . 00 per month, or $46, 800 . 00 per year . This figure would easily support the addition of one new Code Enforcement Officer within Community Development . Attachment HZ :MS: lp (3518d) -10- r ' HCITV OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: , De City Administrator FROM: oRichgarnard, eputy City Administrator DATE: May 5, 1992 SUBJECT: 1992/93 PRELIMINARY BUDGET DOCUMENT In the 1992/93 preliminary budget document, listed under the city's Video Program, the funding for temporary salaries has been totally left out for this year, next year, and the following three years. Please insure that the Video Budget is revised to include $68,556 for FY 92/93. This amount represents eight (8) temporary positions at a salary of $8.24 per hour, working 20 hours per week. I have attached another copy of the information I provided to you during the preparation of the 92/93 budget. If inclusion of the temporary monies will have a negative impact upon the Video Program of the city you might want to suggest to the City Administrator that a reduction in the $85,000 being transferred to the General Fund from the 2 percent video funds be reduced to cover any unbalance between projected revenue and proposed expenditure. RB:paj xc: Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Attachment -11- LARD CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Lca" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To RICH BARNARD From WALT EBY Subject CAPITAL OUTLAY INCREASE Date May 7, 1992 I am requesting that we ask for a capital outlay increase on Item 4 "Grass Valley Switcher Upgrade", from $1,000 to $6,000. The $5,000 dollar increase will bring the switcher up to the current model which includes a key signal output to interface with Item #3 ADO-100 Digital Effects System. The lack of a key signal from the switcher has not allowed us in the past to fully utilize the effects capability. WE:ks 41 l , 0 -12- Fell 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Ron Hagan, Director Community Services FROM: Howard Zelefsk Planning Direct SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN FUNDING DATE: April 13, 1992 I have reviewed your memorandum dated March 9, 1992 regarding the funding for the cultural element of the General Plan. The cost of preparing an optional cultural element of the General Plan is $77,000. Before I can authorize Envicom to commence work on this element, the funds must be transferred into the General Plan account established by Finance. The City receives a monthly invoice from Envicom Corporation for specific services rendered. The money to pay for these services comes out of each department' s contribution. Originally, when the contract with Envicom was to be executed, we did not have a cultural element. As you well recall, your department indicated that funds would be budgeted in order to include a culture element in Envicom's scope of work. If the cultural element is to continue to be a part of the scope of work, some arrangement will need to be made to cover the cost. As an alternative, your Department may wish to contract with the Wolf Group directly and develop a cultural policy for the City outside the General Plan process. cc: Mike Adams Ray Silver Mike Strange HZ: lp (3015d) -13- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Bob Franz , Deputy City Administrator FROM: Jim B. Engle, Superintendent DATE: June 1, 1992 SUBJECT: FY 91/92 CAPITAL PROJECTS CARRYOVER TO FY 92/92 In reviewing the various capital projects that we have budgeted for FY 91/92, it appears that it will be necessary to carry over to the next fiscal year the following: Main Promenade Change Orders Account #E-CZ-344-6-31-00 which contains $32,834 and $20, 000 for Newland Barn Account # E-SK-CS-673-6-31-00. If you have any questions regarding this, please contact me. JBE:am cc: Ron Hagan John Roulette -14- 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk SUBJECT: Budget Adjustment - Community Bulletin Board DATE: 4/24/92 This is to confirm our discussion held following the demonstration of the Community Bulletin Board software which you attended in the Data Processing Division last week. This is a request for an addition to the Capital Improvement portion of the City Clerk's FY 1992-93 budget in the amount of $3,000 to purchase an IBM compatible computer and software which will allow us to implement the Community Bulleting Board concept. The City Clerk's Office intends to use the bulletin board to offer access to the City Council Agenda, Action Agenda and announcements to any citizen or business which can access our computer via a modem. We believe the use of the bulletin board will save staff time which is now spent at the counter and on the telephone answering questions related to the Agenda and actions taken at Council meetings. The computer will also be used as a word processing station. Jerry Bramlett Cc: Norm Le Blanc i ) ` Li `U n 11351 +` CITY OF--HUN CITY CO - C -15- INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION TO: Michael T. Uberauga, FROM: Robert J. Fran , City Administrator - Deputy City mi J a or SUBJECT: Revisions to Gas Tax Fund DATE: June 2, 1992 and Transportation Fund Capital Improvement Lists Attached are revised project lists as submitted by Public Works. The following details the changes by fund to reflect use of the nearly $4 million awarded by Measure M, County AHFP, and the Federal CRP Program. GAS TAX: 1. Eliminate the project titled State of California Bridge Retrofit Program (City share) since the state has now provided 100% funding. $235,000 2. The Golden West Widening project has been increased by $600, 000 to full project cost due to the availability of additional matching funds from OCTA. 3 . Other minor funding amount adjustments have been made to carry-over projects. 4 . A new Traffic Model Project, $35, 000, has been added which will develop a capital improvement program to aid in preparing funding applications. 5. A new project titled Replace PCH Street Lights, $80, 000 has been added since the existing luminairs and poles are a maintenance problem. TRANSPORTATION FUND: 1. The Hamilton Expansion Design Study has been increased by $150, 000 using additional Measure M Turn-Back Funds. 12 . The City's portion of the Golden West Widening Project cost has been decreased by $699, 000 due to additional matching funds provided by OCTA under the Intersection Improvement Program. 3 . A new project, the Gothard Widening project, has been added at a cost of $216,000 and will provide spot widening construction. 4 . A project studies appropriation has been added for $100, 000. This will provide cost estimates, design studies, and submittal preparation for projects using Measure M Turn- Back funds. -16- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME ---------- -------- -------------------- --------------- ------------ Public Works General Services E-SF-PC-740 Street Projects DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR -'REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 92/93 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- A. CARRY OVER PROJECTS: 1 Gothard Widening AHFP 230,000 230,000 1. First phase (right-of-way) (Ellis to Warner) ( of a widening project. City Gas Tax: $115,000 This was a 90-91 AHFP sub- OC AHFP Fund: 115,000 mittal. Construction phase Total: $230,000 in Transportation Program. 2. Warner AHFP III 255,000 255,000 2. Rehabilitate a primary (Gothard to Beach) arterial highway. This was City Gas Tax: $133,000 a 91-92 AHFP submittal. OC AHFP Fund: 122,000 Total: $255,000 3. Inlet Drive Rehab 145,000 145,000 3. Rehabilitate a residential (East of Edwards) street that has suffered City Gas Tax from differential settlement due to underlying peat. 4. Garfield AHFP II 286,000 J 286,000 I 4. Reconstruct and/or resurface (Beach to Newland) a primary arterial highway. City Gas Tax: $153,000 This was a 91-92 AHFP sub-_ OC AHFP Fund: 133,000 mittal. Total: $286,000 5. Golden West Widening 2,500,000 1 2,500,000 5. Widen street and inter- (Ellis to Slater) connect signals. County is funding 50% of eligible items City Gas Tax - $1,508,000 Total cost of project is $4.2 A.H.F.P. - 792,000 million including Green acres ---------- water main, domestic water $2,300,000 I main and sewer. I � (see next page) FORM 5A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME ---------- -------- -------------------- --------------- ------------ Public Works General Services E-SF-PC-740 Street Projects DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR -*REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 92/93 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- I ------------ I -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- I I 6. Traffic Model 35,000 I 35,000 I 6. Develop a capital improvement City Gas Tax I I program to aid in preparing I funding applications. 7. Replace PCH Street 80,000 80,000 7. The existing luminairs and Lights I I poles are a maintenance City Gas Tax I I problem. I I I i B. NEW PROJECTS: i 1. General Fund Transfer I I 1. Transfer Gasoline Tax funds City Gas Tax: Budgeted I I collected under Title 2107 in Operating Expenses I I into the General Fund to ($1.6 million) I I offset a portion of the cost I of the street maintenance I I programs. 2. Street Improvements 100,000 1 100,000 1 100,000 100,000 100,000 2. Make general, small scale, City Gas Tax I I minor street improvements as needed. Emergency repairs I and public service requests I are funded from this account. 3. Traffic Replacements 100,000 1 100,000 1 100,000 100,000 100,000 3. This ongoing program includes City Gas Tax I I the replacement of worn out I signal controllers, pavement I I markers, signal loops, and I lighted street signs. 4. State Highway Signal 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 4. City portion of signal and Maintenance I I lighting maintenance on State I highways. I I (see next page) FORM 5A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME ---------- -------- -------------------- --------------- ------------ Public Works General Services E-SF-PC-740 Street Projects DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR -4REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 92/93 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- 1 ------------ 1 -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- 5. Capital Street 250,000 1 250,000 1 250,000 250,000 250,000 5. Repair, slurry seal, and/or Maintenance I 1 resurface about five miles City Gas Tax I I of City streets as part of I an ongoing maintenance pro- gram. 6. Traffic Signal System 250,000 250,000 I 200,000 200,000 200,000 6. Improve traffic flow by City Gas Tax 1 I constructing signalized intersections by priority I I each year. 7. 92-93 Rehab Pro ram 1,200,000 1,200,000 I 7. The Federal Combined Road City Gas TAX: 977,000 I I Program (CRP) has funded 7 i Fountain Valley: 40,500 1 I City arterial highway rehab Fed. CRP: 2,417,900 I I projects. The Federal share i Co. AHFP 251,400 I 1 is 80% of eligible I activities. An 8th project Total: I 1 is funded 50% by county AHFP. I II I I I I FY 92-93 Funding: Gas Tax: $6,055,100 I 1 Fed: 2,417,900 I I County: 1,413,400 I 1 Ftn Vlly: 40,500 1 Total: $9,926,900 I II I I I I I TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 5,506,000 1 5,506,000 1 725,000 725,000 725,000 FORM 5A 1 =------- I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME ---------- -------- -------------------- --------------- ------------ Public Works General Services E-SX-PW-410 Transportation Projects DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR -4REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 92/93 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- A. CARRY OVER PROJECTS: 1. Circulation & Growth 150,000 150,000 1. Mandated Measure M portion Elements of the of the $600,000 cost of the General Plan General Plan. (Local Turn-back funds) 2. Hamilton Extension 350,000 350,000 2. Project study report, Design Study feasibility study, and (Local Turn-back funds) Environmental Impact Report. 3. Golden West Widening- 281,000 281,000 J 3. Plans are complete and right- PCH to Yorktown of-way has been acquired for i (OCTA-IIP Funds) I this second phase of effort. CD This is 100% funded by OCTA under the Intersection Improvement Program (IIP) . 4. Warner at Bolsa Chica 120,000 1 120,000 1 4. Project identified in County Intersection Redesign Congestion Management Plan Capital Improvement Program. B. NEW PROJECTS: 1 Sidewalk Replacement 500,000 500,000 1 500,000 500,000 500,000 1. This is the first year of a from Tree Root Damage $25 million program. (Local Turn-back funds) 2. Alley Reconstruction 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 2. This is the first year of a (Local Turn-back funds) concrete alley program. 3. Warner at Beach 500,000 1 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3. This is Phase IV of the Beach Right of Way Acquisition ( Super Street Protect. It (East Leg/Local Turn will take several years to Back Funds) gather sufficient funds for R/W acquisition. FORM 5A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME ---------- -------- -------------------- --------------- ------------ Public Works General Services E-SX-PW-410 Transportation Projects DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR —REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 92/93 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- i ------------ J -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- I I 4. Gothard Widening 216,000 J 216,000 I 4. This is' a spot widening (Ellis to Warner) I J construction phase. The M-Local Turn Back $74k I J right-of-way phase was an OCTA 142k I I AFHP project. This phase has I major funding from OCTA under �13Tc I I the MPAH and IIP programs. 5. GMA #6 System - Wide 335,000 335,000 5. Five cities have applied for Traffic Signal I I Measure M funds for work on Inter-Connect Program J J all multi-city arterials. (OCTA Funds) J I This is 100% ,funded by OCTA. 16. GMA #6 System - Wide 250,000 250,000 6. Five cities have applied for Traffic Signal J J Measure M funds for re-timing Timing Program I J all arterials. (OCTA Funds) I I This is 100% funded by OCTA. 7. Project Studies 100,000 1 100,000 ' 7. Cost estimates, design (Local Turn-back funds) I J studies, and submittal J preparation for projects. _ I I I I I I FY 92/93 Funding I J (M) Local Turn-back: $2.8m I J OCTA-MPAH/IIP: $423k I J OCTA - GMA#6: $585k I J $3.8m I I I I I I I I I I I TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 3,102,000 I I J 3,102,000 J 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 FORM 5A %•"IM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, - From: RONALD E. LOWENBERG, City Administrator Chief of Police Subject: Funding for Mobile Date: May 28, 1992 Task Force In our meeting yesterday, we discussed funding for the Mobile Task Force and determined that adequate resources are available using Narcotic Forfeiture to fund Option Two of our staffing alternatives. This option will require us to hire one sergeant and two police officers at an annual cost of $241,000 in the first year. In addition to this, we agreed that it will also be necessary to purchase a trailer and convert it to our use by . again using Narcotic Forfeiture funds . We estimate the total cost for the trailer and conversion will be a one-time charge of $35,000. Therefore, the total cost for the Mobile Task Force during FY92/93 will be $276,000 from Narcotic Forfeiture. D I 92 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE WIC,E cc: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Robert Franz, Deputy City Administrator Capt. Young, Investigation Division Commander -22- VCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH olINTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA From RONALD E. LOWENBERG CITY ADMINISTRATOR CHIEF OF POLICE Subject MOBILE SUBSTATION Date MAY 5, 1992 Over the past few years, high police activity/crime areas, primarily relative to narcotics activity, appear at sporadic locations throughout the community. Examples of this are Amberleaf Circle, Oakview neighborhood, Florida/Utica area, Warner/Edwards, Warner/Newland, 14th and Orange, .etc. The Police Department recognizes the most effective way to address these police/community problems is to establish some type of substation in order to concentrate forces in those locations. We have also learned from our experiences that these high crime areas will shift, depending on the amount of resources and intensity of enforcement action the police department places on them. It is impractical and sometimes impossible to construct or rent permanent office space at these locations to support the enforcement effort, so the idea of a mobile substation was suggested by Councilman Kelly and Councilwoman Linda Moulton-- Patterson. Such a mobile substation would be staffed by a squad consisting of a sergeant and five officers, whose duties would require them to move about the city and set up their substation in those locations where the problems are occurring. In light of the most recent fire bombing of our Oakview Substation, the mobile substation could also be used as a temporary police office while the damaged substation is reconstructed. The police mobile substation has been very effective in other jurisdictions. The City of Norwalk contracts with the Los Angeles Sheriff ' s Department for law enforcement services. City officials and the Sheriff 's Department feel the .Neighborhood Law Enforcement Centers (mobile substation) have been very successful . They have a significant impact on crime in the areas where they are deployed. Equally important, they help build a sense of cooperation and trust between the police department and local residents . Originally a motor home was suggested, but our research has led us to believe a motor home is both costly for initial purchase and requires some substantial ongoing maintenance costs. It is our recommendation to purchase a standard trailer to be converted to a mobile substation. -23- Page -2- MOBILE SUBSTATION May 5, 1992 The Police Department currently has in its inventory several vehicles capable of towing a large trailer. Since a trailer has no power train itself, ongoing maintenance costs for a trailer are minimal compared to a motor home. As example, a 30 ' motor home, sans any conversion work, would cost in excess of $50, 000 . We could obtain a 28 ' to 30 ' trailer, new, for approximately $20 , 000 . It is my recommendation that we seek to purchase a used 28t to 30 ' trailer in good condition and utilize our own personnel, where possible, to convert the trailer to a mobile substation. In summary, the cost of a new motor home converted would be approximately $65, 000. A new trailer similarly converted would cost in the neighborhood of $35, 000, and a used trailer would cost less than $25, 000. Drug Asset Forfeiture funds could be made available for this purchase. In addition to the mobile substation is the requirement to have personnel to staff the station. The following three options may be considered for staffing: Option One: Personnel costs for an additional complement to the T.O. of five officers and a sergeant would be approximately $469, 000. Option Two: It is possible we could meet our staffing needs with the addition of two officers and a sergeant's position by pulling two existing positions out of our current patrol force. This would result in a net cost of $241, 000. These personnel costs would, of course, be ongoing from year to year. Option Three: The last and least desired solution would be to re-design the beat areas and staff the project with personnel already on board. This would, however, necessitate a reduction in our ability to deliver a timely response to routine calls for service, as the beat areas re-designed would increase the geographical territory assigned to each regular patrol officer.. REL:RLP: bmr Attachments : 1 . L.A. S . D. memo dated 12-7-89 2 . Photo of L.A. S. D. /Norwalk Neighborhood Law Enforcement Center o X C Q, � XAoItL 1 / A - COUNTY OF L O S A N G E L E S SHERIFF 'S DEPARTMENT DATE December 7, 1989 OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE FILE NO. FROM. RONALD C . BLACK , CAPTAIN TO: RICHARD R . POWERS COMMANDER , -NORWALK STATION CITY MANAGER / CITY OF NORWALK L SUBJECT: PROPOSED MOBILE SUBSTATION The concept of the Mobile Substation vas presented to Sheriff Block and he strongly supports the program . The possibilities for its use within the City .ire numerous . In addition to providing services to c-estderc directly in their neighborhoods , various community relations programs can be coordinated from the substac :o:i . my stuff and I have enthusiastically support .:•: concept since it was brought to our attention . ::e have discussed the many possibilities for its use and offer the following as examples : The substation can be moved to loca : areas experiencing 1 a high crime rate . The location could be advertised C ]pp1� in advance utilizing the local press and cable l7 Q"T`a T . v . to provide a deterrent effect . The location could also be changed daily to provide a saturation patrol effort in a given area , as elocal beat cars will write reports at the substation . ` S - City Council Members , City Staff , the Station Commander , QS �� and Station , Detectives could be scheduled for certain a� hours on given days to meet with the residents and discuss local problems and issues .- Bicycle patrol beats could be coordinated from the mobile substation and the substation could be Rarked in local shopping mal l.s during major shopping seasons . Deputies trained in crime prevention techniques could provide home security checks in coordination with the Neighborhood Watch programs . The possibilities for providing innovative crime fighting and crime prevention programs seems only limited by athe imagination . -2 - 5 CITY OF HUNI'=IMN BEACH REQUEST FOR REVISION TO TABLE OF ORGANIZATICN FISCAL PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION/ JUSTIFICATION AND/OR POSITION ADDITIONAL YEAR NAME DESCRIP ON TO PROGRAM SERVICE COST EKES 92/93 SN 320 Police Officer Narcotic arrests remain on the increase. $48,000 General Fund Narcotic This officer will be assigned to the 30,000 Narcotic Forfeiture Forfeiture Regional Narcotic Suppression Program to deal with the continuing problem. The No Additional Cots department receives a portion of the seized assets from these arrests. This position will increase our share percentage to 6.4%, or approximately $277,-000 in increased revenues based upon past dis- tributions. This represents 3.5. times the position costs for the officer. Our current proposal is predicated on the reduction of a clerical position in this program through reassignment or attrition. i The net result will be no increase in total personnel. The officer's cost will be further offset by the clerical position's cost of $48,000. FORS CA 92-9 • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administra .or —�— SUBJECT: BUDGET INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS/COMMENTS DATE: JUNE 4, 1992 Attached is a summary of City Council requests and comments from the Study Session of April 27, 1992 (Infrastructure/MSI) and May 11 , 1992 (Budget Study Session), along with appropriate back—up material . 0 WPADSERT:942 BUDGET STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS/COMMENTS 5. Request: Staff was requested to provide a dollar figure on the per unit additional cost of new development, should the recommended MSI fees be approved. Staff Response: A chart providing this information was provided at the part of the public hearing on the Phase I MSI Fees. A copy of that information is included in the attachments. 6. Request: In addition to the per unit additional cost on new development (described above), a request was made to identify the cost increase for rennovations. Staff Response: Community Development will be preparing a summary identifying a typical renovation and the comparison of the fees. 7. Request: Long term permanent annual fees should be presented separately from one time fees. Staff Response: The next phases of implementation of the MSI System will include separation of annual fees from fees that will vary based on the amount of development occurring in the community. The MSI System recommends establishment of the Community Development Fund which would accomplish the objective of allowing a gradual increase or decrease in staffing as development increases or decreases. 8. Request: Request for breakdown of the proposed MSI fee increases that are related to development. Staff Response: The Budget Review Task Force identified $934.270 of the $1 ,800,660 recommended Phase I fees that are related to development. 9. Request: Additional justification was requested on the payment of building occupancy rent by the Cable TV Fund. Staff Response: Attached is a memorandum providing additional information on this subject. 10. Request: Staff was requested to provide a summary of the use of the $6 million of one time revenue obtained when Paragon Cable TV acquired the local cable franchise. StaTf Response: Attached is a summary of the projects that the City Council approved in 1989/90 and 1990/91 for the use of this one-time revenue. 11 . Request: Staff was requested to include in the presentation on automation projects a review of the City's mainframe operation. Staff Response: Memorandum dated May 20, 1992 has been forwarded to the City Council providing a response on this subject. In addition, the June 1 , 1992 Study Session addressed City staff recommendations regarding networking City computers. -2- WPADSERT:925 BUDGET STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS/COMMENTS 12. Request: Staff was requested to provide additional information on the position being deleted from the Public Information Office, to include information on how Public Information needs could be consolidated and centralized. Staff Response: Staff is in the process of identifying consultants with specialization in the area of corporate and governmental marketing and public relations. It is staff's intention to recommend to the City Council the contracting or an independent review of how the City markets itself and manages the public relations function. This review is expected to recommend how the City should best be staffed to most effectively carry out these tasks. 13. Request: Further information was requested on the position proposed to be deleted from the City Treasurer's Office including an estimate of lost revenue due to not having this permanent, full-time position. Staff Response: Attached is a response to this question prepared by the City Treasurer. 14. Request: Further information was requested on the City' s plans to cross-train inspectors in the Community Development Department. Staff Response: (To be provided by Community Development). 15. Request: Further information was requested on the maintenance of Police Department vehicles through outside contract vs. the comment in the Budget Message regarding consolidation of vehicle maintenance between Police Department and Public Works. Staff Response: The reference in the Budget Message to maintenance being done on a contract basis in the Police Department is limited to oil change and lubrications which are being conducted by an outside firm. The Police Department has found this to be more cost effective than performing this service at the corporate yard either with the Police Maintenance Facility or Public Works Facility. This process is more cost effective only when the work needed on the vehicle is an oil change and lubrication. 16. Request: Additional information was requested on the Community Services Department recommendations to close or reduce hours on Sundays vs. the option of keeping current hours for weekends and reducing hours on weekdays. Staff Response: Attached is a memorandum from the Community Services Director responding to this request. 17. Request: Staff was requested to present comparisons of other City refuse fee rates when the presentation is made on June 1 . Staff Response: This information was provided by the staff report and presentation for the Public Hearing on June 1 , 1992. -3- WPADSERT:925 SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE COSTS Annual Assessment* MSI Number Service Cost Annual Monthly 189 Street Lighting $ 3,242,765 $ 27.33 $ 2.28 190 Median Landscape Maintenance 907,947 7.65 0.56 191 Street Tree Maintenance 1 ,486,298 12.53 1 .04 183 Sewer Collection 3,773,610 31 .80 2.65 182 Storm Drain Maintenance 2,036,499 41 .82 3.49 197 Neighborhood Park Maint. 5,308,025 44.73 3.73 *Notes: I . All costs based on Management Services Institute (MSI) analysis of actual 1990/91 costs 2. Annual and monthly costs are based on assessing the properties that benefit. All annual and monthly costs except storm drain maintenance are based on a cost per one eighth acre. WPADSERT:941 CITY FEES 2 , 000 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE Building & Planninq Fee Calculation With Type of Fee Current Fee Proposed Increase Building Inspection $ 933 $ 1 ,201 Building Division Plan Check 606 780 Planning Division Plan Check 150 (NO INCREASE) Cultural Enrichment 430 (NO INCREASE) Park & Recreation 35120 (NO INCREASE) Electrical, Mechanical, and Plumbing Plan Check 154 280 Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing Inspection 155 179 Sub Total Planning & Building $ 5,548 $ 6,140 2; CITY FEES 2,000 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE (CONTINUED) Public Works: Fee Calculation With Tvpe of Fee Current Fee Proposed Increase Traffic Impact $ 750 (NO INCREASE) Sanitation Fee 220 (NO INCREASE) Grading Plan Check 366 900 Water Connection 60 (NO INCREASE) Water Connection Inspection (NO FEE) 150 Sub Total Public Works $ 15396 $ 2,080 CITY FEES 2,000 AQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE SUMMARY FEE CALCULATION CURRENT FEE WITH PROPOSED INCREASE BUILDING & PLANNING $ 5,548 $ 6,140 PUBLIC WORKS 19396 2,080 TOTAL CITY FEES $ 65944 $ 85220 [LA,Me CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH to" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator = FROM: ROBERT J.- FRANZ, Deputy City Administrator SUBJECT: BUILDING OCCUPANCY RENT — CABLE TV FUND DATE: JUNE 6, 1992 The Management Services Institute (MSI) study identified a cost of $85,000 for the use of City Hall that should be allocated to Cable TV Fund. We have proposed implementing the expense as part of the Cable TV Fund annual budget. Following is a summary of the ongoing revenue and expense estimates for the Cable TV Fund for 1992/93, including the recommended $85,000 building occupancy charge: Cable TV Fund 1992/93 Estimated Revenue $ 470,000 Recommended Expenditures 465,000 Surplus $ 5.000 6/30/92 Estimated Fund Balance (Reserve) $ 300,000 Paragon Cable TV Franchise Fees A 5% Franchise Fee is paid by Paragon Cable under the franchise agreement for cable TV services in Huntington Beach. The City has elected to split the franchise fee revenue between the General Fund and Cable TV Fund. Sixty percent of the revenue (3% Franchise fee) goes to the General Fund and forty percent (2% Franchise fee) goes to the Cable TV fund to provide funding for the operation of channel 3. The General Fund revenue is not earmarked for any specific purpose, and therefore is available and used for support of all General Fund operations. Estimated General Fund revenue from this source for 1992/93 is $650,000. Come cities put their entire 5% cable franchise fee revenue in their General Fund and do not finance a local public cable operation. State and Federal law authorize franchise fees on the basis of compensating the government for the use by a utility service (cable TV, Edison Company, Gas Company) of public streets/right of way, as well as the right to be the provider of the service in the community. A similar franchise fee was recently added to our contract with Rainbow Disposal , with all of the revenue going to the General Fund. Total General Fund franchise fee revenue from all of these franchises is estimated to total $2,792,000 for 1992/93. BUILDING OCCUPANCY RENT - CABLE TV FUND The City could increase the amount of the Cable Franchise fee revenue being allocated to the Cable TV Fund by decreasing the General Fund allocation and increasing the Cable TV fund allocation. The 2% allocation was established as part of the City's original implementation/approval of a Cable TV franchise system. As the system has grown, the 2% portion of the franchise fee has allowed for expansion of the Channel 3 operations. The 2% revenue has served as the "budget limit" in determining local programming, staffing, and capital acquisitions. Conclusions• 1 . The MSI Study concluded that Building Occupancy (rent) is a cost that should be charged to this fund to properly reflect the costs of this operation. 2. The MSI study determined that the appropriate charge for building occupancy is $85,000 per year. 3. Estimated ongoing revenues for 1992/93 from the 2% franchise fee can finance this new expense foZERT TVFT�ANZ Deputy City Mministra r RJF:skd -2- WPADSERT:944 USE OF PCTA PROCEEDS _a PROJECTS-FISCAL YEAR 1989/90 SUMMARY-USE OF PCTA PROCEEDS 800 Mhz System-First Payment $475,000 Capital Outlay-Cable TV Fund 500,000 Bluff Parking-Oil Well Abondonment 1,400,000 City-wide GIS System 100,000 C.I.P. 's 4,816,000 Heil Pump Station Modifications 200,000 Carr & Greer Park Lake Improvemnts 225,000 Mushroom Farm Acquisition 782,000 Parking Lot Improvemnts 150,000 Central Park Restroom 50,000 Fund Balance-General Fund 93,317 Fire Dept Apparatus Bay 160,000 Civic Center Parking Lot Improvements 200,000 Underground fuel Tank Management 250,000 $6,191,317 Facilities Maintenance Projects 200,000 Departmental Capital Outlay 615,000 SUB TOTAL 1989/90 4,025,000 PROJECTS-FISCAL YEAR 1989/90 M.S.I. Study 220,000 Rogers Seniors' Center Addition 150,000 800 Mhz System-Second Payment 421,000 SUB TOTAL 1990/91 791,000 TOTAL $4,816,000 --d I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: ROBERT FRANZ, Deputy City Administrator Administrative Services FROM: DONALD L. WATSON, City Treasurer �C/'�U�� DATE: May 28, 1992 SUBJECT: BUDGET STUDY SESSION-COUNCIL REQUESTS/COMMENTS Attached is this department's response to the City Council 's request for information. Attachment BUDGET STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS/COMMENTS Request: Further information was requested on the position proposed to be deleted from the City Treasurer's Office including an estimate of lost revenue due to not having this permanent, full -time position. Staff Response: There is no absolute method in which to calculate the lost revenue, however, the Treasurer's office is taking steps to minimize the effect by implementing several programs. First, the Treasurer's office is currently exchanging data tapes with the State Board of Equalization. In exchanging these tapes we then cross-reference the files and "catch" some of the businesses that have State sales tax numbers but no business license. -The State also benefits by reversing this process thereby identifying businesses that have failed to register with the State. Second, the office is also subscribing to a media service, "Marketing Arts. " This service notifies the office of any ficticious business names that have been filed. The license staff then verifies that they have applied for a city license. Third and fourth programs involve the cooperation of two other departments. The Fire Department's Hazardous Materials division periodically checks all businesses that are potential problem areas. During these inspections, the fire inspectors verify for valid, current operator permits one of those being the city license. The Community Development department, mainly the Code Enforcement division, is the other department that has agreed to assist the office with license inspections and collections. This offer is based, however, on the approval of an additional code enforcement officer. It is this department's opinion that although the lost revenue cannot be quantified, the collection of just two business licenses a day would more than support this position. In addition, the city would benefit from another officer in the field for code infractions. By involving the code enforcement division, the city also strengthens the business license requirement. With the addition of one (1) additional position, the city will have five (5) officers checking for a business license along with enforcing other city codes. Code enforcement officers have enforcement methods previously not available to the license inspector. There is also a $35.00 reinspection fee for each subsequent inspection required. This should be an added incentive for business owners to pay their licenses on time. cc: Mike Adams Mike Strange CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Ron Hagan YV7 Director, Community Services DATE: May 28, 1992 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO MAY 18 BUDGET STUDY SESSION At the May 18 budget study session, an inquiry was made as to which would be better--to close the recreation centers weekdays or weekends. Staff endeavored to reduce the recreation centers' operating hours at those times that would have the least impact on the general public. Naturally, any reduction in hours has some impact on services. Listed below on a center by center basis Is an analysis of reducing or eliminating weekend hours versus midweek hours: EDISON AND MURDY COMMUNITY CENTERS These centers are the focal point of community—wide adult and youth oriented active recreation classes and sports leagues. Closing the centers Saturday nights and all day Sundays is recommended because we do not conduct classes or sports leagues at these times. Saturday nights and Sundays do have a great many reservations of meeting rooms by individuals and groups, but staff can still continue to offer this service to the public by a fee that the individual or group must pay in order to have a staff person on duty. The concern on weekends will be opening and closing of the rest rooms for public use as most of the activity happens in the park, not in the center, on weekends. Weekdays and weeknights were not recommended for reduction in operating hours because of the impact on recreation classes. We offer the community over 600 classes each year. Approximately $380,000 is generated in class registration. An average class costs $20 which equates to approximately 19,000 participants annually. The city receives 30% of the registration fee with 70% going to pay the instructors. Therefore, curtailing the number of clIsses directly impacts the public and reduces revenue to the city. Weekday closing was also not recommended because children and parents use the community centers for informal, after school, latchkey programs. There are recreational leaders on duty supervising the game rooms and conducting activities from 2:30 to 10:00 p.m. We can open the game rooms a half hour later at 3:00 p.m. instead of 2:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, while not jeopardizing this service too greatly, and saving a considerable number of hours on an annual basis. Response to May 18 Budget Study Session May 28, 1992 Page Two CITY GYM AND POOL The City Gym and Pool is the only gymnasium and indoor pool available in the city to the general public. Closing Sundays will have a negative Impact on drop—In basketball, game room and swimming. But, like Edison and Murdy Community Centers, classes and sports leagues are conducted during the week or during the day on Saturdays (facility already closed Saturday nights). A prime reason for closing Sundays instead of weekdays is the swim lessons. It is extremely important in any community, but especially a beach community, to teach children and adults to be "water safe." As with the community centers, staff feels the supervised drop—in facilities such as the gym and game room should be available to children after school during the week. OAK VIEW CENTER The major reduction of hours at Oak View Center will be on Sundays. Staff Is recommending the closure of the center on Sunday whereas previously it was open from 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m. The primary reasons for selecting Sundays are, first, the center is staffed with a part—time recreation leader and a recreation assistant. There is very little in the way of scheduled activities or special events. They generally supervise the normal activities such as pool and Ping—Pong in the game room and basketball/volleyball in the gym. Most of the activity occurs in the park Itself with heavy tot lot use and basketball. Also, there are a number of soccer games going on next door on the school grounds. Secondly, the parents are generally home on Sundays and the children are also at home or they come to the park as a family, but not generally to the center. Finally, during the week is when the recreation classes, tutoring for the children, and.other special human service programs occur and any closing or reduction during the day on Monday through Friday would significantly impact the neighborhood. Other reductions in hours are on Saturdays which will be slightly reduced to a 10:00 a.m. — 4:00 p.m. schedule instead of a 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. schedule. This should have little Impact on the service provided to the community. Also, evening hours are being reduced Monday through Thursday. The center will close at 8:00 p.m. rather than 9:30 p.m. This will impact youth significantly, as it is older youth who primarily use the center after 8:00 p.m. The Friday hours will remain the same: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. RODGERS SENIORS' CENTER Staff is recommending the "partial" closure of the Seniors' Center on Fridays. What this essentially impacts is the answering of phones and providing information and referral services ovet the counter. There will be no recurrent staff working on Fridays which results in a savings of $8,500 in FY 92/93. Other services, which are normally provided by recurrent staff and hence will not be available on Fridays, are shared housing, utility tax exemptions, employment, and dog licenses. The primary reason Friday was selected was that it is the least "busiest" day at the center. Neither the Seniors' Club, AARP, or the Council on Aging have meetings on Fridays but do meet the other weekdays with hundreds of seniors in attendance. Response to May 18 Budget Study Session May 28, 1992 Page Three The hot lunch program which is managed by Feedback Foundation staff will continue on Fridays as will most of the other programs such as pool, bridge, food distribution and Handy Crafters. These activities do not depend on recurrent-staff for support. RH:cjg 5737e cc: Michael T. Uberuaga Jim Engle Bill Fowler June 8, 1992 BUDGET STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS/COMMENTS 1 . Request: Staff was requested to provide a breakdown on a portion of property tax and sales tax which goes to school and other districts. Staff Response: The City receives approximately 19% of the property taxes paid by local residents and businesses. The City receives 1¢ of the current 7.75% sales tax for sales within city limits. Graphs illustrating the breakdown of these tax revenues to other governments and districts will be prepared for the study session. 2. Request: Information was requested on the difference between an Assessment District and a Taxing District. Staff Response: Various assessment districts are permitted under California State law. Public improvements for water, roads, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, etc. , can be provided by an assessment district under State laws enacted in the early 1900's. Under these acts the properties benefitting from the public improvements are assessed the amount of cost that is directly related to the benefit received by the property. The assessment is then collected over 20 to 30 years on the County property tax bill . Similarly, the 1972 Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District Act was adopted allowing similar benefit assessments to be calculated for the cost of energy and maintenance of street lights, and other maintenance costs. These assessments are then levied and collected by the County on the local property tax bill . A Mello-Roos Tax District is very similar to an assessment district except that the method of assessing the tax is more flexible than a direct benefit calculation, and the Mello-Roos Districts can be implemented in smaller defined areas where landowners can request a district prior to development, including the establishment of a taxing formula that applies after development. 3. Request: Staff was requested to set up a separate infrastructure budget, identifying projects and their cost for each year' s budget. Staff Response: A mid-year budget amendment in fiscal year 1992/93 will be required to accomplish this objective. The 1992/93 proposed budget includes funding in the traditional manner for the City's infrastructure needs such as streets, sewers, water, etc. , being budgeted in their respective departmental programs. As staff proceeds to develop Phase II of the implementation of the MSI System, a separate infrastructure Fund and budget is planned. 4. Request: Staff was requested to identify the per capita or per household cost for the MSI proposed Assessment and Maintenance Districts. Staff Response: Attached is a summary which includes these costs. 19 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator FROM: Mike Adams, Director of Community Developmen DATE: June 5, 1992 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS FROM BUDGET STUDY SESSION The City Council' s concern of cross-training building inspectors on code enforcement issues was addressed two (2) years ago with a modification to the Memorandum of Understanding with the M.E.A. At that time, staff instituted cross-training sessions and all building inspectors were trained in methods of land use code enforcement. All new personnel to both Code Enforcement and Inspection Staff have also received this training. Beginning in the budget fiscal year, the Division will be reorganized to include Housing and Building and therefore cross-training will become complete. MA:ss (3571d) RESOLUTION NO. 6399 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992/93 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does resolve as follows: SECTION 1. That the budget for the City of Huntington Beach for fiscal year 1992/93 as hereinafter set forth, is hereby adopted: Appropriations and Department Transfers Out ---------- ------------------ City Council 262,163 Non-Departmental 11,445,808 Administration 1,012,235 City Treasurer 773,689 City Attorney 1,409,639 City Clerk 483,884 Administrative Services 4,299,501 Library Services 3,221,947 Community Development 3,818,780 Fire 15,807,643 Police 31,992,129 Community Services 6,844,305 Public Works 16,387,956 Sub-Total General Fund Appropriations 77759-1 6T3 Other Funds Parking Structures 5,900,000 Capital Projects Fund 3,966,850 Art Center Fund 700,000 HB Public Financing Authority 3,774,000 Civic Improvement Corporation 2,937,000 HB Public Facilities Corporation 391,000 Debt Service Fund-Park Bond 468,000 Reservoir Hill Fund 170,000 Parking Authority 248,500 Fire-Med Fund 2,469,139 Emerald Cove Housing Fund 778,590 Meadowlark Golf Fund 202,537 Water Fund 21,992,328 Grants Fund 377,816 Housing & Community Development 1,459,000 Insurance Fund 10,591,232 Equipment Replacement Fund 3,011,935 Mello Roos Fund 200,000 Pier Reconstruction Fund 300,000 Redevelopment-Tax Increment Fund 4,221,500 Redevelopment-Projects Fund 17,214,165 Gas Tax Fund 7,785,100 Cable TV Fund 489,473 Park Acquisition & Development 660,826 Sewer Fund 1,130,136 Drainage Fund 1,914,925 Fourth of July Fund 111,700 Narcotic Forfeiture Fund 1,393,057 Transportation Fund 3,812,169 Air Quality Fund 180,035 Library Service Fund 19,287 Fire-Joint Powers Authority 1,498,199 Police-Community Relations 100,000 Refuse Collection Fund 6,185,929 Sub-Total Other Fund Appropriations 106, $ Total City Appropriations 204,414,107 1 SECTION 2. The estimated revenue and transfers for Fiscal Year 1992/93, which when combined with reserves is sufficient to fund the above appropriations, are a follows: Revenue and Transfers in ------------ General Fund 98,490,200 Parking Structures 700,000 Capital Projects Fund 1,854,418 Donations 20,000 HB Public Financing Authority 3,096,000 Civic Improvement Corporation 2,935,000 HB Public Facilities Corporation 437,000 Debt Service Fund-Park Bond 520,000 Reservoir Hill Fund 157,000 Parking Authority 16,000 Parking Authority 84,500 Fire-Med Fund 2,040,000 Emerald Cove Housing Fund 824,000 Meadowlark Golf Fund 440,000 Water Fund 17,402,500 Grants Fund 142,000 Housing & Community Development 1,400,000 Hud Subsidy Fund 354,000 Self-Insurance Fund 8,650,000 Equipment Replacement Fund 3,266,000 Mello Roos Fund 16,000 Mello Roos Fund 280,000 Pier Reconstruction Fund 955,000 Redevelopment-Tax Increment Fund 4,813,000 Redevelopment-Projects Fund 8,565,000 Redevelopment-Low Income Housing 1,350,000 Home Program Fund 881,000 Gas Tax Fund 4,815,000 Cable TV Fund 431,000 Park Acquisition & Development 541,000 Sewer Fund 295,000 Drainage Fund 325,000 Cultural Art Center Fund 200,000 Narcotic Forfeiture Fund 1,075,000 Transportation Fund 1,220,000 Air Quality Fund 182,500 Library Service Fund 5,100,000 Fire-Joint Powers Authority 1,673,000 Police-Community Relations 10,000 Refuse Fund 6,336,000 Private Project Self-Sufficiency 16,600 Use of Reserves 22,505,389 Total City Revenues 204,414,lU7 SECTION 3. That the Preliminary Budget for fiscal year 1992/93, Exhibit B, providing the detail for appropriations and estimated revenue, is hereby approved. as amended by Exhibit C. SECTION 4. That the City Administrator may transfer funds from one object to another within the same department, fund, office or agency without increasing approved total appropriations contained in the budget. SECTION 5. That the attached Table of Organization, Exhibit A, is incorporated herein and hereby adopted. The City Administrator, subject to compliance with Charter section 403, may revise the table of organization as long as the authorized personal service appropriations are not exceeded. SECTION 6. That the City Council, by affirmative action of a majority of the Council, may authorize all appropriation transfers not described in Sections 4 and 5 herein by minute action. F�QQ SECTION 7. Acquisition of new capital items shall be limited to the specific items included in the approved budget. Acquisition of capital items to replace existing capital equipment shall not exceed the total appropriation for the Equiment Replacement Fund. Changes to the procurement of specific items may be authorized by the City Administrator as long as the total appropriations for any department, fund or agency are not exceeded. SECTION 8. That it is necessary to continue the levy of a 5% Utility Tax on Cable T.V. services in order to avoid additional budget reductions in Police and Fire Departments, and further reductions in other city department budgets. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of June, 1992. 4L") - Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attor y 3 GlLlSL REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I ED D P VED: lty Aami3onistarator eputy C A 1 istrator J r.1 Q Q EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 ELECTED --- COUNCILMEMBERS 7 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL EXHIBIT A ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 --- 638 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 1 NREP 601 ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR 1 NREP 519 DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRATOR 1 MEO 481 PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER 1 MEA 443 VIDEO TECHNICIAN SUPERVISOR 1 NREP 427 PRODUCTIVITY TECH. II 1 NREP 427 TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR 1 MEA 416 INFORMATION SPECIALIST II 3 NREP 416 MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT 1 NREP 414 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 369 INFORMATION SPECIALIST I 1 NREP 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 1 MEA 349 OFFICE SPECIALIST, TYPING 1 MEA 294 OFFICE ASSISTANT I, NON-TYPING 1 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL -TT- EXHIBIT A CITY TREASURER PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 ELECTED/NREP 519 CITY TREASURER 1 MEO 510 DEPUTY CITY TREASURER, SENIOR 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 374 CUSTOMER SERVICE REP. SPVSR. 2 MEA 354 CUSTOMER SERVICE REP. SR. 2 MEA 334 CUSTOMER SERVICE REP. 6 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL - 6399 EXHIBIT A CITY ATTORNEY PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 ELECTED/NREP 587 CITY ATTORNEY 1 MEO 537 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY III 7 MEO 455 LAW OFFICE MANAGER 1 MEO 416 INVESTIGATOR 1 MEA 400 PARALEGAL 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 373 SECRETARY, LEGAL SR. 1 MEA 354 SECRETARY, LEGAL 2 MEA 317 OFFICE ASSISTANT II, TYPING 1 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL -f-6- EXHIBIT A CITY CLERK PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 ELECTED/NREP 507 CITY CLERK 1 MEA 396 DEPUTY CITY CLERK II 2 MEA 347 DEPUTY CITY CLERK I 2 MEA 334 SECRETARY TYPIST 2 MEA 327 OFFICE ASSISTANT II, TYPING 1 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL 77-5 6399 EXHIBIT A ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP 573 DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRATOR / CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1 MEO 540 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 1 NREP 519 PERSONNEL DIRECTOR 1 MEO 519 DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE SERVICES 1 MEO 519 INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGER 1 MEO 513 RISK MANAGER 1 MEO 510 ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1 NREP 492 PERSONNEL MANAGER 1 MEO 490 SUPVR. SYSTEMS & PROGRAMMING 1 MEO 482 PURCHASING/CENTRAL SERVICES MGR. 1 NREP 477 PERSONNEL ANALYST, PRINCIPAL 1 MEO 475 ACCOUNTANT, PRINCIPAL 2 NREP 469 BUDGET ANALYST SR. 2 MEO 462 SYSTEMS ANALYST, SR. 1 MEA 460 MICRO & DATABASE COORDINATOR 1 MEA 448 REAL ESTATE AGENT 1 MEA 443 PROGRAMMER SR. 2 MEA 443 COMPUTER OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR 1 NREP 438 PERSONNEL SERVICES COORD. 1 MEA 434 ACCOUNTANT 5 MEA 431 LIABILITY SAFETY ANALYST 1 MEA 431 CLAIMS EXAMINER SR. 2.5 MEA 423 MICRO TECH. AIDE 1 MEA 422 BUYER 1 MEA 400 WORD PROCESSING COORDINATOR 1 MEA 390 PRINTING/FORMS COORDINATOR 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 374 ACCOUNTING TECH. IV 2 MEA 369 REAL PROPERTY ASST. 1 MEA 369 BUYER ASSISTANT 1 MEA 369 WORD PROCESSING SYSTEM ASSISTANT 1 MEA 357 COMPUTER OPERATOR 1 MEA 354 ACCOUNTING TECH. III 2 NREP 353 PERSONNEL ASSISTANT 3 MEA 353 PRINTING SERVICES TECH. 1 MEA 349 OFFICE SPECIALIST, TYPING 2 MEA 343 STOCK CLERK 1 MEA 334 ACCOUNTING TECH. II 3 MEA 334 SECRETARY TYPIST 1 MEA 349 MEDICAL CLAIMS PROCESSOR 1 MEA 333 PURCHASING TECH. 1 MEA 316 OFFICE ASSISTANT II, NON TYPING 1 MEA 314 INVENTORY CLERK 1 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL 6399 EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP -37T- DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP. — 1 MEO 543 PLANNING DIRECTOR 1 MEO 524 DIRECTOR HOUSING/BUILDING 0.5 MEO 509 BLDG OFFCL. ASST/STRUCTURAL ENGR 1 MEO 487 PLANNER SENIOR 3 MEO 481 PLAN CHECK BUILDING SR. 2 MEO 466 INSPECTOR STRUCTURAL, CHIEF 4 MEO 461 PLANNER ASSOCIATE 5 MEA 443 PLAN CHECKER SR. 2 KEA 443 INSPECTOR STRUCTURAL SR. 7.5 MEA 433 ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER 1 MEA 433 PLANNER ASSISTANT 6 MEA 422 CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 4 MEA 400 PERMIT & ZONING TECHNICIAN 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 2 MEA 380 PLANNER DRAFTING 1 MEA 376 PLAN CHECK COORDINATOR 1 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 2 MEA 343 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AIDE 4 MEA 333 WORD PROCESSOR SR. 1 MEA 327 OFFICE ASSTISTANT II-TYPING 1 TOTAL PERMANENT PERSONNEL -sr- EXHIBIT A ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP 373-- DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRATOR DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1 MEO 524 DIRECTOR HOUSING/BUILDING 0.5 MEO 502 PROJECT MANAGER 3 MEO 478 CIVIL ENGINEER ASSOCIATE 1 MEA 448 HOUSING REHABILITATION MANAGER * 1 MEO 444 PROJECT MANAGER, ASSISTANT 2 MEA 444 DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST 2.5 MEA 444 DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST * 1.5 MEA 423 HOUSING REHAB. SPECIALIST 1 MEA 422 CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER * 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 1 MEA 339 OFFICE SPECIALIST-TYPING 1 MEA 334 SECRETARY TYPIST * 0.5 TOTAL PERMANENT PERSONNEL Z� * Assigned to Community Development Department 6399 EXHIBIT A FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 -= FIRE CHIEF 1 MEO 540 FIRE CHIEF, DIVISION 2 MEO 519 FIRE BATTALION CHIEF 4 FA 456 FIRE MARSHALL DEPUTY 6 FA 456 FIRE CAPTAIN, PARAMEDIC 3 MEO 469 FIRE PROTECTION ANALYST 1 FA 434 FIRE CAPTAIN 27 FA 434 SUPERVISING FIRE CONTROLLER 1 MEO 455 DEPARTMENT ANALYST, SR. 1 MEO 452 FIREMED COORDINATOR 1 FA 422 FIRE ENGINEER, PARAMEDIC 3 MEA 443 CREWLEADER MECHANICAL MAINT. 1 FA 410 FIRE PROTECTION SPECIALIST 6 FA 410 FIRE PARAMEDIC 27 FA 400 FIRE ENGINEER 30 MEA 408 MECHANIC HEAVY DUTY 1 MEA 406 EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR 1 MEA 406 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AIDE * 1 MEA 404 FIRE EDUCATION SPECIALIST 2 FA 375 FIREFIGHTER 36 MEA 396 MECHANIC SR. 1 FA 359 FIRE CONTROLLER (4 LEADWORKERS) 12 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 375 STOREKEEPER 1 MEA 369 AUDIO VISUAL/MEDIA SPCLST. 1 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 2 MEA 358 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER 1 MEA 357 FIRE DATA COORDINATOR/RMS 1 MEA 349 OFFICE SPECIALIST-TYPING 1 MEA 344 COMMUNICATIONS TECH. ASST. * 0.75 MEA 334 ACCOUNTING TECH. II 3.5 MEA 333 WORD PROCESSOR SR. 1 MEA 327 OFFICE ASSISTANT II-TYPING 2.5 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL * Budgeted in Non-Departmental 6399 EXHIBIT A POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP -3-9'r POLICE CHIEF --1 PMA 549 POLICE CAPTAIN 4 MEO 518 CRIMINALIST CHIEF 1 PMA 517 POLICE LIEUTENANT 11 MEA 510 INFORMATION SYSTEM MGR. PS 1 MEO 484 CRIMINALIST SUPERVISOR 1 MEA 476 RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR 1 POA 472 POLICE SERGEANT (2 MOTORCYCLE) 29 MEA 469 CRIMINALIST SR. 2 MEA 460 CAD SPECIALIST 2 MEA 459 HELICOPTER TECH. 1 MEO 455 DEPARTMENT ANALYST SR. 1 POA 445 GENERAL SERVICE OFFICER 1 MEA 443 CREWLEADER MECHANICAL MAINT. 1 POA 437/425 POLICE OFFICER SR/REG (19 MTRS) 184 MEA 429 CRIMINALIST 1 MEA 421 IDENTIFICATION TECHNICIAN 2.5 MEA 416 INFORMATION SPECIALIST II 1 POA 414 COMMUNICATION SUPERVISOR 6 POA 411 DETENTION OFFICER SR. 5 MEA 411 COMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIAN 2 MEA 408 MECHANIC HELICOPTER 1 MEA 406 POLICE PHOTOGRAPHER 1 POA 403 DETENTION OFFICER NURSE 6 MEA 400 WORD PROCESSING COORDINATOR 1 MEA 396 MECHANIC SR. 3 POA 395 DETENTION OFFICER 6 MEA 390 SERVICE OFFICER/ALARM 1 MEA 390 SERVICE OFFICER/FIELD 8 MEA 390 PROPERTY OFFICER SR. 1 POA 387 COMMUNICATIONS OPERATOR 16 MEA 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 380 PLANNER, DRAFTING 0.5 MEA 375 PROPERTY OFFICER 1 MEA 375 MECHANIC 1 MEA 374 EDUCATION SPECIALIST 2 MEA 366 SHIFT SUPERVISOR 3 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 4 MEA 356 CIVILIAN CHECK INVESTIGATOR 2 MEA 356 COURT LIAISON TECHNICIAN 1 MEA 354 ACCOUNTING TECH. III 2 MEA 353 SERVICE OFFICER/LAB 1 MEA 350 POLICE SPECIALIST(4 INVESTGTVE) 14 MEA 344 COMMUNICATIONS TECH. ASSISTANT 1 MEA 343 PARKING CONTROL OFFICER 7 MEA 333 WORD PROCESSOR SR. 4 MEA 339 POLICE CLERK SR. 10 MEA 328 CUSTODIAN 3 MEA 319 WORD PROCESSOR 3 MEA 317 POLICE RECORDS TECH. I 10 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL 6399 EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY SERVICES PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP 573 DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SERVICES 1 MEO 535 BEACH SERVICES MANAGER 1 MEO 503 SUPT. REC. & PARK DEVELOPMENT 1 MEO 503 SUPT. REC. & HUMAN SERVICES 1 MEO 503 MARINE SAFETY CAPTAIN 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR, BEACH OPERATIONS 1 MEO 478 ARTS/CULTURAL AFFAIRS MANAGER 1 MEO 468 RECREATION SUPERVISOR, SR. 2 MSO 465 MARINE SAFETY LIEUTENANT 2 MEO 464 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR 0.25 REA 443 INSPECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS SR. 0.5 MEA 438 SUPVSR. PKING/CAMPING FACILITY 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER, BEACH MAINTENANCE 2 MEA 422 EQUIPMENT MAINT. SPECIALIST 1 MSO 418 MARINE SAFETY OFFICER 7 MEA 416 PARK NATURALIST 1 MEA 406 CULTURAL AFFAIRS SUPERVISOR 1 MEA 401 CONSTRUCTION & MAINT. WORKER 1 MEA 401 RECREATION LEADER SR. 5 MEA 401 HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATOR 2 MEA 398 LEADWORKER, PARKING FACILITY 2 MEA 391 PARKING METER REPAIR TECH. 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 380 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR 1 MEA 375 METER REPAIR WORKER 1 MEA 375 MECHANIC 1 MEA 369 MAINTENANCE SERVICE WORKER 1 MEA 368 COMMUNITY CENTER LEADER 1 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 3 MEA 358 MAINTENANCE WORKER SR. * 3 MEA 354 ACCOUNTING TECH. III 1 MEA 343 PARKING/CAMPING ATTENDANT 1 MEA 343 MAINTENANCE WORKER 1 MEA 338 OFFICE SPECIALIST, NON TYPING 1.5 MEA 333 WORD PROCESSOR SR. 1 MEA 328 CUSTODIAN 2 MEA 327 OFFICE ASSISTANT II, TYPING 1.75 MEA 264 OUTREACH ASSISTANT 7 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL 6+.06 * To become Custodian upon separation of encumbent. 6399 EXHIBIT A LIBRARY PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP 544 DIRECTOR, LIBRARY 1 MEO 485 LIBRARY SERVICES MANAGER 2 MEO 422 LIBRARIAN SR. 2 MEA 399 COMPUTER OPERATOR COORDINATOR 1 MEA 390 LIBRARIAN 5.5 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 369 LIBRARY ASSISTANT 5 MEA 369 AUDIO VISUAL COORDINATOR 1 MEA 366 COMPUTER OPERATOR ASSISTANT 1 MEA 358 FACILITY MAINTENANCE WORKER 1 MEA 353 LIBRARY CLERK, PRINCIPAL 3 MEA 334 LIBRARY CLERK, SENIOR 11.75 MEA 328 CUSTODIAN 1 MEA 327 OFFICE ASSISTANT II, TYPING 1 MEA 314 LIBRARY CLERK 1 MEA 296 LIBRARY CLERK, SPECIAL 0.5 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL EXHIBIT A PUBLIC WORKS PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP 591 DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS 1 MEO 558 CITY ENGINEER 1 MEO 544 WATER OPERATIONS MANAGER 1 MEO 525 MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS MANAGER 1 MEO 519 TRAFFIC ENGINEER 1 MEO 513 WATER OPERATIONS MANAGER ASST. 1 MEO 503 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER 1 MEO 503 CIVIL ENGINEER PRINCIPLE 2 MEO 503 SUPT. PARKS, TREES & LANDSCAPE 1 MEO 492 TRAFFIC ENGINEER ASSOCIATE 2 MEO 488 CIVIL ENGINEER ASSOCIATE 2 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR SEWER/STREET MAINT. 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR STREET TREE MAINT. 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR MECHANICAL MAINT. 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR PARKS 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR WATER DISTRIBUTION 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR WATER PRODUCTION 1 MEO 464 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR 0.5 MEO 464 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 1 MEA 470 GIS TECHNICIAN 1 MEA 459 CIVIL ENGINEER ASSISTANT 3 MEO 455 DEPARTMENT ANALYST SR. 2 MEA 454 PLAN CHECKER PUBLIC WORKS SR. 1 MEA CAD TECHNICIAN 1 MEA 443 CREWLEADER, PESTICIDE ADVISOR 1 MEA 443 CREWLEADER, TRAFFIC 1 MEA 443 ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR SR. 1 MEA 443 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 9 MEA 443 SURVEY PARTY CHIEF 2 MEA 443 TRAFFIC TECHNICIAN 3 MEA 443 INSPECTOR PUBLIC WORKS SR. 4.5 MEA 443 CREWLEADER ELECTRICAL MAINT. 2 MEA 443 CREWLEADER MECHANICAL MAINT. 1 MEA 443 CREWLEADER PAINTING 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER STREET LANDSCAPE 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER PARK MAINT. 2 MEA 438 CREWLEADER STREET TREES 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER STREET MAINT. 2 MEA 438 CREWLEADER WATER DISTRIBUTION 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER METER OPERATION 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER SEWER MAINT. 1 MEA 438 WATER QUALITY COORDINATOR 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER WATER PRODUCTION 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER IRRIGATION 1 MEA 434 BUILDING MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN 1 MEA 431 CROSS CONN. CONTROL SPEC. II 1 MEA 424 LEADWORKER MECHANIC HEAVY DUTY 1 MEA 424 LEADWORKER WATER SYSTEMS 2 MEA 424 EQUIPMENT SUPPORT COORDINATOR 1 MEA 424 VEHICLE BODY SHOP COORDINATOR 1 MEA 422 LEADWORKER BUILDING MAINT. 1 MEA 422 INSPECTOR WATER SERVICES, SR. 2 MEA 412 LEADWORKER STREETS 4 MEA 412 LEADWORKER WATER CONSTRUCTION 3 MEA 412 LEADWORKER MECHANICAL (PARKS) 1 MEA 412 LEADWORKER WATER SVCS REPAIR 1 MEA 412 LEADWORKER PAINTER 1 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 6399 EXHIBIT A PUBLIC WORKS PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION (CONTINUED) . BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 MEA 411 ELECTRICIAN TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT 1 MEA 411 ELECTRICIAN 6 MEA 411 BUILDING MAINTENANCE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 408 MECHANIC HEAVY DUTY 3 MEA 408 WATER SYSTEMS TECH. III 3 MEA 406 PLUMBER 1 MEA 406 SURVEYOR 4 MEA 400 PHOTOMITOGRAPHER 1 MEA 396 LEADWORKER TRAFFIC STRIPING 1 MEA 396 CARPENTER 4 MEA 396 BLOCK MASONRY WORKER 1 MEA 396 PAINTER 5 MEA 396 MECHANIC SR. 8 MEA 396 VEHICLE BODY REPAIR WORKER 2 MEA 396 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR HEAVY DUTY 4 MEA 396 LEADWORKER LANDSCAPING 11 MEA 396 LEADWORKER SEWER MAINT. 2 MEA 396 LEADWORKER WATER 1 MEA 391 LEADWORKER HYDRANT & VALVES 1 MEA 391 LEADWORKER WATER METER REPAIR 1 MEA 390 ENGINEERING AIDE 1 MEA 390 CONCRETE FINISHER 2 MEA 390 WATER QUALITY TECH. II 1 MEA 390 WAREHOUSEKEEPER 3 MEA 388 WATER SYSTEMS TECH. II 4 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 380 ELECTRICAL REPAIR WORKER 1 MEA 380 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR 25 MEA 380 TREE TRIMMER AERIAL 2 MEA 380 CHEMICAL APPLICATOR 4 MEA 380 MECHANIC SEWER PUMPS SR. 1 MEA 376 WATER QUALITY TECHNICIAN 0.5 MEA 375 SERVICE WORKER (WATER) 8 MEA 375 MECHANIC 1 MEA 375 STOREKEEPER 1 MEA 375 MECHANIC SEWER PUMPS 1 MEA 375 METER REPAIR WORKER 4 MEA 369 BUILDING MAINT. SERVICE WORKER 1 MEA 369 TIRE SERVICE WORKER 1 MEA 369 AUTOMATED IRRIGATION WORKER 4 MEA 369 MAINTENANCE SERVICE WORKER 23 MEA 369 METER READER SR. 1 MEA 369 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE WORKER 3 MEA 363 CARPENTER TRAINEE 1 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 4 MEA 358 FACILITY MAINTENANCE WORKER 1 MEA 358 MAINTENANCE WORKER SR. 2 MEA 354 SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE * (Wtr) 1 MEA 353 CUSTOMER SERVICE FIELD REP. 1 MEA 353 METER READER 2 MEA 349 OFFICE SPECIALIST - TYPING 2 MEA 343 MAINTENANCE WORKER 5 MEA 343 STOCK CLERK 2 MEA 328 CUSTODIAN 1 MEA 327 OFFICE ASSISTANT II - TYPING 4.5 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL *Position to be eliminated upon separation of incumbent. 6399 EXHIBIT C ADDENDUM TO PRELIMINARY BUDGET FY 1992/93 (GENERAL FUND) DEPARTMENT ITEM COST FUNDING Non-Departmental Departmental Capital $644,033 General Fund Outlay Reduce Capital for <50,000> Narcotic Police; (to be paid Forfeiture by Narcotic Fund) * Fund * See Police Memo Police Department Communications Tech. 47,710 New Revenue Transfer Operating costs 50,000 General Fund from Narcotic Fund Fire Department Oil well consolidation 22,720 General Fund Program Printing costs for 18,500 General Fund Hazardous Materials Control promotion Temporary salaries for 1,500 General Fund hazardous materials control promotion. City Clerk Overtime Salaries for 2,000 General Fund Council Meeting Coverage Increased Election Cost 2,018 General Fund Community Services Delete Tram Insurance <10,000> Community Addition of 1 Code 46,800 New Revenue Development Enforcement Officer Revenue Amendments Code Enforcement Officer <47,000> Radio Maintenance <48,000> NET GENERAL FUND REVISIONS $680,281 -1- 6399 ADDENDUM TO PRELIMINARY BUDGET FY 1992/93 (OTHER FUNDS) DEPARTMENT ITEM COST FUND Administrative Departmental Capital <$644,033> CIP Fund Services Outlay Administration Temporary Salaries 68,536 Cable TV Increase Appropriation 5,000 Cable TV for "Grass Valley Switcher" component Community Services General Plan Update 77,000 Park Acq. & Contribution Development Main Promenade carry- 32,834 Parking over funds Fund Newland Barn carry-over 20,000 Park Acq. funds Development City Clerk Community Bulletin Board Computer 3,000 CIP fund Public Works Net revisions to Gas Tax 539,039 Gas Tax Project List Net revisions to <233,000> Transportation Transportation Fund Fund Project List Police Department Mobile Task Force 276,000 Narcotic Forfeiture R.N.S.P. Police Officer 78,000 Narcotic Forfeiture Fire Department Carry-Over of Unused 36,625 CIP Fund 91/92 funds for Butler Building Methane mitigation; 76,171 Grant Fund funds provided by a state grant. NET REVISIONS OTHER FUNDS $335,172 TOTAL NET REVISIONS / ALL FUNDS $1,015,453 -2- 6399 Res. No. 6399 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of J,,,,P 19_q2 _, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Green, Kelly NOES: Councilmembers: Silva, MacAllister ABSENT: Councilmembers: None Lity Ller ana ex-o ,c, er of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California y/ � REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date September 8, 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administ Subject: STATUS REPORT - IMPACT OF STATE BUDGET ON CITY R ENUES _ �pPROVLD BY CITY GOU- 9' p is Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [XI New Policy or E ce oy y Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alter acla�x��ifs�� STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The State of California, in adopting a budget for 1992/93, has decided to take revenue from cities in order to balance the State General Fund Budget. The State is taking an estimated $2.25 million from the City's General Fund and $750,000 from the Redevelopment Agency. Although the State has been considering various levels of revenue "take-aways" since mid June, the City budget was adopted June 15, 1992 without knowing the exact amount of revenue that the State would be taking from the City. It is now necessary to amend the City budget to reflect the reduction in revenues due to the State budget actions. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1 . Reduce 1992/93 General Fund revenues by $2,253,700. 2. Reduce 1992/93 General Fund appropriations by $1 ,689,033 and utilize $564,667 of the current year budget surplus to maintain a balanced General Fund budget as detailed in Attachment 2. 3. Extend the City's current hiring freeze to July 1 , 1993. 4. Instruct the City Administrator to prepare amendments to the Redevelopment Budget for consideration by the Agency on September 21 , 1992 ANALYSIS: The State of California has completed its budget review process and, (over 60 days late) has finally agreed on how much money to take from cities to balance the State budget. The primary impact on City of Huntington Beach revenues is a property tax revenue reduction of $2,081 ,700 and cigarette tax revenue loss of $172,000 for a total revenue loss of $2,253,700. (Based on information available 9/l/92) . These revenue loss estimates have been provided by the League of California Cities. Confirmation of the exact revenue loss is expected in the next week after a review of the specific enacting legislation. In addition to the General Fund losses, the State will take an estimated $750,000 from Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency revenues for 1992/93. Specific details regarding the redevelopment revenue loss have not been provided as of September 1 , 1992. f PIO 5/85 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Status Report - Impact of State Budget on City Revenues The City's budget was adopted in June of this year with General Fund revenues estimated to be $718,821 greater than approved expenditures (see Attachment 2) . Obviously with the State taking $2,253,700 of our General Fund revenue, the budget surplus will disappear and become a shortfall unless action is taken by the City to reduce expenditures or increase revenues. Staff has identified General Fund expenditure reductions (see Attachment 2) that could be taken to maintain a balanced budget. The proposed reductions will not reduce service to the community. These reductions are possible due to: 1 ) the inclusion of a budget surplus of $718,821 in the adopted General Fund budget for 1992/93; 2) reductions in benefit costs subsequent to budget adoption; 3) the cautious approach taken by the City in adopting a 1992/93 budget; and 4) the extensive budget planning and review during the last 12 months by the City Council , Budget Task Force, community groups and staff. FUNDING SOURCE: As indicated. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1 . Schedule addition sessions for budget review. 2. Identify other expense or revenue changes to balance the budget. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Summary of State budget impact on the City of Huntington Beach. 2. Potential budget reductions -2- WPADSERT:1081 9/l/92 ATTACHMENT 1 STATE BUDGET - LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE REDUCTION 1992/93 STATE-WIDE HUNTINGTON BEACH IMPACT ESTIMATED IMPACT Count $525 Million Not Applicable Property Tax Cut City $200 Million $2,081 ,700/Yr. Property Tax Cut 9% City Property Tax Revenue Cut (Permanent) Eliminate City Revenue $30 Million $172,000/Yr. from Cigarette Tax Redevelopment $200 Million $750,000 (One Year) Tax Revenue Cut 15% Redevelopment Revenue Cut 1992/93 Only Special District $375 Million Not Applicable Property Tax Cut "35/10" Formula $ 1 .3 Billion $3,003,700 (State-Wide) (H.B.) Note: Based on information available on 9/l/92 WPADSERT:1085 ATTACHMENT 2 PROPOSED GENERAL FUND BUDGET AMENDMENT Recommended 1992/93 Adopted Revised 1992/93 General Fund Proposed General Fund Budget Amendments Budget Revenues $ 98,490,200 - $ 2,253,700 $ 96,236,500 Expenses 97,771 ,379 - 1 ,689,033 96,082,346 Surplus $ 718.821 $ 154,154 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Amount REVENUES: Property Tax Reduce property tax revenue estimate - $ 1 ,081 ,700 by 9% due to State Budget adoption. Cigarette Tax Eliminate cigarette tax revenue due - 172,000 State Budget adoption. TOTAL - $ 2.253,700 EXPENDITURES• PERS Rate Reduction $ 445,000 It is assumed that the State Budget adoption includes approval of the new PERS rates which will reduce the amount we pay by this amount (estimated) . Worker' s Compensation Rate Reduction 600,000 The 1992/93 General Fund expenses for Worker' s Compensation will be reduced by this amount (estimated) due to a rate reduction calculated subsequent to budget adoption. Capital Outlay Expenses 644,033 Fund these expenses in the Capital Improvement (CIP) Fund instead of the General Fund. These expenses were funded in the CIP Fund the last three years. TOTAL $ .6 WPADSERT:1085 HQ2�v-S -- REQUEST FOR REDEVELOP N_T AGENCY ACTION APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date August 17, 1992 city cL-K-k( Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrat Prepared by: Barbara Kaiser, Director Economic Developments° Michael Adams, Director of Community Developmen Subject: APPROPRIATION OF 20% SET-A-SIDE FUNDS FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES Consistent with Council Policy? K Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception l Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Consulting services are nearing completion on a required amendment to the Housing Element. Though the amount of the contract does not exceed $10, 000, City Council action is needed to appropriate housing funds for payment of services rendered. RECOMMENDATION• Authorize the allocation and expenditure of $10, 000 in City' s 20% Set-A-Side funds for consultant services . ANALYSIS• A 1991 Amendment to the Housing Element Law (Chapter 1451) required all housing elements to include an analysis of the potential conversion of all multi-familty rental housing developments with Federal, State or local subsidies, from low income use to market rate housing. This completed analysis was due by July 1, 1992 and the amendment is currently being finalized for approval by the Planning Commission in the near future. Proposals were solicited from three recognized planning firms : Envicom $30, 000 Cotton/Beland/Associates $10, 000 Urban Futures, Inc. No Bid PI O/1/85 Page Two RCA - APPROPRIATION FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES Cotton/Beland/Associates (CBA) was selected, not only because of the bid, but also due to the firm' s prior experience with "at risk" units analyses . CBA has completed over eight amendments for California Cities, and can claim the very first amendment to be approved by the State (for the City of Santee) . Because the majority of the units that were analyzed in the amendment (approximately 400) are from redevelopment sponsored multi-family housing revenue bond projects, 20% set-a-side funds should be utilized for the payment of consulting services by CBA. FFUNDING SOURCE• Unbudgeted 20% Set-A-Side Housing Funds ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Direct staff to encumber funds for consultant services from currently budgeted contractual services account . ATTACHMENTS: 1. FIS No. MTU:MA:`B: j r (4064d) / ti it CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator FROM: ROBERT J. FRANZ, Deputy City Administrator SUBJECT: REQUESTED FUNDING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH HOUSING ELEMENT, FIS 93-09 DATE: AUGUST 5, 1992 As required by Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared for the proposed appropriation of $10,000 for consulting assistance in allowing the City to properly comply with State requirements of the recently amended Housing Element Law. Upon approval of the City Council , the balance o the unaudited, undesignated Low Income Housing Fund would be reduced to $ 00. y ROBERT FRAN Deputy City Administrat r RJF:skd WPADSERT:1044 RESOLUTION NO. 6399 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992/93 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does resolve as follows: SECTION 1. That the budget for the City of Huntington Beach for fiscal year 1992/93 as hereinafter set forth, is hereby adopted: Appropriations and Department Transfers Out ---------- ------------------ City Council 262,163 Non-Departmental 11,445,808 Administration 1,012,235 City-.Treasurer . . 773,689 City Attorney 1,409,639 City Clerk 483,884 Administrative Services 4,299,501 Library Services 3,221,947 Community Development 3,818,780 Fire 15,807,643 Police 31,992,129 Community Services 6,844,305 Public Works 16,387,956 Sub-Total General Fund Appropriations 97 ,759,679 Other Funds w :Parking Structures 5 900 000 ', ;'Capital Projects Fund 3,966,850 _-_Art- Center Fund 700-,000 HB_Public Financing Authority 3-.774,000 -_ Civic Improvement Corporation 2:937,000 HB-,Public Facilities Corporation - - 391,000 Debt Service Fund-Park Bond 468,000 - . Reservoir Hill Fund 170,000 Parking Authority 248,500 Fire-Med Fund 2,469,139 Emerald Cove Housing Fund 778,590 Meadowlark Golf Fund 202,537 Water Fund 21,992,328 Grants Fund 377,816 Housing & Community Development 1,459,000 Insurance Fund 10,591,232 Equipment Replacement Fund 3,011,935 Mello Roos Fund 200,000 Pier Reconstruction Fund 300,000 Redevelopment-Tax Increment Fund 4,221,500 Redevelopment-Projects Fund 17,214, 165 Gas Tax Fund 7,785,100 . Cable TV Fund 489,473 Park Acquisition & Development 660,826 Sewer Fund 1,130,136 Drainage Fund 1,914,925 Fourth of July Fund 111,700 Narcotic Forfeiture Fund 1,393,057 Transportation Fund 3,812,169 Air Quality Fund 180,035 Library Service Fund 19,287 Fire-Joint Powers Authority 1,498,199 Police-Community Relations 100,000 Refuse Collection Fund 6,185,929 Sub-Total Other Fund Appropriations , Total City Appropriations 204,414,107 I - SECTION 7. The estimated revenue and transfers for Fiscal Year 1992/93,` which when combined with reserves is sufficient to fund the above appropriations, are a follows: Revenue and Transfers in ------------ General Fund 98,490,200 Parking Structures 700,000 Capital Projects Fund 1,854,418 Donations 20,000 HB Public Financing Authority 3,096,000 Civic Improvement Corporation 2,935,000 HB Public Facilities Corporation 437,000 Debt Service Fund-Park Bond 520,000 Reservoir Hill Fund 157,000 Parking Authority -16,000 Parking Authority 84,500 Fire-Med Fund 2,040,000 Emerald Cove Housing Fund 824,000 Meadowlark Golf Fund 440,000 Water Fund 17,402,500 Grants Fund 142,000 Housing & Community Development 1,400,000 Hud' Subsidy Fund 354,000 Self-Insurance Fund 8,650,000 Equipment Replacement Fund _ 3,266,000 "Mello Roos Fund 16,000 Mello Roos Fund 280,000 Pier Reconstruction Fund 955,000 Redevelopment-Tax Increment Fund 4,813,000 Redevelopment-Projects Fund 8,565,000 Redevelopment-Low Income Housing_ : _ , ._ _ ._ 1,350,000 Home Program Fund 881,000 Gas Tax Fund 4,815,000 Cable TV Fund _.._ ._431,000 Park Acquisition & Development - 541,000 Sewer Fund 295,000 Drainage Fund 325,000 Cultural Art Center Fund 200,000 Narcotic Forfeiture Fund 1,075,000 Transportation Fund 1,220,000 Air Quality Fund 182,500 Library Service Fund 5,100,000 Fire-Joint Powers Authority 1,673,000 Police-Community Relations 10,000 Refuse Fund 6,336,000 Private Project Self-Sufficiency 16,600 Use of Reserves 22,505,389 Total City Revenues 204,414,17 SECTION 3. That the Preliminary Budget for fiscal year 1992/93, Exhibit B, providing the detail for appropriations and estimated revenue, is hereby approved. as amended by Exhibit C. SECTION 4. That the City Administrator may transfer funds from one object to another within the same department, fund, office or agency without increasing approved total appropriations contained in the budget. SECTION 5. That the attached Table of Organization, Exhibit A, is incorporated herein and hereby adopted. The City Administrator, subject to compliance with Charter section 403, may revise the table of organization as long as the authorized personal service appropriations are not exceeded. SECTION 6. That the City Council, by affirmative action of a majority of the Council, may authorize all appropriation transfers not described in Sections 4 and 5 herein by minute action. ' SECTION 7. Acquisition of new capital items shall be limited to the specific items included in the approved budget. Acquisition of capital items to replace existing capital equipment shall not exceed the total appropriation for the Equiment Replacement Fund. Changes to the procurement of specific items may be authorized by the City Administrator as long as the total appropriations for any department, fund or agency are not exceeded. SECTION 8. That it is necessary to continue the levy of a S$ Utility Tax on Cable T.V. services in order to avoid additional budget reductions in Police and Fire Departments,-and further reductions in other city department budgets. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at .a regular meeting thereof held on-the 15th day of June, 1992. -- - 000 00, Mayor ATTEST: _ APPROVED AS TO-FORM: o City C er City Attap Y c3 REVIEWED AND.APPROVED: _ I ED D P VED: ity A inistrator eputy C A` iftistrator J EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 ELECTED --- COUNCILMEMBERS 7 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 - - TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL T EXHIBIT A ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 -= 638 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 1 NREP 601 ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR 1 " . NREP.- 519 DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRATOR 1 MEO`' 481 PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER _ 1 MEA 443 VIDEO TECHNICIAN SUPERVISOR 1 NREP 427 PRODUCTIVITY TECH. II 1 NREP 427 TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR 1 MEA 416 INFORMATION SPECIALIST II 3 NREP, 416- MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT - 1 --NREP 414 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 .., MEA 369 INFORMATION SPECIALIST I 1 NREP _ 360- ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 1 MEA `" - 3W OFFICE SPECIALIST, TYPING 1 MEA r 294- OFFICE ASSISTANT I, NON-TYPING 1 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL -IT EXHIBIT A CITY TREASURER PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 ELECTED/NREP 519 CITY TREASURER 1 MEO 510 DEPUTY CITY TREASURER, SENIOR 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 374 CUSTOMER SERVICE REP. SPVSR. 2 MEA 354 CUSTOMER SERVICE REP. SR. 2 MEA 334 CUSTOMER SERVICE REP. 6 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL 6399 EXHIBIT A CITY ATTORNEY PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET- ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 ELECTED/NREP 587 CITY ATTORNEY 1 MEO 537 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY III 7 MEO 455 LAW OFFICE MANAGER 1 MEO 416 INVESTIGATOR -' 1 MEA 400 - PARALEGAL-- 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 373 SECRETARY, LEGAL SR. 1 KEA 354 SECRETARY, LEGAL 2 MEA 317 OFFICE ASSISTANT II, TYPING 1 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL -T6- EXHIBIT A CITY CLERK PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET . ORGANIZATION RANGE - CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 ELECTED/NREP 507 CITY CLERK 1 MEA 396 DEPUTY CITY CLERK II 2 MEA 347 DEPUTY. CITY CLERK. I 2 MEA 334='," 'SECRETARY--TYPIST 2 - MEA 327 --- OFFICE ASSISTANT II, . TYPING, 1 -_ TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL T3 6399 EXHIBIT A ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP 573 DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRATOR / CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - 1 MEO 540 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 1 NREP 519 PERSONNEL DIRECTOR 1 MEO 519 DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE SERVICES 1 MEO 519 INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGER 1 MEO 513 RISK MANAGER 1 MEO 510 ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1 NREP 492.. PERSONNEL MANAGER 1 MEO 490 SUPVR. SYSTEMS & PROGRAMMING 1 MEO 482 PURCHASING/CENTRAL SERVICES MGR. 1 NREP 477 PERSONNEL ANALYST, PRINCIPAL 1 MEO 475 ACCOUNTANT, PRINCIPAL 2 NREP 469 BUDGET ANALYST SR. 2 MEO 462 SYSTEMS ANALYST, SR. 1 MEA 460 MICRO & DATABASE COORDINATOR 1 MEA 448 REAL ESTATE AGENT 1 MEA 443 PROGRAMMER SR. 2 MEA 443 COMPUTER OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR 1 NREP 438 PERSONNEL SERVICES COORD. 1 MEA 434 ACCOUNTANT 5 MEA 431 LIABILITY SAFETY ANALYST 1 MEA 431 CLAIMS EXAMINER SR, 2.5 MEA 423 MICRO TECH. AIDE 1 MEA 422 BUYER 1 MEA 400 WORD PROCESSING COORDINATOR.- 1 MEA 390_,: PRINTING/FORMS COORDINATOR 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 374 ACCOUNTING TECH. IV 2 REA 369 REAL PROPERTY ASST. 1 MEA 369 BUYER ASSISTANT 1 MEA 369 WORD PROCESSING SYSTEM ASSISTANT 1 MEA 357 COMPUTER OPERATOR 1 MEA 354 ACCOUNTING TECH. III 2 NREP 353 PERSONNEL ASSISTANT 3 MEA 353 PRINTING SERVICES TECH. 1 MEA 349 OFFICE SPECIALIST, TYPING 2 MEA 343 STOCK CLERK 1 MEA 334 ACCOUNTING TECH. II 3 MEA 334 SECRETARY TYPIST 1 MEP. 349 MEDICAL CLAIMS PROCESSOR 1 MEA 333 PURCHASING TECH. 1 MEA 316 OFFICE ASSISTANT II , NON TYPING 1 MEA 314 INVENTORY CLERK 1 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNELS 6399 EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP �T3- DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP7. +1 MEO 543 PLANNING DIRECTOR 1 ` MEO 524 DIRECTOR HOUSING/BUILDING 0.5 MEO 509 BLDG OFFCL. ASST/STRUCTURAL ENGR 1 MEO 487 PLANNER SENIOR 3 MEO 481 PLAN CHECK BUILDING SR. 2 MEO 466 INSPECTOR STRUCTURAL, CHIEF 4 MEO 461 PLANNER ASSOCIATE 5 MEA 443 PLAN CHECKER SR. 2 MEA 443 INSPECTOR STRUCTURAL SR. 7.5 MEA 433 ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER 1 MEA 433 PLANNER ASSISTANT 6 MEA 422 CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 4 MEA 400 PERMIT & ZONING TECHNICIAN 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 2 KEA 380 PLANNER DRAFTING 1 MEA 376 PLAN CHECK COORDINATOR . 1 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 2 MEA 343 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AIDE 4 MEA _ 333-__,WORD. PROCESSOR SR. 1 MEA -327-- - OFFICE ASSTISTANT II-TYPING 1 TOTAL PERMANENT PERSONNEL _3 — EXHIBIT A - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -_ PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION t ,: BUDGETS ORGANIZATION RANGE. CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93-- NREP DEPUTYCITY ADMINISTRATOR DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1 MEO 524 DIRECTOR HOUSING/BUILDING 0.5 MEO 502 PROJECT MANAGER 3 MEO 478 CIVIL ENGINEER ASSOCIATE 1 MEA 448 HOUSING REHABILITATION MANAGER * 1 MEO 444 PROJECT MANAGER, ASSISTANT 2 MEA 444 DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST 2.5 MEA 444 DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST * 1.5 KEA 423 HOUSING REHAB. SPECIALIST 1 KEA 422 CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER * 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 1 MEA 339 OFFICE SPECIALIST-TYPING 1 MEA 334 SECRETARY TYPIST * 0.5 TOTAL PER-►4ANENT PERSONNEL * Assigned to Community Development Department 6399 EXHIBIT A FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 - NREP FIRE CHIEF MEO 540 FIRE CHIEF, DIVISION 2 MEO 519 FIRE BATTALION CHIEF 4 FA 456 FIRE MARSHALL DEPUTY 6 FA 456 FIRE CAPTAIN, PARAMEDIC 3 MEO 469 FIRE PROTECTION ANALYST 1 FA 434 FIRE CAPTAIN 27 FA 434 SUPERVISING FIRE CONTROLLER 1 MEO 455 DEPARTMENT ANALYST, SR. 1 MEO 452 FIREMED COORDINATOR 1 FA 422 FIRE ENGINEER, PARAMEDIC 3 MEA 443 CREWLEADER MECHANICAL MAINT. 1 FA 410 FIRE PROTECTION SPECIALIST 6 FA 410 FIRE PARAMEDIC 27 FA 400 FIRE ENGINEER 30 MEA 408 MECHANIC HEAVY DUTY 1 MEA 406 EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR 1 MEA 406 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AIDE * 1 MEA 404 FIRE EDUCATION SPECIALIST 2 FA 375 FIREFIGHTER 36 MEA 396 MECHANIC SR. 1 FA 359- FIRE CONTROLLER (4 LEADWORKERS) 12 NREP 382` ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA - 375 STOREKEEPER 1 MEA 369 AUDIO VISUAL/MEDIA SPCLST. 1 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 2 MEA 358 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER 1 MEA 357 FIRE DATA COORDINATOR/RMS 1 MEA 349 OFFICE SPECIALIST-TYPING 1 MEA_. 344 COMMUNICATIONS TECH. ASST. * 0.75 MEA 334 ACCOUNTING TECH. II 3.5 MEA 333 WORD PROCESSOR SR. 1 MEA-- - 327-- OFFICE ASSISTANT II-TYPING 2.- 5 - TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL I$ T5 * Budgeted in Non-Departmental 6399 EXHIBIT A POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP —3W POLICE CHIEF T— PMA 549 POLICE CAPTAIN 4 MEO 518 CRIMINALIST CHIEF 1 PMA 517 POLICE LIEUTENANT 11 MEA 510- -_ INFORMATION SYSTEM MGR. PS 1 MEO 484 CRIMINALIST SUPERVISOR 1 KEA 476 RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR 1 POA 472 - POLICE SERGEANT (2 MOTORCYCLE) 29 MEA 469 CRIMINALIST SR. 2 REA 460 CAD SPECIALIST 2 MEA 459 HELICOPTER TECH. 1 MEO 455 DEPARTMENT ANALYST SR. 1 POA 445 GENERAL SERVICE OFFICER 1 KEA 443 CREWLEADER MECHANICAL MAINT. 1 POA 437/425 POLICE OFFICER SR/REG (19 MTRS) 184 MEA 429 CRIMINALIST 1 MEA 421 - IDENTIFICATION TECHNICIAN 2.5 KEA 416 INFORMATION SPECIALIST II 1 POA 414 COMMUNICATION SUPERVISOR 6 POA 411 DETENTION OFFICER SR. 5 MEA 411 COMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIAN 2 MEA 408- MECHANIC HELICOPTER 1 MEA 406 POLICE PHOTOGRAPHER 1 POA 403 DETENTION OFFICER ?dURSE 6 MEA 400 WORD PROCESSING COORDINATOR 1 MEA 396 MECHANIC SR. 3 POA 395 DETENTION OFFICER 6 MEA 390 SERVICE OFFICER/ALARM 1 KEA 390 SERVICE OFFICER/FIELD 8 MEA 390 PROPERTY OFFICER SR. 1 POA 387 COMMUNICATIONS OPERATOR 16 MEA 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 380 PLANNER, DRAFTING 0.5 MEA 375 PROPERTY OFFICER 1 MEA 375 MECHANIC 1 MEA 374 EDUCATION SPECIALIST 2 MEA 366 SHIFT SUPERVISOR 3 KEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 4 KEA 356 CIVILIAN CHECK INVESTIGATOR 2 MEA 356 COURT LIAISON TECHNICIAN 1 MEA 354 ACCOUNTING TECH. III 2 MEA 353 SERVICE OFFICER/LA-B 1 MEA 350 POLICE SPECIALIST(4 INVESTGTVE) 14 MEA 344 COMMUNICATIONS TECH. ASSISTANT 1 MEA 343 PARKING CONTROL OFFICER 7 MEA 333 WORD PROCESSOR SR. 4 MEA 339 POLICE CLERK SR. 10 MEA 328 CUSTODIAN 3 MEA 319 WORD PROCESSOR 3 MEA 317 POLICE RECORDS TECH. I 10 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL -37� 6399 EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY SERVICES PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP 573 DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SERVICES 1 MEO 535 BEACH SERVICES MANAGER 1 MEO 503 SUPT. REC. & PARK DEVELOPMENT 1 MEO 503 SUPT. REC. & HUMAN SERVICES 1 MEO 503 MARINE SAFETY CAPTAIN 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR, BEACH OPERATIONS 1 MEO 478 ARTS/CULTURAL AFFAIRS MANAGER 1 MEO 468 RECREATION SUPERVISOR, SR. 2 MSO 465 MARINE SAFETY LIEUTENANT 2 MEO 464 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR 0.25 MEA 443 INSPECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS SR. 0.5 MEA 438 SUPVSR. PKING/CAMPING FACILITY 1 Mm 438 -- CREWLEADER, BEACH MAINTENANCE 2 MEA 422 EQUIPMENT MAINT. SPECIALIST 1 MSO 418 MARINE SAFETY OFFICER 7 MEA 416 PARK NATURALIST 1 MEA 406 CULTURAL AFFAIRS SUPERVISOR 1 MEA 401 CONSTRUCTION & MAINT. WORKER 1 MEA 401 RECREATION LEADER SR. 5 MEA 401 HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATOR 2 MEA 398 LEADWORKER, PARKING FACILITY 2 MEA 391 PARKING METER REPAIR TECH. 1 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 380 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR 1 MEA 375 METER REPAIR WORKER 1 MEA 375 MECHANIC 1 MEA 369 MAINTENANCE SERVICE WORKER 1 MEA 368 COMMUNITY CENTER LEADER 1 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 3 MEA 358 MAINTENANCE WORKER SR. * 3 MEA 354 ACCOUNTING TECH. III 1 MEA 343 PARKING/CAMPING ATTENDANT 1 MEA 343 MAINTENANCE WORKER 1 MEA 338 OFFICE SPECIALIST, NON TYPING 1.5 MEA 333 WORD PROCESSOR SR. 1 MEA 328 CUSTODIAN 2 MEA 327 OFFICE ASSISTANT II, TYPING 1.75 MEA 264 OUTREACH ASSISTANT 7 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL -64.0 * To become Custodian upon separation of encumbent. 6399 EXHIBIT A .LIBRARY PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP 544 DIRECTOR, LIBRARY 1 MEO 485 LIBRARY SERVICES MANAGER 2 MEO 422 LIBRARIAN_ SR. 2 _ MEA 399-___ COMPUTER-OPERATOR-COORDINATOR 1 MEA 390 LIBRARIAN- 5.5 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 369 LIBRARY-ASSISTANT 5 MEA 369 AUDIO VISUAL COORDINATOR 1 MEA 366 COMPUTER OPERATOR ASSISTANT 1 MEA 358 FACILITY MAINTENANCE WORKER - 1 MEA 353 LIBRARY-CLERK, PRINCIPAL_ 3 MEA 334 LIBRARY- CLERK, SENIOR 11.75 MEA 328 CUSTODIAN- * 1 MEA 327 OFFICE ASSISTANT II, -.TYPING- 1 MEA 314 LIBRARY CLERK 1 MEA 296 LIBRARY CLERK, SPECIAL 0.5 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL TF755 � c�nn EXHIBIT A PUBLIC WORKS PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 NREP 591 DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS 1 MEO 558 CITY ENGINEER - 1 MEO 544 WATER OPERATIONS MANAGER 1 MEO 525 - MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS MANAGER 1 MEO 519 TRAFFIC ENGINEER 1 MEO 513 WATER OPERATIONS MANAGER ASST. 1 MEO 503 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER 1 MEO 503 CIVIL ENGINEER PRINCIPLE 2 MEO 503 SUPT. PARKS, TREES & LANDSCAPE 1 MEO 492 TRAFFIC ENGINEER ASSOCIATE 2 MEO 488 CIVIL ENGINEER ASSOCIATE 2 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR SEWER/STREET MAINT. 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR STREET TREE MAINT. 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR MECHANICAL MAINT. 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR PARKS 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR WATER DISTRIBUTION 1 MEO 481 SUPERVISOR WATER PRODUCTION 1 MEO 464 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR 0.5 MEO _ 464 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 1 MEA 470 GIS TECHNICIAN 1 MEA 459 CIVIL ENGINEER ASSISTANT 3 MEO 455 DEPARTMENT ANALYST SR. 2 MEA 454 PLAN CHECKER PUBLIC WORKS SR. 1 MEA CAD TECHNICIAN 1 MEA 443 CREWLEADER, PESTICIDE ADVISOR 1 MEA 443 CREWLEADER, TRAFFIC 1 MEA 443 ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR SR. 1 MEA 443 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 9 MEA 443 SURVEY PARTY CHIEF 2 MEA 443 TRAFFIC TECHNICIAN 3 MEA 443 INSPECTOR PUBLIC WORKS SR. 4.5 MEA 443 CREWLEADER ELECTRICAL MAINT. 2 MEA 443 CREWLEADER MECHANICAL MAINT. 1 MEA 443 CREWLEADER PAINTING 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER STREET LA.N'DSCAPE 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER PARK MAINT. 2 MEA 438 CREWLEADER STREET TREES 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER STREET MAINT. 2 MEA 438 CREWLEADER WATER DISTRIBUTION 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER METER OPERATION 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER SEWER MAINT. 1 MEA 438 WATER QUALITY COORDINATOR 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER WATER PRODUCTION 1 MEA 438 CREWLEADER IRRIGATION 1 MEA 434 BUILDING MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN 1 MEA 431 CROSS CONN. CONTROL SPEC. II 1 MEA 424 LEADWORKER MECH_ INIIC HEAVY DUTY 1 MEA 424 LEADWORKER WATER SYSTEMS 2 MEA 424 EQUIPMENT SUPPORT COORDINATOR 1 MEA 424 VEHICLE BODY SHOP COORDINATOR 1 MEA 422 LEADWORKER BUILDING KAINT. 1 MEA 422 INSPECTOR WATER SERVICES, SR. 2 MEA 412 LEADWORKER STREETS 4 MEA 412 LEADWORKER WATER CONSTRUCTION 3 MEA 412 LEADWORKER MECHANICAL (PARKS) 1 MEA 412 LEADWORKER WATER SVCS REPAIR 1 MEA 412 LEADWORKER PAINTER 1 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 6399 EXHIBIT A PUBLIC WORKS PERSONNEL BY CLASSIFICATION (CONTINUED) BUDGET ORGANIZATION RANGE CLASSIFICATION FY 92/93 MEA 411 ELECTRICIAN TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT 1 MEA 411 ELECTRICIAN 6 MEA 411 BUILDING MAINTENANCE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 408 MECHANIC HEAVY DUTY 3 MEA 408 WATER SYSTEMS TECH. III 3 MEA 406 PLUMBER 1 MEA 406 SURVEYOR 4 KEA 400 PHOTOMITOGRAPHER 1 MEA 396 LEADWORKER TRAFFIC STRIPING 1 FLEA 396 CARPENTER 4 MEA 396 BLACK MASONRY WORKER 1 MEA 396 PAINTER 5 MEA 396 MECHANIC SR. 8 MEA 396 VEHICLE BODY REPAIR WORKER 2 MEA 396 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR HEAVY DUTY 4 MEA 396 LEADWORKER LANDSCAPING 11 MEA 396 LEADWORKER SEWER MAINT. 2 MEA 396 LEADWORKER WATER 1 MEA 391 LEADWORKER HYDRANT & VALVES- 1 MEA 391 LEADWORKER WATER METER REPAIR 1 MEA 390 ENGINEERING AIDE 1 MEA 390 CONCRETE FINISHER 2 MEA 390 WATER QUALITY TECH. II 1 MEA 390 WAREHOUSEKEEPER 3 _ MEA 388 WATER SYSTEMS TECH. IL _ 4 NREP 382 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 MEA 380 ELECTRICAL REPAIR WORKER 1 MEA 380- 1 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR 25 MEA 380 TREE TRIMMER AERIAL -- 2 MEA 380 CHEMICAL APPLICATOR 4 MEA 380 MECHANIC SEWER PUMPS SR. 1 MEA 376 WATER QUALITY TECHNICIAN- 0.5 MEA 375 SERVICE WORKER (WATER) 8 MEA 375 MECHANIC - 1 MEA 375 STOREKEEPER 1 MEA 375 MECHANIC SEWER PUMPS 1 MEA 375 METER REPAIR WORKER 4 MEA 369 BUILDING MAINT. SERVICE WORKER 1 MEA 369 TIRE SERVICE WORKER 1 MEA 369 AUTOMATED IRRIGATION WORKER 4 MEA 369 MAINTENANCE SERVICE WORKER 23 MEA 369 METER READER SR. 1 MEA 369 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE WORKER 3 MEA 363 - CARPENTER TRAINEE 1 MEA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY 4 MEA 358 FACILITY MAINTEN INCE WORKER 1 MEA 358 MAINTENANCE WORKER SR. 2 MEA 354 SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE * (Wtr) 1 MEA 353 CUSTOMER SERVICE FIELD REP. 1 MEA 353 METER READER 2 MEA 349 OFFICE SPECIALIST - TYPING 2 MEA 343 MAINTENANCE WORKER 5 MEA 343 STOCK CLERK 2 MEA 328 CUSTODIAN 1 MEA 327 OFFICE ASSISTANT II - TYPING 4.5 TOTAL AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL 268 *Position to be eliminated upon separation of incumbent. 6399 EXHIBIT C ADDENDUM TO PRELIMINARY BUDGET FY 1992/93 (GENERAL FUND) DEPARTMENT ITEM COST FUNDING Non-Departmental Departmental Capital _ $644,033 General Fund - outlay - - - - Reduce Capital for <50,000> Narcotic Police; (to be paid Forfeiture by Narcotic Fund) * Fund * See Police Memo Police Department Communications Tech. - 47,710 New Revenue Transfer Operating costs 50,000 General Fund from--Narcotic--Fund-- - Fire Department Oil well consolidation 22,720 General Fund Program Printing costs, for 18,500 General Fund Hazardous Materials Control promotion Temporary. salaries for 1,500 General Fund hazardous materials control promotion. City Clerk Overtime Salaries for 2,000 General Fund Council Meeting Coverage Increased Election Cost 2,018 General Fund Community Services Delete Tram Insurance <10,000> Community Addition of 1 Code 46,800 New Revenue Development Enforcement Officer Revenue Amendments Code Enforcement Officer <47,000> Radio Maintenance <48,000> NET GENERAL FUND REVISIONS $680,281 -1- 6399 ADDENDUM TO PRELIMINARY BUDGET FY 1992/03 (OTHER FUNDS) z DEPARTMENT ITEM COST FUND Administrative Departmental Capital <$644,033> CIP Fund Services Outlay - - ----- - - Administration Temporary Salaries 68,536 Cable TV Increase Appropriation 5,000 Cable TV for "Grass Valley Switcher" component Community Services General Plan Update 77,000 Park Acq.- & Contribution Development Main Promenade carry- 32,834 Parking over funds. __ = Fund Newland Barn carry-over -- 20,000 Park Acq. funds Development City' Clerk Community Bulletin Board Computer 3,000 CIP fund Public Works Net revisions: to Gas Tax 539,039 ::_: Gas Tax Project List Net revisions to <233,000> Transportation Transportation Fund Fund Project List Police Department Mobile Task Force 276,000 Narcotic Forfeiture R.N.S.P. Police Officer 78,000 Narcotic Forfeiture Fire Department Carry-Over of Unused 36,625 CIP Fund 91/92 funds for Butler Building Methane mitigation; 76,171 Grant Fund funds provided by a state grant. NET REVISIONS OTHER FUNDS $335,172 TOTAL NET REVISIONS / ALL FUNDS $1,015,453 -2- 6399 Res. No. 6399 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH } I , CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and. ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote- of at least a majority of all the members - of said City Council at a_regular - meeting thereof held on the 15th day. of ,7unP 19_q2_, by the following vote: ^ `AYES: Councilmembers: Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Wiichell, Green, Kelly NOES: Councilmembers: Silva, MacAllister ABSENT: Councilmembers: None City Clerk and ex-o ici er of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ` REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION AND PARKING AUTHORITY ACTION Date June 15, 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City A minigtrat APPROVE B I Subject: Public Hearing - 1992/93 Budge ,S &/ 6 / Consistent with Council Policy? [/] Yes [ Ne of c L zp & 3 9g � 391 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: 4dd 40-C, --Vt6396V ,.I- A-e� -0-e3��9 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVE: Conclude the continued budget public hearing and adopt the proposed budget for Fiscal Year' 1992/93 as required by the City Charter. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1 . Conduct the continued public hearing on the budget and fee increases for 1992/93, and 2. Acting in your capacity as the Parking Authority, waive the requirement for the City to pay $170,000 to Authority in 1992/93, and 3. Introduce Ordinance 31GI increasing the City' s basic Business License fee from $65 to $75 per year, and 4. Adopt Resolution 63 0 implementing Phase I of the MSI System by increasing various City fees, and 5. Adopt Resolution l03917 approving the City budget for 1992/93 including the "Addendum" to the proposed budget. BUDGET OVERVIEW Consistent with the City Charter, a public hearing is conducted each year to receive public input on the proposed budget. The proposed budget has been available for review since the first week of May. A study session with the City Council was held on May 11 , 1992 and public hearing was held June 1 , 1992. The budget message outlines the basic changes recommended in the Fiscal Year 1992/93 budget which include the following General Fund expenditure reductions and revenue increases: General Fund Amount Expenditure Reductions $ 3,254,491 Revenue Increases 2,341 ,000 Total $ 5.595.491 Plo 5/85 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION ' AND PARKING AUTHORITY ACTION Public Hearing - 1992/93 Budget The above described expenditure reductions and revenue increases are needed in view of the projected $4,184,689 General Fund shortfall that would occur if no expenditure reductions or revenue increases were implemented in 1992/93. The recommended actions would result in a surplus of $1 ,410,802. A surplus is recommended for the following reasons: A. The uncertainty of the impact of the state budget actions on the City' s General Fund, and B. the uncertainty of the positive impact of economic recovery on City General Fund Revenues, and C. the uncertainty of realizing all of the recommended new revenues due to the timing of the approval/implementation process, and D. the need to consider funding priorities such as unfunded capital improvements and deferred infrastructure repair/replacement. In addition, as indicated in the budget message, the staff will be recommending an amendment to the proposed budget to fund capital outlay expenditures of $644,033 in the General Fund Budget as opposed to the practice of the last three years to fund such expenses from one-time revenue in the Capital Improvement Fund Budget. If this amendment and the Addendum (which includes several minor General Fund budget changes) are approved by the City Council , the projected surplus would be reduced to $730,521 . PHASE I - MSI SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION A public hearing was also conducted on for June 1 , 1992 on the proposed Phase I implementation of the Management Services Institute (MSI) Cost Control System. Attachment 3 is separate report and complete review of the Phase I recommended fee increases which total $1 ,800,660 in annual revenue. This amount is the recommended Phase I implementation of the potential new fee revenue that MSI identified which totals $30,571 ,544. Although staff will rQ be recommending the full implementation (i .e. , $30 million of new revenue) of the MSI System, attached is a summary of the recommended multi-year phased approach identifying those areas that we do anticipate reviewing in 1992/93 and fiscal years thereafter. The staff recommendations for Phase I of the implementation have been reviewed on numerous occasions with community and business groups since last October through formal and informal sessions. Included in the attachments is a listing of the meetings and groups that have received presentations from MSI and City staff on the proposals. In order to move forward with Phase I it is necessary to conclude the a public hearing and then approve the resolution implementing the Phase I increases. AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSED BUDGET The attached list of amendments (Addendum) to the proposed budget includes correction of errors discovered in the document since it was delivered to the City Council , changes necessary to reflect updated information that was not available at the time the budget was prepared, and other changes reflecting new proposals for consideration by the City Council . -2- WPADSERT:913 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION AND PARKING AUTHORITY ACTION Public Hearing - 1992/93 Budget Included in the addendum is funding for a Police Department Mobile Task Force. The Police Chief has prepared a summary of this issue that was reviewed by the City Council on May 18, 1992 and June 8, 1992. ANNUAL REVIEW - NEW FEES/TAX REVENUES Following adoption in 1991 of the extension of the City' s Utility Tax to cable TV services, the City Council adopted a resolution requiring an annual review of new fees/taxes adopted in 1991/92 to determine whether a continuation of those new fees/taxes are necessary for fiscal years following 1991/92. As indicated in the budget message, the 5% utility tax on cable TV services is necessary in 1992/93 in order to avoid further expenditure reductions in addition to the recommended $3,254,491 of General Fund reductions. This new utility tax was utilized in 1991/92 to avoid expenditure reductions in the Police and Fire Departments. For 1992/93, if the estimated $900,000 cable TV utility tax revenue were not available, these two safety departments and other city departments would be requested to further reduce their budgets. The estimated $900,000 cable TV utility tax revenue in 1992/93 covers only a portion of the combined $2,266,356 additional revenue needed to continue the Police and Fire Department operation at levels comparable to 1991/92. You will note in the departmental summary of expenditure reductions that the Police and Fire Departments are the only major City departments whose budgets are recommended for less than a 4.5% reduction. The reduction in the Fire Department amounts to 0.9% and the reduction in the Police Department amounts to 1 .1% of the continuation budget levels. In addition, in regards to the need for new fee/tax revenues, it should be noted that even with the recommended expenditure reductions of $3,254,491 it is necessary to find new revenue sources in order to eliminate the $4,184,689 projected budget shortfall that would result if there were no expenditure decreases or revenue increases. Therefore, staff believes it is appropriate to continue not only the utility tax on cable TV services, but also to recommend new fees to reduce the fiscal year 1992/93 estimated budget shortfall . A finding has been included in the 1992/93 budget resolution which documents the necessity for a continuation of the utility tax on cable TV services. ALTERNATIVES: As determined by City Council ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Schedule/Timetable: Budget Adoption 2. List of Presentations of MSI Study 3. Report and Resolution - Implementation of Phase I of the MSI Cost Control System 4. Ordinance - Business License Fee Increase 5. Memorandum Waiver of Payment to Parking Authority 6. Budget adoption Resolution including Addendum -3- WPADSERT:913 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE/TIMETABLE: 1992/93 BUDGET Public Hearing Date: June 1 , 1992 Public Hearing Topics: City Administrator's Budget Presentation Refuse Fee Increase Including Adoption of Resolution MSI Fee Increases Capital Outlay Funding - Budget Amendment Addendum - Proposed Changes to Recommended Budget Mobile Task Force - Police Department Annual Review - New Fees/Taxes Budget Study Session Date: June 8, 1992 Agenda Items: Response to City Council ' s Questions (4/27, 5/11 & 6/1) Addendum - Proposed Changes to Recommended Budget Mobile Task Force - Police Department Budget Adoption Date: June 15, 1992 Agenda Items: Resolution - Adopting Budget including Addendum Ordinance - Business License Tax Increase Parking Authority Lease Payment Waiver Resolution - Adopting MSI Fee Increases WPADSERT:912 LIST OF PRESENTATIONS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM GROUP DATE COMMENTS City Council 9/30/91 Joint Study session with Budget Review Task Force 1/27/92 Study Session on Overall Budget Issues 2/27/92 PUBLIC HEARING - Budget Issues 3/16/92 Adoption of Policy Guidelines for '92/93 Budget 4/27/92 Study Session - Infrastructure/MSI Huntington Beach/Fountain 10/08/91 Local Government Committee Valley Board of Realtors 2/20/92 Local Government Committee 5/21/92 Local Government Committee Community Services Commission, 10/09/91 Joint Meeting of Boards/Commissions Allied Arts, Human Resources, Feb./92 Budget Report Sent (Info. Only) Historic Resources and Youth Boards Planning Commission 10/08/91 Regular Meeting Agenda Item Amigos Bolsa Chica and 10/24/91 Joint Meeting - City Council Chambers Huntington Beach Tomorrow Chamber of Commerce 10/17/91 Government Relations Committee 10/24/91 Board of Directors 2/12/92 Government Relations Committee 5/14/92 Government Relations Committee Budget Review Task Force 9/30/91 Joint Session with City Council Nov./91 Meetings with Individual Departments City Employees Aug./91 Meetings held w/Small Groups of all City Employees Feb./92 Meetings held w/Small Groups of all City Employees WPPERST:197 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION G Date June 1 , 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administr or Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrator Subject: Public Hearing — 1992/93 Budget Consistent with Council Policy? N] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVE: Conduct a public hearing on the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 1992/93 as required by the City Charter. In conjunction with the public hearing on the City Budget, public hearings have been scheduled for consideration of an increase in the refuse fee charged to residents and various fees to implement Phase I of the Management Services Institute (MSI) System. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1 . Conduct a public hearing to receive input from the public on the proposed budget for 1992/93, refuse fee increase, and fee increases based on the MSI Study. 2. Continue the public hearing on the budget and fee increases open to the City Council Meeting of June 15, 1992 when final adoption of the budget will be scheduled, and 3. Close the public hearing on the refuse fee increase and adopt Resolution _ 6389 approving a refuse fee increase from $10.89 per month to $12 per month effective July 1 , 1992, and 4. Instruct staff to prepare a resolution for City Council consideration on June 15, 1992 adopting the 1992/93 Annual Budget. BUDGET OVERVIEW Consistent with the City Charter, a public hearing is conducted each year to receive public input on the proposed budget. The proposed budget has been available for review since the first week of May and a study session with the City Council was held on May 11 , 1992. The budget message outlines the basic changes recommended in the Fiscal Year 1992/93 budget which include the following General Fund expenditure reductions and revenue increases: General Fund Amount Expenditure Reductions $ 3,254,491 Revenue Increases 2,341 ,000 Total $ 5.595.491 Plo 5/85 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Public Hearing - 1992/93 Budget r The above described expenditure reductions and revenue increases are needed in view of the projected $4,184,689 General Fund shortfall that would occur if no expenditure reductions or revenue increases were implemented in 1992/93. The recommended actions would result in a surplus of $1 ,410,802. A surplus is recommended for the following reasons: A. The uncertainty of the impact of the state budget actions on the City' s General Fund, and B. the uncertainty of the positive impact of economic recovery on City General Fund Revenues, and C. the uncertainty of realizing all of the recommended new revenues due to the timing of the approval/implementation process, and D. the need to consider funding priorities such as unfunded capital improvements and deferred infrastructure repair/replacement. In addition, as indicated in the budget message, the staff will be recommending an amendment to the proposed budget to fund capital outlay expenditures of $644,033 in the General Fund Budget as opposed to the practice of the last three years to fund such expenses from one-time revenue in the Capital Improvement Fund Budget. If this amendment is approved by the City Council , the projected surplus would be reduced to $746,799. REFUSE FEE INCREASE Also scheduled for public hearing for June 1 , 1992 is the consideration of a refuse fee increase of from $10.89 per month to $12 per month. This increase is necessary not only to pass on to residents the increases per the contract with Rainbow Disposal , but also to recover a portion of the City costs for billing, collection, supervision and overhead. A separate report is attached (Attachment 1 ) summarizing the need for a refuse fee increase. A separate presentation will also be made on this subject as part of the Public Hearing. Adoption of the refuse fee increase is recommended after conducting the public hearing on June 1 , 1992. Adoption at a later date than June 1 is not recommended due to the lead time needed to modify billing rates and implement the new billing procudure of prorating bills for service before and after the proposed July 1 effective date of increases. Since the City' s contract with Rainbow Disposal requires payments to them at higher rates beginning July 1 , a delay in adoption of a residential refuse rate increase would mean an additional General Fund subsidy of refuse collection costs or adoption of a rate higher than recommended. PHASE I - MSI SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION A public hearing has also been scheduled for June 1 , 1992 on the proposed Phase I implementation of the Management Services Institute (MSI) Cost Control System. -2- WPADSERT:913 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Public Hearing - 1992/93 Budget Attachment 2 is separate report and complete review of the Phase I recommended fee increases which total $1 ,800,660 in annual revenue. This amount is the recommended Phase I implementation of the total potential new fee revenue that MSI identified which totals $30,571 ,544. Although staff will not be recommending the full implementation (i .e. , $30 million of new revenue) of the MSI System, attached is a summary of the recommended multi-year phased approach identifying those areas that we do anticipate reviewing in 1992/93 and fiscal years thereafter. The staff recommendations for Phase I of the implementation have been reviewed on numerous occasions with community and business groups since last October through formal and informal sessions. Included in the attachments is a listing of the meetings and groups that have received presentations from MSI and City staff on the proposals. In order to move forward with Phase I it is necessary to conduct a public hearing and then approve the resolution implementing the Phase I increases. A separate staff presentation will be made on the MSI Phase I increases as part of the Public Hearing. AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSED BUDGET The City Council has scheduled a budget study session for June 8, 1992. As indicated in the attached Tentative Schedule, there will be a list of amendments (Addendum) to the proposed budget prepared for City Council review. This listing includes correction of any errors discovered in the document since it was delivered to the City Council , changes necessary to reflect updated information that was not available at the time the budget was prepared, and other changes reflecting new proposals for consideration by the City Council . Included in the addendum will be a review of funding alternatives for a Police Department Mobile Task Force. The Police Chief has prepared a summary of this issue that was reviewed by the City Council on May 18, 1992. A further review will be scheduled as part of your June 8, 1992 study session. ANNUAL REVIEW - NEW FEES/TAX REVENUES Following adoption in 1991 of the extension of the City' s Utility Tax to cable TV services, the City Council adopted a resolution requiring an annual review of new fees/taxes adopted in 1991/92 to determine whether a continuation of those new fees/taxes are necessary for fiscal years following 1991/92. As indicated in the budget message, the 5% utility tax on cable TV services is necessary in 1992/93 in order to avoid further expenditure reductions in addition to the recommended $3,254,491 of General Fund reductions. This new utility tax was utilized in 1991/92 to avoid expenditure reductions in the Police and Fire Departments. For 1992/93, if the estimated $900,000 cable TV utility tax revenue were not available, these two safety departments and other city departments would be requested to further reduce their budgets. The estimated $900,000 cable TV utility tax revenue in 1992/93 covers only a portion of the combined $2,266,356 additional revenue needed to continue the Police and Fire Department operation at levels comparable to 1991/92. You will note in the departmental summary of expenditure reductions that the Police and Fire Departments are the only major City departments whose budgets are recommended for less than a 4.5% reduction. The reduction in the Fire Department amounts to 0.9% and the reduction in the Police Department amounts to 1 .1% of the continuation budget levels. -3- WPADSERT:913 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Public Hearing - 1992/93 Budget In addition, in regards to the need for new fee/tax revenues, it should be noted that even with the recommended expenditure reductions of $3,254,491 it is necessary to find new revenue sources in order to eliminate the $4,184,689 projected budget shortfall that would result if there were no expenditure decreases or revenue increases. Therefore, staff believes it is appropriate to continue not only the utility tax on cable TV services, but also to recommend new fees to reduce the fiscal year 1992/93 estimated budget shortfall . If Council concurs with this analysis of the annual review of the need for new fees/tax revenues, a finding will be included in the 1992/93 budget resolution which documents the necessity for a continuation of the utility tax on cable TV services. ALTERNATIVES: As determined by City Council ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Schedule/Timetable: Budget Adoption 2. List of Presentations of MSI Study 3. Report - Refuse Fee Increase. 4. Report - Implementation of Phase I of the MSI Cost Control System 5. Copy of Resolution #6300 requiring annual review of taxes/fees -4- WPADSERT:913 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE/TIMETABLE: 1992/93 BUDGET Public Hearing Date: June 1 , 1992 Public Hearing Topics: City Administrator' s Budget Presentation Refuse Fee Increase Including Adoption of Resolution MSI Fee Increases Capital Outlay Funding - Budget Amendment Addendum - Proposed Changes to Recommended Budget Mobile Task Force - Police Department Annual Review - New Fees/Taxes Budget Study Session Date: June 8, 1992 Potential Agenda Items: Response to City Council ' s Questions (4/27, 5/11 & 6/1 ) Addendum - Proposed Changes to Recommended Budget Mobile Task Force - Police Department General Fund Reserve in Excess of 5% Budget Adoption Date: June 15, 1992 Agenda Items: Resolution - Adopting Budget including Addendum Ordinance - Business License Tax Increase Parking Authority Lease Payment Waiver Resolution - Adopting MSI Fee Increases WPADSERT:912 LIST OF PRESENTATIONS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM GROUP DATE COMMENTS City Council 9/30/91 Joint Study session with Budget Review Task Force 1/27/92 Study Session on Overall Budget Issues 2/27/92 PUBLIC HEARING - Budget Issues 3/16/92 Adoption of Policy Guidelines for '92/93 Budget 4/27/92 Study Session - Infrastructure/MSI Huntington Beach/Fountain 10/08/91 Local Government Committee Valley Board of Realtors 2/20/92 Local Government Committee 5/21/92 Local Government Committee Community Services Commission, 10/09/91 Joint Meeting of Boards/Commissions Allied Arts, Human Resources, Feb./92 Budget Report Sent (Info. Only) Historic Resources and Youth Boards Planning Commission 10/08/91 Regular Meeting Agenda Item Amigos Bolsa Chica and 10/24/91 Joint Meeting - City Council Chambers Huntington Beach Tomorrow Chamber of Commerce 10/17/91 Government Relations Committee 10/24/91 Board of Directors 2/12/92 Government Relations Committee 5/14/92 Government Relations Committee Budget Review Task Force 9/30/91 Joint Session with City Council Nov./91 Meetings with Individual Departments City Employees Aug./91 Meetings held w/Small Groups of all City Employees Feb./92 Meetings held w/Small Groups of all City Employees WPPERST:197 I REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTIO Date June 15, 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrato Subject: Adoption of Annual Appropriation Limit Required by A icle 13B of the California Constitution Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception &-) #639 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: (Ake-pwv STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Article 13B of the California Constitution (The Gann Appropriation Limit) requires the City annually adopt an appropriation limit of proceeds of taxes. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an appropriation limit of $228,476,112 for fiscal year 1992/93. ANALYSIS: In November 1979 the California voters approved Article 13B of the California Constitution which allows the City's spending of proceeds of taxes to grow only by factors from the base years of 1979/80. On June 5, 1990, Proposition 111 was passed which changed the way the limit is calculated. Below are certain definitions of terms. Proceeds of Taxes - Revenues from taxes, regulatory licenses, user charges and user fees to the extent that the revenue exceeds the cost, including the cost borne to collect the revenue. Appropriations Subject to Limit - Not all appropriations of the City are subject to the limit. Appropriations not included are: Appropriations of separate legal entities such as the Redevelopment Agency, Huntington Beach Financing Authority, Huntington Beach Public Facilities Corporation, Huntington Beach Civic Improvement Corporation and Parking Authority of the City of Huntington Beach. Debt service appropriations. Appropriations to comply with mandates of the court or Federal government. Appropriations of enterprise or internal service funds. Appropriations for qualified capital outlay expenditures. PIO 5/85 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Adoption of Annual Appropriations Limit Changes to the Limit - The City must change its limit in two ways: By a percentage equal to the change in county population or city population, whichever is greater. By a percentage equal to the change in per-capita personal income in California or a percentage equal to the change in the assessment roll for local non-residential construction, whichever is greater. Below is a calculation of the limit for fiscal year 1992/93. Adopted Appropriations Limit 1991/92 $ 222,476,112 Times Percent Increase in County Population 1 .02470% Times Percent increase for non-residential assessed 1 .00425% valuation Limit 1992/93 $ 228,940,150 Staff has estimated that the 1992/93 budget appropriations from proceeds of taxes will total $58,353,075 which is $170,587,087 below the limit. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Direct staff to present alternative limits. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution -2- WPADSERT:906 RESOLUTION NO. 6394 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992/93 WHEREAS, Article 13B of the Constitution of the State of California imposes upon state agencies and local government the obligation to limit each fiscal year's appropriations of the proceeds from taxes to the amount of such appropriations in fiscal year 1978/79, adjusted for changes as prescribed under the law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that in compliance with the provisions of Article 13B of the California Constitution and the formula set out therein, there is hereby established an appropriation limit of $228,940,190 for the City of Huntington Beach for fiscal year 1992/93. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said appropriation limit established herein may be changed by resolution of the City Council as deemed necessary. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting ther of held on the 6th day of July 1992. 00, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk s _ -z City Attorney la /skd WPADSERT:906 1 � � Res, No. 6394 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of July 19_U _, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Silva, Green, MacAllister, Kelly NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None City er an ' ex-officio Merk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California SUMMARY - MULTI YEAR PROGRAM TO IMPLEMENT MSI COST CONTROL SYSTEM Potential New Revenue (Annual) Phase I - By July 1, 1992 New and Increased Fees* $ 1,800,660 Charges to Enterprise Funds 381.000 $ 2,181,660 Phase II - During Fiscal Year 1992/93 632,000 Revenues for Future Consideration 1993/94 and Thereafter 27,757,884 Total Potential Revenue $ 30,571,544 *'Public Hearing On These Increases: June 1, 1992 MSI/REPORTS PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION OF MSI SYSTEM BY JULY 1 , 1992 ANNUAL NEW DEPARTMENT REVENUE Public Works $ 505,000 Library 23,240 Fire 351,000 Community Services 52,000 Police 330,000 City Clerk 5,850 Community Development 533,570 Sub-Total $ 1 ,800.660 Public Hearing: June 1 , 1992 PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION OF MSI SYSTEM BY JULY 1 , 1992 NEW GENERAL FUND CHARGES ANNUAL NEW TO ENTERPRISE FUNDS REVENUE Golf Course Fund $ 25,000 CATV Fund 85,000 Fire Med Fund 21,000 Refuse Collection Fund ($0.50/month rate increase) 250,000 Sub-Total ,$ 381,000 Phase I Total $ 2,181,660 No Public Hearing required on these items except refuse collecction fee portion which is covered separately PHASE I SUMMARY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM Department Recommended New and Increased Fees Current Present Full Cost Rcmnded Annual MSI. Page Fee Subsidy Fee Fee New No. No. Department/Fee Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Revenue PUBLIC WORKS: S-055 15 Public Improvement Inspection 218.27 208.67 426.94 425 135,000 S-110 8 HazMat Clean-Up 434.79 1 ,791 .17 2,225.96 2,225 25,000 S-173 15 Water Connection Inspection 0 153.42 153.42 150 76,700 S-054 14 Public Improvement Plan Check 250.00 860.99 1 ,110.99 1 ,110 74,900 S-051 14 Grading Plan Check Inspection 365.69 541 .26 906.95 900 52,300 S-043 16 Landscape Inspection 0 449.76 449.76 450 42,300 S-169 16 H/A Vacuum Damage Repair 240.00 686.34 926.34 925 34,700 S-172 16 Meter Rental Processing 25.00 118.22 143.22 140 20,100 S-188 25 Sign & Striping Service 665.00 290.35 955.35 950 11 ,600 S-084 16 Wide/Overweight Load Review 22.33 30.37 52.70 52 9,000 S-053 17 Final Tract Map C/T 456.00 272.12 728. 12 725 6,800 S-058 16 Street Construction Review 336.07 18.16 354.23 354 5,500 S-042 15 Landscape Plan Check 0 58.65 58.65 60 5,500 S-159 12 Showmobile Rental 257.14 558.43 815.57 800 2,000 S-041 15 Prelim. Landscape Plan Check 0 40.24 40.24 40 1 ,700 S-168 17 Hydrant Flow Test Witness 0 109.08 109.08 110 1 ,300 S-077 17 Obstruction Permit 30.00 21 .75 51 .75 50 400 S-160 17 Banner Hanging Service 74.99 31 .01 106.00 105 200 Total Public Works $ 505,000 SUMMARY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM Department Recommended New and Increased Fees PHASE I Current Present Full Cost Rcmnded Annual MSI. Page Fee Subsidy Fee Fee New No. No. Department/Fee Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Revenue LIBRARY: S-152 13 Late Materials .10 * 1 .75 .15 10,000 Children .25 * 1 .75 .50 100 Encyclopedia Maximum Fines 4.00 * 1 .75 5.00 1 ,000 Adult 2.00 * 1 .75 3.00 300 Children 7.50 * 1 .75 10.00 500 Encyclopedia 1 .00 * 1 .75 2.00 750 Replacement Cards Children S-153 13 Reserve Book 1 .00 12.92 14.95 1 .00 2,145 5-155 13 Typewriter Rental 1 .00 * * 1 .50 1 ,500 S-156 13 Compact Disks 1 .00 2.43 3.78 1 .25 3,000 48 Hours 1 .75 2.43 3.78 2.00 1 ,500 7 Days Computer Usage PC Leading Edge/Apple/IBM 3.00 * * 4.00 1 ,000 MacIntosh/386/2CX 4.00 * * 5.00 1 ,000 Slide Projector 4.00 * * 6.00 50 Overhead Projector 5.00 * * 10.00 100 Opaque Projector 6.00 * * 15.00 100 Screens 2.00 * * 5.00 50 PA System 0 0 0 10.00 120 Dissolve Unit 10.00 * * 15.00 25 Total Library 214 * See Text of MSI Study -2- WPADSERT:869 SUMMARY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM Department Recommended New and Increased Fees PHASE I Current Present Full Cost Rcmnded Annual MSI. Page Fee Subsidy Fee Fee New No. No. Department/Fee Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Revenue FIRE S-108 8 Fire False Alarm Response 100.00 439.42 539.42 * 35,000 S-109 9 Hazardous Materials Rev/Insp 219.91 192.85 412.76 * 85,000 S-111 9 Fire Incident Report Copies 9.00 4.38 13.38 13 400 S-115 10 Risk Management Program 0 1 ,045.55 1 ,045.55 1 ,000 21 ,000 S-119 10 Fire Alarm & Sprinkler Rev. --- * 116,000 S-120 10 Underground Tank/Install / Removal Inspection 164.31 164.31 100 10,800 S-128 10 Oil Well Inspection 49.97 159.64 209.61 * 50,000 S-129 10 Oil Well Vent Inspection 25.00 495.36 495.36 375 26,000 S-131 10 Abandoned Oil Well Inspection 30.00 1 ,065.76 1 ,090.76 100 3,800 S-132 11 Wastewater Permit Fees 0 67.95 97.95 65 3,000 Total Fire $ 351 ,000 COMMUNITY SERVICES S-137 12 Contract Recreation Fees 30.59 27.77 58.36 * 20,000 S-133 12 Adult Sports 256.88 62.48 319.36 10% incr. 30,000 S-149 12 Senior Center Rentals 21 .33 44.03 65.36 10% incr. 2,000 Total Community Services $ 52,000 *See referenced page number for details of staff recommended fee changes. -3- WPADSERT:869 SUMMARY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM Department Recommended New and Increased Fees PHASE I Current Present Full Cost Rcmnded MSI. Page Fee Subsidy Fee Fee Annual No. No. Department/Fee Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit New Rev. POLICE S-082 11 Special Business Regulation 18.56 99.83 118.39 * 20,000 S-083 11 Temp Alcohol Beverage Permit 0 60.18 60.18 60 22,500 S-091 11 Noise Disturbance Response 120.00 208.20 328.20 330 1 ,000 5-093 1 Clearance Letter 10.00 16.28 26.28 26 2,000 S-095 1 Video Tape Reproduction 0 43.96 43.96 * 8,000 S-096 2 Crime Statistic Report 0 71 .18 71 .18 70 7,000 S-097 Subpoenas - PD Personnel 150.00 349.57 499.57 150 0 S-099 1 Vehicle Inspection Fees 0 7.22 7.22 10 11 ,000 S-100 1 Crime Scene Photos 10.00 .54 10.54 10.54 500 S-102 1 DUI Accident Response/Invstgtn 130.56 301 .38 431 .94 * 43,500 S-103 1 DUI Arrest Procedure 75.01 205.00 280.01 280 214,500 Total Police $ QQ CITY CLERK S-210 2 Council Video Tape Sales 25.00 9.80 34.80 35 350 S-208 2 Address Map Book Fee 35.00 55.64 90.64 90 1 ,400 S-206 2 City Code Mailing 28.33 58.36 86.69 * 3,000 S-205 2 Agenda/Minute Mailing 8.59 65.79 74.38 * 1 ,100 Total City Clerk *See referenced page number for details of staff recommended fee changes -4- WPADSERT:869 SUMMARY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM Department Recommended New and Increased Fees PHASE I MSI. Page Current Present Full Cost Rcmnded No. No. Department/Fee Fee Subsidy Fee Fee Annual Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit New Rev. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT S-OQ1 4 Prelim. Plan Review (SFR) 40.00 476.00 516.00 500 1 ,000 S-001 4 Prelim. Plan Review (MFR 10-) 100.00 403.80 503.80 500 2,000 S-003 5 Prelim. Plan Review (MFR 10+) 150.00 1016.83 1 ,166.83 750 3,600 S-0045 5 Prelim. Plan Review (Non-Res) 200.00 805.50 1 ,005.50 750 4,400 S-005 5 Tentative Parcel Map Review 300.00 480.53 780.53 500 7,200 5-007 5 Tentative Tract Map Review 680.00 1437.00 2,117.00 1 ,200 6,760 S-110 5 Site Plan Amendmt by 300.00 102.00 402.00 350 50 Planning Commission S-012 5 Development Agreement Review 200.00 16,592.25 16,792.25 10,000 39,200 S-016 5 Conditional Use Review 750.00 2,419.68 3,169.88 1 ,200 7,650 S-017 5 Special Permit Review 140.00 222.80 362.80 150 200 S-020 5 Cndtnl Exception Review (ZA) 103.00 239.80 342.67 250 8,967 S-021 6 Categorical Exclusion Letter 10.00 63.17 73.17 25 90 S-022 6 Temporary Use Review 0.00 219.58 219.58 125 1 ,500 S-023 6 Temp. Outdoor Event Permit 75.00 200.96 275.96 125 1 ,400 5-026 6 General Plan Amendmt Rvw/Rvsn 1 ,000.00 9,501 .73 10,501 .73 5,000 44,000 S-027 6 General Plan Conformance Rprt 100.00 525.24 625.24 250 2,550 S-028 6 Zoning Code Amendmt Review 650.00 4,592.00 5,242.00 2,500 5,550 S-029 6 Zoning Letter 10.00 124.68 134.68 25 4,620 S-030 6 Zone Change Review 800.00 4,837.86 5,637.86 2,500 23,800 5-031 6 Envirommntl Assessment Study 400.00 862.84 1 ,162.84 500 6,300 (Neg Dec) S-032 7 Environmental Impact Rprt Rvw 1 ,500.00 6,425.67 7,925.67 2,500 6,000 S-033 7 E.I.R. Preparation 2,000.00 1 ,852.00 3,852.00 2,500 500 S-031 7 Planned Sign Review 100.00 781 .53 781 .53 250 4,500 S-039 7 Processing of Appeal to PC 200.00 677.80 877.80 300 500 S-040 7 Processing of Appeal to 125.00 1 ,469.75 1 ,594.75 500 3,000 City Council S-041 7 Prelim. Landscape Plan Check 0.00 40.24 40.24 25 1 ,025 S-042 7 Landscape Plan Check 0.00 58.65 58.65 125 11 ,750 S-044 2 Final Occupancy Rvw/Inspctn 40.00 109.97 149.97 125 82,875 S-045 7 Mobile Home Park Cnvrsn Rvw 1 ,200.00 3,947.00 4,947.00 5,000 4,500 S-046 7 Entitlement Extension Review 100.00 160.96 260.96 125 575 S-048 8 Address Change Review 112.00 44.67 166.67 125 78 S-049 8 New Address Assign Processing 0.00 151 .00 151 .00 125 8,750 S-050 8 Design Review Board Hearing 100.00 209.33 309.33 250 6,000 5-053 8 Final Tract Map Check 456.00 272.12 728. 12 500 6,800 -5- WPADSERT:869 SUMMARY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE (MSI) COST CONTROL SYSTEM Department Recommended New and Increased Fees PHASE I MSI. Page Current Present Full Cost Rcmnded No. No. Department/Fee Fee Subsidy Fee Fee Annual Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit New Rev. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (CONT) S-057 8 Compliance Review & Letter 3.29 135.84 139. 13 50 3,290 S-060 2 Precise Plan St. Alignment 650.00 2,214.00 2,864.00 2,864 4,400 S-061 N/A Building Plan Check 743.46 655.58 1 ,399.04 909 375,600 5-062 3 Plumbing Plan Check 75.86 133.64 209.50 84 19,400 S-063 3 Electrical Plan Check 53.57 150.83 304.40 122 84,300 S-064 3 Mechanical Plan Check 24.82 160.18 185.00 74 45,200 S-067 3 Plumbing Inspection 44.15 33.53 77.68 55 67,600 S-068 3 Electrical Inspection 66.20 63.45 129.65 83 162,900 S-069 4 Mechanical Inspection 32.59 117.33 84.74 41 97,600 S-070 3 Building Permit Extension 35.00 48.37 83.37 85 1 ,500 S-071 3 Building Re-Inspection 40.00 33.89 73.89 75 3,400 S-073 4 Bldg Demoltn Rvw & Inspctn 30.00 30.08 60.08 50 1 ,060 S-075 4 Swimming Pool Plan 193.44 152.33 345.77 245 6,344 Ck/Inspctn Total Community Development $ 533,570 TOTAL PHASE I RECOMMENDED REVENUES $ .8 WPADSERT:869 -6- WPADSERT:869 M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PRASE I (Exhibit A, 611/92) SECTION 2 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: SECTION 2 . Fees to recover the costs of providing copies of public records which fees do not exceed the cost of providing the service or making the copy. POLICE DEPARTMENT FEE TITLE: Clearance Letter FEE CHARGED: Per Letter $26 FEE TITLE: Video/Audio Tape Reproduction FEE CHARGED: Video Tape $170 Audio Tape $ 20 FEE TITLE: Crime Statistic Report FEE CHARGED: Per Report $70 FEE TITLE: Vehicle Inspection Fees FEE CHARGED: Per Inspection $10 FEE TITLE: Crime Scene Photos FEE CHARGED: Photo contact prints of collisions - $ 6. 50 8" x 10" black & white photo enlargements - $10. 50 , 8" x 10" color enlargements - $16. 00 4" X 5" photo contacts or enlargements - $ 4. 25 FEE TITLE: DUI Accident Response & Investigation FEE CHARGED: Investigation fees $280 Plus $22 per hour FEE TITLE: DUI Arrest Procedure FEE CHARGED: Investigation/Booking Fee $280 Plus $22 per hour -1- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I -(Exhibit A, 6/1/92) OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK FEE TITLE: Council Video Tape Sales FEE CHARGED: $35 per CounciL meeting videotape FEE TITLE: Address Map Book Fee FEE CHARGED: $90 FEE TITLE: City Code Mailing FEE CHARGED: 1 Yr. Subscription Muni Code - $70 1 Yr. Subscription Ord. Code - $70 1 Yr. Subscriptint Zoning Maps - $30 FEE TITLE: City Council Agenda/Minute Mailing FEE CHARGED: $45/yr - Agendas $45/yr - Minutes SECTION 6 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: SECTION 6. Fees to be charged for building and construction services furnished by the city under Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapters 17.02, 17.28 and 17.48 . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEE TITLE: Planning Commission Agenda/Minute Mailing FEE CHARGED: $45/yr - Agendas $45/yr - Minutes FEE TITLE: Final Occupancy Review and Inspection FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: Precise Plan Street Alignmant FEE CHARGED: $2, 864 -2- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6111/92) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Plumbing Plan Check FEE CHARGED: 40% of inspection fee FEE TITLE: Electrical Plan Check FEE CHARGED: 40% of inspection fee FEE TITLE: Mechanical Plan Check FEE CHARGED: 40% of inspection fee FEE TITLE: Plumbing Inspection FEE CHARGED: Increase existing fees by 25% Examples include: Issuing each Permit - $20. 00 Each plumbing fixture of trap or set of fixtures on 1 trap - $ 7 .50 Building and Trailer Park Sewer - $18.75 Rainwater Systems - $ 7. 50 Each Cesspool - $28. 00 FEE TITLE: Electrical Inspection FEE CHARGED: Increase existing fees by 25% Examples include: Permit - $20 Service Meter - $25 Min. Sub-panel - $14 Self-contained, approved unit - $ 4 each Signs, each - $50 Temporary service - $19 FEE TITLE: Building Permit Extension FEE CHARGED: $85 FEE TITLE: Building Re-inspection FEE CHARGED: $75 -3- M.S.Z. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I .(Exhibit A, 6 192) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Mechanical Inspection FEE CHARGED: Increase existing fees by 25% Examples include: Permit - $18.75 Air-handling unit over 10, 000 cfm - $13 . 75 Installation/relocation floor furnace - $11.25 Installation/relocation suspended heater - $11.25 Installation/relocation appliance vent - $ 5.75 Installation/relocation of each commercial or industrial type incinerator - $56. 25 FEE TITLE: Building Relocation Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: $500 FEE TITLE: Building Demolition Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: Inspection - $25 Processing - $25 FEE TITLE: Swimming Pool Plan Check & Inspection FEE CHARGED: Permit issuance - $20 Building Inspection Permit - See appropriate revised fees Plan Check Fee - See appropriate revised fees Electrical Items - $60 Plumbing Items - $50 Section 7 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 7. Fees for processing various planning and zoning matters: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Preliminary Plan Review (SFR) FEE CHARGED: $500 FEE TITLE: Preliminary Plan Review (MFR <10) FEE CHARGED: $500 -4- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Preliminary Plan Review (MFR >10) FEE CHARGED• $750 FEE TITLE: Preliminary Plan Review (Non-Res) FEE CHARGED• $750 FEE TITLE: Tentative Parcel Map Review FEE CHARGED: $500 FEE TITLE: Tentative Tract Map Review FEE CHARGED: $1, 200 FEE TITLE: Site Plan Amendment/Planning Commission FEE CHARGED: $350 FEE TITLE: Development Agreement Review FEE CHARGED• $10, 000 FEE TITLE: Conditional Use Permit FEE CHARGED: $1, 200 FEE TITLE: Special Permit Review FEE CHARGED• $150 FEE TITLE: Conditional Exception Review (ZA) FEE CHARGED: $250 -5- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I -(Exhibit A, 611,192) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Categorical Exclusion Letter FEE CHARGED: $25 FEE TITLE: Temporary Use Review FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: Temporary Outdoor Event Permit FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: General Plan Amendment Review & Revision FEE CHARGED: $5, 000 FEE TITLE: General Plan Conformance Report FEE CHARGED: $250 FEE TITLE: Zoning Code Amendment Review FEE CHARGED: $2, 500 FEE TITLE: Zoning Letter FEE CHARGED: $25 FEE TITLE: Zone Change Review FEE CHARGED: $2,500 FEE TITLE: Environmental Assessment Study (Negative Declaration) FEE CHARGED: $500 -6- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6111921 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Environmental Impact Report Review FEE CHARGED: $2 , 500 FEE TITLE: E. I. R. Preparation FEE CHARGED: $2, 500 FEE TITLE: Planned Sign Review FEE CHARGED: $250 FEE TITLE: Processing of Appeal to Planning Commission FEE CHARGED: $300 FEE TITLE: Processing of Appeal to City Council FEE CHARGED: $500 FEE TITLE: Preliminary Landscape Plan Check FEE CHARGED• $25 FEE TITLE: Landscape Plan Check FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: Mobile Home Park Conversion Review FEE CHARGED: $5,000 FEE TITLE: Entitlement Extension Review FEE CHARGED: $125 -7- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 611192) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Address Change Review FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: New Address Assignment Processing FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: Design Review Board Hearing FEE CHARGED: $250 FEE TITLE: Final Tract Map Check FEE CHARGED: $500 FEE TITLE: Compliance Review & Letter FEE CHARGED: $50 Section 9 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 9. Fees for permits required under Huntington Beach Municipal Code section 15.12 .090 based on projected costs of administering and enforcing the oil code and all provisions relating to oil operations in the city, and other Fire Department related fees: FIRE DEPARTMENT FEE TITLE: Hazardous Materials Clean-Up FEE CHARGED: MSI "fully-burdened" rate FEE TITLE: Fire False Alarm Response FEE CHARGED: In any 12-month period: Third False Alarm $50 Fourth False Alarm $100 Fifth False Alarm $250 Each Addl Alarm $500 -8- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 611192) FIRE DEPARTMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Hazardous Materials Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: # of Chemicals Quanity of Chemicals Range Range 1 2 3 1 $ 313 $ 378 $ 559 2 377 443 624 3 484 550 730 4 644 710 890 5 857 923 1, 103 6 1, 123 1, 189 1, 369 7 1, 310 1, 376 1, 556 8-15 1, 500 1, 600 1,700 16-50 2,500 2, 800 3, 000 51-100 3, 000 3, 500 4, 000 101-500 $5, 000 regardless of quantity > 500 $6,500 regardless of quantity Range # of Chemicals 1 1-2 2 3-4 3 5-6 4 7-10 5 11-14 6 15-20 7 21 + Range Quality of Chemicals Range Gallons Cubic Feet Pounds 1 55-1, 000 200-1, 000 500-1, 000 2 1, 001-10, 000 1, 001-5, 000 1, 001-5, 000 3 10, 000 + 5, 000 + 5, 001 + Those businesses that do not file Business Emergency Plans shall pay a flat annual rate of $150. The fee assessed to each business shall be computed on the above chart. Charges for substances measured in gallons, cubic feet, and pounds shall be computed individually and then added to arrive at the annual fee. FEE TITLE: Fire Incident Report Copy FEE CHARGED: $13 . 00 - reports of less than 7 pages $ 2 . 00 - each additional page -9- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6111/92) FIRE DEPARTMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Risk Management Program FEE CHARGED: MSI "fully-burdened" rate or pass-through cost FEE TITLE: Fire Alarm & Sprinkler Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 Base Fee* Multi-Family Residence $250 $325 $400 Single Family Residence 150 250 335 Tenant Improvement 75 105 135 Commercial Industrial 250 325 400 *Plus per sprinkler or initiation charge of 3 . 50 5. 00 6.75 Commerciasl/Industrial calculation 100 135 135 Underground 200 275 335 other 150 225 270 Water Dept. Review 26 26 26 CD Billing Review 13 13 13 FEE TITLE: Underground Tank Installation Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: Installation - $100 Removal - $200 FEE TITLE: Oil Well Inspection FEE CHARGED: Annual Inspection - $100 1st Reinspection - No Charge Subsequent - $200 FEE TITLE: Oil Well Vent Inspection FEE CHARGED: 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 $250/well $375/well $495/well FEE TITLE: Abandoned Oil Well Inspection FEE CHARGED: $100/well -10- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PRASE I .(Exhibit A, 611192) FIRE DEPARTMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Wastewater Permit Fees FEE CHARGED: 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 $65/well $85/well $100/well FEE TITLE: Central Net Training Center/Use of Facilities, Equipment, and Personnel FEE CHARGED: Fees contained in Attachment 1; attached. Section 11 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 11. Fees for operation of adult entertainment businesses pursuant to Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 5.70: POLICE DEPARTMENT FEE TITLE: Special Business Regulation FEE CHARGED: Taxi Driver $45 Bingo Permit $75 Gun Dealer Permit $100 Original Masseuse Permit $120 Masseuse Renewal $ 50 Establishment Renewal $200 Change of Location or Name $ 45 FEE TITLE: Temp. Alcohol Beverage Permit FEE CHARGED: $60 FEE TITLE: Noise Disturbance Response Call-Back FEE CHARGED: $330 -11- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6/1192) Section 13 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 13 . Maximum rates for towing services and garage impounds pursuant to police direction. POLICE DEPARTMENT (Con't. J FEE TITLE: Vehicle Abandoment Charge FEE CHARGED: Release Fee $340 This fee is not on the MSI Phase I, but recommended on Memo dated 10/17/91 Section 19 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 19. Fees for use of City buildings & facilities. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FEE TITLE: Showmobile Rental FEE CHARGED: Fees to include all available equipment, delivery, set-up and transportation. First day - $800 Additional day - $160 Attendants to operate special equipment-fully burdened rate plus overtime if applicable NOTE: Costs for preparation and clean-up of showmobile are relatively stable, therefore, a flat fee is recommended. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEE TITLE: Contract Recreation Fees FEE CHARGED: $2 . 00 administrative fee FEE TITLE: Adult Sports FEE CHARGED: 10 percent increase FEE TITLE: Senior Center Rentals FEE CHARGED: 10 percent increase -12- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 611192) Section 21 of Resolution SlS9, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5993, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 21. Fees for the use of library facilities and equipment authorized by Huntington Beach Municipal Code section 2.30.OS0. LIBRARY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEE TITLE: Late Library Materials processing FEE CHARGED: Late Materials Children - $. 15 per day/$3 maximum Encyclopedias - $. 50 per day/$10 maximum Adult - $. 25 per day/$5 maximum Replacement Cards Children - $2 FEE TITLE: Reservation of Material/Interlibrary Loans FEE CHARGED: Reservation - $1 per Item Interlibrary loan - $1 per Item plus any fees vharges by lending library FEE TITLE: Typewriter Rental FEE CHARGED: $1. 50 per half hour FEE TITLE: Media Rental FEE CHARGED: Compact Disks 48 Hours - $1. 25 7 Days - $2 . 00 Computer Usage PC Leading Edge/Apple/IBM - $4 . 00 MacIntosh/386/2CX - $5. 00 Slide Projector - $6. 00 Overhead Projector - $10. 00 Opaque Projector - $15. 00 Screens - $5. 00 PA System - $10. 00 Disolve Unit - $15.00 -13- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) Section 25 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 25. Fees for installation of traffic delineation for private developers pursuant to Huntington Beach Municipal Code section 12 .12 .140: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FEE TITLE: Sign and Striping Service FEE CHARGED: Use MSI "fully-burdened" rate charged against a minimum deposit of $1,000. Section 26 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 26. Fees for checking plans for improvements to be constructedin the public right of way: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Public Improvement Plan Check FEE CHARGED: Single Family Residence: Basic Plan Charge - $ 90 Additional Charge per Sheet of Plans - $ 20 All Others: Basic Plan Charge - $ 890 Additional Charge per Shhet of Plans - $ 220 FEE TITLE: Grading Plan Check & Inspection FEE CHARGED: To include plan check and inspections: 0 - 1, 000 c.y. - $201 for 1st 100 c.y. + $33 . 50 ea add'1 100 c.y. or fraction thereof 1, 001-10, 000 c.y. - $536 for 1st 1, 000 c.y. + $58. 60 ea add' 1 1, 000 c.y. or fraction thereof Over 10, 000 c.y. - $1, 063 . 65 for 1st 10, 000 c.y. + $92 ea add'1 10, 000 c.y. or fraction thereof PLUS - 5% of estimated on-site improvements -14- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I .(Exhibit A, 61 1/92) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Landscape Plan Check FEE CHARGED Minimum $55 - Single Family Residential $45 - Multiple Family Residential, less than 10 units $60 - Multiple Family Residential, 10 or more units PLUS $15 - For each page of plans FEE TITLE: Preliminary Landscape Plan Check FEE CHARGED: $30 - Single Family Residential $65 - Multiple Family Residential $20 - Non-residential Section 27 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 27. Fees for services performed by the Department of Public Works pursuant to Huntingtion Beach Municipal Code sections 10.32 .060, 12 .12 .060, 12 .12 .110, 12 .16.010, and Huntington Beach ordinance Code section 9906: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Public Improvement Inspection FEE CHARGED: Subdivision - MSI "fully-burdened rate" charged against an initial deposit of 8% of improvement bond or $17, 000, whichever is greater FEE TITLE: Water Connection Inspection FEE CHARGED: A fee of $150. -15- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Landscape Inspection FEE CHARGED: $ 30 - Single Family Residential $ 480 - Multiple Family Residental, less than 10 units $ 965 - Multiple Family Residential, 10 or more units $1, 600 - Non Residential FEE TITLE: Hydrant/Air Vacuum Damage Repair FEE CHARGED: Use MSI "fully-burdened" rate charged to responsible individual, if identifiable. FEE TITLE: Temp Meter Rental Processing/Replacement FEE CHARGED: $700 meter damage deposit collected and permit issued prior to meter set $ 55 set fee $ 55 each hydrant meter move $ 70 monthly rental PLUS water usage (included in water bill) FEE TITLE: Wide, Overweight, Overlong Load Review FEE CHARGED: One day permit - No Charge Temporary Permit - $ 35 plus $5 for each day permit required Annual permit - No change Fleet operations - No change FEE TITLE: Street Construction Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: Excavation/ Construction Permit - $32 + 8% of the total cost of construction, as determined by the Dept. of Public Works. Cable Television - $32 + $. 04 per lineal foot of mainline and laterial reach PLUS actual replacement/repair of City infrastructure replaced or repaired by City -16- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 611192) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Hydrant Flow Test Witness FEE CHARGED' $110 FEE TITLE: Obstruction Permit FEE CHARGED: $50 FEE TITLE: Banner Hanger Service FEE CHARGED: $105 FEE TITLE: Wide/Overweight/Loading FEE CHARGED: 1 day permit $15 Temporary Permit $35 Plus $ 5 day Annual permit $75 Fleet Operations $75 Section 31 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 31 . Fees for processing parcel and final subdivision maps. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (Con't. ) FEE TITLE: Final Tract Map Check FEE CHARGED: $480 or $40 per lot, whichever is greater -17- Attachment=-1-.- naae.1- CENTRAL NET TRAINING CENTER FACILITIES USE FEE SCHEDULE Note: Full payment for use of facilities due in advance. Class 1 users Class 2 users Class 3 users Class 4 users Fire Props basic fee no charge no charge $100 $200 addl.time no charge no charge 20%ea.hour 20%ea. hour set up fee no charge $23 per hour $23 per hour $23 per hour set up after hours no charge $40 per hour $40 per hour $40 per hour plus staff person if needed Fuel diesel no charge $1.50/gal. $1.50/gal. $1.50/gal. propane no charge $4.00/pcnt. $4.00/pcnt. $4.00/pcnt tank tank tank Tower basic fee no charge no charge $100 $200 addl.time no charge no charge 20%ea.hour 20%ea. hour plus staff person if needed Classroom 1 -Auditorium Style(cap. 100) basic fee no charge no charge $60 $70 addl.time no charge no charge 20%ea. hour 20%ea. hour set up fee no charge $23 per hour $23 per hour $23 per hour set up after hours no charge $40 per hour $40 per hour $40 per hour plus staff person if needed Classroom 1 -Classroom Style (cap.50) basic fee no charge no charge $60 $70 addl.time no charge no charge 20%ea. hour 20%ea. hour set up fee no charge $23 per hour $23 per hour $23 per hour set up after hours no charge $40 per hour $40 per hour $40 per hour plus staff person if needed Classroom 2 -Classroom Style (cap.30) basic fee no charge no charge $45 $55 addl.time no charge no charge 20%ea. hour 20%ea. hour set up fee no charge $23 per hour $23 per hour $23 per hour set up after hours no charge $40 per hour $40 per hour $40 per hour plus staff person if needed Simulator-(cap.20) 1/2 day only basic fee-2 hours no charge no charge unavailable unavailable addl.time no charge no charge set up fee no charge $50 per hour set up after hours no charge $40 per hour plus staff Rerson if needed -18- Attachment 1 -_ page 2 Video Sound Lab Class 1 users Class 2 users Class 3 users Class 4 users basicfee-1 hour no charge $50 $100 $150 addl.time no charge same same same nonbusiness hrs $50 $75 $125 $175 dubbing fee no charge matl.chg.only $15 per tape not available above fee includes staffing by audio/visualspec.and use of equipment. Training Grounds basic fee-1 hour no charge no charge $80 $100 addl.time no charge no charge 20%ea. hour 20%ea. hour plus staff person if needed rbasi:ct:feev minie Costs no charge no charge $1 per person $1 per person attpndinri attendin NOTE THESE FEES DD NOT APPLY TO ACMES WTH SOUME FOWX AD EDAMS -19- Attachment 1 - nacre 3 CENTRAL NET PROPOSED RENTAL CHARGE Personnel & Equipment Charges User Definitions: Class 1=Central Net Member City Fire Departments Class 2=Member City Non-Fire Departments(ie:Police,Community Svcs.,eta) Class 3=NonProft(includes govt.agencies,service organizations,schools.etc.) Class 4=All Users Not Identified In Above Categories(ie:Commercial Vendors,etc.) Training Center Business Hours are 0800 to 1700 Monday through Friday Charges not included in basic fee: Personnel reg.hrs. non-bus.hrs. TRAINING CENTER MGR. $49 $86 FACL.MAINT.WKR $23 $40 AUDIO VISUAL COORD. $23 $40 OFFICE MGR. $23 $40 Equipment* (per day)/(Class I&II exempt) overhead prof. $7 microphone 10 1/2 vcr 20 color tv 25 color N camera 40 vhs camcorder 35 lectem t0 slide projector 5 tripod screen a smoke generator/Buid $35 use plus$50 per gallon coffee $1 per person/day •equipment availability guaranteed only d reserved at time of scheduling Reservation&Cancellation policy Reservations effective upon receipt of FEE. FEES are fully refundable upon cancellation d notice is received at least 30 calendar days prior to scheduled use. However,a penally of 50%of the required FEE will be assessed it cancellation is requested less than 30 calendar days prior to use -20- RESOLUTION NO. 6300 ' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUIRING ANNUAL REVIEW OF TAXES AND FEES WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach has implemented a 5% utility tax on Cable TV services; and The City of Huntington Beach will be reviewing proposals to implement additional new fees, assessments and/or taxes in fiscal year 1991/92; and The national economic recession of 1990 and 1991 has resulted in a decrease in the City' s General Fund revenues; and The City expects an increase in General Fund revenues once the national economic recession is over; and Some of the new fees, assessments and tax revenues may be needed only for a temporary period of time until recovery from the impact of the national economic recession. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does resolve that the annual budget prepared by the City Administrator, pursuant to Section 401(b) of the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach, shall include an analysis of the need for the continuation of any new fees, assessments or taxes implemented in fiscal year 1991/92, including but not limited to, the 5% utility tax on Cable TV services . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting t re eld on the 1st day of July 1991. Mayor ATT T: APPROVE AS TO FORM: rlor�' - ,L,ele- Ci City Attorney i REVIEWED AND APPROVED: TED ND - O � Ci Ad ist ator Deputy It dministr or 1. r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PRELIMINARY BUDGET FY 1992/93 1 BUDGET MESSAGE AND SUMMARIES it CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PRELIMINARY BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1992/93 CITY ODW(.'ZL Jim Silva, Mayor Grace Winchell, Mayor Pro Ten Submitted By: Michael T. Dberuaga City Adninistrator Don MacAllister Jack Kelly Peter Greece Earle Robitaille Linda MOulton-PatterSM • CITY OF HaNmuTom Box KEHRRY CEr FY 1992/93 TABLE OF OOTrENI!S City Administrator's Budget Message Page # Introduction . ............ . .. ........ . . .. ... . .. ... ....... . .. . ..... .... . .... . .. ....... ..... . .. . .. . .... i Overview .. .. . ... . . . . ... .. . ... ...... . . .... . . .. . . ........ .... ...... .... . ........ ...... .... . ...... . .... Vii CapitalInprovement Program .... ... . . . . ... . . . . . .............. . ........ ......... . ....... . . . ... ... . .... Viii RedevelopmentAgency . ... ......... . . . . . .... . . ... . ............ ....... . . ........... ........ . ...... . .... x GeneralFund Financing .. . ..... .. . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . . . .... .............. . ................. .. . ...... . .... xi M.S.I. Cost Control System .... .. ... ... . ..... ...... ................... ................. .. . ...... . .... xiii General pond Salary and Benefit Expenditures ..... ................. . .. .... ............. . . . ...... . .... xiv ProgramChanges .......... . .. .. .. ...... . .... . ...................... ... ................. . ........ ..... xiV Conclusion .. . .. . . .. . ..... . .. . .... . . .. . . . ... . . . .......... ....... . . . ... . ....... ....... . . . . . ....... .... xx Acloiowledgements .. .. ..... . .. . ... ..... . . . ... . ................... . . . .................. .. .. . ....... .... xx Budget darts & Graphs City of Huntington Beach Fiscal Policies .. .. ...... ......... . . ....... . ................ .. .. ... . . .... .. xxi Requested Appropriations - All Funds FY 1992/93 .. . ..... .... . . ........ ................ . . . . . ... . . ..... xxii 'total Resa nxms - All Finds FY 1992/93 . .... . ..... . .......... . ...... . . ................ . . . . .. . . . ...... xxiii Projected General Fund Revenues - FY 1992/93 .. ... . . . .. . ..... . ... .. .. . . ........ ...... .. .. . . . .. . . . .... xxiv MajorRevenue Sources - General Fund . . . ... . .. ... . ..... . ... . . ..... . . . . ........ ..... . .. .. . . . .. . . . .... xxv General Fund Budget - Recommended Appropriation By Department FY 1992/93 .... . . . .... . . . . . .. . .... . . .. . xxvi Summary: General Fund Expenditure Reductions . . ...... .... ... . . ... .. . . . . . ..... .. ..... ... .. ... .. ... . . . . xxvii PermanentPositions By Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .... . .. . . .. . . . . . . . ... . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . xxviii Budgeted Full-'rime Employees - FY's 1976/77 to 1992/93 .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . .... ... .. ... . .. .. . ... .. . .. . . . . . xxix BudgetHistory - General Fund . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . .. ... ... . . . .... . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .... ... . .. .. ... . .. . . . . xxx Omparisonof Goverrment Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . xxxi CITY OF H@ rn4GM T BED PRELII nMW SODGET FY 1992/93 TABLE OF CONTERM (Continued) Revemie Information Page # RevenueSummary / All Funds . .... ... ... . . .. . . . ... .. . . ...... . . . . . . . .. ... .... .. ....... .. . ........ . . . .. . xxxii Revenuesummary / Individual Funds .. .. . . .. .................. . .. . ... ... ...... ....... ... ...... ... . . .. . xxxiii RevenueSummary / General Fund ...... .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . .... .... . . .. . . . . ... ...... .. ..... ... ...... ... . . . . . xxxvi RevenueDetail / General Fund ... .. . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... .. .. .... . .. . . .. .. . ... . . . . . xxxvii RevenueSummary / Capital Project Funds . .. . . . .. ... . . .. .... . . . . . . . .. ... ...... .. .. .. ... .... .. . ...... . . xlii Revenue Detail / Capital Project Funds . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . .... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ........ .. . .. ... . .. . . ..... . . xliii RevenueSummary / Debt Service Funds . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . . . .. . . .. . ... . . .... . ... .... . . . ..... xlvi RevenueDetail / Debt Service Funds . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ..... .. ... ... .... . . . .. ... xlvii RevenueSummary / Enterprise Funds . . . ... . .... . ... . . . . .. .. . ... . . . . . . ... . . .. . ..... ..... ....... .. . . . .. . Xlix RevenueDetail / Enterprise Funds . . .... .. ... . ... .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . . ... . . .. . ..... ...... ........... .. . 1 Revenue Summary / Internal Service Funds . .... . ... . . . . .. .. . ..... . . . . .... . . .. . .......... ...... .... . ... lii Revenue Detail / Internal Service Funds . .... . ..... . . .. .. . .. . ... . . . .. .. . ... . .......... ..... . ........ liii RevenueSummery / Redevelcpment Funds . . .. .... ... .... ... . . ...... . . . . . .. . . . ... .. .... ... ...... .. . . .. . . . lv Revenue Detail / Redevelopment Funds . . . . . .. . . .. .... ... ..... .... . . . .... .... . ...... ... ... ...... . . . .. . lvi RevenueStumnary / Street Projects . . . .. . . .. . . . .... . . . .. . .... . .. . . .. . . . . . ... ..... . ..... .... .. . . . . .... . lix RevenueDetail / Street Projects .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . .. ... ... .. . .. . .. . ... . . .. ...... . .......... . . .. . . . . . ix RevenueSummary / Other Funds . . . . . . . . ... .. . .. . .... . . . .... . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... ... .. ... ... .... ..... lxi RevenueDetail / Other Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . ]xii Fgenditure Information ExpenditureSummary / All Funds . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . ... . . .. .. . .. .. . . . .. . .. . . lxiv ExpenditureSummary / General Fund by Department . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . lxv ExpenditureSummary / Other Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . .... . . . . . . . . . . . lxvi Inter-Fluid Transfers & Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . lxviii GeneralFund Expenditure / Personnel Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . lxix CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BUDGET MESSAGE 1992/93 Fiscal Year Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: INTRODUCTION This document represents the proposed City budget for the 1992/93 fiscal year. Total recommended appropriations for all funds for fiscal year 1992/93 are $203,303,654 which includes interfund transfers of $27,339,911. Proposed General Fund appropriations are $96,984,398 or 2.6% greater than the prior year approved General Fund Budget. Summary statements that describe the proposed budget are as follows: 1. The budget is a comprehensive financial plan for all services and programs provided by the City of Huntington Beach. 2. The City is slowly recovering from the recession. Demand for current services is "expanding". This budget will represent a reduction in the quantity and quality of service provided to the community because of the expense reductions occurring while demands and requirements for city service are growing. 3. If no action were taken in the 1992/93 budget to reduce expenses or increase revenues an estimated budget shortfall of$4,184,689 would occur in the General Fund. The shortfall has been reduced from the previous estimate of$4.9 million because the employee retirement benefit rates set by the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) are lower than we had assumed in our previous estimates. 4. The recommended expenditure reductions to reduce the shortfall total $3,254,491 or 78% of the estimated General Fund shortfall. 5. A net reduction of 29.20 full time and eighty (80) part time positions is recommended for the General Fund budget. A more detailed description of the impact of the budget reductions is included in a later section of this budget message. 18.75 currently vacant permanent positions are recommended for elimination. 10.45 positions are recommended to be funded by new funding sources (gas tax, developer funds, Measure M) and 3 will be transferred to other vacant positions. Three new positions (Paramedics) are included in the Fire Department, funded by the Holly/Seacliff developer in accordance with the Development Agreement for that project. No layoffs are proposed, but it must be emphasized that the reductions are permanent reductions in General Fund staffing. 6. Recommended new General Fund Revenues total $2,341,000. No new assessment district proposals are included in this amount. -i- 7. If the budget is adopted as recommended, the estimated General Fund reserve (Fund Balance) at the end of fiscal year 1992/93 is $7,265,265, or 7.4%. Without the new revenues that are proposed, this reserve would be $4,924,265, or 5.0%. 8. If the expenditure reductions and new revenues are approved, an estimated budget surplus for 1992/93 will occur as indicated in the following summary: Continuation Recommended Budget Budget Difference General Fund Revenue $96,054,200 $98,395,200 +2,341,000 General Fund Expenses 100T238,889 96,984.398 -3,254,491 (Shortfalo/Surplus ($4.184.6891 $L410.M 9. Without the $2,341,000 of new revenues as proposed, the General Fund budget would have a shortfall of$930,198. 10. A Capital Outlay budget of$644,033 is recommended for General Fund departments but is it t included in the above total General Fund expenses. For the last three years these expenses have been budgeted in the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) fund and funded by one-time revenues. This budget continues that funding approach. It is preferable to treat these expenses as ongoing expenses funded by ongoing revenues. Since ongoing revenues are projected to be $1,410,802 more than ongoing expenses in 1992/93, I will be recommending an amendment to this document to fund these capital outlay expenses in the General Fund, thereby reducing the projected surplus to $746,799. This will be discussed more fully at the budget study session and public hearing on the budget. 11. The General Fund budget surplus is recommended due to (a) the uncertainty of the positive impact of economic recovery on city General Fund revenues, (b) the uncertainty of realizing all of the recommended new revenues due to the timing of the approval/implementation process, and (c) the need to consider funding for priorities such as unfunded capital improvements and deferred infrastructure repair/replacement. -ii- • 12. Following is a listing by General Fund department reductions included in this proposed budget: Continuation Recommended Increase/ Department Budget 1992/93 Budget 1992/93 Decr % Chang City Council $262,331 $262,163 $-168 -0.1% Non Departmental 11,256,384 10,851,775 -404,609 -3.6 Administration 1,306,623 1,012,235 -294,388 -22.5 City Treasurer 816,752 773,689 -43,063 -5.3 City Attorney 1,633,314 1,409,639 -223,675 -13.7 City Clerk 420,092 479,866 59,774 14.2 Administrative Services 4,500,883 4,299,501 -201,382 -4.5 Community Development 4,023,430 3,771,980 -2519450 -6.2 Fire Department 159900,856 159764,923 -135,933 -0.9 Police Department 32,2449331 31,894,419 -349,912 -1.1 Community Services 7,233,696 6,854,305 -379,391 -5.2 Library 3,422,321 3,2219947 -200,374 -5.9 Public Works 17, 17,877 16,387,956 -829.921 -4 a Total $100,238,882 $96,984,398 $-3.254.491 -3.2 13. The continuation budget estimate includes costs to continue 1991/92 staffing levels and current services to the community, plus the following expenses that are directly offset by new revenues: Expenditures Amount Funding/Revenue Source Bolsa Chica Project staffing/consultants $250,000 Developer New Paramedic Service per Holly/Seacliff Development Agreement 246,000 Developer Expanded Recreation Programs 50,000 Existing User Fees Paramedic Reallocations 600 Transfer from Fire-Med Fund TOTAL $606.000 14. The $3,254,491 of proposed General Fund expenditure reductions is significant not only in terms of the number of positions reduced and services impacted, but also because these reductions are being made after significant expense reductions were implemented last year. -iii- 15. Following is a listing of the proposed new revenues included in the 1992/93 General Fund estimates: Proposed New Revenue Business License Fee Increase $160,000 This represents a $10 per year increase in the basic fee for businesses New and Increased User Fees 1,800,000 Phase I of implementation of MSI system Charges to Enterprise Funds 381,000 Refuse collection, Fire Med, Golf Course, CATV funds payment of General Fund costs. TOTAL $2.341.000 16. The City's revenue estimates for 1992/93 are based on an assumption that there will continue to be a slow recovery from the national economic recession which has negatively affected revenues for 2 years. We believe the proposed budget would place the City in a sound financial position for any of the following three economic recession scenarios: (a) continuation of recession, (b) slow recovery from the recession, or (c) faster than expected recovery from the recession. Under (a) or (b) the City's reserve in excess of 5% provides protection from lower than estimated revenues. The continuation of the hiring freeze to December ensures careful monitoring of expenditures. Under (c), we are well positioned to move quickly to restore expenditure reductions, fund new priorities or reduce taxes. Under any of the three scenarios, the potential availability of the $6,765,000 litigated PERS refund/credit provides the City with additional financial security and options if the $6,765,000 becomes available for use by the City. 17. Much credit should be given to the Citizen's Budget Review Task Force for the role they have played in bringing renewed emphasis throughout the organization to cost control and budget restraint. In addition, many of their specific recommendations are included in the proposed budget for 1992/93. 18. Last year a new revenue source was approved by applying our 5% utility tax to Cable-TV services. This increased General Fund revenues an estimated $800,000 in 1991/92 and will generate an estimated $900,000 in 1992/93. This new revenue was adopted in response to the City Council directive in March of 1991 to exempt Police and Fire budgets from expenditure reductions in 1991/92 by developing new revenue sources to cover expenditure increases in these departments. The new revenue permitted police and fire departments to be exempt from reductions in operating and temporary/overtime expenditures amounting to about $500,000 and provided additional funds ($300,000) for new services such as a downtown footbeat patrol in the Police Department and other service requirements in the Fire Department. 19. For 1992/93 the 5% Utility Tax on Cable TV services is again recommended to be used to avoid further expenditure reductions. The recommended budget for the Police and Fire departments is $1,334,262 (Police) and $932,094 (Fire) greater than last year's adopted budget for these departments even though each department has reduced controllable expenses wherever possible. If the estimated $900,000 Cable TV Utility Tax revenue were not available in 1992/93, these departments and other City departments would be requested to further reduce their budgets. The estimated $900,000 Cable TV Utility Tax revenue in 1992/93 covers only a portion of the combined $2,266,356 additional revenue needed to continue the Police and Fire department operations at levels comparable to 1991/92. -iv- 20. While the recovery from the recession is expected to restore some of the revenues which are causing the shortfall, the City still has an urgent need for additional staffmg, funding for capital improvements and infrastructure ` repair/maintenance. I would estimate that an additional $5-7 million per year in General Fund revenue is needed to fund the desired level of services in our City. If additional, new revenues are not adopted, we will continue to experience (a) difficult budget balancing problems (b) the incremental reduction in the quantity and quality of existing City services provided to the community, and (c) the continued delay in adding services to meet the expanding community needs. 21. The estimated current year General Fund reserve (1991/92) is $5,854,463. If the recommended budget is adopted as proposed, the fund balance on June 30, 1993 would be $7,265,265 or 7.4% of the 1992/93 General Fund budget. The City's adopted fiscal polices require a 3% -5% reserve. 22. A 6% increase in salaries and benefits for all full-time employees has been included in the recommended budget. The increase is the amount agreed to in the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU's) with all employee groups except the Fire Association. We will hopefully conclude discussions with the Fire Association prior to budget adoption. MOU's that have been concluded will not expire until fiscal year 1993/94. 23. General Fund salary and benefit costs will increase an estimated $3,185,959 in fiscal year 1992/93. This total includes salary and benefit increases, full funding for vacation and retirement payments, and full funding for all budgeted positions even though salary savings will occur due to the continuation of the hiring freeze and normal vacancies. This savings offers us additional protection against revenues being lower in fiscal year 1992/93 than currently estimated. 24. For 1992/93, total ongoing General Fund revenues will increase an estimated $7,627,615 or 8.4% including the recommended new revenues which represents 2.6% of the increase. The fiscal year 1992/93 revenue estimates are as realistic as possible, based on an assumption of slow economic recovery, with a deliberate attempt to be neither conservative nor aggressive. Property tax revenues are projected to increase 6.8%. Sales tax revenue is projected to increase 5.4%. 25. The City's sales tax revenue is not projected to return to pre-recession levels for several yeas. After recovery from the recession, we expect sales tax to increase at the 2 - 3% annual growth rate unless new directions are pursued by the City to attract sales tax "producers" in our industrial and retail areas. In the retail sector, significant revenue growth potential may not exist because of many factors including: 1) existing regional shopping facilities in Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and Westminster, 2) the lack of available land in freeway accessible locations for new retail facilities, 3) the loss of lumber businesses, and 4) projected stable or declining auto sales on Beach Boulevard. 26. Included in the General Fund revenues are allocations from the Water Fund ($1,100,000), and Redevelopment Fund ($1,217,000), to reimburse the General Fund for services provided to the Water Fund and Redevelopment Agency by General Fund departments. In addition, transfers from the Gas Tax Fund, Golf Course Fund, Fire Med Fund, Refuse Collection Service Fund and Cable-TV Fund are to fund a portion of the General Fund costs of these services, respectively. All of these allocations have been increased significantly from prior year levels, and are based on the documented costs of the Management Services Institute (MSI) study. -v- 27. We have not proposed the use of any one-time revenues to balance the budget or support ongoing expenses in the General Fund. 28. Under the Rainbow Disposal contract, the monthly refuse costs to the City will increase from $10.89 to $11.50 (estimated) per month per residence effective July 1, 1992. The exact amount of the required increase will be determined in late May when the April Consumer Price Index data is released by the Federal government. A proposed increase in the residential refuse fee is included in the Refuse Collection Enterprise Fund revenue estimates. If the refuse fee is not increased then the approximate subsidy for the Rainbow Disposal contract service by the City would be $200,000. Currently, costs for billing overhead/supervision etc. in the General Fund total $923,816 or $1.75 per month per residence. A three to four year phase-in program to fully cover these costs is proposed, with a 500 per month increase proposed for 1992/93, resulting in an estimated $250,000 reduction in this General Fund subsidy. A total residential refuse rate of$12.00 per month would result under these proposals which will be reviewed separately at a regular City Council meeting prior to the adoption of the budget. 29. The equipment replacement budget is $1,670,935. This total is greater than the 1991/92 equipment replacement budget and about equal to budgeted amounts of two years ago. 30. The City will receive the balance of the litigated refund/credit from the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) in 1992/93. This amounts to as estimated one-time revenue of $3,265,000 in 1992/93 in addition to the $3,500,000 estimated to be received in the current year (1991/92). These amounts are nat included in the General Fund revenue estimates since City policy has been adopted to place these funds in a reserve account. 31. Federal/State/County budget deficits preclude any realistic hope of financial assistance from these governmental agencies. Transferring of Federal/State/County costs to cities, new fees from the County, or cancellation of revenue traditionally provided to cities is the trend cities have experienced recently and can expect to continue in the future. The 1992/93 budget includes an estimated $2 million of such transfers that were imposed by these levels of government in order to assist in balancing their budgets. 32. Proposals are pending in Sacramento for the California State Government to take more of our City revenue to balance the State budget. Specifics will be reviewed with the City Council as information is available. Normally, final budget decisions are not made on the State budget until July or August and then the City is placed in the position of having to react to negative impacts on the City budget. -vi- • OVERVIEW • The following charts show a comparison of the budgets for 1990/91, 1991/92, and the 1992/93 proposed budget. Although the General Fund budget necessarily receives most of the attention during budget review, it is obvious from reviewing the summaries that there are significant City expenditures other than those in the General Fund. Some of these other funds, such as the Water and Refuse funds, are enterprise operations that are operated on a "business-within-a-business" basis whereby expenditures are limited to the amount of revenue produced. Use of other types of funds are restricted to capital purposes, such as the Sewer Fund, Drainage Fund and Debt Service Funds. Total City Expenditures Actual Budgeted Proposed % Change Description 1990191 1991/92 1992/93 91/92 to 92/93 General Fund $93,788,922 $94,483,785 $96,984,398 2.6% Water Fund 13,524,992 17,383,333 21,992,328 26.5 Refuse Collection Service Fund 0 5,645,648 6,185,929 9.6 Other Enterprise Funds 2,195,015 3,132,423 3,450,266 10.1 Transp./Street Projects 7,438,286 12,003,326 11,291,230 -5.9 Redevelopment Funds 6,035,599 14,868,766 21,435,665 44.2 Debt Service Funds 7,453,603 8,441,234 8,188,500 -3.0 Internal Service Funds 12,944,604 13,010,991 13,603,167 4.6 Other Capital Projects Funds 41211,154 22,869,217 14,366,598 -37.2 Other Funds 2.985,558 4,718.068 5,8050574 221 Total City Expenditures $150.577.733* $196.556.791* $2039303,654* m Less Interfund Transfers <27,339,911> Net City Expenditures $175.963.743 *Includes Interfund Transfers More detail about most of the above categories will be provided in subsequent sections of this budget message. -vii- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1992/93 Recommended Prgiect Categoq Appropriatioas Funding Sources Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund $4,571,258 Carryover Funding, CIP Fund Balance, Arts Center Foundation and Loan from Energy Commission. Park Acquisition Development Projects 530,992 Park Acquisition & Development fees, grants Transportation Projects 11,2911230 Gas Tax, Federal Aid Urban, Orange County Transportation Commission, Measure M, Traffic Impact fees Sewer Projects 1,130,136 Development fees Drainage Projects 1,914,925 Development fees Water Utility Projects 4,640,000 Water Fund Housing and Community Development 5,504,000 Federal Government, Redevelopment Tax Increment Redevelopment Projects 10,836.120 Bond Proceeds, Land Sales, Developer Advances Total40.418.661 As indicated above the major capital improvement projects in the City are funded by Redevelopment, Transportation Funds, Sewer Fund, Drainage Fund, Housing and the Capital Improvement Projects Fund. In addition, General Fund revenues are used to repay debt issues that provided Capital Improvement funding for the Library, City Hall and the downtown parking structures. The total General Fund revenues allocated for these capital improvement purposes was $2,100,000 in 1988/89, $2,600,000 in 1989/90, $2,600,000 in 1990/91, $1,700,000 (net) in 1991/92, and $1,700,000 (net) in 1992/93. These expenditures are reduced in 1991/92 and 1992/93 due to the transfer of$900,000 in these years from the Parking Structure fund. This transfer is to fund the debt service on unused Certificates of Participation (C.O.P.'s) from the interest earnings on the unused C.O.P.'s. -viii- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND In the current year adopted budget (fiscal year 1991/92), no General Fund transfer was made to the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund for new Capital Improvement Projects. The capital improvements recommended in the CIP Fund for 1992/93 are carry over projects from 1991/92, $664,033 for capital outlay expenditures in General Fund departments and other high priority projects described below. The total CIP fund budget is $4,571,258 and includes $487,000 for Public Works infrastructure repair/maintenance projects, $700,000 for the Cultural Arts Center improvement project, the 4th payment on a Police/Public Works 800 Mhz radio system ($421,000), and 3 computer automation projects: (1) optical disk systems ($200,000), (2) pilot study for a geographic information system (GIS) and (3) networking of city computers ($400,000). These automation projects, (Optical disk, GIS and networking of City computers) are critical projects for the upgrade to current computer technology systems. Implementation will further improve our efficiency and will eliminate manual systems and duplication of efforts. These projects will move the City towards a greater ability to quickly capture, store and use information within the organization. This should result in better decision making and improved service to the public. As citizens and employees become more familiar with advanced computer technology in their day-today dealings with business, schools and at home, expectations are that the City will use these new technologies to serve the community. The City has kept pace with these needs and expectations in some areas such as our new phone system and the Computer Aided Dispatch system for Police and Fire operations. In other areas such as a (GIS) data base with all geographic information, projects are ready to begin implementation, as are optical disk systems and networking of existing and new city computers. The CIP fund budget of$4,571,258 is funded from the prior year funding for the carry over projects, a $1,117,000 loan from the California Energy Commission, donations from the Arts Foundation, fund balance, and interest earnings on those funds. The Cultural Arts Center Project to improve the City-owned building on Main Street is scheduled to begin construction in August or September of this year. The Arts Foundation has raised about $500,000 of the $700,000 estimated cost for this project. This budget does not include funding for operation of the Arts Center which is scheduled to open in July of 1993. A separate presentation will be made to the City Council in June on alternative,approaches to funding the operational costs for the Center. -ix- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The chart below describes the proposed 1992/93 Redevelopment revenues and expenses: 6/30/92 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE $11,122,423 1992/93 Estimated Revenues Tax Increment Revenue $5,736,021 Transient Occupancy Tax 425,000 Estimated Interest Income 1,028,902 Rental Income 235,000 Land Sale Proceeds 6,920,000 Developer Advances 500,000 Loan Payments 200, Total Estimated Revenue $15,044,923 1992/93 Recommended Expenses Salaries and Benefit $701,259 Operating Expenses 1,114,879 Debt Repayments 4,221,500 Capital Projects 3,916,120 Developer Projects 6,920,000 Housing Set Aside 4,631, Total Estimated Expenditures $21,505,665 1992/93 NET INCOME -$6,460,742 6/30/93 ESUMATED FUND BALANCE* $4,6619,681 * The fund balance is available for other projects in 1992/93 or future years. Of significant note is the Waterfront Project, an Agency commitment in excess of $30,000,000 which has not been included in the fiscal year 1992/93 Redevelopment budget because the timing for the project has not been determined. A separate Redevelopment bond issue will be required when Phase H of this project commences. -X- GENERAL FUND FINANCING ` This budget represents the fourth consecutive year that it has been very difficult to balance the General Fund budget. In each of the four years, no new positions have been added except where supported by revenue increases or cost reductions. Three years ago equipment purchases were deleted from the General Fund budget in order to balance the revenues and expenditures. Equipment purchases were financed in the Capital Improvement Fund beginning in 1989/90 as a legitimate use of capital funds in that newly created fund. This year, operating expenses (non personnel costs) have been reduced $623,145. This obviously has an impact on department operations because some increases are uncontrollable. Some examples of uncontrollable increases have been offset by reductions in controllable operating costs such as: training, supplies, contract services, travel and meetings, and similar expenses. General fund revenues are up 8.4% from last year including 2.6% resulting from the recommended new revenues of $2,341,000. Following is a chart of three fiscal years, including estimated 1992/93 revenues by major categories: General Fund Revenue Summary Actual Estimated Estimated % Change Description 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 (21/92 to 92/93) Property Taxes $27,917,608 $29,815,000 $31,855,000 6.8% Sales Tax 16,874,874 16,600,000 17,500,000 5.4 Utility Tax 9,973,357 12,281,000 12,800,000 4.2 Transient Occupancy Tax 1,031,170 1,100,000 1,200,000 9.1 Other Local Taxes 3,669,857 4,572,000 4,814,000 5.3 Licenses & Permits 3,111)755 3,490,385 3,640,000 4.3 Fines/Forfeitures/Penalties 1,903,751 1,520,000 1,650,000 8.6 Use of Money & Property 4,227,470 5,326,000 6,289,000 18.1 Revenue from Other Agencies 9,451,371 8,013,000 8,279,000 3.3 Charges for Current Service 8,340,954 4,430,000 6,657,000 50.3 Other Revenue 728,317 668,200 651,200 -2.5 Transfer from Other Funds 2,151~359 2,952,000 3,060, 3-7 Total Ongoing General Fund Revenue $89,381,843 $90,767,585 $989395,200 8.4% One Time Revenues: Retirement System Refund 5,9179183 2,600,000 0 Retirement System Litigated Credit 3,500,000 3,265.000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $95.299.026 $96.867.585 $101,660.200 -Xi- 32.4% of the General Fund revenue is from property tax while 17.8% is from sales tax. Most well financed cities in California have sales tax revenues, not property tax, as their primary General Fund revenue source. In most cases a sizeable portion of these sales tax revenues are generated from people living outside the City thereby reducing the tax burden on people within the City. The lower sales tax revenue in Huntington Beach is due primarily to the nearby shopping centers such as South Coast Plaza, Westminster Mall and Fashion Island drawing many Huntington Beach shoppers and the resultant "loss" of sales tax dollars to our neighboring cities of Costa Mesa, Westminster and Newport Beach. A new emphasis has been placed on business retention/attraction and expansion by the City's Economic Development Department. Programs have been initiated in the last 6 months after filling vacant positions in this priority area. A talented and enthusiastic staff plans to carefully allocate their limited hours and budget to the most effective programs to meet the needs of businesses that generate significant sales tax revenue for the City. Refuse Collection Costs / Fees / Subsidy Refuse Collection User Fee General Fund COST RFVENU SUBSIDY Actual1987/88 $3,500,000 $ 0 $3,500,000 Actual 1988/89 3,800,000 1,828,000 1,972,000 Actual1989/90 4,803,636 3,692,055 1,111,581 Actual 1990/91 7,399,134* 5,196,700 2,202,434* Estimated 1991/92 7,835,060* 5,650,000 2,185,060* Proposed 1992/93 8,129,560* 6,336,000 1,793,560* 1992/93 fee at$12.00 per month (proposed) *The MSI study (see discussion below) documented all costs for this service including billing, overhead, supervision, collection, accounting and street repair. All of these costs are included in the above summary for fiscal years after 1989/90. The first three fiscal years listed above include only the Rainbow Disposal contract costs. -xii- MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE S COST CONTROL. SYSTEM As indicated previously, if the City is to adequately finance service demands in the community, an expanded revenue base for the General Fund is needed. Potential major new revenue sources were identified in the MSI Study. MSI completed their report in August, 1991. An estimated $2.2 million of new revenue is recommended to be generated from new and/or increased fees in 1992/93. An implementation period of several years is anticipated to fully implement this program, which identified potential new revenues of over $30 million to cover costs. Following is a phased program for consideration of some of these new revenues: SUMMARY - MULTI YEAR PROGRAM TO IMPLEMENT MSI COST CONTROL SYSTEM PHASE I - By July 1, 1992 Revenue (Annual) New and Increased Fees $1,800,660 New General Fund Charges to Enterprise Funds 381,000 Subtotal Phase I (1992/93 revenues) $2,181,660 PHASE II - During Fiscal Year 1992/93 New and Increased Fees $632,000 REVENUES FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION - 199 /94 AND THEREAFTER Other Potential New and Increased Fees $4,199,684 Assessment Districts - Maintenance Services 12,173,000 Enterprise and Utility Cost Recovery 110385.200 Total for Future Consideration after 1992/93 $27,757,884 Total Potential Revenue - All Phases $30.571.544 The MSI system represents a 'different way of doing business" than is traditional in governmental agencies. The system calls for full cost recovery of governmental services from specific users benefiting from the services. Exceptions are services generally available for the benefit of all of the community such as police protection, fire protection, general park maintenance, street maintenance, and library services. -Xiii- GENERAL FUND SALARY AND BENEFIT EXPENDITURES A primary source of the increase in costs in the General Fund is the $3,185,959 increase in personnel costs. This cost is the ' result of compensation and benefit cost increases and decreases as follows: Category o� FY 1991/92 FY 1992/93 Increase/Decrease Salaries: Permanent $44,001,869 $46,205,974 $2,204,104 Temporary 3,049,523 2,872,621 -176,902 Overtime 3,751,407 4,006,000 254,593 Retirement Cost 7,936,483 8,334,030 397,547 Medical Insurance 5,446,326 5,719,138 272,813 Workers' Compensation 2,373,499 2,492,390 118,891 Retiree Medical Benefit 428,781 450,259 219478 Holiday Pay 710,498 746,088 35,590 Educational Pay 688,780 723,282 34,502 Medicare/Deferred Compensation 466,012 489,355 23,343 TOTAL $68.853.178 $72,039,137 $3.185.959 A net reduction of 29.20 General Fund permanent positions is recommended for 1992/93, reducing General Fund permanent staffing from 981.25 to 952.05 positions. Total permanent positions city wide would decrease from 1,120.50 to 1,103.50 in fiscal year 1992/93, a net reduction of 17 permanent full-time positions. Some positions previously funded by General Fund revenues will be funded by Enterprise funds or Capital Projects funds in 1992/93. Enterprise or other funds have their own revenue sources to finance positions transferred from the General Fund. PROGRAM CHANGES City Council The City Council budget will maintain membership in professional organizations of benefit to the City, and expand the role of the city in regional, state and federal issues. -xiv- Administration ' One full-time position will be eliminated in the Public Information office (in the General Fund) which is evolving from a city-wide general support function, to a focused public relations program to market city programs and services to the community at large. It will also interface with the media (newspapers, radio, and television) which cover Huntington Beach. General Fund support for the Productivity Division is being reduced from four positions to one position. The division will no longer provide general analytical support to Administration or perform other programs and tasks. The remaining position will focus on the records management system and assist the Deputy City Administrator in those tasks assigned to him. One other position from the Productivity Division will be funded by Air Quality Funds to manage the program. The City's waste reduction program which originated in Administration will be moved to Public Works. Non-Departmental A reduction in funds for contract services will mean that we conduct department head and division head recruitments in- house and reduce use of contract services for advertising, Civic Center oil well maintenance, etc. The transfer to the liability self insurance fund is reduced $100,000 and a projected savings of $100,000 is included to reflect the implementation of the energy efficiency recommendations submitted by the California Energy Commission. Also included is estimated savings of $67,500 from refinancing Civic Center debt to take advantage of current low interest rates. The telephone system costs will be budgeted in Non-Departmental (previously in Fire Department) starting this year as its cost and benefit is of a City-wide nature. Treasurer The elimination of one position will reduce our field enforcement of business licenses. The primary responsibility of the remaining three full-time employees will be to administer the program for over the counter and telephone inquiries. It is not possible to quantify the loss of revenue due to decreased enforcement. A new business license ordinance is being prepared in house. City Attorney One Deputy Attorney I position will be eliminated. A vacant Secretary Legal-Typist will be eliminated as well and a $50,000 reduction to the Legal Services account will occur. City Clerk An estimated $60,000 is required this year to meet the City's election requirements in November. -xv- A minMratiye SeryiC�S Reduce permanent staffing by 1.75 positions in the Information Systems Division. The primary impact would be slower response to needs to update/improve computer programs used for city-wide applications such as water billing, refuse collection billings, Fire-Med billings, accounts receivable billing, payroll, and business license. Eliminate one of 3 positions in the Print Shop. The print duties that this position performs include City Council agendas, Planning Commission agendas & various other types of printing. To continue these services, we would reassign our Stock Clerk approximately 1/2 time to the Print Shop. The stores function would be performed by a vendor supplying stationary items, thereby transitioning to a stockless storeroom. Reduce Personnel division staff by 1 position, or 12.5% of total division staff. The primary impact of eliminating this position is reduced ability to respond to operating departments requests to review classification matters involving employees or new positions, delay in processing grievances, less research and preparation for "meet and confer" sessions, no centralized position for benefit administration, and inadequate back-up to examination function. Direct charges for Real Estate services provided by the City to the Holly-Seacliff developer for right of way acquisition will reduce General fund costs an estimated $50,000. Library Librarian Senior position will be eliminated, reducing ability to write grants and participate in marketing and fund-raising. The daily supervision of staff including training, scheduling, and answering questions of procedures; the supervision and coordination of collection development; and the research involving improvements in computer technology is limited. Additionally, a 20 hour temporary clerk will be eliminated resulting in slower magazine processing. A reduction of$59,000 in books purchased will result in 2,000 less adult circulating books for public checkout. 380 fewer reference books will be purchased reducing access to the latest information. Fifty-four books on cassette, 75 fewer videos, 288 fewer CD's and 9 fewer software items will be available for circulation and revenue will be reduced accordingly. Because of the fewer materials purchased, automated cataloging services will be reduced by $10,000. Computer terminals will be removed from maintenance agreement; there will be fewer terminals available to the public. Librarian Assistant position will be eliminated, resulting in no direct supervision available for scheduling, training, and evaluating the 8 full time equivalent persons in Reception/Information. Quality of service will be decreased due to lack of staff training in answering questions both in person and through central telephones. This unit is responsible for collecting $109,000 in fines and fees and pursuing overdue materials in small claims court. Revenues may decline due to lack of direct supervision and monitoring of staff. -xvi- Community Development ' By not hiring the Senior Plan Checker, the planning processing time could increase. Planners would be required to perform plan checks for building permits, grading permits, landscape plans, environmental monitoring as well as zoning compliance checks in addition to completing project reviews. Underfilling positions and eliminating one Intem position will cause senior members of the staff to perform minor assignments and spend more time training and assisting Planning Aides and Assistant Planners to become more familiar with City and State planning laws and processes. Planning processing time would therefore increase. Reducing operating expenses for contract services will prevent special planning studies and study of the downtown area to be performed. The elimination of 2 Senior Structural Inspector positions (over a two year period ) will result in delays occurring in inspections. The position of Building Official has been replaced through the transfer of a position from Redevelopment. This position has been retitled to Housing/Building Director and will be funded 1/2 by the General Fund, for the building related functions, and 1/2 by Redevelopment 20`X Set-Aside funds, for the housing function. A major project that was started in 1991/92 and will continue in 1992/93 is the update of the City's General Plan. $275,000 was budgeted in 1991/92 for this project of which an estimated $175,000 will be spent by the end of the year with the $100,000 balance carried over into fiscal year 1992/93. An additional $77,000 is budgeted in the Park Acquisition and Development Fund for the Cultural Element of the General Plan. A status report on the project funding will be submitted mid.year in fiscal ear 1992/93 since the total estimated cost to complete the update is $652,000 and the current level of authorized funding ( 352,000) may need to be increased during 1992/93. Fire Depadment Elimination of the Fire Reserve Program would reduce General Fund costs by $108,000 per year. Impact of the cut would have a significant effect, but would not compromise basic fire protection services. The Reserve Program enables the Fire Department to provide a high level of fire protection. It increases staffing which enhances the City's fire response capabilities and helps maintain a fourth staff person attached to a fire engine company. They also assist in activities such as hydrant testing, fire inspections, apparatus maintenance and mail runs. The Fire Reserve Program is cost effective. Up to 30 Fire Reserves work for a minimum wage and with no benefits in order to gain experience in fire protection work. Elimination of the program will result in less efficient use of sworn Firefighters and a reduction in fire prevention and emergency preparation activities. Three new Paramedic positions will be added in fiscal year 1992/93 to address expanded service needs due to the development of the Holly/Seacliff area. The positions will be developer funded, until new property taxes are sufficient to cover the cost, in accordance with the Developer-Agreement for this project. xvii- , Three existing Fire Captain positions will be upgraded to Paramedic Fire Captains. The additional cost will be funded By the FireMed Program. Efforts will continue to formalize a Joint Powers agreement to provide cooperative dispatch and training services with neighboring cities. This would replace an informal relationship. Plans are in progress to replace the 30 year old Heil Fire Station with a modern structure on a site better located to enhance emergency response in north Huntington Beach. The station relocation will be coordinated with the Holly/Seacliff and Bolsa Chica developments. Police Deparbuent Six vacant permanent full time positions will be eliminated from the budget as well as eleven temporary positions. The impact of these reductions is briefly described as follows: Administrative Aide H: This position is responsible for identifying and applying for funding sources such as reimbursements and grants. These applications are no longer being performed. ID Tech: Loss will continue to delay the processing of evidence. Vehicle Mechanic: Due to the loss of this (and a temporary student worker), the garage has been forced to send all unmarked vehicle maintenance for the Police Department to an outside shop. Police Clerk Seniors (2); Reduction of clerical positions coupled with no growth for several years places a burden on the remaining clerks. Maintenance Worker Sr.: The department no longer has anyone to handle building maintenance. All work requests must now be handled by the Public Works Department. Elimination of Temporary Positions: Clerics(4): This adds to the shortage of needed clerical help. Parking Enforcement Officer: As with the Administrative Aide II, this position eliminates a potential revenue generating source. Student Workers (5) The department relies upon these relatively inexpensive positions in tasks that have become crucial because of existing personnel shortages. Photo Assistant: Loss will delay the processing of evidence. By consolidating Police maintenance with that of Public Works, we have estimated an operational savings of at least $35,000 annually. This savings is primarily a reduction of supplies duplication. -xviii- Community Services Public Art Collection: Eliminates beach wall mural program, exhibits by schools, Amigo de Bolsa Chica, and other community groups in entry area of Council Chambers. Eliminates support to schools and other nonprofit groups for poster contests, publicizing community art activities. Marine Safety: Eliminates the lifeguard service at three of the four public beaches in the harbor from Memorial Day through Labor Day. These areas will be unguarded all year instead of just during the off season. Beach Maintenance: Eliminates all recurrent help for trash pickup and beach cleaning from October 1 through March 31. This function is proposed to be replaced with a Surf City volunteer Adopt-A-Beach program. Parking Authority& Paying off the Parking Authority debt service to eliminate the $170,000 annual payment would reduce the Parking Authority Fund balance which would reduce the money available for the south beach parking area master plan improvements. Community Centerse Reduces community center operating hours, such as closing Sundays and earlier during the week at Edison, Murdy, and Oak View Community Centers, Rogers Seniors' Center and the City Gym and Pool. Eliminates support to nonprofit groups' use of such facilities. Reduces consumable supplies for recreation programs at these facilities. Art Center Fund: Community Services will administer a new Art Center Fund which is being established in order to accommodate the donations and art center revenues & expenses from fund raising and operations by the Art Center Foundation in this expanding area off of City activities. A separate presentation will be made to the City Council in June on alternative approaches to funding the operating costs for the Arts Center when it opens in fiscal year 1993/94. Public Works Engineering Division: The reorganization of the division will continue in fiscal year 1992/93. A net reduction of 9.45 General Fund supported full time positions will occur in the Engineering Division through a combination of transfers to Capital Improvement Project funds, and reallocations. Maintenance Division: The Supervisor Building Maintenance and Crewleader Building Maintenance will be eliminated per the budget reduction plan. An 8% reduction will occur in the total number of work orders completed this year. An additional time delay of up to 2 weeks will occur for those work orders which are completed. A reduction in Civic Center janitorial service from 5 to 3 days per week. Park, Trees & Landscape Division: Highway landscape maintenance will be affected because we will be unable to replace 10 controllers, 20 backflow devices, and about 5,000 feet of pipe. Tree maintenance will be impacted with storm damage and vehicle accident cleanups being delayed, and some citizens requests will be denied. Park services will be affected because we will eliminate one (of two) annual complete fertilization of the entire system, and we will reduce the replanting of damaged plants and shrubs by 10%. These personnel changes result in a net 3/4 position decrease within all Public Works programs and funds. -X1X- Economic Development ~ A new program, Business Development, will be established to pro-actively increase sales tax and Transient Occupancy Tax (hotel bed tax) which comprise 19% of the City's General Fund revenues. The department will continue to develop additional housing programs for the 20% Set-Aside Redevelopment funds to provide housing opportunities for low and moderate income households within the community. The transfer of Redevelopment funds to the General Fund will increase $244,500 from $972,500 to $1,217,000 for fiscal year 1992/93. Within the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the rehabilitation loan program, code enforcement, and LOGOS program have been moved to the Community Development Department. To reflect this, the loan origination staff are now funded as part of the program/CIP budget rather than under administration. CONCLUSION This budget will diminish the quantity and quality of city services as the demands for City services increase while budget realities require that City programs and expenses be reduced. The proposal is to balance the budget by (1) reducing expenses by $3,254,491 and (2) adding new revenue of $2,341,000. These budget balancing measures were required because of the recession and the fact that the growth of city revenues is not keeping pace with City service demands. The City should focus on the development of a long-range financial management program that will result in the meeting future City service needs. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the Administrative Services staff for their efforts in preparing this document. The budget was prepared under the direction of Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrator/Administrative Services. He was assisted principally by John Roulette and Jim Lewis, Budget Analyst Seniors, Dan Villella, Finance Director; Sarah Aughton, Word Processing Systems Coordinator, Liane Nakasone, Word Processing Systems Assistant, and Jeff Frankel, Duplicating Equipment Operator. Additionally, I extend my thanks to department heads and all of the other dedicated City employees who have worked diligently over the past year to develop a balanced budget for fiscal year 1992/93. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA City Administrator -XX- U . UNUINGT �T BEA I FISCAL POLICIES On going expenditures `should a supporrted b� an going revenues. The General Fund reserves should be mamtalned at no Less than 3 wtth a reserve being desirable. No new capital improvements should be approved until asscic ated oper:. costs are funded b recurring revenues Each enterprise fund should reflect the true cost of operation ncl ffl: direct and indirect casts supported by the General Fund. If theitys budget is balanced., General Fund reserves in excess of 5 f should:be transferred to the Gap.:- Improvement Prod ects Fund on an annual bass. Td lmple�cnent the above fiscal `polies statements, a phase �n period dill be required. -Xxi- REQUESTED APPROPRIATIONS - ALL FUNDS Fiscal Year 1992/93 Capital Projects Other Funds Internal Service Funds $14,366,598 $5,805,574 $13,603,167 Debt Service Funds $8,188,500 Redevelopment Funds $21,435,665 General Fund $96,984,398 Transportation/Street Project $11,291,230 Other Enterprise Funds$3,450,266 Refuse Fund $6,185,929 Water Fund $21,992,328 Total Appropriations Requested - $203,303,654 -xx11- TOTAL RESOURCES - ALL FUNDS Fiscal Year 1992/93 Other Funds Net Use of Reserves Redevelopment Funds $6,385,100 $18,220,936 $14,728,000 Transportation/Street Improvement $6,035,000 Internal Service Funds $1 1,916,000 Other Enterprise Funds $3,304,000 Refuse Collection Service Fund j $6,336,000 General Fund Capitol Projects Funds Ongoing Revenue $98,395,200 $9,806,418 PERS Refund 3,265,000 Water Fund $101,660,200 $17,402,500 Debt Service Funds $7,509,500 Total Resources = $203,303,654 -xxiii- PROJECTED GENERAL FUND REVENUES Fiscal Year 1992/93 Charges for Current Services Fines and Forfeitures $6.657,000 From Other Agencies1,650,000 $8,279,000 Property Taxes Use of Money and Property $31,855,000 $6,289,000 Licenses and Permits $3,640,000 Transient Occupancy Tax $1,200,000 Other Taxes $4,814,000 Transfers Utility Tax $3,060,000 $12,800,000 Other Sales Tax $651,200 $17,500,000 Total General Fund Revenues = $98,395,200 -xx1v- MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES General Fund 34 - - ---------------------------------------- ------------ ------- -------- -------- -------•-------------------------• 32 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- ' ---- ' ------ ' ------ ' ---- ' ----- ' ----- ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Property Tax o Sales Tax 1 1 1 1 28 ----------------�-------J--------A----- --J---•---- ------- --------J-------- - -J-•---__-J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26 1 1 1 - . - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . M24 - 1 , 1 1 1 - ' ------ 1 ---- ' ------ ' ---- ' ---- ' ----- ' ----- ' i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 / � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 ----- ' --- / ----- ' ------ ' --- / ----- ' ----- ' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 / 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 n18 ------ -------- ------- •-------;----- --� �-------;--------J--------�--- ---;- ----- ------- --------J s 1 1 1 1 ; 1 1 1 1 . 16 -----—-•--------L-------J L----- --J------• -----1------•-J--------L.-------1----—---L•--•--•J-•------J 14 ---- ' - 1 1 ------ ------ = ------ ------ ------ =-------;------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 -------r-- ----r-------�------ r----- -- --------r--------1-------- --------r--------r-------r-------�--------� • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 - ---- '----- ------------------'----- --'-- ----' -------'--------= ------ -------'--------' ------- '--------' 1 1 1 , 1 -- �- 1 1 -�- 8 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 lest.) (est.) Fiscal Year —xov— GENERAL FUND BUDGET Recommended Appropriations by Department Fiscal Year 1992/93 City Council IS262,163 Non-Departmental $10,851,775 Administration $1,012,235 City Treasurer 5773,689 $1,409,639 City Attorney City Clerk S479,866 --------------- -------------- Administrative Services $4,299,501 I Library $3,221,947 I Community Develpoment $3,771,980 Fire $15,764,923 $31,894,419 Police Community Services 6,854,305 Public Works $16,387,956 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 $Millions Total Recommended General Fund Budget = $96,984,398 xxvi SUMMARY: GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS --FULL TIME POSITION REDUCTIONS- NET PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS FULL EXPENDITURE OTHER CURRENT TIME TEMPORARY DEPARTMENT REDUCTION FUNDS VACANCIES REASSIGN POSITIONS POSITIONS CITY COUNCIL $ -168 0.00 0.00 ADMINISTRATION -249,388 1.00 3.00 -4.00 0.00 NON-DEPARTMENTAL -404,609 0.00 0.00 CITY TREASURER -43,063 1.00 -1.00 0.00 CITY ATTORNEY -223,675 2.00 -2.00 0.00 CITY CLERK +59,774* 0.00 0.00 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES -201,382 2.75 -2.75 0.00 LIBRARY -200,374 2.00 -2.00 -1.00 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -251,450 3.00 -3.00 -1.00 FIRE DEPARTMENT -135,933 +3.00 -25.00 POLICE DEPARTMENT -349,912 6.00 -6.00 -11.00 COMMUNITY SERVICES -379,391 1.00 -1.00 -32.00 PUBLIC WORKS -829,921 8.45 2.00 _ -10.45 -10.00 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REDUCTIONS - 3 254 491 10.45 18.75 3.00 29.20 -80.00 Explanation of FULL TIME POSITION REDUCTIONS: OTHER FUNDS: Positions indicated in this column will be funded by non-General Fund revenues. CURRENT VACANCIES: These positions are currently vacant due to the Hiring Freeze. REASSIGNED: These positions will be reassigned to existing vacant positions. -xxvii- * Budget increase due to November, 1992 Municipal Election costs. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PERMANENT POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED DEPARTMENT 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 CITY COUNCIL 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 ADMINISTRATION 20.00 20.00 20.00 17.00 CITY TREASURER 12.00 14.00 14.00 13.00 CITY ATTORNEY 18.00 18.00 18.00 16.00 CITY CLERK 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 58.50 60.25 61.25 58.50 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 16.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 49.00 50.00 53.00 50.00 FIRE DEPARTMENT 178.25 177.25 179.00 182.00 POLICE DEPARTMENT 366.00 371.00 374.00 368.00 COMMUNITY SERVICES 61.25 62.25 64.50 64.00 LIBRARY SERVICES 40.75 40.75 40.75 38.75 PUBLIC WORKS 258.50 260.50 268.75 268.00 TOTAL PERMANENT POSITIONS 1,087.75 1.099.50 1,120.50 1 10 .50 FUNDING OF PERMANENT POSITIONS: GENERAL FUND (NUMBER OF POSITIONS) 995.00 997.00 981.25 952.05 OTHER FUNDS 92.75 102.50 139.25 151.45 TOTAL 1,087.75 1.099.50 1,120.50 1.103.50 -xxviii- A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Budgeted Full-Time Employees Fiscal Year 1976/77 to 1992/93 1,200 1,150 1,100 lam■ __�91,104 ■ E ■1,059 ■ ,065 m 1,050 ■ 1 7 0 1,000 1,007 Y �■ e ■946 e 950 ■ ■ ■`�■ ■ 952 6 900 BBB ■ Total Employees 850 13 — General Fund Employees Boo 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 (recommended) Fiscal Year —xxix— .. ......... ... ....... .................... 11410 OREM COMPARISON OF GOVERNMENT BUDGETS Fiscal Year 1991 /92 Per Capita Budget and Shortfall 6000 fp I ❑ Budget 5000 $5,814 Shortfall 4000 3000 $1,848 2000 $1,447 $1,129 $1,044 1000 $490 $29 $17 0 2 ANEW Federal State (California) County (Orange) City (Huntington Beach) -XXXi- REVENUES SUMMARIES AND DETAIL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY - ALL FUNDS FISCAL YEARS 1989/90 TO 1992/93 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED ESTIMATED GENERAL FUND: ONGOING REVENUES 85,202,156 89,381,843 90,767,585 98,395,200 PERS REFUNDS 0 5,917,183 6,100,000 3,265,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 85,202,156 95,299,026 96,867,585 101,660,200 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 12,530,437 12,208,838 11,557,000 9,806,418 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 7,405,761 5,813,366 15,841,000 7,509,500 WATER FUND 15,741,996 17,228,631 17,716,000 17,402,500 REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICE FUND 0 0 5,650,000 6,336,000 OTHER ENTERPRISE FUNDS 1,731,992 1,758,404 3,371,299 3,304,000 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 14,704,311 12,132,482 11,992,375 11,916,000 REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS 25,721,835 14,547,769 11,605,982 14,728,000 TRANSPORTATION/STREET IMP. 4,531,821 4,150,964 7,626,937 6,035,000 OTHER 3,285,474 3,976,633 5,302,560 6,385,100 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 170,855,783 167,116,113 187,530,738 185,082,718 ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ LESS INTERFUND TRANSFERS (27,339,911) NET TOTAL REVENUE 157,742,807 xxxii CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY BY INDIVIDUAL FUND FISCAL YEARS 1989/1990 TO 1992/93 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED ESTIMATED PARKING STRUCTURE 0 978,174 700,000 700,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 6,256,584 2,043,349 2,828,000 1,854,418 PIER REBUILDING 2,162,429 5,090o587 4,596,000 955,000 PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT 2,301,271 556,619 442,000 541,000 SEWER FUND 836,935 367,275 285,000 295,000 MELLO-ROOS 100,000 2,486,337 40,000 20,000 PARKING AUTHORITY 176,189 180,329 187,000 16,000 DRAINAGE FUND 697,029 388,006 315,000 325,000 FLOOD FUND 0 118,162 0 0 LIBRARY SERVICE 0 0 2,164,000 5,100,000 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJ FUNDS 12,530,437 12,208,838 11,557,000 9,806,418 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS HTG BCH PUB FIN AUTH 2,160,341 2,093,892 11,449,000 3,096,000 CIVIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION 3,700,512 2,225,789 2,935,000 2,935,000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION 465,090 622,340 434,000 437,000 PARKING AUTHORITY 90,168 96,924 72,000 84,500 RESERVIOR HILL ASSESSMENT 444,512 195,282 152,000 157,000 DISTRICT MELLO-ROOS 0 0 280,000 280,000 1970 PARK BONDS 545,138 579,139 519,000 520,000 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 7,405,761 5,813,366 15,841,000 7,509,500 xxxi 1 • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY BY INDIVIDUAL FUND FISCAL YEARS 1989/1990 TO 1992/93 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 ENTERPRISE FUNDS ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED ESTIMATED WATER FUND 15,741,996 17,228,631 17,716,000 17,402,500 REFUSE FUND 0 0 5,650,000 6,336,000 OTHER ENTERPRISE FUNDS: FIRE MEDICAL PROGRAM 478,730 478,730 2,103,800 2,040,000 EMERALD COVE HOUSING 856,667 864,816 833,499 824,000 MEADOWLARK GOLF COURSE 396,595 414,858 434,000 440,000 TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 17,473,988 18,987,035 26,737,299 27,042,500 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 4,681,077 2,957,335 3,146,000 3,266,000 INSURANCE FUNDS: MEDICAL 2,872,946 3,292,576 3,914,715 3,645,000 WORKERS COMPENSATION 2,868,175 2,772,146 2,256,660 2,380,000 LIABILITY 2,822,265 2,076,783 1,770,000 1,670,000 RETIREE MEDICAL 1,275,764 623,064 650,000 700,000 RETIREMENT SUPPLEMENT 184,084 410,578 255,000 255,000 TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 14,704,311 12,132,482 11,992,375 11,916,000 --xxxiV-- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY BY INDIVIDUAL FUND FISCAL YEARS 1989/1990 TO 1992/93 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED ESTIMATED DEBT SERVICE - TAX INCREMENT 3,771,749 5,662,734 4,415,000 4,813,000 CAPITAL PROJECTS 19,972,229 7,416,221 5,997,982 8,565,000 LOW INCOME HOUSING 1,977,857 1,468,814 1,193,000 1,350,000 TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS 25,721,835 14,547,769 11,605,982 14,728,000 STREET PROJECTS GAS TAX 4,531,821 4,150,964 6,061,937 4,815,000 TRANSPORTATION FUND 0 0 1,565,000 1,220,000 TOTAL STREET PROJECTS 4,531,821 4,150,964 7,626,937 6,035,000 OTHER FUNDS HOUSING AND COMM DEV BLOCK GRANT 1,045,902 1,330,944 1,400,000 1,400,000 OTHER GRANTS 418,185 466,212 134,000 142,000 HUD SUBSIDY 401,331 349,954 354,000 354,000 DONATIONS 242,064 116,693 20,000 20,000 CABLE TV FUND 350,334 353,848. 423,000 431,000 HOME PROGRAM FUND 0 0 0 881,000 NARCOTICS FORFEITURE 811,601 1,347,234 850,000 1,075,000 AIR QUALITY FUND 0 0 122,000 182,500 FIRE DISPATCH/JOINT POWERS FUND 0 0 1,573,000 1,673,000 COMMUNITY RELATIONS 0 0 10,000 10,000 PRIVATE PROJECT SELF SUFF 16,057 11,748 16,560 16,600 CULTURAL ART CENTER FUND 0 0 400,000 200,000 TOTAL OTHER FUNDS 3,285,474 3,976,633 5,302,560 6,385,100 -X}IXV- • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY GENERAL FUND FISCAL YEARS 1988/89 TO 1993/94 REVISED 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 SUMMARY OF REVENUES ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE PROPERTY TAXES 23,071,836 26,061,747 27,917,608 29,000,360 29,815,000 31,855,000 34,000,000 OTHER TAXES 30,518,602 32,377,982 31,549,258 34,792,250 34,553,000 36,314,000 38,000,000 LICENSES AND PERMITS 3,783,241 2,961,848 3,111,755 3,204,845 3,490,385 3,640,000 3,860,000 FINES AND FORFEITURES 2,457,611 2,256,414 1,903,751 2,374,500 1,520,000 1,650,000 2,000,000 USE OF MONEY AND PROP 6,362,955 4,149,480 4,227,470 5,738,500 5,326,000 6,289,000 7,174,000 FROM OTHER AGENCIES 80,540,702 8,979,005 9,451,371 8,607,518 8,013,000 8,279,000 9,050,000 CHARGES FOR CURRENT SVC. 5,642,886 6,781,414 8,340,954 4,365,113 4,430,000 6,657,000 7,263,000 OTHER 1,027,032 335,296 728,317 593,715 668,200 651,200 705,000 TRANSFERS 1,726,325 1,298,970 2,151,359 1,635,000 2,952,000 3,060,000 2,564,000 TOTAL ONGOING REVENUE 83,131,190 85,202,156 89,381,843 90,311,801 90,767,585 98,395,200 104,616,000 ONE-TIME REVENUE PERS REFUND 5,917,183 2,400,000 2,600,000 0 0 AB 702 CREDITS 3,500,000 3,265,000 CABLE SYSTEM REVENUE 6,191,317 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 89,322,507 85,202,156 95,299,026 92,711,801 96,867,585 101,660,200 104,616,000 -xxxvi- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE DETAIL GENERAL FUND FISCAL YEARS 1988/89 TO 1993/94 REVISED 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 PROPERTY TAKES ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 121 CURRENT YEAR SECURED 15,313,821 16,691,892 17,826,744 18,651,800 19,200,000 20,700,000 22,000,000 122 CURRENT YEAR UNSECURED 1,214,484 1,420,763 1,377,191 1,354,600 1,600,000 1,700,000 1,800,000 123 DEBT SVC SECURED 4,363,409 4,545,049 4,895,381 5,418,400 5,288,000 5,500,000 6,000,000 124 DEBT SVC UNSECURED 228,867 322,503 335,510 281,340 400,000 500,000 600,000 125 INT PENALTIES - DELINQUENT 169,956 175,954 249,619 190,000 200,000 200,000 245,000 126 AIRCRAFT 8,968 6,509 2,502 0 15,000 0 0 128 REFUND OF IMPOUNDS 27,446 0 162,258 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 130 HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION 424,834 429,908 422,958 427,220 427,000 430,000 430,000 131 PRIOR YEAR 673,840 645,134 616260 700,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 132 SUPPLEMENTAL ROLL 606,969 974,727 1,040:554 850,000 960,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 135 OTHER 39,242 915 0 2,000 0 0 0 141 UTILITY UNITARY TAX 0 848,393 988,631 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL PROPERTY TAX 23,071,836 26,061,747 27,917,608 29,000,360 29,815,000 31,855,000 34,000,000 OTHER TAXES 201 SALES TAX 17,484,679 18,430,291 16,874,874 17,600,000 16,600,000 17,500,000 18,000,000 202 FRANCHISES, UTILITY 486,110 876,895 1,255,591 1,725,000 1,800,000 1,700,000 2,000,000 203 TRANSFER STATION FEE 0 0 103,408 166,250 145,000 160,000 160,000 204 FRANCHISES, PIPELINE 68,900 154,641 168,062 145,000 145,000 150,000 160,000 205 IN-LIEU, WATER UTILITY 1,829,771 1,899,071 1,824,053 2,250,000 2,250,000 2,500,000 2,700,000 206 OCCUPANCY TAX 809,603 887,186 1,031,170 1,100,000 1,100,000 11200,000 1,300,000 207 CIGARETTE TAX 459,756 403,238 318,743 325,000 172,000 172,000 170,000 210 UTILITY TAXES, WATER 560,334 573,786 554,739 675,000 675,000 700,000 750,000 211 UTILITY TAXES, GAS 1,728,553 1,373,814 1,441,101 1,456,000 1,456,000 1,500,000 1,560,000 212 UTILITY TAXES, TELEPHONE 2,980,642 2,961,085 3,140,175 4,050,000 4,050,000 4,200,000 4,300,000 213 UTILITY TAXES, ELECTRICITY 4,110,254 4,817,975 4,837,342 5,300,000 5,300,000 5,500,000 5,700,000 214 UTILITY TAXES, CABLE TV 0 0 0 0 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 215 REFUSE FRANCHISE, COMM. 0 0 0 0 60,000 132,000 200,000 TOTAL OTHER TAXES 30,518,602 32,377,982 31,549,258 34,792,250 34,553,000 36,314,000 38,000,000 LICENSES AND PERMITS 301 BUSINESS LICENSE 906,094 936,743 973,159 1,275,000 1,375,000 1,560,000 1,650,000 302 OIL WELL TAXES 632,928 596,825 960,190 500,000 5251000 525,000 600,000 303 LICENSES, BICYCLE 7,070 749 6,970 7,580 9,000 10,000 10,000 304 LICENSES, OIL INSPECTION 142,300 0 62,417 80,000 70,000 90,000 90,000 305 LICENSES AND PERMITS, MISC 0 0 650 0 0 0 0 _x KxV11- REVISED • 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONT) ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 306 PERMITS, BUILDING 1,130,594 655,293 543,937 562,500 670,000 700,000 750,000 307 PERMITS, PLUMBING 171,532 104,140 86,728 78,750 78,750 100,000 100,000 308 PERMITS, ELECTRICAL 224,725 209,742 145,389 200,000 165,000 200,000 200,000 309 PERMITS, HEATING 104,912 72,299 50,731 61,875 61,875 70,000 70,000 310 PERMITS, STREET AND CURB 187,626 96,761 82,328 101,250 125,000 125,000 125,000 311 PERMITS, GRADING 47,394 40,523 42,609 45,000 260,000 50,000 50,000 312 PERMITS, SWIMMING POOL 30,464 26,724 24,543 22,500 23,000 25,000 25,000 316 PERMITS, MISC 11,095 50,304 20,810 24,760 24,760 25,000 .25,000 317 ALARM PERMITS 37,760 10,560 19,058 25,440 35,000 30,000 35,000 319 MOBILEHOME PERMITS 6,933 7,400 32,240 12,190 10,000 20,000 20,000 320 PERMITS, WASTEWATER 8,198 29,044 11,464 8,000 8,000 10,000 10,000 330 DEFERRED DEV FEES 133,616 124,741 48,532 0 0 0 0 338 PERMITS PLANNING PROC 0 0 0 200,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL LICENSES AND PERMITS 3,783,241 2,961,848 3,111,755 3,204,845 3,490,385 3,640,000 3,860,000 FINES AND FORFEITURES 401 COURT FINES 577,659 1,049,255 823,462 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 600,000 402 LIBRARY FINES 46,551 114,284 120,471 112,200 120,000 130,000 150,000 403 PARKING FINES DELINQ STATE 55,421 298,849 269,376 247,500 260,000 270,000 300,000 404 PARKING FINES 1,692,318 740,692 561,212 870,000 500,000 600,000 750,000 417 ALARM FINES 85,662 53,334 129,230 144,800 140,000 150,000 200,000 TOTAL FINES AND FORF. 2,457,611 2,256,414 1,903,751 2,374,500 1,520,000 1,650,000 2,000,000 USE OF MONEY AND PROP 502 LEASE HTG DRIFTWOOD 200,000 12,684 155,659 200,000 200,000 0 0 503 RENTALS LAND 189,138 20,267 94,844 175,000 72,000 100,000 100,000 504 TRAN INTEREST 0 0 330,000 400,000 415,000 450,000 500,000 505 RENTALS BLDGS 21,283 416,297 102,363 0 155,000 155,000 186,000 506 BEACH CONCESSIONS 431,474 389,324 415,712 450,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 507 ROYALTIES, OIL WELLS 143,252 183,250 499,412 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 508 OTHER ROYALTIES AND EASEMENTS 8,339 434,359 6,963 20,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 510 PARKING LOTS 1,081,957 920,490 993,752 1,325,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 511 PARKING REST PERMITS 3,266 2,046 2,115 2,000 2,000 2,000 3,000 512 SUNSET VISTA CAMPER 143,051 120,934 129,662 145,000 140,000 150,000 150,000 513 RENTALS PROP AND EQUIP. 6,774 87,253 5,449 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 514 INTEREST GENERAL 1,522,861 610,279 488,710 500,000 350,000 600,000 600,000 516 CENTRAL PARK CONC. 79,504 5,484 108,128 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 517 JAIL RENTAL 0 0 0 0 500,000 600,000 700,000 518 PARKING STRUCTURES 7,520 0 23,051 300,000 65,000 100,000 150,000 519 PARKING METERS 60,192 72,400 72,485 75,000 75,000 75,000 85,000 521 INTEREST, MORTGAGES 0 0 26,065 34,500 10,000 0 0 522 PARKING METERS RESID. 23,986 26,545 37,282 30,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 xxcviii- REVISED 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 ` USE OF MONEY AND PROP (CONT) ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 523 PARKING METERS PCH 326,811 347,868 270,231 400,000 300,000 400,000 400,000 525 LATE CHARGES 0 0 55,857 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 530 INTEREST RDA 2,113,547 500,000 409,167 972,000 972,000 1,217,000 1,500,000 531 VENDING MACHINES 0 0 563 0 0 0 0 TOTAL USE OF MONEY AND 6,362,955 4,149,480 4,227,470 5,738,500 5,326,000 6,289,000 7,174,000 PROP. FROM OTHER AGENCIES 601 TRAILER COACH LICENSE FEE 50,189 53,446 44,900 57,750 58,000 58,000 60,000 603 COUNTY LIFEGUARD MAINT 74,474 81,922 66,692 70,000 75,000 75,000 80,000 604 TIDELANDS REV 84,089 80,532 60,730 60,000 60,000 60,000 80,000 605 REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX 836,368 701,499 581,145 600,000 500,000 700,000 700,000 607 MOTOR VEHICLE IN LIEU 6,500,589 6,607,918 6,624,767 6,857,768 6,300,000 6,334,000 7,000,000 608 M.W.D. 77,271 0 0 0 0 0 0 609 SB 90 REIMB 0 0 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 610 JOINT POWERS REVENUE 511,760 698,508 785,215 0 0 0 0 613 STATE MANDATED COST REIMB 0 98,782 171,505 100,000 80,000 80,000 100,000 616 DIRECT LIB LOANS 48,196 51,102 46,083 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 620 STATE PUB LIB SYS 159,201 151,513 120,165 122,000 122,000 122,000 125,000 622 JPA HAZMAT 0 0 7,996 0 0 0 0 630 OTHER 19,408 2,806 77,959 20,000 20,000 20,000 25,000 631 CABLE TV REVENUE 381,930 450,977 516,091 540,000 618,000 650,000 700,000 632 FROM FEDERAL GOVT 0 0 3,339 0 0 0 0 633 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 93,391 0 64,861 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 635 O.C.T.C. -296,164 0 0 0 0 0 0 636 CITY OF WESTMINSTER 0 0 36,554 0 0 0 0 639 REGIONAL NARC SUPPRESSION 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 680 RNSP SALARY 0 0 108,651 0 0 0 0 681 RNSP HELICOPTER 0 0 55,993 0 0 0 0 692 KOLL REIMB BOLSA CHICA 0 0 63,657 0 0 0 0 695 OTHER 0 0 15,068 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FROM OTHER AGCYS. 8,540,702 8,979,005 9,451,371 8,607,518 8,013,000 8,279,000 9,050,000 CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICE 701 ZONING AND SUBDIVISION 92,626 113,176 166,691 150,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 702 SALES OF MAPS AND PUBL. 16,295 14,179 -12,417 10,500 141000 14,000 15,000 705 PLAN CHECK FEES 453,346 367,872 289,212 337,500 380,000 400,000 400,000 706 ENGINNERING AND INSP. FEE 720,136 139,309 82,324 135,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 707 WEED ABATEMENT 26,883 30,965 23,688 27,300 27,000 27,000 30,000 708 SPECIAL CITY SVCS 142,772 420,406 249,027 282,450 282,000 282,000 300,000 710 PROPRIETARY FUND CHARGES 378,962 380,000 530,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 711 COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT FEE 423,782 117,747 69,319 78,750 0 0 0 -xxx1X- REVISED CHARGES FOR CURRENT 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 SERVICE (CONT) ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 715 JUNIOR LIFEGUARD 118,630 127,708 135,242 136,500 137,000 137,000 140,000 716 LIBRARY SVC 62,282 0 64,851 7,800 62,000 65,000 65,000 717 POST REIMB 85,760 103,479 128,450 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 719 CERT OF OCCUPANCY 32,753 32,226 28,160 36,000 36,000 36,000 40,000 720 O.C. SANIT COLL FEE 73,261 36,014 12,484 21,000 21,000 21,000 25,000 721 SPECIAL PLAN CHECK FEE 29,284 0 0 40,500 41,000 41,000 45,000 723 REFUSE 1,827,893 3,692,055 5,037,149 0 0 0 0 724 GRADING PLAN CHECK 28,255 28,033 16,306 22,500 23,000 23,000 25,000 725 OC SANITATION FEES 27,485 12,598 7,754 12,600 13,000 13,000 15,000 728 ADM COST SFMRB 0 0 90,000 0 0 0 0 730 OTHER 64,367 7,126 13,445 17,065 17,000 17,000 15,000 733 RECREATIONAL FEES 915,046 1,006,966 1,041,183 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,300,000 1,350,000 736 HAZMAT FEE FIRE 77,762 103,768 101,045 150,000 1500,000 150,000 150,000 739 JAIL CHARGES 0 0 0 0 0 740 PHOTOCOPYING 4,093 47,787 54,427 49,200 60,000 60,000 60,000 741 VENDING MACHINES 41,213 0 7,438 5,250 5,000 5,000 5,000 752 REC AND PARK DEV SUPV 0 0 0 12,600 13,000 13,000 15,000 756 LIBRARY COPY MACHINES 0 0 0 42,000 0 0 0 761 BLOOD ALCOHOL REIMB 0 0 205,176 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 782 BOLSA CHICA REIMB 0 0 0 440,598 389,000 397,000 0 783 HOLLY SEACLIFFE 0 0 0 0 0 296,000 308,000 RECOMMENDED USER FEES 1,800,000 2,600,000 TOTAL CHARGES FOR CURRENT SVC 5,642,886 6,781,414 8,340,954 4,365,113 4,430,000 6,657,000 7,263,000 OTHER REVENUE 801 PROPERTY, EQUIP SALES 55,231 81,810 102,756 116,415 120,000 116,000 120,000 802 JOINT POWERS REVENUE 0 0 79,765 0 0 0 0 805 SPECIAL FEES 14,320 0 0 8,525 8,525 8,525 10,000 808 COIN TELEPHONES 3,505 2,295 0 4,200 4,200 4,200 5,000 809 MAINTENANCE REQUISITIONS 11,764 2,590 -2,514 4,000 4,000 4,000 5,000 810 EMERG RESP POLICE 3,557 0 5,850 4,700 4,700 4,700 5,000 814 EMERG RESP FIRE 4,311 0 809 10,500 9,000 9,000 15,000 820 MATERIALS PUBLIC WORKS 46,069 0 57,358 85,025 85,025 85,025 85,000 830 OTHER 382,457 129,000 303,416 176,175 176,175 176,175 180,000 831 DONATIONS 0 0 43,009 0 0 0 0 832 PROPERTY DAMAGE 9,307 20,170 31,505 18,875 18,875 18,875 20,000 833 STREET SWEEPING 29,266 0 39,448 43,250 43,250 43,250 45,000 834 USE RESTRICTION FEE 0 0 4,166 0 0 0 0 839 BUS BENCH ADS 37,205 32,569 22,996 18,000 100,000 80,000 90,000 840 SOUVINEER SALES 12,757 0 0 12,600 3,000 3,000 15,000 841 RECORDS AND CASSETTES 22,370 0 23,964 23,100 23,100 23,100 25,000 842 LIBRARY LOST BOOKS 8,038 0 8,793 9,450 9,450 9,450 10,000 845 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT 69,475 0 0 36,750 36,750 36,750 40,000 -xl- REVISED 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 OTHER REVENUE (CONT) ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 846 OTHER MAINTENANCE -758 66,862 3,771 3,050 3,050 3,050 5,000 849 PLANS AND SPECS 0 0 3,225 0 0 0 0 860 HTG HARBOUR MAINT 21,000 0 0 17,000 17,000 24,000 25,000 877 RESTITUTION 0 0 0 2,100 2,100 2,100 5,000 885 LAND SALES 297,158 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 1,027,032 335,296 728,317 593,715 668,200 651,200 705,000 TRANSFERS FROM: 0 0 GAS TAX 1,291,382 1,290,220 1,450,000 1,575,000 1,575,000 1,600,000 1,700,000 OTHER 380,680 8,750 663,671 60,000 360,000 0 FIREMED 117,000 200,000 250,000 GOLF COURSE 25,000 25,000 REFUSE COLLECTION 250,000 500,000 CABLE TV 85,000 89,000 PARKING STRUCTURE 900,000 900,000 INVENTORY INCREASE 54,263 37,688 TOTAL TRANSFERS 1,726,325 1,298,970 2,151,359 1,635,000 2,952,000 3,060,000 2,564,000 TOTAL ONGOING REVENUE 83,131,190 85,202,156 89,381,843 90,311,801 90,767,585 98,395,200 104,616,000 CABLE SYSTEM REVENUE 6,191,317 PERS REFUND 5,917,183 2,400,000 2,600,000 AB 702 CREDITS 3,500,000 3,265,000 GRAND TOTAL GENERAL FUND 89,322,507 85,202,156 95,299,026 92,711,801 96,867,585 101,660,200 104,616,000 -xli- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS FISCAL YEARS 1988/89 TO 1992/93 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED PARKING STRUCTURE 0 15,924,684 978,174 900,000 700,000 700,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 4,356,000 6,256,584 2,043,349 1,600,000 2,828,000 1,854,418 PIER REBUILDING 0 2,162,429 5,090,587 3,591,000 4,596,000 955,000 PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT 3,260,502 2,301,271 556,619 890,000 442,000 541,000 SEWER FUND 705,787 836,935 367,275 435,000 285,000 295,000 MELLO-ROOS 0 100,000 2,486,337 0 40,000 20,000 PARKING AUTHORITY 174,355 176,189 180,329 178,000 187,000 16,000 DRAINAGE FUND 1,210,557 697,029 388,006 440,000 315,000 325,000 FLOOD FUND 14,000 0 118,162 7,000 0 0 LIBRARY SERVICE 0 0 0 7,792,000 2,164,000 5,100,000 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 9,721,201 28,455,121 12,208,838 15,833,000 11,557,000 9,806,418 �sxcss==s==ss=ss��ss�ss=ssx=s=sxcs�=sx-sx------z�==scs==sx=sx xasx----s=sss= -X111- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE DETAIL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 TO 1992/93 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 PARKING STRUCTURE FUNDS ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED CC 1986 PKG STR 501 INT INC POOLED CASH 189,204 281,252 210,106 200,000 200,000 200,000 CZ FUND 1989 PARKING STRUCTURE 904 PROCEEDS OF DEBT 15,025,000 501 INT INC POOLED CASH 618,432 429,068 700,000 500,000 500,000 530 INT RDA LOANS 339,000 TOTAL 1989 PARKING STRUCTURE 0 15,643,432 768,068 700,000 500,000 500,000 TOTAL PARKING STRUCTURE FUNDS 0 15,924,684 978,174 900,000 700,000 700,000 CP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 501 INTEREST INCOME 198,000 612,220 448,349 100,000 100,000 100,000 830 OTHER 294,000 902 PROCEEDS OF DEBT 1,054,418 903 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 3,864,000 5,644,364 1,595,000 1,500,000 2,728,000 700,000 TOTAL CAPITAL IMP FUND 4,356,000 6,256,584 2,043,349 1,600,000 2,828,000 1,854,418 PG PIER REBUILDING FUND 501 INTEREST INCOME 134,864 117,792 40,000 150,000 50,000 510 PARKING LOTS 177,021 201,807 200,000 160,000 220,000 904 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,611,243 163,800 1,500,000 4,000,000 830 OTHER 9,588 5,443 10,000 850 GRANT DEED 2,285 60,000 853 DONORS 5,642 1,000 854 SPONSORS 33,500 25,428 10,000 855 PATRONS 49,000 47,000 40,000 857 SCHOOL CONT 4,257 100 5,000 859 SPECIAL FUNDRAISING 26,392 557 10,000 858 LANDMARK CAMPAIGN 36,120 150,000 100,000 859 PIER GROUP 10,013 15,000 15,000 633 FROM STATE OF CALIF 2,062,462 750,000 225,000 632 FROM FEDERAL GOUT 1,038,737 1,006,000 295,000 655 FROM ANJO JAPAN 92,859 634 FROM COUNTY OF ORANGE 1,250,000 801 PROP EQUIP SALES 7,404 851 CONTRIBUTOR, PIER 32,185 14,061 5,000 75,000 50,000 858 LANDMARK CAMPAIGN 42,221 831 DONATIONS 42,158 8,052 0 852 SUPPORTER, PIER 1,025 TOTAL PIER REBUILDING FUND 0 2,162,429 5,090,587 3,591,000 4,596,000 955,000 -xliii- 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 SK PARK A AND D FUND ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED 501 INTEREST INCOME 232,285 437,227 49,835 50,000 11,000 11,000 314 SUBDIVISION LICENSE FEE 1,869,817 611,585 344,430 840,000 385,000 475,000 830 OTHER 1,158,400 246,481 (7,147) 40,000 50,000 530 INTEREST INCOME RDA LOANS 1,005,978 100,000 634 FROM COUNTY OF ORANGE 65,617 525 LATE CHARGES 3,884 6,000 5,000 TOTAL PARK A AND D 3,260,502 2,301,271 556,619 890,000 442,000 541,000 SL SEWER FUND 501 INTEREST INCOME POOLED CASH 457,426 462,007 335,426 300,000 245,000 260,000 316 SEWER PERMITS 162,063 46,712 12,669 100,000 30,000 20,000 305 DEVELOPER FEES 86,298 15,816 30,000 10,000 15,000 330 DEFERRED DEVELOPMENT FEES 5,435 525 LATE CHGS 124 530 RDA INTEREST (2,195) 830 OTHER 328,216 5,000 TOTAL SEWER FUND 705,787 836,935 367,275 435,000 285,000 295,000 MR MELLO-ROOS CAPITAL PROJECTS 509 INT INC REST CASH 86,337 40,000 20,000 902 PROCEEDS OF DEBT 100,000 2,400,000 TOTAL MELLO-ROOS CAP PROJ 0 100,000 2,486,337 0 40,000 20,000 CX PARKING AUTHORITY CAP PROJ 501 INTEREST INCOME 4,305 6,139 9,629 7,000 16,000 16,000 903 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 170,050 170,050 170,700 171,000 171,000 TOTAL PKG AUTH CAP PROJ 174,355 176,189 180,329 178,000 187,000 16,000 SM DRAINAGE FUND 501 INT INC POOLED CASH 345,589 372,909 248,208 230,000 145,000 150,000 530 INT INC RDA LOANS 1,500 330 DEFERRED DEVELOPMENT FEES 18,748 328 DEVELOPMENT FEES 323,040 119,399 200,000 165,000 170,000 830 OTHER 864,968 1,080 151 10,000 5,000 5,000 TOTAL DRAINAGE FUND 1,210,557 697,029 388,006 440,000 315,000 325,000 -xliv- 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 ST FLOOD FUND ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED 501 INTEREST INCOME 14,000 8,162 7,000 903 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 110,000 TOTAL FLOOD FUND 14,000 0 118,162 7,000 0 0 LX LIBRARY SERVICE FUND 831 DONATIONS 594,000 711 COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT FEE 110,000 76,000 100,000 903 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 7,088,000 2,088,000 5,000,000 TOTAL LIBRARY SERVICE FUND 0 = 0 0 7,792,000 2,164,000 5,100,000 TOTAL CAPITAL FUNDS 9,721,201 28,455,121 12,208,838 15,833,000 11,557,000 1 9,806,418 ------------------- �•xlv-- • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY DEBT SERVICE FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 TO 1992/93 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED HTG BCH PUB FIN AUTHORITY 2,974,215 2,160,341 2,093,892 2,547,000 11,449,000 3,096,000 CIVIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION 1,746,875 3,700,512 2,225,789 2,965,000 2,935,000 2,935,000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CORP 428,975 465,090 622,340 419,000 434,000 437,000 PARKING AUTHORITY 82,376 90,168 96,924 50,000 72,000 84,500 RESERVIOR HILL ASSESSMENT DIST. 0 444,512 195,282 147,000 152,000 157,000 MELLO-ROOS 0 0 0 208,000 280,000 280,000 1970 PARK BONDS 530,263 545,138 579,139 519,000 519,000 520,000 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 5,762,704 7,405,761 5,813,366 6,855,000 15,841,000 1 7,509,500 -------------------- -XZVl- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE DETAIL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 TO 1992/93 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED HUNT BCH PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY 902 PROCEEDS OF LT DEBT 115,658 9,000,000 509 INT INC RESTRICTED CASH 809,548 407,787 282,114 400,000 235,000 400,000 909 PFA LEASE PMT 2,049,009 1,752,554 1,811,778 2,147,000 2,214,000 2,696,000 TOTAL HBPFA 2,974,215 2,160,341 2,093,892 2,547,000 11,449,000 3,096,000 DH CIVIC IMPROVEMENT CORP 1986 509 INTEREST INCOME RESTRICTED CASH 145,862 170,842 16,645 100,000 120,000 120,000 903 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,601,013 1,569,775 1,586,803 1,680,000 1,610,000 1,610,000 TOTAL 1986 CIVIC IMPR CORP 1,746,875 1,740,617 1,603,448 1,780,000 1,730,000 1,730,000 DZ CIVIC IMPROVEMENT CORP 1989 509 INTEREST INCOME RESTRICTED CASH 91,681 49,812 65,000 65,000 65,000 903 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,868,214 572,529 1,120,000 1,140,000 1,140,000 TOTAL 1989 CIVIC IMPR CORP 0 1,959,895 622,341 1,185,000 1,205,000 1,205,000 TOTAL CIVIC IMPROVEMENT CORP. 1,746,875 3,700,512 2,225,789 2,965,000 2,935,000 2,935,000 DI HBPFC DEBT SERVICE 509 INTEREST INCOME RESTRICTED CASH 29,975 66,090 49,812 20,000 35,000 38,000 903 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 399,000 399,000 572,528 399,000 399,000 399,000 TOTAL HBPFC DEBT SVC 428,975 465,090 622,340 419,000 434,000 437,000 DX PARKING AUTH DEBT SVC 509 INTEREST INCOME POOLED CASH 82,376 90,168 14,221 50,000 60,000 71,000 501 INTEREST INCOME RESTRICTED CASH 82,703 12,000 13,500 TOTAL PARKING AUTH DEBT SVC 82,376 90,168 96,924 50,000 72,000 84,500 DR DEBT SERVICE RESERVOIR HILL 127 ASSESSMENTS 211,833 163,629 137,000 137,000 137,000 155 INDIVIDUAL PMTS 19,591 20,600 10,000 9,000 10,000 501 INTEREST INCOME POOLED CASH 3,384 903 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 213,088 509 INTEREST INCOME RESTRICTED CASH 7,669 6,000 10,000 TOTAL RES HILL DEBT SVC 0 444,512 195,282 147,000 152,000 157,000 -xlvii- 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 PA MELLO-ROOS DEBT SERVICE ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED 509 INT INC REST CASH 8,000 16,000 16,000 127 ASSESSMENTS 200,000 264,000 264,000 TOTAL MELLO ROOS DEBT SERVICE 0 0 0 208,000 280,000 280,000 DP FUND 1970 PARK BOND 501 INTEREST INCOME 13,737 18,190 24,641 19,000 19,000 20,000 121 CURR YR SECURED 477,830 450,608 471,249 470,000 470,000 470,000 122 CURR YR UNSECURED 25,063 31,974 32,394 30,000 30,000 30,000 128 REFUND OF IMPOUNDS 1,242 1,596 131 PRIOR YR 12,391 14,600 151 HOMEOWNER DEBT 12,063 153 SUPPLEMENTAL DEBT 29,766 37,196 TOTAL PARK BOND DEBT SVC FUND 530,263 545,138 579,139 519,000 519,000 520,000 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 5,762,704 7,405,761 5,813,366 6,855,000 15,841,000 7,509,500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -XIV111- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY ENTERPRISE FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 TO 1992/93 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED WATER FUND 14,262,530 15,741,996 17,228,631 17,680,000 17,716,000 17,402,500 REFUSE FUND 0 0 0 5,637,600 5,650,000 6,336,000 OTHER ENTERPRISE FUNDS: FIRE MEDICAL PROGRAM 0 478,730 2,758,878 2,503,500 2,103,800 2,040,000 EMERALD COVE HOUSING 838,787 856,667 864,816 825,699 833,499 824,000 MEADOWLARK GOLF COURSE 368,588 396,595 414,858 405,000 434,000 440,000 TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 15,469,905 17,473,988 21,267,183 27,051,799 26,7371299 27,042,500 ------------ -XZ]X- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE DETAIL ENTERPRISE FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 TO 1992/93 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED EW WATER FUND 732 WATER SALES 11,823,131 12,483,936 12,750,886 15,500,000 15,500,000 15,550,000 532 FIRE SERVICE 197,170 940 200,000 255,000 265,000 731 CITY WATER USAGE 287,366 177,586 338,170 350,000 350,000 350,000 533 SALES CONSTRUCTION 158,450 794 253 25,000 10,000 10,000 TOTAL OPER. 12,466,117 12,662,316 13,090,249 16,075,000 16,115,000 16,175,000 NON OPERATING 501 INTEREST INC POOLED CASH 780,475 827,927 785,735 700,000 600,000 300,000 509 INTEREST INCOME RESTRICTED CASH 27,096 530 INTEREST RDA LOANS 125,749 830 OTHER 740,744 889,333 122,203 125,000 20,000 20,000 801 SALE OF PROPERTY 18,119 37,816 75,000 35,000 50,000 525 LATE CHARGES 158,712 266,971 339,204 250,000 300,000 300,000 742 ACREAGE FEES 37,573 8,549 4,414 5,000 4,000 4,500 743 TRACT FEES 60,790 10,872 5,614 5,000 7,000 6,000 745 REIMB F/C 591 290,000 312,000 832 PROPERTY DAMAGE 19,732 849 PLANS AND SPECS 930 903 TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,076,028 395,000 75,000 135,000 520 SPECIAL WATER SALES 10,368 950 PRIOR PERIOD ADJ 825,034 905 CONT RECEIVED 1,500,109 656 W.O.C.W.B. 20,000 100,000 643 FROM OCWD 334,378 50,000 250,000 TOTAL NON OPERATING 1,796,413 3,079,680 4,138,382 1,605,000 1,601,000 1,227,500 TOTAL WATER FUND 14,262,530 15,741,996 17,228,631 17,680,000 17,716,000 17,402,500 ER REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICE FUND 723 REFUSE FEES 5,637,600 5,650,000 6,336,000 EF FIRE MEDICAL PROGRAM 501 INTEREST INCOME 9,718 3,546 3,500 3,800 525 LATE CHARGES 162 830 OTHER 735 FIRE MED MEMBERSHIP 469,012 875,332 1,700,000 880,000 900,000 775 FIRE MED FEES 1,879,838 800,000 1,220,000 1,140,000 TOTAL FIRE MEDICAL PROG 0 478,730 2,758,878 2,503,500 2,103,800 2,040,000 -1- 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 EH EMERALD COVE HOUSING ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED 501 INTEREST INCOME POOLED CASH 102,956 155,709 128,194 120,000 105,000 105,000 505 RENTAL INCOME 604,439 629,556 595,215 606,200 603,000 603,000 509 INTEREST INCOME RESTRICTED CASH 68,174 24,319 35,828 24,000 49,000 34,000 830 OTHER 2,916 1,765 1,000 2,000 2,000 903 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 60,302 45,318 105,579 74,499 74,499 80,000 TOTAL EMERALD COVE HOUSING 838,787 856,667 864,816 825,699 833,499 824,000 EV MEADOWLARK GOLF COURSE 501 INT INC POOLED CASH 84,488 109,280 100,926 80,000 95,000 100,000 503 RENTALS LAND 284,100 287,315 301,432 325,000 335,000 335,000 505 RENTALS BUILDING 12,500 4,000 5,000 TOTAL MEADOWLARK FUND 368,588 396,595 414,858 405,000 434,000 440,000 TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 15,469,905 17,473,988 21,267,183 27,051,799 26,737,299 27,042,500 -li- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 TO 1992/93 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 1,880,429 4,681,077 2,957,335 3,144,000 3,146,000 3,266,000 INSURANCE FUNDS: MEDICAL INSURANCE 1,810,009 2,872,946 3,292,576 3,231,000 3,914,715 3,645,000 WORKERS COMPENSATION 2,867,446 2,868,175 2,772,146 2,256,660 2,256,660 2,380,000 LIABILITY INSURANCE 2,984,288 2,822,265 2,076,783 1,950,000 1,770,000 1,670,000 RETIREE MEDICAL INS. 620,706 1,275,764 623,064 675,000 650,000 700,000 RETIREMENT SUPPLEMENT 0 184,084 410,578 240,000 255,000 255,000 TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 10,162,878 14,704,311 12,132,482 11,496,660 11,992,375 11,916,000 -Ill- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE DETAIL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 TO 1992/93 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 IQ EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED 513 RENTAL INCOME 1,415,741 1,928,859 2,025,655 2,103,000 2,141,000 2,250,000 509 INT INCOME RESTRICTED CASH 105,411 14,000 15,000 501 INTEREST INCOME POOLED CASH 464,688 612,673 337,237 400,000 350,000 350,000 903 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,687,745 7,740 150,000 150,000 150,000 TOTAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 1,880,429 4,229,277 2,476,043 2,653,000 2,655,000 2,765,000 IR EQUIPMENT REP 800 MHZ 501 INTEREST 30,874 60,292 70,000 70,000 80,000 90-1 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 420,926 421,000 421,000 421,000 421,000 TOTAL EQUIP REP 800 MHZ 0 451,800 481,292 491,000 491,000 501,000 TOTAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 1,880,429 4,681,077 2,957,335 3,144,000 3,146,000 3,266,000 IA SELF INSURANCE MEDICAL 501 INTEREST INCOME POOLED CASH 1,541 88 1,000 750 INTERDEPARTMENTAL CHARGES 1,764,247 2,872,946 3,029,943 3,200,000 3,100,000 3,200,000 757 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 35,000 35,000 758 COBRA PMTS 135,000 140,000 759 RETIREE SUBSIDY 180,000 190,000 751 RETIREE PMTS (NON-SUBSIDIZED) 75,000 80,000 815 STOP LOSS RECOVERY 262,022 389,715 830 OTHER 44,221 523 30,000 TOTAL SELF INSURNCE MEDICAL 1,810,009 2,872,946 3,292,576 3,231,000 3,914,715 3,645,000 IB WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 501 INTEREST INCOME POOLED CASH 381,257 372,009 268,376 230,000 230,000 230,000 830 OTHER 57,447 540 750 INTERDEPARTMENTAL CHARGES 2,486,189 2,496,166 2,446,323 2,026,660 2,026,660 2,150,000 TOTAL WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 2,867,446 2,868,175 2,772,146 2,256,660 2,256,660 2,380,000 IC SELF INSURANCE LIABILITY 750 INTERDEPARTMENTAL CHARGES 2,500,000 2,318,000 1,500,000 1,700,000 1,460,000 1,360,000 501 INTEREST INCOME 370,135 501,406 407,797 250,000 250,000 250,000 830 OTHER 114,153 2,859 94,546 60,000 60,000 973 JOINT VENTURE 73,340 903 TRANSFER FROM OTH FUNDS 1,100 TOTAL SELF INSURANCE LIABILITY 2,984,288 2,822,265 2,076,783 1,950,000 1,770,000 1,670,000 -liii- 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 ID RETIREE MEDICAL INSURANCE ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED 501 INTEREST INCOME 27,384 112,718 176,301 175,000 150,000 175,000 750 INTERDEPARTMENTAL CHARGES 593,322 1,163,046 446,763 500,000 500,000 525,000 TOTAL RETIREE MEDICAL INS 620,706 1,275,764 623,064 675,000 650,000 700,000 IH RETIREMENT SUPPLEMENT FUND 750 INTERDEPARTMENTAL CHARGES 182,000 400,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 501 INTEREST INCOME 2,084 10,578 15,000 15,000 TOTAL RETIREMENT SUPP. FUND 0 184,084 410,578 240,000 255,000 255,000 TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 10,162,878 14,704,311 12,132,482 11,496,660 11,992,375 11,916,000 -Z1V- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 TO 1992/93 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED DEBT SERVICE - TAX INCREMENT 3,073,158 3,771,749 5,662,734 4,616,200 4,415,000 4,813,000 CAPITAL PROJECTS 53,440,747 19,972,229 7,416,221 6,002,000 5,997,982 8,565,000 LOW INCOME HOUSING 2,281,703 1,977,857 1,468,814 1,719,412 1,193,000 1,350,000 TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS 58,795,608 25,721,835 14,547,769 12,337,612 11,605,982 14,728,000 axsasaaaxsaaaa=a=saaaaaaaassaaasasxsaaaasaaxaaaxaxaxx--�--a=a=======�=xxxx= CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE DETAIL REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 TO 1992/93 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED REDEVELOPMENT AGCY DEBT SERVICE RT TALBERT BEACH DEBT SVC 501 INTEREST INCOME POOLED CASH 32,363 44,807 22,357 30,000 40,000 43,000 121 PROPERTY TAX SECURED 190,784 191,333 170,564 167,000 200,000 205,000 622 TOTAL TALBERT BEACH DEBT SERVICE 223,147 236,140 192,921 197,000 240,000 248,000 RM MAIN PIER DEBT SERVICE 501 INTEREST INCOME POOLED CASH 92,779 331,735 104,190 50,000 9,000 9,000 121 PROPERTY TAX SECURED 831,620 980,779 1,387,327 1,820,300 1,840,000 2,178,000 206 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 108,287 903 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,035,000 425,000 TOTAL MAIN/PIER DEBT SERVICE 924,399 1,312,514 2,634,804 2,295,300 1,849,000 2,187,000 RO OAKVIEW DEBT SERVICE 501 INTEREST INCOME POOLED CASH 62,664 90,029 96,577 110,000 90,000 100,000 830 OTHER 81,843 525 LATE CHGS 11,344 121 PROPERTY TAX SECURED 293,243 840,670 746,978 717,500 726,000 740,000 TOTAL OAKVIEW DEBT SERVICE 355,907 930,699 936,742 827,500 816,000 840,000 RY YORKTOWN/LAKE DEBT SERVICE 501 INTEREST INCOME POOLED CASH 19,275 16,195 22,024 20,000 18,000 20,000 121 PROPERTY TAX SECURED 15,871 26,545 141,902 72,000 185,000 198,000 TOTAL YORKTOWN/LAKE DEBT SERVICE 35,146 42,740 163,926 92,000 203,000 218,000 RH HUNTINGTON CENTER DEBT SERVICE 501 INTEREST INCOME POOLED CASH 79,550 191,315 139,703 80,000 110,000 85,000 830 OTHER 391,295 121 PROPERTY TAX SECURED 1,063,714 1,058,341 1,594,638 1,124,400 1,197,000 1,235,000 TOTAL HTG CENTER DEBT SERVICE 1,534,559 1,249,656 1,734,341 1,204,400 1,307,000 1,320,000 TOTAL REDEV. AGCY DEBT SERVICE 3,073,158 3,771,749 5,662,734 4,616,200 4,415,000 4,813,000 -lvi- 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 TT TALBERT/BEACH CAPITAL PROJECTS ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED 909 HBPFA LOANS 187,155 351,262 501 INT INC POOLED CASH 31,149 45,674 56,362 50,000 35,000 45,000 902 PROCEEDS OF DEBT 143,960 520,662 22,273 830 OTHER 47,437 574 TOTAL TALBERT/BEACH CAPITAL 409,701 566,910 78,635 50,000 386,262 45,000 PROJECTS TM MAIN/PIER CAPITAL PROJECTS 206 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 108,287 350,000 500,000 503 RENTALS LAND 8,972 505 RENTALS BUILDING 29,891 122,325 57,720 50,000 45,000 50,000 909 HBPFA LOANS 1,841,531 1,680,575 LAND, OPAS AND DDAS 29,017,258 400,000 501 INTEREST INCOME POOLED CASH 682,462 1,258,881 543,672 500,000 200,000 300,000 801 SALE OF PROPERTY 1,250,094 223,125 4,620,000 6,920,000 903 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 137,153 100,000 837 DEVELOPER ADVANCES 1,200,000 473,757 500,000 500,000 950 PRIOR PERIOD ADJ (2,999,999) ABDELMUTI LOAN REPAYMENT 200,000 902 PROCEEDS OF LT DEBT 15,078,939 15,852,176 8,248,118 TOTAL MAIN/PIER CAP PROJ 49,100,175 17,633,382 6,800,805 5,670,000 2,375,575 8,470,000 TO OAKVIEW CAPITAL PROJECTS 909 HBPFA LOANS 626,624 501 INT INC POOLED CASH 144,006 49,564 57,057 50,000 35,000 45,000 902 PROCEEDS OF DEBT 621,590 582,703 106,787 830 OTHER 81,843 2,745 TOTAL OAKVIEW CAPITAL PROJECTS 847,439 635,012 163,844 50,000 661,624 45,000 TY YORKTOWN/LAKE CAPITAL PROJECTS 501 INTEREST INCOME 47,789 12,043 8,642 7,000 4,000 5,000 902 PROCEEDS OF DEBT 88,265 278,050 16,641 245,000 TOTAL YORKTOWN/LAKE CAPITAL 136,054 290,093 25,283 7,000 249,000 5,000 PROJECTS TH HUNTINGTON CENTER CAPITAL PROJECTS 909 HBPFA LOANS 2,608,499 2,100,521 501 INT INC POOLED CASH 145,689 424,651 258,225 225,000 225,000 250,000 902 PROCEEDS OF DEBT 193,190 422,181 89,429 TOTAL HUNTINGTON CENTER 2,947,378 846,832 347,654 225,000 2,325,521 CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL REDEV AGCY CAPITAL 53,440,747 19,972,229 7,416,221 6,002,000 5,997,982 8,565,000 PROJECTS -lVll- 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED TX LOW INCOME HOUSING 121 LOCAL SECURED 493,014 774,418 999,275 1,219,412 1,053,000 1,160,000 H.B.P.F.A BONDS 1,356,449 610,952 0 35,000 75,000 501 INTEREST INCOME 432,240 592,487 469,539 500,000 105,000 115,000 TOTAL LOW INCOME HSG. 2,281,703 1,977,857 1,468,814 1,719,412 1,193,000 1,350,000 TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS 58,795,608 25,721,835 14,547,769 12,337,612 11,605,982 1 14,728,000 -lviii- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY STREET PROJECTS FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 TO 1992/93 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED GAS TAX 8,743,149 4,531,821 4,150,964 6,885,721 6,061,937 4,815,000 TRANSPORTATION FUND 0 0 0 1,238,000 1,565,000 1,220,000 TOTAL STREET PROJECTS 8,743,149 4,531,821 4,150,964 8,123,721 7,626,937 6,035,000 -lix- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE DETAIL STREET PROJECTS FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 TO 1992/93 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED SF GAS TAX FUND 501 INTEREST INCOME 429,344 408,339 186,971 300,000 115,000 125,000 625 AHFP 225,968 849 PLANS AND SPECS 1,160 651 STATE TAX 2107 1,716,209 1,717,001 1,552,159 1,548,284 1,500,000 1,600,000 652 STATE TAX 2107.5 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 653 STATE TAX 2106 866,554 863,440 775,949 766,015 766,015 700,000 654 PROP 111 TAX 2105 777,922 777,922 705,000 632 FROM FEDERAL GOVT (FAU) (313,052) 1,030,913 0 0 633 COUNTY OF ORANGE 39,266 (16,098) 256,153 1,813,500 634 FROM COUNTY OF ORANGE 208,609 470,826 200,161 844,000 918,000 900,000 830 OTHER 133,831 1,200,000 665 FROM CITY OF IRVINE 3,225,410 0 627 OTHER PROJECTS/OCUTT 2,426,978 47,400 942,443 826,000 775,000 775,000 TOTAL GAS TAX FUND 8,743,149 4,531,821 4,150,964 6,885,721 6,061,937 4,815,000 SX TRANSPORTATION FUND 501 INTEREST INCOME 8,000 201 MEASURE M SALES TAX 230,000 1,550,000 1,200,000 356 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE 1,000,000 15,000 20,000 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION FUND 0 0 0 1,238,000 1,565,000 1,220,000 TOTAL STREET FUNDS 8,743,149 4,531,821 4,150,964 8,123,721 7,626,937 6,035,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -IX- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY OTHER FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 TO 1992/93 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED HOUSING AND COMM DEV BLOCK GRANT 2,550,795 1,045,902 1,330,944 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 OTHER GRANTS 965,000 418,185 466,212 157,500 134,000 142,000 HUD SUBSIDY 479,604 401,331 349,954 338,000 354,000 354,000 DONATIONS 0 242,064 116,693 20,000 20,000 20,000 CABLE TV FUND 224,358 350,334 353,848 366,525 423,000 431,000 HOME PROGRAM FUND 0 0 0 0 0 881,000 NARCOTICS FORFEITURE 522,308 811,601 1,347,234 1,080,000 850,000 1,075,000 AIR QUALITY FUND 0 0 0 147,000 122,000 182,500 FIRE DISPATCH/JOINT POWERS 0 0 0 1,431,144 1,573,000 1,673,000 COMMUNITY RELATIONS 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 PRIVATE PROJECT SELF SUFF 0 16,057 11,748 7,000 16,560 16,600 CULTURAL ART CENTER FUND 0 0 0 0 400,000 200,000 TOTAL OTHER FUNDS 4,742,065 3,285,474 3,976,633 4,957,169 5,302,560 1 6,385,100 -lxi- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REVENUE DETAIL OTHER FUND FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 TO 1992/93 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED HOUSING AND COMM DEV BLOCK GRANTS 632 FROM FEDERAL GOVT 2,550,795 1,045,902 1,330,944 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 OTHER GRANTS STATE LITERACY GRANTS 35,817 39,465 31,400 42,000 35,000 36,000 FEDERAL LITERACY GRANTS 19,180 18,706 20,338 35,500 14,000 21,000 BLUFFTOP PARK GRANTS 703,311 318,806 205,978 BIKE TRAILS 180,378 13,472 1,960 80,000 58,000 58,000 JAIL TRAINING_ 10,250 9,123 8,301 10,000 10,000 MURL GRANT 13,989 18,613 15,735 17,000 17,000 METHANE GAS 182,500 OTHER GRANTS 2,075 TOTAL OTHER GRANTS 965,000 418,185 466,212 157,500 134,000 142,000 SC HUD SUBSIDY FUND 501 INTEREST 3,022 6,295 5,369 8,000 4,000 4,000 925 LOAN PMTS INTEREST 119,348 108,355 107,780 100,000 100,000 100,000 910 LOAN PMTS PRINCIPAL 357,234 286,681 236,805 230,000 250,000 250,000 TOTAL HUD SUBSIDY FUND 479,604 401,331 349,954 338,000 354,000 354,000 DA DONATIONS FUND 831 DONATION FUND 242,064 116,693 20,000 20,000 20,000 SG CABLE TV FUND 501 INTEREST INCOME 6,709 49,684 24,941 21,000 21,000 20,000 631 CABLE TV INCOME 188,741 300,650 328,359 345,000 401,000 410,000 830 OTHER 28,908 548 525 1,000 1,000 TOTAL CABLE TV FUND 224,358 350,334 353,848 366,525 423,000 431,000 SH HOME PROGRAM FUND 632 FROM FEDERAL GOVT 881,000 SN NARCOTICS FORFEITURE 501 INTEREST INCOME 33,732 71,315 97,820 80,000 75,000 75,000 680 RNSP SALARY 25,000 25,000 681 RNSP HELICOPTER 25,000 25,000 633 FROM STATE OF CALIFORNIA 488,576 740,286 1,249,414 1,000,000 775,000 1,000,000 TOTAL NARCOTICS FORFEITURE 522,308 811,601 1,347,234 1,080,000 850,000 1,075,000 -lxii- 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 91/92 92/93 AQ AIR QUALITY FUND ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED ESTIMATED 501 INTEREST INCOME 2,000 2,000 2,500 657 FROM AQMD 145,000 120,000 180,000 TOTAL AIR QUALITY FUND 0 0 0 147,000 122,000 182,500 JP FIRE DISPATCH/JOINT POWERS 501 INTEREST INCOME 10,000 10,000 10,000 903 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 542,835 543,000 543,000 659 CHARGES TO JPA CITIES 828,309 1,000,000 1,100,000 831 DONATIONS 50,000 20,000 20,000 TOTAL FIRE DISPATCH/JOINT POWERS 0 0 0 1,431,144 1,573,000 1,673,000 CT COMMUNITY RELATIONS 501 INTEREST INCOME 831 DONATIONS 10,000 10,000 10,000 TOTAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 PS PROJECT SELF SUFF FUND 501 INTEREST INC POOLED CASH 84 160 200 831 DONATIONS 16,057 8,940 7,000 15,000 15,000 910 LOAN PMTS INTEREST 2,724 1,400 1,400 TOTAL PROJECT SELF SUFF 0 16,057 11,748 7,000 16,560 16,600 CA CULTURAL ART CENTER FUND 831 DONATIONS 400,000 200,000 903 TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS TOTAL CULTURAL ART CENTER 0 0 0 0 400,000 200,000 TOTAL OTHER FUNDS 4,742,065 3,285,474 3,976,633 4,957,169 5,302,560 6,385,100 -lxiii- EXPENDITURES SUMMARIES AND DETAIL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY - ALL FUNDS FISCAL YEARS 1990/91 TO 1995/96 ESTIMATED DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL REQUEST RECOMMENDATION --------------PROJECTED------------ FY 90/91 FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 ---------- 1 ----------- ----------- ----------- I I General 93,788,922 94,483,785 91,574,596 99,628,998 1 96,984,398 1 103,689,966 108,758,014 113,967,344 I I Capital Projects 4,211,154 22,869,217 13,633,813 15,559,896 i 14,366,598 i 7,894,092 4,201,682 3,322,775 Debt Service Funds 7,453,603 8,441,234 8,072,000 8,188,500 8,188,500 8,076,500 7,952,500 7,494,500 I I Water Fund 13,524,992 17,383,333 16,196,271 22,054,222 21,992,328 20,642,457 25,306,308 22,943,413 I I Refuse Collection Svc 0 5,645,648 5,645,170 6,185,929 6,185,929 6,214,935 6,520,681 6,826,716 I I I I Other Enterprise Funds 2,195,015 3,132,423 3,051,780 3,500,872 1 3,450,266 1 3,513,962 3,639,054 3,769,900 I I Internal Service Funds 12,944,604 13,010,991 11,987,856 15,563,359 1 13,603,167 1 10,658,260 10,786,993 10,887,162 I I I I Redevelopment Funds 6,035,599 14,868,766 7,156,594 21,590,680 1 21,435,665 1 8,220,854 12,023,892 6,675,711 I I I I Transp./Street Project 7,438,286 12,003,326 5,717,035 11,291,230 1 11,291,230 1 4,847,625 4,621,256 4,798,569 I i I I Other Funds 2,985,558 4,718,068 3,635,816 4,788,948 1 5,805,574 1 4,696,618 4,873,421 5,069,531 I I I I I I I I TOTAL ALL FUNDS 150,577,733 196,556,791 166,670,930 208,352,634 1 203,303,654 1 178,455,270 188,683,801 185,755,622 _ 1 I LESS INTERFUND TRANSFERS (27,339,911) NET TOTAL EXPENDITURES 175,963,743 -lxiv- City of Huntington Beach 4/30/92 -GENERAL FUND- E X P E N D I T U R E S U M M A R Y Fiscal Years 1990/91 Through 1995/96 ESTIMATED DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL REQUEST RECOMMENDATION ------------PROJECTED------------- GENERAL FUND FY 90/91 FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 I I City Council 197,851 256,636 237,559 264,087 I 262,163 I 277,218 285,674 297,381 I I Non-Departmntal 10,912,172 10,585,870 10,254,146 11,097,159 I 10,851,775 I 11,754,073 12,161,128 12,583,214 I I Adminstration 1,283,386 1,217,125 1,191,962 1,025,814 I 1,012,235 I 1,073,957 1,125,494 1,180,583 I I City Treasurer 706,644 755,707 736,307 785,396 I 773,689 ( 829,918 869,263 910,575 I I City Attorney 1,373,885 1,516,861 1,347,074 1,431,603 i 1,409,639 i 1,510,150 1,581,303 1,656,013 City Clerk 461,640 389,309 393,862 485,607 I 479,866 I 446,515 469,449 491,779 I I Administrative Svcs 3,995,336 4,162,573 4,061,760 4,353,254 ( 4,299,501 I 4,631,417 4,852,401 5,070,769 I I Library 3,025,086 3,224,031 2,933,759 3,269,817 I 3,221,947 I 3,520,369 3,635,614 3,888,009 I I Community Dev 3,237,557 4,167,103 3,825,971 3,862,718 I 3,771,980 I 3,796,999 3,982,046 4,176,225 I I Fire 12,703,593 14,659,427 14,391,441 16,209,626 I 15,764,923 ( 17,037,927 17,889,823 18,784,314 I I Police 28,275,120. 30,598,153 29,880,870 32,815,620 I 31,894,419 I 34,066,430 35,773,410 37,561,384 Community Services 6,063,978 6,730,010 6,633,570 7,449,755 6,854,305 7,472,865 7,783,602 8,101,566 I I Public Works 21,552,674 16,220,979 15,686,315 16,578,544 I 16,387,956 I 17,272,128 18,348,807 19,265,532 I I I I -General Fund 93,788,922 94,483,785 91,574,596 99,628,998 I 96,984,398 1103,689,966 108,758,014 113,967,344 I I -lxv- 4/30/92 -OTHER FUNDS- E X P E N D I T U R E S U M M A R Y Fiscal Years 1990/91 Through 1995/96 ESTIMATED DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL REQUEST RECOMMENDATION --------------PROJECTED------------ FY 90/91 FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 ---------- 1 ----------- ----------- ----------- Capital Projects I I --------------------- I I Parking Structures 48,090 0 900,000 5,900,000 1 5,900,000 1 0 0 0 Capital Projects Fund 2,234,821 7,187,360 6,704,462 5,764,556 1 4,571,258 1 6,070,062 1,491,250 1,280,000 Pier Rebuilding Fund 0 3,212,000 3,212,000 300,000 1 300,000 1 0 0 0 Park Acq & Dev Fund 152,521 1,283,708 1,015,293 530992 1 530,992 1 613,946 1,017,043 920,292 Sewer Fund 682,650 1,002,661 427,148 1,130:136 1 1,130,136 1 656,449 686,897 437,741 Drainage Fund 1,093,072 1,697,864 1,357,375 1,914,925 1 1,914,925 1 553,636 1,006,492 684,742 Library Service Fund 0 8,485,624 17,536 19,287 1 19,287 1 0 0 0 I I Sub Total 4,211,154715,559,8961 1 7, 5 I I I I Debt Service Funds I I --------------------- I H B Pub Financing Auth 2,820,116 3,780,000 3,772,000 3,774,000 1 3,774,000 1 3,772,000 3,773,000 3,785,000 Civic Improvement Corp 3,104,903 3,296,234 2,940,000 2,937,000 1 2,937,000 1 2,941,000 2,937,000 2,935,000 Facilities Corp 895,413 392,000 387,000 391,000 1 391,000 1 389,000 386,000 386,000 Parking Authority 164,675 168,000 168,000 248,500 1 248,500 1 136,500 18,500 18,500 Reservoir Hill Fund 0 137,000 137,000 170,000 i 170,000 1 170,000 170,000 170,000 Mello Roos 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 1 200,000 1 200,000 200,000 200,000 Debt Service-Park Bond 468,496 468,000 468,000 468,000 1 468,000 1 468,000 468,000 0 Sub Total 7,453,603 789076,500 7,494,50 I I I I Water Fund 13,524,992 17,383,333 16,196,271 22,054,222 1 21,992,328 1 20,642,457 25,306,308 22,943,413 I I I I Refuse Collection Svc 0 5,645,648 5,645,170 6,185,929 1 6,185,929 1 6,214,935 6,520,681 6,826,716 I I I I Other Enterprise Funds I I --------------------- I Fire Medical Program 1,792,201 2,129,187 2,083,774 2,473,745 1 2,469,139 1 2,485,585 2,609,365 2,738,833 Emerald Cove Housing 268,519 825,699 790,469 824,590 1 778,590 1 824,590 824,590 824,590 Meadowlark Golf Course 134,295 177,537 .177,537 202,537 1 202,537 1 203,787 205,100 206,478 Sub Total 22,195,015 3,132,423 3,051,78V 3,500,8723,450,266 ,5 5 ,7 , -lxvi- ESTIMATED DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL REQUEST RECOMMENDATION --------------PROJECTED------------ FY 90/91 FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 ---------- 1 ----------- ----------- ----------- Internal Service Funds 1 1 --------------------- I I Equipment Replacement 4,466,757 2,672,352 2,672,352 4,972,127 1 3,011,935 1 0 0 0 Insurance Fund 8,477,847 10,338,639 9,315,504 10,591,232 1 10,591,232 1 10,658,260 10,786,993 10,887,162 I I Sub Total 5 5,5 5 1 13,603,167 1 , 5 ,710,887,162 I I I Redevelopment Funds 1 1 --------------------- I I Rdv Agcy-Tax Increment 3,366,345 3,274,500 3,275,000 4,221,500 1 4,221,500 3,886,500 4,586,500 3,786,500 Redevelopment-Projects 2,669,254 11,594,266 3,881,594 17,369,180 1 17,214,165 i 4,334,354 7,437,392 2,889,211 Sub Total 6,035,599 ,7 7,156,59ZF 21,590,680- 21,435,65 18,220,85 6,675,711 I I I I Transp./Street Project I I --------------------- I I Gas Tax Fund 7,438,286 10,252,944 5,601,863 7,246,061 1 7,246,061 1 3,144,846 3,280,838 3,418,630 Transportation Fund 0 1,750,382 115,172 4,045,169 1 4,045,169 1 1,702,779 1,340,418 1,379,939 I I Sub Total 1 11,291,2 14,798,5697 I I I I Other Funds 1 1 --------------------- i I Donations 0 27,000 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Grants Fund 0 136,050 54,461 301,645 1 301,645 1 102,543 107,045 111,198 Housing & Comm Dev 643,765 1,405,000 676,335 1,459,000 1 1,459,000 1 1,454,160 1,482,220 1,511,620 Cable TV Fund 282,707 331,866 295,583 334,592 1 415,937 1 415,644 444,048 485,640 Narcotics Forfeiture F 864,967 1,124,200 1,103,462 802,854 1 1,039,057 1 838,485 869,960 903,007 Air Quality Fund 11,614 129,058 73,865 180,958 1 180,035 1 163,755 172,600 181,226 Fire-Jt Pow Authority 1,178,424 1,371,145 1,315,019 1,498,199 1 1,498,199 1 1,510,331 1,585,848 1,665,140 PD-Community Relations 4,081 100,000 20,000 100,000 1 100,000 1 100,000 100,000 100,000 Fourth of July Fund 0 93,750 97,091 111,700 1 111,700 1 111,700 111,700 111,700 Art Center Fund 0 0 0 0 1 700,000 1 0 0 0 I I Sub Total 2,985,5584,718,068 5, ,7 1 5,8051-574 5,069,531 I I I I I I TOTAL OTHER FUNDS 56,788,811 102,073,006 75,096,335 108,723,636 1 106,319,257 74,765,303 79,925,788 71,788,278 - I I -lxvii- City of Huntington Beach A INTER-FUND TRANSFERS/EXPENDITURES Fiscal Year 1992/93 FUND Paid From: Paid To: AMOUNT PURPOSE ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------- ------------------------------------------- GENERAL FUND CIVIC IMPROVEMENT CORP $2,632,500 Debt Service-Civic Center (COP's) GENERAL FUND PUBLIC FACILITIES CORP 399,000 Debt Service-Library (Lease Revenue Bonds) GENERAL FUND JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY 571,911 City Share of Jt. Powers Dispatch Costs GENERAL FUND SELF INSURANCE FUND 1,600,000 Liability Costs GENERAL FUND SELF INSURANCE FUND 2,250,000 Worker's Compensation Costs GENERAL FUND SELF INSURANCE FUND 3,050,000 Employee Medical Costs GENERAL FUND EQUIPMENT REPL FUND 2,250,000 Capital Asset Replacements GENEAL FUND SUB TOTAL $12,753,411 FUND Paid From: Paid To: ---------------------- ---------------------- PARKING PROJECTS LIBRARY SERVICE FUND 5,000,000 Funding For Library Expansion WATER FUND GENERAL FUND 1,100,000 Services Provided To Water Department REDEVELOPMENT-TAX INCR GENERAL FUND 1,217,013 Redevelopment Agency Loan Payment REDEVELOPMENT-TAX INCR H B PUB FINANACING AUTHORITY 2,696,000 Debt Service (Redevelopment Bonds) REDEVELOPMENT-TAX INCR WATER FUND 35,487 Repayment Of Water Fund Advance GAX TAX FUND GENERAL FUND 1,600,000 Street Maintenance & Improvements ENERPRISE FUNDS SELF INSURANCE FUND 698,000 Non-General Fund Employee Benefit Costs PARKING PROJECTS GENERAL FUND 900,000 Debt Service On Unused C.O.P. 's REFUSE COLLECTION GENERAL FUND 250,000 Billing/Collection/Overhead FIRE MEDICAL GENERAL FUND 200,000 Billing/Collection/Overhead CABLE TELEVISION GENERAL FUND 85,000 Building Occupancy Charge MEADOWLARK GOLF COURSE GENERAL FUND 25,000 Accounting/Administraton HOUSING SET-A-SIDE EMERALD COVE 80,000 Rent Subsidy ART CENTER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 700,000 Art Center Construction OTHER FUNDS SUB TOTAL $14,586,500 TOTAL CITY INTER-FUND TRANSFERS/EXPENDITURES $27,339,911 -lxviii- 4/30/92 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE / PERSONNEL SUMMARY ------------------------------- GENERAL FUND ESTIMATED DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR EXPENDITURE ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL REQUEST RECOMMENDED ------------PROJECTED----------- BY CHARACTER FY 90/91 FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 FY 95/96 I I PERSONAL SERVICES 63,163,565 68,853,178 66,400,633 73,789,770 I 72,039,137 I 78,172,249 82,140,776 86,194,408 I I I I OPERATING EXPENSES 30,460,408 25,568,406 25,111,762 25,685,953 I 24,945,261 I 25,509,147 26,610,603 27,765,968 I I I I CAPITAL OUTLAY 164,949 62,200 62,200 153,275 I 0 I 8,570 6,635 6,968 I I I I TOTAL GENERAL FUND 93,788,922 94,483,785 91,574,596 99,628,998 I 96,984,398 1103,689,966 108,758,014 113,967,344 I I I I temporary salaries 2,947,783 3,049,523 2,928,159 2,926,363 I 2,872,621 I 3,118,840 3,316,679 3,468,390 overtime salaries 3,492,480 3,751,407 3,777,032 4,006,000 I 4,006,000 I 4,225,932 4,466,030 4,685,223 perm sal/bnfts 56,723,302 62,052,249 59,695,442 66,857,407 I 65,160,516 I 70,827,478 74,358,067 78,040,796 I I I I I I ELECTED COUNCIL 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 I 7.00 I 7.00 7.00 7.00 I I I I I I PERMANENT PERSONNEL I I I I I I SAFETY 364.75 361.75 361.75 364.75 I 364.75 ( 372.75 373.75 373.75 NON-SAFETY 632.25 619.50 619.50 595.05 I 587.30 I 598.80 609.80 612.80 I I TOTAL 997.00 981.25 981.25 959.80 I 952.05 I 971.55 983.55 986.55 I - I I I RESRV FIRE FIGHTERS 50 50 35 0 0 0 0 0 SEARCH AND RESCUE 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 -lxix- REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIQ-N APPROVED BY CITY C017NGOIL' /�/?�/9 oZ � _19 ED 9 - 2iW, I Date October 19, 1992 CITY Lax orable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted to: L' Michael T. Uberuaga, Executive Dir Submitted by: - Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development Prepared by: AGENCY BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR FY 1992/93 Subject: � /`L LL ,/ Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [� New Policy or Exception Tc �92— Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The State of California, in adopting a budget for 1992/93, has decided to take revenue from redevelopment agencies in order to balance the State General Fund Budget. The State is taking $804,919.56 from the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency (16% of 1990/91 tax increment revenue). It is now necessary to amend the Agency's 1992/93 budget to reflect the one-time shift in funds caused by the State Budget action. RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION: 1. Adopt the attached schedule, provided by the California Redevelopment Association on September 3, 1992, as the schedule for City Council/Redevelopment Agency compliance with Senate Bill 617 & 844. 2. The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds that there are insufficient other funds to make the Special Payment to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund and intends to borrow such funds from the low and moderate income housing fund to be repaid by June 30, 2003. 3. Appropriate $804,919.56 from the following project areas, with payment to be made to the county by May 10, 1993: A. The amount equal to 50% of 1992/93 Set-Aside tax increment revenue $517,037.00 B. 4% PERS Rate Reduction 3,855.00 C. 25% Workers Comp Reduction 415.00 D. Balance from Yorktown-Lake Project Area 283,612.56 TOTAL $ 804,919.56 ED 92-52 October 19, 1992 Page Two ANALYSIS: On September 1, 1992, the State passed SB 617 & 844, which authorized a one time shift of redevelopment agency revenue to the "Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund". The impact on the HB Redevelopment Agency is a one time payment of $804,919.56, although it is believed that the Legislature will not hesitate to take an additional "one-time shift" next year to again balance the State General Fund. The key dates and a complete outline of the State's action is contained in the attached report from the California Redevelopment Association. Calculation of Amount Shifted to State Using current data from the State Controller, we are to shift approximately 16% of our 1990/91 tax increment revenue to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund. 1990/91 Tax Increment Revenue $5,052,613 Approximately 16% Shift 804,919.56 What Funds Can Be Used For Payment? With two limitations noted in the next paragraph, a redevelopment agency may use any source of funds legally available and not legally obligated for other uses to meet its Special Payment obligation, including current year receipts of tax increment revenue, reserve funds, proceeds of land sales, proceeds of bonds and other indebtedness (subject, of course, to any bond convenant limitations on use of proceeds), lease revenues, interest, and other earned income. Moneys held in a low-and moderate income housing fund as of July 1, 1992 may not be used to meet the Special Payment obligation. Also, a redevelopment agency's ability to use 1992-93 tax increment revenue otherwise required to be set aside in the low-and moderate-income housing fund (i.e. the "20% housing set-aside amount") is limited as follows. A redevelopment agency may "borrow" up to 50% of the amount otherwise required to be set-aside in the housing fund for 1992-93 to make the Special Payment if it makes a finding that there are insufficient other funds to make the Special Payment. Any such s. ED 92-52 October 19, 1992 Page Three "borrowed" funds must be repaid in full to the low-and moderate-income housing fund by June 30, 2003. No interest is required to be paid on these borrowed housing funds. 50% of our 1992/93 set-aside tax increment revenue is $517,037. Staff proposes to loan this amount to the other project areas to make the one-time payment. One or more project areas must repay $517,037 to the set-aside fund by the year 2003. The Agency has also saved budgeted funds for PERS and Workers Comp, and proposes using these savings as part of the State payment as follows: PERS - 4% of$96,374 budgeted $ 3,855 Workers Comp - 25% of 1,658 budgeted 415 In addition, staff proposes to make the remaining $283,612.56 payment from tax increment revenue accumulated in the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Debt Service Fund. Tax increment revenue that is used to meet the Special Payment obligation will not be counted toward a redevelopment agency's limit on the amount of tax increment revenue it may claim under the terms of a redevelopment plan, court order, or third- part agreement. Because our tax increment revenue in the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area exceeds the cap of$250,000, staff recommends using this source as a means to "capture" tax increment revenue currently being lost to the county and other taxing entities. Key Dates A complete listing of key dates is included in the attached CRA report. The Agency must report to the County auditor as to how the Agency intends to fund its allocation by March 1, 1993, and must make payment to the County Auditor by May 10, 1993. FUNDING SOURCE: As indicated ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Schedule additional sessions for Agency budget review. 2. Identify other Agency sources for payment. . f. ATTACHMENTS: 1. California Redevelopment Association Report, September 3, 1992 2. Letter from State Director of Finance. 3. Memorandum from Goldfarb & Lipman dated September 2, 1992. 4. Fiscal Impact Statement dated October 15, 1992. MTU/BAK/MJG:sar FECITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINCTON BEACH TO: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator FROM: ROBERT J. FRANZ, Deputy City Administrator SUBJECT: REQUESTED FUNDING TO ACCOMMODATE STATE IMPACT ON CITY'S REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REVENUES FOR 1992/93, FIS 93-24 DATE: OCTOBER 15, 1992 As required by Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared for the proposed appropriation of $283,613 to accommodate the recent accessing of City Redevelopment Revenues for purposes of balancing the State' s General Fund Budget. Upon approval of the City Council , the balance of the unaudited, undesignated Yorktown/Lake Redevelopment Debt Service Fund would be reduced by $283,613 to $199,981 . Funding for the remaining $521 ,308 impacted by t State action would be derived through utilizing previously bud but curr tl unencumbered Housing Set-Aside projects for FY 1992/93 r 0 T F'AN Deputy City�Adm nistrator RJF:skd WPADSERT: 1154 r - f LEGISLATIVE BILL REPORT lose September 3, 1992 No. 1992-11 CAUFORNIA r LETHAL INJECTION OR THE GAS CHAMBER? REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION State Cuts Redevelopment Agencies by $205 Million (But if the RDA cannot pay, then your city/county will pay.) 14M K Street Suite 204 Sacramento Highlights CA 95814 (916)448-8760 Fax(916)448-9397 ► $205 million of redevelopment funds must be paid to schools and community colleges through a new countywide Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund. Based upon available data, each agency will be required to pay an amount equal to 16 percent of its 1990-91 tax increment. This is a one-time payment. ► An agency can allocate less than the full amount required to be shifted to schools because of existing indebtedness, contractual obligations and administrative costs (not to exceed 90 percent of the amount spent in 1991- 92); however, if it reduces the amount paid by the redevelopment agency, then the agency is required to obtain a loan from the city/county in order to pay the difference between what the agency pays and the total amount required to be shifted to the schools. ► If the redevelopment agency cannot pay the amount due because of the existing indebtedness, it may borrow up to 50 percent of its 1992-93 contribution to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (amount must be repaid within 10 years). Amounts already in your LMI Housing Fund cannot be used to pay the schools. ► Amounts paid to schools are in addition to any pass-through payments or facilities construction on behalf of school districts. This is a severe hit for many agencies. Details of "Son of Redshift" The bizarre political process used to adopt the state budget created near daily versions of new proposals about how to take money from redevelopment agencies. Until the evening of September 1, it was unclear what method would be used to obtain redevelopment money for the state budget. The "Redshift," a three-year moratorium on project area adoptions and amendments, and a multi-year shift of funds to schools were in writing and part of the legislative debate. The process was shrouded in secrecy and at times we were unable to obtain advance copies of amendments for analysis and comment. 1 We were able to limit the cut to a single year; however, since the state budget in 1993 is not expected to improve, we will be back in the fray again soon. It is clearly a battle between schools and local government. The version of SIB 617 and SB 844 which implement the shift of redevelopment funds to schools may not be constitutional since the allocation of these funds to schools may not benefit the project areas that generate the funds. Anticipating the likelihood of a legal challenge, the Legislature inserted a poison pill into the bill. If a redevelopment agency "fails . . . to transmit the full amount of funds required . . . (or) is precluded by court order from transmitting that amount . . . the county auditor . . . shall transfer any amount necessary to meet the obligation determined for that agency . . . from the legislative body's property tax allocation . . . " In other words, if the redevelopment agency doesn't pay, the city/county will lose a larger portion of its property taxes to the schools. Cities with no or low property tax revenues apparently would not lose more than their total property tax revenue even if the total is insufficient to pay the full amount required in the redevelopment shift to schools. There are other legal problems with this legislation and CRA is considering a legal challenge. Key Dates September 1, 1992 Effective date of legislation. Date used to establish "Existing Indebtedness." October 1 , 1992 State Director of Finance determines amount of funds each agency must shift to Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund. December 31, 1992 Deadline for agency to hold noticed public hearing and adopt resolution listing existing indebtedness. February 15, 1993 Deadline for agency and legislative body of city/county to adopt agreement for how the city/county will assist in payment, if at all. March 1 , 1993 Deadline for legislative body to report to county auditor as to how the agency intends to fund the allocation to schools. May 10, 1993 Deadline for agency to allocate funds to county auditor for deposit in Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund. May 15, 1993 Deadline for county auditor to reallocate city/county property taxes to Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund if agency fails to pay required amount. July 1, 2003 Deadline for repayment of any funds borrowed from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. 2 Calculation of Amount Shifted to Schools Using available data from State Controller: $ 205,000,000 $1,283,781,741* = 15.97% Multiply your 1990-91 tax increment by 15.97 percent to determine the amount of reallocation. * Total of all tax increment statewide, including pass-through payments. Determining "Existing Indebtedness" An RDA may pay all existing indebtedness prior to making an allocation to school districts. For this purpose, indebtedness is defined to include the following: (A) Bonds, notes, interim certificates, debentures, or other obligations issued by an agency (whether funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise) pursuant to Article 5 (commending with Section 33640). (B) Loans or moneys advanced to the agency, including, but not limited to, loans from federal, state, or local agencies, or a private entity. (C) A contractual obligation which, if breached, could subject the agency to damages or other liabilities or remedies. (D) An obligation incurred pursuant to Section 33445. (E) Indebtedness incurred pursuant to Section 33334.2. (F) An amount, to be expended for the operation and administration of the agency, which may not exceed 90 percent of the amount spent for those purposes in the 1991-92 fiscal year. (G) Obligations imposed by law with respect to activities which occurred prior to the effective date of the act that adds this chapter. Borrowing From LMI Housing Fund If an agency can make a finding that there are insufficient "other moneys" to make the required school payment, then it may borrow up to 50 percent of its 1992-93 contributions to the LMI Housing Fund in order to allocate the money to schools. Amounts borrowed must be repaid within 10 years. An agency is prohibited from using LMI funds (1) if an executed contract would be impaired by the reduction in the LMI contribution, and (2) if the funds were deposited in the LMI Housing Fund prior to July 1, 1992. 3 r i What Funds Can Be Used For Payment? The amount of payment must be equal to a designated percentage of the 1990-91 tax increment of the agency as determined by the State Director of Finance. However, one is not required to use tax increments for the payment to the schools. The payments to the schools are declared an indebtedness of the agency and can be used to justify collection of property taxes. Payments made to the schools pursuant to this legislation does not count against the agency's tax increment cap. Payment to the schools may be made using property tax funds or "any other funds received by the agency." The only exception is the limitation on the use of LMI Housing Funds. This allows an agency to use proceeds from land sales, bond sales, interest earnings or other sources. What Triggers Payment By City/County? The redevelopment agency must hold a public hearing and then adopt a resolution detailing its existing indebtedness and stating that the "agency has no other funds that can be used to pay this existing indebtedness, and no other feasible method to reduce or avoid this indebtedness." This must be adopted no later than December 31, 1992. The legislative body must also adopt this resolution and it must be certified by the agency's chief financial officer. Then the agency and the city/county enter into a written agreement no later than February 15, 1993, regarding the terms and conditions outlining who pays part or all of the amount required to be shifted to schools. How the State Benefits The $205 million paid to schools by RDAs will reduce the amount of money the state pays to school districts for their operations. In addition, SB 617 reverses the 1990 Attorney General's opinion that held that pass-through payments were not property taxes received by school districts. SB 617 requires school districts to report cash payments as local property taxes, which will save the state an additional $20 million. Pass-through dollars used for land acquisition, construction or deferred maintenance remain excluded from this requirement. Budget and Legislative Update The detailed provisions of the new laws resulting from the budget and the 1992 legislative session will be presented at the Introduction to Redevelopment and Legislative Update Seminar scheduled for: Southern California Northern California September 24, 1992 October 1, 1992 Burbank Hilton Hotel Sunnyvale Hilton Hotel Call Krista Passer at (916) 448-8760 for a complete brochure. 4 EST744ATE9 AMOUNT OF SHIFT OF REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO EDUCATION REVENUES AUGMENTATION FUND BASED ON THE 1990-91 STATE CONTROLLER'S REPORT-TABLE 6 REDEVELOPMENT AMOUNT REDEVELOPMENT AMOUNT REDEVELOPMENT AMOUNT REDEVELOPMENT AMOUNT AGENCY SHIFTED AGENCY SHIFTED AGENCY SHIFTED AGENCY SHIFTED TO SCHOOLS TO SCHOOLS TO SCHOOLS TO SCHOOLS ...... ,...................... Maywood 45,284 ...... POO Alameda 443,419 Brawley 38,433 Monrovia SU,813 County 1,166,456 Berkeley 104,731 Calexico 140,S77 Montebello 1,473,145 Anaheim 3,379,219 Emeryville 975,359 El Centro 124,022 Monterey Park 614,765 Brea 2,208,490 Fremont 1,396,405 379.360 Buena Park Norwalk 625,585 Hayward 370,695 Bakersfield ....20'8*,3'3 S Palmdale 1,910,289 Costa Mesa 278,712 Livermore 203,808 California City 198,695 Paramount 689,756 Cypress 7,306 Oakland 4,089,392 Ridgecrest 537,696 Pasadena 1,911,252 Fountain Valley 999.343 San Leandro 248,650 Shafter 12,255 Piro Rivera 1,306,322 Fullerton 912,895 Union City 290.487 Taft 26,401 Pomona 1,613,315 Garden Grove 1.992,889 Wasco 35,767 Rancho Palos Verdes 5,986 Huntington Beach 604,998 ....... .... NN Redondo Beach 100,452 Chico 6,92:021 636,837 La Habra Oroville, 307,507 Avenel 39,1142 Rosemead 560,847 La Palms 235,243 Corcoran 52,271 San Dimas 337,311 Orange 1.482,S79 County ........413,476 Hanford 35,173 San Fernando 384,7411 Placentia 159,377 Antioch 641.308 Lemoore 27.582 Santa Fe Springs 2,010,717 San Clemente 147,809 Brentwood 124,501 Santa Monica 441,721 San Juan Capistrano 303.536 Clayton 168,914 County ........ 149,032 Sierra Madre 83,143 Santa Aria 4,565,098 Concord 1.712,796 Alhambra 602,616 Signal Hill 697,154 Seal Beach 128,804 Danville 71,254 Arcadia 337,238 South El Monte 2,885 Stanton 268,852 El Cerrito 211,490 Avalon 191,123 South Gate 499,740 Tustin 698,820 Hercules 110,763 Azusa 577,400 South Pasadena 47,595 Westminster 496,400 Pinole 597,777 Baldwin Park 492,283 Temple City 52,301 Yorba Linda 1,693,625 Pittsburg 1,643.524 Bell 215,061 Torrance 603,794 PLACER::G.' Pleasant Hill 180,953 Bell Gardens 204,889 Walnut 1.926,265 Auburn 18,667 Richmond 820,612 Burbank 2,244,154 West Covina 727,109 Lincoln 86,640 San Pablo 665,882 Carson 1,252,11"Whittier 325,249 Rocklin 86.732 San Ramon 167,336 Cerritos 2,640,955 MARI W li�o Roseville 27,358 Walnut Creek 125.103 Claremont 224,140 Novato 42,643 Commerce 695,076 San Rafael 344,479 County 1,324,931 Crescent City 50,742 Compton 1,309,920 Tiberon 124,810 Banning 91,530 ...... ...... E L:D 0 0: Covina 636,012MENDOC 54.632 Blythe ............. South Lake Tahoe 65,496 Cudahy 142,815 Ft.Bragg 40,966 Cathedral City 1,388,742 R tS:N:O�C:Q:! Culver city 2,332,076 Ukiah 39,747 Coachella 225.985 Clovis 283,887 Downey 244,682 Willits 54,835 Corona 967,395 ..... . Coalinga 98,427 Duarte 598.506 M E R .. ... . Desert Hot Springs 155,517 Firebaugh 47,395 El Monte 118,150 Atwater -:100,,240 Hemet 298.827 Fresno 618,083 Glendale 1,515,451 Livingston 8,301 Indian Wells 1.731,724 Huron 18,590 Glendora 416,152 Merced 286,044 Indio 237,914 r Kerman 12.428 Hawaiian Gardens 475,539 C Lake Elsinore 879.049 Kingsburg 15,023 Hawthorne 540,986 County 103,272 La Quirta 1,S87,506 Mendota 147,052 Hidden Hills 312,512 King City 204,367 Moreno Valley 738,594 Orange Cove 41,749 Huntington Park 622,364 Marina 66,704 Norco 475,800 Parlier 52,797 Industry 6,419,997 Monterey 539,977 Palm Desert 2,8S6,S57 Sanger 91.493 Inglewood 1,109,283 Salinas 312,802 Palm Springs 777,459 Selma 60,655 Irwindale 1,446,308 Sand City 23,729 Perris 326,202 Lakewood 286,846 Seaside 121,655 Rancho Mirage 1.590.146 Willows I 5,146 La Mirada 579,908 Soleclad 100,432 Riverside 1.586.460 3,425,810 San Jacinto 202.120 Lancaster Arcata 123.383 Laverne 394,136 Napa 216.670 Eureka 331,586 Long Beach 2,282,137 Fortune 15,580 Los Angeles 18,185,861 Grass Valley 17,578 1Lynwood 190,7011 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON.Governor DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE T� - OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 1145 0 SACRAMENTO, CA 958144998 OCT 1 1992 TO ALL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES AND THEIR LEGISLATIVE BODIES: The 1992 Budget Act and related legislation requires virtually every sector of California government to share in necessary state funding reductions. Chapter 700 (SB 844) , Statutes of 1992, requires redevelopment agencies to shift a total of $200 million in property tax revenues to K-12 schools and community colleges. It requires the Director of Finance to determine an amount for each redevelopment agency to be allocated to the county Educational Revenue Allocation Fund (ERAF) . It further requires the Director of Finance to notify each redevelopment agency and its legislative body of the amount determined. In accordance with this requirement, the attached document provides the amount determined for your redevelopment agency. If more than one project area exists for your agency, a detail of the amount is provided on a project area basis. Each agency must allocate the amount determined to the county auditor for deposit in the ERAF on or before May 10, 1993. If an agency determines that it will be unable to allocate the full amount required, it must enter into an agreement with its legislative body to fund the payment of the difference between the full amount required and the amount available for allocation by the agency. If an agency fails to transmit the full amount required, is precluded by court order from transmitting that amount, or is otherwise unable to meet its full obligation, Section 33682(e) of the Health and Safety Code requires the county auditor, by no later than May 15, 1993, to transfer any amount necessary to meet the obligation determined for that agency from the legislative body' s property tax allocation. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Douglas Craig at (916) 324-0043. Sincerely, THOMAS W. HAYES Director Attachment LR:CORR\MRDALTR1 .631 TRANSFERS TO EDUCATIONAL REVENUE ALLOCATION FUND October 1 , 1992 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Center $317,617.51 Main Pier $276,367.98 Oakview $148,667.67 Talbert/Beach , $33,942.37 Yorktown/Lake $28,324.03 09/02/92 22:01 V399 0787 GULUNARB&UPK" 141UU2 The Law Offices of / ,' K G' GOLDFARB & LIPMAN b One Montgomery Street C', TelesisTbwer �o- Dmnty-Thlydfloor 8anFranclaco California 94104 ORANDO I Steven H.Goldfarb �- To: Redevelopment Agency Clients and Other Tintereste d BarryR. Persons MDa%,i Kroot _. From: Goldfarb & Lipman Lee C.Rosenthal RogerA.Clay,JL Date: September 2, 1992 PaulaS.Crow Subject: 1992-93 State Budget Impact on Redevelopment John T.Nagle Agencies Polly Y-Marshall Natalie L.Gubb Lynn Hutchins As you know, the 1992-93 State budget was finally approved early this morning. The budget bill and two RichardAJudd "trailer" bills that implement the budget (specifically SS PeterFnu*Un 617 and SB 844) call for. a total one-time "contribution" by redevelopment agencies of $205 million in fiscal year 1992- ScottMBarshay 93 toward solving the budget crisis. These bills have been damesD Smith adopted as urgency statutes to take immediate effect. This memorandum summarizes how the budget bills will impact KarenM Tledemann redevelopment agencies' operations during 1992-93. ThomasH.Webber A. BASIC REQIIIREMENT 4UchaelLBerry DianneJacksmUcLean 1. Payment Amount. - With limited exceptions described in Part B below, each redevelopment agency must make a one RaymondR Bolanos time special payment (the !'Special Payment") to the county Irene M.Shin auditor by May 10, 1993, in an amount equal to: (a) the amount apportioned to the redevelopment agency in fiscal R.RendeGlover year 1990-91 (inclusive o any pass-through payments to kndrew Z.Shagrin affected taxing agencies) , multiplied by (b) a fraction, the numerator of which is $205 million, and the denominator of :dsaL.Um which is the total amount of tax increment revenue apportioned to Al redevelopment agencies in the State (inclusive of pass-through payments) in fiscal year 1990- 91. The State Director of Finance is directed to calculate these amounts for each redevelopment agency and to inform 3anFrancisco each redevelopment agency, legislative body (city council or 115788-6336 board of supervisors) , and the county auditor of the 115788-0999FAX applicable Special Payment amount by October 1, 1992. !,osAngeles L�flSE180.P50 ?13627-6336 /02/92 OB/02/92 22:02 %P399 9787 GOLDFARB&LIPMAN I&003 Redevelopment Agency Clients and Other Interested Persons September 2, 1992 Page 2 It appears thit the fraction described above will be in the range of 17.4% . Thus, a redevelopment agency that was apportioned $1 million of tax increment revenue in 1990-91, would have an obligation to make an approximately $174,000 Special Payment to the county auditor by May 10, 1993. Note that because the payment is based on an agency's 1990-91 tax increment, an agency that did not receive any tax increment - - in 1990-91 will have no Special Payment obligation. This payment obligation is a one-time only requirement for fiscal year 1992-93. Of course, through legislation next year the Legislature could continue this payment for subsequent fiscal years or seek to impose different payment obligations. 2. Sources of Payment. with two limitations noted in the next paragraph, a redevelopment agency may use any source of fluids legally available and not legally obligated for other uses to meet its Special Payment obligation, including current year receipts of tax increment revenue, reserve funds, proceeds of land sales, proceeds of bonds and other indebtedness (subject, of course, to any bond covenant limitations on use of proceeds) , lease revenues, interest, and other earned income. Moneys held in a low-and moderate income housing fund as of July 1, 1992 may not be used to meet the Special Payment obligation. Also, a redevelopment agency's ability to use 1992-93 tax' increment revenue otherwise required to be set aside in the low-and moderate-income housing fund (i.e. the "20% housing set-aside amount") is limited as follows. A redevelopment agency may "borrow" up to 50% of the amount otherwise required to be set-aside in the housing fund for 1992-93 to make the Special Payment if it makes a 1The just released State Controller's Annual Report of Financial Transactions Concerning Community Redevelopment Agencies of California: Fiscal Year 1990-91 indicates a statewide receipt by redevelopment agencies of $1,178,936,938 of tax increment revenue during that fiscal year. Dividing $205 million by that amount yields a fraction of 17.39$. It is expected that the Director of Finance will work from the State Controller's report, but that the Director may make adjustments that could affect the actual percentage factor that will be used. UMM801W 09/W92 09/02/92 22:04 V399 8787 GOLDFARB&LIPMAN 49004 Redevelopment Agency Clients and Other Interested Persons September 2, 1992 Page 3 finding that there are insufficient other funds to make the Special Payment. Any such "borrowed" funds must be repaid in full to the low-and moderate-income housing fund by June 30, 2003. No interest is required to be paid on these borrowed housing funds. Since the Special Payment obligation is an obligation of the redevelopment agency calculated as a percentage of _qJJ tax increment revenue it receives, it appears that an agency that has more than one project area may use differential amounts of tax increment and other revenues from its various project areas to fund its overall payment obligation (i.e. more than the proportional amount of funds may be drawn from one project area toward the agency's Special Payment obligation to compensate for a less than proportional draw from another project area) . 3. Indebtedness. The Special Payment obligation and any ancillary obligations a redevelopment agency incurs to obtain the funds to meet 'its Special Payment obligation are declared to be an indebtedness of the agency. It is recommended that each redevelopment agency list the Special Payment obligation as an indebtedness on the annual statement of indebtedness that must be submitted to the county auditor by October 1, 1992. If the Director of Finance has not provided the. precise Special Payment amount for an agency prior to that'_date, the agency should make a good faith estimate to be included in the statement of indebtedness. 4. Report to County Auditor. By March 1, 1993, the legislative body must report to the county auditor as to how its redevelopment agency- intends to fund the Special Payment obligation. 5. Fiscal Limits. Tax increment revenue that is used to meet the Special Payment obligation will not be counted toward a redevelopment agency's limit on the amount of tax increment revenue it may claim under the terms of a redevelopment plan, court order, or third-party agreement. B. AGENCIES WITH SIGNIFICANT EXISTING INDEBTEDNESS If the sum of 1992-93 tax increment revenue plus all other funds available to a redevelopment agency is NEM80.P50 04/=192 09/02/92 22:05 e399 9787 GOLDFARB&LIPRAN 0005 Redevelopment Agency Clients and Other Interested Persons September 2, 1992 Page 4 insufficient to make all payments on existing indebtedness2 that is due during fiscal year 1992-93 as well as to make the full special Payment, then the agency may make a lesser Special Payment to the extent of such insufficiency. To make such lesser payment, the redevelopment agency must adopt a resolution by December 31, 1992, after a noticed public hearing, that makes specified findings - --. - documenting the insufficiency of available revenues. The information in the resolution must be certified by the agency's chief fiscal officer. The legislative body must also adopt the same resolution. The effect of a redevelopment agency's failure or inability to make the full Special Payment is that the county auditor is directed, by May 15,: 1993, to transfer_ from property taxes otherwise payable to the community in which the agency operates (city or county) the amount required to cover the redevelopment agency's payment shortfall. In other words, city (or county, in the case of county-created redevelopment agencies) general property tax revenues must cover any payment shortfall resulting either because the redevelopment agency does not have enough revenue currently available.to make the full Special Payment, or because the agency simply fails or refuses to make its full Special Payment by May 10, 1993. If the redevelopment agency makes the finding that it lacks sufficient funds in light of existing indebtedness to make the full Special Payment, with the result that the city (or county) must cover the shortfall, the agency and the city (or county) must enter into an agreement by February 15, 1993 providing for subsequent reimbursement by the agency of the amount advanced by the city (or county) toward meeting the full Special Payment obligation. 2"Existing indebtedness" is defined to include various forms of contractual and statutory indebtedness incurred prior to the effective date of the budget bills, as well as an amount to be expended for the operation and .administration of the agency not to exceed 90% of the amount spent for those purposes in fiscal year 2991-92. �eo.eso 09/02/= 09/02/92 22:OB V389 0787 GOLDFARB&LIPHAN IM 006 Redevelopment Agency Clients and Other Interested Persons September 2, 1992 Page 5 C. _USN OF SPECIAL PAVCWTS Special Payments made by redevelopment agencies to a county auditor will be deposited, with other moneys received from other local governmental entities, in an Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund established for each county. Moneys deposited in that fund will be allocated to school districts in the county (other than "basic aid" school districts) in inverse proportion to the amounts of property tax revenue per average daily attendance in each school district. The purpose of this provision is to pay moneys in the fund first to the lowest property tax generating districts. However, no district will receive an amount that would cause it to become a basic aid district. If money remains in the fund after all non-basic aid districts in the county have been paid up to the limit that would cause them to become basic aid districts, the excess will then be allocated among community college districts in the county according to another specified allocation formula. D. FISCAL AGREEMENTS WITH SCHOOL DISTRICTS 1. No Credit for Pass-Thrqugh Payments. some early versions of the budget bills affecting redevelopment would have provided a credit toward a redevelopment agency's Special Payment obligation for amounts paid by the agency to school districts or community college districts through fiscal mitigation agreements such as agreements entered into pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33401. The final adopted bills do n2t contain such a credit. Consequently, ✓ redevelopment agencies do not have a statutory right to claim a credit against the Special Payment obligation for "pass-through" payments made to school and community college districts during 1992-93. . Some pass-through agreements may provide a contractual right for a redevelopment agency to deduct from pass-through payments any amounts required to be paid to the school or community college district under a subsequently enacted statute. Whether such contractual provisions would be triggered by the budget's bills' imposition of the Special Payment obligation requires a case-by-case consideration. We would be pleased to offer advice regarding this matter on an individual agency basis. rxxs�eo.Pso 09/M/9 09/02/02 22:07 V399 9787 COLDFARB&LIPHAN [Aj007 Redevelopment Agency Clients and Other Interested Persons September 2, 1992 Page 6 2. Treatment of Pass-Through Payments Received by School Districts. In an effort to partially overturn a 1990 Attorney General's opinion, the budget implementation bills indicate that amounts received by a school district from a redevelopment agency will be counted toward the school district's local revenue basis (thus reducing the amount of state operating subvention to that district) , unless the - amount received is used by .the school district for land acquisition, facility construction, reconstruction, or remodeling, or deferred maintenance. It is not clear whether this provision will actually cause substantial amounts of pass-through payments received by school districts from redevelopment agencies to be treated as part of the districts' local revenue base. Many Health and Safety Code Section 33401 agreements already require pass- through payments to be used for capital_ facilities, and in most situations in which the agreement is silent, it is likely that the school district receiving the payment could show that the payment was actually used for capital facility-type activities, thus avoiding treatment of the payment as part of its local revenue base. Some Section 33401 agreements have a special provision allowing a redevelopment agency to discontinue its pass- through payments if a subsequent change in legislation would cause such payments to count toward the receiving school district's local revenue base. Whether the budget implementation provision described above would trigger this special provision in certain Section 33401 agreements is a matter of some complexity that depends on individual circumstance. We would be pleased to provide specific advice on this matter on a case-by-case basis. E. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 1. Inadecuate School Facilities Not A Basis for Blight Finding. The budget .implementation bills specify that the absence of adequate school facilities do not constitute blight. This represents the Legislature's unequivocal response to "Coronado" plans (most recently receiving notoriety in an attempted Hemet redevelopment plan) in which all or a significant portion of a community is placed in a redevelopment project area for purposes of obtaining tax increment revenue to build or upgrade school facilities. ENHMaDJW 09/OW92 O9/02/02 22:08 %•390 9767 6ULUeA"&LIFJM Lt uuu Redevelopment Agency Clients and Other Interested Persons September 2, 1992 Page 7 2. Annual Report. Additional elements have been added to the annual report requirements to assist the State in tracking various redevelopment payments made to school and community college districts,* and to require an audit opinion about the validity of findings contained in a redevelopment agency resolution adopted to reduce the agency's Special Payment due to existing indebtedness (see Part H above) . 3. Q=er Issues Not Addressed. As you are probably aware, at various times during the budget impasse a host of other redevelopment "reforms" were being considered, including a potential moratorium on the adoption of new redevelopment plans and plan amendments. None of these other concepts were incorporated in the adopted implementation bills. As with any complex legislation, particularly when drafted hastily, it is likely that the budget implementation bills do not address all possible circumstances facing every redevelopment agency in the state and that they contain potential ambiguities and inconsistencies that will require common sense interpretation. Even where the bills' requirements are clear in a given situation, they will require an agency to conduct careful financial and program planning to determine the most appropriate revenue sources from which to meet the Special Payment obligation. if you desire additional information about the interpretation and application of the budget bills relating to redevelopment, please feel free to call Steve Goldfarb, Lee Rosenthal, Jack Nagle, or Karen Tiedemann of our office at (415) 788-6336 (Northern California) or (213) 627-6336 (Southern California) . uzx�so.rso 09/02M APPROVED BY CITY C EST FOR CITY COUNCIL/ `� 71�o1ya RED VE OPMENT AGENCY ACTION Q� � A- July 20, 1992 Y CL1' � �� CITRK Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrat Prepared by: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administr or Subject: Redevelopment Budget Amendment 5/-85 Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [X] New Policy or Exception CL Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: \ Statement of Issue: An amendment to the Redevelopment Agency budget is necessary to reflect the changes resulting from refinancing the Agency's 1988 bond debt and to reflect new state legislation. Recommended Action: 1 . Approve the amendments to the 1992/93 Redevelopment Agency budget as described in attachment 1 , and 2. Adopt Agency Res. -7,19 authorizing the aggregating of housing set aside funds for all project areas, and 3. Adopt City Council Res. 6V0,5 authorizing the aggregating of housing set aside funds for all redevelopment project areas. Analysis: Subsequent to the submittal of the preliminary budget in early May, the Agency' s refinancing of its 1988 Tax Allocation Bond issue was marketed and sold. Although the refinancing was a very complex issue, the budget amendment to reflect the new debt service is relatively simple as detailed in Attachment 1 . Agency costs will actually decrease a total of $695,200, for one year only, (in 1992/93) as a result of the refinancing and then increase by $259,000 in 1993/94 compared to prior debt service costs. Since the refinancing included new debt of $4,300,000 to prepay the RLM Corporation obligations, the refinancing was a highly successful financial transaction. The net interest rate on 1988 Agency debt was reduced from 8.38% to 7.04%. The attached memorandum from Redevelopment Project Manager Leigh De Santis explains the financial advantage of aggregating Agency Housing Set Aside funds. State law now permits agencies to calculate the 20% set aside requirement on the Agency's total tax increment revenue, with the flexibility to set aside more, or less, than 20% in individual project areas as long as the total (aggregate) for all project areas is no less than 20%. This. long desired project area flexibility was finally signed into law effective January 1 , 1992. L i 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION REDEVELOPMENT BUDGET AMENDMENT The change will allow the Agency to allocate housing and non—housing revenues in a more logical manner as described in Ms. De Santis' memorandum. Alternative Action: Do not approve amendments. Funding Source: Tax incremental revenues 1992/93. Attachment: 1 . Budget Amendments 2. April 2, 1992 memorandum: Housing Set Aside Fund 3. Budget Summaries 4. Resolutions WPADSERP:110 ATTACHMENT 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET AMENDMENTS 1 . TAX ALLOCATION BOND DEBT SERVICE COSTS APPROVED PROJECT 1992/93 1992/93 ( INFORMATION ONLY ) AREA BUDGET REVISED 93/94 49 /95 95/96+ Talbert/Beach $ 142,000 $ 106,000 $ 162,000 $ 162,000 $ 162,000 Main/Pier 692,000 774,500 1 ,180,000 1 ,180,000 1 ,180,000 Oakview 256,000 194,300 295,000 295,000 295,000 Huntington Center 864,000 643,000 1 ,035,000 1 ,035,000 1 ,035,000 20% Housing- 459,000 0 0 0 0 TOTAL $2.413.000 $1 .717.800 $2.672.000 $2.672.000 $2.672,000 2. A new appropriation of $60,000 is recommended to pay Orange County for (protested) tax administration charges for 1992/93. This expense was not budgeted since all Redevelopment Agencies are objecting to the these new costs imposed by the State and Counties. Litigation results have (so far) favored the State and County actions. 3. Revise Agency revenue estimates per attachments. WPADSERT:980 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Robert Franz, Deputy City Administrator/Administrative Services FROM: Leigh M. De Santis, Project Manager SUBJECT: HOUSING SET ASIDE FUND DATE: April 2, 1992 AB 351 effective January 1, 1992 amended Section 33334.3 of redevelopment law to allow Agencies with more than one project area to aggregate their Housing Set Aside Fund requirement for all projects areas. The Economic Development Department would like to use this new ability to take less than 20% from one project area and make up the total from another project area in the following way: 1. Leave 100% of the tax increment in the Main-Pier Project Area for FY 1992/93 and 1993/94. 2. Leave 100% of the tax increment in the Talbert-Beach Project Area for the next five years beginning FY 1992/93. 3. Take dollar amounts equal to the 20%'s not coming out of Main-Pier and Talbert-Beach Project Areas from the Huntington Center Project Area for the next five years to make deposits in the Housing Set Aside Fund. The impact of these bookkeeping changes is illustrated on the attached fund balance before and after projections. Main-Pier - Continuing down our current path Main-Pier has no money available and runs a negative fund balance until FY 94/95. Leaving the 20% in the project results in Main-Pier going to a positive fund balance in 93/94 one year earlier than otherwise. Talbert-Beach - Talbert-Beach area had been living off its fund balance for some time already. On its current path its reserves are used up and it goes negative in 94/95 and just keeps getting in deeper. Leaving the 20% in Talbert-Beach for each of the next five years beginning in FY 1992/93 will keep the project solvent. In 97/98 Talbert-Beach will have to reduce the amount of debt repayment it makes to the City or eliminate operating expenses entirely to remain solvent. Part of the crunch in Talbert-Beach is caused by the Tax Increment Cap of $350,000 which will be reached in FY 95/96. Robert Franz HOUSING SET ASIDE FUND April 2, 1992 Page Two Huntington Center - This project area has a large positive fund balance with limited projects planned. Current forecasts show additions to that balance annually starting in 93/94. The added burden of making up housing set aside from Main-Pier for two years and Talbert-Beach for five years will cause Huntington Center to dip into its fund balance for four years. However, its revenue growth is strong enough that it starts adding to its fund balance in the fifth year when it is still carrying Talbert-Beach. Further, at no time does the fund balance dip below $3 million so a subsequent project is still possible. If this approach seems as reasonable a course of action to you as it does to us, we will initiate the Agency and City Council actions necessary to invoke the aggregation. (Attached City Attorney's Opinion on validity and procedures). Also, we will work with your staff to adjust the budget as proposed. If we can assist you by answering any questions while you review this matter, please call me or Michael Gifford. Thank you. LMD:sar Attachment xc: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development Michael J. Gifford, Business Development Specialist (0687r) cL'�_X-re-�� MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 1991/92 FUND ANALYSIS 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FUND BALANCE, PRIOR YEAR -771,469 -1,492,616 -956,817 -6,831 982,619 3,443,278 INCOME Tax Increment (80%) 1,935,853 2,278,029 2,491,671 2,830,444 3,544,470 5,636,811 Interest 360,000 200,000 100,000 50,000 58,957 206,597 T.O.T. (Waterfront) 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 Abdelmuti Loan 200,000 377,507 377,507 377,507 377,507 Rentals 50,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 Land Sales (TBW & Ph II) 0 6,920,000 0 0 0 0 Developer Advances (TBW) 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL INCOME 2,770,853 10,607,029 3,478,178 3,766,951 4,489,935 6,729,915 EXPENSES Existing Bond Debt 692,000 692,000 692,000 692,000 692,000 692,000 Other Debt 800,000 100,000 100,000 800,000 0 0 City Debt 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 T.O.T Rei.mb (Waterfront) 425,000 300,000 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc Reimb (Waterfront) 135,000 0 0 0 0 0 Operating 1,040,000 939,230 986,192 1,035,501 1,087,276 1,141,640 Capital Projects 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 Third Block West 150,000 5,240,000 0 0 0 0 Phase II 0 2,550,000 0 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 3,492,000 10,071,230 2,528,192 2,777,501 2,029,276 2,083,640 NET INCOME -721,147 535,799 949,987 989,450 2,460,658 4,646,275 FUND BALANCE, END OF YEAR -1,492,616 -956,817 -6,831 982,619 3,443,278 8,089,552 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-31-92 �Y p�Se MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 1991/92 FUND ANALYSIS 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FUND BALANCE, PRIOR YEAR -771,469 -1,492,616 -387,310 1,185,594 2,196,180 4,729,652 INCOME Tax Increment (80%) 1,935,853 2,847,536 3,114,589 2,830,444 3,544,470 5,636,811 Interest 360,000 200,000 100,000 71,136 131,771 283,779 T.O.T. (Waterfront) 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 Abdelmuti Loan 200,000 377,507 377,507 377,507 377,507 Rentals 50,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 Land Sales (TBW & Ph II) 0 6,920,000 0 0 0 0 Developer Advances (TBW) 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL INCOME 2,770,853 11,176,536 4,101,096 3,788,087 4,562,748 6,807,097 EXPENSES Existing Bond Debt 692,000 692,000 692,000 692,000 692,000 692,000 Other Debt 800,000 100,000 100,000 800,000 0 0 City Debt 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 T.O.T Reimb (Waterfront) 425,000 300,000 0 0 0 0 Tax Inc Reimb (Waterfront) 135,000 0 0 0 0 0 Operating 1,040,000 939,230 986,192 1,035,501 1,087,276 1,141,640 Capital Projects 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 Third Block West 150,000 5,240,000 0 0 0 0 Phase II 0 2,550,000 0 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 3,492,000 10,071,230 2,528,192 2,777,501 2,029,276 2,083,640 NET INCOME -721,147 1,105,306 1,572,905 1,010,586 2,533,472 4,723,457 FUND BALANCE, END OF YEAR -1,492,616 -387,310 1,185,594 2,196,180 4,729,652 9,453,109 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-31-92 TALBERT/BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 1991/92 FUND ANALYSIS 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FUND BALANCE, PRIOR YEAR 1,001,530 584,210 321,712 129,102 -12,926 -161,065 INCOME Tax Increment (80%) 199,588 203,860 208,218 274,262 280,000 280,000 Interest 60,092 35,053 19,303 7,746 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL INCOME 259,680 238,913 227,520 282,009 280,000 280,000 EXPENSES Existing Bond Debt 142,000 142,000 142,000 142,000 142,000 142,000 City Debt 272,500 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Operating 232,500 99,410 78,131 82,037 86,139 90,446 Capital Projects 30,000 60,000 0 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 677,000 501,410 420,131 424,037 428,139 432,446 NET INCOME -417,320 -262,497 -192,610 -142,028 -148,139 -152,446 FUND BALANCE, END OF YEAR 584,210 321,712 129,102 -12,926 -161,065 -313,511 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-31-92 TALBERT/BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 1991/92 FUND ANALYSIS 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FUND BALANCE, PRIOR YEAR 1,001,530 584,210 372,677 235,180 168,081 100,027 INCOME Tax Increment (80%) 199,588 254,825 260,272 342,828 350,000 350,000 Interest 60,092 35,053 22,361 14,111 10,085 6,002 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL INCOME 259,680 289,878 282,633 356,939 360,085 356,002 EXPENSES Existing Bond Debt 142,000 142,000 142,000 142,000 142,000 142,000 City Debt 272,500 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Operating 232,500 99,410 78,131 82,037 86,139 90,446 Capital Projects 30,000 60,000 0 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 677,000 501,410 420,131 424,037 428,139 432,446 NET INCOME -417,320 -211,532 -137,498 -67,098 -68,054 -76,444 FUND BALANCE, END OF YEAR 584,210 372,677 235,180 168,081 100,027 23,583 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-31-92 HUNTINGTON CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 1991/92 FUND ANALYSIS 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FUND BALANCE, PRIOR YEAR 5,645,229 5,450,968 4,540,434 4,637,824 4,763,595 4,919,411 INCOME Tax Increment (80%) 1,197,025 1,234,554 1,272,832 1,311,877 1,351,702 1,378,736 Interest 338,714 327,058 272,426 278,269 285,816 295,165 TOTAL INCOME 1,535,739 1,561,612 1,545,258 1,590,146 1,637,518 1,673,901 EXPENSES Existing Bond Debt 864,000 864,000 864,000 864,000 864,000 864,000 City Debt 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Pass-Through 6,000 6,120 6,242 6,367 6,495 6,624 Operating 260,000 312,025 327,626 344,008 361,208 379,268 Capital Projects 350,000 1,040,000 0 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,730,000 2,472,145 1,447,869 1,464,375 1,4811703 1,499,893 NET INCOME -194,261 -910,533 97,389 125,771 155,816 174,008 FUND BALANCE, END OF YEAR 5,450,968 4,540,434 4,637,824 4,763,595 4,919,411 5,093,418 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-31-92 HUNTINGTON CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 1991/92 FUND ANALYSIS 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FUND BALANCE, PRIOR YEAR 5,645,229 5,450,968 3,919,962 3,305,151 3,282,397 3,279,341 INCOME Tax Increment (80%) 1,197,025 1,234,554 1,272,832 1,311,877 1,351,702 1,378,736 Interest 338,714 327,058 235,198 198,309 196,944 196,760 TOTAL INCOME 1,535,739 1,561,612 1,508,030 1,510,186 1,548,646 1,575,496 EXPENSES Existing Bond Debt 864,000 864,000 864,000 864,000 864,000 864,000 City Debt 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Pass-Through 6,000 6,120 6,242 6,367 6,495 6,624 Operating 260,000 312,025 327,626 344,008 361,208 379,268 Capital Projects 350,000 1,040,000 0 0 0 0 Add. Set-Aside 0 620,472 674,972 68,565 70,000 70,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,730,000 3,092,617 2,122,841 1,532,940 1,551,703 1,569,893 NET INCOME -194,261 -1,531,005 -614,811 -22,754 -3,056 5,604 FUND BALANCE, END OF YEAR 5,450,968 3,919,962 3,305,151 3,282,397 3,279,341 3,284,945 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESOLUTION NO. 229 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE USE OF MONIES FROM THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREAS AND AGGREGATING THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS PROJECT AREAS WILL BENEFIT THE PROJECT AREAS, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SUCH FUNDS. WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach ( "Agency" ) is a Community Redevelopment Agency organized and existing under the Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et seq. (the "Act") ; and The Agency is authorized to implement the Redevelopment Plan for each of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Projects (the "Plans" ) for each of the Project Areas (the "Project Areas") , including the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area, the Oakview Redevelopment Project Area, the Huntington Center Redevelopment Project Area, the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area and the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area; and Section 33334 . 2 of the Act requires that no less than twenty percent (20%) of all taxes which are allocated to the Agency pursuant to Section 33670 of the Act shall be used by the Agency for purposes of increasing and improving the community' s supply of low and moderate income housing ( "Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds" ) ; and ADLk 6/92311 1 Assembly Bill 315 approved by the Governor October 12, 1991, and filed with the Secretary of State October 14 , 1991, amends Section 33334 .3 of the Act adding subsection (i) : Agencies that have more than one project area may satisfy the requirements of this section by allocating, in any fiscal year, less than 20 percent in one project area, if the difference between the amount allocated and the 20 percent required, is instead allocated, in that same fiscal year, to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund from tax increment revenues from other project areas . Prior to allocating funds pursuant to this subdivision, the Agency shall make the finding required by subdivision (g) of Section 33334 . 2; and Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 6026, dated June 26, 1989 and Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 174 , dated June 26, 1989, the Agency is authorized to make expenditures from the Housing Fund outside redevelopment project areas in accordance with Section33334 . 2(g) , if such use will be of benefit to one or more of the project areas . NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The recitals above are fully incorporated into this resolution and finding . SECTION 2: The expenditure of monies from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for purposes authorized under the Act outside the Project Areas in which such funds are generated are and will be of benefit to the respective Project Areas . ADLk 6/92311 2 SECTION 3 : The aggregating of Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds from the Project Areas, in the City of Huntington Beach is and will be of benefit to the Project Areas . SECTION 4 : The Agency is authorized to aggregate and expend monies from the Low and Moderate Housing Funds for said authorized purposes . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of July 1992 . Chairman ATTES : ` APPROVED AS TO FORM: Agency Clerk F Agency torney EWED AND A7QVrED• INITIATED AND APPROVED: Execute a Director Director of Economic Development ADLk 6/92311 3 Res. No. 229 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH) I , CONNIE BROCKWAY, Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 20th day of July 19 92 , and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: Members: Rnhitai l lPP Winr-hPl la Ri lva, nrPPn, MacA11 i Gi-Pr, Kelly NOES: Members: NnnP ABSENT: Members: Mnu1tnn-PattPrGnn C erk of the RedevelopmeiTt Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, Ca. RESOLUTION NO. 6405 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE USE OF MONIES FROM THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREAS AND AGGREGATING THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS PROJECT AREAS WILL BENEFIT THE PROJECT AREAS, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SUCH FUNDS. WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach ("Agency" ) is a Community Redevelopment Agency organized and existing under the Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et seq. (the "Act") ; and The Agency is authorized to implement the Redevelopment Plan for each of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Projects (the "Plans") for each of the Project Areas (the "Project Areas") , including the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area, the Oakview Redevelopment Project Area, the Huntington Center Redevelopment Project Area, the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area and the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area; and Section 33334 .2 of the Act requires that no less than twenty percent (20%) of all taxes which are allocated to the Agency pursuant to Section 33670 of the Act shall be used by the Agency for purposes of increasing and improving the community' s supply of low and moderate income housing ("Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds") ; and ADLk 6/92312 1 Assembly Bill 315 approved by the Governor October 12, 1991, and filed with the Secretary of State October 14, 1991, amends Section 33334 . 3 of the Act adding subsection (i) : Agencies that have more than one project area may satisfy the requirements of this section by allocating, in any fiscal year, less than 20 percent in one project area, if the difference between the amount allocated and the 20 percent required, is instead allocated, in that same fiscal year, to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund from tax increment revenues from other project areas . Prior to allocating funds pursuant to this subdivision, the Agency shall make the finding required by subdivision (g) of Section 33334 .2; and Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 6026, dated June 26, 1989 and Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 174 , dated June 26, 1989, the Agency is authorized to make expenditures from the Housing Fund outside redevelopment project areas in accordance with Section 33334 .2(g) , if such use will be of benefit to one or more of the project areas . NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does resolve as follows : SECTION 1: The recitals above are fully incorporated into this resolution and finding . SECTION 2 : The expenditure of monies from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for purposes authorized under the Act outside the Project Areas in which such funds are generated are and will be of benefit to the respective Project Areas . ADLk 6/92312 2 SECTION 3 : The aggregating of Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds from the Project Areas, in the City of Huntington Beach is and will be of benefit to the Project Areas . SECTION 4 : The Agency is authorized to aggregate and expend monies from the Low and Moderate Housing Funds for said authorized purposes . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of July 1992 . Mayor ATTEG�' �!'GGG APPROVED AS TO FORM P-A City Clerk City AttVrney REV WED D AP V INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Economic Development ADLk 6/92312 3 Res. No. 6405 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20TH day of July 19_2L_, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Robitaille, Winchell, Silva, Green, MacAllister, Kelly NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Moulton-Patterson i y Clerk and ex-officM Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California RESOLUTION NO. 6398 4` A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 5159 ENTITLED, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING A CITY FEE SCHEDULE" WHEREAS, On October 4 , 1982, the City Council adopted Resolution No . 5159 establishing a fee schedule for the City; and The City Council desires to reflect new fees and all changes in fees charged to the public for City services, facilities and activities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that Resolution No. 5159 is hereby amended to incorporate the changes set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the fee additions and amendments set out in this Supplemental Fee Resolution No . 36 shall be effective during fiscal year 1992/93 starting on the dates denoted in Exhibit "A" and thereafter; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that except as amended herein, the fees contained in Resolutions No. 5159 , 5188, 5192, 5289 , 5339 , 5493 and Supplemental Fee Resolutions 1 through 36 inclusive, shall remain in full force and effect . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of June, 1992 . Mayor ATTE� APPROVED AS TO FORM 6� (c yr of 62 City Clerk City Attorney . REVIEWED AND -APPROVED: -INi ATED D�-PP OVED: i- � — -01 Cfity Administra or Deputy i -y Administ ator Chief , Administrative Servi es SLk 5/92308 M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) SECTION 2 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: SECTION 2. Fees to recover the costs of providing copies of public records which fees do not exceed the cost of providing the service or making the copy. POLICE DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Clearance Letter FEE CHARGED: Per Letter $26 FEE TITLE: Video/Audio Tape Reproduction FEE CHARGED: Video Tape $170 Audio Tape $ 20 FEE TITLE: Crime Statistic Report FEE CHARGED: Per Report . $70 FEE TITLE: Vehicle Inspection Fees FEE CHARGED: Per Inspection $10 FEE TITLE: Crime Scene Photos FEE CHARGED: Photo contact prints of collisions - $ 6.50 8" x 10" black & white photo enlargements - $10. 50 8" x 10" color enlargements - $16. 00 4" X 5" photo contacts or enlargements - $ 4 .25 FEE TITLE: DUI Accident Response & Investigation FEE CHARGED: Investigation fees $280 Plus $22 per hour FEE TITLE: DUI Arrest Procedure FEE CHARGED: Investigation/Booking Fee $280 Plus $22 per hour -1- 6398 r 1 , M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 611192) OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK EFFECTIVE JULY 11 1992 FEE TITLE: Council Video Tape Sales FEE CHARGED: $35 per CounciL meeting videotape FEE TITLE: Address Map Book Fee FEE CHARGED: $90 FEE TITLE: City Code Mailing FEE CHARGED: 1 Yr. Subscription Muni Code - $70 1 Yr. Subscription Ord. Code - $70 1 Yr. Subscriptint Zoning Maps - $30 FEE TITLE: City Council Agenda/Minute Mailing FEE CHARGED: $45/yr - Agendas $45/yr - Minutes SECTION 6 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: SECTION 6. Fees to be charged for building and construction services furnished by the city under Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapters 17.02, 17.28 and 17.48. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVE AUGUST 30, 1992 FEE TITLE: Planning Commission Agenda/Minute Mailing FEE CHARGED: $45/yr - Agendas $45/yr - Minutes FEE TITLE: Final Occupancy Review and Inspection FEE CHARGED: $80 FEE TITLE: Precise Plan Street Alignmant FEE CHARGED: $2 , 864 -2- 6398 ` M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Con ' t. FEE TITLE: Plumbing Plan Check FEE CHARGED: 40% of inspection fee FEE TITLE: Electrical Plan Check FEE CHARGED: 40% of inspection fee FEE TITLE: Mechanical Plan Check FEE CHARGED: 40% of inspection fee FEE TITLE: Plumbing Inspection FEE CHARGED: Increase existing fees by 25% Examples include: Issuing each Permit - $20. 00 Each plumbing fixture of trap or set of fixtures on 1 trap - $ 7.50 Building and Trailer Park Sewer - $18. 75 Rainwater Systems - $ 7 .50 Each Cesspool - $28. 00 FEE TITLE: Electrical Inspection FEE CHARGED: Increase existing fees by 25% Examples include: Permit - $20 Service Meter - $25 Min. Sub-panel - $14 Self-contained, approved unit - $ 4 each Signs, each - $50 Temporary service - $19 FEE TITLE: Building Permit Extension FEE CHARGED• $85 FEE TITLE: Building Re-inspection FEE CHARGED• $75 -3- 6398 M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Con t. FEE TITLE: Mechanical Inspection FEE CHARGED: Increase existing fees by 25% Examples include: Permit - $18 .75 Air-handling unit over 10, 000 cfm - $13 . 75 Installation/relocation floor furnace - $11. 25 Installation/relocation suspended heater - $11. 25 Installation/relocation appliance vent - $ 5.75 Installation/relocation of each commercial or industrial type incinerator - $56. 25 FEE TITLE: Building Relocation Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: $500 FEE TITLE: Building Demolition Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: Inspection - $25 Processing - $25 FEE TITLE: Swimming Pool Plan Check & Inspection FEE CHARGED: Permit issuance - $20 Building Inspection Permit - See appropriate revised fees Plan Check Fee - 82% of building inspection fee Electrical Items - $50 Plumbing Items - $50 Section 7 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 7. Fees for processing various planning and zoning matters: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (Con ' t. ) EFFECTIVE AUGUST 30, 1992 FEE TITLE: Preliminary Plan Review (SFR) FEE CHARGED: $500 FEE TITLE: Preliminary Plan Review (MFR <10) FEE CHARGED: $500 -4- M.S.I. FEE INCREASES — PHASE (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Con ' t. FEE TITLE: Preliminary Plan Review (MFR >10) FEE CHARGED: $750 FEE TITLE: Preliminary Plan Review (Non-Res) FEE CHARGED: $750 FEE TITLE: Tentative Parcel Map Review FEE CHARGED: $500 FEE TITLE: Tentative Tract Map Review FEE CHARGED: $1, 200 FEE TITLE: Site Plan Amendment/Planning Commission FEE CHARGED: $350 FEE TITLE: Development Agreement Review FEE CHARGED: $10, 000 FEE TITLE: Conditional Use Permit FEE CHARGED: $1, 200 FEE TITLE: Special Permit Review FEE CHARGED: $150 FEE TITLE: Conditional Exception Review (ZA) FEE CHARGED: $250 -5- 6398 f M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Con t. FEE TITLE: Categorical Exclusion Letter FEE CHARGED• $25 FEE TITLE: Temporary Use Review FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: Temporary Outdoor Event Permit FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: General Plan Amendment Review & Revision FEE CHARGED: $5, 000 FEE TITLE: General Plan Conformance Report FEE CHARGED• $250 FEE TITLE: Zoning Code Amendment Review FEE CHARGED: $2 , 500 FEE TITLE: Zoning Letter FEE CHARGED: $25 FEE TITLE: Zone Change Review FEE CHARGED: $2 , 500 FEE TITLE: Environmental Assessment Study (Negative Declaration) FEE CHARGED: $500 -6- 6398 M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE 1 (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Con t. FEE TITLE: Environmental Impact Report Review FEE CHARGED: $2 , 500 FEE TITLE: E. I. R. Preparation FEE CHARGED: $2 , 500 FEE TITLE: Planned sign Review FEE CHARGED: $250 FEE TITLE: Processing of Appeal to Planning Commission FEE CHARGED: $300 FEE TITLE: Processing of Appeal to City Council FEE CHARGED: $500 FEE TITLE: Preliminary Landscape Plan Check FEE CHARGED• $25 FEE TITLE: Landscape Plan Check FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: Mobile Home Park Conversion Review FEE CHARGED: $5, 000 FEE TITLE: Entitlement Extension Review FEE CHARGED: $125 -7- coo M.S.I. FEE INCREASES — PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Con ' t. FEE TITLE: Address Change Review FEE CHARGED: $125 FEE TITLE: New Address Assignment Processing FEE CHARGED• $125 FEE TITLE: Design Review Board Hearing FEE CHARGED: $250 FEE TITLE: Final Tract Map Check FEE CHARGED: $500 FEE TITLE: Compliance Review & Letter FEE CHARGED• $50 Section 9 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 9. Fees for permits required under Huntington Beach Municipal Code section 15.12.090 based on projected costs of administering and enforcing the oil code and all provisions relating to oil operations in the city, and other Fire Department related fees: FIRE DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Hazardous Materials Clean-Up FEE CHARGED: MSI "fully-burdened" rate FEE TITLE: Fire False Alarm Response FEE CHARGED: In any 12-month period: Third False Alarm $50 Fourth False Alarm $100 Fifth False Alarm $250 Each Addl Alarm $500 -8- 6398 M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6/1J92) FIRE DEPARTMENT Cont. FEE TITLE: Hazardous Materials Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: # of Chemicals Quantity of Chemicals Range Range 1 2 3 1 $ 313 $ 378 $ 559 2 377 443 624 3 484 550 730 4 644 710 890 5 857 923 1, 103 6 1, 123 1, 189 1, 369 7 1, 310 1, 376 1, 556 8-15 1, 500 1, 600 1, 700 16-50 2, 500 2 , 800 3 , 000 51-100 3, 000 3 , 500 4 , 000 101-500 $5, 000 regardless of quantity > 500 $6, 500 regardless of quantity Range Quantity of Chemicals Range Gallons Cubic Feet Pounds 1 55-1, 000 200-1, 000 500-1, 000 2 1, 001-10, 000 1, 001-5, 000 1, 001-5, 000 3 10, 001 + 5, 001 + 5, 001 + Those businesses that do not file Business Emergency Plans shall pay a flat annual rate of $150. The fee assessed to each business shall be computed on the above chart. Charges for substances measured in gallons, cubic feet, and pounds shall be computed individually and then added to arrive at the annual fee. FEE TITLE: Fire Incident Report Copy FEE CHARGED: $13 . 00 - reports of less than 7 pages $ 2 . 00 - each additional page -9- 6398 M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) FIRE DEPARTMENT Con t. FEE TITLE: Risk Management Program FEE CHARGED: MSI "fully-burdened" rate or pass-through cost FEE TITLE: Fire Alarm & Sprinkler Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 Base Fee* Multi-Family Residence $250 $325 $400 Single Family Residence 150 250 335 Tenant Improvement 75 105 135 Commercial Industrial 250 325 400 *Plus per sprinkler or initiation charge of 3 .50 5. 00 6.75 Commerciasl/Industrial calculation 100 135 135 Underground 200 275 335 other 150 225 270 Water Dept. Review 26 26 26 CD Billing Review 13 13 13 FEE TITLE: Underground Tank Installation Review & Inspection FEE CHARGED: Installation - $100 Removal - $200 FEE TITLE: Oil Well Inspection FEE CHARGED: Annual Inspection - $100 1st Reinspection - No Charge Subsequent - $200 FEE TITLE: Oil Well Vent Inspection FEE CHARGED: 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 $250/well $375/well $495/well FEE TITLE: Abandoned Oil Well Inspection FEE CHARGED: $100/well -10- 6398 i M.S.I. FEE INCREASES — PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) FIRE DEPARTMENT Con ' t. FEE TITLE: Wastewater Permit Fees FEE CHARGED: 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 $65/well $85/well $100/well FEE TITLE: Central Net Training Center/Use of Facilities, Equipment, and Personnel FEE CHARGED: Fees contained in Attachment 1; attached. Section 11 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 11. Fees for operation of adult entertainment businesses pursuant to Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 5.70: POLICE DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Special Business Regulation FEE CHARGED: Taxi Driver $45 Bingo Permit $75 Gun Dealer Permit $100 Original Masseuse Permit $120 Masseuse Renewal $ 50 Establishment Renewal $200 Change of Location or Name $ 45 FEE TITLE: Temp. Alcohol Beverage Permit FEE CHARGED• $60 FEE TITLE: Noise Disturbance Response Call-Back FEE CHARGED• $330 -11- 639R M.S.I. FEE INCREASES — PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) Section 13 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 13. Maximum rates for towing services and garage impounds pursuant to police direction. POLICE DEPARTMENT (Con ' t. ) EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Vehicle Abandoment Charge FEE CHARGED: Release Fee $340 This fee is not on the MSI Phase I, but recommended on Memo dated 10/17/91 Section 19 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 19. Fees for use of City buildings & facilities. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Showmobile Rental FEE CHARGED: Fees to include all available equipment, delivery, set-up and transportation. First day - $800 Additional day - $160 Attendants to operate special equipment-fully burdened rate plus overtime if applicable NOTE: Costs for preparation and clean-up of showmobile are relatively stable, therefore,. a flat fee is recommended. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Contract Recreation Fees FEE CHARGED: $2. 00 administrative fee FEE TITLE: Adult Sports FEE CHARGED: 10 percent increase FEE TITLE: Senior Center Rentals FEE CHARGED: 10 percent increase -12- 6398 r M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE I (Exhibit A, 6/1/92) Section 21 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 21. Fees for the use of library facilities and equipment authorized by Huntington Beach Municipal Code section 2.30.050. LIBRARY SERVICES DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Late Library Materials processing FEE CHARGED: Late Materials Children - $. 15 per day/$3 maximum Encyclopedias - $. 50 per day/$10 maximum Adult - $.25 per day/$5 maximum Replacement Cards Children - $2 FEE TITLE: Reservation of Material/Interlibrary Loans FEE CHARGED: Reservation - $1 per Item Interlibrary loan - $1 per Item plus any fees vharges by lending library FEE TITLE: Typewriter Rental FEE CHARGED: $1. 50 per half hour FEE TITLE: Media Rental FEE CHARGED: Compact Disks 48 Hours - $1.25 7 Days - $2 . 00 Computer Usage PC Leading Edge/Apple/IBM - $4 . 00 MacIntosh/386/2CX - $5. 00 Slide Projector - $6. 00 Overhead Projector - $10. 00 Opaque Projector - $15. 00 Screens - . $5. 00 PA System - ; $10.00 Disolve Unit - . $15. 00 -13- 6398 M.S.I. FEE INCREASES — PHASE i (Exhibit A, 611192) Section 25 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 25. Fees for installation of traffic delineation for private developers pursuant to Huntington Beach Municipal Code section 12.12.140: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: sign and striping service FEE CHARGED: Use MSI "fully-burdened" rate charged against a minimum deposit of $1, 000. Section 26 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 26. Fees for checking plans for improvements to be constructedin the public right of way: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (Con ' t. ) EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Public Improvement Plan Check FEE CHARGED: Single Family Residence: Basic Plan Charge - $ 90 Additional Charge per Sheet of Plans - $ 20 All Others: Basic Plan Charge - $ 890 Additional Charge per Shhet of Plans - $ 220 FEE .TITLE: Grading Plan Check & Inspection FEE CHARGED: To include plan check and inspections: 0 - 1, 000 c.y. - $201 for 1st 100 c.y. + $33 . 50 ea add' 1 100 c.y. or fraction thereof 1, 001-10, 000 c.y. - $536 for 1st 1, 000 c.y. + $58 . 60 ea add' 1 1, 000 c.y. or fraction thereof Over 10, 000 c.y. - $1, 063 . 65 for 1st 10, 000 c.y. + $92 ea add' 1 10, 000 c.y. or fraction thereof PLUS - 5% of estimated on-site improvements -14- 6398 M.S.I. FEE INCREASES — PHASE (Exhibit A, 611192) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Con ' t. FEE TITLE: Landscape Plan Check FEE CHARGED: Minimum $55 - Single Family Residential $45 - Multiple Family Residential, less than 10 units $60 - Multiple Family Residential, 10 or more units PLUS $15 - For each page of plans FEE TITLE: Preliminary Landscape Plan Check FEE CHARGED: $30 - Single Family Residential $65 - Multiple Family Residential $20 - Non-residential Section 27 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting- as follows: Section 27. Fees for services performed by the Department of Public Works pursuant to Huntingtion Beach Municipal Code sections 10.32.060, 12.12.060, 12.12.110, 12.16.010, and Huntington Beach Ordinance Code section 9906: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (Con ' t. ) EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Public Improvement Inspection FEE CHARGED: Subdivision - MSI "fully-burdened rate" charged against an initial deposit of 8% of improvement bond or $17 , 000, whichever is greater FEE TITLE: Water Connection Inspection FEE CHARGED: A fee of $150. -15- 6398 M.S.I. FEE INCREASES - PHASE (Exhibit A, 611192) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Con t. FEE TITLE: Landscape Inspection FEE CHARGED: $ 30 - Single Family Residential $ 480 - Multiple Family Residental, less than 10 units $ 965 - Multiple Family Residential, 10 or more units $1, 600 - Non Residential FEE TITLE: Hydrant/Air Vacuum Damage Repair FEE CHARGED: Use MSI "fully-burdened" rate charged to responsible individual, if identifiable. FEE TITLE: Temp Meter Rental Processing/Replacement FEE CHARGED: $700 meter damage deposit collected and permit issued prior to meter set $ 55 set fee $ 55 each hydrant meter move $ 70 monthly rental PLUS water usage (included in water bill) FEE TITLE: Wide, Overweight, Overlong Load Review FEE CHARGED: One day permit - No Charge Temporary Permit - $ 35 plus $5 for each day permit required Annual permit - No change Fleet operations - No change FEE TITLE: street construction Review a Inspection FEE CHARGED: Excavation/ Construction Permit - $32 + 8% of the total cost of construction, as determined by the Dept. of Public Works. Cable Television - $32 + $. 04 per lineal foot of mainline and laterial reach PLUS actual replacement/repair of City infrastructure replaced or repaired by City -16- 6398 ` M.S.I. FEE INCREASES — PHASE I (Exhibit A, 611192) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Con t. FEE TITLE: Hydrant Flow Test Witness FEE CHARGED• $110 FEE TITLE: Obstruction Permit FEE CHARGED• $50 FEE TITLE: Banner Hanger Service FEE CHARGED: $105 .FEE TITLE: Wide/Overweight/Loading FEE CHARGED: 1 day permit $15 Temporary Permit $35 Plus $ 5 day Annual permit $75 Fleet Operations $75 Section 31 of Resolution 5159, Resolutions 5188, 5192, 5289, 5339, 5493, and all Supplemental Fee Resolutions are amended by modifying, adding or deleting as follows: Section 31. Fees for processing parcel and final subdivision maps. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (Con ' t. ) EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1992 FEE TITLE: Final Tract Map Check FEE CHARGED: $480 or $40 per lot, whichever is greater -17- 6398 Res, No. 6398 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day Of— Tune 19 92 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Green, Kelly NOES: Councilmembers: Silva, MacAllister ABSENT: Councilmembers: None f4 City Cler and ex-officila Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California