HomeMy WebLinkAboutBudget 1984-85
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PRE L
M
N A R Y
C I T Y 0 F RAN C HOC U C A M 0 N G A
1984 - 1985 ANNUAL PROGRAM OF SERVICE
CITY COUNCIL
JON D MIKELS
MAYOR
RICHARD M DAHL
MAYOR PRO TEMPORE
CHARLES J BUQUET II
JEFFREY KING
P A.'IELA J w'RIGHT
ELECTED OFFICIALS
CITY CLERK - BEVERLY A AUTHELET
CITY TREASURER - JA.'IES C FROST
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
CITY MANAGER - LAUREN M WASSERMAN
I
C I T Y 0 F RAN C HOC U C A M 0 N G A
I
1984-85 ANNUAL PROGRAM OF SERVICE
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
Report to City Council
Organizational Chart .
Fund Balance Analysis
Resources for Program
on Program of Service
1
3
4
5
Distribution
I
DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS
I
Program Sununary
General Government Sununary
. 9
.10
I
General Government Administration
Administration Cost Summary
Legislature .
City Manager.
Personnel . .
City Clerk. .
Administrative Services
.12
.13
.16
.20
.23
.27
I
I
I
General Government Operating Costs
General Government Operating Costs Summary
Inter Governmental Service.
City Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.31
.32
.35
I
I
Community Development
Conununity Development Cost Summary.
Planning Commission
Administration. .
Planning . . . .
Building & Safety
.41
.42
.45
.49
.53
I
I
Public Safety
Public Safety Cost Summary
Sheriff's Department.
.57
.58
I
Community Services
Conununity Services Cost Sununary
Administration. . .
Recreation . . . .
Contract Recreation
.61
.62
.66
.70
I
I
Public Works
Public Works Cost Sununary
Engineering .
Streets/Parks . .
.74
.75
.79
I
Conununity Improvements.
.83
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROGRAM OF SERVICE
MESSAGE
I
I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
_Jon D. Mik.l,
c_
I
1977
Charle. J. Buquet n
Richard M. Dahl
J.ffrey King
P....1a J. Wright
I
May 23, 1984
I
I
TO:
Members of City Council
I
FROM:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager
I
I
The 1984-85 Program of Service is hereby submitted for review. For the first
time in the City's seven-year history, the community is assured of a reliable,
predictable source of revenue from the State. This means that the City is now
able to provide the municipal services which are needed in a young, rapidly
growing community. During the past year we have further solidified the City's
economic base by signing an owner participation agreement for a IOO-acre
regional shopping center. This project which will be completed by fall, 1987,
represents the most significant action taken by the City to ensure the City's
future economic stability.
I
I
I
SERVICES
I
In order to clearly document the budget requests, submitted to the City
Council, the staff has prepared detailed information which identifies the
services now being provided, the service levels recommended by your
professional staff, and the costs related to the proposed changes. As a result
of this information, policymakers will be able to fully evaluate alternative
service options before making critical budget decisions.
I
I
Unless significant adjustments in staffing are approved, the City will be
unable to provide adequate services. During the past three years, service
demands have increased while the budget has remained stagnant. While the need
for additional staff is critical in development related services, it is also
apparent in other city departments.
I
Although staff increases are recommended to handle certain projects and
services, it is important to note that we are also reaffirming a commitment to
continue the use of contract services whenever feasible. This blend of City
and contract services assures the continuation of cost effective management of
resources.
I
I
I
9320 BASELINE ROAD. SUITE C . POST OFFICE BOX SOT . RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA 91730 . (71.) 981-1851
1
Members of City Council
May 23, 1984
Page 2
PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT
The City has made significant progress in meeting the critical need for
acquisition and development of major park sites. At this writing, staff is
negotiating for the purchase of two additional park sites totaling more than
137 acres. information has also been submitted to the Council regarding the
alternatives available for the development of Heritage Park and one other site
within the community. During the next year, two neighborhood parks will be
fully developed as well. In addition, a one-time appropriation of $300,000 is
proposed for fiscal year 1984-85 to supplement park development fees which will
be collected.
S lJMMARY
The Preliminary Program of Service for 1984-85 proposes general government
expenditures and transfers to other funds of $10,260,958.00 and capital program
fund expenditures of $9,248,707.00. The grand total for all funds is
$19,509,665.00. The budget is balanced and does not contemplate the use of
reserves. A transfer of $200,000 is recommended to the Park Development Fund
in order to increase the City's commitment to park development in the next
year. These funds will augment monies collected through the payment of park
development fees.
LMlo//kep
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUMMARIES
I
I
.....
Z Z
> V> ... 0
.....V> ... :r -
-... Zu ~Q. .....
zu - <- a:o <
=>- :r:> <...l ...
:r:> =>a: Q. ... a:
:ra: 0::... :> u
0'" V> ... ...
uV> 0 a:
Z
0
-
.....
u> < ...l
- -..... '"' 0
...l... - a:
en.... ..... .....
a: =>< V> <
... Q. V> ... Q.
> <.0 ...l ~
... 0 < ...
> Z ..... Z Z -
..... a: ...< - Z
- 0 ..... o:::r 0
u ..... V>..... V>
..... V> > a:
< < ..... ...
- Q.
U
:>
I -
.....V> <.0 <.0
I <... Z '"' Z
a:u - Z -
I - .....- ..... - - V>
V>:> Z V> <
I -a: => Z 0::
Z... 0 ... u
I -V> u u a:
I :r u - =>
0 < ...l Q.
I <
...l a:
- I ...
> u > <.0
..... Z ..... <
- => - Z
U 0 I u <
u :r .....
I Z
...
I :r
Q.>
I Ou
~ ...lZ
I .......
:> <.0
I ...<
0
I l.U
a:
I
I
I '"
>a:
I- - ........
-...l ..... ""
I uu z '"'
...V> '"' Z '"'
I :r... z> - Z
Q.u -~ a: -
I - 0- 0l.U - ... - Z
...l:> ...l.... l.U Z
I l.Ua: -< z <
:>... =>V> - ...l
I ""v> en '"' Q.
'" z
I ...
I
I
I a:
J ...
a:
L_ >=> ...
.....V> UV> V>
-< <... V> .....
u... - zu ~ ...
a: ...- a: l.U
..... ..... :> < a:
za: Q. .....
_l.U V>
<V>
:r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<(
'"
z'"
a
:1:'"
<(>
u ...J
~<(
uZ
<(
a
:I: '-'
U U
zz
<(<(
O::...J
<(
"-'"
a
o
>z
>-~
"-
'-I
'-"
co
o ,
'-' ...
>-u'"
<(Z'
:1:<("
...J
>-<("-
"''''0
...
III
'"
...
U
Z"--4"
<0(1)
0:: ,
"''''
:1:<('
~ "
U
Z
...
'"
...
00::
...~'"
>->-(1)
<(-,
:1:0-4"
-Z(I)
>-'-''''
'" C1.
'-'x
...
o
'-' '-' '"
>-~(I)
<(z,
:1:'-'-4"
:>(1)
>- '-' '"
'" 0::_
...
o
... ...
>-U-4"
<(Z(I)
:1:<(1
...J
>-<(,
t.n co ~
'-'
>-
~
o
0::
'-'
"-
'"
z
<(
0::
>-
z
0::
'-'
"-
'"
z
<(
0::
>-
~I
,
o
I
,
o
,
.,.
1 1
o a
, 1
'"
(I) '"
'"
N -4"
'" I '"
(I) a '"
" , (I)
'"
'"
N '" 0
'" '" 0
" (I) 0
a '" '"
(I) (I)
'" "
'"
co
-4"
'"
'"
'"
N
'"
'" '" '"
" '" N
'" co ....
'" N
'" (I) ....
"
(I)
V>
"
'"
(I)
(I)
co
'"
I
o
I
V>
...
...
..
c:
..
'"
>-
-
.,
.....
...
'"
u
.....
.....
...
...
>-
o
o
'"
"
I
a
,
'"
'"
....
'"
o
'"
x
...
>-
on
...
'"
,
o
,
,
a
,
.... a
'" '"
.... '"
'" '"
.... co
'"
N N
" N
'" co
co -
'" -
'"
'"
"
'"
'"
'"
'"
N
'"
'"
'"
,
co
...
...
<(
"
a
co
N
,
o
I
'"
'"
N
'"
co
c:
o
...
...
.,
...
u
.,
0::
N
"
...
N
"
,
o
,
,
o
,
N
'"
N
....
...
N
,
o
,
'"
'"
...
a
co
...
-
c:
.,
'"
c:
-
c:
o
U
on
-
.....
..
c:
.,
II>
'"
'"
'"
o
(I)
-4"
,
o
,
o
-4"
o
o
'"
N
a
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
,
o
,
'"
"
co
'"
o
...
u
>
'"
...
-
c:
..
E
c:
...
.,
>
o
'"
...
.,
-
c:
'"
'"
,
o
,
'"
"
1
o
,
o
o
a
o
a
'"
,
a
,
, -4" N
a N 0
, co '"
'"
'"
'"
N
'"
N
a 0
a a
o 0
o 0
o a
'" N
'"
'"
'"
N
'"
N
, '" 0
a
, '" N
,
o
,
'" co
'" '"
...
'" co
" 0
'"
c:
'" -
., c:
> .,
... E
., c.
'" 0
.,
0:: ..
>
III
... Q
...
".
C. ...
... ...
U C1.
...
...
.s:
'"
III
::l
c:
III
>
III
0::
,
o
,
,
o
,
" '"
co ...
'"
'" '"
... co
" "
I
o
1
,
a
,
,
o
,
1
a
I
I
o
I
,
o
,
,
o
,
,
a
I
'" '" ....
'" '" '"
N '" N
,...... U"'I 4' ...0
t'f"\ r--- N a-..
o ""
N
'"
co
'"
o
'"
.... co a
N '" a
'" co 0
'" '" '"
o '" ...
'" N
o l.l'\ 0 .:r
'" '" a
r-... t""\ 0 N
...0 l"<"'\ ...:r a-...
f"'oo,. 0". ("'l"'\ \"'f"\
"'... co
N
...
N
....
'"
c:
o
...
...
u
.....
...
::l
...
III
II>
'"
'"
co
'"
'"
co
-
c:
~
c.
o
III
>
..
o
'"
E
III
...
on
>-
III
'"
'"
co
'"
"
'"
'"
a
co
'"
a
...
'"
III
...
u
...
"-
III
'"
...
c:
...
...
Q
::l
<
"-
a
a
a
a
'"
,
a
,
a
a
o
o
'"
'"
...
c:
...
...
'"
-
-
~
a
a
o
o
'"
o
o
o
o
'"
'"
.,
u
c:
.,
'"
<(
...
III
.s:
...
o
,
o
,
'"
'"
'"
"
'"
'"
'"
,
o
,
o
o
a
o
a
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
a
'"
'"
'"
...
co
a
....
'"
'"
N
'"
'"
V>
o
....
'"
'"
N
'"
'"
V>
o
o
o
o
...
...
co
'"
o
'"
'"
'"
V>
'"
'"
"
"
'"
'"
'"
"
V>
...
...
...
-
'"
...J
<(
>-
a
>-
o
-
E
'"
'"
<(
...
U
III
C.
'"
<(
o
0::
.,
.s:
.....
o
'"
...
-
.,
o
....
o
.....
-
.,
'"
"
::l
'"
-
c:
.,
E
c.
o
III
>
.,
"
.,
0::
III
III
'"
-
-
~
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<> U'\
...CO
~a'>
<-
2:'
- 4"
....CO
V> a'>
... -
<> 4"
...oX>
~a'>
<-
2:'
- ""
....oX>
V> a'>
... -
""
oX>
....J a'>
<-
:>'
~N
U oX>
<a'>
-
N
oX>
....J a'>
<-
:>'
~-
U oX>
<a'>
-
V>
...
U
""
:>
o
V>
...
""
...
~
u.J
:>
u.J
""
<>
u.J
~
<(
'"
....
Vl
u.J
oX>
....Ja'>
<-
:>,
....0
Uee
<(a'>
-
o
oX>
....J a'>
<( -
:> ,
~a'>
U.....
<('"
Vl
u.J
U
""
:>
o
Vl
.;rL.f\NCCOO
U"\OI:'CCl U'\O 0
C"""\L.f\a"I_U"\O"\
.. .. .... ..
-,......,~N 0
U'\-N_ _
O'\N"""'_
N
<I>
NONCOOO .o:r
U"\"""Lt'\\J"\QO _
-co N..:r U"\LI"\ ,.....
...0 N...o~ 0
..:r\.s:J...c...a .:r
CO 0...0 ..0
N ""
<I> <I>
-...0 - a"I ,......
,......, -,......N CO
CO..::- N...o -
NOOr---CO I I ,.....
LI\- N..:rO 0 .;r
r--.O"'I\D I I t""\
. .
_ ""
<I> <I>
...oN..:rf""oo.
M.OOOCO
CONCClU"\
a"Ir--.NO I I
...o..:r~"""OO
...0 0 U'\ I I
N
<I>
-.:r..:r ,.....
-O"'I..:rO
C"""\ 0'\ M. U"\
o c:o O'\L.f\ I I
0--.00000
U"\LI'\U"\- I t
<I>
....0 ,..... r--..CO
M-O..:r
...OC:lCOL.f\
....0..::- r-....M. I I
-C"""\M.-OO
...oL.f\M- I I
V>
>-
U
I- c:
OJ '"
"- a.
"' " )(
c: u '"
"'U....
I- 0
"'~
OJ
"'
Vl
...
><
<
~
"'
OJ
)(
"' '"
OJ....
)(
'" OJ
.... "'
:>
>-
... (.,).-
I- ..c:
" "' u
a." c:
0-'"
I- '" '-
".V>...
"'
~ c:
>-c:O
.... IV .-
,-.- 1/1
" "' "'
Q. c.-
o '" E
'-1-"0
".~<
a'>
.....
4"
.....
-
o
4"
V>
a'>
o
U'\
o
N
""
""
<I>
oJ:i
U'\
4"
.....
N
<I>
00
o
oX>
N
o
oJ:i
N
V>
"'
OJ
)(
'"
....
'"
~
o
....
00 4"0
_U"\ <<:10
U'\ U'\ I 0'\ N.
.0'
CO I N-
a'> ""
N .....
<I>
t'f"'IOOl""'\O
-:roatw"'lO
~ l""\-:"'...U"\
U'\
U'\
N
'" 4"
_ U'\
4"
V>
:;:~~~g~:;
..0 I"l"'\MQa ..:r
.. .... ..
00 ro"\CO _
oX> -oJ:i
N '"
<I>
U"\/"oO t'f"\,.....
O,........:r 0""""
\oQ..:r U"\..:r,......
..... U'\4"
"" -0
N N
<I>
'" - 4" U'\ U'\~
OMMON
....0 U"\f'I"\Cf'\O
. ..
- CO MM
oX> -0
- 4"
<I>
"'''' "'.... a'>~
M-C"""\,........o
"~M-=:.N..,......,
00 '-'J """ 1,/'\
CO -'"
_ ""
<I>
Vl
~
2:
""
...
".
...,
V>
...
V>
Z
u.J
U
"0
'" c: '"
ill Vl \It llJ I1l
\II C1J .., Vl
C 1/1 .- 1/1 C
QJ C E Q.l 4J
U IV 1/1 '- III U
.- U IV O"l C .-
~.-I/IQ.QJ ~
....J c: U
1/1 QJ ~.- -
\fl QJ U C..... to
4)_._._ .w
C U.....l "'0 I.,. 0
.->- -4) I-
1/1 U a'Jo_ -C
"'-,g".-
coco coo
....J
"'
"' ~
~ .-
.- e
E l-
I- OJ
OJ C>.
C>.
4"
4"
N
""
""
o
-
<I>
oJ:i
.....
U'\
'"
N
.....
V>
a'>
oX>
oJ:i
<I>
N
-
oJ:i
CO
U'\
4"
<I>
'"
a'>
""
.....
o
oJ:i
<I>
.....
N
4"
4"
.....
U'\
<I>
..,
V>
u.J
""
:>
....
u.J
... "'
... "
"" c:
o .-
... ...
..., ~
l-
V> :>
... 0
Z u
...
a'>
-
oJ:>
o
-
<I>
4"
.....
a'>
'"
V>
N
""
CO
.....
<I>
U'\
oX>
4"
.....
<I>
4"
.....
U'\
""
<J>
""
oJ:i
.....
V>
- - 4"
4"-N
-a'>N
""0-
o CO 4"
4" N.....
V>
oX> .....4"
NoJ:i""
Na'>U'\
,^4" 0
""a'> 0
N '^
<I>
oX>a'>N
oJ:i N 4"
-0.....
ON4"
-0'"
""_N
V>
- - N
oJ:i 4" '^
-COCO
oJ:i""oJ:i
"".....oJ:i
- ""
V>
a'>.....CO
- o oX>
oJ:i 4" U'\
'-'lU'\""
oX> "'0
- - N
<I>
.... a'>oJ:i
a'>N '"
4" ..... N
4"ON
oJ:i '^ '^
V>
"'
V> OJ
u.J OJ
U "'...
- "
:> OJ en
a:: .;:t Ll.. C
l.6J U .-
VI ill C'l '-
..c: c: OJ
a:: U.- iV
o c: c:
u.. c c.-
'" '" '"
c.n - - C
.... a.. a..l.&J
...
...
oJ:i
.....
N
U'\
N
4"
V>
'"
N
.....
o
""
oX>
<I>
a'>
""
'"
'-'l
o
.....
V>
4"
'^
CO
oJ:i
.....
'^
<I>
4"
oJ:i
'^
oX>
'^
<J>
a'>
'^
....
.....
oJ:i
""
V>
"'
OJ
u
>
I-
OJ
Vl
I-
o
...
"'
OJ
OJ
...
'"
~
o
....
5
<Xl 0 -0 NO -0 V\NOO .... L.I"\
0 .... L.I"\ '" -0 '" -0"100 0 ....
"'CO .:r 0 .... N - -0 4'4'NV\ -0 -0
~ '" I "'- 4'U"\-...c ....
<(- 0 I N I ....
z: 0 00 '" NO - 0-0 '" CO- O '"
-.:r 0 0 '" 0 I - L.I"\
~<Xl
11>'" - <Xl
\OJ_
</> <I> <I> <I> <I>
'" "'-'" -00 N ~~~1 '" .:r
O.:r "'.....:r N<Xl '" - 4' 0"'\...0 0
"'<Xl '" <Xl...._ 0'" 0 N-OC"\ .:r '"
...'"
<(- 0 I .........:r I -0 <Xl ..:r N""'''\I"J'\ L.I"\ .:r
z: 0 0 0 .:r.:r_ 0-0 <Xl "'- <Xl <Xl
-'" I I '" I - .:r
~<Xl
11>'" '"
...- <I> <I> <I> <I>
<I>
.... N "'''' -N .... NOOl .... '"
'" '" N "'.... L.l"\N 0 t'f"'I_..:r_ '" ....
<Xl '" "''''.:r .:r '" t"'\..:r O"\..:r .... N
...J'" . . . . . .
<(- 0 0 '" "'C7\0 I '" """'f'I"\_M <Xl '"
::l I 0 0 L.I"\ -.:rN 0 L.I"\ '" "'- - N ....
~N I I <Xl I 0 <Xl
u<Xl
<('" L.I"\
<J> <I> <I> <J>
<J>
.:r "''''''' -'" L.I"\ ON~l '" 0
N .:r "'NC7\ 0C7\ C7\ Ol.t\O"'\_ '" N
<Xl '" C7\"'.:r .:r .... <Xl 00'\0:>>..:r N '"
...JC7\ .
<(- I I N "''''''' I .:r '" """"C"\l"""\r-.. <Xl <Xl
::l I 0 0 C7\ .:r.:r- O.:r .:r '" '" 0
...- I I <Xl I - '" '" C7\
U<Xl
<('" L.I"\
<I> <I> <I> <I>
II> <I>
... "'.... "'N-:rCCl....oO '" MNU"'\r--.. ....
U <Xl N
a:: <XlN .... C"l"\NN_\"Q""'" N 1.J'\r-..t""\_ C7\ .:r
::l <Xl 0' L.I"\ '" ...0 rr"\CO...o 0""" '" co 1'0 l""'\ C7\ '"
0 ...JC7\ .. ... .. ...
'" <(- '" .... L.I"\ N\oO C"l"\Q N N <Xl_ "'L.I"\ <Xl '"
... ::l I L.I"\_ <Xl ..:r..:r-N .:r N '" - 0 .:r C7\
a:: ~O <Xl N '" .:r '"
U<Xl
... <(C7\ '"
::l <I> <J> <J> <J>
'" <J>
... U"\O"I-l./'\O_ '" o <Xl O.:r
:> N '" N N
\OJ 0 C7\ .... .......l.f'\...o.:r..:r C"\ '" OCON- '" .:r
a:: ~ <Xl L.I"\ ...0 rr"\CQ t"'\1.J'\Lr\ C7\ O"""'NN .:r '"
...JC7\ .
0 <( I L.I"\ '" "'N L.I"\.:r .... '" O"'N .... '" '"
... ::l I 0 .... "'- N .... ....'" 0 .:r '"
... ... C7\ I <Xl 0 N '" '" N
<( U ....
x: <( 0' L.I"\
... <J> <J> <I>
'"
...
"
'" '"- '"
'" '"
'" '"
'" U
'" U. "
"" a:: '"
u '" en '"
X '" <( ~ \OJ
~ '"- ro " " ::l
" '" ~ '" ... '" Z
'" U '" > ...
'" '" )0- "" '" :>
" '" '" ~ ...J u a:: ...
II> '" '" a:: ... 0 a::
... Q.C '" '" '" '"
'" '" X Q. '" '" E ro ~ Q
II> U Q U ro 0 '" '" 0 0 Z
\OJ Z ~ ... ... C U. ... ... '" ::l
U \OJ "" ...J '" 0.. U. '" " u.
a:: <.:> ~ )0- J> '" U ro
::l <( '" ...J ~ )0- '" ~ '" '" ro ...J
0 3 en ... ... '" CC " ~ z: <(
'" a:: ro " '" 0 '" '" C '" a::
\OJ '" ... Q. ~ u. ... u '" '" U \OJ
:I: '" '" 0 " '" > '" '" '" Z
... > '" ... '" "" X ...J '" ~ '" '" \OJ
0 '" 0.. > U ... ro a:: " '" ~ ::;: <.:>
CC u c: ro ... ... )0- Il> ro C
x: E '" 0 ro ro ::l ... '" '" ...J
0 ro u "" ... U U '" 3 ro 0 0.. ...J > ro <(
a:: u. '" '" '" ~ "" ~ \OJ ~ '" ~ ~
u. :> c '" ... )o-~ en 0 z '" '"- .., a:: 0 0
0 0 ~ '" '" ro "'.- ~ <( '" 0 ~ ~
\OJ ~J: ... C 3 ...: ...J ... '" ...
::l 0 0 ~ J: ro ...J 4> 4> ~ 4>
Z "0 U ~ '" ro en en.... .... ~ - C J:
\OJ i ~ ~ ~._.- '- U c ro 4> ~
:> <(<( &:Ot-~UQ II> -II> a:: '"
\OJ
a:: z:
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
""
~
I :z
""
:>
""
a::
I v>
""
u
a::
~
0
v>
I ""
a::
0
""
>-
<I:
I XC
>-
v>
w
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U'\ r--.C7'\OU"\ .., - U'\ C"'\Oa"'lU"\O "" "'ON
C U'\ "" Lt'\...o 0 N N N .., .-::'U"\a:lt""\O N ""OU'\
"" CIO CIO N...oU"\f'. ~ N '" """'''',....,t'f''\O .., ""0'"
>- '" .. .. .. .. - - I - .. .. .. .. .. - - -
<I: - '" ,....,,.....,....,U"\ ..... CIO 0 N U"\\QOt'f"\~ 0 U'\N.....
XC I CIO NO CIO N - I '" -""""-C"\M "" .....O~
- ~ NU'\ U'\ "" - N u."O N ..;zo - 0 -~
>- CIO - - -
v> '" - - ""
"" - '" '" '" <I> <I> <I> <I> <I>
0 "'f"'\O""" ..... CIO 0 0
0 ~ '" N-ON .., .., ..... N.......CC U"\O '" 0
"" CIO ~ Lf\C"\U"\U"\ ~ .., - -:"U"\...oNO 0 0
>- '" - . - - - - - ~ N N a....o 0 - , . ,
<I: - N -""''''''''N ..... ~ - - - - - - "" 0 .....0
XC I 0 ~"" 0 CIO - , .., """'...0 a-. IJ'\-:- U'\ , "" ,
"" - ""U'\ ~ N - 0 .., U"\O"\<XI...o..:r .., ~
>- CIO - I - - "" N..... -
v> '" - -
"" - '" <I> <I> <I> <I> <I> <I> <I>
"" "" O('O'"\O.:r ..... .., ..... NNa"'I\D ..... 0
CIO CIO (",\"""'00 0 N U'\ C"\..:r 0"\0"\ N 0
..J '" .., --'71.1"\\00 ..... U'\ '" ...04 """l./\ U'\ 0
<< - .. - - - - - - I - - - - I - I - ,
~ , "" CO t'II"\,............ .., 0 0 .., .....NN "'0 N 0 00
>- N - N - '" '" "" I .., N"'~ 0 , ~ , .., ,
u CIO - N~ U'\ - - - ""U'\_ "" "" ""
<< '" - -
- - -
<I> <I> <I> <I> <I> <I> <I> V'>
~
N ~ NOOC"\N "" 0 U'\ N...of'l"'\N\D ..... U'\
CIO 0 U"'\CT'\O...:"Lt\ ~ - 0 O-f"'\Oa:l .., N
..J '" U'\ OCClU"\I"""h.o ~ - 0 -0""1-"""'...0 - '"
<I: - - - - - - , - - - - . - - , - ,
~ I .., N - .....~CIO ~ ~ 0 - IX>CIO N U'\'" IX> 0 -0
>- - - NN U'\N "" N , .., "'-.., N- '" , "" ,
u CIO - NN U'\_ - - ~ NN N ..... -
<I: '" -
- -
V'> <I> <I> V'> <I> <I> <I> <I>
- N .NCIO 0..... ..... ..... '" .., -f'l"'\U"\N 0 - '"
IX> - NO 0- ~ "" ..... 0 OO..;zo..........oU"\ - ~
..J '" ~ .....- OClO .., - N ..... - - 0"'\"""_ N I .., I
<I: - - - - . . - - - - - - - . . . 0 -0
~ , '" .., ......., ..... ..... "" - "" I.t"\M_C"\t""'\ "" , U'\ I
>- 0 ~ N - ..... N IX> .., O...o.:rU"'\\oQ "" N
U CIO N N U'\ 0 U'\ -('0'"\-..::' - ""
<< '" . .
- - -
V'> V'> <I> <I> V'> <J> <J> V'> V'>
0 N ~ - ON ..... CO - "" """".., N ~ CO 0
CO ..... CO CO O~ 0 .., - ~ U'\OO N IX> - 0
..J '" "" - - O~ CO .., CO 0 NO~ U'\ - U'\O
<I: - - - - - - . - - - - - - - , - , -
~ , .., l"I"'\O>.D..:T "" CO 0 .., ,......t""\C"'IU"\O U'\ 0 00
t- '" CO N - '" "" U'\ N - NON , ..... , ""CO
U ..... NN ~ '" N - f'l"'\N M '" -
<I: '"
-
<J> <J> <J> V'> V'> V'> <J> <J> <J>
X
'"
>-
on
on ~ ~
'" c: c:
~ " '"
E '-
cO " ~
>< >
"" <I: c: 0 ""
u >- U'\ 0 '- '-
a:: N .- on ~ 0. .,"
~ en v> "" ~ E v> c: E Cl.
0 " " <I: '" '" t- " -
v> :z c: ~ ~ '- :z ~ E 0 .....
~ .- '" '- '" "" c: 0. - CO
.... .... cO X 0 0 XC " 0 c: '" '" '"
'" v> 0. '- ~ "" E - 0 ~ - '-
>- " :z X X t- en Cl. :z :> 0." .- '- "
>- ." 0 '" '" I c: - ~ 0 0 > ~ 0. , -"
"" 0 - >- >- en '" c: a:: c: a:: - " '" '" -
.... u t- "'CO '- 0 " <I: " Cl. " C U u ." N
<< << on on ~ t- :z .- :I: E XC > .- " c: ,
v> " >- '" '" " 0 .... - v> " - " en ""' '" - 0 .-
- a:: ~ ~ U'\_ - - '" - - " E .- '" '" '" ~
u u <:> u '- '" >- " "" ... ..J " ~ C:~ ... '-
- .- Cl. ...0 "-r--.,.- " ... <I: '- '" ~ .- << "" ... ::l .- 0 v> .:i.~ "
.... .<: v> OOO<w .<: 0 "" U ... Z ... >- ... on '" '" << >- >- ..."'-"
.... " Z - -- ... ... >- a:: " << " ""I c: - '" >-" ... Z ",CO
~ :> << NNN<O u a:: >- u :> "" Cl. Cl. l.I'ICDQLIo.. << Cl.Uo:: I
0:: "" "" "" << 0::
>- >- 0:: U 0:: U ~
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROGRAM SUMMARY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OPERATING PROGRAM SUMMARY
PROGRAM GROSS TOTAL % of GROSS TOTAL
Administration $ 579,637 5.07
Operation Costs 1,653,042 14.47
Community Development 1,132,178 9.91
Public Safety 3,638,932 31.86
Community Services 507,805 4.45
Pu b1i c Wo rks 2,441,259 21.37
Reserves / Contingency 1,469,584 12.87
Gross Total $11,422,437 100.00%
Less Transfers (1,161,469) 10.17%
NET TOTAL $10,260,958 89.83%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY
$ 2,268,677
22.14
56.17
7.35
14.34
100.00%
9.73%
90.27%
Park Development
Arterial & Traffic Control
5,754,646
752,931
1,469,201
$10,245,455
( 996,748)
$ 9,248,707
Parkway Improvement
Storm Drains
Gross Total
Less Transfers
NET TOTAL
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City Counc i 1
City Manager
Personnel
City Clerk
Admin Services
Total Admin
SALARIES
S 16.500
117.150
32.616
16.262
203.694
$ 386.222
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
OPERATIONAL COST
SUMMARY
SUPPLIES &
SERVICE CAPITAL TOTAL
$ 12.950 $ -0- $ 29.450
19.960 -0- 137,110
38,884 -0- 71,500
29.403 6.565 52,230
52.043 33.610 289,347
$ 153.240 $ 40,175 S 579.637
ADMINISTRATION
OPERATING OVERHEAD
Inter Governmental S -0-
City Facilities -0-
Gen. Ove rhead -0-
Ben. Overhead -0-
Total Overhead S -0-
S 102.800
299.709
241.729
786,064
$1.430.302
S 187,240
35.500
-0-
-0-
$ 222.740
$ 290,040
335.209
241,729
786,064
$1.653.042
TOTAL ADMIN &
OPERATING OVERHEAD $ 386,222
$1,583,542
$ 262.915
$2.232.679
These cost items wi 11 distributed to the City's Cost Centers. This
along with the expenses of the Cost Centers are used to determine if the
City's fees and charges for service are in I ine with the costs to actually
provide them. This is done in compliance with Proposition 4 or 13 B.
10
PROGRAM CENTERS I
SUMMARY I
COMMUNITY SUPPLIES & I
DEVELOPMENT SALAR I ES SERVICE CAPITAL "'OTAL
Administration S 77,088 S 11,517 $ 1,299 $ 89,9041
Planning Comm 4,200 2.300 -0- 6,500
Planning 401,526 72 .250 4,000 477.776
Bldg & Safety 410.973 122.585 24.440 557,998
Total Com Oev $ 893.787 $ 208.652 $ 29,739 $ 1 , 1 32, 178 I
PUBLIC SAFETY
Contract Costs $ -0- 53.154.762 $ -0- $ 3, 154,762 I
Non Contr Costs 207,147 227,023 -0- 484 , 170
Tota I Pub Sfty $ 207,147 53,431.785 5 -0- $ 3,638,9321
COMMUNITY 5ERVICES
Adm in i st rat ion $ 135.262 $ 66,765 $ 3,200 $ 205,227
Recreation 93,608 3,120 20,200 116,9281
Contr Recreation 15,000 156.000 14,650 185.650
Total Com 5vcs S 243.870 $ 225,885 $ 38,050 5 507.8051
PUBL I C WORKS
Eng i nee ring 5 621,688 $ 213,230 $ 27,000 5 861,918
$trts/Parks Mt 269,941 1,265.400 44,000 1,579.341 I
Tota I Pub Wks 5 891,629 $1,478.630 $ 71 .000 $ 2,441,259
TOTAL PROGRAM CTR5 52,236,433 55.344.952 5 138.789 $ 7,720,1741
TOTAL ADMIN & OPRS $ 386,222 $1.583.542 $ 262,915 5 2,232,679
RE5ERVE REQMNT5 5 -0- $ 320.752 5 500,000 820,7521
CONTINGENCY 448,832
TRAN5FER TO PARK DEV 200,000
TOTAL $2,622,655 $7.249.246 $ 901,704 511,422,4371
RESOURCES AVAILABLE I
Gene ra I Fund $ 8. 1 91 , 675
Traffic Safety 89,835 I
Revenue Sharing 292,965
Ci ty Capital Funds 953.748
Block Grant 43,000 I
Redevelopment 150.000 (1)
Gas Tax 786,000
83-84 Available Bal 588,857
Recreation Enterprise Fd 185,650 I
Capital Replacement Fund 140.727
Total Resources $ 11,422.437 $11,422.437
BALANCE -0- I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ADMINISTRATION
COST SUMMARY
GROSS % OF
DEPT. NO. DEPARTMENT COST GROSS COST
110 City Council $ 29,450 5.28
122 City Manager 137,110 23.65
124 Personnel 71 ,500 12.34
126 City Clerk 52,230 9.01
ISO Administrative Services 289,347 49.92
-
Gross Cost Total $579,637 100.00%
Transfers In / Out (579,637) (100.00%)
NET COST -0- 0.0 %
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ADMINISTRATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
legislature
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Gene ra 1 Legislative City Counc i 1 1-110
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1964-85 COUNCIL
BUDGET APPROVED
CLASSIFICATION EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET
SALARIES S 14.000 S 12.000 S 12.750 S 16.500 S
OPERATIONS & SUPPLIES 8.251 7.710 10.468 12.950
CAPITAL OUTLAY -0- -0- -0- -0-
TOTAL S 22.651 S 19.710 S 23.218 S 29.450 5
13
..
I
...
".
I
..
...
..
c
..
....
=
~...
Iof\-::a~ .
opu=...
:ilfl
!'u~
",.. 0 I
CD...... 0
.11I'" '" 0
....0.... . 0
CO'" = '" '"' -
",0:::1 -
-""... '"
... '"
'"
... ...,
.. .. ... 0 -
< z~ III '"'
2:s.....c Z ,... 0
-CUCUCWoi . '"
.... CZ::1oI'C~ N ,...
III :I-w. -
... U~~\W '"
'" - I
'"
0
.... '"'
CO ,... 0
, . '"'
.... '" ;.
CO -
'"
- '"
'"
.... 0 g~
<<' 0
, 0
N
CO N
'" -
- '"
'" :-1
0
N 0
CO .... 01
, . O.
- .... ~I
"" -
'"
- '"
03S0dOlld "'/
..., ",I
z '"'
0
-
..
- J.N31111nJ I
".,
0 '"'
...
I '"'
I
<: I
"'l
~
I
...
~ I~
>-
-
>-
...
..
.0
E I
~
-
.-
<.I
C
~ I
0
u
J
~ ~
5 -
u
u
<
>-
>-
,.
>-
u
<
"" <.I
0 C
.. ~
z 0
... u
:c ,..
>-
'"
<< u
...
...
0
..
>
~ '"
"
'-' '"
z ..
:::l ~
'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCTION DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Legislative City Counc i 1 1-110
198]-82 1981-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CLASSIFICATION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
REQUEST BUDG ET
3100 Travel & Meetings S 6.509 S 5.907 S 6.750 S 9,650
3300 Mi luge -0- 357 1,100 1,100
3900 Maintenance & Operations 1.742 1,132 868 1,200
6028 Contract Services -0- 289 1,250 1.000
3956 Dues -0- 25 500 -0-
TOTAL 5 8.251 S 7.710 S 10.468 512,950
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
3100 TRAVEL & MEETINGS
San Bag So. Cal if Assoc of Governments
League of California Cities-Annual Conference (Anaheim) (3)
Labor Relations Institute- League of Cal ifornia Cities
League of Cal ifornia Cities-Inland Empire Division
National League of Cities Conference-Io/ashington D.C. (2)
Legislative Conferences/Sacramento - As required
League of California Cities Policy Seminar
Counci I Committee Meetings
Miscellaneous Local Meetings (Clout, Chamber of Commerce. Etc)
TOTAL
6028 CONTRACT SERVICES
Student Government Day
S 650
750
500
750
3.000
1.800
500
800
900
5 9,650
S 1,000
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
city manager
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Administration City Manager 1-122
1981-82 1982-83 J983-84 19~4-85 COUNCIL
BUDGET APP~OVEO
CLASSIFICATION EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET
SALARI ES S 147.570 S 159.699 S 114.674 S 117.150 S
OPERATIONS & SUPPLIES 60.444 38.513 18.175 21.660
CAPITAL OUTLAY 753 1.335 2,000 19.960
TOTAL S 208.767 S 199.547 S 134,849 S 137,110 S
16
0- N
Z N
;:) -
0 ,
.... -
....
<(
~
-
-
;>
-
-
U
<( I..
'" "
'"
0 '"
0- c:
'"
Z :E:
...
:E: >
.. -
'" .-
<( ....
<>.
'"'
c
c:
0
.-
-
'"
I..
-
J>
~ .-
c:
.-
- E
- .."
-' <(
Z
::l
-
-
'"
I..
"
... c:
"
! <.:l
...
I
= I
.... ...
I.t'\-::a~
~"'Cl...
~Ifl I
!...~
",Q 0 0 N 00 N "" C N ~I
""..... c 0 ..... '^ '" ~ 0 ~
."'''' 0 - - , '^ N ~ C ""
~O<.:l - - . 0 - . . .
000..= '^ - ~ I a"I 00 ..... - :::
a"lO;:) "" - -
- "'Ill
<>. .,.,.
V> I
... '" "" N ..... ~ N N "" ~
..... - "" "" N ~ ~
0- .. ... ~ a"I ..... a"I "" a"I ~ I ,
~ Z.... '"
......C Z . . . 0 0 .
-Qa::c.,IC~ '" 0 ..... '^ - ..... ..... , , '^
0- CI:""C~ "" - - - I
'" = -\,W.
... l-l__>w .,.,. '"
"" N N N N ~
~ ..... - ..... ..... ~
00 ~ a"I , 00 ~ a"I , , , 4
, - . C . . 0 0 0
"" '" 0 , 0 - ..... , , , ::J
00 "" - N -
a"I -
- <I> V>
00 0 - N 00 0 '~
"" N N "" 0 00 0
"" ~ - , 00 ..... '" , N , '"
, . . 0 - . . 0 . 0 .
N - - , a"I - ~ , - I ~
00 "" N '" N -
a"I j
- <I>
0 0 0 N 0 00 I
N 0 ~ - a"I a"I '"
00 '^ N , ..... a"I '^ , '^ ,
, - . 0 - . 0 0
- 00 0 , ~ a"I '" , ,
00 '^ N '" - - ....
a"I -
- -j
<I>
.
VI 03SCdOlld
z - ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ""
0 j
-
..
- .l.N31111i1J
VI - ~ 0 ~ 0
0 ...... ......
<>.
- 1
N
- > - ...:
I.. - I.. -
I.. '" 11 " "
'" - - c:
:E: '" 3- u c: ~I
'" 0 0
> - > '" :I
- '" " - I..
.- - - I.. > .- " -
u '" '" " " u <>.
- - "'.." I
~ I.. '" " c: c:
" c:o:: .- .-
.. '" '"
'" :E: E .." "
0 c: > 0 " "
.. '" U >1.. " " I
r c: - '- c: c:
... > I.. - " .- " "
I.. >- " '" '" u " .... ....
-' '" - '" >- c: "
.. - .- '" - .- .... " c: c:
- " u c: '" - 0 0 0
.. :;
- I.. '" c: - c: .- .- I
- u " :E: <( N 0 c: .... - -
- " .J:; - u 0 > .- .-
II> ... >- " - .- " U 'J> oil
- > '" " - .Q c: 0 0
I.. , 0 .- .- - - oil I.. " Q. Q.
" ... u - oil '" 0 0 '"
'" ...: '" .- " <>.- <( ...... ...... I
'" I.. - .. I.. >- Q. I..
c: " c: c: .. I.. >- " u
'" - '" '" oil '" 0- e c: - - -
:E: .... .. .. .- .. - - - N '"
oil '" c: " ... .. - - -
>- >- - - .- I.. ... I.. co.
.. .. ... .. -8 u " .. .. I
.- '- ... ... .. - > ...
.... .... <( <( <( II> .... 0 '"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCTION DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Genera I Administration City Manager 1-122
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCil
ACCT CLASSIFICATION BUDGET APPROVED
REQ.UEST BUDGET
7044 Equipment $ 753 $ 1,335 $ 2,000 $ -0-
TOTAL S 753 S 1,335 S 2,000 S -0 -
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
\
I
\
I
18
I
I
FUND FUNCTION DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT I
General Administration City Manager 1-122
s
1981-82 198!~83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CLASSIFICATION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET APPROVED
BUDGET REQUEST BU DG ET
3100 Trave I & Meetings $ 10.391 $ 7.922 $ 6.250 $ 9.770
3300 Mil eage -0- 2.424 200 200
3900 Maintenance & Operations 9,887 6.419 4.500 3.375
3956 Dues 1,737 1.273 1,375 1,115
6028 Contract Services 38,236 20,475 5,850 5.500
:': Includes Mileage
TOTAL $ 60,444 S 38.513 S 18,175 S 19,960
ACTIVITY I~FORMATIO~
3100 TRAVEL & MEETI~GS
League of Cal ifornia Cities Annual Conference (2)
League of Cal ifornia Cities Inland Empire Oivision
League of California Cities City Managers Conference
~ational League of Cities Congressional Conference
International City Managers Association Conference
Service Club Participation (Local)
Sacramento Legislative Conferences as Required
League of Cal ifornia Cities Pol icy Seminar
Community Meetings (Issues)
Chamber of Commerce (Baldy View Coal ition, etc)
Inland Empire Urban Managers
Various Local Meetings (as required)
TOTAL
3?56 DUES
Internation City Managers Association (ICMA)
American Society of Publ ic Administration (ASPA)
Local Service Club
Chamber of Commerce
Cal ifornia Publ ic Information Officer
Municipal Managers Assistants of Southern Cal ifornia (MMASC)
M i sce II aneous
TOTAL
6028 CONTRACT SERVICES
Special Projects as needed or as Council directs
TOTAL
'0
S
500
300
800
1,500
1,200
200
1,800
500
645
225
100
2,000
9,770
s
650
75
125
SO
50
65
100
1.115
S
s
5,500
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
personnel
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Administration Personnel 1-124
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1964-85 COUNCIL
BUDGET APPROVED
CLASSIFICATION EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET
SALARIES S -o- S -o- S 40.416 S 32.616 S
OPERAT IONS & SUPPLIES -0- -0- 23,950 38.884
CAPITAL OUTLAY -0- -0- -0- -0-
TOTAL S -O- S -O- S 64,366 S 71 .500 s
20
-- ~
Z N
S -
.
U -
U
<
>
-
-
,.
-
-
U
<
'"
<:>
-
-- ..
Z c:
... c:
x: 0
-- '"
'" ....
I .. ..
;>. C>.
...
<:>
~
~
.-
w
'"
....
w
."
Z .-
;: c:
- .-
- <:
u '0
Z ..
~
~
-
'"
....
..
c:
Q ..
! '"
...
21
Q
........
\.f\-:a>1-
~UQ....
.:ilf:i
!'",,~i
~~..
."'....
...0'"
""C>.Q
",O:::l
-"'CD
C>.
.... VI
-- -- ....
c z.... VI
~'-.....c Z
-OlKu.~
~ CZ:""CG.
V'I =-.....JC
... '-l'->~
~
""
.
""
""
'"
-
""
""
,
N
""
'"
N
""
,
""
'"
VI a3S0dO~d
z
<:>
--
VI
<:>
C>.
.LN3~~nJ
I
~
-01
N ex) N 4'
,...." IJ'\ C""'\ U'\
- I "" N \D
. <:> . .
.;z- I 0'\ co
-
<I>
-0
;:;1
,
~I
""
:1
~
~~
: 1
d,
,
,...." ..:r N N
..Q ...0 N ..:r
,...." 0'\ ..c 0'\
. . . . I
,....... 1,/'\ - ,...." 0
- .
<I>
N N N
"" ..... .....
..... ~ <:>
I . . . I
o 0 - c:c 0
I N _ I
<I>
I I I I I
o 0 0 0 0
I I I I I
<I>
I
I
~I
I
<I>
I , t I I
o 0 000
I I I I I
VI-
VI-
-... 0 -.. -...
~
o -.. ........ -..
::1
-
....
..
'"
'"
c:
'"
>:
....
,..
--
--
U
..
.J::
>-
o
>-
w
c:
'"
w
'"
'"
'"
..
....
'"
>:
I
~I
~
,..
w
U
c:
....
..
'"
'"
c:
'"
x:
,..
U
c:
..
'"
c:
'0
:J
'0
c:
~
II
w
'"
,..
'-
I
'"
..
.. -
>
c:
o
w
c:
o
u
~
w
,..
w
'"
o
a.
I
..
'"
'"
"
'-
U
c:
U
w
'"
....
~
'"
,..
....
'"
w
"
....
U
"
VI
-
w
c:
'"
w
'"
-
I
J
c:
<:
."
..
'"
'"
..
a.
"
~
'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Administration Personnel 1-124
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CLASSIFICATION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET APPROVED
BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET
3100 Travel & Meet i ngs S -O- S -O- S 1.450 S 3.519
3300 Mi leage -0- -0- 2.400 2.600
3900 Maintenance & Operations -0- -0- 6,200 9.275
3956 Dues -0- -0- 150 490
6028 Contract Services (Grapevine) -0- -0- 13,750 23.000
t to be funded from the re-
creation Enterprise Fund.
TOTAL S -O- S -O- S 23.950 S 38,884
ACTIVITY INFJR~AT'ON
3100 TRAVEL & MEETINGS
League of Cal ifornia Cities Annual Conference (2)
Cal ifornia Publ ic Information Officers Seminar
CALPELRA - Labor Relations
Municipal Managers Assistants of Southern Cal ifornia Conference
League of California Cities Personnel Institute
League of California Cities Inland Empire Division
Cor:omunity Meetings (Issues)
Service Club Participation
,~iscellaneous Local Meetings as needed or directed by Counci I
TOTAL
3956 DUES
CALPELRA - Labor Relations
Municipal Managers Assistants of Southern Cal ifornia (MMASC)
Service Club
American Society of Publ ic Administration (ASPA)
International City Managers Association (ICMA)
M i sce II aneous
TOTAL
6028 CONTRACT SERVICES
Grapevine Publ ication
Personnel Evaluation Revisions
Service Award Program
TOTAL
S 500
250
645
400
375
180
325
144
700
S 3.519
s 90
65
50
75
60
150
s 490
S 15.000
5,000
3,000
S 23.000
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
city clerk
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Genera I Adm; n istrat ion City Clerk 1-12"
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1964-85 COUNCIL
BUDGET APPROVED
CLASSIFICATION EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET
SALAR I ES S -O- S -O- S 19.212 S 16.262 S
OPERATIONS & SUPPLIES -0- -0- 55.825 29.403
CAPITAL OUTLAY -0- -0- -0- 6.565
TOTAL 5 -O- S -O- S 75.037 S 52.230 s
23
... -D
Z N
:= -
I
Q -
u
u
<I:
>-
...
-
I ""
-
...
u
<I:
= .:<
0 '-
... ..
Z -
... u
::r:: ,..
...
'" w
<I: .-
"- <oj
...
Q
C
.-
w
'"
'-
w
oJ>
Z .-
CO c
- .-
- e;
....J ."
! <(
...
-
'"
'-
..
c
Q ..
! '"
'"
01.
I
Q
......
IJ'\_:>.-
apUOIOl
~Ifi
~...~
~~.. N Q
- '"
."'''' -
4'0'"
OOA.Q N 4'
a'loi
-=
A. <I>
... <.I'l
... ... ... N '"
~ Z... <.I'l N
......<1: Z a'I a'I
-QC'-'CC'-l 0 '"
~ ac",C:..
<.I'l :I-\W.
... U~>~
<I>
N 0
4' 0
00 a'I '"
,
.... 0 00
00
a'I
<I>
'"'
X'
, I I
'" 0 0
"" I ,
a'I
.".
N
"" I I
, 0 0 ~
I I
ex:>
a'I
.".
"".
<.I'l 03S0dO'dd - -
z
0
...
<.I'l J.N3'd'dnJ I
0 ~ 0
"- I
'-
'"
::r::
,..
w
<oj
..
&.
w
0
w
... ,..
- '-
... '"
... ..
'-
u
..
<.I'l
'"
.:<
'- Q.
.. ,..
...
u
.:<
,.. '-
.. ..
u u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Genera I Adm; n i strat ion City Clerk 1-126
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCil
ACCT CL.ASSIFICATION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
REQUEST BUDGET
3100 Trave 1 & Meetings S -O- S -O- S 2,550 S 2.250
3300 Mil eage -0- -0- 200 -0-
3900 Maintenance & Operations -0- -0- 8,850 8,918
3956 Dues -0- -0- 240 235
6028 Contract Services -0- -0- 43,985 18,000
T8TAl S -o- S -o- S 55,825 S 29,403
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
3100 TRAVEL & MEETINGS
City Clerk's Institute
City Clerk's Association of Cal ifornia
Advanced Continuing Education for Public Officials
Southern Cal ifornia City Clerks Association
Records Seminar
league of Caiifornia Cities Annual Conference (I)
Execut i ve Women I nternat iona I
Miscellaneous Meetings as needed or as directed by City Counci I
TOTAL
S 450
450
330
200
120
250
300
150
S 2 .250
3956 DUES
Executive Women International
Institute of Municipal Clerks
Cal ifornia City Clerks Association
S 75
85
75
$ 235
TOTAL
6028 CONTRACT SERVICES
Special Election(s) (Mello-Roos) TOTAL
S 18,000
25
FUND FUNCTION DEPARTMEHT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT j
General Administration Ci ty Clerk 1-126
I
I
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNC I ~
ACCT CLASS I F I CAT! ON . BUDGET APPROVE
REQUEST BUDGET
7043 Building Improvements S -O- S -O- S -O- S 500 1
7044 Equipment -0- -0- -0- 6,065
Ii
TOTAL S -O- S -O- S -O- S 6.565
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
7043 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS I
Work Space MOdifications (Shelving) TOTAL S 500 I
7044 EQUIPMENT
Word Processing Printer S 2,000 I
Transcription Machine with Accessor i es 1,000
Typewr iter 700
Sheet Feeder (word Processing) 2,200
Intercom Moaification 100 I
Cha i r 65
I
TOTAL S 6.065 !
I
I
I
I
I
I
,-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Administrative Services
city treasurer
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
I,>
May 30, 1984
1977
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance D i rec t~.,
SUBJECT: 1984-85 Budget
PURPOSE
I. To report the specific program requirements for the Finance Department
for fiscal year 1984-85.
A. Personnel - As is always when workload increases in all other
departments there is a direct ratio of increased workload for
the Finance Department. Accounting expands, internal control
becomes more critical and purchasing finds itself faced with
the critical need of trying to keep up with the expanding
programs of other departments as weli as the expansion of
finance itself.
Licensing, although not growing because of general growth of
all other departments, nevertheless, finds itself growing due
to the tremendous economic surge the community has been
experiencing. Now the license staff finds itself falling
behind and possibly will not finish this years work before having
to start on next years renewal cycle.
To alleviate those growing probiems, it is recommended that
(1) current authorized Account Clerk position be funded, (2)
the position of a Redevelopment Sr. Account Clerk be authorized
(this position will be funded from the Redevelopment Agency).
(3) another Clerk Typist position in order to provide a full
person each in purchasing and licensing.
B. Services & Suppl ies - Travel and meetings and dues are
increased to reflect the added activities of the newly
elected City Treasurer. Also the Governmental Finance
Officers of America conference has been added. Mileage
is increased to reflect additional costs for City employees
using their own cars and again to meet the potential needs of
the City Treasurer
I
I
Maintenance & operations reflects an increase due to forms and
warrants being printed, originally scheduled for printing this
fiscal year. Timing of the computer installation has forced a
postponement. Even with these changes the services and supplies
section of the finance budget will be reduced 14/66% over last
year, primarily due to a reduction in contract costs for computer
service. Although computer services will still be needed such
as file maintenance and program enhancements.
I
I
I
C. Capital Outlay - Several items are listed here with the most
important being a work station design and implementation to
accomodate the staff and support equipment. I t has become
increasingly clear that a new civic center is not in the immediate
offing, and in order to address the most efficient manner by
which we conduct our work assignments with some professional help
from an interior designer, this may be achieved.
I
I
The next item is an automated cash register. This will provide
immediate update of revenues when cash is receipted. In the
event this is not approved, a new cash register is stil I badly
needed, and wil I still cost $1500-2500.
I
All other items are for ongoing programs or are replacing old
and worn equipment.
I
I
HE/sm
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Administrative Svcs Finance 1-150
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCil
BUDGET APPROVED
CLASSIFICATION EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET
SALAR I ES S 152.074 S 158.602 S 168.885 S 203,694 S
OPERATIONS & SUPPLIES 73.925 69.317 58,877 52.343
CAPITAL OUTLAY 8.010 4,727 6.547 33.610
TOTAL $234.009 $ 232.646 $ 234,309 $ 288,647 S
?7.
... c
z '"
~ -
C I
.... -
....
<
:-
...
-
>
-
...
....
<
co:
c
... "
z
... u
:z: e
... ro
co: e
< .-
." "-
...
c
'"
"
u
.-
>
~
"
V>
"
>
.-
~
'"
I..
~
'"
z .-
0 e
- .-
- E
'-' ."
Z <
~
--
-
'"
I..
"
Q e
! "
""
...
-
~
I..
" "
.r::; >-
I.. '-' w U
0 ~ >-
w w I.. U E "
u e " e 0 ::n
" ::J " I.. <
Q. 0 u 0> ....
... 'J> u e w
= u e ." =
... < 0 ~ " "
e ." <=
... I.. " ~ ~ ~ 0 e a.
0 '" I.. e ~ u ::J 0
~ e " ~ ....
u " ~ I.. " "
" u U I.. Q. 0 ... '" " >
I.. " 0 .... '" '" '" "
~ ....l 0> e " ."
C e e u " Q. I.. 0 "
'" '" > ..... >- ~ u ... '"
" ... '" '" ... " I.. ... e
u e " '" e ." "
e ::J e .r::; ::J " .- ~ ... -
'" 0 U 0 '" .e I.. I.. Q. -
e u '" I.. U '" " " " -
.- U ::J ::J ~ ... .. > ...
"- < III A. VI U U C VI
00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCTION DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Genera I Administrative Svcs Finance 1-150
:'~1.82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CLASSIFICATION BIJDGET APP~OVED
~EQUEST BUDGET
7044 Equ i pment S 8,810 $ 4,727 S 2,400 $ 33,610
TOTAL S 8,810 S 4,727 S 2,400 S 33,610
ACTIVITY INFO~MATION
7044 EQUIPMENT
Paoer Shredder
Work Station Modifications
Automated Cash Register
Computer Enhancements
Ty?ewriter/Printer
Automated Check Signer
Fi 1 ing Cabinets
Electric Mail Opener/Scale
Book Case
Decolator/Burster
Suoport Equipment (Desk, Chair, Calculator etc)
Computer Terminal Boards (increase storage capacity)
S 1,000
5,500
6,000
5,000
1,200
1,800
1,000
1,200
200
2,710
3,000
5,000
S 33 ,610 I
I
I,
II
!
TOTAL
29
I
I
FUND FUNeTl ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT I
Genera I Administrative Service Finance 1-150
Governmental Finance Officers of America
Ca! ifornia State Municipal Finance Officers Association
Cal ifornia Municipal Business Tax Association (2)
Cal ifornia Association of Publ ic Purchasing Officers
American Society of Public Administration
Cal ifornia Municipal Treasurers Association
Miscellaneous
s
250
125
90
25
50
85
150
775
1981-82 198z-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CLASSIFICATION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
REQUEST BUDGET
3100 Trave I & Meet i ngs $ 5.334 $ 4.026 $ 3.110 $ 5.640
3300 Mi leage -0- 3.200 3,400 3.570
3900 Maintenance & Operations 10.280 8.024 13.875 17,085
3956 Dues 597 543 575 775
6028 Contract Services 57.714 53.524 37.917 24.973
T:lTAL
$ 73.925 S 69.317 S 58.877
S 52.043
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
3100 TRAVEL & MEETINGS
Governmental Finance Officers of America Conference
League of Cal ifornia Cities Annual Conference (2)
League of Cat ifornia Cities Annual Finance Conference (2)
Labor Relations Institute
Cal ifornia State Municipal Finance Officers Conference
Cal iforn,a Municipal Business Tax Assoc. Conference (2)
Cal ifornia Association of Publ ic Purchasing Officers
Loca I Mee t i ngs
Cal jfornia Municipal Treasurers Association Conference
TOTAL
$ 980
500
500
450
860
1,250
750
100
250
S 5.640
3956 DUES
TOTAL
S
6028 CONTRACT SERVICES
Computer and Office equipment Maintenance
Computer File Maintenance
TOTAL
S 4.973
20.000
S 24.973
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OPERATING COSTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OPERATING OVERHEAD
COST SUMMARY
DEPT. NO.
225
245
265
Gross Cost Total
Transfers IN / OUT
NET COST
DEPARTMENT
GROSS COST
$ 290,040
335,209
1,848,545
$2,473,794
(2,473,794)
-0-
% OF
GROSS COST
11.66
13.55
74.73
100.00%
(100.00%)
Inter Governmental
City Facilities
Operating Overhead
0.0 %
31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Inter Governmental
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTHENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Intergovernmental Vehicle & Equipment Maint. 20-225
1981-82 1982-83 J983-84 1984:~5 COUNCIL
BUDGET APPMVED
CLASSIFICATION EXPENSE EX PENS E BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET
SALAR I ES S -O- S -O- S -O- S -O- S
OPERATIONS & SUPPLIES -0- 166,036 85,000 102,800
CAPITAL OUTLAY -0- -0- 49,240 187,240
TOTAL S -O- S 166,036 S 134,240 5290,040 S
32
I
FUNCTION OEPARTHENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT J
FUND
Enterprise Inter Governmental Vehicle & Equipment Maint 20-225 ~
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNC I L 01
ACCT CLASSIFICATIOl'<l EXPENSES EXPEI'<lSES BUDGET BUDGET APP~OVEOI
~EQUEST BUOCET
3900 Maintenance & Operations S -0- $ 18,225 $ -0- $ 18.600 I
3930 Fuel -0- 116.442 30.000 30,000
3931 Vehicle & Equip Suppl ies -0- 25,427 30,000 37.500 I
6028 Contract Services -0- 5.946 25,000 16.700
I
T:TAL $ -0- $166.036 $ 85.000 $102.800 J
ACTIVITY II'<lFJ~MATIOl'<l
6028 CONTRACT SERVICES
Heavy Equipment repair - Outside Service
TOTAL
S 16.700
I
I
I
I
00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Enterprise Inter Governmental Vehicle & Equipment Maint 20-225
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CLASSIFICATION 8UDGET APPROVED
REQUEST 8UDGET
7045 Vehicles S -O- S -o- S 49.240 S 187.240
TOTAL S -O- S -O- S 49.240 S 187.240
ACTIVITV INFORMATION
7045 EQU I PMENT
Roseman Gang Mower (lease Purchase
Mid-size Pickup - Replaces unit 221
3/4 Ton Pickup with tool boxes.pipe
3/4 Ton Pickup with dump bOdy/radip
Inspector Vehicles (5) - New
Supervisor Inspectors Vehicle (1)
Street Sweeper (1) New
Paymen tl
S 9.240
10.000
15.000
13.500
42.500
12,000
85.000
S 187.240
rack - Replaces unit 610
- replaces unit 420
New
TOTAL
I
I
\ .
. "14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City Facilities
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General City Facilities City Offices 1-245
1981-82 1982-83 198)-84 19~4-85 COUNCIL
BUDGET APPROVED
CLASSIFICATION EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET
SALARI ES S -O- S -O- S -o- S -O- S
OPERATIONS & SUPPLIES 191.318 209,471 228.283 299.709
CAPITAL OUTLAY 3.658 37.133 2.500 35.500
TOTAL S194.976 S246.604 5230,783 5335,209 5
35
I
I
FUND FUNCTION DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT I
General City Fad 1 it i es City 0 ff ices 1-24~
1981-82 198Z-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL I
ACCT CLASSIFICATION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET BUDGET APPROVEO
REQUEST BUDGET I
3900 Maintenance & Operations 5 93.737 5103.783 $102.000 51 34.740
6028 Contract Services 97.581 105.688 126.283 164.969 I
I
nTAL 5191,318 S209,471 $228,283 $299,709
ACTIVITY INFORMATION I
3900 MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS
Utilities 5 84,313
Janitorial SUPDI ies 13,177
Office Suppl ies & Postage 37.250
TOT.AL $134.740 I
I
6028 CONTRACT SERVICES
9340 A-E 5 37,765 I
9320 C 33.696
9340 F 13,800
9330 -201 12,032 I
9360 0 4.406
Common Area Maintenance 7,750
Copy Equipment Lease and Service Agreement 36,000 I
Janitorial Service 10,000
Heating & Air Conditioning Agreement 3,700
Ma i I Equipment Lease and Service Agreement 2,200
Alarm Service 1,600 I
M i sce II aneous 2,OGe
TOTAL $164,368
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General City Facilities Ci ty Offices 1-245
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CLASSIFICATION BUDGET APPROVED
REQUEST BUDGET
7043 Building Improvements S 3.658 S 3,808 S -O- S 29,500
7044 Equipment -0- 33,325 2,500 6,000
TOTAL S 3,658 S 37,133 S 2,500 S 35,500
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
7043 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
F ac i lit Y Mod i fica t ion ( 1)
S 29,500
7044 EQUIPMENT
Telephone System Modification and Upgrade
Refrigerator (Community Development Dept.)
Ci ty Hall Flags
s 5,000
500
500
5 6,000
TOTAL
(I) Includes 51,500 for installation of cabinets in adminisration
Kitchen/copy room to provide more efficient use of storage
space and mail processing work area. An additional 52,000 for
painting of all City Faci I ities and installation of book shelves
throughout the Community Development Department. 51,000 is
allocated for miscellaneous repairs as they occur. 525,000
will be used to refurbish and prepare unit 9340-F for occupancy.
37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Operating Overhead
I
-.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Operating Costs Non- Depa rtmenta 1 1-265/285
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 IS8"4-gS COUNCIL
BUDG ET APP~OVED
CLASSIFICATION EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET
SALAR I ES S -O- S -O- S -O- S -O- S
OPERATIONS & SUPPLIES 727.98E 753.082 810.68E 1.027.793
CAPITAL OUTLAY -0- -0- -0- -0-
RESERVES 641.08, 452.852 272 .038 861.128
TOTAL S',369.07C S, ,205.934 5, 082 72L 51,848.545 5
I
,
\
I
\
I
I
I
.'
38
I
I
FUND FUNeT I ON DEPART"ENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Gene ra I Ope rat i n9 Costs Non-Departmental 1-285 I
I
1981-82 198Z-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL ~
ACCT CLASSIFICATION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
RE~UEST BUDGET
3956 Dues $ 7,965 $ 7.231 $ 8,500 $ 9.950 I
3961 L i ab i I i ty. Auto & Fire Ins 136,490 106.464 124,481 132.556
6028 Contract Services 57,336 94.494 79.973 99.223 I
TaTAL $201,791 $208,189 $212.954 5241,729
TOTAL
5 60 '/.23
27.500
12,000
5 99,223
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
6028 CONTRACT SERVICES
Lega 1 Serv ices
City Auditing Services
Chamber of Commerce
TRANSFERS
Equipment Reolacement & Depreciation for Enterprise Fund
Reserve for Pol ice, Cultural and Civic Center
TOTAL
S 76,490
500,000
S576,490
3956 DUES
Southern Cal ifornia Association of Governments (SCAG)
Street Lighting Association
San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG)
TOTAL
$ 5,450
600
3.900
$ 9,950
O~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCTION DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Benef its Overhead Non-Depa rtmenta I 1-265
1981-82 19B1~83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCil
ACCT CLASSIFICATION EXPENSES EXP€NSES BUDGET BUDGET APP~OVED
~EQUEST aUDGET
2100 Coffee Fund $ 300 $ 325 S 325 $ 325
2200 Deferred Compensation 35.359 38,886 40,588 44,588
2300 Tuition Reimbursement 3.366 1.303 3,686 3.686
2400 Management Development 3,366 4,414 9.686 17.686
3962 Unemployment Insurance 9,691 4,481 8,000 9,000
3963 Workers Compensation 63.791 16,116 60,825 59,897
3964 SIR Health Insurance -0- -0- 71,706 96,113
3965 HMO Health Insurance 85.877 111.805 55.270 90,112
3966 Disabil ity Insurance 21.912 22.355 27.555 38,460
3967 Denta I Insurance 14.441 14,441 15,716 15.716
2800 P.E.R.S. 288.094 330,496 293.357 408,481
TjTAl $526,197 $544,622 $586,714 $786,064
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
TRANSFERS
Reserve for Sel f Funded Insurance
Reserve for Unfunded liabil ity / Vacation
Reserve for Unfunded liabi I ity / Sick leave
Reserve for I nj ured on Duty Rep I acement
$ 90, 167
63.225
45,435
45.535
5244,262
TOTAL
I
. 40 o.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT PROGRAM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COST SUMMARY
% OF
DEPT. NO. DEPARTMENT GROSS COST GROSS COST
313 Connn Dev - Admin $ 89,904 7.94
333 Planning 477,776 42.20
353 Planning Commission 6,500 0.57
373 Building & Safety 557,998 49.29
-
Gross Cost Total $ 1,132,178 100.00 %
Trans fers IN / OUT To be determined
NET COSTS To be detemined
41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
planning commission
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCTION DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Coornun I ty Development Planning Commission 1-353
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 19 4- 5 COUNCIL
BUOGET APPROVED
EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET
S -O- S -O- S 4.200 S 4.200 S
-0- -0- 2.200 2.300
TOTAL
S -0-
S -0-
S 6,400 S 6 500
s
~
~
42
Q
!
...
...
...
..
c:
..
...
...
....""
"'-:a~ I
""'.......""
04'ZC<.:l
CDat!
~..,c
",Q I
CD"'~ 0
."'''' 0
4'C,"" N 0
...Q.Q . 0
~c= 4' :1
_""'"
Q.
..". "',
... '"
.. .. "" 0 -
~ Z.... '" 0 ~~
_..we Z N
-QI&'-IIII:..... .
~ a::V'lCQ. 4'
'" ~-"'JC
... u'"->..... 4'
..".
<I> I
0
4' 0
... N 0
, . 0
"" 4' N
... -=1 I
~
- ..".
..".
"" 1
CI:'
, ,
N 0
... ,
~ 4
-
..".
N
...
, , j
- 0
... ,
~
- <I>
'" a3SOda~d
z '" ~
0
-
..
- lN3,dnJ
'"
0 '"
Q. .tI
I
~
I
...
-
....
-
..
... I
..
c:
0
.-
'J>
'" I
.-
~
0
....
I
.... ....
z'"
=""
0,
....
....
<
,..
.... c:
,. 0
'"
.... '"
....
< ~
"" 0
0 ....
.... '"
z c:
...
:c c:
>- c:
" ...
<
Q. Q.
...
Q
~
c:
~
a.
0
"
>
"
0
,..
~
z c:
0 ::::
.... ~
0
! ....
....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCTION DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Conrnunity Development Planning Commission 1-353
1981-82 1981-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CLASSIFICATION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
REQUEST BUOG ET
3100 Travel & Meetings S -O- S -O- S 2,200 S 2,300
nTAL S -O- S -O- S 2.200 S 2.300
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
3100 TRAVEL & MEETINGS
League of Cal ifornia Cities planning Commissioners Inst TOTAL
S 2.300
44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
administration
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
."
o
'"
z
,,>
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 1, 1984
1977
Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Jack Lam, Community Development Director
PRE-BUDGET MESSAGE
ABSTRACT:
During the past year I have submitted various memos foreseeing the
problems a of tremendously increased workload and static staffing.
Whi le these memos were fairly straight forward, their mi ld tenor might
have understated the importance of the matter. This pre-budget message
is intended to clearly and emphatically state the problems we now have
before us.
Special projects have remained steady, however the capital improvements
program has increased twofold and development activity has increased
fourfold. The existing staff can cope with a short surge in activity;
however, after a year of very intense workload, its effects are showing
in terms of staff morale as well as quality and efficiency of work. Our
projections for the future do not indicate any easing of this
pressure. In fact, development activity by mid-March should exceed the
entire year of 1982 and either rival or exceed 1983's activity for the
same period. Plan reviews have lengthened, plan check periods have
doubled and field inspections are competing for staff time.
We have maximized contractual services to an extent where staff can only
admini ster these at a mediocre level. Engineering has expanded plan
check services from one to three firms, and has retained an additional
contractual construction inspector. Building and Safety has contracted
grading plan check, has taken over coordination of Fire District plan
check, and has just contracted another in-house plan checker for the
duration of this fiscal year. Yet the workload is takin9 its toll.
Development applications keep coming in, plan checks are demanded, and
inspection requests have increased tremendously as well as field
problems. Further, development adjacent to developed property has
created civil problems that always draw the City into disputes requiring
more time to address such problems.
The compounding of increased workload and shortage of staff is resulting
in burned out staff, inceased de 1 ays, mi stakes, non-product i on, and
complaints. The staff has tried to cope with this situation, but after
one year this unmanageable situation is overwhelming. Therefore,
consideration should be given to providing additional fee-generated
revenue to match the services necessary to be rendered by. the
Department.
Capita 1
Improvement
Program
Council/
Commission
Services
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Subj: Pre-Budget Message
March 1, 1984
Page 2
THE MAJOR TASK MODEL
The Community Development Department is unique in that it is a
unification of three separate but related functions. However, the
resource needs of the individual functions are no less than if these
were separate departments.
The major workload areas can be conceptualized by the model in Figure I.
Public WorkSl
Development
Services
Staff
Fi gure 1
Any department task will fit into one of these categories. The
challenge of management is to keep these program areas efficient with a
quality level of service.
Whenever anyone program area expands without additional staff resources
one of two results occur; either there is a shift of resources from one
area to another, or the qua 1 i ty of serv i ce dec 1 i nes in a 11 areas.
Because of insufficient existing staff, any shifting of resources other
than superficial action would eliminate completely the program. A
comparison of cities wi 11 readily show our department operates very
lean. For example, we can't shift the two people from the capital
improvements program to deve lopment revi ew because the capita 1
improvements program would then cease to exist. Yet, neither can we say
to developers "you are now on a waiting list" because that is just not
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Subj: Pre-Budget Message
March 1, 1984
Page 3
acceptable in view of current perspectives on economic development. We
find ourselves in a situation of pleasing no one. Thus, service
declines in all areas and is getting worse.
Changing Task Areas
Figure 2 indicates the level of building activity between 1979-1983.
::;:
""
c:
0
.~
....,
'"
::>
~
'"
:>
en
c:
.~
-a
~
.~
::>
co
1979 80 81
($131.3M)
($27 . 5~1)
82
83
84
Figure 2
This dramatic increase in development is a critical factor in staffing
especially taking into consideration the fact that the planned
communities only began in 1984. The planned communities workload can
support a staff in themselves.
Development flows through major stages:
Planning ~ Beginning Bui 1ding . Construction
Approval "" Plan Check 1an -"
(PC) of Imp. Plan s Check
I f\ , I I'
Insnection
Inspection
Inspection
BUILDING AND SAFETY
In 1979 staff presented
led to a staffing level
that of the County
construction.
a comparative study of inspection standards that
intended to provide a more proficient level than
and consistent with the support levels of
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Subj: Pre-Budget Message
March 1, 1984
Page 4
The number of project applications submitted to the City following the
moratorium did not decline to an insignificant level. In fact the
number of app 1 i cat ions were vi gorous even through the harsh economi c
times as applicants did their planning in hopes of having approved plans
when economic times 90t better. Now, not only do we have the numerous
old plans but more new ones than ever as the economic window continues
to widen.
As the plans flow through the process, the plan check and inspection
stage is competing with front-end review. More and more plans are
reaching the permit stage and as these move into the construction stage
even more time is needed in field-related problems.
Increasing construction and development also has placed pressure on the
private sector as many en9ineering and building plans submitted are of
lower quality (the thinking is that the City can correct these), thereby
contributing to additional delays in processing. The reaction to these
delays by developers and applicants has resulted in further delay as
they demand meet i ngs to press their demands for re 1 i ef. For examp le,
last week at least seven hours of collective staff time was spent with
Jack Tarr and party just explaining to Mr. Tarr why his map cannot go on
Counci 1 agenda. Although he failed to obtain a railroad easement that
he knew about two years ago, he nevertheless is motivated to pursue the
discussions since delay means lost profits for him. This is just one
example among many.
Increased development is also accompanied by increased conflicts between
deve 1 oper and adj acent res i dents and property owners. Many of these
conflicts, while civil in nature, are not perceived as such by residents
and inevitably draws the City into the conflict as an ombudsman. These
situations, as you know, cannot be ignored yet require intense and
sensitive staff participation which further dilutes staff resources.
The Building and Safety staffing level established in 1979 was higher
than it is now. The staffing level established fully in 1979 was
shifted in 1981-82 to construction inspection in Engineering as a result
of normal staff turnover and decline of building permit valuation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Subj: Pre-Budget Message
March 1, 1984
Page 5
Figure 3 superimposes the capital improvement program from 1979-1983 on
the building valuation for the same period.
._._0_____-
-...... Sta
r \.1'......--
c,' ......
......-
~
::E:
Vl
....
'"
~
~
o
c
BUilding
valuation
1979
80
81 82
Figure 3
83
84
At the time this fit nicely with the increasing projects in public works'
as a result of our increased Capital Improvements funding. However, in
1983, the shift reverted back to Building and Safety as the result of
increasing building valuation leaving enginnering holding the bag. Yet
staffing is still less than 1980-81 even though the Capital Improvements
Program has increased tenfold and development has increased fourfold.
During the 1982-83 period Building and Safety also resolved Fire
District coordination problems by basically conducting Fire District
plan check through the City's plan checking thereby improving that
process but with a cost of staff time. Construction then took off in
1983-84.
To deal with the tremendous increase in work, all inspectors were
shifted to the field including the supervising inspector. Grading plan
check has been contracted to an independent firm which places an
employee 2-3 days a week at City Hall. A retired building official has
just been retained on contract until the remainder of the fiscal year to
help expedite the work flow.
Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Subj: Pre-Budget Message
March I, 1984
Page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Presently plan check time has doubled to eight weeks and inspection
requests have been delayed considerably. Additional constractual work
cannot be accomplished since the core full time staff is inadequate to
manage even present contracts. The City of Ontario's full time Building
and Safety staff is more than double that of Rancho Cucamonga, yet with
no different workload. Thus one can appreciate the frustrations in our
department.
ENGINEERING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
The engineering function consists of the following major activities:
Development review; Capital Improvement Projects; maintenance; and
traffic. We explained earlier as plan checks have increased staff is
inadequate to handle not just planning review for the front end, but
cannot meet the ta i 1 end needs of plan check coord i nat i on. Th i s has
resulted in increased time delays and worst yet, errors as a result of
too much to keep track of at one time.
Engi neeri ng plan check consu ltants have been expanded to three fi rms
this past year, but the amount of plan check submitted is such that the
coordination alone of returned plans is unmanageable. Further, it is
almost impossible coordinating with the various utilities as field
problems.
Serious consequences loom on the horizon as a result of inadequate
attention to development projects. Grading, drainage, and street
problems associated with design work is critical to the future of
privite projects and the well being of the community. Problems that are
not addressed in the front end will i nev itab ly resurface in the future
and involve more time and expense. We are now consciously developing a
backlog but the number of complaints through my office is steadily
increasing about development delays. While we have made certain
adjustments on priority processing for those projects "deemed" for us
economically important, we must realize that all projects are linked in
any economic development arena and these "adjustments" cannot continue
without a negative effect on long-term economic development relations.
It is ironic that we tout and market economic development in the City
during these good economic times, we do not have adequate resources to
deliver on our described abilities. We must be able to meet the needs
of economic development especially during these times to insure future
fi sca 1 hea lth.
As described earlier, the Capital Improvements Program has grown from $0
in 1978-79 to $3.5 Mi 11 ion in 1983-84. If these funds cannot be spent
for capital projects, value is lost as a result of inflation. While
C.I.P. projects have been accomplished speedily prior to 1983,
development pressures have since competed with staffing to an extent
that capital projects cannot proceed at the same pace. All capital
projects are contracted out, however, all contracts must be developed
and administered. Further hinderance is that Rancho Cucamonga's
Engineering Division has no design section. Any semblance of orderly
development services cannot be maintained without additional staff.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Subj: Pre-Budget Message
March 1, 1984
Page 7
Full implementation of the C. LP. cannot continue without disasterous
results in the areas of private development. Consequently, my office
has directed engineering to slow the C.I.P. such that two-thirds of the
programs for this fi sca 1 year wi 11 be carried over to next year. The
result, of course, is that the C.I.P. will suffer from inflation. Yet,
this is the only program area we have some control over.
We live in a litigious society and as a result of deep pocket lawsuits
more time is needed on judicial actions as evidenced by the number of
traffic-related lawsuits we must respond to. All the lawsuits initiated
as long ago as incorporation are now surfacing. Staffing is needed just
to develop data and safety programs to the C.I.P priorities such that we
can defend the City against costly lawsuits. This is why cities have
traffic sections. The caseload of lawsuits is now occurring regularly
as these come on the docket and demand an i ncreas i ng amount of staff
attention. If adequate attention is not placed on this area the City
will pay a higher price later in terms of monetary settlements. The
City Enginner's current traffic safety report highlights the importance
of traffic work especially in the area of prevention.
Maintenance Services
Since the City began in 1978 miles of street and parkways have been
added to the City without accompanying increases in maintenance staffing
- not all ma i ntenance can be done by contract. Maintenance must often
compete for the same funds from wh i ch the C. L P. is deri ved, the gas
tax. Often, projects tend to get higher priority in the City than
maintenance because a new street is often perceived more favorably than
fi 11 i ng potho 1 es in a street. Further, certain gas tax funds are
shifted 1 ike development fees to the General Fund to support general
serv ices thereby reduc i ng ava i 1 ab i 1 i ty of funds for maintenance
programs. The lack of maintenance results in more rapid deterioration
of the physical plant and requires more capital funds for later
attent i on or rep 1 acement. Therefore ma i ntenance should be accorded as
high a priority as new construction.
PLANNING
Rancho Cucamonga has an involved planning review process because of the
kinds of review desired by Council/Commission pOlicy so that our
commun ity can be high qua 1 ity. More attent ion is placed on both front
end review and planning inspection. For instance, a sign off by all
three divisions is necessary to obtain a utility sign off. The Council
and Commi ssi on has made it abso 1 ute ly clear that when a project is
finaled it must be exactly that which was approved and any deviation
must receive the proper approvals, thus design review inspections become
critical. Since construction has increased, the demand for inspections
has increased dramatically as the number of non-approved design changes
need to be caught in the field. The City has a reputation for tough and
excellent standards but these are useless if there is inadequate staff
to implement them.
The Invisible Workload
The Regional Shopping Center project is big news, it is of major
importance to the City and thus it gets great attention, it is very
visible. Hellman Avenue receives great attention because it is also of
major importance, it is visible. But for every visible project there
are a dozen invisible ones and dozens of tasks that need to be
accomp 1 i shed in order for a vi sib 1e project to occur. The tremendous
amount of manpower reflected in plan checking, applicant liasion,
City/developer negotiations, inspection routines, and construction
interface, that make possible a Pic 'N' Save is all but invisible, yet
when bui lt the effort is more associated with the private sector than
the public entity. The staff resources that it took to negotiate
rights-of-way, develop contracts, administer the field problems,
contractor, and deal with myriad of problems associated with
construction of Hellman Avenue are never apparent. A construction
project is often simplistically viewed as just letting a contract,
sitting back, and waiting until it is done. Anyone who has managed a
public construction project knows that this is an illusion because
contracts are made to happen and do not happen for us. One need not
look further than the Vineyard Avenue job and the high school light to
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Subj: Pre-Budget Message
March 1, 1984
Page 8
Planning is divided into advanced planning and current planning. As the
current p 1 ann i ng (deve 10pment projects) work load has increased, every
planner is required to do counter work and development review. Thus all
advanced p 1 ann i ng projects are automat i ca lly put on the back burner.
This is why the Development Code took so long to get accomplished these
past two years. All resources have been shifted in favor of development
services. Politically, good economic times bring with it a euphoria
about economic development that transcends all other work. No further
staffing is possible
To complicate conditions further, the redevelopment program has steadily
absorbed existing staffing 'rather than adding new staff as the program
expands. This has benefitted other general fund programs at the expense
of the p 1 ann i ng budget. Bond issues and other RDA work such as the
Regional Shopping Center project have taken its toll on staff
resources. While the shopping center negotiations have taken the
greater part of the Director's time, the OPA implementation will require
technical staff to perform. A staff team has already been formed for
the Regional project development work with architects, engineers, and
finance people to bring the Center to fruition after OPA signing. The
result is of course further workload impaction.
The dilemma is obvious. The larger projects are seen as economically
beneficial and deserve top priority, yet it is felt by all that this
should not be at the expense of the "little guy". The constant juggling
of projects because of pressure, while expedient at the moment, and the
delays in processing results in a poor reputation for the City both in
terms of public relations and economic development.
--
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Subj: Pre-Budget Message
March 1, 1984
Page g
see the difficulties of any project implementation. Every project is
unique and has its own set of problems often developing in the field and
after the contract is let. Intense negotiation and discussions are
necessary to finish every job, even those not receiving notoriety.
We hire consultants for the bond issues because staff does not
underwrite bonds, provide legal and financial opinon statements, develop
official statements, etc., but staff must perform the hundreds of hours
of work that it takes to bri ng a Bond I ssue to fruit ion, yet the on ly
visiblity received is when the Council adopts the inducement resolution.
When a project is plan checked it is not as simple as giving the
consultant a check list because for every design problem and code
requirement there are often many, many solutions to address them. These
are always reso 1 ved through meet i ngs and li as i on with the app 1 i cant and
representative. It is the invisible workload that keeps the City
running.
CONCLUSION:
The Community Development Department has always been a lean operation
compared to the work load and number of programs. In fact the current
staffing is less than that of 3 years ago. However, the workload has
become overwhe lmi ng and unmanageab le and condit ions will worsen un less
additional full time staffing is obtained.
The quality of programs the Council and Commission wants implemented in
Rancho Cucamonga must be matched by resources to do the job. The
quality of programs that existed several years ago has declined and the
illusion of quality will soon burst unless serious attention is given to
additional staff this coming budget year. The staff has priortized,
shifted projects, and contracted (even beyond our means to manage),
lengthened review times and yet this is not enough. This workload
situation has created low morale and declining productivity. Management
personnel have even taken the routine of voluntary after hours overtime.
Each year the fees generated by the department programs, not only
development but RDA, Block Grant, gas tax, bond issues, etc., have been
utilized increasingly to balance a General Fund either because of other
program priorities or economic reasons. While this can be appreciated
in bad economic times, the services that are expected to be rendered by
this department in relation to fees received cannot be met unless there
is a conscious realocation of resources during a better economy. Unless
a greater portion of development fees are soon earmarked for services
rendered, the Community Development Department programs will continue to
suffer as the band aids begin to fall apart,
Resp ctful
Development Director
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Subj: Pre-Budget Message
March 1, 1984
Page 10
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that serious consideration be given to the provlslon of
additional staffing for the Community Development Department and the
necessary reorganization attendant with these needs. The attached
reports from division managers amplify the pOints made in this report as
I fee 1 it is important for the City Manager I s offi ce to hear di rect 1y
from them. I wi 11 be happy to discuss specific recommendations as
Director at your discretion.
JL:jr
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General COIlIIIunity Deve 1 opme n t Administration }- 313
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 J9~4-85 COUNCIL
BUDGET APP~OVED
CLASSIFICATION EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET
SALARIES S 65.836 S 73.588 S 75.908 S 77 . 088 S
OPERATIONS & SUPPLIES 8.368 8,020 9.467 11.517
CAPITAL OUTLAY 115 100 -0- 1.299
TOTAL S 74.319 S 81.708 S 85.375 S 89.904 S
45
.. ....
z -
~ ....
0 ,
u -
u
<(
>-
..
-
:>
-
.. c:
u
<( 0
.-
'" w
0 .~
'-
.. w
Z <f>
.... .-
X c:
.. .-
'" E
<( ."
~ <(
....
w
~
a.
0
-
~
>
"
'"
>-
w
.-
Z c:
:J "
- E
- E
'-' 0
~ u
~
-
'"
'-
'"
c:
... '"
\! <.0
/.L
.J
0
-- ...
l,f\->t-
~...O...
...Z....,
aDaAoCl
~w~i
'^~. 0 CO
aD",... 0 CO
'e.., 0 '" ,
......0 '"
CO)e~ .... '" ,
~a::= '" N
~ <I>
... '"
... ... ... N '"
C Z__ '" '" '"
2:1.-~C Z .... ,
-OCc.J4K1.W . '"
~ "'W"'C~ '" '" ,
'" ::;I-lloWlC '"
... \".ll...>....
<I>
N '"
.:r '" '"
CO) .... ,
, '"
.... '" '" ,
CO '"
'"
<I>
.:r '" CO
""' .... ....
"" '" '"
,
N ""' '"
CO '"
'"
<I>
N '" CO
N CO ""' ""'
CO '" .... '" t
,
.... ....
'" .:r
'"
<I> ,~!
'" 03S0dOlld I
z
0
..
'" J.N311.nJ
'"
~
'-
0
w
U
"
'-
>-
'" '-
'"
w
... c: "
- " '-
.. E u
a. "
,... C '"
" "
> >
"
'" w
'"
>- '-
w w ~
'"
c:
" c: w
i '-
E '"
0 ." >
... <( e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Genera I Commun i ty Deve I opmen t Admi n i strat ion 1 - 313
1981-82 1982~83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CLASSIFICATION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET BUDGET APP~OVED
REQUEST BUDGET
3100 Travel & Meet i ngs $ 6,511 S 2,765 S 4,150 $ 4,150
3300 Mi leage -0- 3,000 3.280 3.280
3900 Maintenance & Operations 1,243 1.075 750 2,500
3956 Dues 614 625 647 947
6028 Contract Services -0- 555 640 640
TOTAL S 8,368 S 8.020 S 9.467 S 11.517
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
3100 TRAVEL & MEETINGS
National American Planning Association
League of Cal ifornia Cities
Cal ifornia American Planning Association
Planning Corrrnission Institute
loca I Mee t i ngs
Council/Planning Commission
S 800
650
300
500
900
S I ,000
S 4, 150
TOTAL
3956 DUES
~merican Institute of Certifieo Planners
National Association of Housing & Redevelopment Officials
Urban land Institute
International Word Processing Association
International City Managers Association (leMA)
American Society of Publ ic Administration
M i sce II aneous
S 150
100
130
50
150
ISO
217
S 947
TOTAL
47.
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Genera I Conmunity Development Adm; n i strat ion 1-313
I
I
)
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNC I ~ ~
ACCT CLASSIFICATION 8UOGET APpqOVED
REQUEST 8UDGET l
7044 Equ i pment S 115 S
100 S -O- S 1.299
I
I
TOTAL S 115 S 100 S -O- S 1,299 -t
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
7044 EQUIPMENT
Glare Screens / Word Processing
Side Chair
Side Chairs - Lobby Area
800k Case
CalculatorS
S 99
300
180
470
250
TOTAL S 1.299
\
I.
I
I
I
I
I
/.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
planning
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
March 12, 1984
Jack Lam, Community DeveloJment Director
Rick Gomez, City Planner ~
PLANNING DIVISION WORKLOAD ANALYSIS
WORKLOAD I
;.;.,!;
~,
'-';;
>:
t:'i
u:!
."
o
'"
z
,>
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
1977
THE
INVISIBLE
,
,
i
,
,
I
ABSTRACT: The purpose of th i s memol wi 11 be to high 1 i ght the pri nc i pa 1
functions of the Planning Division of the Community Development
Department and to illustrate to you by function the current short-fall
in manpower to handle the current workload. I will conclude with a
recommendation for two assistant planners to be utilized within the work
program of the Planning Division.
BACKGROUND: The City Planning Division is currently staffed by the City
Planner, two senior planners, three associate planners, three assistant
planners, and one part-time technician. Our division is currently
broken down into seven basic functions:
o management;
o public information (public counter/telephones);
o development processing;
o General Plan administration;
o special studies;
o redevelopment; and,
o grants management
For purposes of th i sana lys is we wi 11 not inc 1 ude the c 1 eri ca 1 support
services which include one secretary and two clerk-typists. However, in
the future these clerical positions will have to augmented by an
additional clerk-typist. The fact is that one secretary and two
clerk-typist, with one functioning as a receptionist, will not be able
to handle the current workload as defined in this report and the
workload as seen in the future projections of the City's Financial Plan.
The management function of our division presently consumes approximately
10 percent of our manpower. This function includes the preparation of
the annual and fi sca 1 year work program budgets, as we 11 as project
management including areas of committee and Commission coordination, the
setting of public hearings, facilitating agenda packets, etc. The main
focus of management has been set aside to provide the proactive
management necessary to allocate the Division's resources to meet the
given amount of internal and external demands. This function is the one
area that suffers the most erosion because of the increasing workload.
Planning Division Workload Analysis
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
One of the largest depletions of manpower in the division is public
information. This area is focused mainly around providing information
both at the public counter and over the telephone. Currently, this area
alone consumes approximately one-third of all available resources for
the Division. It has been a City priority and emphasis that we provide
provide a positive image and quality service to the general publ ic and
developers. We have allocated shifts of teams to work the counter to
faci 1 i tate questions and answers at the counter and also have back-up
individuals at all times for telephone inquiries. This has in essence
diminished our available working capacity by 30 percent and has cut
through the ranks of all individuals for available time.
The next largest area of resource consumption is the development
processing function of the division. This accounts for another 30
percent of our manpower resources. Currently, this function is
primarily staffed by a senior planner, one associate and two assistants
with partial assistance from the planning technician. This team is now
working with half the amount of resources necessary to accomplish the
current workload. I know you are quite aware of the current situation
that existed with last year's building activity increasing four times
that of previous years. The projections in the City's Financial Plan
illustrate an amount of activity estimated to increase 2 to 3 times the
current amount within the next five years. As an example, I am
anticipating that the Regional Center Conditional Use Permit application
will be an involved and time consuming process of the highest
priority. A great deal of staff time will be necessary to review a
project of this type, but unfortunately I cannot tell the rest of the
current applicants they are taking a back seat to this project or others
of this magnitude.
Areas that are in need of immediate shoring up are the areas of
processing plan checks adequately for review and for conformance with
approved development conditions as well as the ongoing field inspection
and follow up which is needed to provide control after issuance of
building permits. The Planning Division differs from both Engineering
and Building in that we do not contract with any private sector firms to
exped ite the plan check process. It is no secret that the Deve lopment
Review system the City currently implements is a very involved program
desired by the City Council and Planning Commission as a method to
insure neighborhood compatibility and good City planning practices.
The next area which has presented the greatest demand for manpower
resources has been in the area of Redeve lopment Aqency and economi c
development. The amount of work necessary to administer the program on
an ongoi ng bas i s has increased because of the work load ori ented with
administration controls with the increased workload and the increased
demand in individual project management. This includes the mortgage
revenue bonds for hous i ng constructions under the SB 99 and AB 1355
programs, which requires the staff coordination of bond counsels,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Planning Division Workload Analysis
Page 3
underwriters, and developers. This has drained the resources necessary
for special studies and grants management. As you are aware, the City's
Finance Plan and data management system have been facilitated by the
advanced planning staff. This task has taken the time of two and
one-half staff members. Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner/Program
Administrator for COBG program has been quite busy in the preparation of
the City's Finance Plan. This has provided a short-fall of his time to
provide adequate administration to the grants program. I will be
utilizing a contract to provide assistance in specific CDBG functions,
but I believe that it is the City's preference to provide in-house
program management in order to keep a close perspective of the program
from the ongoing community input and contact that we have with the
citizenry. It is forecasted that the redevelopment/economic development
workload has increased such that it is consuming a total of
approximately 40 percent of the available resources and has added
further workload problems to the areas previously mentioned, speCial
studies, grants management, and General Plan administration. What has
happened is that special studies that have been in need of priority
assignment have had to take a back seat. A good example of this 1'lOuld
be the cases of the Foothill Boulevard study, the Planning
Administrative Manual, the Design Supplement which is to augment the
Basic Design Guidel ines of the newly adopted Development Code, and the
preparation of the development processing handout.
In addition, I have had to push back the request by the Council of the
land use analysis of 9th and Baker which was requested by Councilman
Buquet, and the median island analysis requested by Councilman Dahl
until I am able to facilitate these larger-scaled projects in the area
of special requests similar to those described above. SpeCial requests
1 i ke the 19th Street Study play havoc on our work program by pi 1 i ng it
on an already strapped staff. I have also had to assume the
responsibility of amending our Housing Element as mandated by state
law. This has put in a demand for the time of two planners on a
priority basis to handle the necessary amendments and modifications to
be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. I have also
put off indefinitely the necessary revisions to both the General Plan
and Industrial Specific Plan which have needed to be cleaned up since
both of their adoptions.
. - ~-
I don't think it is any secret that a workload of this nature with a
minimum amount of staffing does present some definite morale problems.
It is my direction at this time to prepare a management program which
will facilitate a team who will handle the development review and a team
who will handle the General Plan/Redevelopment/Economic Development
activities. In addition, one team wi 11 handle and solely focus on the
counter and publiC information. These teams will be set up with two
planners each and will be able to facilitate the workload as established
by me on a priority basis which will primarily focus on the areas of
development review and public information. The areas of General Plan
Planning Division Workload Analysis
Page 4
administration, redevelopment, special studies and grants management
wi 11 focus on the highest priority basis depending upon the date the
product is due. Prob 1 ems are assoc i ated wi th the fee 1 i ng of the work
piling on with no break in sight, as well as the burning out syndrom
these individuals will have. In attempting these teams, we will rotate
people in and out to try to be able to provide them with a variety of
work and not to burn them out in anyone area. Aga in, however, the
workload is such at this point that this will only be short lived if
additional staff is not made available to soften the amount of work to
the current staff members.
It has now become necessary that two additional staff members be made
available with this upcoming fiscal year. These staff members will be
divided equally between the development review function, General Plan,
special studies, and redevelopment areas. It is anticipated that the
additional staff members will provide a gap for the increased activity
in the current review section, as well as providing greater attention to
General Plan and special studies, those which are constantly required by
the Commission and Council.
Lastly, it goes without saying that we need space. Our current
situation is just bearable. Our staff is putting up with this as best
as anyone group can. It is necessary that any new staff wi 11 need
space. We can no longer use the excuse that space limits our demand for
resources. We need both resources and work i ng room to funct i on to the
level that is expected of us.
RG:jr
'f"-
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Community Development Planning 1-333
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
BUOGET APPROVED
CLASSIFICATION EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET
SALAR I ES S287.358 S305.319 S314.682 S401.526 S
OPERATIONS & SUPPLIES 34.354 23.923 72.950 72.250
CAPITAL OUTLAY 2.193 1.091 -0- 4.000
TOTAL S 323.905 S 330.333 S387.632 S 477.776 s
49.
... ""
z ""
~ ""
0 ,
u -
u
<
>-
-
-
,.
-
...
u
<
""
0
... '"
z c:
... .-
x: c:
... c:
"" '"
< -
<>. <>.
...
Q
w
c:
"
~
5"
-
"
>
"
Q
,..
w
.-
Z c:
:> "
- ~
-
u 0
Z u
:>
-
-
'"
'-
"
c:
'" "
! ~
...
'^
I
Q
......
""-::a~
op....=...
:;1::lS
~...~i
\,/'\0 N -D 0 0 "" 0 = 0 0
....... "" 0 0 N 0 1.1'\ 0 0
."'''' ~ '" ..... "" '" '" 0 0 1.1'\
~C~ .
""",,,, ~ 0 -D ~ -D "" N .....
",=~ ~ -D "" N N ""
""...
<>. <I>
... '"
... ... ... ..... "" ..... ..... ~ "" 0
~ Z... '" '" -D ..... "" "" '" ..... 0
l.t.....C Z ~ '" -D "" N '" , 0
-Ca:uCl:I.W 0
~ CZ:::lJ"CQ.. 0 "" '" -D ~ '" 0 , 1.1'\
'" ="-.... ~ -D ..... -D N ""
... Ulo.-.~"""
<I>
..... "" ..... ..... ~ "" 0
~ '" -D ..... "" "" '" ..... 0
"" ~ '" -D "" N 0 , 0
, . 0
,... 0 "" '" -D ~ '" 0 , '"
... ~ -D ..... -D N N
'" ~
<I>
'" -D ~ '" '" - 0
"" -D N ..... "" -D "" - 0
"" 0 "" ..... '" 0 "" , 0
, 0
N '" '" '" N ~ "" , '"
"" "" -D ..... -D N ~
'" 11
<I>
'" 0 ~ '" '" "" ...
N 0 N "" ~ '" -D -D
... N N "" '" N -D , '"
, 0
00 ..... ~ 0 "" '" , '"
"" N 1.1'\ -D -D N N
'"
<I>
'" 03S0dO'tld N "" '" "" ~
Z .....
0 ""
-
'" .1.N3't1't1nJ ~
0 "" "" "" .....
<>. ""
"
>
w
'"
...
c:
"
'"
... "
- '-
... 0.
'- '- "
... " " ""
c: c:
'- c: c: "
" '" '" "
'- c: 0 ...
" c: <>. <>. u '"
c: '"
c: " ... ,.. ,.. 0. ~
'" <>. ... c: ... '- >- ~
.. '" '" ....
<>. '- w c: ... ...
0 u '" " " ... ... ,
,.. 0 i '- '- '- ...
... c: '" '" u " " '-
" '" '" 0 " > ..
u '" < < ... '" ... c ...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNeT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Gene ra 1 COlMlun i ty Development Planning 1-333
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CL4SSIFICATION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
REQUEST BUDG ET
3100 Trave I & Meetings $ 6,513 S 3.722 S 2.950 $ 4.150
3300 Mil eage -0- 2,870 3.700 4.000
3900 Maintenance & Operations 21.877 12.208 44.100 41.000
3956 Dues 10 382 500 600
6028 Contract Services 5.954 4.741 21.700 22.500
TOTAL $ 34.354 S 23.923 $ 72.950 S 72.250
ACTIVITv INFJRMATION
3100 TRAVEL & MEETINGS
National Planning Association
Cal i fornia Planning Association (2)
League of Cal ifornia Planning Commissioners Institute
League of Cal ifornia Cities Annual Conference
Miscellaneous Meetings as necessary or directed by Counci I
TOTAL
S 750
1.000
650
250
1.500
5 4.150
3956 OUES
American Planning Association (3)
American Institute of Architects
American Institute of Certified Planners
S 400
100
100
S 600
TOTAL
6028 CONTRACT SERVICES
Weed Abatement
Miscellaneous Services as needed
S 15.000
7.500
S 22.500
TOTAL
.51
FUND FUNCTION DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Community Deve 1 opmen t Plannino '-333
I
I
]
ACCT
CLASSIFICATION
1981-82
1982-83
1983-8/j
198/j-8S
BUDGET
REQUEST
COUNCIL
APPROVEO
BUDGET
7044
Equipment
S 2,193 S 1,091 S -0-
S 4.000
TOTAL
S 2,193 S 1,091 S -0-
S 4,000
ACTIVITY INFOR~ATICN
7044 EQU I PMENT
Office equipment for new positions
TOTAL
S 4,000
I
I
I
1\
,
II
. '
I'
I
I
I
I'
I
I
<0
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
building & safety
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
19i7
DATE:
April 25, 1984
FROM:
Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
Jerry Grant, Building Official
TO:
SUBJECT: BUILDING AND SAFETY BUDGET FUND ANALYSIS
Following is an explanation for the Building & Safety 84/85
B.Y. budget accounts:
-1100 PERMANENT PERSONNEL: This account includes necessary
staffing to begin a complete inspection program for the City.
The Plan Check Coordinator is intended to serve as a section
leader for the severely strained plan check function. The
additional Plan Check Engineer will restore plan check response
time to a desireable 2 to 3 week average, relieve at-home work
and overtime, and reduce yearly contract services cost by
approximately $62,000 from the current rate of expenditure.
Assuming continuing building activity equal to or greater than
last year, these positions must be filled if we are to avoid
complete breakdown in the plan check function.
The additional 1/2 Clerk Typist represents a reinstatement of
the full-time position that was modified to half-time last
year. This area is likewise strained because of the dramatic
increase in building activity during 1983/84.
The Inspector Specialist classification with grading emphasis
is expected to lend expertise in that area. The Grading
Specialist is badly needed to develop lacking coordination between
Engineering and Building Divisions in grading plan check and
inspection. Grading activities invariably affect both private
and public properties. We are currently dependent upon private
engineers in the employ of the developer for grading field control,
with less than desireable results. Grading plan check is being
provided on a part-time basis thru contract arrangement. Although
the quality of plan checking is highly satisfactory, the time
available to the City is limited to 8 to 12 hours per week,
which limits access by development interests and does not include
any field control. This position would fill a void in our in-
spection program that has been lacking since formation of the
Building and Safety Division. As a result of filling this
position, our contractual costs should reduce our current yearly
rate by approximately $26,000. It is contemplated that this
position would be filled immediately.
The two new Building Inspector positions are intended to respond
to Victoria, Terra Vista inspection demands and to implement-an
inspection program for block wall fences. -
., .,continued
BUILDING & SAFETY BUDGET FUND ANALYSIS
April 25, 1984
. ..Page Two
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1101 OVERTIME: This account provides for some flexibility in
the plan check and clerical areas, utilizing current staff to
address broad work load fluctuations.
-3100 TRAVEL AND MEETINGS: This account has been increased to
allow attendance of the Building Inspection Supervisor at the
annual business meeting of the California Building Officials.
Construction pace and complexity are such that his attendance
is imperative in order to maintain awareness of State activities
relating to building inspection programs.
-3300 MILEAGE: This account is unchanged from current year.
-3900 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS: This account has been slightly
increased to keep pace with inflationary expectations.
-3956 DUES: This account reflects a minimal increase due to
organizational dues change.
-6028 CONTRACT SERVICES: The amount reflected is less than
last year. Included are the balance of base-mapping project
cost and microfilming of plan records by an outside firm.
(Filming project is concurrent with purchase of microfilm reader
and reader/printer in 7044 account.) Account also includes
amounts for fluctuations in plan checking.
-7044 EQUIPMENT: Equipment listed is intended largely for use
by new positions. Not included in that category are the micro-
film reader/printer and microfilm reader, microfilm storage
cabinets - which constitute the first phase of a 10-year records
management system for the entire City. Likewise, not intended
entirely for new positions, are miscellaneous tools and equipment.
JG/kap
I.
. .
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
,()~~,,\o
,// .':1
-'-:,; ; \;~
<I.' \I,J
::5: '.I R'i1, \i~
~'!.~~ I;~
~
1977
February 6, 1984
TO: Jack Lam, Community Development Director
FROn: Jerry R. Grant, Building Official J?'~'
SUBJECT: WORK LOAD ANALYSIS - BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
The Building and Safety Division principal functions are two-fold; field
inspection and plan checking/coordination. Clerical personnel service both
functions with secretarial services, permit processing and records keeping.
In order to more critically address the issue of workload I have segregated
the areas, although there are certain staff members who operate in more than
one.
Plan Checking
This function has been a make-do activity since the Division was established.
With the exception of the latter part of year 1982, we have not been able to
consistently maintain a desireable 2-3 week first time plan check period.
Even during that period we were only successful through significant involvement
of myself in the plan check processes (mostly after hours) and utilization of
one of the building inspectors as his field work allowed. At the close of
the recession in early 1983, we finally came close to catching up and had the
prospect of addressing set-aside administrative chores when the recovery hit.
Because of budgetary constraints of the last three years regarding new
positions, and with the understanding that new people simply would not be
considered, we have been making-do. We have now reached the point where
something must be done if we are to survive.
Our current plan check back-log is 6-8 weeks and gaining. This is in spite
of 10-12 off-hours per week spent by myself, several hours per week of the
plan check engineer's home time and some overtime by the building inspector.
A point may be argued that contractural plan checking is an answer, however
one needs to understand the process to realize the limited benefit derived
from utilization of outside parties. Our part in the process is one of plan
check coordination and compilation; drawing together a comprehensive list of
Work Load Analysis - Buildin g and Safety Division
February 6, 1984
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the requirements of a number of outside agencies as well as other City offices.
Certainly, standard construction code provisions can be reasonably addressed by
an outisder, however the idiosyncrasies of 5 or 6 different, sometimes inconsis-
tent regulatory functions cannot be maneuvered into a concise checklist unless
the outside party has direct, nearly constant contact with agencies contributing
to the process. Nearly all review of completed corrections must be conducted
in-house for the same reasons. Also, there are numerous small projects that
simply are not extensive enough as to warrant sending out for checking. Accord-
ingly, 75-80% of total "plan checking" time must be accomplished by in-house
persons who can collar checklist contributors on an as-needed basis. We have
recently routed increasingly more projects to outside checking, but amount of
time gained is negligible.
We were authorized additional funds in the 83-84 budget for contractual help
and have been utilizing that source to the greatest extent possible. We
currently have Bob Akeridge, representing Community Engineering, working 2 or
3 afternoons each week, in house, and doing a bang-up jOb considering the time
spent. However, the time that he can allocate to us is limited by previous
commitments. We have recently acquired the services of L. D. (Don) Root to
work in the office (currently on a full time basis). Don comes to us from
35+ years in building inspection and his expertise will no doubt help, pending
a permanent solution.
During 1982 (our "nearly comfortable" year) we processed some 27 million dollars
worth of construction. In 1983 our value was 131 million plus. Even if the
law and justice center is excluded from the total, we handled nearly four times
as much as the previous year and double ~ previous year. Latest growth project-
ions for the next five years indicate an average workload some 15% greater than in
1983. This year's activity thus far is nearly double that of the same period of
1983.
In 1983, some 180 plan checks were completed through combined efforts of outside
plan check and in house staff. Growth projections indicate in excess of two
hundred per year through 1999. A reasonable workload for a competent plan check
engineer is approximately 100 per year. Also, the plan check function is in dire
need of direct supervision to coordinate activities of the plan check enqineer/s
with other divisions and agencies, Ivhich has become a full-time job in itself.
I believe the City has matured to the point where additional plan check personnel
is warranted. Their time would be fully utilized.
Buildinq Inspection
The inspection function is strained, but not critical: however; there are areas
of need... a) Whereas, at the end of the recession, our recheck inspection
program was in good shape, there is now a short-fall in maintaining
the program and the back-log gap is widening,
b) The latest windstorms pointed up the need to develop standards for
fence and wall construction and implement an inspection program
in that regard as well as tighten up inspection in other areas,
c) There is an urgent need for training to improve coordination and
conSistency between divisional functions as IYell as inter-
divisional interests.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'..Iork Load P.nalysis - Building and Safety Division
Febr'uarj 6, 1984
Page 3
d) Victoria and Terra Vista loom large on the horizon. If development
materializes as outlined several months ago, those projects will
require two full time positions. These positions can be filled
through contractual arrangements for the balance of the year but we
should seriOUSly consider permanent personnel in the future.
e) We are currently relying upon indeoendent engineering firms for
field control of grading operations. This has inherent risks since
it depends on the vigilance and honesty of persons responsible to
and working for the developer. These operations should be under
division control.
f) On-site paving except for some private streets, is not being inspected.
Effective control, to assure that consumer interests are protected,
should come from Building and Safety Division.
g) Projected growth, development of the regional center, a number of
multi story buildings currently on the drawing boards and the
complexity of industrial developments (such as Pic N Save and
Klondike Ice Cream) is rapidly overtaking division technical cap-
abilities. We have need for more highly qualified persons than
those currently on our inspection staff to address the complexities
we can anticipate in the near future. Starting in next fiscal year
we will begin to hurt in this area.
Considering the above, at least two field inspectors are required if we are to
maintain our current level of inspection and an increasing number as \;e address
the issue of providing full service inspection.
Clerical
In a rash moment during last budget discussions I relinquished a full-time
clerical position for a half-time clerk. That was a disastrous mistake which
manifested itself as the economic recovery sparked development. The press of
business since recovery has agravated filing needs to the point of exasperation
and despair, and some of the records keeping is being done in off-hours by
Linda Leach. Additionally there is no clerical baCk-up for four hours of the
day which hampers plan processing and expedient filing of permits which is
essential to field inspection \'Iork. Our full time clerical position should be
reinstated to maintain our current program.
Synoosis
A poll of established surrounding cities (San Bernardino, Pomona, Ontario,
Fontana, Chino, 'Ior:clair) indicates staff/bui lding valuation ratio of 1/$5.7
million (This dOl:s no]; include contractural help ranging to 5102,000). Last
year Rancho Cucamo~"a handled some 599 million dollars of construction value.
Using the above ratio, R.C. should have 17+ employees rather than the current
staff of 9.5. Including outside contractural help, (equivlent to an additional
1.25 persons), R3ncho Cucamonga is still ObviOUSly short handed.
Work Load Analysis - Building and Safety Division
February 6, 1984
Page 4
Through the past 5 years, the Building and Safety Division has garnered 52.75
million dollars in permit and plan checking fees. The last five Building and
Safety budgets adopted by the City Council totaled only $1.11 million and we
have never exceeded our budget. Even considering our overhead costs, no one
can say we have not "paid our way".
All of the Division staff tempers are short and despair near. Activity over
the past year has been a series of fire fights; poking our fingers into holes
in the dyke with no hands to do the things that would relieve the pressure.
Now the dyke is near overflowing. Growth projections indicate increasing activity..
We must face the issue of acquiring adequate staff in the immediate future,
simpry-to maintain our current level of enforcement. We should also over the
next few years begin to implement those areas of field enforcement outlined
above that are now being performed if we expect to serve our citizenry in
a reasonably complete manner.
Along with staffing we cannot ignore space needs. Dur plan check area (approx-
imately 250 sq. ft.) is occupied by two full time persons and two part-time
persons sharing work areas, with work hours arranged so conflicts are minimized
plus plan and supply storage. File cabinets are full. Counter areas are
inadequate to serve the public properly. Four inspectors share 230 sq. ft.
with map and file storage. Customers have no place to sit down to compile
permit data or fill our appl ications. Etc., etc., etc.
Our immediate staffing needs can be reasonably met by addition of a plan check
coordinator, a second plan check engineer, two building inspectors and re-
instatement of the full time clerk. In the upcoming budget we should also
consider continuation of the contractual account for overflow inspection and
addition of a specialist inspector to provide specialized expertise in grading.
Those positions would be the beginning of a full service program in the
Building and Safety Division.
JRG: 11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I DN DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Community Development Building & Safety 1-373
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 19!:l4-85 COUNCIL
BUDGET APPROVED
CLASSIFICATION EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET
SALAR I ES S 215,343 S 218,616 S 258,297 S 410,973 S
OPERATIONS & SUPPLIES 18,662 18,118 106,510 90,885
CAPITAL OUTLAY 270 -0- -0- 24,440
TOTAL S 234,275 5236,754 S 364,807 S 526,298 S
'~3'
.... ""
z ....
5 ""
I
'"' -
'"'
c
>-
....
-
:0 ,..
- -
.... 'II
'"' ...
c '"
'"
'"
Q ..,
.... '"
z c:
.... .-
:z: ."
.... -
'" .-
< "
Q. '"
...
Q
~
c:
"
<=
Q.
0
-
<lI
>
: "
Q
,..
-
.-
z c:
Q "
- ~
-
'"' 0
z u
::>
...
-
..
"-
'II
C
co 'II
! ...
...
" ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCTION DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Conmun i ty Development Building & Safety 1-373
1981-82 1981-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CLASSIFICATION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
REQUEST BUDGET
3100 Travel & Meetings $ 3.092 $ 1.589 $ 1.450 $ 2.000
3300 Mil eage -0- ~, 226 2.400 2.400
3900 Maintenance & Operations 3.117 2.578 2.600 2.800
3956 Dues 355 340 360 385
6028 Contract Services 12.098 11.385 100.300 115.000
nTAL $ 18,662 S 18,118 S 107.110 $122.585
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
3100 TRAVEL & MEETINGS
Cal ifornia Building Officials Conference
International Conference of Building Officials
Local Meetings
$ 900
700
400
S 2.000
TOTAL
3956 DUES
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO)
International Association of Mechanical & Plumbing Officials
Footh i II Chap ter I CBO
Ci crus Bel t Chapter ICBO
Cal ifornia Building Officials
S 120
75
25
45
120
S 385
TOTAL
6028 CONTRACT SERVICES
Plan Check Services
Base Map Program (2nd year of a two year program)
Records Mgmt System (Microfilm) First year program
S 40.000 ( 1)
69.000
6,')00
$115.000
TOTAL
(1) Contains 531.700 as a carryover from 1983-84 program.
55
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Conmun i ty Development Building & Safety 1-373
I
I
J
~
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCI~
ACCT CLASSIFICATION BUDGET APP~OVED
~EQUEST BUDGET -I
7044 Equipment S 270 S -o- S -o- S 24,440
I
I
TOTA~ S 270 S -o- S -o- S 24,440 I
TOT"'L
S 2,000
1.200
6.000
1,750
11.S00
600
800
590
S 24,440
11
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ACTIVITY INFO~MAT10N
7044 EQUIPMENT
Desks (S)
Chairs (6)
Two.way Radios (S)
Pagers (S)
Microfilm Reader/Printer (1st year of ten year program)
Miscellaneous Tools & Equipment
Microfi 1m Fi les (2)
Drafting Table & Stool
u
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT PROGRAM
PUBLIC SAFETY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PUBLIC SAFETY
COST SUMMARY
% OF
DEPT. NO. DEPARTMENT GROSS COST GROSS COST
451 Sheriff's Dept. $3,638,932 100.00%
Trans fe rs IN I OUT To be determined
NET COSTS To be determined
57
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PUBLIC SAFETY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
(Summary)
SERVICES
10 - General Law Patrol Units
4 - Traffic Patrol Units
5 - Detective Units
COSTS
1983-84
51.791.507
381.114
339,040
52,511.661
Total Unit Costs
COSTS (1)
1984-85
51.985,668
401.170
357,910
52.744.748
SUPPORT SERVICES
Equ i pment 5 5,900 S 20,547 (2)
Personnel 168,992 264,838
M i sce 11 aneous 4.000 4,000 (3)
County 0 i rect Costs 29.061 45.629
Total Support Service 5 207.953 5 335.014
TOTAL CONTRACT 52.719,614 53,079.762
Con t i ngency for M.O.U. 5 75.000 5 75,000 (4)
TOTAL COUNTY COST5 52,794.614 53,154,762
COST5 TO BE PAID DIRECTLY BY THE CITY:
Contracts
Uti I ities
Pe rsonne I
Unit Maintenance & Operation
Meet j ngs & Dues
M i sce II.aneous
571.352
38.244
202,071
160,841
2,540
8,830
5 483.878
53.278.492
Total costs to be paid by City
TOTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 5ERVICE COST
5 71.425
15,000
207.147
167.771
2,815
23,012
5 484,170
53.635,932
(1) These costs subject to change due to memorandum of understanding. (MOU).
(2) Does not include fuel and maintenance.
(3) Includes 1 iabi 1 ity insurance and personnel bonding.
(4) 5afety Personnel wi 11 receive a 5% "total package" pay increase on 7/1/84
and a similar increase on 1/1/85. Safety Management received a 3.4% increase
in October of 1983 and wi II receive the same increases as safety Personnel
on 7/1/84 and 1/1/85.
58
PUBLIC SAFETY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
$ 112,652
6,336
4,000
67,927
24.621
10,394
11 .289
999
5,282
6,429
36.956
2.500
45.629
$ 335.014
$3.079.762
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COSTS COSTS
FIELD SERVICE 1983-84 1984-85
5 - 168 hr. Gene ra I Law Patrol Un its $1.285.120 $1,363,665
1 - 112 hr. General Law Patrol Units 185.597 196,419
2 - 80 hr. General Law Patrol Units 168.390 265.154
2 - 80 hr. Traffi c Patrol Units 252,586 265.154
2 - 40 hr. Traff j c Patrol Units 128.528 136 .0 16
1 - 56 hr. Genera I Law Patrol Unit 88,136 92.922
I - 40 hr. Gene ra I Law Patrol Unit 64.264 67,508
5 - 40 hr. Detective Units 339.040 357.910
Total Patrol Unit Costs $ 2.511 ,661 S2.744,748
SUPPORT SERVICE
Radio Dispatchers
Sergeant's Marked Unit
Travel Expense
Captain and Vehicle
Secretary II
Safety Unit Extra Help
Senior Deputy Differential
Secretary Differential
Additional unmarked Detective Unit
4-Wheel Drive Unit
Deputy I
Replacement - Radar
County Direct Costs
$ 61,719
5,900
4,000
62,614
22,630
10,358
10,695
976
29.061
5 207,953
52.719,614
Total Support Service
TOTAL CONTRACT COST5
Contingency for MOU
5 75.000
TOTAL COUNTY COSTS TO CITY
52.794.614
5 75.000
53,154.762
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PUBLIC SAFETY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
These cost to be paid by the City of Rancho Cucamonga directly:
CONTRACTS
TOTAL
1983-84 1984-85
S 26,640 S 27,360
44 , 712 44,065
$ 71,352 $ 71,425
$ 38,244 $ 15,000
Building
Communications Equipment
UTIUTIES
TOTAL
PERSONNEL
Police Clerks
Crossing Guards
Overtime (Sheriff personnel)
$ 75,413
20,739
105,919
$202,071
$ B3,685
20,609
102,853
$207,147
VEHICLE L~IT OPERATI~G COSTS
Felel
~aintenance
Air Pollution Control Insp.
~aintenance of Radar
S 93,993
66.848
$ 98,800
64,471
420
L,080
5164,771
TOTAL
SL60,o'd
O:::CE SCP?L!~S!~ISC.COSTS
L J f (PoR..,Cl
~!ai~tena~~e Supplies
Cri~e ?re~:en:i,Jn Material
Of:i~e Fur~it~re Equipment
S
-<.1-
. .3 "J
1 )00
, .
" 3 ,:)0
5 C, 500
~j.j25
i. 0 50
.:),937
~ ":J,J12
~ETINGS " Dl:ES
\.iest End Chie fs
Service Clubs
Cri:ne Pre':ention
FBI Seminars
Reserve Installation Dinner
~iscellaneous
5 90 . 90
; 5 L50
500 500
, .. ':"75
.,)
L,JOO L ,500
LOO LOO
$ 2,5:'0 S 2,015
TOTAL NON CONTRACT COSTS
S483,B78
$484,170
60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT PROGRAM
COMMUNITY SERVICES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COMMUNITY SERVICES
COST SUMMARY
DEPT. NO. DEPARTMENT
532 Comm Serv - Admin
562 Recreation
587 Contract Recreation
Gross Cost Total
Transfers IN lOUT
TOTAL NET COSTS
% OF
GROSS COST GROSS COST
$ 205,227 40.41
116,928 23.03
185 ,650 36.56
$ 507,805 100.00%
To be determined
To be determined
61
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
administration
I
I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
19i7
I
To:
May 29, 1984 6
;>-
f-
City Council and City Manager Oi
Date:
I
From:
Bill Holley, Director, Community Services Department
I
Subject:
Program of Community Services: Fiscal '84 - '85
I
The Community Services Department has lead agency responsibility for the
following programs of service:
I
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Park Acquisition;
Park Design and Engineering;
Park Construction;
Park Development commission Support;
Recreation Services:
I
I
a. Community Center Operations;
b. Recreation Classes and Programs;
c. Sports League Coordination;
d. Senior Citizen Act~vities;
e. Special Events;
f. Logistical Administration and Support of Programs;
I
6.
7.
8.
Disaster Preparedness;
Historic Preservation; and
Cultural Affairs
I
I
The long awaited acceleration of activities in items 1 through 3 has occurred.
This is a welcomed change from the activities associated with the stagnant
economy of the last several year periord. Further, the acceleration in park
activities will not slacken from this point forward, barring further long term
and widespread economic melancholia.
I
I
While this is great, there is a 'down side' also which is addressed in the
recommended Department program of Services.
I
That 'down sidel is that the once very adequate Departmental resources which
covered all the items 1 through 8 on the above list, have by necessity, been
diverted to cover only items 1, 2 and 3 in a 'totally proper' way.
I
Recreation Services, while still good, are not achieving the high standard of
excellence they once were.
I
This is due to a lack of proper research and program development; program
. marketing; and, program analysis and evaluation that years ago, was practiced
routinely by CSD Administration. The opportunity to properly address these
functions is not currently available.
I
continued
.. .
I
page
memo
re:
2
5/29/84
CSD Program
I
of Service:
Fiscal '84 - '85
I
Items such as Disaster Preparedness, Historic Preservation and Cultural
Affairs are no longer, in any meaningful sense, even geing addressed.
I
The 'turnaround' to the 'downside' is bringing the level of past excellence
back to the Recreation Program, addressing Disaster Preparedness as a
priority, and providing some time availability to address Historic and
Cultural Affairs. This 'turnaround' can and will be accomplished under the
recommended Program of Service for this Department.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCTION DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Comnunity Services Administration 1-532
1981-82 1982-83 1983-S4 19~4-~5 COUNCIL
BUDGET APPROVED
CLASSIFICATION EXPENSE EXPENSE BUOGET REQUEST BUDGET
SALAR I ES S 58,484 S 69,658 S 96,012 S 135,262 S
OPERATIONS & SUPPLIES 54,186 49,041 54,335 66,765
CAPITAL OUTLAY 4,766 -0- 3.550 3,200
TOTAL S 117.436 S 118,699 s 153.897 S 205,227 S
62
... N
Z '"
S '"
.
U -
U
<
>-
...
-
:>
-
... c:
....
< 0
.-
'" w
0 '"
..
... w
Z '"
.-
... c:
:E:
... =
'"
< ""
Q. <
'.:E
"
"J
U
.-
>
..
"J
V1
>-
w
'-
Z c:
::l "
=
- .
- =
U :;)
Z ....
=>
...
-
'"
...
..
c:
Q ..
! '"
...
~~
J~
Q
oJ ... I I
""-:...
ap.....O...
4ZC:5
ooat.
~c.JC I
",Q 4' ..., N
00..... ..., CD N CD CD '"
."'''' '" 0 a\ CD CD a\ '" N
4'0'"' 4' N - 0 4' 0 " . I
CDQ.Q . . . . . '"
a\O=> N a\ CD 0 '" ..., '" "'"'
-"'... 4' N - N - -
Q. ~ V>
... V1 CD '" 0 ..., I
.. .. ... 0'\ 4' '"
~ ZoJ '" '" - '" 4' 0 CD
""'Il.WC Z " N , " ..., '" , .
-OCl:ua:w.. . . 0 . . 0 '"
~ Cl:IJ"CCL. - '" , a\ .:r ..., I a\
'" :!'-___x 4' - - -
... u""'~w <I> I
<I>
a\ 4' 4' '" 4' '"
4' "'"' " '" 4' 4' '"
CD " ..... I " '" " I N
I . . 0 . . . 0 . I
"'"' - '" I a\ .:r N I N
CD 4' - - - N
0'\
- <I> <I>
I
..... CD '" CD ;~
IX' a\ - N
, N , I - ..... I I
N . 0 0 . . 0 0
CD 0 I I a\ CD I I
a\ 4' -
- -1
<I>
CD 0 ...,
N ,.... '" 4'
CD '" I , N '" , I 1--
, . 0 0 . . 0 0
- '" , I ,.... '" I , .~
CD '" -
a\
- <I>
'" 03S0dOlld Iii
z - - - - -
0
-
... J.N.lIl1nJ I
- 1
V1 - 0
0 - - -
Q.
J
c::
... ;
:;)
w
... '"
0 I
w .- >-
u "" >- u
.. .. .. ~ c:
.. :;) '" c: ..
.- :;) w .. '"
... 0 .... .. .. c: I
- .. w .-
... '" '" u c: w
- .. .. .. - c:
... u u V'l 0
.- -" ....
> > .. ...
.. ... > '" .. I
.. .. .. .- w Q. '"
V1 .. V'l w '" - '"
c: '" .- ..
>- c: >- ... Q. !II ...
w '" w w >- = u
.- - .- '" ... .- c:
c: Q. c: .- w - I
" " c: -"
~ -" ~ ... w Q.
... = .. ... ..
'" ." - '" ..
.... Q. .... < .... ... '"
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Community Serv ices Administration 1-532
1981-82 198Z-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CLASS'.ICATION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUDGET BUOGET APPROVED
REQUEST BUDGET
3100 Travel & Meetings S 5.757 S 1.707 S 1.585 5 3.500
3300 Mi leage -0- 2.480 2.450 3.000
3900 Maintenance & Operations 36.463 35.181 40.070 45.000
3956 Dues 350 205 175 265
6028 Contract Service 11.616 9.468 9.255 15.000
nTAL 554.186 S 49.041 S 53.535 S 66.765
ACTIVITY IN.ORMATION
3100 TRAVEL & MEETINGS
California Park and Recreation Society eonference (2)
National Recreation & Park Association Conference
Local Meetings
League of California Cities Community Service Conference
National Recreation & Park Association Revenue School
National Recreation & Park Association Design & Maintenance
S 950
850
100
650
400
550
S 3.500
TOTAL
3956 DUES
National Recreation & Park Association
Cal ifornia Park & Recreation Society (2)
125
140
S 265
TOTAL
6028 CONTRACT SERVICE
Park Site Appraisals
Park Site Surveys
Training
M i sce II aneous
S 7,000
6.000
1,000
1,000
S 15.000
TOTAL
64
FUND FUNCTION DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Gene ra I Community Serv; ce Adm; n i strat; on 1-532
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNC' ~
ACCT CLASS 1 F I CAT! ON BUDGET APPROvED
REQUEST 8UDGET ..
7044 Equ; pmen t S 4.766 S
-o- S 3.550 S 3.200
I
I
TOTAL S 4.766 S -o- S 3.550 S 3.200 I
I
I
~
7044 EQUIPMENT
Office Equipment for new person TOTAL
s 3.200
r
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
h<;
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
recreation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General COlllllun i ty Services Recreation 1-562
1981-82 1982-83 1983-94 J9tl4-85 COUNCIL
BUDGET APPROVED
CLASSIFICATION EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET
SALAR I ES S 94,974 S 80,412 S 84,236 S 93,608 S
OPERATIONS t SUPPLIES -0- 4,243 10,910 3,120
CAPITAL OUTLAY -0- -0- -0- 20,200
TOTAL S 94,974 S 84,655 S 95, 166 S 116,928 S
66
~N
z-D
5'7'
.... -
....
<
~
~
-
:>
-
~
....
<
'"
0 c:
0
~ .-
z -
... <1l
2: "
~ ....
'" u
< "
"- '"
...
Q
'"
"
'"
.-
>
....
"
'"
>-
-
.-
~ c:
"
- "
- c
'-'i 0
~ ....
'-
-
<1l
....
"
c
Q "
Z <..::l
=
...
I
=
... ...
"'->t-
""'....e...
....z.g
!!~i
"^~... 0 ~ 0 ~
GO",... 0 0 0 0
'ou ~ N 0 0
~...= ~ N '" N
"'0=
"''''G ~ l"'I
... <I>
... '" -D ,...., l"'I
~ ... ... 0 l"'I
< Z-' V'l '" , ~ l"'I
E~""< Z . 0
-Qa::UCl.W I
.... a::ioI'IC~ ~ ~
'" ='-\oW.
... r...l"~_ <I>
-D ,...., l"'I
~ <: l"'I
... '" I ~ l"'I
, . 0
l"'I ,
... ~ ~
'"
V> V>
~ - '" -
l"'I -D ... ~
"" '" , 0 I -D
I I . <: . 0
N ee , 0 I ee
ee l"'I -D 4
'"
- V>
'" '" .:
N ~ N 51
ee ee , - ,
, . <: . 0
- '" , '" ,
... l"'I '" "'I
'"
- V> v>;
'" 03S0clO)jcl N - :J
z
<:
- I
~ .l.N3HnJ I
-
'.1'> N 0 N
0
...
I
-
~I
>- I
u
c:
"
.... g' I
- 0
- J> .-
~ .- -
- > c:
~ .... 0
" U
Q.
" "
'" - '"
'J> <1l
is .- "
Q. " ....
.- >- e u
- ... .- c:
<1l ~ -
" "'"
.... .... - Q.
u " .... "
" <1l -
'" u ... '" J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCTION DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Gene ra I COlllllunlty Services Recreat ion 1-562
1981-82 198Z-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCil
ACCT CLASSIFICATION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUOGET BUDGET APPROVED
REQUEST BUDGET
3100 Travel & Meetings S -O- S 415 $ 1.010 S 1.350
3300 Mi leage -O- n 50 600
3900 Maintenance & Opera t ions -0- 3.751 9.745 1.000
3956 Dues -0- -a- laS 170
TOTAL -o- S 4.243 S 10.910 S 3.120
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
3100 TRAVEL & MEETINGS
Cal ifornia Park & Recreation Society Conference (2)
National Park & Recreation Association Revenue Mgmt School
$ 950
400
S 1.350
TOTAL
3956 DUES
Cal i Fornia Park & Recreation Society (2)
Southern Cal iFomia Municipal Athletic Federation
S 140
30
S 170
TOTAL
68
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Community Services Recreation 1-562
I
I
]
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CLASSIFICATION BIJOGET APPROVE
REQUEST BUOG E1'
7044 Equipment S -O- S -o- S -o- S 18.800 1
7043 Building Improvements -0- -0- -0- 1.400 I
I
TOTAL S -O- S -O- S -O- S 20.200
1
ACTIVITY INFORMATION I
7044 EQUIPMENT II
Start up Equipment for RCNC Senior Center expansion program S 13.600
(Tables, Chairs. Carriers, Podium, Lounge area furnishings.)
Support Equipment for new hires (Desks, Chairs etc) 5.200 I
TOTAL S 18,800
7043 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 1\
Replace carpet in room ~3 at the RCNC TOTAL S 1.400
,
,
I:
I
I
Ii
.1
II
I
I
J.
~a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Contract Recreation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Enterprise Contract Recreation Community Services 13-587
198J-82 1982-83 J983-84 J984-85 COUNCIL
BUDGET APPROVEO
CLASSIFICATION EXPENSE EX PENS E BUDGET REQUEST BUOGET
SALAR I ES S -o- S -O- S 7,500 S 15,000 S
OPERATIONS & SUPPLIES -0- 82,239 132,653 166,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY -0- -0- 27,133 14,650
TOTAL S -O- S 82,239 S 167,286 S 195,650 S
-70
"'
(J)
....
...
'"
...
"'
~
<=
'"
Q
........
Lf'\_>~
cp..... 0....
-=Zc:z::,-=,
CC;::)~O
a'\O~::>
_UCCD
",Q
CICl....... 0
."'''' 0
~O~ 0
CICl~Q . c,
",0::> '" :,
- "'= .... c,
"- <J> .
"'
..
... '" <'>
.... .... ...
..: Z.... '" ""
%f.l..l.6ot<C Z
-O=U=l.6.I N
... a::c.n<Q.. .... ."
'" ~_w)l( . N
... Uf.l..:>~ '" .~
<J> .
,~
,,,.
~ I
CO 0
, 0
M '"
CO .
".., .... .ro
- v> . I
"
,,.,.
M
""
,
N ~ I
CO
'" I ..!.
- I
N I
CO
, I
- C
CO I 1
'" I I
-
'" a3S0dO~d
Z I
0 I
.... I
- lN3~~nJ
'"
0 I
"-
I I
....1
<::
....
;:1
I.U I
....
....
-
.... I
~ II
....
...
I
~
...
..
0-
~
I
I
....
""
....'"
ZI
"'.....
0....
U
u
..:
I
I
I
,..
.... (J)
:> ~
....
.... >
U ...
..: ~
Vl
'"
0 :>,
"
....
Z ::
...
X ~
....
'" U
~
...
0
::
'"
C)
...
~
~
0::
~
Z "
0 ...
.... c:
u '"
z U
=>
....
Q
Z
'"
...
71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCTl ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Recreat ion Contract Recreation Community Services 13-567
1981-82 1981~83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CLASSIFICATION EXPENSES EXPENSES BUOGET BUDGET APPROVED
REQUEST BUOGET
3900 Maintenance & Operations S -O- S 7.364 S 10,500 S 10,000
6028 Contract Service -0- 75.175 122,153 156,000
TQTAL -0- $ 82.539 $132,653 $166.000
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
6028 CONTRACT SERVICE
Contract Instructors. Printing. Special Events, Program
Development
$156,000
72
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Recreation Contract Recreation Community Service 13- 56 7
I
I
)
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNC II. I
ACCT CLASSIFICATION BIJDGET APPRQVIOO
REQUEST BUDGET I
7043 Building Improvements S -O- S 2,991 S 7,800 S -0-
7044 Equ i pmen t -0- 2,234 19.393 14,650 I
TOTAL S -O- S 5,225 S 27,193 S 14,650 1
TOTAL
S 3,500
11 .150
S 14;650
1
~
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
7044 EQU I PMENT
Start up equipment for RCNC (Record Player, Bingo Equip Etc)
Replacement Equipment (Recreation), Computer Enhancements
I
I
I
I
71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I PUBLIC WORKS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PUBLIC WORKS
COST SUMMARY
DEPARTMENT
DEPT. NO.
637 Engineering
647/657 Streets/Parks
Gross Cost Total
Transfers IN / OUT
TOTAL NET COST
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GROSS COST
$ 861,918
1,579,741
$2,441,659
To be determined
To be determined
& OF
GROSS COST
35.30
64.70
100.00%
74.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
engineering
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNeT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Pub I i c; Works Eng i neer i ng 1-637
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 19~4-85 COUNCIL
BUDGET APPROVED
CLASSIFICATION EXPENSE EXPENSE BUDGET REQUEST BUDGET
SALARIES S 382.660 S 369.700 S 413.558 S 621 .688 S
OPERATIONS & SUPPLIES 130.486 103.489 292.404 213,230
CAPITAL OUTLAY 3.332 695 3.500 27.000
TOTAL S 516.478 S 473,884 S 709,462 S 861 . 91 8 S
75
.....
>-'"'
Z",
~,
c:> -
u
u
<
>
>-
-
:>
-
-
u
<
'" O'l
c:
c:> .-
- '-
'"
Z '"
... c:
:z: .-
- O'l
'" c:
< _
<>-
...
Q
J>
..
'-
~
3
'" u
.-
'" -
- ""
- "
i <>-
0
-
-
'"
'-
<II
c:
Cl <II
! ...
...
"
I
Cl
-'-
1I'\-:lI~
~uO...
04'31_1
"at
_uC
lI\Cl '" -'T -'T Q -'T '" '" '" -'T -'T Q
Cl"'~ Q ao
."'''' '" '" '" '" '" Q '" '" ao Q 0 ao
.,rC'" ao N '" '" -'T N 0 '" -'T , 0 '"
ao<>-... 0
"'co '" '" '" -'T '" -'T '" ..... '" N , '" N
-"'''' -'T 0 '"' '" ao '" .....
<>-
<I>
... '" 0 '"' '" ..... 0 '"' '" 0
>- .. ... N
~ Z-' III -'T ao '"' 0 -'T -'T ao 0
"'-_C Z ..... '" '" -'T , '"' '"' , , 0 '"
-ea:l.Jcw." 0 0 0
~ IX"'C~ '" ..... '" '" '"' , ..... 0 '" , , '"
'" ='-loW)( -'T '"' '"' '" ao '" .....
... t""lI.l.>O.... <I>
-'T 0 '"' '" ..... 0 '"' '" N 0
ao .: '" '"' 0 -'T -'T ao 0
, ..... '" '" -'T , '"' '"' , , 0 ao
'"' 0 0 0
'" ..... '" '" '"' . ..... 0 '" I I '"
'" '" '"' '" '" '" .....
'"' 0 '" '" -'T '" '" 0 0 0
'" N '" '" 0 0 N ..... '" N 0
, '" '" N N -'T , '" N '" , 0 0 ,
N 0 0 0
'" -'T '" '"' , '" '" '" , 0 '" .
'" -'T '"" '"' '" '" '"' -'T
<I>
N '"' 0 '" '" '" ..... '" 0 I
ao '" N '" '" 0 '" '" '" '"
, '" '" '" '" , 0 0 0 , '"' , ,
0 0 0 Q
ao 0 '" -'T '" , '"' ..... '" , '" , I
'" -'T '"' N '" -'T '" -'T
'" <1>,
'" 03S0dOlld
Z '"' N '"' N '" '"'
0
..
'" lN31111nJ
0 N '"' 0 '"' <""I 0
<>-
'- >- I
'- '- ~ U
<II '" - c:
'" '" u c: '- <II
.... '- '- c: c: <II '" ~ O'l
- <II '" Q. - c: I
- <II '" O'l O'l '" u u
c: c: c: c: c: <II -
- _ ... c: Q. c:
O'l O'l J: J> ~
c: c: '" u c: u
... ... .. <II
'- > > '- >- <II I
'" '" ~ '" - '"
<II .. U U O'l .. '" '"
c: > '- c: '- '"
~ <II - U ~ ,.. Q. ~ '-
O'l U ... c: '- '- ,.. '" u
c: '" '" <II '" .. e c: I
... '- u .- ... .Q <II u ... ..
0 u '" " c: <II "" ...
,.. 0 ... '- '- ... '- Q.
... c: .Q '" '" O'l .Q U <II '- .. ..
.. " '" '" '- c: " .. '" > ...
u '" ... <<( <<( '" ... ... '" u ... 0 '"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Pub I i c: Works Engineering 1-637
1981-82 1981-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CLASSIFICATION EXPENSES EXPENSES 8UDGET 8UDGET APPROVED
REQUEST 8UDGET
3100 Travel & Meetings S 2,384 S 1,333 S 2,000 5 1,650
3300 Mi leage -0- 134 250 750
3900 Maintenance & Operations 5,985 6,142 5,125 10,000
3956 Dues 260 298 565 830
6028 Contract Service 121,857 95,582 284,464 200,000
TOTAL ~130,486 5103,489 5292,404 5213 730
ACTIVITY INF0RMATION
3100 TRAVEL & MEETINGS
League of Cal ifornia Cities Annual Conference
Traffic Engineers Conferenc:e
City Engineers Conference
League of Cal ifornia Cities Publ ic Works Conference
5 250
100
200
600
5 1,650
TOTAL
3956 DUES
American Publ ic \lorks Association (4)
Institute of Traffic Engineers
City and County Engineers
Riverside/San 8ernardino Traffic Engineers (2)
ASCE (4)
S 250
120
50
10
400
S 830
TOTAL
6028 CONTRACT SERVICE
Plan Check & Inspection
TOTAL
5200,000
77
I
I
]
FUND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY AC COUNT
General Pub 1 i 0: Works Eng i nee ring 1-637
ACCT
1981-d2
1983-84
1982-83
C~ASSIFICATION
7044 Equipment
S 3.332 S 695
$ 3.500 $ 27.000
TOTA~
S 3,332 S 695
S 3.500 S 27.000
1984-85
BIJOGET
REQUEST
COUNCI~
APPROVEO
BUOGn
ACTIVITY INFORMATION
7044 EQU I PHENT
Miscellaneous Field Equipment (Inspection & Traffic)
Suport Equipment for New Positions (Desks, Chairs etc)
Sheet Feeder (Word Processing)
Form Package Software
=rinter Stand
Sound Cove r
Miscellaneous Staff Equipment (Drafting, Calculators, Files Etc)
TOTAL
,n
S 7,000
11,000
1,500
2,500
500
500
4,000
S 27,000
1
I
I i
II
Iii
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
public works
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FUND FUNeT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
Genera' Pub II c Works Street & Park Maintenance 1-647/657
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 19~4-85 COUNCIL
BUDGET APPROVED
CLASSIFICATION EXP ENS E EXPENSE BUDGET REQUEST BU DG ET
SALAR I ES S -O- S 193.70 5413,558 $ 269.941
OPERA T IONS & SUPPLIES 625.704 924.79' 271.904 1,265.400
CAPITAL OUTLAY 7.137 4,40 3,500 44,400
TOTAL 5 632.841 51.122,90 $688.962 $1 ,579,741
79
.:?
'"
.....
.. .....
Z ..:r
:) '"
= ,
u -
u
<
"
u
c:
'"
c:
> "
.. ~
- c:
".
- '"
.. x
U .:i.
< ...
0:: '"
= 0..
.. ..,
z ~
....
x "
.. "
0:: ...
< ~
0.. '"
""
<:
"'
.:i.
...
0
3
~ u
.-
- -
- .Q
U :J
Z 0..
:)
...
-
'"
...
"
c:
CO "
! <.:J
...
RO
=
......
~-:II'"
op....=...
"'ZCj
tD5&.
~W~
""CO N 0 '" 0 '"
CD...... '" N N 0 ..:r ....
."'''' '" '" ..... '" ..:r '"
...CO""
CO"'= '" '" CO '" N
"'=a! N ..:r .....
_0::
0.. '"
... '"
.. ... ... CO 0 '"
;! z... '" '" N CO .....
&..6.WC Z ..:r '" 0 , '"
-Ca::~a::".,. . 0
~ a::\ltC~ '" '" N . '"
'" :>>-WJC N ..:r 0
... ~'-::'w.
'"
CO '" ..... J'\
... '" ..... ..... ....
CO ..:r CO '" , "
, 0
'"" '" '" N , ...,
CO N '"
'"
'"
'" ..:r ..... 0
'"" ..... '" CO 0
=' '" 0 '" I
, . 0
N '" CO ..... ,
CO N ..... .....
'"
'"
N
CO , , , , ,
, 0 0 0 0 0
, , , , ,
CO
'"
v>
'" 03S0dO~d N N
Z
0
..
'" .l.N3lldOJ N CO
0
0..
>-
u
c:
... "
0 0'1
"" n c:
~
.. > ... ... ~
... " " c:
.. " .:i. .:i. 0
Q. '- '- u
:J 0 0
'" 3 3 "
"'
" " " '"
U U U "
c: c: c: ...
'" '" '" ~ U
c: c: c: c:
" " " I
~ ~ ~ ~
c: c: c: ... Q.
.- " "
~ '" '" > ~
X z: 0 II>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I"UND FUNCT I ON DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Pub 11 c Works Street & Park Maintenance 1-647/657
1981-82 I '181-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCIL
ACCT CLASSII"ICATION EXPENSES :XPENSES BUDGET BUDGET APPROVED
REQUEST BUDG ET
3100 Travel & Meetings S -O- S 118 $ 2005 200
3900 Maintenance & Operation 49,837 145,395 123,000 140,000
3956 Dues -0- 80 200 200
6028 Contract Service 348,927 470,229 536,OOC 700,000
6040 Street Lites 226,940 308,972 425,000 425,000
TOTAL 5025,704 5924.794 51 ,084,400 51,265,400
ACTIVITY INI"ORMATION
6028 CONTRACT SERVICE
Equipment Rental S
Street Sweeping Industrial Area & Emergency
Storm Operations
Tree TRimming
Traffic Striping
Signal Maintenance
Equipment Patching
Conc re te Repa i r
Parkway Maintenance- Planned Communities (Deer Creek, Victoria etc)
Parkway Weed Control
Dump Fees
TOTAL 5
40,000
30 ,000
30,000
100,000
75.000
100,000
65,000
30,000
185,000
35,000
10.000
700,000
81
FUND FUNCTION DEPARTMENT OR ACTIVITY ACCOUNT
General Pub II c: Works Street & Park Maintenance 1-&47/657
I
I
]
ill
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 COUNCil
ACCT CLASSIFICATION 8LJDGF APPROVED'
REQU ST 8UDGH 1
7043 Building Improvements S -O- S -o- S 6,000 S 20,000
7044 Equ i pment 7,137 4,405 5,100 24,400 I
TOTAL S 7,137 S 4,405 S 11,100 $ 44,400
ACTIVITY INFORMATION I
7043 BUilDING IMPROVEMENTS
8th Street Transfer & Storage Yard TOTAL $ 20,000 I
7044 EQUIPMENT
Chain Saw (2) S 1,000 I
Jack Hammer 1,500
Cut off Saw 550
Hedge Trimmer 350 I
Arrow Board 6,000
Portable Generator 1,000 1\
Arc Welder 2,000
Manhole Cleaning Safety Equipment 5,000
Detaching Mowing Reels (3) 3,000 i
Turf Aerifier 4,000 I
TOTAL S 44,400
:
II
I
I'
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROGRAM FOR
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS
19f4-1985
PROGRA.'1 TITLES
PROGWI DESCRIPTIO"
Beryl-Hellman Storm Drain
Construct storm drain channel from Hellman
Avenue at Monte Vi sta Street to Beryl Avenue
at Highland Avenue. Includes reconstruction
of Beryl Avenue from Nineteenth Street to
Highland and widening of Nineteenth Street at
channel crossing.
Etiwanda Specific Plan Area
Master Plan of Drainage
I Estimated Cost: $1,060,000
\COmPlete revision of storm drain plan
and phasing program for drainage of the
,Etiwanda Specific Plan Area.
I
!Estimated Cost: $75,000
I
!payments to developers who have installed
!Master Plan facilities and entered into
iReimbursement Agreements.
Fee Reimbursements
Estimated Cost: $191,000
PROGRAM COSTS $1,326,UOO
FUNDING SOURCE(S) DRAINAGE FEE FUND,
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
83
PROGR.~ TITLES
PROG~~ DESCRIPTION
I
I
I
II
I
north of Arrow I
Improvement
PROGRAM FOR
COMMUNITY Il1PROVEMENTS
19E4-1985
Bear Gulch Place
Construct Bear Gulch Street
Route to Elementary School
Adj~~ent to Arrow Park.
Amethyst Avenue Sidewalks
Est ,ated Cost: $100,000
II Construct sidewalk on Amethyst Avenue east
side from Base Line to Lomita.
I
!Estimated Cost: $35,000
:Widen Turner Avenue south of Feron St. to the,
i AT&SF Ra 11 road Commun i ty Oeve 1 opment Bl oc~:
[Grant (CDBG) Funding. ~
I
I
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
Turner Avenue
Estimated Cost:
$150,000
North Town Street Improvements
Phase I V
;Design of street
Be lmont, Cottage
Funds).
improvements for Acacia,
and Eight Street (CDBG
Estimated Cost:
$15,000
PROGRAM COSTS $300,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S) PARK DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
(CDBG, SB 821 (Sidewalk Grant)SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENT
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROGRAM FOR
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS
1ge4-1985
PROGR.;}! TITLES
PROG~~ DESCRIPTIO~
Archibald
Archibald Avenue reconstruction and
resurfacing from Fourth St. to Base Line
Rd. Federal Aid Urban (FAU) Article 8-SB325
Funding.
Avenue
Estimated Cost: $1,300,000
Church Street Reconstruction
Church Street reconstruction, resurfacing and
sidewalks Hellman Avenue to Archibald Avenue.
Estimated Cost: $100,000
San Bernardino Rd. Reconstruction
San Bernardino Rd. reconstruction, drainage
and curb repairs Winery Ridge to Archibald
,Avenue includes dip removals.
,
: Est imated Cost: $260,000
I
,
Lemon Street Resurfacing
!Lemon Street resurfacing and miscellaneous
irepairs from Hermosa to Haven Avenue.
I
I
!Estimated Cost: $125,000
i
Hermosa Avenue realignment
A lta Loma Bas i ns. Work
equalizer box constructed
iChannel Assessment District.
I
iEstimated Cost: $100,000
Hermosa Ave. Realignment/Widening
and widening at
combined with
with Alta Loma
PROGRAM COSTS $1,873,685
~DING SOURCE(Sl FEDERAL AID URBAN
(FAU) ARTICLE 8 (SB 325) FUNDS
80
Base Line Widening and
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
Haven Avenue
deve 1 oper ) .
Est imated Cost:
and widening from Hermosa
(cooperative project
with
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROGIWl FOR
CO~NITY IMPROVEMEYTS
1ge4-1985
PROGRAM TITLES
PROGR&~ DESCRIPTION
Alta Loma Channel Road
with Crossings at Hillside
and Wilson Avenue
Road
Construction of road crossing in conjunction
channel construction on the Alta Loma Channel
Assessment District.
Estimated Cost:
$250,000
$350,000
East
Avenue
Reconstruction
!IEast Avenue reconstruction from Highland
.Avenue to Summit (cooperative project with
!developer) .
I
IEstimated Cost: $240,000
I
,
jSelf Explanatory.
IEstimated Cost: $200,000
Archibald Avenue Widening
and Railroad Crossing Protection
at the Southern Pacific Railroad
PROGRAM COSTS $1,046,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S) SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FUNDS,
GAS TAX 2106, 2107
AI'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROGRAM FOR
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS
19E4-1985
PROGRA.'1 TITLES
Carnelian Avenue and Lemon
Avenue Traffic Signals
Nineteenth St.-Archibald Ave.
Traffic Signal
Foothill Blvd.-Hellman Ave.
Traffic Signal
Foothill Blvd. Signal
Modification at Vineyard and
Archibald Avenues
Foothill Blvd. at Turner
Avenue Traffic Signal
Archibald Avenue at Sixth St.
Traffic Signal
PROGRA}! DESCRIPTIOll
Traffic Signal.
Estimated Cost: $60!000
CalTrans Cooperative Project.
IEstimated Cost: $45,000
ICalTrans Cooperative Project
Estimated Cost: $40,000
CalTrans Cooperative Project to modernize and
add left-turn phasing.
Estimated Cost: $80,000
iCalTrans Cooperative Project.
I
iEstimated Cost: $40,000
I
ITraffiC Signal.
Estimated Cost: $70,000
PROGRAM COSTS $335,000
FUNDING SOURCE(S) SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT,
GAS TAX 2106,2107 FUNDS
87
PROGRA~1 TITLES
Grove Avenue Widening
Cooper at i ve Project Fund
Hellman Avenue Widening
Fund to be Programmed
AA
I
PROGRA'i fOR
CO~OO::;ITY I~ROVEm::;TS
19E4-1985
I
PROGRA'i DESCRIPTIO:;
Grove Avenue widen ing, dra i nage and ra i 1 roao. I
crossin~ ~rotection upgrade - Eigth Street to
Chaffey St. (cooperative project with
developers).
Estimated Cost: $250,000
Fund ava i 1 ab 1 e to jOi n with deve lopment:
projects to improve substandard 01'
deteriorated streets in conjunction with on.,
going development projects.
Estimated Cost: $150,000
I
,Church Street to Southern Pacific Railroad
: in conjunction with Tract 12238
i
: Estimated Cost: $50,000
,
Ii' $1,050,000 remains for progr'm
community prioritization.
review and
I
I
I
I
I
\
PROGRA~ COSTS $1,500,000
FUNDTNC SOURCE(S) SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FUND
GAS TAX 2106, 2107 FUNDS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
, I
I
I
I
PROGRA11 FOR
COHI1Ul;ITY Il1PROVEMENTS
19E 4-198 5
PROGR.~1 TITLES
Base Line Road Beautification
Base Line Road from
Carnelian Avenue. Landscap
City Limit to
and irrigation.
Estimated Cost: S100,OOO
Carnelian
,
I
I Carne 1 i an Avenue beaut i f i cat i on from
I Nineteenth Street to Banyan Street.
I Landscape and irrigation and sidewalk.
,
~ Estimated Cost: $150,000
I
! Foothill Blvd. to Base Line Road. various
: locations. Landscape and irrigation.
; Est imated Cost: S50,OOO
Avenue
Beautification
Archibald Avenue Beautification
Foothill Blvd. Design Element
, Deve loper plans for the med i an is 1 and and
'design theme for Foothill Blvd.
I
: Estimated Cost: 5182,345
i
IChurch Street to Base Line Rd. service
connections.
Archibald Avenue
Utility Undergrounding
Estimated Cost: $20,000
PROGRAM COSTS S602,345
FUNDING SOURCE(S) BEAUTIFICATION FEES,
89
1
PROGRAM FOR
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS
t984-t985
90
PROGRAM TITHES PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
y
Arrow Park. Development Develop 5 +/- acre neighborhood park with
,;' childrens play area, 9 station exercise
trail, restrooms, picnic area adjacent to
school athletic fields.
Church Street Park 6.5 acre neighborhood park with a softball
field, soccer field, childrens play area
and picnic facilities.
Cucamonga Creek Trail and Pazk Project Development of equestrian, bicycling and
hiking trail system along Cucamonga and
Demens creek channels. Also a 3 acre park
at Baseline and Alta Cuesta Drive will be
developed.
Hermosa Park acquisition-Phase IZ Acquire 3.27 acre pazk site adjacent to the
existing 5 acre Hermosa park site.
Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Facility Construction of an additional 3600 square
feet to the existihq Building to provide
for the additional demand of service. There
' will be an outdoor patio, multi purpose
lounge, addtional parking and upgrading of
the current kite hen facilities.
Preliminary and additional work as
needed on oC~er park sites:
Deer Creek 99 acre Bark site centrally located in City.
Terra Vista Pazk Implementation Various sites, greenways and trails.
Victoria Park Implementation Various park sites throughout the Vic-aria
Development.
y
PROGRAM COSTS: S 2,225,677 Park Daw lopmene Peee
FUNDING SOU RCE(S;lseo 9uu laid Me, Raberei-Z'Bar
UrbY1 Opaa 9pla Progra, Dew lOper
Participatim, Caa~mley Dawl
oloek Grae.