Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/04/09 - Agenda Packet - AdjournedPRE- BUDGET STUDY SESSION April 9, 1981 PURPOSE An informal meeting to discuss levels of service, budgetary outlook, and overall financial condition of the City. AGENDA 1. OVERVIEW OF BUDGET PROCESS ............................. 1 Hour - Revised budgetary procedures. - Technical changes (overhead rate, treatment of reserve, spending limitation). - Summary of anticipated revenues. 2. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SERVICES FOR 1981- 82............ lk Hours - 10 minute summary by Department Heads. - Discuss general service levels (not specifics). 3. POLICY OPTIONS FOR REVIEW BY COUNCIL ................... 1 Hour - Discussion of major policy options which impact budget. - Council policy direction to staff. 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION. - Employer - Employee Relations. 5. ADJOURNMENT. Ci�cn.HO� s° CITY OF < RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL g Z AGENEA U > 1977 PRE - BUDGET STUDY SESSION Thursday, April 9, 1981, 5:30 p.m. Lion's Park Community Center Adjourned Meeting PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this pre- budget study session is to provide the City Council and our citizens with an overview of the City's financial condition. In addition, we will also provide the City Council with information concerning the proposed Program of service for fiscal year 1981 -82. 1. BUDGET OVERVIEW. Harry Empey, Finance Director, and Lauren Wasserman, City Manager, will pre- sent a brief summary concerning the status of the 1980 -81 Program of Service. In addition, a report will be presented concerning the following items which relate to next year's budget: a. Probable loss of $250,000 of State "bailout" funds. b. Changes in budgetary procedures as a result of Proposition 4 spending limitation. c. Explanation of City overhead rates to be used in preparation of 1981 -82 Program of Service. d. Status report concerning anticipated revenues for fiscal year 1981 -82. 2. DISCUSSION OF ANTICIPATED SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1981 -82. Each department head will have approximately 10 minutes to present a summary of the anticipated services which will be offered during the next year. Present levels of service will be compared to those services which may be available in view of the City's critical financial problems. Proposed re- ductions in services will also be identified. It is significant to note, however, that rather than dealing with specific programs or dollar amounts, the discussions will focus upon program concepts and general levels of service. City Council Agenda -2- April 9, 1981 3. POLICY OPTIONS. The City Council will be asked to discuss policy options and to provide general direction to the staff concerning the following subjects: a. Feasibility of establishing City -wide street lighting and parkway maintenance districts. b. Feasibility of establishing a redevelopment agency as recommended by the City's financial task force. C. Discussion concerning Carnelian Parkway improvement project. d. Discussion re. feasibility of reducing fixed transit routes which may not be cost - effective. The City Council has previously discussed the feasibility of using Dial -a -Ride to replace Route 50 in the Alta Loma/ Cucamonga area. e. Discussion of Growth Management Plan processing problems. f. Discussion of Civic Center facilities. g. Discussion of City reserve funds and Federal Revenue Sharing funds. 4. ADJOURNMENT. MEMORANDUM �...,� DATE: April 6, 1981 Ct�„�� TO: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager III FROM: Harry J. Empey, Finance Direct _ 1977 SUBJECT: Budget Process In reviewing the budget for this coming year and the decisions that have to be made, it may do well to consider an orderly process in the interest of time and cohesiveness. The budget process this year has been one of stretching projected revenues as far as it is dared possible, and compressing expenditure requests to not much more than a roll -over budget of the current fiscal year. The budget for 1981 -82 has caused the use of inter - fund mingling and the possible or probable use of Reserves. In the order of review, I would recommend the following: (a) Review impact of legislation on the budget- -how it affects Rancho Cucamonga. (b) Familiarization with the projected revenues. (Schedule A) (c) Review program need in relation to the projected revenues. (Schedule B) (d) Review the transference of cash from other funds to support General Fund activities - -the whys and hows. (Schedule C) (c) Discuss certain programs and how they are affected (if they are) by the transfers mentioned above. Each department head should give a brief overview of his /her program(s) for the up- coming year. (f) Discuss the distribution of reserves and approve same by Council action. (g) Rcvicw spending limitation and adopt sane. (h) Dt"uss special nst,eesnicnt districts and their affect on the co : y financially and politically. (1) C:ni the budl;rt ho balanced? (J) Sat n pnhlic hearin,; dnfa for Revenue Sharing. (I;) Ulsrur.s unldry L f, n;;r bonefit adjuslravnt for in id -mnnng emcnt and non- mdnap,c r.ent ccpinycu•;. (t) Ul :c w;s n reJ cvclup�nen: a{;r noy. M Flamm to Lauren Wasserman Budget Process Page 2 RSERCCS Designated reserves along with its disposition are as follows: Reserve for building improvement $ 192,000 Disposition: Transfer to Capital Reserve Fund. Reserve for Community Development expense: 53,000 Disposition: Transfer to reserve for changes in economic conditions. Reserve for Heritage Park acquisition: 86,000 Disposition: Transfer to Park Development Fund. Reserve for General Plan elements: 100,000 Disposition: Transfer to current year budget, Planning Contract account. Reserve for City facilities- -land acquisition & development: 300,000 Disposition: Hold in reserve as is. Reserve for pool car purchase: 19,500 Disposition: Transfer to the Capital Replacement Fund. Reserve for Finance /Planning computer program: 48,000 Disposition: Transfer to reserve to changes in economic conditions. Reserve for purchase of miscellaneous office equipment: 71,000 Disposition: Transfer to Inter - Governmental Service Fund. Reserve- -City Hall operational expense: 4,500 Disposition; Transfer to reserve for changes in economic conditions. Rebervo-- Reti :sment contributions - additional: 45,ODO Disposition: Transfer to reserve for changes in economic conditions. Reserve for equipment replacement; 205,000 Dir.poni.cinn: Trnnsferred to the Capital Replacement Fund. -acs en alrondy approved by City CmurciI, It u: +orvr for pnro'nase of folic, vehicles: 90,600 Ui r.p nsit ion: Trnnsfor to resorvo for chnn {;es in economic cnnd It irna. R,:acrv,1 tIll r;ndifi u,linn,a in tulr•plionc sp ntnm; 7,500 Uin;a a: it inn: 'f, ard;; rr LO f.,q+it.,l Reserve Fund. I:,`!I�'r•: for t'aft fc cur, ^.,lut ion etude; 20,000 I'' °;R iun: 'I'ran ei of In r„barvo for rhangos in economic c...,..... on s . I Memo to Lauren Fassrrman Budget Process Page 3 Reserve for traffic circulation plan: 15,000 Di;:ponition: Transfer to reserve for changes in economic conditions. Reserve for specific plan 19th Street: 10,000 Disposition: Transfer to reserve for changes in economic conditions. Reserve for aerial tope maps: 25,000 Disposition: Transfer to reserve for changes in economic conditions. Reserve for specific plan - Specific Blvd. study: 30,000 Disposition: Transfer to reserve for changes in economic conditions. Reserve for parkway maintenance equipment: 24,500 Disposition: Transfer to Capital Replacement Fund. Reserve -- Liability d General Insurance program: 50,OCC Disposition: Transfer to Insurance Fund. TOTAL DESIGNATED RESERVES $1,396,600 In addition to the designated reserves, there exists an undesignated reserve amount of $1,446,840. Two factors contributed to this amount: (1) $655,000 in carry -over funds from 1979 -80, and (2) the City realized in excess of $400,000 in earnings due to a year of extremely high interest rates. During this time of extreme uncertainty, it may do well to continue to res_rve our funds, but in a reserve account that can be called upon in cnse of dire need - -a reserve for changes in economic conditions. Three wrens for consideration as part of the changes in economic conditions reserve are: (1) Carnelian Planting Project, $400,000; (2) Land acquisition (parks, civic center, etc.), $900,000; and (3) Lonn(s) to a redevelopment agency, $100,000 ±. Row..ver, these are considerations only. To remove anything from reserve has an effect on the City's spending limitation. In other words, when manias arc removed from reserves, they must be considered as ex- p�nidit,n'rs tnvnrd,; the., spending limitation. Memo to Lauren Wasserman Budget Process Page 4 SPRKDIXC LIMITATION The thrust of Proposition 4, or XIIIB as ammended, is to set a limit- ation on spending, or at least a limitation on tax revenue spending. However, this has a spill -over effect into user fees as well. If user fees exceed the cost to administer them, then the excess must be re- turned to the taxpayer. (A period of two years is authorized for the return.) The only way to return excess fees is to reduce either taxes or fees, and inasmuch as taxes are mandated, the only other course is a reduction in fees. The State is proposing for those agencies that exceed their .spending limitation, a reduction in cigarette tax alloca- tion in the fiscal year 1981 -82. A resolution is attached for Council's review and adoption. R :n'.;➢F. SL4R1N0 At the April 9th meeting with Council, a date(s) should be set for a public hearing on Revenue Sharing, not only for this year's amount that is in excess of the budgeted amount ($221,274), but for next year's allocation as well ($396,274). `_- FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS 1981 -82 Schedule C Estimated Estimated Revenue Est. Exp. Estimated Fund Fund Bel 7/1/81 1981 -82 Transfer In Transfer Out 1981 -82 Fund Bal 6/30/82 01 General Fund $ -0- $ 51991,810 $ 1,289,735 $ 689,082 $ 6,659,365 $ (66,902) 02 Traffic Safety Fund -0- 96,500 96,500 -0- 03 2106 Gas Tax -0- 210,383 95,093 115,290 -0- 04 2107 6 2107.5 Gas Tax -0- 213,810 96,642 117,168 -0- 06 Article 8 S.B. 325 -0- 556,804 251,703 305,101 -0- 10 Recreation 25,000 52,635 77,635 -0- 15 Benefits Contingent Fund 38,512 -0- 24,834 -0- 63,346 20 Capital Replacement Fund 205,000 -0- 63,823 3,600 265,223 25 Revenue Sharing -0- 396,274 396,274 -0- -0- '0 Insurance Fund 65,250 -0- 29,365 -0- 94,615 35 Capital Reserve Fund 776,060 -0- 571,060 -0- 1,347,120 40 Capital Improvement -0- -0- -0- -0- 41 Park Development 125,000 120,000 245,000 -0- 42 Beautification 61,000 1051000 20,570 145,430 -0- 43 Systems Development 165,855 420,000 82,278 420,000 83,577 1.5 Storm Drain 255,601 430,000 84,237 601,364 -0- :,6 F A U 111 90,000 90,111 -0- 47 Grants 12,737 264,403 100,438 176,702 -0- 55 Central Service Fund 86,162 -0- 24,465 61,697 Special Assessment Districts 26,000 401000 66,000 -0- -0- - TOTAL $ 1,842,288 $ 8,987,619 $ 1,978,817 $ 1,978,817 $ 8,981,231 $ 1,849,676 PRELIMINARY REVENUE SUMAARY SHEET 79 -80 80 -81 REVENGE SOURCE REVENUE BUDGET TAXES Current Year Secured 447,601 Current Year Unsecured 28,757 Prior Year Sec S Unsec 41,711 Total Property Taxes 518,069 Sales d Use Tax 1,534,817 Franchises 337,807 Property Transfer 113,548 S.A. 154 192,346 Total Other Taxes 2,178,518 LICENSES 6 PERMITS 12,480 Business Licenses 188,633 Bicycle Licenses 318 Dog Licenses 16,433 Building Permits 363,274 Other Licenses 5,769 Total Licenses d Permits 574,427 FIVES d FORFEITURES Court Fines 7,631 W S ".1:1.LANEOUS Interest 270,160 Sale of PrinLcd Material 63,788 Other Revenues 268,414 Returned Item Charge 215 Expenditures Recovered 14,994 Cash Over /Short 54 Sale of Equipment 6 Machinery -0- Bents S Leases 2,220 Sale of Land 23,127 Candidalc Filing Fees 450 514,269 33,040 47,924 595,233 1,532,992 354,931 116,716 -0- 2,004,639 80 -81 ESTIMATE 614,899 39,505 57,301 711,705 1,275,273 354,931 92,912 -0- 1,723,116 >I 'v Page 1 81 -87. ESTIMATE 695,687 44,246 64,177 804,110 1,649,722 392,923 107,000 -0- 2,149,645 200,000 200,500 210,000 -0- 140 400 13,000 15,750 16,500 325,000 400,000 484,000 11,000 1,675 1,000 549,000 617,865 711,900 17,300 12,480 13,500 180,000 27,450 2,500 -0- -0- -0- -0- 2,220 -0- -0- 270,160 18,000 1,750 150 1,100 -0- -0- 2,220 -0- -0- t!iscollnneous 643,422 212,170 293,380 325,000 11,845 6,000 360 -0- -0- -0- 3,564 -0- 500 347,269 PRELIMINARY Page 2 REVENUE SUPIIARY SHEET 79 -80 80 -81 80 -81 81 -82 REVENGE SOURCE REVENUE BUDGET ESTIMATE ESMUiTE REVENUE FROM OT11I7R AGENCIES Aid to Families w /Dep Child -0- -0- 52,983 53,000 Alcoholic Beverage Licenses 15,892 20,665 20,800 26,872 Motor Vehicle In Lieu 876,573 943,736 935,801 1,096,088 Homeowners Prop Tax Relief 33,675 20,895 21,318 19,000 Bus Inv Prop Tax Relief 12,359 5,975 5,642 4,000 Trailer Coach Fee 5,861 -0- 6,361 6,500 Highway Carrier Bus Lic Tax 4,345 10,210 10,368 12,167 Cigarette Tax 127,540 128,191 138,079 142,729 Off- Highway License Fee 591 672 _ 770 682 Total Revenue From Other Agencies 1,076,836 1,130,344 1,159,139 1,361,038 CHARCF.S FOR SERVICE Plan Check Fees 164,494 50,000 75,000 150,348 Planning Fees 50,729 195,000 200,000 230,000 Engineering Fees 152,236 100,000 18_000 225,000 Total Charges Far Service 367,359 345,000 455,000 605,348 TOTAL GENESAL FUND 5,366,262 4,853,686 4,952,685 5,992,810 02 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND Vehicle Code Fines 86,372 59,815 78,000 96,500 03- 0!1-06 TRAI:SPORT,ITIOY & GAS 2106 Gas Tax 223,184 244,398 217,380 210,383 2107 Gas Tax 210,181 233,289 213,187 206,310 2107.5 Gas Tax 6,000 7,500 7,500 7,500 Article 8 S.B. 325 494,442 514,382 537,600 556,804 Total Gas Tax 933,807 999,569 975,667 980,997 10 RECRC.4TTON Prugrnms 58,668 39,250 47,850 52,635 22 Cl {*!A CETA 111) 40,811 6,989 2,359 -0- 2 5 lZ I V;: :111: 51:.11;1:14 10 L 1 I 226,043 175,000 396,274 396,274 PRELI4ffNARY Schedule A REVENUE SUMMARY SHEET page 3 79 -80 80 -81 80 -81 81 -82 SOURCE REMXE BUDGET' ESTIYLATE ESTU!.4TE 40 CAPITAL I "PitOCEMOT Park Grant 200,000 -0- 20,000 -0- 41 PARK DEVELOPMENT Fees 117,253 122,467 81,000 120,000 43 SYSTEMS DECEI,OPiiEVT Fees 323,003 250,000 380,000 420,000 42 BEAUTIFICATION 209,406 150,000 75,000 105,000 45 STOP;I DRAIIa Fees -0- 222,000 281,116 430,000 46 F A 11 Fees -0- 222,000 281,116 90,000 47 GRC:TS North Town 30,518 240,000 76,035 163,965 O.T.S. _ 15,576 _ 189,829 189,829 ___l li 01 4 LS 'total Grants 46,094 429,829 265,864 264,403 0711."P• SP!lG I;,I. ASSESS:IENTS Parkway `nimonance -0- 67,000 48,000 40,000 GFU%IM TOTAL 7,958,715 7.675,605 7,997,667 8,988,619 GENERAL FUND PROPOSED BUDGET 1981 -82 Council Administration /City Clerk Finance /City Treasurer City Facilities Non -Dept Fringe Overhead Nan -Dept General Overhead Subtotal Community Development - Administration Community Development - Planning Community Development - Building & Safety Community Development - Engineering Community Development - Public Works Subtotal Sheriff - Administration Sheriff - Investigation Sheriff - Patrol Subtotal Community Services - Administration Community Services - Recreation Community Services - Community Relations Community Services - Special Projects Subt.>tnl Tctn1 All Departments Reserve for Salary & Associated Frings TOTAL BUDGET Fundinn General Fund Grants - 0 T 5 Spocial A,scssmont District F_rom0_t_her Funds_ Gas Tax Revenue Shnrin {} Vehicle Code Firu,s Storm Drain Systems Bcautificatiun Capital Rcplucom•nt Central Service Schedule B $ 3,669,574 $2,563,972 $ 690,358 $6,895,904 480,_608 $7,376,512 $ 5,991,810 I GO, 430 66,000 443,438 396,274 961500 84,237 82,278 20,570 3,600 24,465 *Position of Account Clerk frozen for six (6) months. 7,309,610 (66,902) Supplies & Salaries Services Capital Total $ 14,400 $ 9,475 $ -0- $ 23,875 116,062 62,545 1,450 180,057 *140,964 67,311 9,460 217,735 -0- 119,256 1,000 120,256 -0- 542,730 -0- 542,730 -0- 264,687 571,060 835,747 271,426 1,066,004 582,970 1,920,400 61,242 10,490 1,230 72,962 229,579 41,015 4,000 274,594 200,319 35,195 550 236,064 355,915 72,000 9,100 437,015 170,034 940,500 _ -0- 1,110.534 1,017,089 1,099,200 14,880 2,131,169 234,199 26,550 4,659 265,408 297,413 43,776 5,126 346,315 1,6892832 218,657 78,998 1,987 ,2S7 2,221,444 288,983 88,783 2,599,210 71,267 61,085 725 133,077 88,348 6,700 3,000 98,0 +8 _0_ -0- -0- _0_ __0` 14,000 -0- 14,000 159,615 81,785 3,725 245,125 $ 3,669,574 $2,563,972 $ 690,358 $6,895,904 480,_608 $7,376,512 $ 5,991,810 I GO, 430 66,000 443,438 396,274 961500 84,237 82,278 20,570 3,600 24,465 *Position of Account Clerk frozen for six (6) months. 7,309,610 (66,902) PROGRAM ANALYSIS COAIDIUNIIY SERVICES 1981 -82 Community Special Item Admin. Recreation Relations Projects Total Full-Time Salaries $ 71,267 $ 33,348 $ $ $ Fringe Benefits 26,739 12,512 Part -Tine Personnel -0- 55,000 Part -Time Fringe -0- 2,266 Overtime -0- -0- _ Subtotal - Personnel 98,006 103,126 -0- -0- 201,132 Legal Advertising 500 Utilities 21,000 Printing S Publications 4,000 Office Supplies 1,000 Travel, Mileage, Meetings 5,165 1,100 Contract Services 10,000 14,000 Gasoline 300 Vehicle b Equipment Maintenance 500 Office Equipment Maintenance 150 Bldg. Maintenance S Supplies 17,850 Uniforms -0- 1,000 Dues 620 Special Departmental Expense 5,000 Subtotal - Services 61,085 7,100 -0- 14,000 82,185 Equipment 725 3,000 Vehicles Subtotal - Capital Outlay 725 3,000 __ 0- -0- 3,725 Subtotal All Items 159,816 113,226 -0- 14,000 287,042 General City Overhead 31,260 22,147 -0- _ 2,738 Subtotal 191,076 135,373 -0- 16,738 343,187 Departmental Overhead (191,076) 170,058 21,018 PROGRiC'I TOTAL $ -0- $ 305,431 $ -0- S_ 37,756 $_ 343,187 Departmental Share 892 -0- 117. 100% 0011MUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1981 -82. V Building 6 Item Admin. Planning Safety Engineering Total Full -Time Salaries $ 60,742 $ 221,452 $ 199,819 $ 507,949 $ Full -Time Fringe 22,135 83,089 74,973 190,582 Part -Time Personnel -0- 8,127 -0- 18,000 Part -Time Fringe -0- 211 -0- 742 Overtime 500 -0- 500 -0- Subtotal - Personnel 83,377 312,879 275,292 717,273 1,388,821 Utilities -0- -0- -0- 54,500 Legal Advertising -0- 5,000 -0- 1,000 Printing 6 Publications 800 12,000 2,000 5,000 Office Supplies 500 8,000 800 4,500 Travel, Mileage, Meetings 8,000 10,100 2,500 4,150 Contract Services -0- 5,000 2,500 460,750 Plan Check -0- -0- 16,000 -0- Fuel 128 -0- 4,000 32,000 Vehicle 6 Equipment Maintenance -0- 500 2,200 98,900 Office Equipment -0- 200 600 500 Dues 1,062 215 295 700 Strong Motion -0- -0- 4,300 -0- Street Lights -0- -0- -0- 350,000 Uniforms -0- -0- i -0- _ 500 Subtotal - Services 10,490 41,015 35,195 1,012,500 1,099,200 Equipment 1,230 2,000 550 5,500 Vehicles -0^ 2,000 -0- 3.600 Subtotal - Capital Equip. 1,230 4,000 550 9,100 14,880 � cial PLgj CCC$ Street Maintenance 6 Projects 1,511,108 Storm Drain 685,601 Parkway Development _ 166,000 Subtotal - Special Proj. 2,362,709 2,362,709 Subtotal All Items $ 95,097 $ 357,894 $ 311,037 $4,101,582 $4,865,610 General City Overhead 18,601 70,004 60,829 610,386 Subtotal 113,698 427,898 371,866 4,711,968 5,625,430 Dcpnrtmental Overhand _(1131698) 8,823 7,675 97,200 PROGEAH To] Al, ,=,0- $ 4361721 $ 379 541 $1�,809a 168 $5,L?. 5_,4351 Dcp:rrtmmrtal Sh,IUQ 7.762 6.757, 85.49% 100( V PROGRAM ANALYSIS POLICE 1981 -82 Item Administration Patrol Detective Total Full -Tine Salaries $ 173,674 $1,090,812 $ 185,696 $1,875,645 Fringe Benefits 38,381 315,623 53,603 Part -Time Personnel -0- 17,918 -0- Overtime 1,932 70,461 23,434 County Overhead 20,212 194,958 34 Subtotal Personnel Services 234,199 1,689,832 297,413 Utilities 5,328 14,652 6,660 Office Supplies 2,812 8,439 2,812 Travel, Mileage, Meetings 1,965 1,500 2,000 Contract Services 11,363 22,727 11,363 Fuel & Maintenance 4,513 133,261 20,306 Crime Prevention -0- 500 -0- Helicopter -0- 36,366 -0- County Overhead 569 1,312 635 Subtotal Services 26,550 218,657 43,776 Equipment 1,709 10,252 5,126 Vehicles 2,950 68,746 -0- Subtotal Capital Outlay 4,659 78,998 5,126 Subtotal All Items 265,408 1,987,487 346,315 2,599,210 Deprcciat5.on 3,735 11,091 3,915 18,741 Subtotal 269,143 1,998,578 350,230 2,617,951 General City Overhead u 52,644 390,922 68,505 512,071 Subtotal 321,781 2,389,500 418,735 3,130,022 Departmental Overhead (321,787) 245,656 76131 -0- _ PItOCRAM TOTAL $_ -0- $2,635,156 $___L94 8 66 $3,130,022 Dep,n'tmontal Sharu 76.34% 23.665: PROPOSITION 4 DIVISION 1981 -1982 Revenue Source Property Taxes Sales d Use Taxes Cigarette. Tax Property Transfer Tax Home Owners Exemption Business Inventory Exemption Subtotal - Taxes Business Licenses Dog Licenses Building Permits Other Licenses L Permits Subtotal - Licenses 6 Permits Court Fines Traffic Fines Subtotal - Fines, Forfeits 6 Penalties Aid to Families w /Dep Children Alcoholic Beverage Motor Vehicle In Lieu Highway Carriers Trailer Coach Fees General Revenue Sharing Cas Tax 2106 S Interest Gas Tax 2107 6 Interest Gas Tax 2107.5 S.B. 325 F A U G ran Cs Park Development 6 Interest Storm Drain!; Systems Development MoutifiCacian SubtULnl - From Other Agencies 1981 -82 Budget Proceeds Non -Tax of Taxes Revenues $ 804,110 1,649,722 142,729 107,000 19,000 4,000 $2,726,561 210,000 $ 16,500 484,000 1,400 $ 210,000 $ 501,900 13,500 96,500 •I Total $ 110,000 53,000 26,872 1,096,088 12,167 6,500 396,274 210,383 206,310 7,500 556,804 90,000 264,403 120,000 430,000 420,000 105,000 $2,123,306 $1,878,677 •I Total PROPOSITION 4 DIVISION 1981 -82 1981 -82 Budget Proceeds Non -Tax Revenue Source of Taxes Revenues Plan Check Fees $ 150,348 Engineering Fees 225,000 Planning Fees 230,000 Recreation Fees 52,635 Subtotal - Charges For Current Services $ 657,983 Franchises 392,923 Interest Earnings 190,677 134,323 Sale of Printed Material 11,845 Subtotal - From Use of Money Page 2 Total S Property $ 190,677 $ 539,091 miscellaneous 10,424 ' Subtotal - Miscellaneous $ 10,424 TOTALS $5,250,514 $3,698,105 $8,948,619 58.42% $40,000 from special assessment district excluded. s r I 41,582 Calculation of Proposition 4 Appropriation Limit For 1980 -1981 Total City Appropriations: 1978 -1979 Less: Non-Proceeds of Taxes Debt Service $ 1,571,642 0 $ 5,872,886 $ 1,571,642 Unadjusted Base $ 4,301,164 Add: Excess User Fees 403,675 Appropriations Limit 1978 -79 $ 4,704,839 U. S. All -Urban CPI - 1979 = 10.17% X 1.1017 $ 5,183,321 Population Percentage Change - 1979 = 7.38% X 1.0733 Appropriation Subject to Limit: 1979 -80 $ 5,565,850 U.S. All -Urban CPI - 1980 = 10.533 X 1.1053 $ 6,151,934 Population Percentage Channc - 1980 = 9.84; X 1.0954 Appropriation Subject to Limit: 1980 -81 $ 6,757,285 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the State of California provides that the total annual appropriations subject to limitation of the State and of each local government shall not exceed the appropriations limit of such entity of government for the prior year adjusted for changes in the cost of living and population except as otherwise provide in said Article XIIIB; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of California, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga deers it to be in the best interests of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to establish an appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 1980 -1981; and WHEREAS, the Finance Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined that said appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 1980- 1981 be established in the amount of $6,757,285. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamnga that an appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 1980, 1981 pursuant to Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of Calif- ornia be established in the amount of $6,757,285, and the same is hereby established. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said appropriations limit herein established may be changed as deemed necessary by resolution of the City Council. THE FORE GOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga this day of ATTEST: city Ciurk Mayor , Rancho Cucamonga CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM April 2, 1981 TO: City Council FROM: Lauren Wassermann City Manager SUBJECT: Policy Option - Omnitrans Bus Routes One option which the City Council has discussed previously is the possible elimination of Route 50, the fixed route bus system in the Alta Loma and Cucamonga communities. A previous report by ,Jim Robinson has indicated that the route is actually not heavily used, and, therefore, the funds spent for that service may be more effectively used for streets and roads if the Council so directs. The purpose of this memo is to bring the matter to the City Council's attention so that the staff will have some direction from the City Council to discuss either eliminating or continuing the route. We estimate that the bus service presently costs between $50,000 and $60,000 per year. If the route is dis- continued, those funds could be transferred to finance street improvements which also are needed in our community. This matter is being brought to your attention based upon the pre- vious discussion which occurred at the recent City Council meeting. LMW:baa March 13, 1981 TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Assistant City Managerillf- RE: Request to Consider Proposed Modifications to the Omnitrans Routes to Meet the SB 620 Requirements and Improve the Efficiency of the Transit System in Rancho Cucamonga As you are already aware, Senate Bill 620 requires that the Omnitrans Transit system meet the requirement of an 80 %/20% Fare Box ratio of revenues. In order to facilitate this requirement, the Omnitrans Board approved minimal fare increases and directed Omnitrans staff to work with Cities to help formulate more productive routes and analyze the recommended route proposed in the system wide Compre- hensive Operational Analysis Study completed last year. Since then City Staff, Councilman Mikels, the City's Advisory Commission and Omnitrans staff have been analyzing alternative routes to meet the SB 620 requirements and in general to develop a more productive system of routes in Rancho Cucamonga. The attached map and documentation outline the current routes and proposed routes as well as the corresponding decrease in miles and costs if these routes are adopted by Council. It is staff's opinion that the proposed route, which retains much of the current route in Alta Loma and Cucamonga and expands service to the western portion of Cucamonga, provides a better network of service in the City, while at the same time reducing the total number of miles driven. In summary, these are the recommended alterations to the current level of service for Routes 50 (Alta Loma, Cucamonga) and Route 60 (Chaffey College). I. Route 50 (Alta Loma - Cucamonga) Retain much of the current Route 50 with expansion to the western edge of Cucamonga and eliminating service on Baseline and adding Continued..... 2 Proposed Modification to Omnitrans Routes Page Two March 13, 1981 service on Foothill Boulevard. The Chaffey College route currently has two way service on Baseline. These modifications would, in staff's opinion, improve the level of service in the City, remove unproductive stops and reduce the total miles of the current routing from 14.45 miles to 11.60 miles. The C.O.A. report and Omnitrans staff have also recommended that service on Route 50 be provided only at peak hours in the morning and afternoon, thus further reducing the miles driven. Staff, however would request that Council direct staff to study this recommendation and evaluate what hours of operation would be appropriate while at the same time attempting to meet the S.B. 620 requirements. Staff would also recommend that based on the ridership surveys and Fare Box Revenue data, that Fixed Route Sunday service be eliminated. Those who need service on Sunday would still have access to Dial -a -Ride. Omnitrans staff had originally recommended elimination of Saturday and Sunday Fixed Route Service which the City may have to deal with at a later date. 2. Route 60 (Chaffer College Route) The C.O.A. and Omnitrans staff have recommended no changes to the existing route but orginally recommended increasing the frequency of service from 40 minute service to 30 minute service. Given the constraints of SB 620 and the substantial increase in cost ($50,000 + per year), staff would recommend that Route 60 remain at 40 minute service. Omnitrans staff had also recommended reducing the hours of operation of Route 60 during non peak periods. Again staff would like more time to evaluate the appropriate hours of operation. Staff will also have to consider what hours of operation are being recommended for Route 60 in Montclair and Upland. 3. Dial -A -Ride Neither City Staff, Omnitrans staff or the C.O.A. report recommended any modifications to the City's Dial -A -Ride service. Our current DW4 -Ride service is provided from 9 - 6, Monday thru Friday; one vehicle 9 -5 Saturdays and Sundays. Service is provided to the general public as well as seniors and handicapped. Some of the more densely populated cities are recommending restricting Dial -A -Ride to the elderly and handicapped. However, unlike Rancho Cucamonga, these recommendations are being made in more densely populated cities where most of the citizens have access to a fixed route. Continued...... 3 Proposed Modifications to Omnitrans Routes Page Three March 13, 1981 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Route 50: Adopt Route 50 as proposed and implement service July, 1981. Provide 60 minute service on Route 50 and direct staff to evaluate the recommended hours of operation and bring back to the City Council for their consideration. 2. Route 60: Retain current route and current 40 minute frequency of service and implement July, 1981. Direct staff to evaluate appropriate hours of operation and bring back to the City Council for their consideration. 3. Dial -A -Ride: Retain existing level of service of one vehicle, 9 - 5, Monday thru Friday and one vehicle 9 - 5 Saturdays and Sundays. 4. Direct staff to periodically evaluate and report to the City Council the ridership and fare box return for Route 50, Route 60 and Dial -A -Ride during the next fiscal year. JR /vz Enclosure I OMNITRANS 00' 4CIb &44' y ROUTE 50 PRESENT lath ST. i r 1 s z TRANSFER TO ROUTE 60 CHAFFEY TRANSFER TO COLLEGE 'S ROUTE 60 . �MONCLAIR PLAZA BID BASE LINE '> a PALO ALTO � z t ilr MAP LEGEND i WKD SAT SUN O HOSPITALS 620A -820P 620A -820P FOOTHILL ® SHOPPING CENTERS 60 60 4 SCHOOLS TRANSFER TO E•ELEMENTARY ROUTE 14 J,JR. HI Z H-HIGH a O OTHER POINTS t I p OFINTEREST I `I WKD SAT SUN SERVICE HOURS 620A -820P 620A -820P 820A -520P FREQUENCY 60 60 60 OMN 1TRAbis ROUTE So Tuftseb I� r w9b 5AT SUN 6#4WIlE NooR9 Fm9Lseuc4 bo bo — I� r ORANS Q � ROUTE 60-C -CHAFFEY COLLEGE � E )I, PROPOSED -NO CHANGE IN ROUTE 6 MAP LEGEND HOSPITALS ® SHOPPING CENTERS TRANSFER TO O OTHER POINTS ROUTE 70 . OFINTEREST TRANSFER TO FITS, 61,66,70 C %HHVW CITY O ROUTE HALL MONTCLAIR PLAZA i TRANSFER TO FITS. 61,6 A, 65, 65, 6 7,60,66 CHAFFEY COLLEGE LINE WKD SAT SUN SERVICE HOURS GOOA -830P 60OA -SOOP 90OA -600P FREOUENCY 40 46 40 3 M Q ommtT"m6 PRoVoshL _ Rcdc"meunec Rey(s,14s5 To ^ yy6ep 'RouTE 60 fewoN a 2 h 3 -iv -B/ t{o MINME seRYlciE 11,00 Ywu► Mlp Riots CURRENT SERVICE Round trip miles 14.45 Daily trips - Monday thru Saturday 14 Sunday trips 8 Annual trips 3,986 Annual revenue miles 57,598 COA PROPOSAL Round trip miles 14.70 Daily trips - Monday thru Saturday 14 Sunday trips 8 Annual trips 3,986 Annual revenue miles 58,594 STUDY REQUEST - RANCHO CUCAMONGA Round trip miles 11.60 Daily trips - Monday thru Saturday 14 Sunday trips 8 Annual trips 3,986 Annual revenue miles 46,238 SPUR TO SAN ANTONIO HOSPITAL Round trip miles 2.70 Annual trips 3,986 Annual revenue miles 10,762 a ROUTE 50 ALTA LOMA - CUCAMONGA Peak Hours Only On Weekdays - Eliminate Saturday s Sunday Service 6:45 A.M. to 8:20 A.M. - 1 hr. 35 min. 1:45 P.M. to 4:40 P.M. - 2 hrs. 55 min. 4 hrs. 30 min. Savings Weekdays - 10.33 hrs. Saturday - 13.33 hrs. Sunday - 8.00 hrs. Annual Savings - $75,560 Annual Passenger Loss - 17,341 Annual Revenue Loss - $5,376 Net Savings Last Quarter - $17,546 Current Operating Ratio Monday - Friday - .0843 Saturday - .0513 Sunday - .0397 Last Quarter - $18,890 Last Quarter - 4,335 Last Quarter - $ 1,344 16 ROUTE 60 CHAFFEY COLLEGE Monday-Saturday Eliminate service from 5:55 A.M. to 7:00 A.M. Eliminate service from 7:40 P.M. to 8:40 P.M. Sundav Eliminate service from 9 :00 A.M. to 10:20 A.M. Savings Weekday - 2.33 hrs. Saturdav - 2.33 hrs. Sunday - 2.00 hrs. Annual Savings - $16,388 Annual Passenger Loss - 52 Annual Revenue Loss - $13 Net Savings Last Quarter - $4,093 Current Coerating Ratio Weekday - .1715 Saturday - n/a Sunday - .0756 Last Quarter - $4,097 Last Quarter - 13 Last Quarter - $ 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM April 2, 1981 TO: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman 4 City Manager SUBJECT: Redevelopment Agency As you are aware, the financial task force has suggested that it may now be timely for us to establish a redevelopment agency. To provide you with a brief background of the redevelopment law, I am enclosing a copy of a memo prepared on March 28, 1979. You will note at that time we indicated that perhaps there were other pro- jects of higher priority than to involve the city in redevelopment. We also indicated at that time that the tax increments available would be minimal. Both situations have changed. I feel very confident that redevelop- ment agency would be a useful tool to help us solve many of the serious problems we have in our community, particularly those re- lating to street construction, drainage, and land planning. Because of the changes in the state law (Proposition 4 spending limitation), it is important that we use every possible source of revenue which may be available to us. If we do not establish a redevelopment agency, those funds will be lost and will not be available to us. This year's budget will contain a recommendation that we loan to our redevelopment agency approximately $50,000 which represents the "start up" costs for the establishment of a redevelopment agency. That money would be used to finance the work of consultants who would prepare the documentation which is required in order to establish project areas. One of the decisions we will be asking the Council to make is whether you concur with our recommendation. It takes several months to actually establish a redevelopment agency. The initial phases are primarily procedural. They include the esta- blishment of bylaws and other documentation. In addition we should contact consultants and ask them to submit proposals for the work which needs to be done in conjunction with the redevelopment project. Again, all of these things take time and it is important that if we are going to become involved in redevelopment we act as quickly as possible in order to maximize the funds which may be available to us. Ir� City Council Re: Redevelopment Agency April 2, 1981 Page 2 We are well aware that the City Council is concerned that if redevelopment is used in Rancho Cucamonga, we reiterate our commitment to use the agency in a responsible manner. Because of abuses by other communities in the late 60s, the redevelopment concept has a somewhat negative image. That is changing, however, and we feel that in Rancho Cucamonga we could maximize the benfits from a redevelopment agency while still acting in aresponsible manner. LMW:baa attach. Memo 3- 21 -79/J. Mikels Memo 3 -28 -79 �3 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 28, 1979 TO: City Council /00 SUBJECT: Redevelopment Informatio The City Council has requested the staff to research the present State law to determine whether it is feasible to establish a redevelopment agency for our community. If the establishment of a redevelopment agency is feasible, it is anticipated that tax increment funds may be available to aid in the development of the industrial areas of the city. REDEVELOPMENT LAN The California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et. seq.) provides a means by which each community has the power to create a redevelopment agency. The primary advantaae of the agency is that funds which are not otherwise available to the city may now be used to remedy certain types of problems relating to land use, geography, topography, economic factors, and related issues. Simply stated, tax increments are determined by "freezing" the assessed valuation of property before any improvements are made. The amount of the tax increment is the tax rate multiplied by the difference in the assessed value before and after improvements have been completed. In order to form a redevelopment agency, the city need only adopt an ordinance. The ordinance establishing a redevelopment agency must contain findings that such action will serve the public interest and promote the public health, safety and welfare. Procedures are also specified for the City Council to designate itself in place of a Redevelop- ment Agency Board of Directors if that is desired. Following the creation of the redevelopment agency, it is necessary for the following procedures to be followed: A. Adoption of b,�-1 -laws to govern conduct of agency business. Adoption of Survey Area - Council must adopt a survey area to determine whether redevelopment processes are a necessary and feasible means for solving the problems which may exist. The survey process includes a detailed analysis of existing conditions, including land use and economic factors. In addition, it is necessary that the report identify alternatives for alleviating the deficiencies. Redevelopment Information Page Two C. Selection of Proj ec4 P.r2a and Preparation of Preliminary_ Plan. The City Counci directs the Planning Commission to select a project area within the boundaries of the survey area. The Planning Commission must also document the existence of blighted conditions in the area. This phase of the redevelopment is frequently controversial, particulary, if undeveloped land is involved in the project area. The Preliminary Plan formulated by the Planning Commission is usually general in scope, describing the boundaries of the project, land use, densities, and major objectives in accordance with the city's General Plan. D. Redevelopment Agency Review of Preliminary Plans. The City Counci acting as the redevelopment agency, must review and accept the plans prepared by the Planning Commission. This procedure is accomplished by the adoption of a resolution. E. Each taxing agency within the proposea project area must review the plan and comment. Agencies have the option of filing a protest to the plan or of working out some arrangement to receive tax increments which result from increases in assessed valuation. Most public agencies, particularly school districts, request their share of tax increments. The city's redevelopment agency receives the remaining sum for redevelopment activities. F. Preparation of Draft Documents. 1. Redevelopment Plan - provides the detail of project objectives, land uses, zoning limitations, architectural guidelines, circulation plans, and related facts. 2. Environmental Impact Report. 3. Owner Participation Plan - outlines various methods by which the property owners may be encouraged to participate in the Plan's implementation. 4. Fiscal Plan - identifies fiscal impact upon taxing jurisdictions and debt limitations relative to tax increment financing. The County Assessor prepares this report. The costs must be reimbursed by the Agency. 5. Report to City Council - outlines the Redevelopment Plan and related documents for the City Council to assure compliance with the State redevelopment laws. Redevelopment Information Page Three G. Review Process - documents as drafted are submitted for review to the appropriate body or entity for review and comment. H. Public Hearin - all interested parties have an opportunity to comment on the Plan. I. Plan Adoption - Redevelopment Plan is adopted by ordinance. It is significant to note that the redevelopment process requires maximum community participation in project planning and implementation. A project area committee (PAC) must be formed within 60 days after the Project Area has been selected if low and moderate income families are likely to be displaced. A PAC is optional in other instances unless required by a federally assisted project. Upon recommendation of a PAC, the City Council must allocate necessary funds for a committee office, equipment and supplies, legal counsel, and adequate staff for consultation and formulation of policy which affects the residents of the Project area. CONCLUSIONS Redevelopment is one of several tools available to the City which may provide a means for partially funding certain public improvements. The value of redevelopment has been greatly diminished, however, with the recent passage of Proposition 13. The city's share of available tax increment revenues has been reduced substantially. In the view of the staff, the primary concern with redevelopment at this point is that valuable time will be taken from other projects deemed essential such as completion of the remaining seven elements of the General Plan, specific plan preparation for the industrial areas, and related work which requires a substantial commitment of staff time. Even if a portion of redevelopment work is completed by consultants, it will be necessary for the staff to assist in virtually every phase of work. The start -up costs for redevelopment are fairly substantial. It is estimated that the costs for consultants and /or additional staff, redevelopment legal counsel, and preparation of all materials required by law may be approximately $40,000 - $50,900. It appears that the commitment of these funds would have an impact on the city's total budget picture for the coming year. Although funds may be "advanced" by the City to the red(.velopment agency for start -up work, we anticipate that the advance of funds may create a cash -flow problem for the city during the next year. Ii� Redevelopment Information Page Four In summary, while the redevelopment law is available as a tool for funding certain public improvements, the following factors must be evaluated by the City Council: a) Start -up costs are substantial -- $40,000 - $50,000 b) Timing may be a problem - completion of our General Plan may be more important at this particular time. Redevelopment may not be the city's highest priority at this time. c) It is extremely difficult to document blighted conditions on raw land. d) The revenues derived from tax increments will be extremely small, particularly if other taxing agencies request their respective shares. e) If staff is working on redevelopment, other important planning projects must be temporarily set aside. Because of the numerous problems now facing the city, it is recommended that the city not become involved in establishing a redevelopment agency at this time. At sometime in the future, when many of our problems have been dealt with, redevelopment should again be considered by the City Council. Another option available to the City Council is to create the redevelopment agency by adopting the appropriate ordinance. Feasibility studies and the assembly of other information could be scheduled for a later date. 17 Fo r) FRCV.s Jon Mkelc TCt Rancho Cucwionr,a City DA M� : 3121, /? q ,1$: Tax increment l'inance Fort Propc: itio- '_? )r, of tw-. revenuer necessary that rapidly f.ro,5. cities oxzlore altcrnati - neans of financinf- i,tiblic ir.T.iuvc:ionts. CnE ,-,u,-- nether', "Tax Increment Finance',' deservep rtuOy ard. Rancho Cucamonga an a pos7ltle aid in th,• drrwlo.c-crt c:' 1 1- industrial-commercial scctrr-. Post ?ropcsitior 33 lerisllat4on maneate7 that taxes t),,, county be redistributed on a fcrn.ula ba,:Is. The a"nunt o: clt y receives ir baser' or, the a-count of taxes; collected uricr t, Fropositir,r 13 from that zren compared t(, all oth-r cic!,• t')p iurisrilction on iroparticzn.ta ba:-ir. The r(ma;nflor lor,i,ila it bated i—rrrely cr -ealth per caclta• neanE that cr, cit,., ,ay i::t,cr!o.ncr troncrj'c-f- de.tcr-. : Irc 4n rrowth am valve o° ;tr t}x -rc.. After t*i;, 7 ',ine nrovcr"o. al] f•lt r,,vTnu, ;stove t , Mr being red! ::trib,ite I ° the Ircr, ---tP.1 val•,F, it tn.wer- r arsi�ned t, the e= -F I that j-ro•ith. ':o 7rttrr err ho i rt n, c i tv rroxz it . I!, � the nrevius pro•orlAon cf t�ir co• nty tPx r4r)]1 ,.r, ever ..`+ t4r ,-ro•,th creattef: ce Of-.r 61- r• �41y crviccr. Lr� .,rthod of part I y c. 5 r., ntir- thl r ,, I t , F!-� '�- io5nc I n i : i 7.� 7 T 7, f r " �- i �: t-L-1111. ' % ,,.crenc-rr- .'4•,ancr". .1 rrcr itatuto�, a city ar r,r- �n?e Vie p 4�, ', ;—P�tcd tw 1,ouresr;ci c"rawn, t-.:, de.tcr-. : Irc C,!r, h' :3e and rr,vo-le Ir,, t}x -rc.. After t*i;, 7 ',ine al] f•lt r,,vTnu, ;stove t , Mr w^Ich •w.. , lewd by all "rveln". r th( -i mr• arsi�ned t, the e= -F I ney. It-,! a: :ency err irrl- to r1nallaQ d1r( c tly ntr !•I the area or the tax ir,crg-r I inroj tier 7 ,,�!Vorrir, I lunstltutjo• qnr t been u.-rd ',;r r red, elopmF.nt, r. A. (CC t tl and ,tors t 1. t ". in 1 -r tri ,1 _2_ Since Rancho Cucanen a is experiencing tremendous eemar ?c fcr (rowth of its industrial sector, and since that prosth 'c.._ require public improvements ahtch uneoubtedly will incrr.r" property valuer. In the area without acs,iring the city e.r a proportionate increase in tax revenues, such a tax allcceaion system should be considered by the city in conjunction ,with its planning for these sectors. I. That the city attorney provide the City Council, Flannirg pommission, and staff with copies of the enabling legislation, pertinent data and any relevant case studies regarding tr:x increment finance for consideration in conjunction with rlanning for the industrial- commercial sectors of our community; 2. That the city lo;ialative and administrative todinr '-,,vin explorinp the feacib;lity of rctahlir.hnnnt of rrdeve le.•rc t areas in Rancho a. %vell eri brcominp apprised of ty;.�, of tcndine, which ,i�'Iit mill to permitted iropnciti; lepi o-il ati rn. hn r. ^i.r enact r,P. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM April 2, 1961 TO: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman City Manager SUBJECT: Civic Center �� As Council is aware, we are very close to tying down a future civic center site near the intersection of Haven and Foothill. You are also aware that we have established a civic center reserve, and we transfer into that account each year a portion of the overhead costs we are now computing as a result of the recent passage of Propositio 4. At the present time, we have approximately $850 thousand in the civi center reserves. This money may be used for land acquisition or other costs related to the civic center. Unfortunately the over- head rate is based upon a projected cost of $3.2 million for the civic center. That figure is quite low in view of today's costs and the need for a permanent facility which will include ample space so we will not have to construct new buildings in the future. When we approach the idea of a civic center publically, we will be stressing not only the need for permanent facilities, but also the fact that we are presently spending approximately $60,000 per year for rental of facilities which are less than adequate to meet the city's present needs. our emphasis will also be aimed towards the cost savings which may be derived by working with the County in some type of joint facility that will reduce some of the costs for land acquisition and T am sure we willl also save in the long range financing by establishing some type civic center authority or other financing devise. As we have indicated, we are quite close to tying down a specific site and the joint announcement is anticipated which will involve city officials and members of the Board of Supervisors. The primary purpose of this memo is merely to keep you updated on the status of the civic center site. As you know our General Plan has indicated that the area of Haven and Foothill is a suitable location for such a facility. IT City Council Re: Civic Center April 2, 1981 Page 2 We also wish to remind you that included in the overall concept of the joint civic center and low and justice center is land which at some point in the future may house the building for a cultural center. Because of the substantial cost we will incur for the civic center construction, the cultural center is something which is down the road. LMW:baa ac CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM April 2, 1981 TO: City Council 1911 FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman City Manager SUBJECT: policy Option - Ca elian Landscaping Council may recall that one of our high priority street projects is to correct a serious traffic hazard which exists on Carnelian bet- ween Base Line and Foothill Boulevard. We have immediate plans to straighten the roadway at the "S" turn. Along with that project we talked in previous years about installing landscaping and park- ways between Foothill and Base Line to provide a more positive image of our community. We discussed funding those improvements by using reserve funds which must be appropriated or they adversely impact our overall spending limits as set forth in Proposition 4. As we begin our budget process, we already know that we are going to have our first experience with severe fiscal restraints. As a result of our problems, it is my suggestion to the City Council that you consider postponing the Carnelian Parkway and Landscaping Improvements. We have estimated the cost to be approximately $400,000. We have the design already so it is merely a matter of installing the improvements at some point down the road when funds are available if Council agrees with the recommendation. When considering a delay of this important project, it is important to consider the other areas which are equally important to the community, but represent more immediate needs. While costs will increase if Carnelian landscaping and parkway improvements are not done immediately, the fact is that they can be completed at a later date, perhaps through grant funds or new revenue sources. At this time, we cannot specifically indicate what other alternative projects may be of a higher priority in the Council's view. We will have that information, however, as the budget process continues What we are asking from the Council is simply some indication of or whether you still feel that Carnelian is a top - priority project whether the City Council ma,E be willing to postpone the much needed landscaping improvements until our budget situation is more stable. Again, we are looking for a general indication from the City roceed Council. If you feel that the Carnelian landscaping must p immediately, we need to know that so that we can plan our expendi- tures accordingly. LMW:baa as r r n u. �0 r C7 STAFF REPORT F U 1977 DATE: July 16, 1990 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Approval of Carnelian Street Realignment and Landscape Design Contracts Attached for Council execution are design contracts with Genge Consultants for the realignment of Carnelian Street and the landscape improvement of the Carnelian parkway areas from Foothill Blvd. to Hillside St. Both of these projects were included in this year's budget for construction. Genge Consultants recently completed the landscape concept plan for Carnelian Street, whicn was approved by the Planning Commi- ssion and the City Council. Because of funding constraints, the project will be phased. Phase I will cover the parkway areas from Foothill Blvd. to Base Line with some work at the intersection with 19th Street. Phase II will complete the project from Base Line to Hillside. The Phase I design cost shall not exceed $19,125.00 and Phase II $23,625.00. Genge was chosen to complete plans for the realignment of Carnelian through the "S" curve area south of Base Line in order to insure full coordination between the street and landscape design efforts. The realignment design contract is not to exceed a budget of $18,700.00. It would be expected that both construction projects will be coordinated for concurrent con- struction. RECOPXENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve execution of design contracts with Genge Consultants for the realignment and land- scape improvement of Carnelian Street from Foothill Blvd. to Hillside Street. Respectfully Sl+bmitted, LBH: f71a Att.ach.mont ,?3 Genge Consvl; ant; 1500 Red Mill Avenue Telephone of Southern California I ire 204 71417546222 Irvine, California Engineers, Planners 92714 & Surveyors July 10, 1980 City of Cucamonga Community Development Department 9340 Base Line Street, Suite A Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer Regarding: Proposal for Landscape Architectural Services - Landscape Construction Documents for Carnelian Street Dear Mr. Hubbs: Genge Consultants is pleased to submit this contract in response to your request. This contract addresses Phase 11, construction documentation and contract administration, Phase I (Analysis and Conceptual Landscape Design) being recently completed. Genge Consultants enjoyed working with the City staff in providing the Phase I product, and look forward to continuing service to the City. The following contract summarizes our Scope of Work and Fees for Phase 11, Construction Documentation. As in the previous work effort, Genge Consultants fully intends to meet the City's time frame for completion of all tasks. Respectfully submitted, GENGE CONSULTANTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA {/ tlolwsl Myron E. Browning, P.E. Vice President 7SL:M EB /aes a,4 Ja J. Stephen ong Planning Director MEMORANDUM Y � C C C r• U � 1977 January 28, 1981 TO: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Ma na SUBJECT: Maintenance Districts Council has received from Lloyd a memo outlining the alternatives available with respect to establishing a City -wide maintenance district. You should be aware that the hearings are scheduled for June on our existing main- tenance district. We anticipate some resistence to the assessments due to the fact that the areas involved are somewhat limited. Lloyd has indicated that some assessments may be in the area of $90.00 per house. We could establish a City -wide district and reduce the fee to approxi- mately $10.00 to $15.00 per residence. However, we would anticipate some resistence to that even though it makes sense, since all citizens benefit from landscape areas and improved medians in our streets. The purpose of this memo is to ask for some informal Council direction whether you feel we should proceed with a landscape maintenance district as it is presently established with very limited involvement, or whether you feel the City -wide district would be in the Community's best interest. A third alternative, which presents some problems, is to place the measure on the ballot at the next Municipal Election. The problem with that alternative is that even if it is approved by voters, we must go back every three years to re- establish the fees. It is possible that in three years residents may decide that they no longer wish to support the maintenance district and the General'"Mwill be obligated to pick up the cost or we will be faced with reducfing the level of maintenance to the point where it would be disastrous. Please let me know how you feel concerning these alternatives. If the Council is inclined to support a City -wide district, we should be initiating the overall studies and identification alternatives available. We have discussed, among staff, the feasibility of having one district for areas west of Haven and a separate district for the Lewis and Lion Devel- Continued...... a6 City Council Re: Maintenance Districts January 28, 1981 Page Two opments. Both of those planned communities will have a somewhat higher level of maintenance requirement, since there will be large greenbelts within those communities. It is important that you let us know how you feel as soon as possible. LMW /vz WA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MENIORANDUNI DATE: March 31, 1981 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Landscape Maintenance District In my memo of January 16, 1981, the option of establishing a City- wide landscape maintenance district was discussed in general. Since that time staff has been reviewing the various options and costs. It has been concluded that if the City wishes to maintain its commitment to City beautification through improvement of parkways and the development of landscaped median islands, a stable source of revenue to cover these costs needs to be developed. If. such a source is not developed it would be fiscally extremely dangerous to continue the current parkway improvement program. The City currently maintains approximately 350,000 square feet of parkways at a cost of 35 cents per square foot per year for a total cost of $122,500. The existing Parkway Maintenance District covers 187,449 square feet at a cost of $65,607. We are currently adding approximately 100,000 square feet per year through tract annexations to the District and parkway restoration and development. Annexations to the District are self funded but restorations and development are funded through the general fund. To establish future funding requirements, staff has estimated the extent of parkway and median island maintenance costs for the area west of Haven at full development. The costs generated in this area would likely be duplicated east of Haven but should be self sufficient through District annexation. At full development, the City would be maintaining 1,805,166 square feet of parkway and pproximately 1,000,000 square feet of median islands. Full maintenance cost would be: Parkways 1,805,166 x 0.35 = 631,808 Median Islands 1,000,000 x 0.35 = 350,000 TOTAL $981,808 (west of Haven) Of this nearly 1 million dollars, it is estimated that only one third (1/3) would be covered by maintenance districts under the current Program. The additional area including all median islands would become a general fund liability of over $600,000 in current value. F7 Landscape Maintenance District Page 2 The January 16 memo identified two options for the development of a stable funding source. • Election with City Tax • City -wide Maintenance District Staff recommends the establishment of the City -wide District as the most effective and expenditious method of establishing a stable fund- ing mechanism and accomplishing the goal of a beautiful City. An election would have to be repeated every three years and be sub- ject to 2/3 vote. Even if the assessment passed intially there is always the danger of losing it in some future election and be faced with a shock funding crisis and potential loss of the investment. District formation can be accomplished through the hearing process under the provisions of the 1972 Landscape and Lighting Act. Esta- blishment of the District could be accomplished this budget year at a cost of less than $10,000 and could be maintained by vote of Council each year by the advertisement and conduct of a hearing. Under the law, first year assessments would require written notice to all property owners within the City. Annual hearing requires only the advertisement of a hearing. ASSESSMENT CALCULATION Assessment calculation would depend on the method used to spread the assessments. The Council would have several options in this area to recognize assumed differences in benefit by differing land uses. The Council could choose to establish differing assessments for commercial, industrial, multi family development, single family homes and vacant or agricultural lands. This technique would involve extensive administrative inventories to be conducted by the staff and add substantially to the district assessment to cover these costs. The County Assessor has no effective inventory of these categories of land that can be readily tapped. A division of vacant /agriculture, industrial /commercial, and variation of single family were used by the County in the Benefit Assessment Program and proved to be highly inaccurate and difficult to administer. Staff would suggest that variation in benefit could be accounted for if a simple parcel assessment were levied. The primary burden would fall with the homeowners but nominal assessments would be obtained from the larqer acreage commercial, industrial and vacant lands. There are currently 17,622 parcels within the City. This year's total parkway maintenance budget is estimated at approximately 270,000. Assuming the uniform assessment per parcel to cover just cost of maintenance, this year's assessment would be $15.32 per parcel. This is suostantially below the $74.30 estimated for the current district and would cover the complete maintenance 'program of parkway maintenance, weed control and miscellaneous restoration. 9 �_ Landscape Maintenance District Page 3 The ultimate assessment at full build out west of Haven has been estimated based on General Plan Land Use of 30,000 parcels at $982,800 or approximately $32.73 per parcel. This would not seem to be an unreasonable burden for the benefits received. In order to provide funds for the development of the parkway system and offset the impacts of inflationary expansion, it would be recommended that the initial assessment identify funds for parkway development and increase the initial levy of $20 to $25 per parcel. This could make 80 to 150 thousand dollars available for projects to enhance the environment. The amount available for construction could be reduced each year to absorb inflationary pressures allowing the assessment to remain constant for several years. CONCLUSION It is concluded that the Council should seriously consider implemen- tation of the outlined program for the upcoming budget year. If it is decided to progress,the District would have to be formed by early to mid July to post assessment in August. A decision on this matter should be considered soon. Respectfully submitted, i C2 -t-17 LBH: jaa cc: Jack Lam Paul Rougeau Monte Prescher Dave Leonard Bill Holley Barry Hogan a17 MENIORA14DUM DATE: January 16, 1991 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Landscape and Parkway Maintenance As the Council is aware during the past year the City formed Landscape Maintenance District No. I to include all recently recorded tracts for the maintenance of parkways related to those tracts. We have also required the annexation of all tracts recorded from the date of District formation. The Maintenance District was established under the provisions of the 1972 Landscape and Lighting Act which requires annual hearings to establish the current years assessments. Under this act the hearing must be held in June of each year. As you will recall the City chose to establish one District with the intention of increasing that District to include the entire City at some future date. This philosophy was based on the concept that parkway improvements are of general benefit and that the maintenance should be handled over the broadest base possible. The current assessments under the district are approximately $90 per year per household. The assessments were levied this year and to date the Staff has received only a few questions from taxed residents. We would however expect that some adverse reaction may be received when hearings are held in June. Under the current program improved parkway maintenance is being born by only the new tracts which establishes serious questions of equity. I haven't found a good answer to this problem other than seeking a City-wide funding mechanism. continued... ES: Memo to City Council and City Manager Re: Landscape and Parkway Maint. January 16, 1981 Page 2 There are two alternative methods of developing a City -wide mechanism. 1. Place a measure on the ballot for City approval of an ad-valorem tax. Two- thirds vote required. 2. Establish a City -wide Landscape Maintenance District under the 1972 Act. Under either proposal it appears that a strictly maintenance program would be $10 to $15 per house per year. If we included a sum for parkway development we could increase the amount to $20 per year. Placing the issue to the voters carries with it two significant problems; First, if the measure fails then we have a definite choice by the people to not maintain parkways, and Second, this measure would compete with other City needs which we may wish to pursue through the election process, i.e., storm drains, parks, etc. A City-wide district has the advantage of being implementable by a vote of the Council. Although the issue could be extremely volatile you will insure against failure and parkways could be maintained and developed under an equitable financing program. The problem with this method is the administrative burden and cost of forming the District. Under the law we would be required to notice all property owners included in the District and invite their participation in a public hearing. That could be an extremely interesting meeting. I expect however that even the normal District hearing will be volatile and we will have the difficulty of explaining the equity problem. I thought that since things are so quiet in the City now I would present this problem to the Council early so that you would have something fun to consider besides trash. continued... 3( Memo to City Council and City Manager Re: Landscape and Parkway Maint. January Ib, 1981 Page 3 If the Council should decide to proceed with a City -wide Landscape District under the 1972 Act, it would be appropriate to also consider a City -wide lighting district at the same time under the same law. As you are aware the City currently budgets some $325,000 for street lighting energy charges. These costs could be distributed throughout the City through use of the District procedure and generate additional gneeral funds for City operations. We will attempt in the next month to further refine the District formation concept for discussion with the Council. If you have any questions please call. LBH:bic cc: Jack Lam Jim Robinson Harry Empey Barry Hogan Bill Holley 30Z CITY OF RANCHO CUCANIONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: April 3, 1981 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development 1977 SUBJECT: BUDGET IMPLICATIONS The austerity of the upcoming budget as well as future budgets, have many implications for the Community Development Department's level of service. As you know, the level of work activity has been frantic and will continue to be so, so long as the development potential of this Community remains high. Advance planning activities in both Planning and Engineering will continue as well as the high pace of current plan review activities. Many of the staff have spent evenings and weekends working to provide a high level of service for both activities but this frantic response to the workload cannot be expected to continue because declining morale will result in diminishing returns. The new budget will not provide for new personnel. This in itself will constitute a cut in the level of services since we must time all special projects and development review to a more normal pace so that employee morale can be maintained as well as the quality of review activities. If the future holds limited ability to finance new staff, we must look towards reexamining priorities, examining new programs as well as pos- sibly restructuring existing programs, to help improve the situation. I believe the frantic dedication to the workload by most employees has been due to anticipation that new staffing would be added to assist in the work program. The proposed budget emphasizes some equipment purchase that is intended to help maintain efficiency in the years to come. For instance, the purchase of a word processing system and microfiche system that at this early stage can provide improved office work as well as information management. In other words, if we cannot hire staff, :ct us spend some available resources to acquire equipment to enable the existing staff to be more productive, Development Review in all three divisions has been maintained at a high level. This is readily apparent if one examines the review statistics and compares them to other communities. What is interesting is that this is being accomplished with less staff than such other communities. However, this level of service cannot be maintained in the long term without additional staffing. Without the staffing, the level of service must be reduced. In other words, review activities must slow down so that a much more normal pace given the current staffing may be achieved. The consequences, of course, will be more complaints of the length of development review, especially since development proposals are occurring at a steam roller pace. 33 Budget Implications April 3, 1981 Page Two One recommendation that staff will be making to the City Council will be the restructuring of the Growth Management Plan so that the three review periods a year might be eliminated in favor of unrestricted ap- plication periods. The three review periods were intended to allow greater control of the workload and discourage speculation; however, the strength of the development potential in the City, we believe, has overwhelmed the system. We now believe that given the activity level, elimination of review periods may allow the workload to be better dis- tributed throughout the year. Furthermore, the restricted periods pres- sure private engineers to produce an application just to get the "foot in the door ". In some cases this has resulted in very poor applications that must be thoroughly revised creating extra work for everyone and extra cost for the developer. Hopefully, the elimination of the re- view period would reduce the pressure on everyone so that more thought might be put into the initial application. While this is not a panacea for the level of service problem, it can help to provide some assistance. While this memo has addressed the issue of workload relative to Develop- ment Review, it has not yet addressed the inevitable need for inspection services. Development projects, especially tracts, that have been ap- proved through the Growth Management Plan will be approaching building permit stage in the next fiscal year. When this activity begins, the need for building inspection services and public works inspection ser- vices will reach a new demand level. Examination of the present number of inspection staff will attest to the minimum staffing the City has maintained presently. Any increase in inspection activities will re- quire addition of inspection personnel. The aboveare some of the implications for the year to come. With the recognition that the budget will be austere and that levels of service must be reduced, understanding is needed to carry us through the coming challenges. Res p ctfu�ll submitted, JAC L erector Community Development JL:jk 3Y April 9, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Adjourned Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER. An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, on Thursday, April 9, 1981. The meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m, by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Present: Councilmen James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombo, and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; Deptuy City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; Assistant City Manager, James Robinson; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Planner, Barry Hogan; City Engineer, Lloyd Hobbs; Building Official, Jerry Grant; Finance Director, Harry Empey; and Community Services Director, Bill Holley. Absent: Councilman Arthur H. Bridge who was ill. 2. BUDGET OVERVIEW. Harry Empey, Fiannce Director and Lauren Wasserman, City Manager, presented a brief summary of the status of the 1980 -81 Program of Service. They also reported on items which would relate to the 1981 -82 fiscal budget which included the pro- bable loss of the $250,000 in State bailout funds; changes in the budgetary procedures as a result of Proposition 4; explanation of overhead rates; and a summary of anticipated revenues for 1981 -82. 3. DISCUSSION OF ANTICIPATED SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1981 -82. Each department head presented a summary of the anticipated services which would be offered during the coming year. Council, then, discussed general levels of service for the community. 4. POLICY OPTIONS. The Council discussed the following policy options and gave staff the following directions: a. Feasibility of establishing city -wide street lighting and parkway maintenance districts. Council directed staff to begin a study of the feasibility of establishing such maintenance districts. b. Feasibility of establishing a redevelopment agency as recommended by the city's financial task force. Mayor Schlosser stated that he felt the concensus of the City Council was to move ahead in the establish- ment of a Redevelopment Agency within the city. c. Discussion concerning Carnelian Parkway Improvement Protect. Council directed staff to hold this item until the next budget meeting. d. Feasibility of raducing fixed trannir rnuroa which may not hn nm. mayor achlosser ana GOUncllman ealomba Suggested a review of the route should take place and consideration should be given to dropping Route 50. Councilman Mikels suggested operating the Route at peak hours only. e. Discussion of Growth Management Plan processing problems. Council directed staff to review and do whatever is necessary to alleviate problems in an ordinance. f. Discussion of Civic Center facilities. Staff stated that in the long run it would not be cost effective for the city to remain in rented facilities and suggested that Council authorize staff to evaluate the City Council Minutes peril 9, 1981 Page 'h+o Went city- p6'ned to obtain penaa �V° on this item available dlrected staff to various alterTl City C°Oncil of available options• Sharin funds. for and begin study and Federal Revenua funds the public hearing Process be Seserva city reserve funds he Discu If cit initiate of the g• Council. diacusaion Council directe3 sta that meeting• Revenue Sharit and budget poaiPOned to the next ded by Mike I to adjourn to an Motion: YalOm ]oyee relations, ecu,jV,Sevene• The Muved by Session at discuss ewp1,yec -emp adjourned to ppJOURNMENR. 4_O The meeting SXecutive Session t0 mously Motion carried unani tied. 8;35 4• m Respectfully submi City Clerk