Loading...
Budget 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.