The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-Council Office - o o WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE January 9, 1989 ATTENDEES: Councilwoman Esther Estrada, Chairwoman Councilman Jess Flores Councilwoman Norine Miller Jim RObbins, Acting City Administrator John Cole, Council Administrative Assistant Denice Brue, Deputy City Attorney Fred Wilson, Asst. to city Administrator Ken Henderson, Director, Community Development Chief Donald Burnett, Police Department Lt. Jerry Devlin, Police Department Manuel Moreno, Jr., Director, Public Services Richard Bennecke, Executive Asst. to the Mayor Jim RiChardson, Deputy city Admin./Development 1. VICTIM SUPPORT FUNDING - The Committee recommended approval of $29,000 for the Victim Support Services Program. It was also recommended that $21,000 of the Public Buildings budget allocated for repair of roofs at various btanch libraries be used. These are monies that were identified in the general fund that can be replaced by CDBG funds. The Committee requested that the remaining $8,000 be approved out of the 89/90 CDBG allocations. This item will be brought before the Council on February 6, 1989. (See attached information. ) 2. STREET SWEEPING SURVEY - The Committee recommended, based on the results of the survey conducted by Public Services, that no fee be charged for street sweeping. The Acting City Administrator and the Director of Public Services were requested to provide more information of what other cities are doing regarding a parking control program and what such a program costs. This item will be brought back to the Committee February 13, 1989. (See attached information.) Meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, ~~<~ ouncilwoman Esther Estrada Chairwoman Ways & Means Committee -- EE:sr s: C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R ~NTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM '- 8901-1301 DIN 0 () REC'D.-ADMIH. Off. 1989 JAM -6 lM 9: 19 TO: James Robbins Acting city Administrator FROM: Kenneth J. Henderson Director of Community Development JfC-i SUBJECT: VICTIM SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM DATE: January 6, 1989 COPIES: Chief of Police; Director of Finance; Deputy city Administrator-Development Services; Community Development Specialist: File At the last regular meeting of the Ways and Means Committee, staff was directed to inquire of the Directors of Public Works, Public Services and Parks, Recreation and Community Services as to whether there are projects currently financed by the city General Fund which are eligible for CDBG funding. The Committee's objective was to identify monies from the General Fund which could be appropriated to the Victim Support services program administered by the Police Depart- ment and replace the General Fund monies with funds from 'the block grant. In light of the fact the City has obligated fifteen percent (15%) of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for public services, no further appropriations from this year's grant can be made for such activities. As such, I received responses from the Director of Public Works and the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. It appears that either of the alternatives sub- mitted by the Director of Public Works would be eligible for CDBG financing, although the roof repair activities are easier to document in terms of low and moderate benefit. I will be available at the Committee meeting to provide additional information or clarification as needed. Development KJH/lab attachments ~ I. - C I T Y OF SAN BERNAR OINTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8901-1301 t) NO TO: James Robbins Acting City Administrator REC'O.-ADMIH. OFF. I9S9 JAM -6 l~ 9: 19 FROM: Kenneth J. Henderson Director of Community Development -:rf2i SUBJECT: VICTIM SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM DATE: January 6, 1989 COPIES: Chief of Police; Director of Finance; Deputy city Administrator-Development Services; Community Development Specialist; File ------------------------------------------------------------- At the last regular meeting of the Ways and Means Committee, staff was directed to inquire of the Directors of Public Works, Public Services and Parks, Recreation and Community Services as to whether there are projects currently financed by the City General Fund which are eligible for CDBG funding. The Committee's objective was to identify monies from the General Fund which could be appropriated to the Victim Support Services program administered by the Police Depart- ment and replace the General Fund monies with funds from the block grant. In light of the fact the City has obligated fifteen percent (15%) of its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for pUblic services, no further appropriations from this year's grant can be made for such activities. As such, I received responses from the Director of Public Works and the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. It appears that either of the alternatives sub- mitted by the Director of Public Works would be eligible for CDBG financing, although the roof repair activities are easier to document in terms of low and moderate benefit. I will be available at the Committee meeting to provide additional information or clarification as needed. Development KJH/lab attachments - CITY OF SAN t:iERNARDINO - ~MORANDUM '."',.... To' KEN HENDERSON, DIRECTOR COMMUNITY Development Subject CDBG Fundi ng for General Fund Projects -- Vi ctim Support Services From ROGER G. HARDGRAVE, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer December 19, 19BB File No. 6.50 , Date ApproveC Date In response to your memo of 12-14-88, listed below are two options to transfer CDBG Funds to replace General Funds. 1. $21,000 is allocated in the Public Buildings Budget for repair of roofs at various branc" libraries ana community centers. 2. A budget transfer has been submitted to provide $33,000 for replacing the cooling tower for Central City Mall. Please advise if you feel one of these options appea:" feasible. We will be glad to discuss these projects with you greater detail if you so desire. I. ---- .-- 6Ec20,;- I .'- ---- ----- - ------ - -- ---- HARDGRAVE of Public Works/City Engineer RGH/ckc cc: Jim Robbins, Acting City Administrator Jim Richardson, Acting Director Building & Safety Andrew Green, Director of Finance Wayne Overstreet, Superintendent, Public Buildings PRDE -f ~ss CITY OF SAN ~RNARDINO - ~EMORANDUM - To Ken Henderson Director of Community Development CDBG FUNDING FOR GENERAL FUND PROJECTS _ VICTIM SUPPORT SERVICES From Annie F. Ramos, Director Parks, Recreation and Community Services December 19, 1988 Subject Date Approved Date ~s per your request through memorandum dated December 14, 1988 we have reviewed our budget items relevant to the above subject. After careful review we have determined that the only budget area where general funds are presently utilized ~ich might fit into the CDBG funding program would be the Social Service contracts. This fiscal year the amount for the Social Service Contracts is $40,000.00 however, in the 1989-90 budget this amount will be reduced to $20,000. a; h""p~'''' ,1"" ,," ~. ~~NIE F. RAMOS, DIRECTOR Parks, Recreation and Community Services AFR: fw D rn@~O\Y1[gfi\' OEC I 91008 PRIDE -I ~ C I T ~O F SAN B ERN A R ~ N 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8901-904 TO: Ways and Means Committee FROM: Fred A. Wilson, Assistant to the City Administrator ~ SUBJECT: Results of Street Sweeping Survey DATE: January 6, 1989 COPIES: James E. RObbins, James C. RiChardson, Manuel P. Moreno, Jr. ------------------------------------------------------------- At the July 11, 1988 meeting, the Ways and Means Committee considered the feasibility of establishing a city-wide street sweeping fee as one potential source of new revenue. An executive summary of this report is provided as an attachment. As noted on this report, two alternatives were presented regarding the street sweeping fee. The first included establishing a user fee for current street sweeping services in the amount of $1.00 per month for single family homes, $5.00 per month for retail/commercial and $26.00 per nonth for apartment complexes and mobile home parks. The revenue to be generated was estimated to be approximately $708,000 per year. The second alternative was to establish a user fee for street sweeping which upgraded the services from once to twice per month. The residential fee under this alternative would be $1.40 per month, $7.00 per month for retail/commercial and $37.10 for apartment complexes and mobile home parks. The revenue under this alternative was estimated at approximately $990,000 annually. It was also proposed to utilize a portion of the revenue generated to establish an on-going capital replacement program for the city's fleet of street sweepers. The Ways and Means Committee, after considering this proposal, requested staff to perform a survey in order to obtain citizen input on this proposal to establish a monthly fee for street sweeping services as well as on the issue of establishing a parking control program that would prohibit on-street parking only during the times the street would be scheduled to be swept. The copy of the proposed survey 1s also provided as an attachment. In order to obtain a representative sampling from the City as a whole, 1,200 homes from each ward were surveyed. This survey was conducted in early December and the results of the survey by ward are provided as an attachment. ~:l- INTEROFFICE MEMO~: 8901-904 Results of street~eeping Survey January 6, 1989 Page 2 o The overall response rate for the survey was approximately 21% with 1,650 responses returned. SUMMARY OF RESULTS Willing to ~ay a fee of approximately $1.40 per month in order to rece1ve twice per month street sweeping services Yes -- 717 (43.5%) No -- 933 (56.5%) Support for a parking control program that would prohibit on- street parking only during the times the street was scheduled to be swept -- Yes -- 1,083 (65.6%) No -- 565 (34.4%) OPTIONS The following options are available to the Committee with respect to the street sweeping fee proposal: 1. Establish a services in family. user fee for current street sweeping the amount of $1.00 per month for single 2. Establish a user fee for upgraded street sweeping services from once to twice per month with a residential fee of approximately $1.40 per month. 3. Discontinue city Service and contract with the private sector. 4. No change in current street sweeping program. . WILSON Assistant to the City Administrator FAW/sh Attachment - - o o EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STREET SWEEPING FEE Attached is a detailed report setting forth a for a user fee for street sweeping services. This in follow-up to direction by the Mayor and Common explore new revenue sources in response to constraints encountered in the current (1987-1988) proposal report was Council to financial budget. currently, the Public Services Department provides street sweeping services to residents on a monthly basis and commercial/retail service three to five times per week depending upon location. A discussion of the constraints or problems of changing this current practice is provided along with four alternatives for policy consideration. A. CUrrent Service User Fee: Establish a user fee for current street sweeping services. The fee would be $1.00 per month for single family, $5.00 per month for retail/ commercial and $26.00 per month for apartment complexes and mobile home parks. The revenue to be generated would be $708,282 per year. B. Uoaraded Service User Fee: Establish a user fee for street sweeping upgraded from once to twice per month for residential units. The single residential fee would be $1.40 per month, $7.00 per month for retail/commercial and $37.10 for apartment complexes and mobile home parks. The revenue for this alternative would be $991,594 annually. C. Outside Contractor: Discontinue city service and contract with the private sector. The possibility of future cost increases present significant problems for city control and potential lowering the level of service. The cost savings are undetermined. D. No Chanae: Continue the current city street sweeping services. The staff recommendation is for adoption of alternative WAW which would be delayed by four months for inplementation during the first year. This proposal would wfree upw $541,248 in the General Fund for the 1988-89 Budget to meet other city needs such as street repairs and/or street overlay. However, the Mayor and Common Council may not wish to impose this new user fee at this time. 1\):lIit. IIW88Q '.uO 'NIHQY-'O.~311 . . o (/)"'00 At 0 _. U) :::J 0':;; "0 DlZO" CD' -:1 3d(/)3 OJ - IU CD ... (J')::J ::I 9::::-m- ::J CD CD 0 P~3- III ." a.l: _. cr ::J = o n (/) CD < ir CD OJ o :l- ID N .. ~ OJ i!~;! & I=~ ~ 5Vm >, <i <: E 'x E "- "- " ... o :r. '" OJ "" " " 'E >. '" " <To "-"" .8 c bel 's. ~ ~ ~ .~ :; '" '" .0 i: ::l ~ o <To >...c :!:! t: ::l 0 ~ E ... r.n :J CJ "- " E ::; rJ 5 ~ 2 c "0. "'0 Q.l 'S OJ c ~ 5- "- .oJ ,.2:. CJ ~ OJ c b OJ 'J) t ..c ::l ~ " 5 .;!: E ~. ... .- "'u "" .. "'..c .~ f-< ~ '" ('. .. .c 'Sj ~ u g e E o ... ... .. t "" "Cl ~ ::; =. ~; >. QI > "" :l 00 bIl s:: ... ~ QI QI ~ 00 .... QI QI "" .... 00 -; ... -a QI 'tS ! ~ o , :: o >. '" .. .5 ~ .. .c ~ "" c 'C ::l ",,' >. -a O' .. c:: :.>: .. " "- ~ .. e ~ <Il , c:: o - :0 :E E "- "" :; o ~ ~ " .c - z E " to o .. "- "0 .. ('. ~ ~ c:: "- o '" u ~ .. .. .5 II) ...:.0 ; g """Cl .. .. t::g o .. "-..c "- u ;l III III ::l .- o ... >. e 8'0: III ~ <>4 z .... :l c: .. E :! ~ u ., .' ,..~ . t~ ! ~ ; -----1 - . . 'WARD 1 0 YES FOR $1.40 41 NO FOR $1.40 65 YES FOR OSF'. Sf. NO FOR O. :::P. so F:ETUF:N 1 ',)6 '4'AF:D '-, '" YE':;, FOF: $1 .40 '30 NO FOR $1 .40 145 YE':;' FOF: O:O.P. 15::;' NO FOF: 0.::'. F'. :=:7 ~ . RETUF:~j 245 WARD .-, .;. YES FOR $1 .40 10:=: NO FOR $1 .40 10::;: YES FOR C.S.P. 140 NO FOR O::;.P. €o6 F:ETUF:N 206 WARD 4 YES FOF: $1 .40 125 NO FOF: $1 _40 ~:O7 YE':;, FOF: o '3. P. :~:O~: NO FOF: O. ':;'. P. 129 RETURN 4:=:2 WARD 5 YES FOR $1.40 124 NO FOR $1.40 137 YES FOR O.S.P. 154 NO FOR O.S.P. 107 RETURN 261 WARO 6 YES FOR $1.40 75 NO FOR $1.40 75 YES FOR O.S.P. 111 NO FOR O.S.P. 39 RETURN 150 WARD 7 YES FOR $1.40 152 NO FOR $1.40 212 YES FOR D.S.P. 242 NO FOR O.S.P. 125 RETUF:N 3~~ o