The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-City Administrator ,j,. '" o 0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Development Department ORE-TIME COST COST CATEGORY AMOUNT $3,000,000 $ 496,000 ELIGIBILITY Purchase of Old Police Station Eligible Purchase of Cemetery Expansion Property Ineligible Unless, certain specific conditions imposed ARRUAL COST COST CATEGORY AMOUNT ELIGIBILITY Carousel Mall Maintenance $ 785,339 Eligible Carousel Mall Security $ 322,657 Eligible Fire Station and Central $ 885,081 Ineligible Library Bond Payments (Normal Operating Expense) Convention/Visitors Bureau Operating Funds $ 260,000 Eligible City Clerk Services $ 6,697 Eligible City Attorney Legal Services $ 61,039 Eligible Facilities Management Services $ 22.766 Eligible TOTAL *5..8~9..57CJ - ... "- o o ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Development Department FIlWl'CIAL IIIPACT OF AGDCY ASSUMING CERTAIN COSTS CURIlERTLY PAID BY CIn GE!IUAL I'OlID (INCLUDES CIn CHARGEBACU AND PlIIlCJWlE OF CIn ASSETS LISTED ON PREVIOUS PAGE) Total Agency unencumbered tax increment as of January 8, 1992: $ 3,800,000 Total Agency unencumbered bond proceeds as of January 8, 1992: $16,094,152 Total potential cost of $5,816,000 to be assumed by Agency of which $2,320,000 are annual costs and $3,496,000 are one-time costs. If Agency assumed Mall Security, Mall Maintenance and the Bond payments on Central Library and Central Fire Station (if legal): $3.8 million in tax increment would be reduced to $800,000 as of today. In four (4) years Department would incur deficit of $3 million. If bond proceeds used to purchase Old Police Station and Cemetery Expansion Property, the unallocated balance in bond proceeds would be reduced from $16,094,152 to $12,598,152. - - ~- o o ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Development Department FY 1991/1992 Budget Recommendations (A) 1. Assume Convention and Visitors Bureau annual operating costs of S260.000 Source: Tax Increment 2. Purchase Cemetery Expansion Property one-time cost S496.000 Source: Bond Proceeds 3. Pay cost of City Clerk Services annual cost S6.697 Source: Tax Increment 4. Pay cost of City Attorney Legal Services annual cost S6l.039 Source: Tax Increment 5. Facilities Management Services annual cost S22.766 Source: Tax Increment 6. Purchase Old Police Department Building one-time cost S3.000.000 Source: Bond Proceeds Imoact of Aaencv Recommendations 1. Bond proceeds would be reduced from S16.094.l52 to S12.598.l52 with purchases of old Police Station and Cemetery Expansion Property. 2. Agency could pay Convention and Visitors, City Clerk Services, City Attorney Legal Services and Facilities Management Services with salary savings of $400,000 incurred during FY 1991/1992. 3. Agency would budget in future years for Convention and Visitors Bureau, City Clerk Services, City Attorney Legal Services and Facilities Management Services. These costs are estimated to be $1,840,135 over the next five (5) years. - ~ - o o ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Development Department FY 1991/1992 Budget Recommendations (R) 1. Assume Convention and Visitors Bureau annual operating costs of $260.000 Source: Tax Increment 2. Carousel Mall Maintenance and Security annual cost of $1.107.986 Source: Tax Increment 3. Pay cost of City Clerk Services annual cost $6.697 Source: Tax Increment 4. Pay cost of City Attorney Legal Services annual cost $61.039 Source: Tax Increment 5. Facilities Management Services annual cost $22.766 Source: Tax Increment 6. Purchase Old Police Department Building one-time cost $3.000.000 Source: Bond Proceeds ImDact of Aaencv Recommendations 1. Bond proceeds would be reduced from $16.094.152 to $13.094.152 with purchases of old Police Station and Cemetery Expansion Property. 2. Agency assumes Mall Maintenance and Security in perpetuity at an annual cost of $1,107,986, reducing Agency unallocated tax increment balance to O. 3. Agency could pay Convention and Visitors, City Clerk Services, City Attorney Legal Services and Facilities Management Services with salary savings of $400,000 incurred during FY 1991/1992. 4. Agency would budget in future years for Convention and Visitors Bureau, City Clerk Services, City Attorney Legal Services and Facilities Management Services. These costs are estimated to be $1,840,135 over the next five (5) years. .;l. - 4 - o o ECONOMIC DEVELOnuSIln: AGElIICY Development Department Pending projects Agency will be unable to process and complete if all City recommendations are approved by the Mayor and Common Council. Total Estimated Five-Year Cost = SI03.029.400 NOTE: This is the estimated cash required from the Agency (only) during the next five years for these projects. The total project costs are mostly several times greater than the amount shown. In some cases these are loans which should eventually be repaid to the Agency. Estimated Benefits (as shown) JOBS: 13,185 CITY SALES TAX: $2,635,000 per year NOTE: Actual City benefits are higher because estimates were not made for all projects. In cases of duplication (for example, a land acquisition project plus a separately shown office building project) the jObs were assigned to one project or the other but not duplicated. JJ 0 0 l:ll tii il,.; '" I ,.., Ulllj .! .... z ill!! 0< . ,... ........ I:!! fi .... Ul ~i ~Ul ~ - ~ U ~ ~ U - ~ .... ~ ;~ , ~ ~~ I ~ - I ~ ~ - 0 - U ~~ - Ii l!5 - .... I .... i u. Ul '" i~ - \5 l:!l ~ . i .... t;j z. ~ @! @! ~~i i I ~ u:>: - u. u. ~.... ,... \2~ ~ t:; 0< 0 0 Ul Ul - ~ z Ul is'" .... Ul .... .... ! ; I ~ ... z. ~. ~~ - a: ~ ~a:1 i~ ~ o. Ul ~~ 0 ;! 0 ~i S1vi ~ "'Ii .... :;i 0- ~ ~~:J 0 fa~ ....I . UlZ Ul Ul .... '" ....- ~u.@! .... ~~ ....z ....... ll:!~ ;;&! i u uo u- u- _~u. - -.... iii ii~ 0<.... @! 0 0< 0< ~~ .... ~ .... ....0 .... ... tii~ ~i i=~ '" l!)~ ~~ ~i ~ ~ ~Ul '" '" I:!!i~ ,... .... '" I '" vi .... z ! .... S1 '" - ~~ vi ~ . ~ ~ I:!! ~"'~ u. .... u e... ~~8 @! . ~C3 i5 ~ll:!e 0 a: i ~ I. .... fal~. u.~Ul~ .... - ffi ~15a ,... ~~~ _z ,... .... ~ ~...o U'H.l..U.... I e>: O<~;:: ....~- .... g~m i~ z ~.... ill!! ~i -0.... ! .1 ~~~ li~~ - ~ ~:;fa i ....I ....~ ~ ; i~~ ~i ~~ ~~li: ~ d i!_~ 0<"'i5 ....:;;i iil:!!l!lUl e>: u.~ u. III u. u. i~ I~~ !Z~ ....a:z: ze>: ~~;i~ 0 ~ l!j~i3 0 o '" ~o~ ~ ~i ~ii~ u."'i", \i!-Si Ul Ul .... ;i~ - . - . _z -.... -z... ;u._~~ ~~ u'" _u u- ~~ ~;i ~~I:!!!z ~~ el~- l!;!", ilD~ u.~~=~ - - @!"'~ "'~ jfz\i! - ... fa O~Ul ::n& ~~ '" "'Ulll;: l!;!u.i~ Ul'" i~ Ul::> I IUl-~~ ::> .... 0< ~~ U.~fa i'i! i8Ul ~ Ul u. "'", ~ "'....- ~~~~~ ~~ o N ~tii ~'" ~o~ '~;;i -a:~ ~~ ~~ij;i :>:.... ~u. l!;!iil ~e l!;!!C3 I u.... - ....'" I 0 :3 ~ liE N 8 :3 C>l 8 ... 0 ~....... I "'. '" '" N 0 "' .. FJ ~ 0 ~ 8 .!.!il~ ;:::: ... ~ '" ~ I"'. - - N - - N ... - I ~ e I - I I U.l - 1:0 W 't:; - - - I ... ~ ~ ~ . - ....I - ~ - I - .. 0 \~ !i I I ; !i !i - u - - :z: - i i" - ~ t:; ~ 0 0 ~ iil ~ ~ ;:€!I~ "'I!!.... ii~~~~i ~ ~ > '" .... i . - ii i u i - 0 t-N~ 5 .... :z: ...J i~ Si a:: a:: "" %......0. Z % - .... ~i-"'~~"" I ~ 0 i ~ % .... ... ~ ~~~~e~~ ~ ~ ~; ; a: "" ~ .... .... i ~c;:i:l5;:~a ~ % .... 'f! % ~ -~ a e i ~~~~~~i - i- u €!I e g\ 0< - ........ ~ .... \9 ... .... . ~I!! "'~ ~l!l "" !~ "" ~ ~....~2ia....~ ~I i 0< III t;;~ .... '" ~~j:i~a8! c . '" '" '" l:Il c- ....e .... .... '" .... ....% ~~i;ni~ cui - c- o ~; 5. ~~ "".... . "" i:!:!e ....i;j'" .... u >- u u- ~! ii:....~ - -"" -.... -- ~::> li:...J::> 0< 0<.... 0< a:: 0< ... .... .... % .... 0< .... ti~.... '" "'- ~~ ~~ ~~ ~i~~~ i:!!u/E "" ""a:: a: a::!: I UJ 0 11! ~ ...J a:: UJ .... I '" .... ~ a:: .... % a::u ~~ - ~~ ~~ ei::J "" ... i~ "'...J ~1 ........ o<u a::...J '" ...- co UJ >.... ~~ UJ '" 05; UJU '" ....a:: ~Ei; .... UJ .... ~ g~ il a:: ' ~~ ~x ....a: ....a:: ~~ l!;!", "'''' "" "'.... -Co: a::!!! ~~ u"" ;5w a ~~ . I l!;!~ ~'" .... ~! z 0< ~c "'s ~~ ""s- ... ;~~ 0-;3 '" .... ci 0- o . 0"".... 0% ~.... - UJ....'" ~s ~d;: ~~ . ~~ ~i 8~~ ""- ""-- ~'" I -.... -::t:...J -"".... I u . Gl ':l: ~ UU ~~~ U ~ ~~~ L.l.l ~1J1 a:", "''''' l!;!~;: ~~~ I "'5le ""i;i 0< O<:::l "'...- "':z: "'~~ iil8 "'~u ",-a:: "'~~ ~d~ "" UJ ~....'" ~....% ~"'N I ~:: 71::t: 1Il- ~...J ... _...J ~~~ ~~~ '" I "" % ...J ""...J ~~s ~~ ~~= ::> 13 . ::> I i:!!u8 UJ ... LUWa.: i:!!~ l!;!l!;!;;: ""~UJ "'''' o.:~~ 0< 0< , I '" '" ~ '" 8 0 . u, S 8 . ~t-""l '" '" In ~ t ~ . . ill ~!il ~J ,=> In '" '" . N - '" I - I I I ~I i!!j ~!! i I~i! ~ I ~ I - sl~IIIl'1 I!a~i ~ ~ ; I I i I ! i!!j 1 ~ - I ~ u I I i I - ~ - i , ~ I - ! ;!; ~ - t; ; !~~ ~"'g: ~fij- ~ ~ I ~ I ~!~I I ~ "'1 I I I I I I . u o 0 ~ i~ ~i H! Z i- ~ !ji= -u 1m l:!~ ffil:! . tioe -....- "'........ ti5~ !:!ill!... ! '" ~~ ~~ ~~ ~l!:l .... ->- u.... ~c:; '" '" ~~ ~o ....0 "'.... '" '" ,... g ... o - I~. 1m ;il! I ~JIII~~ ~ ~m~~lli ~ i =: " ~ " . " " - " N " <Xl " ... " - " '" " Q :l -II " o . . .... ~~~ ~ --LI.. c.D ~~~ig~ iu..u.. c.: ~<.ll'" !i;i!j. zzU'\tD-ZV'I __!!! 0 ~ ii:J....!!!....~- i~~;*.~~ !!!>- ~5 e_:::ffitll.~ --2!-~i!5- i~i~~~2 ~-!!! ...~ l:!~""~~1 ot;;2!a:::i ~ "'-ClI ~i::~~1l! l;I ",u-I!: ...!1 ..... i CCU'\LI,. ~~~~~~l:! IH~ -- - ~i3 "'- .......J ~8 '" ,,- . l5;!"'''' ...!!!l:ll o_!t ~@!~ ~... !:!i~~ ZQ. '.Il ~... ~"'~ ~tJ>i ~~i ... ,~ ... o m m i ; I i i - oJ i ~ !! ~ ~l!!!!! I!!lllf.... t::C!u~ Q.....'" a:Uil/'" u....~e ia~i= a:lf~!! . eV>!!!~~ i=~....~~ ~i~i= ~g~~i l:!i :!Sill F;lS~~~ =....u"'u u- Q- -l!l!!!"'~ ~a;~.... .... Z if! ~. -gJ ~.... ~~ I; ~~ G~ ~...J I!! ~~ ~o ~iii i I II ~ - Co) ~ ~ - - ~ ~ '" !!Ii l:ll I ~ ~ o .... . i I ffi .... u - '" .... V> ~ es .... i @! ... ! e '" ... . o~ ~- ~iS: ul:ll ~'" ~~ ~i I ~ o o . . C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE DATE: January 10, 1992 FROM: Honorable Mayor and Common Council Shauna Clark, city Administrator TO: SUBJECT: Budgetary Information Relative to: School Crossing Guards Traffic Bureau Ambulance Study Animal Control COPIES: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Attached are copies of the documents relating to the above subjects which were discussed at yesterday's Public Hearing. If you have any questions, please let me know. I.Yl/lIN/(/~tlf . S'HAUNA CLARK '-'i~tu City Administrator SCjdjn Attachments CITY OF SA~ERNARDINO - dIIEMORANDUM To Daniel A. Robbins, Chief of Police Subject Schoo 1 Cross i ng Guards From Capt. T. Maier Date 1-8-92 Approved (}7!1( Date /-I-} L. Additional research has shown that complete elimination of the school crossing guard program by the Police Department may not be possible. Section 45452 of the California Education Code states if a city refuses to provide school crossing guards, the local school district may employ personnel as crossing guards and they shall be reimbursed from funds including, but not limited to, those collected pursuant to sections 42200 and 42201 of the California Vehicle Cod~. This is the city's portion of traffic fine money which currently amounts to $182,000 a year. At this writing this point of law is being researched by the City Attorney's office. In the event state law does prohibit us from refusing to fund a school crossing guard program, there are still other avenues open. Section 10-07.3 of the State of California Department of Transportation Traffic Manual sets standards or conditions which assist us in deciding which intersections warrant crossing guards. The manual does not dictate that crossing guards must be installed at locations meeting these "warrants" f they specifically state "adult crossing guards mav be used under the following conditions". We currently have 83 crossing guard locations, 12 are in county jurisdiction, 11 are in the city of Highland, and the remaining 60 are in the city. Some of the locations in the county and City of Highland have shared responsibility. The reimbursement the city receives from the county and City of Highland is such that there would be no advantage in elimination. In the case of the 60 City locations, it is estimated that 30-50% could be eliminated without presenting undue hazard to students. When times have been good the city has been generous with its crossing guards. Eliminating 30 crossing guard locations could save as much as $88,000. At present, crossing guards are paid a minimum of six hours per day regardless of their actual work hours. This was done due to the imposition of having to go to the location three separate times during the day to work from 30 minutes to an hour and a half each time. On average, each crossing guard works a total of three to four hours daily. If the number of hours guaranteed per day were cut from six to five we would save between $700 and $1,000 per location annually. Both the Vehicle Code and the Education Code mention the usage of "school safety patrol members". Under section 49302 of the California Education Code, it state that pupils who serve as members of a school safety patrol shall be designated by the , PRIDE .J 1;fSS o o . School Crossing Guards Page 2 principal of the school in which the patrol is established so long as they have parental consent. In Section 49303 they speak of rules and regulations governing school safety patrols. In section 49304 it outlines the duties and powers of school safety patrol members which parallels those of adult school crossing guards. The city might be able to negotiate with city schools to have student volunteers replace adult school crossing guards at some intersections. section 10-07.4 of the State of California Department of Transportation Traffic Manual sets guidelines for legal authority and program funding for adult school crossing guards. In that section, they refer to the "Crossing Guard Maintenance District Act of 1974" as another avenue of funding school crossing guards. They refer to Chapter 3.5, sections 55530-70 of Part II, Division II, Title V, of the Government Code. Under those sections of the Government Code we find that local jurisdictions have the power to form school crossing guard maintenance districts. with a vote of those affected, school c;:rossing guards are then paid through property taxing rather than the general fund. This may be another means of funding. If we find from the City Attorney's office that we cannot refuse to fund a school crossing guard program, there are viable alternatives to cutting these costs or even possibly shifting them to a property tax assessment district. Finally in a recent survey we found that the fOllowing cities in our area do not have school crossing guards; Moreno Valley victorville Barstow Hesperia Adelanto Needles Banning (has only one) Big Bear City jrm CITY OF SA~ERNARDINO - cjIIEMORANDUM To Captain T. Maier From Lt. J. Griggs Subject Traffic Bureau Date 1-8-92 APpr~a-' Date 1Ji; Some questions have arisen during the recent budget hearing regarding the Traffic Bureau. In response to your request for information, I am submitting the following replies. The Traffic Bureau currently has the following personnel assigned: one lieutenant, one sergeant, one detective, seven motor officers (authorized nine), three CSR II's, and one clerk typist II. In addition to traffic enforcement and collision investigation, we perform traffic safety programs at the schools, participate in the county-wide Attack Drunk Driver program, enforce commercial vehicle violations, coordinate parades, and participate in various traffic safety programs in the community. If the Traffic Bureau was cut, no one would perform these functions. In addition to Traffic, the lieutenant is responsible for the SMASH/MET Detail, the Identification Bureau, hostage negotiations, labor disputes, and department safety. The cost of the Traffic unit is approximately $842,184 a year or $421,092 for six months. This is broken down into personnel costs and miscellaneous. The annual costs equate to $761,032 for personnel and $81,152 for miscellaneous. For six months, the costs would be $380,516 for personnel and $40,576 for miscellaneous. (See attached cost breakdown by item) Since the detective and one CSR II would be retained, they are not included in these figures. In addition to the citations a traffic officer issues, he makes an average of 3.5 arrests a month. A random sampling of patrol officers showed they average 6.5 arrests per month. The 12 motorcycles we have are currently worth about $1,600 each for a total of $19,200. The radios and sirens would be kept by the department and converted for use in police cars. We would have enough cars for the extra officers since there are still six cars at the city Yards which have not been put into service. The start-up cost to re-instate a Traffic Bureau, if it was disbanded, would include $96,000 (the cost of new motorcycles, radios (800 MHZ) and siren systems). Ten motorcycles are needed for the sergeant and nine officers. They also would need motorcycle boots, breeches, helmets, and radio headsets at a cost of $9,750. Office furnishings and supplies would cost $7,046. This brings the total start-up cost to approximately $954,980. This amount includes the unit cost of $842,184 a year and is only p~~ ~r this year. This figure can be increased 5-6% each year. ~ESS o o Traffic Bureau Page. 2 Motor officer injuries when compared are somewhat higher, but not significantly higher than patrol officers. The department currently writes approximately 1,200 tickets per month. In 1990, traffic citations generated $182,000 in revenue. The Traffic unit's then seven motor officers generated approximately 63%, or $114,660 of that total. Patrol division will not be able to write additional tickets under the current work load. In a recent survey we found the following San Bernardino County cities have police motorcycles; Colton Fontana Redlands Rialto Rancho cucamonga Montclair Upland ontario Victorville Chino Last year there were 3,785 traffic collisions in the city. 1,411 people were injured, 36 people lost their lives. The loss of traffic enforcement may result in a higher accident rate. /rm I' ! . Personnel Costs: Lieutenant (1) Sergeant (1) Officer (9) CSR II (2) Typ. Clk II (1) Miscellaneous: Garage Charges Incentive Pay Hazard Pay Equipment Supplies/Misc. o COST OF TRAFFIC UNIT , Mo. 46,888 42,439 238,149 38,668 14,381 380,525 28,716 1,500 3,000 1,050 6,130 o - Annual 93,776 84,860 476,298 77,336 28,762 761,032 57,432 3,000 6,000 2,100 12,620 ~, o o C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE DATE: January 9, 1992 TO: Honorable Mayor and Common Council FROM: Peggy Ducey SUBJECT: Ambulance Study COPIES: Shauna Clark, Chief Will Wright --------------------------------------------------------------- On December 2, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council authorized the hiring of Emergency Care Information Center (ECICl to review emergency medical service delivery in the City. ECIC will deliver a written report as to their findings by January 30, 1992, but staff has shared initial findings to recommend municipalizing ambulance transport service, based upon some irregular practices of the current ambulance provider. Based on these initial findings and the fact that the final study will be completed within the month, it is recommended that the Mayor and Common Council hold off on any budget cuts in Fire Suppression until the medical delivery study is completed. V //! / - Aj.k7~.Z- Peggy Ducey Assistant t~ e City Administrator o o o C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE DATE: January 9, 1992 TO: Honorable Mayor and Common Council FROM: Peggy Ducey SUBJECT: Animal Control COPIES: Shauna Clark, Debi Biggs ---------------------------------------------------------------- On Tuesday, January 7, 1992, Councilmember Miller requested information regarding animal control operations in other cities. Currently, Col ton and Loma Linda have their own animal control officers, and contract with the City of San Bernardino for housing of stray animals. These contracts generate approximately $35,000 annually. We also have a proposal into the City of Yucaipa for all animal control services, but Yucaipa has not acted on the contract yet. The City of Redlands has its own animal control operations, and the city of Highland contracts with Redlands for their services. Fontana contracts with the Riverside Humane Society, and Rialto has its own animal control officers, and contracts for housing with the County of San Bernardino. In the fall of 1987, the Ways and Means Committee discussed the possibility of contracting the City's animal control responsibilities. At that time, the Humane Society of San Bernardino submitted a proposal that would have cost the City's general fund almost $300,000. Ways and Means determined that it would not be cost effective to contract services. However, the County of San Bernardino did not submit a bid at that time. So that we can thoroughly analyze the option of contracting services, the Mayor and Council may want to consider requesting a contract bid from the County for animal control officers and/or housing services. ;J the City Administrator