HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-Budget Workshop
-
.,
FY 2001-2002
Budget Workshop #4
June 26, 2001
EDA Board Room
(' OJ]rnr~ 3t
l~ ',1tg:
u/v,/o/
I
l~nl
/-'
~jvJ_ ~.~
(;Il\, '~18fkl~DC Secy
[;It. '. .'11 1J~_.h::lmiI10
'1 ~ ........
.'
Attachment A: Summary of Mayor's Recommended Program Change Requests
Updated 0612612001
Estimated General Fund budget excess: 3,404,600
Mayor's Recommendations: I
Animal Control I SB Valley HumaJt::5ocietV- fundinofor mobile spav/neuter unit 30.000
Animal Control I Refurt>ishlinstall modular office buildino 37.200
I I
CTtVClerk I Reornanization 0
City Clerk TReduce Area Tax bV50% , 54.700
Code Compliance I Project Curt> Appeal- Los Padrinos 25.000
Code Compliance 1 Landscape andlor provide decorative accents on various vacant lots throughout the 100.000
: Cilv (pocket narks; ,
Development Services iAdditional oarking at the soccer complex 150.000
Development Services I Reoraanization 83.200
Development Services IGeneral Plan updates 180.000
Facilities Manaoement I facility reosirs and imcrovements I 260.000
Facilities Manaaement i Reornanization I 11,400
Facilities MOmt IAnimal Control Drain Imorovements I 28.000
Facilities Mgmt. IAnimal Control Geothermal Renairs I 22.000
Fire ISafetVclothinnreDIacement and washino; other ooeratino expenses I 61.000
Fire I Vardemant station desianlenaineering I 150.000
Fire I Reoraanization I 0
Finance ! Reorn-anization I 0
General Govt I Increase eve Fundina I 20.000
General Govt I UUT rebate on electricilv - Jul;' -and Auaust 2001 (estimated) I 1.500,000
General Govt : Increase fine arts funding ~ "Art in Public Places" pr~ram I 50.000
Police : Add 1 lieutenant i 126.100
Police i Pistol range reconstruction purchase materials (for use with Army Corp of Engineers I 100.000
,labor contribution)
Public Services IAdditional contract sidewaiklcurt>/gutter repairs I 175.000
Public Services 'Additional asphalt. contract machinery and operators for asphalt repair I 100.000
Public Services :Additional contract tree trimming ~ various areas (see list) I 174.000
Public Services iContract tree removaVstump grinding/tree replacement 141.100
Public Services/Code Con;;;iiance iMaterials and services related to Code Comollance abatements I 25,000
I ,
[Subtotal - Mayor's Recommendations: I 3,603,700
I I
:Undesignated budQ8t exce.. remaining: I .199,100
T I
I I
Other funds' I I
Refuse IAdd one (1) Route Supervisor I 47.100
Sewer I Set aside funding to enhance sewer maintenance services (via contract or additional I 100.000
: employees). Specific recommendations will be made to the Mayor and Council in
I Fall 2001
IS jVarious PC, software, and bandwidth upgrades. specific plan to be presented to the I 380.000
I Mavor and Council in Fall 2001
/
./
,/
City Administrator's OffICe
/
"'Q
~~
<sh
_0.
3
S.
C;;'
:if
0'
;;}
o
;!i
&l
g sa 2! S::lcn ;:;! g> "19 mo ~Ibll? ~ W ~ 6:IIS::lg ffl~1 ~C'l{
~c~QC~n~~ 3~~m~~~~~~~
C1> 0. "" C1> " < 0:J :l> <0 I - -. - - C1> -. 0.'1 ~
~ '< < .:;; < C1> 0 -< 0 0 I' 0 C1> 0 :JE _I' Q) 0 'C1> .
C"O ~ 2'UJ D.1..,:y0) 0 S:coO 0"-' Q) c: rr(f):3 31
.:::' '0 0. :J C1> 0.1'0 C1> a '" -. ~ 3 0 (') ~ :J 1 ~ C1> ~ 0 I .
~= Com 0)0- -03'O~CDC.~Q)::r~:3
::T 0 Oc: -. - ~ ::l. 7' "h. en::] M a. ::J = :J I~ .., 0 _I
-:J 1:J-.C07'CDY 2'c- -'(0 UJe')
o '" a-.<o '" C1> or ~ :J_. - or " C1> C1> 1- Q) '" I
O (f) :J::_I...-,CD-O,_S'
.....'co cr c: ~'(Q cr 3 0..:< (/) ... n 0 -'_'
g ;. ~ 5' m ~ 00' ~. :~.;; ..$I~ . ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ g' i ~
....)"Cc;;=r s.,,:::J::r x go30-rvl!ll:;:r
O~ in ~ !!!.. ~ C1> ~ ~,~ 5' ~ ii11::T 2' 18 I <~
-- u::.. _ CD ,cc-1::::h-':::J:J
< 0: ~ '" ,\<:1 '0 C1> 0. 0 I ''0' -I "'_ 0. '" '
5' C1> ~ 0: I (') iil ~ C:::I. I Q) I CD 0. 5' "
<0 ,,- C1> -':J ' g. 3 I I ~ ::I. Q) <0 c:
(')~~ "':<"'8 ~ C1> ",:J~_g.
o "'" CD ~ a;::J:::J 3-'(0 Q) ~ cr ..
a.(f) ,,_ ~ '-.::]
CDt:r ~~.:::J"O s;~a.ffil~
CD CD o:J c a Q) c: ~ UJ CI
:J C1>", E:5" (1) . 1<O3~ - CD", Q) :Jo.
0' &<0:::;: _ '1'0,..
.., I en -.. 0 I' a m t S'
@ a: cO' * ~ 1 (1;' I.; 1<0
3:::;: c:'" I g..::
C1> ~ I "'::T
:J ~ ~
~ (J) Q)
:::;: 3
::T Q)
Q) :J
- 0.
~ S
::T iil
Q) '"
3 I C1>
'0 I :J
C1> 0
~. II ~
::t::l>CC;!;:
C::JC'"C"_
3 3' OJ Ql ~
~~-<-<'"
o
C1> 0 '" 3 ::T
(JJoS-mo
g~3;roQ.
-. 0 ::J :J."'C
CD -,co Q) ..,
I':<!e. (jj' .g
<oQ) ~
~3; Q)
Q) :J 3
3,.,(C (I)
ill
.D
c:
C1>
'"
-
-
~
-
CD
CIl
:;-
o
:3
~
I\j
->.
d
->.
OJ
c:
S-
CD
-
~
~
CIl
::!'
.g
~
~
~.
~
2.
.'
SAN BERNARDINO CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Interoffice Memorandum
To:
Fred Wilson, City Administrator
From:
Larry Pitzer, Fire Chief
Subject:
Fire Station Construction And Relocation
Costs And Potential Funding Mechanism
Date:
June 26, 2001
This memorandum will address the Mayor and Council request regarding cost projections and
long term financing for the Verdemont Station and relocation of four existing fire stations.
Specifically, the request was to separate the Verdemont Station as one project, and the four
relocation stations as a separate project
The construction estimates were established through a Station Design Committee working
with two architectural firms. Station furnishing costs were determined through an inventory
costing process. The fire engine and ancillary equipment cost were taken from recent
apparatus purchasing bids. Those three areas should be considered as accurate as we can
establish prior to the bid process. Land acquisition for the station relocations may vary
depending upon site-speci fic locations.
Verdemont Station
A I :4-acre parcel of land in the Palm and Kendall area has been identified as the location to
site the station. It is currently for sale and listed for $220,000. A 5-acre parcel owned by the
City had been previously identified as a tentative site. This City owned site is at Little League
Drive and the 1-215 frontage road. It is too far north to accomm'odate the most efficient
response for that station.
Authorization to proceed with the sale of the 5-acre parcel was given on 01/19/01. An
appraisal was ordered, and was received June 4,2001. The appraised value of that land is
$214,000 (not $217,000 as previously indicated). The next step will be to obtain Council
authorization to advertise for bids. It is my understanding that the item will be placed on the
July 23, 2001 agenda.
Revenue from the eventual sale of the 5-acre parcel will partially offset the cost of the Palm
and Kendall site. Total projected "tumkey" cost for the Verdemont Station is $2,070,000.
The detail of that figure is listed below:
~ Construction & Furnishings
~ Fire Engine & Ancillary Equipment
~ Land Acquisition
Total
$1,500,000
$ 350,000
$ 220.000
$2,070,000
3
.'
Station Relocations
Three of the four relocation stations will be of the same design as the Verdemont Station.
One of the stations will utilize the same design except that it will need three apparatus bays
rather than two. Assuming the land cost for those four sites of approximately $250,000 each,
I have raised the original per site cost accordingly. Total projected "turnkey" cost for those
four stations is $7,200,000. The detail of that figure is listed below:
)>> Construction & Furnishings
)>> Construction & Furnishings
)>> Land Acquisition
@3
@I
@4
Total
$4,500,000
$1,700,000
$ I. 000.000
$7,200,000
Financing Mechanism
Several financing options exist. The City could form an assessment district where the users or
the ones who benefit from the stations are charged. However, this would take a vote of the
ones to be assessed. The City could also do a General Obligation Bond, but this requires a
vote of the citizens of San Bernardino. Issuing Certificates of Participation accomplishes
about the same thing, but there is no vote requirement.
Considering the budgetary impact of these projects, issuing Certificates ofParticioation may
be a logical funding mechanism. Annual payments for the Verdemont Station will be
$ I 82,000 for 25 years. Annual payments for the four relocations will be $610,000 for 25
years.
Time Frames
There are three distinct blocks of time that are part of the station construction process. The
breakdown of these times is listed below:
)>> Architectural Bid & Services
)>> Contractor Bid & Selection
)>> Construction
Total
4 months
2 months
12 months
18 months
If additional detail or information is needed, please let me know.
Attachments
2
L\
.'
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMO
TO: Fred Wilson, City Administrator
FROM: Ed Raya, Director ofHwnan Resources
DATE: June 25, 2001
SUBJECT: Library Staffing
COPIES: Barbara Pachon, Finance Director
Based on discussions at last week's budget workshop it appears that increasing the hours
of service at the Dorothy Inghram Branch Library and the Paul Villasenor Branch Library
have been identified as priority by the Mayor and Council. Presented below are two
options for providing additional staffing at these libraries.
Option I
The addition of two Library Technicians was discussed as a possible solution. The cost
for these two positions based on the current salary schedule is:
(2) Library Technicians, Range 1334, $2,348-$2,854
Salary (6 mo. @ Step I) =$28,176
(6 mo. @ Step 2) =$29.592
$57,768
11.932
$69,700
Benefits
Total
The recently completed Classification and Compensation study recommended that the
Library Technician classification be changed to Library Technician I or Library
Technician II when the study is implemented. The estimated cost with the new salary
schedule is listed below for the Library Technician I classification:
(2) Library Technicians I, Range 1338, $2,396 - $2,912
Salary (6 mo. @ Step I) =$28,752
(6 mo. @ Step 2) =$30.180
$58,932
12.168
$71,100
Benefits
Total
These estimates are based on a 12-month cost and asswne a 5% increase after six months,
as is currently mandated by the General Unit MOU.
5
.'
Option 2
Listed below is the cost for adding two part-time positions (a Senior Librarian and a
Librarian) to satisfy the personnel needs in the above-mentioned libraries. This asswnes
that each part-time employee would work 20 hours per week.
Sr. Librarian
Current Salarv
$17,250
x 2
$34,500
with Class & Compo
$21,050
x 2
$42,100
Librarian
$15,600
x 2
$31,200
$18,750
x 2
$37,500
Total cost:
$65,700
$79,600
to
-
City of San Bernardino
Interoffice Memorandum
Information Services
TO: Fred Wilson, City Administrator
FROM: Janis Ingels, IS Director
DATE: June 25, 2001
SUBJECT: Meeting between Library and IS
COPIES:
I met with Ophelia Roop at a meeting on June 25, 2001 to discuss the Library's request
to purchase software. The purpose of the meeting was to determine if IS had the
capability to use existing firewalls to accomplish the Library's goal of meeting the
requirements of certain grant funding they wish to acquire.
The software they wish to purchase is not in use by anyone with the exact same
technology environment as our Library's, so they are unsure whether it would meet their
requirements or not. I recommended that they obtain a demo and try to run the
software.
No other libraries have set up as yet to meet the grant requirements. Many have no
plans to do so. The issue of whether the Library can legally limit access is currently in
the court system. The issue could potentially be decided with an impact on Libraries of
not having to meet the requirements as listed for the grant.
The firewall hardware that the Library needed has already been purchased using money
from another source. They do not have the firewall up and running yet, but we were told
it is on site, already paid for, and ready to be installed and put to use.
The cost quoted for this software was approximately $36,000.
Ms. Roop said the software had to be up and running by November of this year and fully
functional by July 1, 2002~
As you know, the City has a large wide area network in place, multiple firewalls, various
filtering applications, and in-house, high level, network management expertise. It
appears, however, that all hardware needed has already been obtained by the Library.
IS wO.!:lld not be able to develop code in-house that would integrate directly with the
Library's existing software as is the claim of the software vendor they are wanting to
purchase software from.
My recommendation is to delay a decision on this matter until the Library can confirm
that this software does in fact, meet their needs through practical demonstration.
7
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INTER-OFFICE. MEMORANDUM
TO: Fred Wilson, City Adminstrator
FROM: Lynn Merrill, Director~~
DATE: June 26,2001
SUBJECT: City-wide Tree trimming/NIP Project Area 1
COPIES: Lori Sassoon, Assistant to the City Administrator
Doug Robertson, Senior Administrative Analyst
Dennis Garrahan, Arborist
In reference to Second Ward Council member Susan Lien's concern raised during the Budget
Hearing on June 21, 2001, the following.is respectfully submitted.
1. The 411 trees located in the Neighborhood Housing Initiative Project Area 1 were
trimmed in October of 2000. Funds in the amount of $16,029 were expended and
funding in the amount of $13,000 were provided by EDA to accomplish this.
2. On June 25, 2001 staff surveyed the project area and identified 72 trees that were
diseased or dying and should be removed. However, replacement trees will be planted
for each tree removed. The trees removed average 8" in diameter and the estimated
cost to remove 72 trees at $108 totals $7,776. The cost for 15 gallon replacement trees
is $98.40 each, or $7,084.80; totalling $14,860.80 for the removal and replacement of 72
trees.
3. New trees to increase the density of street trees to current development standards and
additional tree replacements may be needed in this area; however, staff did not conduct
a survey of locations for potential new or replacement tree plantings.
LM/jj
Attch.
1
.Parks,Rroeati:n& CorrmmitySeIviq:sTh:plrtrm1t
In1rr-OflX::eMerrrnnrlnn
To: Fred Wilson, City Administrator
From: John A. Kramer, Recreation Superintendent
Re: Expansion ofPerris Hill Senior Center
Date: June 25, 2001
Cc: Annie F. Ramos, Director
Perris Hill Park Senior Citizen Center is a 5,800 square foot facility built in 1989. It has a 1700 square
foot multi-purpose room with a capacity of 120. The building has only one classroom with a capacity of
34. The small billiard room has five tables and accommodates 10-12 seniors comfortably.
This facility has an average daily attendance of 178. This compares to the 12,800 square foot 5th Street
Senior Center which has average attendance of 218. The 5th Street Senior Center has a total capacity of
approximately 350.
The Perris Hill Park Senior Center Advisory Board has proposed that the center be expanded by extending
the north side by 30 feet. This facility has been crowded since the day it opened. Seniors have a difficult
time manuerving in the dining area due to the crowded condition. This is particularly difficult for
handicapped seniors. The expansion of this facility is necessary to increase its capacity in order to
accommodate existing and new seniors. The center is currently limited in the types and numbers of
programs that can be offered as well as the numbers of seniors that can be enrolled due to limited capacity.
Holidays and special events often require that seniors dine in shifts in order to accommodate the number of
seniors who desire to eat. Additional special interest classes sponsored by San Bemardino Adult School,
could also be provided if additional classroom space is provided.
The proposed expansion would be 2,100 square feet bringing the facility to 7,900 square feet. Following is
a preliminary estimate for construction and related costs:
Construction includes:
Engineering, administration and inspection at $150/square foot
Furnishings - pool table, table, chairs
$315,000
$ 3.000
$318,000
Annual operating costs
Utilities/maintenance
Labor
$ 4,500
$ 42.400
$ 46,500
The department currently operates both Senior Centers with only one full time staff. The expansion of
Perris Hill Center would necessitate providing a separate manager for each center.
John A. Kramer
Recreation Superintendent
JAK/ln
q
Parks, Recreatim& CanmunitySe1vicesThp:n1Im1t
Inter-OfficeMenmrl.m
To: Fred Wilson, City Administrator
From: John A. Kramer, Recreation Superintendent
Re: Status of Skateboard park
Date: June 26,2001
Cc: File
The feasibility of building a skateboard park continues to be studied by the Ways and
Means Committee. The committee initially requested staff to research the possibility of
private corporate funding to build and operate a park in San Bernardino. This research was
conducted by staff from the Convention and Visitors Bureau. They made a number of
contacts including the Corporate Office of Vans, which operates the skate park at the
Ontario Mills. None of the contacts were interested in developing a park in San Bernardino,
nor did they know of anyone who would be.
The Ways and Means requested information regarding Park Bond Funds. This department
reported that $3.8 million in competitive funds will be available beginning November I,
2001. These Roberti-Z'berg-Harris Funds require a 30 percent match. The monies are
intended for at-risk youth and skateboard parks serving that population could be eligible.
Criteria for the grant are still being developed.
The department has also been asked to research costs associated with providing supervision
at the skate park and the possibility of charging a nominal fee to offset costs. The problems
that have occurred at the recently opened Rialto skate park raised concerns by the
committee that similar problems could occur if a park were developed in San Bernardino.
The department is researching the problems at the Rialto park as well as cost factors
associated with staffing and supervision and expects to be able to report back to Ways and
Means by mid-July.
JAK:dlb
/0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Fred Wilson, City Administrator
FROM: Glenn Baude, Director of Code Compliance
DATE: June 23, 2001
SUBJECT: BUDGET WORKSHOP INFORMATION - DEMOLITION FUNDING
AND IMPROVING CODE ENFORCEMENT EFFECTIVENESS
There are several different areas we are looking at to improve code enforcement
operations and activ.ities. They fall into six categories:
I. Demolition Initiative
2. Streamlining Process and New Ordinances
A. Administrative Citation Ordinance
B. Real Time Wireless Complaint Tracking System
3. Staffing
A. Grant Funding
B. Salary Survey
4. Programs
A. Project Curb Appeal
B. Vacant Lot Beautification (Pocket Parks)
C. Vehicle Amnesty Program
5. Change In Philosophy And Priorities of Code ComplianCe
6. Beautification Advisory Team (from council goals and objective session)
MAYOR'S DEMOLITION INITIATIVE
The amount of demolition funding currently available for fiscal year 200 I /2002 is
$348,000. These funds include:
Code Compliance Budget/General Fund - $1l0,000
The City is providing $110,000 from the General Fund in fiscal year 2001/2002 ($20,000
is in the General Government budget for Hearing Officer costs).
CDBG Administrative Budget - $85,000
Approximately $85,000 of the 1.5 million allocated for administration in fiscal year
2001/2002 will be transferred to the demolition fund.
/I
"
CDBG Budget - $1l6,000
This money has been budgeted by EDA to fund demolition activities.
2000/2001 Community Development Block Grant savings - $37,000
At least $37,000 savings from fiscal year 2000/2001, due primarily to salary savings, will
be available to be transferred to demolitions. Like last year, the Economic Development
Agency has agreed to request that the Community Development Commission reallocate
any unused CDBG funds from the 2000/2001 Code Compliance budget to demolitions
for fiscal year 2001/2002.
Total anticipated available: $348,000
It is important to note that the Community Development Block Grant funds will appear in
the Code Compliance budget they are in the Economic Development Agency budget and
will be paid directly from that account.
Carryover of 2000/2001 Demolition funds
It is also possible that we may have a carry over of demolition funds from this year. I
projected; based on the properties we currently have in the demolition pipeline, that all
demolition funds would be used by fiscal year end. This may not be the case as we have
two properties that the owners have offered to do the demolition themselves. The
funding for these properties have already been tied up in purchase orders. If the purchase
orders are cancelled it would free up an additional $110,000 which could be carried over
to next year.
2001/2002 Demolition budget needs
It is difficult to determine how much money is needed for demolitions this year as there
are many variables that impact costs. When we go through the demo process owners
sometimes demo their properties voluntarily; there is no way to tell how many will do
this. The cost of demolishing properties can vary greatly based on the size and type of
structure. One thing that can have a dramatic impact on the cost of demolition is the
amount of asbestos in the property. Removal of asbestos can cost more than the actual
demolition. These costs are unknown until we do an asbestos survey and take bids.
With all these variables the best way to determine the need is to base it on prior years
expenditures. Based on that the projected funding needs for demolition in the 200 I /2002
fiscal year should be between $400,000 to $600,000. If the current funding available is
not sufficient, the Department will request additional funding during midyear.
STREAMLING CODE COMPLIANCE PROCESS/ORDINANCE
Although we have made improvement to our process the legal requirements for due
diligence and due process make it very labor intensive to correct violations. Records on
one apartment complex can take up an entire file cabinet and tie up thousands of staff
hours. To help correct the more basic problems we have proposed an administrative
rz..
citation ordinance. A draft ordinance is currently in the City Attorneys' Office for
review.
Overview - Administrative Citation Ordinance
Currently we have two options to force correction of violations:
I) Criminal Citations- these citations can be very effective in dealing with properties
when the owner or tenant are normally law-abiding citizens and have concem about
appearing in court and facing a judge. This process can be labor intensive as before an
officer can write a citation there is a level of due diligence required to ascertain the
responsible party and a declaration must be done in support of the citation. Another draw
back is the time it takes to get the violation to court. Officers are required to set court
dates on citations a minimwn offorty-five (45) days in advance. In many cases the
violation is not corrected within that time frame or is corrected within a few days of the
court date. Also, only a small percentage of the fines imposed are designated to the city.
2) Administrative Process - We currently use an administrative hearing process to obtain
orders to correct violations. The hearing process often leads to an order that allows the
city to correct violations on the property (paying the cost up front then collecting through
tax liens). There are many things we can correct with a hearing order such as weeds,
overgrown vegetation, debris and inoperable vehicles. There are also things we will not
abate because of the nature of the violation such as planting a yard, painting a house or
replacing a roof. In these cases a hearing order is effective in that it raises the criminal
penalty from an infraction to a misdemeanor. This is also the process we have to go
through if we want to get an order of demolition on the property. The administrative
process is very labor intensive and it takes a long time to get a hearing order, usually
between 45-60 days. We are able to recover city costs through this process as the order
normally incurs cost against the owner for staff time and abatement costs.
Administrative Citation
We are proposing a third tool to gain compliance, administrative citations. A, "Notice To
Correct, Administrative Citation", can be issued with correction dates (time frames can
be as short as 24 hours but are normally 10 days). After the time frame has expired
penalties of one hundred dollars a day for each and every day the violation exists and for
each and every violations on the property can be assessed. There would be a ten (10)
day time period to appeal the violation. If the violation is not appealed or the appeal is
denied the fines become a debt against the owner and property. The owner is billed and
if he/she fails to pay, the fines can be assessed against property taxes.
The advantage to the administrative citation is that the penalties for violating an
ordinance can begin in as short a time frame as one day compared to forty-five days for a
criminal citation and forty-five to sixty days in the administrative hearing process. The
other advantage is that all fines issued are returned to the city to cover expenses.
This process would certainly not replace the criminal or administrative hearing process
but would be added as one more tool to clean up San Bemardino. For instance, it would
/3
not be effective against an owner who is letting his property go he/she would not be
concerned about liens against the property. It would also not be effective against a tenant
when there is no ability to collect. A criminal citation would be the more appropriate
action. It would also not lead to a demolition order those would still have to go through
the administrative hearing process.
STAFFING
State Grant
Code Compliance is in the process of hiring two Code Compliance Officers with funding
through a grant from the State Department of Housing and Community Development.
The hope is that these positions will be hired by late August. They will have to go
through a 4-6 month training program before they will be able to work on their own in
the field. These positions are also restricted in that they can only work in Neighborhood
Improvement Project areas.
PROGRAMS
Project Curb Appeal
Project Curb.Appeal would provide removal of weeds, litter and debris on main
thoroughfares from Medical Center to Waterman. Weeds, litter and debris would be
removed from the gutter to the property line (and on vacant lots and unoccupied
properties three feet back into property line) including parkways. This service would be
provided on each street every ten days. The program is being recommended as a six-
month pilot program at a cost of$25,000.
Vacant Lot Beautification (Pocket Parks)
The project concept is to provide interim use of vacant land for community benefit and
beautification activities. The program would move beyond just cleaning vacant lots by
using art, landscaping and decorative accents. Funding of$ I 00,000 for this program is in
the Mayor's list of recommended additions to the budget.
CHANGING CODE COMPLIANCE PHILOSOPHY AND PRIORITIES
The priority for Code Compliance has always been violation that present a threat to the
life, health and safety of residents and surrounding properties. This will always exist
although it takes a large amount of code compliance staff time and although it adds to the
livability of the city does not always help with beautification.
An additional priority has been tenant landlord complaints. We receive a large nwnber of
tenant landlord complaints. These complaints are most often about violations in the
interior of the property such as a leaky sink, holes in walls, stove or heating not working
etc. Some of these complaints end up being crank complaints used as retaliation against
landlords by tenants in the eviction process or landlords use the process against the tenant
lif
to assist with the eviction process. A third problem is that tenants call Code Compliance
before they call the landlord about problems.
Although, correcting the legitimate violations adds to the livability of properties it does
little to beautify San Bernardino since you can not observe these corrections from the
street. These complaints are nwnerous and require a large amount of staff time. Code
Compliance staff is working on a new process to weed out crank calls and require that
tenants contact the landlord and request repairs before we respond. Once it is determined
to be a crank call we will no longer respond to these complaints. If the tenant contacts
the landlord and he does not make the repair in a reasonable amount of time we will then
take appropriate action. This will allow us to make violations that effect the appearance
of our city a higher priority.
There is obviously a downside to this proposal. The Council and Mayor's Office could
see a tremendous increase in complaints from these landlords and tenants, as they are
normally the most vocal and insistent complainers. The crank callers will often not take
no for an answer and tenants will still want Code Compliance to contact the landlord
instead of making the contact themselves.
BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY TEAM (BAT)
As a result of the council goal setting session a Beautification Advisory Committee
(BAT) was formed to discuss long and short-term goals for beautification of San
Bernardino. The committee has developed a preliminary plan with both short-term
activities and a long-term goals and activities. Many of the short-term plans are included
previously in this memorandwn. The committee identified, as part of the first year plan,
the need to hire two interns to create a housing survey to evaluate neighborhoods and
categorize them into three zones: Blighted, Transitional and Stable, This survey would be
done in conjunction with the Economic Agency's survey of housing conditions. The cost
to hire the interns would be approximately $15,000 and is not in the current budget
proposal.
/6
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To:
Fred Wilson, City Administrator
From:
Raymond Casey, City Engineer, Development Services Department
Subject:
RESPONSES TO BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS
Date:
June 25, 2001
Copies:
Judith Valles; Mayor, Council Office; James Funk, Director of Development Services
The following issues were discussed at the previous budget workshop requiring a response from the
Development Services Department:
I) The advantal!es and disadvantal!es of Slurry Seal pavement rehabilitation
Although Slurry Seal is not designed to restore the structural integrity of the pavement section in
any way, or even address localized drainage problems, it is meant to "seal" small cracks (larger
cracks are sealed in the preparatory process) in the paving and provide a new wearing surface.
The overall effect is essentially to extend the life of the paving by about 5 to 7 years for those
roads that are good candidates for slurry seals. Typically, road sections would be good
candidates for a slurry application if they have limited truck traffic, limited cracking, and little
evidence of pavement failure. Of course with a program the size and scale of San Bernardino's
Slurry Seal program over the last several years, there is bound to be a few street sections slurried
that perhaps would have been better served by another type of rehabilitation strategy, but overall
the program has been particularly successful in addressing the City's local, residential street
needs. As you are aware, however, this year's proposed Capital Improvement Program budget
represents a shift toward addressing some of the city's arterial street needs with pavement
overlays and reduction in the overall slurry seal program partly because many of the city's
residential street needs have been met.
2) Over the counter plan checks
We currently do the following types of plan checks "over the counter":
. Minor Amendments to Plans
. Signs
. Pools
. Mobile Home Set Downs
. PatioslDecks
. Block Walls
. Minor Electrical Plumbing Plans
. Demolition Plans
/h
.'
, .
FRED WILSON, City Administrator
RESPONSES TO BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS
JUNE 26, 2001
Page 2 or2
These are plan checks that can be accomplished with minimum room for error in 10 to 15 minutes. Staff
has concerns about performing additional types of plan checks over the counter, which require more time
than this. To do so would also increase the waiting times for many of our customers at a public counter
that is already extremely busy. Additionally, plan checks for projects that require more time, such as
room additions, if done hastily may invite errors and omissions. This can be very costly for the
homeowner or contractor when the error is discovered during construction and has to be corrected.
However, staff has arrived at a suggestion that may accomplish some of the same goals.
Our current policy is "first come/first served". This creates a problem for smaller projects that only
require an hour or two of plan check time, since they often wait in the queue behind larger projects.
Rather than trying to deal with small room additions "over the counter", it may be better to establish a
separate completion goal for them and to assign staff to complete the plan checks in 1 to 3 days. Most
applicants would be very pleased with such a short-term turn-around. Of course, such a commitment is
contingent upon maintaining an adequate plan check staffing level. The Development Services
Department should be in a position to commence this service in about 3 to 4 months. In addition, we
thought we might try posting a sign indicating the type of permits eligible to be reviewed and issued over
the counter and, those that would be eligible for this "quick check" process.
3) Pav bv soace - CYSA Parkin!! Lots (Additional)
In researching this issue, staff learned that previous studies had been done for the City in other
areas. Based on these studies and subsequent conversations with the provider, the proposed
parking lots could be served with "pay by space" equipment.
Assuming 85% occupancy at 8 hours per day and 48 weekends per year, and 20% occupancy for
weeknights four hours per night, the provider has estimated his cost would be 30-40 % of the total
revenue. This would include installation and maintenance of the equipment and ticketing
administration. It would not include enforcement which would have to be done through normal
City enforcement activities.
Staff is estimating that the net revenue to the City from such a program would vary from about $80,000
annually based on $2.00 per space for a four-hour ticket to $160,000 annually based on $4.00 per space
per four-hour period.
These utilization assumptions may not be entirely accurate, however, and staff would like the opportunity
to pursue the issues in greater depth with both the provider(s) and representatives from the California
Youth Soccer Association (CYSA); and come back to the Council with a more formal recommendation
regarding the "pay for space" concept.
Should you have any additional questions regarding this information, please let me know.
C:\windows\TEMP\Fred Wilson. Responses 10 Budget Workshop Questionsl.doc.
/1