HomeMy WebLinkAbout27- City Administrator CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Shauna Clark Subject: Election -- per parcel tax to
City Administrator fund police positions -- report
Dept: from City Administrator.
Date: June 12 , 1996
N
AL
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
6/3/96 -- Mayor and Council directed City Administrator to research
concept, costs, and tax rates associated with ballot measure
to establish special parcel tax to fund police positions).
Recommended motion:
That the City Attorney be directed to prepare the necessary
documents for a November 1996 ballot measure on a special
parcel tax for police services. The measure will fund the
following: (select one of the three options in the staff report. )
Signature
Contact person: Shauna Clark Phone: 5122
Supporting data attached: yes Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $27 , 000
Source:(Acct. No.) General Fund - source to be identified
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262 AapnrIA Item Ain —) 7
STAFF REPORT
On June 3 , 1996, the Mayor and Common Council took action to notify
the Registrar of Voters of the city's intent to hold an election on
police funding. The City Administrator was directed to research
the concept, costs, and tax rates associated with a ballot measure.
Said measure would establish a special parcel tax to fund the 65
sworn/non-sworn police positions added since 1990 and related costs
associated with staffing. These 65 positions are currently funded
by an offset through Street Lighting and Sweeping Assessment
District 994 and in part by a federal COPS grant. The measure
would also fund 69 additional personnel and related costs as set
forth in the Police Department's five year staffing plan.
Assessment Units
One of first steps is to create a formula for spreading taxes to
each parcel. If there are no legal barriers, I recommend that the
formula currently used in Assessment District 994 be applied. Les
Fogassy of Public Works has indicated that with regard to District
994, annual assessments are spread by "assessment unit" with a
single family residence as the basis for one (1) assessment unit
(AU) . Assessment units for other parcels are applied on the basis
of their use code as designated by the County Assessor. Below is
a list of the most common use codes and the AU designation for
each:
a) Vacant lot = .5 AU (assessment units)
b) Commercial, Industrial, Retail, etc. = 4 AU per acre
c) Multi-family = .73 AU's per living unit per parcel
d) Mobile home parks = . 63 AU's per mobile home per parcel
e) Condo or PUD's = .9 AU's per parcel.
f) Single family home = 1 AU
San Bernardino's total number of assessment units varies from year
to year due to changes in land uses, land divisions and transfers
from private to public ownership. Presently the city has 67, 043
assessment units.
Tax rates
The next step is to determine the tax per parcel. This begins with
creating a budget for positions and related costs to be funded.
The Police Department's five year plan adds 69 positions above
current staffing levels. Their goal is to achieve 33% proactive
patrol time. In order to maintain current staffing levels, 65
sworn/non-sworn positions must also be funded. The Finance
Department calculated all personnel costs. The Police Department
supplied information on related costs such as vehicles, training,
equipment and supplies. Finance has created the attached spread
sheets to list all costs over a five year period.
At my request, Finance prepared an estimate of total costs for
bringing the 69 additional positions on in the first year of the
new tax. Option 1, below, tells you what that tax rate would be.
Option 1
Retention of current 65, addition of 69 and related cost. Full implementation in Year 1
Tax Rates FY97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/2K FY 2K/01 FY 01/02
a) Vacant lot 68.51 68.47 73.01 77.66 80.89
b) Commercial (based on 1/4 acre) 137.03 136.95 146.02 155.33 161.78
c) Multi-family (per unit) 100.03 99.97 106.59 113.39 118.10
d) Mobile home (per unit) 86.33 86.28 91.99 97.86 101.92
e) Condo or PUD (per unit) 123.32 123.25 131.42 139.79 145.60
f) Single family 137.03 136.95 146.02 155.33 161.78
Total Assessment: 9,186,614 9,181,250 9,789,643 10,413,493 10,846,378
Option 2
Retention of current 65, five-year phase-in of additional 69 and related cost
Tax Rates FY97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/21K FY 2K/01 FY 01/02
a) Vacant lot 39.32 50.21 62.31 73.61 78.95
b) Commercial (based on 1/4 acre) 78.64 100.42 124.62 147.23 157.90
c) Multi-family (per unit) 57.41 73.31 90.97 107.48 115.27
d) Mobile home (per unit) 49.54 63.27 78.51 92.75 99.48
e) Condo or PUD (per unit) 70.78 90.38 112.16 132.51 142.11
f) Single family 78.64 100.42 124.62 147.23 157.90
Total Assessment: 5,272,206 6,732,707 8,354,679 9,870,631 10,586,301
Impact of eliminating AD 994
Assessment District 994 was created to fund several programs in
order to release general fund money for additional police and to
upgrade street lighting and street sweeping service levels. The
district was expanded in 1994 to cover annexed territory and to
divert general funds used for traffic signal maintenance to Police
for use as a match for an additional 17 sworn positions. The
expansion also funded a new program, graffiti removal, which
previously had been funded by EDA. The assessment district brings
in $4,446, 202 in annual revenue to fund the following:
Street lighting $2 , 084 , 000
Street sweeping $1, 188,700
Traffic signals $ 797 , 900
Graffiti removal $ 345, 602
District admin. $ 30, 000
9
Of the above, $3 , 567, 280 is diverted to the Police Department. The
difference: $878, 922 pays for graffiti removal and part of the
upgrade in sweeping from once per month to twice per month.
Elimination of AD 994 would require the city to identify
alternative funding for continuation of the graffiti program and
the upgraded street sweeping.
There is a way to eliminate Assessment District No. 994 with a
parcel tax while providing for the graffiti abatement and some
extra sweeping. This could be accomplished by funding the non-
personnel costs associated with the 65 positions through the parcel
tax. Currently, the assessment district and the grant do not pick
up the full costs of the 65 positions. Many related costs
(overtime, vehicle maintenance, gasoline, training, supplies, etc. )
are paid by the general fund because no other funding source was
identified when the positions were added. I know of nothing that
would prohibit shifting those costs to the parcel tax; they are
police-related and currently in the department's budget. This
would allow for a shift back of $559,500 in the first year and
would at least cover the graffiti abatement.
My recommendation is that the parcel tax be structured to pay for
the 65 current positions, for all related costs associated with
those positions, and for the phase-in, over a five year period, of
69 additional positions and all costs associated with those
positions.
Option 3 (City Administrator's Recommendation)
Retention of current 65, pick up related cost; five-year phase-in of anticipated 69 and related cost.
Tax Rates FY97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/2K FY 2K/01 FY 01/02
a) Vacant lot 43.49 56.83 69.33 79.43 84.92
b) Commercial (based on 1/4 acre) 86.98 113.66 138.66 158.87 169.84
c) Multi-family (per unit) 63.50 82.97 101.22 115.97 123.98
d) Mobile home (per unit) 54.80 71.61 87.36 100.09 107.00
e) Condo or PUD (per unit) 78.29 102.30 124.80 142.98 152.85
f) Single family 86.98 113.66 138.66 158.87 169.84
Total Assessment: 5,831,706 7,620,207 9,296,379 10,650,931 11,386,301
3
Mitigating Downside Risk
There is the additional concern that the need to achieve a super-
majority will make any tax measure very difficult, resulting in the
layoff of the 65 sworn and non-sworn police positions hired since
1990. To prevent this, I recommend that the ballot language be
worded in a way that would automatically eliminate Assessment
District No. 994 only upon passage of the new measure. Put simply,
Assessment District 994 could be eliminated in only two ways: 1.
approval by the voters of the parcel tax or 2 . a decision by the
Council not to extend the district past its June, 1997, sunset.
Election Costs and Information
According to Rachel Clark, City Clerk, the charge from the County
for placing this measure on the November ballot is approximately
$27, 000. Additional staff costs will be incurred by the City
Attorney and City Clerk but cannot be measured at this time.
Within certain guidelines, the city can provide information about
police services to the public. It is recommended that Mayor Minor
appoint a committee of at least one Councilmember, the City
Attorney and the Chief of Police to develop a city-wide strategy
for disseminating information about the measure.
I would like to reiterate that prior to applying the assessment
engineering formula from the Street Lighting/Sweeping District to
the special election, the concept must be reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney.
Required Council Action
Motion: Instruct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
documents for a November 1996 ballot measure on a special
parcel tax for police services. The measure will fund the
following: (select one of the three options above)
4
SHEET 1
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 994
CURRENT POSITIONS
I i i
POSITION #
TITLE POSS 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 02 01102 TOTAL
P1 20 1,488,293 1,567,988 1,610,538 1,654,555 1,698,555 8,019,929
P3 3 289,700 303,369 309,830 316,400 325,000 1544,299
PRCI 11 355,034 355,034 355,034 365,685 375,000 1,805,787
CSRIII 1 52,090 52,090 52,090 53,652 55,400 265,322
CSRII 12 472,759 472,759 472,759 486,942 492,945 2,398,164
TYPE CLERK II 1 29,211 29,211 29,211 30,087 31,675 149,395
ADDED P1 17 1,207,337 1,332,789 1,368,957 1,406,372 1,456,332 6,771,787
BENEFIT PKG 424,3591 1 424,359 1 424,3591 1 424,359 424,359 2,121,795
TOTAL 65 4,318,783 1 4,537,599 4,622,778 4,738,052 4,859,266 23,076,478;
I
i
5 YEAR PLAN WITH
ALL HIRED IN 1997/98
I
POSITION #
TITLE POS 1997/98. 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 T TA
P1 42 2,492,214 2,697,990 2,991,584 3,315,111 3,569,312 15,066,211
P2 8 648,689 685,137 723,177 744,392 766,258 2,918,964
P3 4 368,596 386,266 404,493 413,107 421,867 1,625,733
PRCI 4 108,824 114,428 120,032 126,038 132,976 493,474
PRC I I 1 32,338 33,963 35,650 35,650 36,720 141,983
CSRI 5 154,142 161,843 169,932 178,446 188,301 698,522
CSRII 1 35,728 37,524 39,397 39,397 40,578 79,975
TRANS 4 42,400 42,400 42,400 42,400 42,400 169,600
9 X8132° �.! ". ,
OTHER COSTS 1 984,900 484,100 640,200 780,900 788,700 3,678,800
TOT . :,.. � „ __. 69 . 4;867,8 ._ ;64 ,651 5,166,866 s .._. .5�6s,44t. .,.. ,.. .
9 417 ;
j I
SHEET 2
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 9941
CURRENT POSITIONS
POSITION #
TITLE POS 1997/98 1 / 9 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 T TAL
P1 20 1,488,293 1,567,988 1,610,538 1,654,555 1,698,555 8,019,929
P3 3 289,700 303,369 309,830 316,400 325,000 1,544,299
PRCI _ 11 355,034 355,034 355,034 365,685 375,000 1,805,787
CSRIII 1 52,090 52,090 52,090 53,652 55,400 265,322
CSRII 12 472,759 472,759 472,759 486,942 492,945 2,398,164
TYPE CLERK II 1 29,211 29,211 29,211 30,087 31,675 149,395
ADDED P1 17 1,207,337 1,332,789 1,368,957 1,406,372 1,456,332 6,771,787
BENEFIT PKG 424,359 424,359 424,359 424,359 424,359 2,121,795
TOTAL 65 4,318,7$3 4,537,599 4,622,778 4,738,052 4,859,266 23,076,47$:
I '
5 YEAR PLAN WITH
VARIABLE HIRE DATES
POSITION # # # # #
TITLE PSIS 1997798 POS 1998/99 POS 1999/2000 POS 2000/01 POS 200-1M/ T TA'
P1 11 652,723 22 1,394,585 32 2,186,649 42 3,026,451 42 3,312,856 10,573,264
P2 2 171,284 4 361,582 6 558,258 8 767,456 1,858,580
P3 1 96,567 2 202,597 3 309,830 4 421,867 1,030,861
PRCI 1 27,206 2 55,813 3 85,782 4 120,811 289,612
PRCI I 1 32,338 1 33,963 11 35,650 1 36,720 138,671
CSRI 1 30,828 2 63,197 41 128,012 51 170,199 392,236
CSRII 11 35,728 1 38,650 74,378
TRANS 1 10,600 2 21,200 31 31,800 41 42,400 106,000
OTHER COSTS 300,700 431,700 806,900 921,068 816,076 3,276,444
I
3:2 01 ..635`f',S 7, 0�0.GGT . �s4iL
I
I
I
I
I
� I
SHEET 3
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 994
CURRENT POSITIONS AND OPERATION COSTS
POSITION #
TITLE POS 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 TOTAL
P1 20 1,488,293 1,567,988 1,610,538 1,654,555 1,698,555 8,019,929
P3 3 289,700 303,369 309,830 316,400 325,000 1,544,299
PRCI 11 355,034 355,034 355,034 365,685 375,000 1,805,787
CSRIII 1 52,090 52,090 52,090 53,652 55,400 265,322
CSRII 12 472,759 472,759 472,759 486,942 492,945 2,398,164
TYPE CLERK II 1 29,211 29,211 29,211 30,087 31,675 149,395
ADDED P1 17 1,207,337 1,332,789 1,368,957 1,406,372 1,456,332 6,771,787
BENEFIT PKG 424,359 424,359 424,359 424,359 424,359 2,121,795
SUBT.UTAL 65 4,318;783; 4,537:599 4,622;778 4.738.0621, 4,859,266' 2'3,076,48
OTHER COSTS 559,500 887,500 941,700 780,300 800,000 3,969,000
TOTAL..,,..'..:' 65 '4,878,283' 5,425;099 5„
,. 515181,35 wj .445
5 YEAR PLAN WITH
VARIABLE HIRE DATES
POSITION # # # # #
TITLE 1997/98 PQ5; 1998/99 PPOS 1999/2000 PQ� 2 / 1 PQSti 2001/02 TOTAL
P1 11 652,723 22 1,394,585 32 2,186,649 42 3,026,451 42 3,312,856 10,573,264
P2 2 171,284 4 361,582 6 558,258 8 767,456 1,858,580
P3 1 96,567 2 202,597 3 309,830 4 421,867 1,030,861
PRCI 1 27,206 2 55,813 3 85,782 4 120,811 289,612
PRCI I 1 32,338 1 33,963 1 35,650 1 36,720 138,671
CSRI 1' 30,828 2 63,197 4 128,012 5 170,199 392,236
CSRII 1 1 35,728 1 38,650 74,378
TRANS 11 10,600 2 21,200 3 31,800 411 42,400 106,000
SUBTQTAL x ffi x 1 ° X852 723 29� t 763085 2025,t1E1��
OTHER COSTS 300,700 I 431,700 806,900 921,068 816,076 3,276,444
I
C}TAE�` t .;: 953,423'`' 29 2;195tt08 45 A 731,9Qf
i
'Option 1"
Tax Rates FY97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/2K FY 2K/01 FY 01/02
a) Vacant lot 68.51 68.47 73.01 77.66 80.89
b) Commercial (based on 1/4 acre) 137.03 136.95 146.02 155.33 161.78
c) Multi-family (per unit) 100.03 99.97 106.59 113.39 118.10
d) Mobile home (per unit) 86.33 86.28 91.99 97.86 101.92
e) Condo or PUD (per unit) 123.32 123.25 131.42 139.79 145.60
D Single family 137.03 136.95 146.02 155.33 161.78
Total Assessment: 9,186,614 9,181,250 9,789,643 10,413,493 10,846,378
....._..
. ......... ........
........ _
_ ........ ......... .. _ .......
........................ ......... ...... _..........
............. ......... ........ ......... ... _... ..._. _.....
............. ........ ........ ......... .... ... ...... ......
........ ........ ........ ..................... _ ..._.......
.............. .......... ...... _...
........ ...... _ _ ............
..............
.... ..__....._...
...........
_ _ _ .
Option 2
Tax Rates FY97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/2K FY 2K/01 FY 01/02
a) Vacant lot 39.32 50.21 62.31 73.61 78.95
b) Commercial (based on 1/4 acre) 78.64 100.42 124.62 147.23 157.90
c) Multi-family (per unit) 57.41 73.31 90.97 107.48 115.27
d) Mobile home (per unit) 49.54 63.27 78.51 92.75 99.48
e) Condo or PUD (per unit) 70.78 90.38 112.16 132.51 142.11
f) Single family 78.64 100.42 124.62 147.23 157.90
Total Assessment: 5,272,206 6,732,707 8,354,679 9,870,631 10,586,301
Option 3
Tax Rates FY97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/2K FY 2K/01 FY 01/02
a) Vacant lot 43.49 56.83 69.33 79.43 84.92
b) Commercial (based on 1/4 acre) 86.98 113.66 138.66 158.87 169.84
c) Multi-family (per unit) 63.50 82.97 101.22 115.97 123.98
d) Mobile home (per unit) 54.80 71.61 87.36 100.09 107.00
e) Condo or PUD (per unit) 78.29 102.30 124.80 142.98 152.85
f) Single family 86.98 113.66 138.66 158.87 169.84
Total Assessment: 5,831,706 7,620,207 9,296,379 10,650,931 11,386,301
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Councilman Jerry M. Devlin, Fifth Ward Subject: Assessment District Election Issue
. Council Office
Date: May 10, 1996
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
July 1994 - Mayor & Council continued and increased Assessment District 994.
Recommended Motion:
To discuss and take possible action to place an item on the November 1996 ballot that would
request an advisory vote of the public supporting a $9 increase to the current assessment
for Assessment District #994 .
Si nature
Contact Person: Councilman Jerry Devlin Phone: 5278
Supporting Data Attached: Yes Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:
Source: (Acct.No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
C' A Notes: (vi�4 S-a0- �� # y3
r-lolice Ad Hoc Committee recommended, on May 7, 1996, that this item go to the full 1
on May 20, 1996.
AGEN %/
C I T Y O F S A N B E R N A R D I N 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Ad Hoc Committee Members
FROM: Jer lin, Ad Hoc Committee Chairman
SUBJECT: Assessment District 994 - Proposed Ballot Question
Advisory
DATE: May 6, 1996
COPIES :
In 1990 the City adopted an Assessment District for Street
Lighting and Street Sweeping in order to raise funds to increase
Police Department staffing by 48 positions. In 1994 the Assessment
District was increased to provide matching funds in order to take
advantage of a Federal grant for an additional 17 police officers.
The current assessment does not exceed $65 per year for each single
family home.
Both the grant funding and the Assessment District expire in
June of 1997. The Council can extend and/or increase the
Assessment District by a 5/7ths vote in June of 1997 . However,
before considering this increase, I believe the Council should
place the measure on the ballot to receive an indication from the
voters if they would support an increase in the assessment fee of
approximately $9 per parcel in order to retain nine positions which
will otherwise be lost when grant funding expires in June of 1997 .
The Police Department currently has a total of 286 sworn
officer positions. Industry standards (POST Standards) dictate
that maximum effectiveness of police resources is achieved at the
point wherein each officer on patrol can dedicate 33% of their time
to proactive patrol . Currently calls for service limit proactive
patrol time of less than 18% per officer.
A comprehensive computer analysis performed by the Police
Department indicates that in order to meet industry standards of
33% proactive patrol time, the City must add positions to patrol.
The loss of nine positions would increase the current deficiency.
A plan is being developed to fund the "phase in" hiring of
additional officers . But our current number of officers and
current level of funding must be maintained in order to be eligible
to receive funding consideration. This funding opportunity has a
very narrow window of opportunity which will expire before the
November election. While it is necessary to maintain the current
police positions and level of funding, the Mayor and Council, in
July of 1994, committed to an election on the Assessment District
issue. It is suggested that the Council seek guidance from the
public through an advisory vote in November.
The following (or similar) language is suggested:
"Would you support an increase in the current
assessment, (District #994) which funds police
personnel, by no more than $9 per parcel, in
order to retain nine police officer positions
which will lose grant funding in June 1997. 11
(yes or no)
The Citywide survey conducted recently by the Police Strategic
Plan Task Force indicates that a majority of those responding were
willing to pay more in order to increase the number of Police
officers in the community. Before the City expends the resources
to do the engineering, surveys and etc. , it might be prudent to ask
our citizenry if they would support such a Police Assessment
District .
The following (or similar) language is suggested:
Would you support increases in the current
Assessment District #994 to fund an increase
in the number of police officers to allow for
a 33$ Proactive Patrol? (yes or no)
AND/OR
Would you support an ad valorem tax measure to
fund additional police positions if placed on
the ballot for approval? (yes or no)
I ask that we consider these proposals and others which might
soon be proposed. I believe that we will need to meet again soon
in order to formulate recommendations to the entire Council .