Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-2006 MinutesMayor Patrick J. Morris Council Members: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Esther Estrada 300 N. "D "Street Dennis Baxter Gordon McGinnis San Bernardino, CA 92418 Neil Derry Website: www.sbcirV.org Chas Kelley Rikke Van Johnson Wendy McCammack MINUTES MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO JOINT ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JUNE 8, 2006 - 4:00 P.M. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARDROOM 201 NORTH "E" STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA This is the time and place designated for a joint adjourned regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino from the joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, June 5, 2006, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The City Clerk has caused to be posted the order of adjournment of said meeting held on Monday, June 5, 2006, and has on file in the office of the City Clerk an affidavit of said posting together with a copy of said order which was posted at 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 6, 2006, on the City Hall breezeway bulletin board. The joint adjourned regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor/Chairman Morris at 4:11 p.m., Thursday, June 8, 2006, in the Economic Development Agency Boardroom, 201 North "E" Street, San Bernardino, California. 1 06/08/2006 Roll Call Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present: Mayor/Chairman Morris; Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack; City Attorney Penman; City Manager Wilson; City Clerk Clark. Absent: Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis. 1. Budget deliberations - Fiscal Year 2006/07 - discuss and take possible action - City & EDA budgets Mayor/Chairman Morris indicated that this was not a bad budget year; in fact, the budget as laid out would allow the City to move ahead with the City's pledge to the community to reinforce its Police Department with additional officers. He noted that there were some uncertainties, including the future of the City's Utility User Tax (UUT)—an issue which calls for the Council to be relatively conservative in their assessment of the future and one reason why they need to buttress the City's reserve. City Manager Wilson advised that today's presentation was simply to provide an overview to the Council and to the public on both the City's and the Agency's budgets. He stated that Barbara Pachon, Director of Finance, would provide the Council with an overview of the preliminary FY 2006/07 City budget, followed by the Agency's presentation of the Agency budget. He noted that two follow- up budget meetings were already scheduled for June 20 and 21, when the Council would have a chance to deliberate in more detail about the budget. He pointed out that the budget is a balanced budget and generally a good budget. He noted that revenues are up in general, but primarily in the area of property taxes. He stated that the budget to be presented today was $133.8 million—the General Fund portion of the budget—that the total budget was about $193 million, not including the Capital Improvement Program Budget. He added that the budget does include at this time funding for 14 new police officer positions and 3 non -sworn positions in the Police Department, as well as 2 new code officer positions. City Budget Presentation - Barbara Pachon Barbara Pachon, Director of Finance, reviewed in detail several schedules contained in the Budget Summary section of the budget document. She noted that revenues for the General Fund this year were $122 million, which is $10 million more than what staff was able to budget for the current fiscal year; and the main reason for that is that property taxes have grown substantially, with the biggest growth in the new Property Tax In -lieu of VLF. 2 06/08/2006 She advised that the largest revenue source in the General Fund is sales tax, which has been growing; in fact, in regular sales tax there was about $1.1 million in growth factored into next year's budget. Also, in the property tax in - lieu of sales tax there was another big growth because in the current fiscal year 2005/06 there was a true -up payment that cities actually owed money back to the State due to erroneous calculations, which equated to approximately $1.4 million that was added into fiscal year 2006/07 that the City did not get in fiscal year 2005/06. Ms. Pachon pointed out that the Utility Users Tax (UUT) was also one of the City's larger revenues and has grown every year. However, for 2006/07 she budgeted at the same amount that was anticipated for fiscal year 2005/06 because there are some looming issues with the UUT—in fact, we may lose some revenues here. She noted that for this fiscal year staff had anticipated almost $119 million in revenues, and next year they have budgeted for $123 million. Going to the expenditures, Ms. Pachon advised that pretty much everybody's budget had been increased, and that was done to cover things like negotiated step increases or pay increases through MOU negotiations. Also, any reorganizations of staff or changes in departments approved during the year were folded in. She advised that there were a few changes that had been done this year with the budget that typically staff has been unable to do in years past, and that was inclusion in the preliminary budget of new additional positions. She noted that included in the Police Department budget were 17 additional positions -14 sworn and 3 non -sworn; the Fire Department budget included 3 additional firefighter positions, per a negotiated agreement the City did a couple of years ago; Code Enforcement included two additional positions; and Development Services had a reorganization that had been factored into their budget. She stated that it was the first time in a long time that staff has actually been able to add right into the preliminary budget some additional positions and still have a balanced budget. Ms. Pachon noted that with any budget there is going to be some savings factored in, and this year staff had used the same standard as last year --$1 million. She added that transfers out are pretty much on target with last year. This is where the General Fund pays for and helps some of the non -General Fund departments like Library, Cable TV, and Animal Control. 3 06/08/2006 She pointed out that bottom line, if you look purely at the revenues and expenditures, there is about $5 million difference between them. Since we have a beginning fund balance of $14 million, once you account for the $5 million difference between the revenues and expenditures, we end up with a projected ending fund balance of almost $9 million, which is more than we have had in many years. As for that $9 million, she reminded everyone that during this current year the Mayor and Council directed staff to put just over $1 million into the reserves specifically for PERS safety costs in the future, which we know are going to be going up. They were also able to increase the regular general budget reserve by $1.3 million, which is a good thing, because as she indicated earlier, there may be some changes with the Utility Users Tax, but we know that we have an extra $1.3 million in our reserve. She indicated that right now, based on all of these assumptions that staff has put into the preliminary budget, there is a budget excess, or what they call the undesignated balance, of $28,500. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that she thought it was possible that staff had underestimated the City's property taxes by as much as $1.3 to $1.8 million. If that was the case, she suggested that Mayor Morris direct Chief Billdt to hire as many officers as he thinks he needs to fully implement his policing plan. She stated that even though we know it takes so many months to ramp up to hire because of the lack of a pool to hire from, the Mayor and Council could come to some agreement to hire more officers and then mid -year when the City gets that first payment in December from the County for property tax, even if it's half of that $1.3 or $1.8 million, then we are at least continuing on the right track to continue to hire officers to fulfill the plan that the Mayor and the Chief have come up with. Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that he and the Chief have had some lengthy discussions, together with the City Manager, about what the Chief can handle by way of recruitment of officers in the coming fiscal year. He stated that he would ask the Chief to respond to Ms. McCammack; however, it was the Mayor's understanding that because of the substantial number of officers needing to be replaced due to expected retirements, that the hiring of 14 sworn officers and 3 non -sworn personnel would maximize the Chief's capacity to raise the numbers this fiscal year. Chief Billdt stated that he would like to start off with a little background information and give the Mayor and Council an historical perspective of what they have done thus far this fiscal cycle. He reminded everyone that the Mayor and Council authorized ten new officers for this budgeted fiscal cycle. As of today, the department has zero vacancies. But in order to achieve the hiring of 4 06/08/2006 ten additional police officers, they have had to hire 36 officers this year, because they had an attrition rate of 26. He explained that for each officer they hire, on average, they have to look at approximately 100 applicants, which means in the next fiscal cycle if the Council decides to approve the 14 officers, or whatever the number may be, in addition to that number they anticipate an attrition rate of 20 during the 2006/07 fiscal cycle. So if the 14 are approved, he needs to hire 34 new positions, which means he has to potentially look at 3400 applicants. He added that in addition to that, the academy is 21 weeks and the field training is about 18 weeks. Therefore, it's one thing to hire a new officer, it's another thing for the department to have the resources available to train those new officers so they are available to go into the field as a solo officer. He stated that the question is, how many officers can he hire during the next fiscal cycle. Based on what they hired last year, the number being 36, and given the fact that the captain of the division and his staff worked very hard to hire those 36 (which is 3 per month, which is no small undertaking) and given the fact that the City is competing with every other agency in the valley, and for that matter in southern California, to hire these officers, he stated that he felt reasonably confident that he could hire a similar number during the next fiscal cycle, which means we will need to hire about 34-36 officers during the next year. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley asked if there was any possible way that the City could hire lateral transfers from other departments, eliminating the need for all the training necessary for new recruits. He asked if there was a tool the Council could give the Chief—an incentive—to bring lateral transfers over in order to speed up the process. Chief Billdt answered that there are competing issues with respect to attracting lateral transfers because they are seasoned, trained, and they have a lot of background. However, there are things the City could do to attract these officers, but that is another budgetary issue. He stated that first and foremost the City would need to be competitive with the other communities that are competing for the same officers, and this would include a whole host of things including benefits, incentives, and other things. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada stated that as the City goes through the process of hiring more officers, it was important to keep in mind and make sure that mechanisms are in place to be able to keep those police officers on board once we hire them—that ongoing revenue would need to be identified. Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that when you look at the number of properties that remain on the market, when you look at the stock market and the down cycle of that particular indicator, and when you look at the price of fuel oil, you could become a little concerned about the health of our economy. 5 06/08/2006 He asked Ms. Pachon to respond to Ms. McCammack's suggestion that she might have underestimated by $1.3 million a potential income stream from property taxes in the next fiscal year. Ms. Pachon admitted that her figures were on the more conservative side, but her number one concern was to make sure that she could come back to the Council and tell them they have more money. She stated that she didn't want to hire positions and have to come back and say that Finance made a mistake and we are short $1 million. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that the most critical piece of information that the Chief gave the Council is that he had 26 officers that he lost in attrition last fiscal year, and he will lose another 20 this fiscal year. Therefore, he is not even going to keep up with the number of officers he has been authorized to hire at the rate that he is able to hire. She stated that her concern was that if we don't at least allow the positions to be open, knowing full well it takes a good six months minimum to get them filled, knowing that attrition is happening at the same time, she is not sure how we are going to get ahead. Council Member/Commissioner Derry stated that he wanted to comment on the issue regarding revenues. He noted that Ms. Estrada had mentioned that we don't know what is going to happen in future years, but he didn't think revenues were going to be falling. He pointed out that while the housing market has slowed, property values are not falling—they are continuing to rise even with the slowing of the market, and the turnover of older houses to newer buyers means that properties that were assessed at $100,000 are now being assessed at $300,000-350,000. Every time an old house is sold, Proposition 13 starts over again with the new homebuyers. He pointed out that there has been a lot of turnover just in the past two years, and those revenues aren't going to drop because those property values are not dropping even with the slowdown in the market. He added that the City does not make much money on the sale of the property, it makes it on the new assessment value of the property taxes. He stated that he did not think the City had ever really seen falling budgets in the past; it was just a matter of whether our budget growth would meet the cost of doing business. City Manager Wilson stated that he thought Ms. Estrada had brought up some good issues, and the Council really needed to look two or three years down the road to get a better sense of how things may be. He stated that he thought it would help the Council make some informed decisions about some long-term commitments the City is going to have to face. He added that it is known that some new costs are coming, and if these costs could be factored in, staff could make some assumptions regarding the estimates and provide the Council with that information so the Council, not just this year but the next two years or so, can make those decisions at the appropriate time. 6 06/08/2006 Mayor/Chairman Morris asked Ms. Pachon to provide at the next budget meeting some estimates for the Council regarding projected costs of ongoing obligations; particularly for those safety employees who dominate the cost factors in the budget as they retire in substantial numbers at their 20' anniversary with the City and become an ongoing obligation for the City post retirement. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada asked if it would be possible to include in those projections the number of officers expected to retire over the next three years, and also include how many people usually go out sick, etc. Mayor/Chairman Morris noted that very few officers stay beyond the 20' anniversary of their arrival. Chief Billdt stated that he would be happy to get these figures together for the next budget meeting. EDA Budget Presentation - Barbara Lindseth Maggie Pacheco, Executive Director, Economic Development Agency, advised that the EDA had a $107 million budget this year, comprised of tax increments, bonds, housing funds, and federal funds. She stated that the reason for such a high number this year was because the budget included the bond proceeds for the housing fund that was authorized by the Mayor and Council a couple of months ago. She noted that on the positive side, there had been an increase in property tax increment of about 14 percent, creating a surplus; and staff would be asking the Council to look at this surplus and examine their project area needs. In addition, staff would be asking the Council to consider some of staffs recommendations at a later date. She advised that the Agency had also made some recommendations with regard to staffing—that they currently have 19 full-time positions, of which they are asking for deletion of a senior project manager, reclassification of three positions, and addition of one position. In addition, they are asking for some changes in the benefits afforded to the Redevelopment Agency staff. She reiterated that essentially the Agency had a positive budget this year and staff would be coming back with some specific recommendations and ideas, looking at each project area individually and looking at ways to fulfill some of the needs that are deficient in the project areas. She advised that Ms. Lindseth would go through each of the handouts to walk the Council through each of the project area tax increment projections as well as the other funding sources. 7 06/08/2006 Barbara Lindseth, EDA Director of Administrative Services, reiterated that the total Agency budget is $107 million this year, which is an increase of about $31 million over last year and includes the $25 million that came into the low -mod fund through the downtown housing plan. Ms. Lindseth advised that 91 percent of the Agency's budget is pre -approved items—bond payments, contract agreements, and other operating costs that are basically set year after year; 6 percent is the amount of the carryover— additional money that the Council can look at when she reviews cash flows; and 3 percent is for operation of the Agency—money which staff has some discretion over. Ms. Lindseth provided a detailed review of the following documents: • 2006-07 Fiscal Year Budget (brown paper) • Combined Tax Increment Fund Projections - As of May 1, 2006 (blue paper) • Cash Flow Analysis, Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for Fiscal Year 2006-07 - As of May 1, 2006 (green paper) • Bond Proceeds as of April 30, 2006 (yellow paper) It was noted that there would be $6.2 million for redevelopment projects or bonding capacity. Mayor/Chairman Morris stated again that this is a healthy budget year with money in the preliminary budget to do those things the City has committed to doing in terms of public safety; there is a healthy reserve; and within the EDA budget there is an interesting opportunity that he wanted everyone to dream about, keeping in mind that this is a City, not a ward, and we need to understand that we need to leverage these resources to the maximum advantage of our City's long-term future. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada stated that she wanted to make sure that the Council had sufficient time at the next budget meetings to be able to discuss, recommend, and make changes to the budget without feeling rushed. She also noted that the Council didn't have to adopt a budget by the end of June—that they could adopt a continuing resolution, if necessary. Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that the budget sessions did not necessarily have to be limited to the hours that were set arbitrarily on the calendar—they could bring in dinner, they could extend the hours, they could do whatever was necessary to get the job done. 8 06/08/2006 City Manager Wilson stated that for the next meeting there would be a list of unfunded budget requests from the various departments that would be distributed to the Council; but beyond that, it was really the Council's workshop. He indicated that he would have this information to the Council by Monday, June 12. 2. Adjournment At 5:50 p.m., the meeting adjourned. The next joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council/Community Development Commission is scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Monday, June 19, 2006, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. No. of Item: 2 No. of Hours: 2 RACHEL G. CLARK City Clerk By: 44,'0. A , 7�t Linda E. Hartzel Deputy City Clerk 9 06/08/2006