HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-Budget Discussion
C rOy 0 F SAN B ERN AO> I N 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
Shauna Edwins, City Administrator
FROM:
Rachel Krasney, City Clerk
DATE:
June 20, 1991
RE:
Councilman Minor's Revenue Enhancement Ideas -
Proposed at 6/19/91 Council Meeting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy City Clerk Jones prepared
Councilman Minor's remarks last night
of his revenue generating ideas:
a verbatim transcript of
and following are excerpts
Increasina:
1. Franchise Fee Rates for cable TV
2. Southern Pacific Pipe (?) franchise fee
3. Certificate of Occupancies fees
4. Sign Permit Fees
5. Game Operators Fees
6. Welding license
7. Fire Code Permit Fee
8. Gun Permit Fee
9. House Moving (Oversized) permit fee
10. Street Cut Permit Fee
11. Encroachment Permit Fee
12. Parking citation fines
13. Election filing fee
14. Building moving fee
15. Variance fees (and minor variances)
16. Environmental Impact Report fees
o
o
Shauna Edwins
City Administrator
Page Two
17. Pistol range fees
18. Fingerprinting fees
19. Expeditious review fees
20. Street vacation filing fees
21. Fees for sale of photos
22. Fees for development agreements
Additionally, he suggested that we explore the following:
23. Commissions on vending machines
24. Telephone commissions
25. Aid from County/Highland for administering crossing
guard program or drop the program and let them run
their own.
26. Aid from County for signal maintenance/energy
27. Aid from Highland for maintenance/repair of lights
Shauna, if you need additional info, plese call me.
C?~
Rachel
Council MeOr Minor real quick like, Oe been making a few
notes and taking stock of what the folks who have been k.ind
enough to come down an share their thoughts with us at the
meeting.
It would appear that the utility taxes is not wanted,
the transfer of property tax is not wanted. All these things we
have talked about in here are going to have a tough sledding at
best. If you can't create money through some kind of tax or fee
or something the only choice left after that is the termination
of programs and employees. And I think that is the last thing we
want to do, but if we can't swing something, all that is left is
that very thing to fall back and do away with people.
I made some notes on things I thought, I don't know how much
money it will create, I just jot them down here over a period of
time, but under various categories for example:
Other Taxes
1. /Franchise Fee Rates for cable TV.
2. /Southern Pacific Pipe Franchise Fee - maybe we want to
raise some of those franchise fees.
License and Permit Area
Maybe we should look at the fee for ~certificate of
occupancies,/sign permits,'game operators fees,/welding license,
v'fire code permits, .Igun permits, "house moving oversized permits,
/street cut permits, {,ncroachment permits.
, / k'
Perhaps we should look at 1ncrease general fines on par 1ng
citations, if we can do that through the courts.
should look at Ivending machine commissions and
commission. Also within the interest of governmental
at the Icounty aide in crossing guards, lets get some
Perhaps we
/telephone
area, look
more money
out of them, fJCJboing the administration ~ that, the same for
the city of Highland, change the agreement lets get more money
out of them for managing the crossing guards or drop the program
and let them run their own.
Current Services:
The {lection filing fee - maybe we ought to up the price on
that, there is some good money here, and I see City Admin.
shaking her head perhaps we can't do it.
these are things we should look at.
I'm just suggesting
An ~uilding moving fee, a -'ariance fee, vaevelopment
agreements, 'increase the fee for environmental impact report,
Isale of photos, ~istol range fee, 'fingerprinting fee - I was over
at the police department this afternoon and there was a line. of
about 20 long over there getting fingerprints and we do it darn
cheap if they are lining up to do it~ the /expeditious review
fees,~inor variances, street~acation filing fees-this is pretty
cheap too, we spend a lot of money fixing up some of those
streets and then we turn around and vacate them; ~ignal
maintenance and energy from the County~ and~aintenance of repair
of lights that we do for Highland. That is it.
.f
.
o
o
I;
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
Interoffice Memorandum
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
James F. Penman, City Attorney
Proposed Real Property Transfer Tax
SUBJECT:
DATE:
June 19, 1991
Copies:
City Clerk, City Treasurer, City Administrator,
Director of Finance
The imposition of a tax on the transfer of real property has been
proposed for the city of San Bernardino. The City of Oakland and
the City of Los Angeles have both imposed real property transfer
taxes.
The Oakland tax was challenged in court and, in the case of Cohn v
City of Oakland (1990) 223 CA 3d 261, the Court concluded that the
Proposition 13 prohibition of taxes on transfers of real property
only prohibited special taxes and that prohibition does not apply
to general taxes.
Subsequent to the enactment of the Oakland real property transfer
tax, however, the State Legislature enacted California Government
Code Section 53725 which states:
"No local government or district may impose
any transaction tax or sales tax on the sale
of real property within the city, county or
district."
Because Government Code Section 53725 was adopted after Oakland
, enacted its real property transfer tax, that prohibition does not
apply to Oakland's tax.
However, there is a question as to whether or not the prohibition
in Government Code Section 53725 would apply to taxes on real
property transfers imposed by Charter cities such as San Bernardino
and Los Angeles. It is the position of this office that taxation
by Charter cities is a municipal affair which may not be superseded
by the State Legislature's enactment of state statutes. This is
also the issue that the City of Los Angeles has raised in the case
of California Federal Savings and Loan Association v
Ci ty of Los Angeles which is presently being considered by the
California Supreme Court. The Los Angeles City Attorney's office
believes it will be a while before the Supreme Court renders its
decision in the California Federal Savings and Loan case.
,
,
.
~
,
.
o
o
To: Mayor and City Council
Re: Proposed Real Property Transfer Tax
Page 2
June 19, 1991
We are informed that the City Attorney of Los Angeles advised
against the enactment of that city's tax on real property transfers
until the decision on the Cal. Fed. case was made. The Los Angeles
City Council, in its wisdom, decided not to wait and enacted the
tax.
The danger in enacting a real property transfer tax, prior to the
Supreme Court making its decision on the applicability to Charter
Cities of the Government Code's prohibition of such taxes, is that
we surrender the portion of the tax the City presently receives
from the County pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code S 11901 et
seq.
The ultimate effect of this is that if the City imposes the tax and
then it is declared unlawful, we not only lose the new tax revenue,
but we also lose the tax money we presently receive from the County
pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code S 11901. We are informed
that the Finance Director presently estimates this amount to be
$266,000 for FlY 1991-1992. In addition, we can expect to pay
attorney fees and costs if the City is sued and the plaintiff
prevails.
For these reasons, we advise that a real property transfer tax not
be imposed until the California Supreme Court has ruled on the
issue of the applicability to Charter cities of state laws
pertaining to taxation in the California Federal Savings and Loan
v City of Los Angeles case.
Respectfully Submitted,
1- {)e.->-v~
;::
,
,
ames F. Penman
City Attorney
~
-
o
o
BUSINESS LICENSE AUDIT PROGRAM
1990-91
Listed below is a description of the business license audit
program to begin on October 1, 1990. Since Jane Sneddon has
experience with completing audits in the past for motels and
hotels she will be responsible for the actual audit of each
account and Deena will assist with audits and associated
tasks. I will monitor progress of program on an ongoing
basis.
1. Pre~aration
A. Lee, Jane and Deena to update procedures as needed.
B. Deena to learn word processing system, business license
computer files and prospect file.
C. Jane to teach Deena how to compute license fees based on
gross receipts.
D. Jane to request computer listing of businesses to be
audited.
E. Jane and Deena to identify additional businesses to be
audited.
F. License Inspectors to identify businesses that may need
to be audited in their respective territories.
G. Deena to input form letters into word processing file.
H. Jane to call State of California Franchise Tax Board to
verify procedures, address and contact with respect to
obtaining business income tax returns.
I. Remember audit information is strictly confidential.
2. Implementation
A. Deena and Jane to input each account into business
license prospect file to maintain chronological account
of each contact made. File will contain results of
audit, amount paid or refunded and date when audit of
account was closed.
B. Deena to send out form letters to businesses to request
proof of gross receipts.
C. Jane to audit returned documents to determine correct
license fee.
D. Deena to send form letters requesting additional fees or
indicating a refund due.
- u.
.
o
o
E. Anyon site audits will be conducted by Jane and Deena
as a team to expedite audit process on the premises.
F. If business owner fails to comply with audit request
after several contacts the State of California Franchise
Tax Board will be contacted to obtain a copy of their
business tax return to verify gross receipts.
3. Accountability
A. Jane will review computer prospect file to determine
that each account is addressed in a timely fashion and
that deadline dates to respond are adhered to.
B. Deena will enter all contacts made into the prospect
file for each audited business. This includes dates that
letters were sent, dates of telephone contacts, when
fees were paid or refunded and when audit file was
closed.
C. Jane will maintain an accounting log to identify
unreported gross receipts, amount of additional license
fees identified and amount collected, number of
businesses audited with discrepancies and rate of return
for audit time expended.
D. Jane will prepare a weekly report on the progress of the
audit program each Thursday.
E. Lee will monitor progress of the audit program on an
ongoing basis and provide reports for the City Clerk on
a weekly basis and provide program results for the
Monthly Status Report.
~ ~ JI' ..,.~
LEE GAGNON
Business License Supervisor
Business License Division
LG:dkk
JU~,j-07-~'31 FRI 10:18 ID:CrT'-( [IF LA 2
Q
7162 TEL ~II]:
li874 POl
o
League of California Cities
1400 K STFlEET . SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 . 1918)444-5790
Callforma Cities
WQrk Togefher
URGENT ACI'lON NEEDED!
Sacramento, CA
1une 6, 1991
TO:
All City Managers and City Cerks in Non-Manager Cities
RE:
Call Your Legislators to Oppose State Plan to Limit Cities' Authority ;or
Utility Users Tax
Assembly Member Gwen Moore has developed language for inclusion in the state budget
that would place a cap on cities' ability to levy a Utility Users Tax. Her proposal would
freeze any existing Utility Users Tax at the current rate in effect on June 1. 1991; and limit
any city that has not levied the tax to a maximum 5% rate. H a city currently has a rate less
than 5% their rate would be capped at the lower rate and cannot be increased to 5%.
Yet another proposal being circulated by the cable television indusuy is to limit the overall
amount of taxes on their industry so that the total from Utility Users Tax, Franchise Fees,
and Possessory Interest Property Tax cannot exceed 13.5%.
Ironically, one of the arguments to justify other state budget proposals to cut city revenues
from the Vehicle license Fees (VLF) and fines and forfeitures is that cities have other
revenues locally to replace the loss. Now, the state is proposing to limit local taxing
authority so that cities will not be able to recover their losses.
Cities should Immediately contact their Senator and Assembly Member and the Governor
by telephone, FAX. or overnight mail to ask for their NO vote on any proposal to place a
limit on cities' utility users tax or any. other local tax. Cities should also ask their
legislators to communicate their opposition to these proposals to members of the Budget
Conference Committee (Senators Alquist, Hill and Keene; and Assembly Members Baker,
Hannigan and Vasconcellos); and the Legislative Leadership (Senators Maddy and Roberti
as well as Assembly Members Willie Brown and Ross Johnson).
[. Contact your legislator's office for their FAX number (some legislative offices are
reluctant to release these numbers).)
H:\lea\fh\.tiIIOd..
t
-
o
o
MAY 1991 REVENUE FOCUS
SINGLE FAMILY LICENSE PROGRAM
The tables and graphical representations below have been designed to depict the results of
the Single Family License Program from its inception on February 1,1990 through May 31,
1991.
Total Total Units Total $ 9f, &Uti
Units To Date $ Collected To Date Of TOwn
Feb 90 27 27 $540 $540 34%
Mar 83 110 $2,400 $2,940 35%
Apr 201 311 $5,160 $8,100 38%
May 662 973 $17,580 $25,680 56%
Jun 1609 2582 $45,000 $70,680 52%
Jul 596 3178 $22,940 $93,620 53%
Aug 178 3356 $14,880 $108,500 54%
Sep 150 3506 $11,670 $120,170 54%
Oct 170 3676 $15,665 $135,835 54%
Nov 112 3788 $10,845 $146,680 54%
Dec 77 3865 $8,351 $155,031 54%
Jan 91 81 3946 $7,445 $162,476 55%
Feb 15 3961 $1,495 $163,971 55%
Mar 57 4018 $7,145 $171,116 55%
Apr 126 4144 $15,135 $186,251 56%
May . 87 4231 ~ $11,295 $197,5'46 56%',
. Single Family Units Licensed
Single Family License Revenue
200
180
1110
4500
4000
3500
3000
.!I 2l5OO
52000
1500
1000
500
o - Feb eo Apt Jun Au; Oct Dee Feb Apr
MM May Jul Sep Nov Jan 91 MM May
Monlhs
140
i j I::
1IO
40
20
,
..
..
-7~--11
~ '
.. --I
/ I
_~~7---------- - _I
I
-------1
i
-I
___ __ I
I
I
Feb eo' ~r Jun Aug Oct - Dee Feb Apr
Mer May Jul Sep Nov Jen 91 Mar May
Monlhs
1-- Revenue Per Month -- Revenue To Date
1_ Una Per _ _ Una To Date
Exhibit -A-
o
o
...J IM and WA.NDA. BERRVHILL
25402 Valley View Lane
Mo~eno Valley, Califo~nia
[714] 243-9769
92387
RFCEIVI:n..('I-;-,., r-.I ,-,...
- .- -, .', f '_...'.':1";
June 15th, 1991
'91 JUN 19 All :14
City Hall, San Be~na~dino, Ca.
Councilman Ralph He~nandez
San Be~nadino, Califo~nia
Councilman He~nadez,
Obviously you a~e not awa~e of the ~~eat numbe~ of so called
~esea~ch cente~s windfall g~ants f~om the ~ove~nment. These
"~esea~ch cente~s" w~ite up pa~es and pa~es of potential
"discove~y' documents which they use to obtain ~~ants, Howeve~,
98% of these cente~s HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO BENEFICIAL RESULTS f~om
these "tests". They do howeve~ have pa~es and pa~es of "notes"
etc: documenting hou~s, days, weeks, months. yea~s of painfilled
to~tu~e of living c~eatu~es. The fact is the only "benefit"
obtained f~om ou~s and you~ tax dolla~s is keepin~ thei~ doo~s
open while they do such things as: Sew cats eyes shut, keep
them awake and standing on a na~~ow boa~d ove~ a vat of wate~ to
see "how long they can blance befo~e fallin~ in". [That's a
~eal winne~! Su~e to be a maio~ scientific discove~y!] And
what about this one-done in a CAlifo~nia "lab", A tiny do~ had
it's leg b~oken [with a hamme~l in seve~al places [NO painkille~
was used as it 'inte~fe~e with the ~esults"1. the "iniu~y was
left unt~eated' and the dog was put in a ca~e between two la~ge~
ag~essive dogs. The '~esea~che~s" then "obse~ved the tiny dog
fo~ seve~al days to see how it handled st~ess and t~aumatic
inju~y". [Bound to be a ~eal b~eakth~ou~h he~e!l
Councilman He~nandez the use of animals fo~ expe~imentation fo~
the most pa~t is a useless way of aettina money f~om the
gove~nment. Even using them fo~ medical p~actice is silly when
the~e a~e human bodies available. Animal o~aans a~e NOT like
human o~gans. My pe~sonal physician said he did not lea~n one
thing f~om seeing a livin~. do~ tied on it's back. vocal co~ds
cut to p~event it's sc~eamin~ while it was slit neck to anus so
that "new" medical students could see it's wo~kin~ o~~ans in
action. He almost d~opped out of class because of the c~uelty
and UNNECESSARY use of livin~ c~eatu~es. Until he wo~ked on
HUMAN TISSUE he said. none of what he had been doin~ wo~ked!
The ~est was a "waste of time". Manv REAL men who a~e docto~s
will tell you the SAME thin~. They ALL neaate the "shock value'
of cutting open dogs and cats while they'~e alive and feelin~
AND awa~e of what's happenina.
WE a~e 100% AGAINST the sellin~ of animals fo~ ~esea~ch because
of the g~eat numbe~ of people in it fo~ moneY...PERIOD. These
people have no feelings fo~ the animal...only fo~ the money.
'iJ~4U-~ /X ~Jj ~~~/
I cannot tell YOu~ the suffering, the pain\;)the hopelessness
of the thousands and thousands of animlas who have gone through
these "research centers". All for money...very few for REAL
study.
Most of these "tests" have been done repeatedly, time and time
again, year after year by hundreds of centers...where is all
that "breakthrough" information? WHY isn' t it shared? Surely
if this was done there might be real breakthroughs. Of course,
if that WERE done it COULD end the easy money grants and many so
called "research" people would be OUT OF BUSINESS. That
Councilman Hernadez is the word to describe these loud voiced
"researchers"...BUSINESS...that's all it is to them.
Please be informed. Money earned
blood of animals won't benefit San
huge black mark against the people
on it.
from the pain.
Bernadino. But
who allow it.
suffering and
it will put a
You CAN count
If you want to really DO something and EARN money for the city,
enact and ENFORCE a law to make every animal owner spay, neuter
and license their dog AND cat. Charge fees high enough to
warrant their doing so and make breeders limit the number of
puppies and cats born. They too. should have to spay and neuter
all but a few of the best to ensure the limit of unwanted
births. This would brinQ in money AND soon END THE THOUSANDS
KILLED EACH VEAR. This would be a viable and HUMANE way of
saving and earning money for the city. THIS IS THE ANSWER...
Condemning helpless animals to pain and suffering in the name of
science is as bad as killing them because people are too stupid,
too lazy, too cheap to have them spayed.
God sees every sparrow who falls. He okayed the sheepherder to
rescue his animal on the Sabbath. He gave man dominion over the
earth and it's creatures. Dominion means: "to nurture, to care
for, to comfort' to protect"... Can one comfortablly condone
the practices of most research centers and have a clear
conscience? Not if one IS a rational, thinking, caring
knowledgeable human beinQ.
Sincerely,
~a2f~~~
t
city of San Bernardino
C INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ::)
TO: Mayor and Common Council
FROM: Shauna Edwins, City Administrator
SUBJECT: REVENUE ENHANCEMENT MEASURE STATUS
DATE: June 19, 1991
COPIES:
REPORT ON STATUS OF REVENUE ENHANCEMENT MEASURES
1. STREET LIGHTING/SWEEPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
status: Adopted July 16, 1990
Projected annual income: $3 million
Actual income to date: $2,687,891
Use of funds: street sweeping increased from once
to twice per month in residential area. New
equipment purchase. Funds to Police Department
used for additional patrol hours and $500,000 given
to Police Benefit Association which they placed in
a trust fund for payment of medical coverage for
retired officers.
2. LICENSING OF SINGLE FAMILY RENTALS
status: Adopted January 1, 1990
Projected annual income: $420,000
Actual income to date: $200,471
Use of funds: Funds were
additional clerical person
license inspector. surplus
general fund.
used
and
has
to hire an
an additional
gone into the
;
3. EKERGEC: MEDICAL FEE :)
status: Adopted November 19, 1990
Projected annual income: $385,000
Actual income to date: $34,614
Use of funds: To date, the subscription fee has
been used to cover the cost of program promotion.
Initially, this fee was establised to develop a
revenue stream for bonding the 800 MHz system
4. RAISE MINIMUM BUSINESS LICENSE RATE AND
CHARGE CLASSIFICATIONS
status: Adopted October 6, 1990
Projected Annual Income: $205,000
Actual income to date: $270,i40
Use of funds: Business License revenue is
deposited into General Fund.
5. REMOVAL OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX THIRTY DAY
RESIDENT EXEMPTION
status: Adopted January 22, 1990
Projected Annual Income: $153,414
Actual income to date: $159,845
Use of funds: A survey conducted by the city
Clerk's Office noted that a lot of motels were
housing permanent occupants. To discourage this
activity, the exemption was removed. The revenues
go into the General Fund.
6. AUDIT BUSINESS LICENSES AND TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
status: Adopted October 1, 1990
Projected Annual Income: $60,000
Actual income to date: $30,000
Use of funds: Defray cost of audit. Surplus goes
into General Fund.
.
,
7.
FALSE au FEES
status:
:J
Adopted March 11,1991
Projected Annual Income: $25,000
Actual income to date: $26,705
Use of funds: To help offset cost of false alarm
responses by police officers.
8. MOBILE HOME PARK FEE
status: Adopted November 5, 1990
Projected Annual Income: $50,000
Actual income to date: $32,217
Use of funds: To administer Mobile Home Rent Board
program.
~.t7 .t~ Mcf';':2;2/
/SHA'tiNA EDWINS
City Administrator