Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout30-City Administrator MAYOR & COMMON COUNCIL MEETING BACKUP MEETING DATE: July 9. 2001 Mayor & Common Council / GROUP MEETING: Community Development Commission DEPUTY: Linda Hartzel *** No backup materials are included for the following items. *** ITEM # STATUS 16 Deleted 27 Continued to July 23, 2001 28 Laid Over 30 Continued to July 23, 2001 33 No report presented ,r :.......... r-- '- r '- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST .FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Fred Wilson, City Administrator Subject: Discuss and take possible action regarding possible amendments to the FY 2001-2002 Budget (continued from 6/26/01) Dept: City Administrator's Office Date: June 28, 2001 ~(Q)[?V . Synopsis of Previous Council Action: June 26, 2001: Mayor and Common Council approve the proposed 2001-2002 City budget, and continue the following items to the Mayor and Council meeting of July. 9, 2001: Project Curb Appeal-Los Padrinos ($25,000); Increase CVB Funding ($20,000); Materials and SeIVices related to Code Compliance Abatements ($25,000); and all other budget recommendations contained in the document titled FY 2001-2002 Budget Workshop #4, June 26.2001, EDA Board Room. Recommended motion: Discuss and take possible action Contact person: Fred Wilson Phone: 384-5122 Supporting data attached: Staff report, other materials Ward: All FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Ace!. No.) (Ace!. Description) Finance: Council Notes: t l!1iJJJ Agenda Item No. '30 ".... '- c c Staff Report Subiect: Discuss and take possible action regarding possible amendments to the FY 2001-2002 Budget (continued from 6/26/01) Backl!round: At the Budget Workshop of June 26, 2001, the Mayor and Council took action to approve the City's FY 2001-02 budget. This action included approval of the Mayor's list of recommended program change requests, with three (3) exceptions. These three items, along with the packet of information entitled "FY 2001-2001 Budget Workshop #4", were continued to the Council meeting of July 9 for further review and discussion. (A copy ofthat information packet is attached.) The three outstanding items from the Mayor's list of recommended program change requests are: . Project Curb Appeal (Los Padrinos) - $25,000 (Initially presented at the 6/14 Budget Workshop) In this pilot program administered by Code Compliance, Los Padrinos Youth Services will cut weeds and remove debris and litter along major arterials. The pilot project will be conducted for six (6) months, with areas serviced every 10-12 days. . Increased CVB funding - $20,000 (Initially presented at the 6/14 Budget Workshop) The Convention and Visitors Bureau has requested that its funding be increased from $400,000 to $420,000. This matter was reviewed by the Ways and Means Committee, and no recommendation was made. . Increased materials/services related to Code Compliance abatements - $25,000 (Initially presented at the 6/21 Budget Workshop) For the past two years, the Public Services Department has provided board-up and abatement services to Code Compliance. Given Code Compliance's level of clean-up and abatement activities, both departments feel that the current funds available for supplies and support services are inadequate to fully meet needs in the coming fiscal year. These additional funds would be budgeted in the Public Services Department budget to be used for materials and contract services related to Code abatements. It should be noted that because the FY 2001-02 budget was adopted on June 26, 2001, any modifications to that budget must be made through budget amendments adopted by the Mayor and Council. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Mayor and Council discuss these items and provide direction to staff concerning possible amendments to the FY2001-2002 budget. Staff will then develop the appropriate budget amendments for ,,-... formal adoption by the Mayor and Council at the July 23 Council meeting. , ~ r "- r '- Financial Impact: None at this time. Any budget amendments directed by the Mayor and Council will likely have a financial impact. Information regarding those impacts will be brought forward along 'with the budget amendments at the July 23 Council meeting. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Mayor and Common Council discuss and take possible action regarding possible amendments to the FY 2001-2002 Budget. . . ~ l~ FY 2001-2002 Budget Workshop #4 "-' . .',"- June 26, 2001 EDA Board Room ,,-... '- Attachment A: Summary of Mayor's Recommended Program Change Requests Updated 0612612001 'slimaled Gen.ral Fund budg.t .x....: 3,404,600 i Mayo~. Recommendalion.: I Animal Control I SB Vallev Human Society - funding for mobile soavlneuter unit , 30.000 Animal Control I Refurbishlinstall modular offi.. buildlno 37.200 , I CitvClerK I Reorganization I 0 City ClerK Reduce Area Tax by 50% 54,700 Code Compliance Project Curb Appeel - Las Padrinos 25,000 Code Compliance , Landscape and/or provide decorative accents on various vacant lots throughout the 100.000 ICitv (pocket DarKs) Development Services ,Additional parKina at the soccer complex 150.000 Development Services I Reorganization , 83,200 Development Services I General Plan updates 180.000 Facilities Management I Facililv repailS and improvements 260,000 Facilities Management I Reorganization , 11,400 Facilities Momt. IAnimal Control Drain Imarovements 2B.000 Facilities Mgmt. I Animal Control Geothermal ReDailS 22,000 Fire ISafetv clothing replacement and washing; other operating expenses , 61.000 Fire IVerclemont station desian/engineering ! 150,000 Fire : Reoraanization , 0 Finance ! Reorganization 0 General Govt I Increase CVB Funding 20.OOC Generai Govt I UUT rebate on electricity - July and August 2001 (estimated) 1,500,000 General Govt Increase fine arts fundino - "Art in Public Places" prooram 50,000 Police IAdd 1 Lieutenant I 126.1OC Police I Pistol range reconstruction purchase materials (for use with Army Corp of EngineelS 100.OOC Ilabar contribution) Public Services 'Additional contract sidewalklcurb/gutter repailS i 175,000 "ublic Services ,Additional asphalt. contract machinery and operatolS for asphall repair ! 100,000 -ublic Services IAdditional contract tree trimming - various areas (see list) 174.000 Public Services I Contract tree removaVslump grinding/tree replacement 141.100 Public Services/Code Compliance Materials and services related to Code Comaliance abatements , 25,000 i , ,Subtotal- Mayo~. R.commendation.: 3,603,700 -- I Und..lgnated budg.t .xc... remaining: i -199,100 ! Other funds' i Refuse ,Add one (1) Route Supervisor 47,100 Sewer 'Set a.ide funding to enhance sewer maintenance services (via contract or additional 100,000 iempk>>yees). Specific recommendations will be made to the M~yor and Council in I I Fall 2001 ! IS IVarious PC. software. and bandwidth upgrades - specific plan to be presented to the 380,000 I Mavor and Council in Fall 2001 , City Administrator's Offrc:e / ~~ -.. ~ )> r -~ , 5. '-' in' ili 8' ;;} o ~ C' 00 ~ S::IOO;::;! 00 'tl 0 m O~O 000 OOCD !:i' l>IS::I:J ig: <CD CD c: ;;r 0 c: J 0 Ill;:;: 0 CD 0 '" a. l:l. -00' l"l I III if a. "'" iil ::l < s:l :J "" > 3 :J lQ !!!. 2. < !:!:,_ iil !:!: a ..... '< < -< < lD l"l -< l"l 0 , B CD 0 < 2'1' III 0 CD C' 0 ~ 2' UI III ..... J III 0 ;:;: lD C' ..... III 6' UlI:J 3 =" 0.:J CD a" CD aUl 0...... 3lil 0.... a'iil CD iil 0 tQ: !:!: l"l a. III _ III l"l - ""..... 3 " a CD a. -.1..., J - :J J 0 -. - .... ""- '" VI - - :J 1_ :J '< ..., 0 - - :J c: ,;1 iii' CD 2>. CD l> 2' c !!!. - iil lQ '_ VI l"l UI, l"l UI i3- - UI CD :J ..... 2. :J!:!: :J 'tl ~ CD ,_10 . III Iii I g O'cg~li ~U;>>I~~ e:~liT~~ gQ!311l g:g:: a :3' if 3' UI if 0 2.1 00- 1.5 11Il-t 1'':<-0 'i 33'1'8! m 8: iil :J i 1<1 .~ :1 =r m 0 ::I " . (") (") 1-11\)11 . I I~ ~ ~ ~ 1!~IQ I! i 'I~ :~I~ ~'I[I!i! !1~2':B s. c: 2 !!. \t:5'1"2.1~ ' Co !Q! 1"0 !~,~i~:~ :J CD!l a. 01 III i, c: :-'1 IIlICD ,0.1:J ,- lQ :IE c: CD ~ :JIB g, ,3! I~I:J.I~ IlQ 1,2 o Ill..... :IE UI 0 ICD 1 !!!..;1! -.!l 8. ;<' CD !!!. iil;a :J I 3 I-:::'I~ Il:: ,0' CD S. ~ Iii 3' " 1 c: l:: 0.1C: ,:J CD CD ] Ci" 3' C:CD lQa i iil C:CD IOO,m 1,2' CD i C -. I - D) 1::1 ~t/I a-tS ~ " D1 ~ tn~: 19: i=l;;' UI(D'!i 3 ! 102. ,!!!.II.5 CD CD fC" CD ~ I i!~ :-1 ' 3:IE c:UI , liT l.5i I ~ if 1 , I~! - CiI Iml, t 13. E i I ~ i~i !!!. 10.1 i$;1 i~1 :J o ..... ,I""""' "- iii' J III 3 " CD ::!. :J lQ I I , 1 I i , I i I I I , I I , , I I I I I I ! , ! , I I i , , , , , I I I I I ! , I :z:>c:c:> c: 2. C' C' &' 33m iiJ -;" ~!!!.-<-<fl CDl"lUl3J oog~!!!.8 0-::21(0- D. a ::s :::1."'0 CD-COm'" ~UI iii'r8 lQ Iii ..... ..... 31 III III :J 3 ace (JJ iil .g I CD !!l., ~ ~ ~ CD CIl 3- o :3 ~ I\j ...... C:l ...... III c:: c& (1) .... ~ ~ :::r .g I , I I I I I i I , I ! , , I , I i I ,.-.. I " I "- II z.. 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-specific locations. Verdemont Station A 1.4-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 accommodate the most efficient response for that station. Authorization to proceed with the sale of the 5-acre parcel was given on 01119101. 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 "turrikey" cost for the V erdemont 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 $1.000,000 $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 ofthe citizens of San Bernardino. Issuing Certificates of Participation accomplishes about the same thing, but there is no vote requirement. Considering the budgetary impact ofthese projects, issuing Certificates ofParticiDation may be a logical funding mechanism. Annual payments for the Verdemont Station will be $182,000 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: Total 4 months 2 months 12 months 18 months :>> Architectural Bid & Services :>> Contractor Bid & Selection :>> Construction 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 of Human 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. ODtion 1 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 1) =$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 1) =$28,752 (6 mo. @ Step 2) =$30.180 $58,932 12.168 $71,100 Benefits Total These estimates are based on a l2-month cost and assume 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 assumes that each part-time employee would work 20 hours per week. Sr. Librarian Current Salary $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 Bemardino 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 i"'-" requirements or not. I recommended that they obtain a demo and try to run the ~ softwa~. 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 would 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. r- '- 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 Councilmember 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. LWjj Attch. l' .fuks,Rroeain&CcmmnityService;ThphblM 1nfr-OfDxMenmn:lum 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 Bernardino 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 J AK/ln q Parks,Recreaticn& CcrnnmitySavicesUpn1Innt In1f'r-OfficeMenmnxhnn 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 1, 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 activities. They fall into six categories: 1. Demolition Initiative 2. Streamlining Process and New Ordinances A. Administrative Citation Ordinance B. RealTime 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 2001/2002 is $348,000. These funds include: Code Compliance Budget/General Fund - $110,000 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 - $116,000 This money has been budgeted by EDA to fund demolition activities. 200012001 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 200012001 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. 200112002 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 inthe 2001/2002 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 /2. 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 concern 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 minimum of forty-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 fmes 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 Bernardino. For instance, it would 1:3 not be effective against an owner who is letting his property go helshe 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 Wring 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 $1'00,000 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 number of tenant landlord complaints. These complaints are most often about violations in the interior of the property such as a leaky sillk, 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 /if 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 violatioris 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 numerous 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 memorandum. The committee identified, as part of the first year plan, the need to hire two intems 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: 1) The advantal!es and disadvantal!es of Slurrv Seal Davement 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 . -4.-l"rtinn in the overall slurry seal program partly because many of the city's nave been met. ~-::\ . ~ :> . checks 2 , ; types of plan checks "over the counter": lor Amendments to Plans . Signs . Pools . Mobile Home Set Downs . Patios/Decks . Block Walls . Minor Electrical Plumbing pians . Demolition Plans /~ FRED WILSON, City Administrator RESPONSES TO BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS JUNE 26, 2001 Page 2 of2 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 comelf1rst 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 staffmg 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 SDace - 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- Resoonses to BudRet WorkshoD Ouestions l.doc. /1