Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/05/30 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, May 30, 1995 Council Chambers 6:35 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers: Scott D. Alevy, Jolm C. Moot, Stephen C. Padilla, Jerry R. Rindone, and Mayor Shirley Hm'ton ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ALSO PRESENT: Staff: City Manager, John D. Goss; City Attorney, Bruce M. Boogaard; and City Clerk, Beverly A. Authelet. BUSINESS 1. BUDGET OVERVIEW City Manager Goss presented an overview of the General Operating budget using overheads. As an introduction, he stated that there have been a lot of positive signs: sales tax has been going up this past year, property tax in Chula Vista is up about 4 %, in 1994 we had $212 million in valuation going through the Building Department which has been reflected in the revenues. In a general way, we basically had a $4 million problem. Because of the issues with the Redevelopment Agency, which lost tax increment from the Rohr reassessment and take-aways from the State, the Agency got into a position where it was not able to balance its budget on a year-to-year basis. One of the obligations of the Agency is certificates of participation which under the terms of the certificates if the Agency is not able to pay for them, then they must be paid for by the general fund. This is a $2 million dollar problem of transferring that obligation from the Agency to the City's general fund. The second issue has to do with the one- time revenues which is called "transfers in" in the budget. Every year this varies depending what the one-time revenues are. For example, we got some benefit from the refunding of the PERS obligations which will be a one- time credit of $8 to $9,00,000. On the other hand, there are one-time revenues which cannot be repeated such as the PAD funds paying the general fund back a loan, we advanced $500,000 from the equipment replacement fund, we had some DIF credit which went into the general fund on a one-time basis. There were a number of one-time revenues. When it is all taken together, there was about another $2 million issue there. So even though the overall revenues are going up slightly, so are some of our expenditures. What is proposed in the operating budget is basically a $2.3 million in expense reductions and additional revenue enhancements of $1.8 million. In rough terms, we have a $4 million problem on one side, and we have proposed roughly a $4 million solution. Given an operating budget of $56 million, that is about 8% of the total operations. In terms of all funds which includes operations, redevelopment transit capital improvement program, and all the special funds, the proposed budget is proposed to increase to about $103 million. Part of the increase is going into debt service because of some assessment districts that we processed; but we do not have as a general fund obligation, any money to go into that. If you take that increase out, then there is actually about a $2.1 million reduction. After completing the presentation on the General Operating Budget, City Manager Goss presented an overview of the Capital Improvement Budget. He presented slides showing some CIP projects completed this past year, some projects under construction, and some proposed projects for this coming year. Councilman Rindone asked if we were continuing the practice of undergrounding the utilities concurrently with the street overlays. Minutes May 30, 1995 Page 2 City Manager Goss responded that this would not apply to the pavement overlay program, but would apply to major reconstruction where you take the street out. We are pursing this, but the utilities are also facing restricted revenues. They have had some discussion with us in order to reduce the amount of money they put into undergrounding. It is something which we continue to pursue. As we go through project by project, we need to report to Council as to what the utilities, primarily SDG&E, may be proposing by way of reducing the amount of money available for that purpose and also their timing in ability to design those improvements to coincide with our work. This is not something which we will face this fiscal year, but it is something which we need to focus on in the future. Councilman Rindone stated he would like to have an explanation regarding the debt service increase difference of about 50% of the $5 million. City Manger Goss referred him to page 147 of the budget which shows the whole debt service budget. This is due primarily to a large payment by the property owners in Assessment District 90-3 which is a one-time increase in debt service to call some bends relating to that. Also, it is the first full year of debt service payments on the pension obligation bonds which were issues in 1994. What we have done is to develop information about each of the hinds on pages 149 through 152. Councilman Rindone asked if this was the first year that the three redevelopment debt service general funds 300, 302, and 303 have been shifted from the Redevelopment Agency budget to the general in excess of $2 million? City Manager Goss responded yes. Councilman Rindone asked if he saw this as a permanent shift or a one-year shift? City Manager Goss replied that he did not see this as being a one year shift. He hoped that it would not be ultimately permanent because most of this will be a loan from the general fund to the Redevelopment Agency, and it is our hope that the Agency will get to the point where it can start paying for the obligation and perhaps sometime in the future be able to pay the general fund back. In the short term, this is something which we will be seeing for the next few years. In terms of the COPs, this debt service is reflected as an overall statement of debt service, and when it is listed in the overall budget that there are parts of it which are reflected in the general fund and parts of it in the redevelopment and many of it is in neither redevelopment or general operations because they are separate such as the various assessment districts which total $9.3 million which is found on page 148. Councilman Rindone asked if there is a close off date. City Manager Goss stated that if you focus just on redevelopment, that is what he would envision. Future development on the bayfront could start picking up the COPs from the general fund and eventually start paying the general fund back for the loan for bailing the Agency out during this time. City Manager Goss asked staff if funds 982, 983, and 984 were obligations of the general operating budget. Finance Director Powell responded that the TAB bonds are not obligations of the general fund in any way. They are secured by tax increment revenues in the bayfront Town Center Project I area. They are not budgeted out of the general fund this year nor have they been in the past. Councilman Rindone asked if the 300, 302, and 303 funds were a shift from the redevelopment to the general fund. Finance Director Powell responded yes and that the legal documents are secured by annual lease payments from the City to the Agency. This is the way this was originally structured. · 1 Minutes May 30, 1995 Page 3 Councilman Rindone addressed concern about the gas tax. The reduction of approximately $3 million to $2 million, but even greater than that was the major portion of which would be reduced from the street overlay of only about $744,000 for actual overlays from the previous years. Is this a one year recommendation? Or is this a start of a new trend. City Manager Goss stated that the amount of money being utilized from as tax for street maintenance operations, not overlay, this year is approximately $2 million. What we are proposing next year is $2.5 million. The real shift is about $500,000 from this year proposed for next year. As far as whether or not we will have to maintain that, it is not a good idea but is something we will have to look at one a year-by-year basis. If there was any way we could put this $500,000 back into street maintenance, he would like to see this. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None OTHER BUSINESS CITY MANAGER REPORTS: 1995-96 Budget Sessions: City Manager Goss presented a memo with suggested dates for budget sessions for Council's consideration. Councilman Rindone suggested that Debt Service be considered at the same time as the Redevelopment Agency's budget. Consensus of Council was to approve the budget dates as listed in the memo from the City Manager which were: May 31, June 6, June 7, and June 14. MAYOR'S REPORTS: None COUNCIL REPORTS: Councilman Rindone asked if one of the major duties of the Senior Volunteer Patrol Officers would be to enhance traffic enforcement? It was observed this past weekend that the Senior Volunteer Patrol was being used to assist the police in construction zones in traffic coordination and also with writing tickets for those who may have violated the construction zone area. Is this a standard that we are shifting to or was this an anomaly. This was not his intent when he introduced the Senior Volunteer Patrol concept. He wanted to know if we were utilizing the Senior Volunteer Patrol for enforcement of traffic situations. Chief Emerson responded that the Senior Patrol Officers main focus was to provide neighborhood checks, checks of parking areas, and the foot beat. They are in vehicles and hitting more of the City. As they are going, if they come across a stalled vehicle, they will provide safety. Also if there are vehicles needing to be towed which takes 20 to 30 minutes and if there are senior volunteers out there, they will use them to put out some cones and to stand with the vehicle until it is towed. Or, at some special events, they are looking to utilize them. But, their main focus is the neighborhood checks, checks of parking areas, and the foot beat. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Horton adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Beverly A. ~/uthelet, CMC/AAE City Clerk