HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/04/14 Item 01CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~~~ CIN OF
CHUL4VISTA
April 14, 2011 Item C
ITEM TITLE: REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ON THE PROPOSED GENERAL FUND
BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2012
SUBMITTED BY: CITY MANAG
FINANCE DIREC R^C~TY TREASURER` ~~
REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER
ASSISTANT CITY ANAGER S~
4/STHS VOTE: YES NO X
SUMMARY
The Five-Year Financial Forecast, prepared in conjunction with the fiscal year 2010-11
budget, indicated that the City's General Fund had a projected deficit of $12.5 million for
fiscal year 2011-12. Given the magnitude of the projected deficit, City management
prepared abudget-balancing plan that was designed to close the projected budget deficit.
The City Manager presented the budget balancing plan to the City Council at the October
5, 2010 Council meeting. Since that time City management continued to work with the
City's bargaining groups in order to mitigate service impacts and reduce layoffs.
Tonight's report reflects the City Manager's General Fund Proposed Budget for Fiscal
Year 2011-12, which includes the implementation of the budget balancing plan, the
recent agreements with the bargaining groups, and updated expenditure and revenue
projections.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed action for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the
activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines
because the action only involves fiscal issues which do not involve any commitment to
any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the
1-1
APRIL 14, 2011 Item I
Page 2 of 21
environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines
the activity is not subject to CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council accepts the report.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION
The Five-Year Financial Forecast, prepared in conjunction with the fiscal year 2010-11
budget, indicated that the City's General Fund had a projected deficit of $12.5 million for
fiscal year 2011-12. Given the magnitude of the projected deficit, City management
began the budget process for fiscal year 2011-12 significantly ahead of schedule. This
extended process allowed for the following:
1. An independent review of the assumptions used in developing the Five Year
Financial Forecast. The City contracted Public Financial Management Group, an
independent financial advisory service, to review the Financial Five Year Forecast
and verify the projected deficit.
2. Establishment of an Economic Advisory Group largely made up of private sector
financial experts to provide feedback on the budget process and other financial
matters.
3. Community outreach to present the City's financial outlook and the impacts of the
proposed budget balancing plan on City services.
4. Negotiations with the City's bargaining groups to lower personnel costs in order
to minimize layoffs and service impacts.
5. Development of abudget-balancing plan for fiscal year 2011-12.
6. Plan for the loss telecommunications users tax (TUT) revenues due to the recent
litigation and proposed legislative changes.
Independent Review of City's Five Year Forecast
Last fall, the City contracted with the Public Financial Management Group (PFM Group)
to provide an independent review of the Five Year Financial Forecast. PFM Group
concluded that
"Based on our review of the information provided by the City, we have not
identified any miscalculations or erroneous assumptions that we believe would materially
change the City's forecast for FY 2011/12. The City has generally used reasonable
assumptions and its forecast sufficiently encompasses the General Fund revenues and
expenditures. "
1-2
APRIL 14, 201 I Item
Page 3 of 21
Craig Hoshijima from the PFM Group presented these findings at the October 5 Council
Meeting as part of an update on the fiscal year 2011-12 budget.
Establishment of an Economic Advisory Group
In 2010, the City established an Economic Advisory Group formed of community
members with many years of finance and/or business sector experience. The Economic
Advisory Group was established to review the City's financial policies and procedures
and to make recommendations for improving the City's financial condition. In addition,
the Economic Advisory Group enhances the distribution of financial information to the
community. The Economic Advisory Group is currently comprised of the following
community members -David C. McLellan, Mitch Thompson, Paul Borden, Jose de la
Garza, and Oscar Esquivel.
Community Outreach
Since September 2010, staff has made over 20 presentations to community groups and
civic associations on the financial issues facing the City. The presentations generally
included a summary of the City's finances, the projected deficit for fiscal year 2011-12
and the City Manager's plan to address the projected deficit and balance the budget.
Following the presentations there was an opportunity for the community groups to
comment and ask questions about the proposed budget balancing plan. The input
received at the community meetings helped guide the development of the final budget
balancing plan.
Updated Agreements with City's Bargaining Groups
As discussed in prior reports, the majority of the General Fund budget is dedicated to
Personnel Services. In fiscal year 2010-11, Personnel Services represents approximately
77% of the City's General Fund. As such, efforts to close the projected budget deficit by
reducing expenditures significantly impact Personnel Services. The options to reduce
personnel expenditures are to eliminate positions or to reduce personnel costs by making
adjustments to employee compensation. The City's bargaining groups worked with City
management to reach new agreements that reduced personnel costs by making
adjustments to employee compensation that included wage concessions and pension
reform. While the City was not able to mitigate all employee layoffs, the cost saving
measures agreed to by the bargaining groups aided in reducing the number of layoffs that
would have otherwise been implemented. The following table summarizes agreements
that the City negotiated with each bargaining group with respect to wage concessions and
pension reform.
1-3
APRIL 14, 201 I Item
Page 4 of 21
Table 1 -Summary of Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) and Pension
Contributions by Bargaining Group
FISCAL YEAR
FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13t
Bar ainin Unit MOU A reement Jan-11 Jul-11 Jan-12 Jul-12 Jan-13
COLA Increase 1.00% 1.00% 1.50% 1.50% L00%
Police Officers Pension
Association (POA)2 Contribution 3.00% 4.50% 6.75% 9.00% 9.00%
COLA Increase 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.00% 2.50%
International Assoc. of Pension
Firefighters (IAFF) Contribution 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00%
COLA Increase 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -- --
Chula Vista Employees
Assoc. CVEA) Pension
Contribution
2.00%
4.00% 6.00%
8.00p3 8.00%
COLA Increase 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -- --
Western Council of Pension
Engineers (WCE) Contribution 4.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00%
COLA Increase 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -- --
Pension
Executives (Exec) Contribution 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00%
COLA Increase 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -- --
Pension
Senior Mana ers (SM) Contribution 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00%
Mid COLA Increase 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -- --
Managers/Professional Pension
(MM/PROF) Contribution 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00%
COLA Increase 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -- --
Pension
Confidential (CONF) Contribution 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00%
Notes:
The current contracts with CVEA, CVMM/PROFA, and WCE expire on 6/30/2012. The contracts with
IAFF and POA expire on 6/30/2013.
2As part of the most recent side letter, POA is scheduled to receive longevity pay beginning July 1, 2012.
Employees shall receive longevity pay in the form of a 3% increase in [heir base pay when they have
served fifteen or more complete years of full time service.
3CVEA 8.00%pension contribution effective 6/30/12
°The City Council also began contributing 8% towards [heir pension costs in January 2011. Fer the City
Charter, Council compensation is based on the salary of a Judge of the Superior Court of the State of
California.
1-4
APRIL 14, 20 i 1 Item
Page 5 of 21
As the table indicates, most bargaining groups agreed to wage concessions by either
accepting reduced wage increases or by completely forgoing scheduled raises. All of the
bargaining groups agreed to pay a share of their pension costs either by assuming an 8%
or 9% contribution beginning in January 2011 or by phasing in the payments until their
share of the pension cost was fully achieved.
As part of further extending pension reform, all bargaining units agreed to the creation of
second retirement tiers in an effort to reduce the burden of future pension costs. These
second tiers will provide reduced pension benefits to employees hired subsequent to the
date of the signed labor agreements with each bargaining group. Included in these
second retirement tier agreements are the following key cost saving provisions:
• Calculation of pension benefits based on a formula of 2% at age 60 for Non-Safety
employees and a 3% at age 55 for Safety employees
• Employees will contribute 100% contribution of the statutory employee share of pension
costs thereby eliminating the final year concession of these payments from the final
compensation calculation
• Retirement benefit will be based on an average of three highest years for final
compensation calculation
• No blended health care retirement rates for employees hired in second tier
The City will realize reduced pension costs with the full implementation of the second
retirement tier. Pension cost savings will increase over time as the number of second tier
employees increases to comprise the majority proportionate share of the City's
workforce.
Copies of the memorandums of understanding and side letters are available on the City's
website at:
www chulavistaca eov/Cit~Services/Administrative Services/Human ResourcesBar¢ai
nine/MOUs.asp
1-5
APRIL 14, 2011 Item ~
Page 6 of 21
Fiscal Year 2011-12 Proposed General Fund Budget
The City of Chula Vista has experienced a significant reduction in revenues as a result of
the national economic recession and the signiftcant slowdown in local development
activity. Since 2008, the City has experienced a decline across all major revenue sources
including:
• A 7% decrease in sales tax receipts
• An 14% drop in property tax receipts
• A drop of 23% in franchise fee revenues
• A 25% drop in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
• A 13% drop in Motor Vehicle License Fees (MVLF)
• A 56% decline in Utility Users Tax revenues.
In total, major discretionary revenues in the General Fund have dropped from a high in
fiscal year 2007-08 of $97.1 million to an estimated $81.5 million for fiscal year 2011-
12, aloss of 16%.
In an effort to keep expenditures in line with declining revenues, the City Council has
approved several budget balancing plans. Due to the City Council's decisive actions to
reduce expenditures and the cooperation of the City's bargaining groups the City has
been able to end each of the last three £scal years without impacting the General Fund
reserves. Budget reductions have impacted all departments in the City's General Fund,
the Redevelopment (RDA) and Housing funds, Fleet fund, and Development Services
fund (DSF).
Despite the significant reductions made in recent years, the City continues to struggle to
keep expenditures in line with revenues -the impacts of the economic recession continue
to deteriorate discretionary revenues. The fiscal year 2010-11 budget was balanced by
reducing expenditures by $1.3 million and the application of $9.6 million in one-time
revenues in order to close a budget deficit of $10.9 million. The use of one-time
solutions to balance the fiscal year 2010-11 budget was identified as part of the City
Manager's proposed budget for fiscal year 2010-11, which was adopted by the City
Council.
The application of one-time revenues enabled the City to avoid additional service level
impacts and employee layoffs in the spring of 2010. In addition, the use of one-time
revenues afforded the City the opportunity to continue monitoring economic trends and to
return in the future with adjustments based on additional months of economic data.
While these solutions resulted in a balanced budget and minimal service impacts, they did
not resolve the underlying structural problem.
1-6
APRIL 14, 2011 Item
Page 7 of 21
As discussed previously, the projected deficit of $12.5 million was identified as part of
the Five Year Financial Forecast and assumed continued collection of utility users tax
revenues. The Five Year Financial Forecast serves as a tool to identify financial trends,
shortfalls, and issues so that the City can proactively address them. The Five Year
Financial Forecast does not have the same level of detail as the budget. Therefore, as part
of the normal budget process, staff developed the baseline budget for fiscal year 2011-12.
The baseline budget for fiscal year 2011-12 included updated revenue and expenditure
projections. The projected budget deficit for fiscal year 2011-12 grew to approximately
$19.6 million once the detailed budget was developed and accounted for the updated
expenditure and revenue projections -most significantly the decrease in utility users tax
revenue and the elimination of anticipated salary savings in the baseline budget.
In order to detail the changes between the fiscal year 2011-12 baseline budget and the
fiscal year 2011-12 proposed budget the discussion of the upcoming budget will be
discussed in two sections:
1. The first section will compare the fiscal year 2010-11 Council Adopted Budget to
the fiscal year 2011-12 baseline budget. This section will highlight the budget
deficit that existed prior to the agreements with the bargaining groups and the
implementation of the budget balancing plan.
2. The second section will compare the fiscal year 2011-12 baseline budget to the
fiscal year 2011-12 proposed budget. This section will highlight the changes that
were needed in order to balance the budget -the proposed budget does reflect the
most recent agreements with the bargaining groups and the implementation of the
budget balancing plan.
Section 1 -Development of the Fiscal Year 2011-12 Baseline Budget
For comparison purposes, the following describes the changes between the fiscal year
2010-IlCouncil adopted budget and the ftsca[ year 2011-12 baseline budget. The
fiscal year 2011-12 baseline budget was developed prior to the agreements reached with
the City's bargaining groups in December 2010 and January 2011.
The baseline budget for fiscal year 2011-12 reflects revenues of $119.5 million, a
decrease of $13.7 million (-10.3%) when compared to the Council adopted budget for
fiscal year 2010-11 of $133.2 million. In fiscal year 2010-11, the City used $9.6 million
in one-time revenues to balance the General Fund. The elimination of those revenues in
fiscal year 2011-12 is reflected on the following table.
1-7
APRIL 14, 2011 Item
Page 8 of 21
Property Taxes $ 24,073,148 $ 24,722,233 $ 649,085 2.7%
Sales Tax $ 23,633,851 $ 25,443,433 $ 1,809,582 7.7%
Motor Vehicle License Fees $ 16,933,500 $ 17,347,199 $ 413,699 2.4%
Development Revenue $ 1,350,433 $ 1,193,773 $ (156,660) -11.6%
Interfund Reimbursements $ 9,665,625 $ 9,619,254 $ (46,371) -0.5%
Transfers From Other Funds $ 18,405,004 $ 11,961,823 $ (6,443,181) -35.0°
Franchise Fees $ 7,652,012 $
790.,686
7,
$
142,674
1.9%
Charges for Services $ 5,714,674 $ 5,880,663 $ 165,989 2.9%
Utility Users Taxes $ 8,755,835 $ 3,240,633 $ (5,515,202) -63.0%
Other Agency Reveuue $ 1,172,629 $ 1,266,901 $ 94,272 8.0%
Other Local Taxes $ 2,031,402 $ 2,062,816 $ 31,414 1.5%
Other Revenues $ 1,355,896 $ 1,042,089 $ (313,807) -23.1%
Transient Occupancy Taxes $ 1,940,930 $ 2,059,749 $ 118,819 6.1 °/
Use of Money and Property $ 6,362,385 $ 1,758,566 $ (4,603,819) -72.4%
Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties $ 2,059,980 $ 2,084,980 $ 25,000 L2%
Police Grants $ 1,412,669 $ 1,293,980 $ (118,689) -8.4%
Licenses and Permits $ 711,050 $ 711,050 $ - 0.0%
Total $ 133,231,023 $ 119,483,828 $ (13,747,195) -10.3%
This decrease in revenue reflects the following major changes.
• Transfers from Other Funds -This category reflects a reduction of $6.4 million. This
reflects a reduction of $6.0 million from the transfer in from the RDA fund and the
elimination of a one-time transfer of $0.4 million transfer in from the Prop 42 fund.
In fiscal year 2010-11, the loan repayment from the RDA to the General Fund was
increased by $9.6 million to balance the General Fund and an additional $1.0 million
for capital improvement projects for a total increase of $10.6 million. The
elimination of this one-time increase is reflected in two revenue categories -Use of
Money and Property and Transfers from Other Funds.
• Utility Users Tax -This category reflects a decrease of $5.5 million. Given the
uncertainty of this revenue source, the projections reflect a reduction of $5.5 million.
While the projections are conservative, it allows the City to better evaluate the long
term impact of the failure of Prop H. If after one year, the City continues to receive
this revenue it is recommended that it be treated as one-time revenue to be used to
fund one-time expenditures.
• Use of Money and Property -This category reflects a decrease of $4.6 million. As
mentioned in the Transfers From Other Funds, the fiscal year 2010-11 budget
reflected aone-time increase in the loan repayment from the RDA fund. The
1-8
Table 2 -Comparison of Fiscal Year 2010-11 and Fiscal Year 2011-12
Baseline Revenues
APRIL 14, 2011 Item Y
Page 9 of 21
reduction of $4.6 million in this category reflects the elimination of this one-time
increase.
These decreases in revenues were slightly offset by some positive growth in the City's
top two revenue sources -sales tax and property tax revenues.
• Sales Tax -This category reflects an increase of $1.8 million. Based on the
information available when the baseline budget was developed, sales tax revenue was
projected to grow to $25.4 million becoming the City's largest source of revenue.
The increase of $1.8 million reflects a 7.7% increase when compared to the fiscal
year 2010-11 Council adopted budget of $23.6 million. It is important to note that
sales tax is projected to exceed the current year budget of $23.6 million by $1.2
million based on the second quarter financial projections. When compared to the
second quarter projection of $24.8 million, the projected increase for the fiscal year is
$0.6 million or approximately 2%. Staff will continue to work with the City's sales
tax consultants to evaluate the projected revenues for the coming fiscal year based on
the most recent sales tax trends. The following chart reflects sales tax revenue from
fiscal year 2007-08 (actual) to fiscal year 2011-12 (projected baseline).
Chart 1 -Sales Tax Revenue
• Property Tax -This category reflects an increase of $0.6 million. Property tax
revenue has traditionally represented the City's largest revenue source. However, this
revenue source has been significantly impacted by the economic recession as property
values have been reassessed. The following chart represents property tax revenue
from fiscal year 2007-08 (actual) to fiscal year 2011-12 (projected baseline). In the
current year, property tax revenue is on trend to exceed budget by approximately
$645,000. When compared to the second quarter projections for the current fiscal
1-9
APRIL 14, 2011 Item !
Page 10 of 21
year, property tax revenue is projected to grow 2% in the coming year. This
represents the first positive growth for this major revenue source since fiscal year
2008-09.
Chart 2 -Property Tax Revenue
The baseline budget for fiscal year 2011-12 reflects expenditures of $139.1 million, an
increase of $5.9 million (4.4%) when compared to the Council adopted budget for fiscal
year 2010-I1 of $133.2 million. For comparison purposes, the table below reflects the
fiscal year 2010-11 Council Adopted Budget and the fiscal year 2011-12 baseline budget.
The baseline budget. for fiscal year 2011-12 does not reflect the savings resulting from the
implementation of the budget balancing plan and the most recent agreements with the
City's bargaining groups.
Personnel Services $ 103,020,779 $ 109,567,212 $ 6,546,433 6.4%
Supplies and Services $ 14,269,579 $ 14,223,117 $ (46,402) -0.3%
Other Expenses $ 731,579 $ 648,074 $ (83,505) -11.4%
Capital $ 88,500 $ 88,500 $ - 0.0%
Transfers Out $ 8,751,569 $ 9,204,690 $ 453,121 5.2%
C(P ProjectExpenditures $ 1,125,000 $ - $ (1,125,000) -100.0%
Utilities $ 5,244,077 $ 5,355,023 $ 110,946 2.1%
Total $ 133,231,023 $ 139,086,616 $ 5,855,593 4.4%
-~0
Table 3 -Comparison of Fiscal Year 2010-11 and
Fiscal Year 2011-12 Baseline Expenditures
APRIL 14, 2011 Item
Page 11 of 21
The fiscal year 2011-12 baseline budget was established by making the following
adjustments to the fiscal year 2010-11 Council adopted budget:
• Personnel Services -This category reflects. an increase of $6.5 million. This increase
is attributable to higher flex/insurance costs, MOU salary increases for POA and
IAFF, and adjustments to IAFF member benefits based on the side letters in place at
the time the baseline budget was developed. The two most significant changes were
reflected in PERS costs which increased $2.8 million (13%) and the elimination of
$1.8 million in salary savings from the baseline. The increase in PERS costs reflects
a rate increase in PERS contributions and higher PERS costs due to increases in
salary for IAFF and POA. Salary savings were eliminated from the baseline budget
in order to create a more conservative baseline and recognize that the City has
experienced a decrease in turnover over the last few years. Finally, the baseline was
adjusted to annualize the cost of positions added mid-year.
• Supplies and Services -This category reflects a decrease of $46,402. This decrease
reflects the elimination of consulting services in Development Services (General
Fund), the elimination of grant funded expenditures, and the elimination of
miscellaneous one-time budget adjustments. These reductions were offset by an
increase in insurance premiums (unemployment, public liability) in Non -
Departmental. Most Supplies and Services budgets were carried over flat from fiscal
year 2010-11 budget.
• Other Expenses -This category reflects a decrease of $83,505. This decrease largely
reflects the elimination of pass through revenues and expenditures budgeted in the
Recreation Department ($82,900).
• Transfers Out -This category reflects an increase of $0.4 million. This increase
reflects $129,000 in the transfer out to the Energy Loan Repayment fund for the debt
service for various energy efficiency projects funded through CEC low interest loans.
The debt service for these loans is offset by expenditure savings in the utilities
category. Other changes in this category include an increase in the debt service for
the pension obligation bonds ($123,800) and a transfer to the Residential
Construction Tax fund ($200,000) needed to meet debt service costs.
• CIP Project Expenditures -This category reflects a decrease of $L1 million as the
budget for this category was eliminated. The fiscal year 2010-11 budget included
$1.0 million in capital improvement projects funded through the RDA, it also
included a revenue funded street improvement project. There are no capital
improvement projects funded by the General Fund in fiscal year 2011-12.
• Utilities -This category reflects an increase of $0.1 million. Utilities were adjusted
to account for the following -current year expenditure trends, rate increases, and
projected savings resulting from various recently completed energy efficiency
projects. As noted under the Transfers Out expenditure category, a number of energy
efficiency projects on City buildings were financed through CEC low interest loans.
Per the loan agreements, the resulting energy cost savings are being used for the debt
service of these loans.
1-11
APRIL 14, 2011 Item
Page 12 of 21
When adjusted for the above, the fiscal year 2011-12 baseline budget totaled $139.1
million. These changes combined with the changes to the revenues, resulted in a
projected deficit of $19.6 million deficit. As noted previously, the baseline budget was
developed prior to the most recent agreements with the City's bargaining groups and
prior to the implementation of the budget balancing plan -the baseline budget basically
represents a status quo budget. The following summarizes the revenues and expenditures
after the completion of the fiscal year 2011-12 baseline budget.
Projected Baseline Revenues $119.5 million
Projected Baseline Expenditures $139.1 million
Surplus/Deficit ($ 19.6 million)
Section 2 -Development of the Fiscal Year 2011-12 Proposed Budget
In order to address the projected deficit of $19.6 million new agreements were
developed with the City's bargaining groups and a budget balancing plan was
formulated and implemented -combined with some adjustments in revenue these
changes result in a proposed balanced budget for fiscal year 2011-12. For comparison
purposes, the following section describes the changes between the fiscal year 2011-12
baseline budget and the fiscal year 2011-12 proposed budget. The fiscal year 2011-12
proposed budget reflects the agreements reached with the City's bargaining groups in
December 2010 and January 2011 and the implementation of the budget balancing
plan.
The proposed budget for fiscal year 2011-12 reflects revenues of $123.7 million, an
increase of $4.2 million (3.6%) when compared to baseline budget for fiscal year 2011-
12 of $119.5 million. The increased revenue reflects the implementation of the budget
balancing plan and additional adjustments to discretionary revenue based on updated
projections. The following table compares the fiscal year 2011-12 baseline budget to the
fiscal year 2011-12 proposed budget.
1-12
APRIL 14, 2011 Item ~
Page 13 of 21
Table 4 -Comparison of Fiscal Year 2011-12 Baseline Revenues and
Fiscal Year 2011-12 Proposed Revenues
Property Taxes $ 24,722,233 $ 25,232,935 $ 510,702 2.1%
Sales Tax $ 25,443,433 $ 26,400,794 $ 957,361 3.8%
Motor Vehicle License Fees $ (7,347,199 $ 17,201,233 $ (145,966) -0.8%
Development Revenue $ 1,193,773 $ 1,355,868 $ 162,095 13.6%
Interfund Reimbursements $ 9,619,254 $ 10,212,738 $ 593,484 6.2%
Transfers From Other Funds $ 11,961,823 $ 12,214,421 $ 252,598 2.1%
Franchise Fees $ 7,794,686 $ 7,394,686 $ (400,000) -5.1%
Charges for Services $ 5,880,663 $ 5,678,947 $ (201,716) -3.4%
Utility Users Taxes $ 3,240,633 $ 3,240,633 $ - 0.0%
Other Agency Revenue $ 1,266,901 $ 1,184,721 $ (82,180) -6.5%
Other Local Taxes $ 2,062,816 $ 2,062,816 $ - 0.0%
Other Revenues $ 1,042,089 $ 3,409,850 $ 2,367,761 227.2%
Transient Occupancy Taxes $ 2,059,749 $ 2,086,377 $ 26,628 l.3%
Use of Money and Property $ 1,758,566 $ 2,061,999 $ 303,433 17.3%
Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties $ 2,084,980 $ 2,020,845 $ (64,135) -3.l%
Police Grants $ 1,293,980 $ 1,285,490 $ (8,490) -0.7%
Licenses and Permits $ 711,050 $ 688,090 $ (22,960) -3.2%
Total $ 119,483,828 S 123,732,443 $ 4,248,615 3.6%
This increase in revenue reflects the following major changes
• Other Revenue -This category reflects an increase of $2.4 million. This increase
reflects the use of $2.6 million from the Economic Contingency Reserve. As
discussed in the October 2010 budget update to Council, the budget balancing plan
for fiscal year 2011-12 was implemented in January 2011 in order to generate savings
that would then be used to help balance fiscal year 2011-12. This revenue category
also reflects the reduction of miscellaneous revenues totaling $0.2 million.
• Sales Tax -This category reflects an increase of $1.0 million. Based on the most
recent information provided by the City's sales tax consultants and the trend for the
current fiscal year, sales tax revenue was increased by an additional $1.0 million.
Staff will continue to work with the City's sales tax consultants to evaluate the
projected revenues for the coming fiscal year based on the most recent sales tax
trends.
• Inter-fund Reimbursements -This category reflects an increase of $0.6 million. This
increase largely reflects an adjustment in the staff time reimbursements from capital
improvement projects based on the historical revenues and anticipated work for fiscal
year2011-12.
1-13
APRIL 14, 2011 Item
Page 14 of 21
• Property Tax -This category reflects an increase of $0.5 million. This increase
reflects additional adjustments to secured property tax revenue somewhat offset by an
anticipated decrease in delinquent taxes.
The proposed expenditures for fiscal year 2011-12 total $123.7 million, a decrease of
$15.4 million (-11.0%) when compared to the fiscal year 2011-12 baseline budget. The
fiscal year 2011-12 proposed budget reflects the agreements reached with the City's
bargaining groups in December 2010 and January 2011 and the implementation of the
budget balancing plan.
Table 5 -Comparison of Fiscal Year 2010-11 and Fiscal Year 2011-12
Baseline and Proposed Expenditures
t• ~ ~ ~ ~ -
Personnel Services $ 109,567,212 $ 95,715,876 $ (13,851,337) -12.6%
Supplies and Services $ 14,223,117 $ 12,889,896 $ (1,333,221) -9.4%
Other Expenses $ b48,074 $ 440,600 $ (207,474) -32.0%
Capital $ 88,500 $ 358,500 $ 270,000 305.1%
Transfers Out $ 9,204,690 $ 9,423,106 $ 218,416 2.4%
CIP Project Expenditures $ - $ - $ - -
Utilities $ 1,355,023 $ 4,904,465 $ (450,558) -8.4%
Total S 139,086,616 $ 123,732,443 $ (15,354,174) -11.0%
This decrease in expenditures includes the following major changes.
• Personnel Services -This category reflects a decrease of $13.9 million. The
reduction in Personnel Services reflects:
o Implementation of the budget balancing plan that resulted in the
elimination of 94.5 permanent positions in the General Fund. A summary
of the eliminated positions is included in the Staffing Changes section.
o Reduction in hourly personnel costs; the hourly budget was reduced from
$2.1 million in baseline fiscal year 2011-12 to $1.1 mi]lion in the proposed
fiscal year 2011-12. This represents a reduction of approximately 47%.
The largest hourly reductions were made in the Recreation, Library, and
Public Works departments.
o PERS contribution savings, these savings are a result of the City's
bargaining groups working with the City to change their current contracts
and begin contributing towards their pension costs. The implementation
of the pension contributions varies by bargaining group; the specific
contribution amount is included in the section summarizing the
1-14
APRIL 14, 201 I Item l~
Page 15 of 21
agreements with the bargaining groups. The City's non-represented
employees -City Council, Executives, Senior Managers, Confidential and
non-represented Mid Managers/Professionals, now contribute 8% of their
salaries towards their pension costs. For non-represented Safety
employees the contribution rate is 9%.
o Elimination of the scheduled January 2011 and January 2012 cost of living
adjustments for IAFF and CVEA.
o Other personnel savings resulting from the updated agreements with the
City's bargaining groups including the elimination of the retirement
medical trust contributions for IAFF and the elimination of professional
enrichment for POA, WCE, and CVMM/PROFA.
• Supplies and Services -This category reflects a decrease of $1.3 million. The
reduction in this category reflects the implementation of the budget balancing plan,
most notably:
o A decrease of $556,300 in the Library Department's Services and Supplies
budget, of this amount $453,300 reflects a reduction in the books and
materials budget.
o A decrease of $244,400 in the Recreation Department's Services and
Supplies budget to reflect a reduction in operating hours at the various
Recreation facilities.
o A decrease of $202,000 in the fleet maintenance charges budget of
departments assigned vehicles. This adjustment reflects the cost savings
from reducing staffing in the Fleet Maintenance fund and the elimination
of vehicles assigned to positions eliminated in the General Fund.
o Services and Supplies budgets were reduced in the following departments:
City Clerk, Administration, Information Technology Services, Human
Resources, Finance, Animal Care Facility, Police, Fire, and Public Works.
• Other Expenses -This category reflects a decrease of $0.2 million. This
reduction reflects the elimination of the City's share of the support for the Otay
Valley Regional Park ($120,000), a reduction of $51,500 in the damage to city
property object to reflect current expenditure trends, and other miscellaneous
reductions totaling $36,000.
• Capital Expenses -This category reflects an increase of $0.3 million. This
category includes the computer replacement costs. The increase in this category
reflects a transition to new permit processing software, a new plotter for the
Public Works-Engineering division and updates to the GIS I Street Viewer
software.
1-15
APRIL 14, 2011 Item
Page 16 of 21
• Transfers Out -This category reflects an increase of $0.2 million. This increase
reflects an additional $218,000 in the transfer out to the Energy Loan Repayment
fund for the debt service for various energy efficiency projects funded through
CEC and SDG&E no interest or low interest loans. The debt service for these
loans is offset by expenditure savings in the utilities category.
Utilities -This category reflects a decrease of $0.5 million. The decrease in
Utilities reflects the projected savings resulting from various recently completed
energy efficiency projects and the implementation of the budget balancing plan.
As noted previously, a number of energy efficiency prdjects on City buildings
were financed through CEC and SDG&E no interest or low interest loans. Per the
loan agreements, the resulting energy cost savings are being used for the debt
service of these loans.
The budget deficit was closed through a reduction in expenditures of $15.4 million and
an increase in revenues of $4.2 million. The increase in projected revenues includes a
transfer of $2.6 million from the Economic Contingency Reserve. The source of the $2.6
million that is being transferred from the Economic Contingency Reserve is from the
fiscal year 2010-11 savings resulting from the January 2011 implementation of the
budget balancing plan. The following summarizes the revenues and expenditures after
the completion of the fiscal year 2011-12 proposed budget.
Projected Proposed Revenues $123.7 million
Projected Proposed Expenditures $123.7 million
Surplus/Deficit
Summary of Staffing Reductions
The fiscal year 2010-11 Adopted Budget included 1004.75 positions citywide, of these
positions 864.25 were budgeted in the General Fund. The fiscal year 2011-12 budget
includes 774.25 positions in the General Fund, a net reduction of 90.0 when compared to
the fiscal year 2010-11 Adopted Budget, this represents a 10% reduction in staffing in the
General Fund. Attachment 1 provides the positions that were eliminated by classification
and department.
Table 6 -Summary of General Fund Staffing Changes
FY 11 Council Adopted Budget t+b`+~~c
FY 11 Midyear:
Added: Animal Control Officer & Chief Service Officer (both revenue offset) 2.00
Eliminated: Peace Officer (grant funding expired October 2010) -1.00
R~.dnc~ Rohnrinn Plant -91.00
FY 12
*2.0 positions were eliminated in the Fleet Maintenance Fuud as part of the budget balancing plan.
~-16
APRIL 14, 2011 Item
Page 17 of 21
The elimination of these positions impacted almost every department and bargaining
group and resulted in significant service reductions. The following tables summarize the
positions eliminated as part of the budget balancing plan by department and bargaining
group.
Table 7 -Summary of General Fund Permanent Staffing Changes by Department
Library 39.75 (18.75) 2L00 -47.2%
Administration 10.00 (4.00) 6.00 -40.0%
Recreation 26.00 (8.00) 18.00 -30.8%
City Clerk 6.50 (L50) 5.00 -23.1%
Public Works 792.50 (32.00) 160.50 -16.6%
Human Resources 16.75 (1.75) 15.00 -10.4%
Dev Services (GF) 27.00 (2.50) 24.50 -9.3%
Info Tech Services 19.00 (L00) 18.00 -5.3%
General Services 19.25 ].00 (2.50) 17.75 -7.8%
Finance 27.00 (2.00) 25.00 -7.4%
Police 321.50 (1.00) (16.00) 304.50 -5.3%
Fire (35.00 (1.00) 134.00 -0.7%
CiTy Attorney 11.00 - 11.00 -
City Council 13.00 L00 - 14.00 7.7%
Total 864.25 1.00 (91.00) 774.25 -10.4%
Table 8 -Summary of General Fund Permanent Staffing Changes
by Bargaining Group
CVEA 362.50 1.00 (69.25) 294.25 -18.8%
Confidential 16.75 (2.75) 14.00 -16.4%
POA 232.00 (L00) (15.00) 216.00 -6.9%
Sr Managers 23.00 I.00 (2.00) 22.00 -4.3%
Mid Managers &
Professionals* 70.00 - (2.00) 68.00 -2.9%
Executives 15.00 - - 15.00 -
CiTy Council 5.00 5.00 -
IAFF 124.00 124.00 -
WCE 16.00 16.00 -
Total General Fund 864.25 1.00 (91.00) 774.25 -10.4%
*Includes represented and non-represented Mid Managers and Professionals
~-~~
APRIL 14, 2011 Item
Page 18 of 21
Since fiscal year 2006-07, the City has made several reductions as it struggled to keep
expenditures in line with revenues as the economic recession continued to deteriorate
discretionary revenues. The following table reflects the staffing reductions made since
fiscal year 2006-07 citywide, it includes staffing changes made in General Fund and other
funds.
Table 9 -Summary of Permanent Staffing Changes from
Fiscal Year 2006-07 to Fiscal Year 2011-12 by Department
Ili
I ~ ~~~
Legislative/Administrative
City Coaocil 15 14 -7%
City Clerk 8.5 5 -41%
City Attorney 14 I1 -21%
Administration 21 6 -71%
ITS 29 ]8 -38%
Human Resources 25.5 15 -41%
Finance 31 25 -19%
Other Funds 0.5 ].5 200%
Leg & Admin 144.5 95.5 -34%
Development & Maintenance
Mimal Care FaciliTy 0 17.75
Development Services (GF) 90.5 24.5 -73%
Community Development 26 0 -100%
Public Works 186.5 160.5 -14%
Engineering 51 0 -100%
General Services 104.75 0 -100%
Other Funds 14 109 679%
Dev & blaint 472.75 31L75 -34%
Public Safety
Fire (excluding dispatch) 140 134 -4%
Fire Dispatch 11 0 "-100%
Police (less CBAG) 364.5 304.5 -l6%
CRAG l7 24 41°/a
Other Funds 0 8
Public Safety 532.5 470.5 -12%
(Table 9 continued on following page)
~-ia
APRIL 14, 2011 Item
Page 19 of 21
Notes:
1. Since fiscal year 2006-07, a number of positions were transferred from the General Fund to
their respective funding source. For example, Development Services staffing previously
included in the Planning and Building Department isnaw included in the Development
Services Fund.
2. CBAG staffing was included in the Ceneral Fund in fiscal year 2006-07 but was subsequently
transferred to the Police Grants Fund thus the Changes to Date column reflects the transfer
of CBAG to Other Funds.
3. Fire dispatch services are now provided on a contractual basis by the City of San Diego.
4. The table above reflects permanent positions only; hourly staffrng has been reduced by over
80% when comparing fiscal year 2006-07 to fiscal year 2011-l2.
5. Since fiscal year 2006-07, a number of reorganizations have occurred in the General Fund.
For example, Budget and Analysis was transferred from the Administration Department to the
Finance Department and the Genera! Services, Community Development, and Engineering
departments were eliminated through combination with other departments. Most recently,
Conservation and Environmental Services was transferred from Administration to
Development Services and Public Works. These transfers overstate the reductions in the
Administration department and understate the reducfions in other departments.
The following table reflects the staffing reductions made since fiscal year 2006-07
citywide by bargaining group. The table reflects staffing budgeted in the General Fund
and other funds.
1-19
APRIL 14, 2011 Item
Page 20 of 21
Table 10 -Summary of Permanent Staffing Changes from
Fiscal Year 2006-07 to Fiscal Year 2011-12 by Bargaining Unit
CVEA 609.25 377.25 -232.00 -38.1%
Mid Managers and Professionals 149.0 93.00 -56.50 -37.8%
Executives 25.00 16.00 -9.00 -36.0%
Senior Managers 48.00 31.00 -17.00 -35.4%
WCE 37.00 26.00 -11.00 -29.7%
CONF 31.00 24.50 -6.50 -21.0%
POA 247.00 220.00 -27.00 -10.9%
Mayor & Council 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.0%
IAFF t 12.00 124.00 12.00 10.7%
Citywide Total 1263.75 916.75 -347.00 -27.5%
Note.
1. The net increase of 12 FTEs in IAFF is the result of the elimination of 1 FTE (Training Fire
Captain) and the transfer of 13 FTEs from other bargaining units to /AFF (6 Battalion Chief
positions transferred from the Mid Managers group, 6 Fire Prevention staff members transferred
from CVEA, and 1 Fire Prevention Engineer transferred from the Professional group.) Excluding
the 13 FTEs transferred to IAFF, would result in a net reduction of 1 FTE or a reduction of
approximately 1 %.
The development of the fiscal year 2011-12 budget has been a very difficult process as
the City has continued to struggle to keep expenditures in line with declining revenues.
The cooperation of the City's bargaining groups and non-represented employees helped
mitigate some of the proposed staffing reductions and resulting service impacts. As
noted above, the budget balancing plan includes the elimination of 91.5 permanent
positions, in addition to these positions the hourly budget was reduced by approximately
47%. These staffing reductions have resulted in the elimination of some programs and
reduced service levels in other areas. Attachment 2 summarizes some of the major
service impacts resulting from the implementation of the most recent budget balancing
plan.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is
not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of
Regulations section 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision.
1-20
APRIL 14, 2011 Item
Page 21 of 21
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
There is no additional fiscal impact anticipated in the current year. The January 2011
implementation of the budget-balancing plan will result in approximately $2.6 million in
savings in the current fiscal year that will then be used to balance fiscal year 2011-12.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
The City Manager's Proposed General Fund budget for fiscal year 2011-12 totals $123.7
million - it represents a balanced budget that includes reductions needed to correct the
structural imbalance created by the continued loss of General Fund revenues. The fiscal
year 2011-12 budget reflects the following, which help to establish a conservative and
realistic budget:
• Use of one time revenues so that ongoing revenues are being used to fund
ongoing expenditures.
• The elimination of general salary savings.
• No assumed UUT/TUT revenues for wireless services.
• Conservative revenue projections that assume very modest improvements in the
economy.
Attachments:
1. Budget Balancing Plan -Staffing Reductions by Classification
2. Service Impacts by Department
Prepared by: Marra Kachadoorian, Frnance Director, Finance Department
~-21
Attachment 1 -Staffing Reductions by Department
CITY CLERK
City Clerk Operations Administrative Secretary (L00)
CITY CLERK (1.00)
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
IT Programming Webmaster (1.00)
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICE' (I.00)
HUMAN RESOURCES
HR Operations HR Analyst (I.00)
HR Operations HR Technician (0.75)
HUMAN RESOURCES (1.75)
FINANCE
Comptroller Division Accounting Technician 1.00
Comptroller Division Associate Accountant (1.00)
Revenue & Recovery Accounting Assistant (1.00)
Budget & Analysis Administrative Services Manager (1.00)
FINANCE (2.00)
ANIMAL CARE FACILITY
Animal Care Services Office Specialist (0.75)
Animal Care Services Office Specialist (0.75)
Animal Care Services Sr Animal Caze Assistant (1.00)
ANIMAL CARE FACILITY (2.50)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (GENERAL FUND)
Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Officer II (1.00)
Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Manager (L00)
Long Range Planning Associate Planner (0.50)
Economic Development Sr Project Coordinator (1.00)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (GF) (3.50)
POLICE
Traffic Enforcement Peace Officer (L00)
DUI Enforcement Team Peace Officer (1.00)
Street Crime/Gang Suppression Police Agent (1.00)
Juvenile Services Police Sergeant (1.00)
School Resowce (SRO) Peace Officer (1.00)
School Resource (SRO) Peace Officer (L00)
School Resource (SRO) Peace Officer (1.00)
School Resource (SRO) Peace Officer (1.00)
School Resource (SRO) Peace Officer (1.00)
School Resowce (SRO) Peace Officer (1.00)
School Resource (SRO) Peace Officer (1.00)
School Resource (SRO) Police Agent (L00)
School Resource (SRO) Police Agent (1.00)
Internet Crimes Against Childr Police Agent (1.00)
Narcotics Enforcement Team Police Sergeant (1.00)
Fiscal Operations Secretary (1.00)
POLICE (16.00)
FIRE
Fire Administration Sr Office Specialist (1.00)
Fire Training Fire Captain 1.00
~-22
Page I of 3
Attachment 1-Staffing Reductions by Department
Fire Training Fire Engineer (1.00)
FIRE (1.00)
PUBLIC WORKS
PW Administration Secretary (1.00)
Fiscal Services Sr Management Analyst 1.00
Fiscal Services Principal Management Analyst (1.00)
Infrastructure Projects Engineering Tech I (1.00)
Traffic Engineering Engineering Tech II (0.50)
Traffic Engineering Signal Systems Engineer II (0.50)
Operations Administration Fiscal Office Specialist (1.00)
Operations Administration Pub Works Specialist (I.00)
Operations Administration Sr Office Specialist (1.00)
Graffiti Removal Maintenance Worker II (1.00)
Graffiti Removal Maintenance Worker II (1.00)
Graffiti Removal Sr Maintenance Worker (1.00)
Graffiti Removal Sr Maintenance Worker (1.00)
Street Maintenance Maintenance Worker II (1.00)
Street Maintenance Public Works Supervisor (1.00)
Street Maintenance Sr Maintenance Worker (1.00)
Urban Forestry Maintenance Sr Tree Trimmer (1.00)
Urban Forestry Maintenance Sr Tree Trimmer (1.00)
Urban Forestry Maintenance Tree Trimmer (1.00)
Urban Forestry Maintenance Tree Trimmer (1.00)
Storm Drain Maintenance Maintenance Worker II (1.00)
Construction & Repair Carpenter (L00)
Construction & Repair Plumber (1.00)
Custodial Services Custodial Supervisor (1.00)
Custodial Services Custodian (0.50)
Custodial Services Custodian (0.50)
Custodial Services Custodian (0.50)
Custodial Services Custodian (0.50)
Custodial Services Custodian (0.50)
Custodial Services Custodian (0.50)
Custodial Services Custodian (1.00)
Custodial Services Lead Custodian (1.00)
Custodial Services Lead Custodian (1.00)
Bldg Srvcs Communications Elec/Equip Installer (1.00)
Bldg Srvcs Communications Electronics Tech Supervisor (1.00)
Bldg Srvcs Communications Electronics Technician (L00)
Park Maintenance Gardener II (1.00)
Park Rangers Parks Supervisor (1.00)
Park Rangers Sr Park Ranger (1.00)
Construction Inspection Secretary 1.00
Construction Inspection Sr Secretary (1.00)
NPDES Engineering Tech II (1.00)
NPDES Stormwtr Complnce Inspector II (1.00)
PUBLIC WORKS (35.00)
RECREATION
Veterans' Park Complex Recreation Supervisor I (1.00)
Montevalle Community Center Recreation Supervisor [ (1.00)
Salt Creek Community Center Recreation Supervisor II (1.00)
Norman Pk Ctr Recreation Supervisor III (1.00)
Otay Rec Ctr Recreation Supervisor I (1.00)
1-23
Page 2 of 3
Attachment 1 -Staffing Reductions by Department
Loma Verde Rec Ctr Recreation Supervisor I (1.00)
Parkway Rec Ctr Recreation Supervisor I (1.00)
Heritage Park Recreation Supervisor I (1.00)
RECREATION (8.00)
LIBRARY
Library Administration Library Admin Coordinator (1.00)
Library Administration Secretary (1.00)
Tech Services Management Delivery Driver (0.50)
Tech Services Management Librarian I (I.00)
Tech Services Management Librarian III (L00)
Tech Services Management Library Technician (L00)
Tech Services Management Library Technician (1.00)
Literacy Family & Youth Literacy Coord (1.00)
Civ Ctr Branch Mgmt Librarian I (0.50)
Civ Ctr Branch Mgm[ Librarian II (L00)
Civ Ctr Branch Mgmt Library Associate (1.00)
Civ Ctr Branch Mgmt Library Associate (0.50)
Civ Ctr Branch Mgmt Library Associate (0.50)
Civ Ctr Branch Mgmt Library Associate (0.50)
Civ Ctr Branch Mgmt Library Associate (L00)
Civ Ctr Branch Mgmt Library Associate (0.50)
Chula Vista Museum Librarian III (1.00)
So CV Branch Management Librarian II (0.50)
So CV Branch Management Library Assistant (0.50)
So CV Branch Management Library Associate (0.25)
So CV Branch Management Library Associate (0.50)
So CV Branch Management Library Associate (1.00)
So CV Branch Management Library Associate (1.00)
So CV Branch Management Library Associate (0.50)
Eastlake Library Library Associate (0.50)
Eastlake Library Library Associate (0.50)
LIBRARY (19.25)
Total General Fund (91.00)
FLEET FUND
Central Garage Operations Mechanic Assistant (1.00)
Central Garage Operations Mechanic Assistant (1.00)
FLEET FUND (2.00)
1-24
Page 3 of 3
Attachment 2 -Summary of Service hnpacts by Department
Since fiscal year 2006-2007 the City has gone through several budget reduction processes in an
effort to keep expenditures in line with rapidly declining revenues. Like other local
governments, the City's major revenues have been severely impacted by the national recession.
The projected deficit for fiscal year 2011-12 totaled $19.6 million. The budget balancing plan
that was developed to address this deficit included -pension reform, the elimination of programs,
reduced levels of service, and reductions in staffing. These changes were necessary in order to
address the City's financial structural imbalance and move towards a healthier fiscal future.
The following data provides a summary of the reductions made in order to balance the fiscal year
2011-12 budget and the resulting service impacts by department.
City Clerk
Resource Summary
Description FY12 Baseline FY12 Proposed Change
Expenditures $ 982,283 $ 817,483 $ (164,800)
Revenues $ 51,600 $ 1,600 $ (50,000)
Net Cost $ 930,683 $ 815,883 $ (114,800)
Staffing 6.50 5.00 (1.50)
Percent Change -23.1%
Service Impacts:
Further reductions in the City Clerk's Department have caused a reduction in the ability to
provide customer service at the front counter and over the phone; have further delayed certain
mandated duties such as the production of City Council and Redevelopment Agency minutes and
the review of financial disclosures; and have reduced the ability to manage the City's records
and electronic document management system, and finalize resolutions, ordinances, and Council
policies.
Page 1 of 11
1-25
Attachment. 2 Summary of Service Impacts by Department
City Attorney
Resource Summary:
Description
Expenditures
Revenues
Net Cost
Staffing
Percent Change
Service Impacts:
11.00
FY12 Proposed
$ 2,123,167
$ 206,195
$ 1,916,972
11.00
Change
$ (188,953)
$ -
$ (188,953)
The reductions in the City Attorney's Office reflect the implementation of the employee pension
contribution and the elimination of the funding for the Law Office Manager.
Administration Department
Resource Summary:
Description
Expenditures
Revenues
Net Cost
Staffing
Percent Change
Service Impacts:
10.00
FY12 Proposed
$ 1,102,316
$ 81,000
$ 1,021,316
6.00
Change
$ (717,158)
$ (355,412)
$ (361,746)
(4.00)
-40%
The Resource Summary for the Administration Department reflects the transfer of 4 FTE
assigned to the Office of Conservation and Environmental Services to Public Works and
Development Services and the implementation of the budget balancing plan. The budget
balancing plan included employee pension contributions and some reductions to the
department's services and supplies budget. Both of these reductions result in minimal service
impacts to the community.
Page 2 of 11
FY12 Baseline
$ 2,312,120
$ 206,195
$ 2,105,925
FY12 Baseline
$ 1,819,475
$ 436,412
$ 1,383,063
1-26
Information Technology Services Department
Resource Summary:
Description
Expenditures
Revenues
Net Cost
Staffing
Percent Change
FY12 Baseline
$ 3,262,230
$ 60,000
$ 3,202,230
19.00
FY12 Proposed
$ 2,971,442
$ 60,000
$ 2,911,442
18.00
Change
$ (290,789)
$ -
$ (290,789)
(1.00)
-5.3%
Service Impacts:
WEB RELATED SERVICE IMPACTS:
• Staff in Public Works is no longer assisting with day-to-day website updates. As a result,
the Webmaster is spending more time on routine maintenance and less time on new pages
or web sites.
• Reduction in staff throughout the City has resulted in greater demand to provide services
via online applications and websites. With the Webmaster working 20 hrs. /week, there
will be significant delays in completing this work.
• ITS has requests to completely redesign several department sites including Fire, Police,
Development Services, Economic Development, EOC, and the City Attorney's office.
ITS also have a number of requests to update CVInsider. Much of this work will be
delayed or not completed as a result of the Webmaster position being reduced to 20
hrs/week.
Human Resources Department
Resource Summary:
Description
Expenditures
Revenues
Net Cost
FY12 Baseline
$ 2,261,981
$ 254,669
$ 2,007,312
FY12 Proposed
$ 2,078,781
$ 254,669
$ 1,824,112
Change
$ (183,201)
$ -
$ (183,201)
Staffing
Percent Change
16.75 15.00
Page 3 of 11
1-27
(1.75)
-10.4%
Service Impacts:
• Human Resources have reduced public counter hours by 42% due to reductions in
support staff.
• Reductions in training funds have impacted staffs ability to stay abreast of ongoing
changes to federal/state laws in the areas of human resources and benefits administration.
• Staffing reductions have caused a delay in completing critical investigations (violations
of City policies/Civil Service Rules). These delays could result in additional costs for
administrative leave, overtime for backfilling safety positions and increasing the potential
for lawsuits.
• Current Human Resources staff levels will make it a challenge to complete acity-wide
classification study and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) audit. Inaccurate
classifications and application of FLSA provisions could result in significant fines.
• With the loss of the Volunteer Coordinator a minimum of 30% of one of the remaining
analyst's time is being spent on volunteer coordination; in addition to the duties the
analysts have had to absorb from the loss of the HR Analyst and prior benefits staff
reductions.
• Injury rates per 100 employees continue to exceed those of other California local
government agencies by an average of 66% over the past two years.
• There are insufficient staff resources available to cross train to assist in safety related
matters.
• No resources available to provide strategic succession planning.
• No resources available to meet the critical development and management training
demands placed on the organization due to downsizing.
Finance Department
Resource Summary:
Description FY12 Baseline FY12 Proposed Change
Expenditures $ 3,298,516 $ 3,041,506 $ (257,010)
Revenues $ 1,230,473 $ 1,249,744 $ 19,271
Net Cost $ 2,068,043 $ 1,791,762 $ (276,281)
Staffing 27.00 25.00 (2.00)
Percent Change -7.4%
Page 4 of 11
1-28
Service Impacts
Front counter service to the public has been reduced from 5 Accounting Assistants to 4. As a
result services to the public have been impacted.
Public service hours at the front counter have been reduced by 3 hours per day Monday through
Thursday. The front counter hours that were 8:00 to 5:00 are now 10:00 to 4:00.
Due to the reduced staffing other important duties must be placed on hold if assistance is
required for customer service to the public. If one or more of the staff are off due to illness or
vacation, resources are shifted to assisting the front counter. This has impacted processing times
for demand letter requests from title companies for lien releases, business license renewals, and
sewer billing and collection activities.
Animal Care Facility
Resource Summary:
Description FY12 Baseline FY12 Proposed Change
Expenditures $ 2,387,064 $ 2,155,695 $ (231,369)
Revenues $ 1,072,288 $ 1,019,985 $ (52,303)
Net Cost $ 1,314,776 $ 1,135,710 $ (179,06
Staffing 20.25 17.75 (2.50)
Percent Change -7.8%
Service Impacts:
• Loss of full time dispatcher with seven years of experience
• Response time will be delayed for dispatching calls to Animal Control Officers
• Will only be able to respond to Priority One Calls emergencies such as injured orbiting
dogs
• Citizen complaints will increase due to delay in response or inability to respond within
the same day
• Barking dog complaints will not be a priority and in some cases it may not be responded
to
• Loss of 1.5 FTE front office/customer service support (80 hours/ week)
• Longer lines in providing services
• Loss of revenue due to the longer lines in processing adoptions/licenses
Page 5 of 11
1-29
Attachment 2 -Summary of Service Impacts by Department
• Delay in processing and mailing license renewals
• Phones are not answered consistently
• Animal intakes have increased by 15% due to the economy
Development Services (General Fund)
Resource Summary:
Description
Expenditures
Revenues
Net Cost
Staffing
Percent Change
FY12 Baseline
$ 3,904,668
$ 2,570,706
$ 1,333,962
27.00
FY12 Proposed
$ 3,457,473
$ 2,700,967
$ 756,506
24.50
Change
$ (447,194)
$ 130,261
$ (577,455)
Service Impacts:
(2.50)
-9.3%
Eliminated Code Enforcement Officer and Code Enforcement Manager -the elimination of these
positions will result in reduced capacity in responding to complaints of vacant unmaintained,
defaulted, and foreclosed properties.
Eliminated funding for the Otay Valley Regional Park Joint Powers Authority payment; City of
San Diego and County of San Diego lefr to split costs of any Donovan crew contracts.
Eliminated .5 FTE Associate Planner -the elimination of this position will result in a significant
reduction in Otay Valley Regional Park participation.
Page 6 of 11
1-30
Attachment 2 - Sttrnrnary of Service Impacts by Department
Police Department
Resource Summary
Description FY12 Baseline FY12 Proposed Change
Expenditures $ 45,938,184 $ 41,734,911 $ (4,203,273)
Revenues $ 6,940,309 $ 7,136,566 $ 196,257
Net Cost $ 38,997,875 $ 34,598,345 $ (4,399,530)
Staffing 320.50 304.50 (16.00)
Percent Change -5.3%
Service Impacts:
• Reduction of fifteen sworn positions including the majority of the SRO program,
reduction of four officers from the proactive street enforcement unit (Street Team), two
officers from the Traffic unit and one from the DUI enforcement program. Three
additional positions will have their budget frozen until sufficient revenues exist to
reinstate the positions.
o Significant reduction in the School Resource Officer program over the last several
years from twenty-two sworn staff down to eight sworn staff. Program is entirely
funded by both school districts at this time and is subject to further reductions
depending upon available school funding. This will mean additional call-for-
service volume originating from schools will now be dispatched to Community
Patrol rather than to the SRO unit as well as a significant reduction in the number
of proactive contacts made by SRO's to the schools.
o Reduction of four of the eleven Street Team members which reduces the ability of
the only proactive enforcement component of the Community Patrol program.
This will eliminate one of the two Street Teams. Each team was assigned to either
the North or South geographic districts in accordance to the new Geographic
Policing Model implemented earlier this year.
o Reduction of two Motor Officers will mean a transfer of collateral traffic duties
among the remaining eight officers which will detract from normal traffic
enforcement duties. These duties will include writing and reviewing collision
reports, administration of the motorcycle fleet maintenance, and maintenance and
upkeep of the mobile command post.
Page 7 of 11
1-31
o Reduction of one DUI Officer will mean a reduction in the number of DUI
enforcement operations conducted each year, transferring the duties of the DUI
officer to other traffic officers including maintaining the PAS (breath-a-lizer)
devices and acting as the primary court expert for DUI and DRE related cases.
This will further reduce the number of hours available to remaining traffic staff to
conduct traffic enforcement.
• Elimination of the Patrol/Administration Secretary
o Transfer of workload to other clerical staff throughout the department, resulting in
delayed processing of various work materials. Also results in no backup for Sr.
Administrative Secretary and resulting in delays in responding to citizens seeking
information from Administration.
Fire Department
Resource Summary
Description FY12 Baseline FY12 Proposed Change
Expenditures $ 23,773,872 $ 21,718,087 $ (2,055,785)
Revenues $ 1,155,998 $ 955,998 $ (200,000)
Net Cost $ 22,617,874 $ 20,762,089 $ (1,855,785)
Staffing 135.00 134.00 (1.00)
Percent Change -0.7%
Service Impacts:
• Training Division has increased regional training with federal grants available; however,
internal required training has been falling behind due to staffing shortage.
• Completion of regular duties including payroll, purchasing and payment of invoices is
taking longer due to elimination of Sr. Office Specialist.
Page 8 of ll
1-32
Attachment2-Summary of Service Impacts by Department
Public Works Department
Resource Summary:
Description FY12 Baseline FY 12 Proposed Change
Expenditures $ 26,315,626 $ 23,421,899 $ (2,893,728)
Revenues $ 14,306,330 $ 14,792,300 $ 485,970
Net Cost $ 12,009,296 $ 8,629,599 $ (3,379,698)
Staffing 192.50 160.50 (32.00)
Percent Change -16.6%
Service Impacts:
• Park Reservations will only be processed through our website;
• Limited Park Ranger services will be provided; therefore, park rules and reservations
will not be enforced;
• Graffiti on private property will no longer be removed by City crews;
• Graffiti removal on public property will be delayed;
• Tree trimming services only provided by contract;
• Holiday lighting for Starlight Parade, downtown area, etc. no longer provided by the
City;
• Custodial services provided at Recreation Centers on the weekends eliminated;
• Custodial services at Fire Stations 1, 4 & 7 eliminated;
• Restroom cleaning at Civic Center Complex reduced from twice a day to once a day;
• Number of setups at Norma Park Center reduced;
• Number of setups for special events for Fire & Police Depts. reduced;
• Traffic congestion monitoring reduced or eliminated.
Recreation Department
Resource Summary
Description FY12 Baseline FY12 Proposed Change
Expenditures $ 4,758,216 $ 2,944,187 $ (1,814,030)
Revenues $ 1,811,689 $ 1,526,585 $ (285,104)
Net Cost $ 2,946,527 $ 1,417,602 $ (1,528,926)
Staffing 26.00 18.00 (8.00)
Percent Change -30.8%
Page 9 of 11
1-33
Service Impacts:
To follow is a summary of the Recreation Department's major budget reductions:
• Total Operating Expense Budget reduced from $4.7 million in FY 2011 to $2.9 million in
FY 12
o $1.8 million decrease
0 39% decrease in overall expenditure budget
• Elimination of eight (8) full-time positions
0 31 % decrease in full-time workforce
• Elimination of $600,000 in part-time staff
0 33.5 % decrease in part-time budget
o represents loss of approximately 40,000 hours
o loss is equivalent to a reduction of 19 full-time staff
• Facilities, Activities & Programs eliminated or reduced:
o Operating hours at all recreation centers reduced by 66% -now open 2 days/week
o Operating hours at Norman Park Center reduced by 50% -now open AM's only
o Spring/Summer/Fall recreational swimming hours eliminated
o Adult lap swimming hours reduced by 50%
o Fitness center hours reduced by 60+%
o Fee free "Fun to be Fit" programs reduced by 90%
o Center based seasonal special events eliminated
o Free Summer lunch program eliminated
o Community outreach eliminated
o Information and referral services reduced by 90%
o Publicity and promotions reduced by 90%
o Center-based park oversight eliminated
o Special interest classes and activities reduced by 60%
o "Open" gymnasium and game room hours reduced by 70-90%
o Intersession and Summer day camps eliminated
o Youth indoor soccer league reduced by 50%
o Durable equipment replacement eliminated
o Part -time staff uniform budget eliminated
o Significant reductions in customer service levels
Page 10 of 11
1-34
Library Department
Resource Summary:
Description FY12 Baseline FY12 Proposed Change
Expenditures $ 4,875,924 $ 2,854,948 $ (2,020,976)
Revenues $ 277,450 $ 261,863 $ (15,587)
Net Cost $ 4,598,474 $ 2,593,085 $ (2,005,389)
Staffing 39.75 21.00 (18.75)
Percent Change -47.2%
Service Impacts:
• Open days reduced from 16 per week to 12 per week, a 25% reduction
• Open hours reduced from 113 per week to 92 per week, a 19% reduction
• Book/materials budget reduced from $528,258 to $75,000, an 86% reduction
• Regularly scheduled programs for children and teens reduced from 64 per month to
17 per month.
• Elimination of Adult Literacy Program (partially restored with state grants).
• Closure of Heritage Museum (re-opened February 2011 with donated funds and
labor)
Page 11 of 11
1-35