HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA BUDGET 10-19-92RDA N0. S
10-19-9'_
Inter -Com vsj-v��DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
TO: TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FROM: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: 1992-93 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET
The Agency delayed adoption of its 1992-93 budget until it could obtain
information concerning the basis for the transfer of funds from the
Agency to the City's general fund.
The annual transfer from the Agency to the general fund is made to
offset costs incurred by the City in support of the Agency's programs.
All of the Agency's administrative, legal, planning, engineering and
related services are provided through City personnel. The transfer
covers the cost estimated to be incurred by the City in providing such
support to the Agency.
This same approach is used in establishing the transfer from the water
enterprise fund to the general fund. While the Water Division of the
Public Works Department does have full time staff, most of the overhead
costs (administrative, financial systems, engineering, etc.) are
provided through the general fund. After the City acquired the water
system, four positions in the Water Division were eliminated and their
functions assumed by existing City staff.
Attached are schedules which document the.methodology used in allocating
overhead charges to the Agency. The methodology conforms to.guidelines
used by the State Controller's Office in allocating direct and indirect
costs. The percentage allocation of time and corresponding costs are
based upon estimates of support provided to the Agency. The schedule
titled "Direct Cost Allocation" shows the amount of time allocated by
those City departments that provide support to the Agency. The cost
allocation does not include the Police and Public Works maintenance
functions because they do not provide services that directly benefit the
Agency's programs and projects. The schedules after the Direct Cost
Allocation Schedule show the computations used in assigning total costs
by department on the Direct Cost Allocation Schedule.
Also attached is the memorandum submitted to the Agency at its September
21, 1992 meeting wherein it was recommended that the Agency adopt the
1992-93 budget subject to the discussion concerning the $698,820
allocation required by the State budget.
Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
September 30, 1992
Page two
In adopting the 1992-93 general fund budget, the City Council decided to
leave a Code Enforcement position in the general fund pending its review
of the Agency budget. Staff had recommended that the position be
transferred to the Agency since the code enforcement program is focused
on the Agency's South Central Project Area. If the Agency decides to
fund the Code Enforcement position through the Agency operating budget,
it would need to increase the operating expenses portion of the Agency
budget (Resolution 92-15) by $45,000.
WAH�J)6-�-�
Attachments
redbudgL wah
Direct Cost Allocation
Total Costs
RDA
%
RDA
COST
WTR
%
WTR
COST
City Clerk
299,621
15%
44,943
10%
292962
City Manager,
298,27 f
20%
59,654
20%
592654
Planning
125032091
10%
1502309
t
5%
753,155
Building -
9782823
10%
971,882
5%
481,941
Finance
5951,252
15%
892288
25%
1482813
Public Works
Administration
508,594
5%
25,430
15%
767289
Engineering
117387348
10%
1732835
15%
2602752
Community Svs
1,214,052
5%
60,703
0%
0
TOTAL
721362052
7021,044
6997566
0
cn
0
V
N f�
CD N
C) CJ
C) C)
N N
M c N
U) O N O U)
Nr O OO h N
CO M co (D to
f-- O f-- N O
Ln Ln C) to Ln
c CA 'C7
C) 'q -
LA Ch -
CO CO O
O M C)
LO f- N
N r
U) f -
O C)
c r-
r- (�
N Ln
O
N
f, Lo
Lf) CO f- co 1�-
c CO CD
f-
N
10
O O
M C`O O O O
Cl) C) CV
CD
CD
Q)
N v
f- U) CD co Ln
f` r Ln
C)
V-
O CO
t7 C) O f: t,
C) N N
O
C7
U
Q C7
LO CO N CY) r-
0 C) O
CV)
r-
0
O
.- .- C7
.- to
.-
O
r-
M
a
CA P- r
r r f�
.0)
N
M tT
CO O N tD •-
r r CD
O
P-
.�
CL
CA CO
CO CA r N (D
O to CO
• O
O
r r
C) O O Lf) C)
O O cr
CA
CD
r r
N LO M f- N
N f- CD
v
CD
O
CV)
O
Cvj
z
rCY)
0C>C>
C)
Q
CV) N O CD CA
V
(D
r
Y
f` f-
LO C) CO •- C'7
U O O
(D
r
(�
Ln Ln
r- CD CD •-
cr� f N
Ch
N
N .- CO •-
M CO
N
•-
r
'ql:r
U
zCS
00
_
U
F-
O O
O CD O
— N 0)
N
'tto-
Q
tU
0)
C)� ti a)i-
C`)
ti
t-
U
U
C'�
C7 Lf) V. N
CT cc
Ln
C7
r r
r r O
f-
CD
O
V-
N
�
O
Q
N C
O r- C7 LO tD
O f- N
M
y
-- M0)
f- O �- CO
C ) M O
C )
IV'
•cz
M N
co f'. N O
co CA Nr,
M
N C)
Ln CD h C7 C7
L.7 tD co
h
CY)
r
r N CD N
- M N
N
O
.p
m
t`') c
O N C7 N r
- C7 c
M
N
LA CD
N O O r'
c U) r
C)
Lf)
M f-
CO N c C
C) O
N
N-
OD C) Ln M
OD
N r CD
M
CX)
O
C7 N O .--
- C') O
N
f -
V;
CIO
Lr) .
c (J
CD M CD m Ln
c)
O1 C) Le)
Lf m
.- f-
r Ln r CD CCD
U) 00
CD CO
c fes-
f- Ln O fl_ f-
CO r U)
N
CA C)
C7 C7 co- CD r�:
O CD rl
c M
O
Ln Ln
N U) N -
L'] C M
Ul
f
N N
Lt) M CO N U)
c U) LO
O
Cn
CT
r CO
N
LL
m
N
to
v O N
>
Y cw
O \J
CT O CU
> s CJ CU
D
U
`
C
T � cz
_T
U cL O
0
m a L.L.
0< w U-
U
Page 1
Indirect Cost Allocation Detail
Personnel operations cost allocation
$578,451
$2,588.15 cost per employee
of employees
dept. cost
City Manager
3
$7,764
City Clerk
4
$10,353
Planning
15
$38,822
Building
9
$23,293
Police
118
$305,402
Finance
7.5
$19,411
Public Works
Administration
5
$12,941
Engineering
12
$31,058
Field Services
41
$106,114
Community Svs
9
$23,293
223.5
$578,452
Page 2
Indirect Cost Allocation Detail
Bldg Maint cost allocation
$703,343 91-92 Budge
$3,078.09
cost per employee
# of employees
dept. cost
City Manager
3
$9,234
City Clerk
4
$12,312
Planning
15
$46,171
Building
9
$27,703
Personnel
5
$15,390
Police
118
$363,215
Finance
7.5
$23,086
Public Works
Administration
5
$15,390
Engineering
12
$36,937
Field Services
41
$126,202
Community Svs
9$27.703
228.5
$703,344
Page 3
Indirect Cost Allocation Detail
Vehicle operations cost allocation .$463,783.,90-91 Actual
$3,930.36 cost per vehicle
# of vehicles
dept. cost
City Manager
1
$3,930
Personnel
1
$3,930
Planning
4
$15,721
Building
3
$11,791
Police
44
$172,936
Public Works
Administration
3
$11,791
Engineering
5
$19,652
Field Services
53
$208,309
Community Svs
4
$15,721
118
$463,782
Page 4
Indirect Cost Allocation Detail
City Council/Attorney cost allocation 6412,715 91-92. Budget
Community Svs 1,074,665 23,660
18,745,854 0.0220 412,714
appropriation rate
dept. cost
City Manager
259,776
5,719
• City Clerk
259,414
5,711
Personnel
523,716
11,530
Planning
1,313,553
28,920
Building -
858,016
18,890
Police
8,228,768
181,167
Finance
517,745
11,399
Public Works
Administration
438,800
9,661
Engineering
1,546,150
34,041
Field Services
3,725,251
82,016
Community Svs 1,074,665 23,660
18,745,854 0.0220 412,714
Page 5
Indirect Cost Allocation Detail
Non Departamental cost allocation
$854,890
Community Svs 1,074,665 49,009
18,745,854 0.0456 854,890
appropriation
rate dept. cost
City Clerk
259,414
11,830
City Manager
259,776
11,847
Personnel
523,716
23,884
Planning
1,313,553
59,904
Building
858,016
39,129
Police
8,228,768
375,267
Finance
517,745
23,611
Public Works
Administration
438,800
20,011
Engineering
1,546,150
70,511
Field Services
3,725,251
169,887
Community Svs 1,074,665 49,009
18,745,854 0.0456 854,890
_ RDA N0. 6
9-21-92
AG"E N DA9G..
Inter -Com \ f�
DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 '
TO: TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FROM: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: 1992-93 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
That the Agency members approve the attached resolution adopting the
1992-93 budget for the Town Center and South -Central project areas.
DISCUSSION
The Agency had decided to delay adoption of its 1992-93 budget until the
State had adopted its budget. The recent legislation adopting the State
budget mandates that the equivalent of 17.4% of the Agency's 1990-91
gross tax increment revenue be allocated to the County Auditor -
Controller by May, 1993. This amounts to $698,820. All redevelopment
agencies in Orange County are under the same mandate. The total of all
these funds will be reallocated to school districts based upon a formula
devised by the State. The reduction in tax increment revenue is
supposed to be for 1992-93 only. The legislation implementing the State
budget contains a complicated procedure on how redevelopment agency
funds are transferred to the County Auditor -Controller.
Because it could be a few months before State imposed administrative
regulations (the mechanics of transferring the funds) are enacted, staff
recommends the Agency proceed to adopt its 1992-93 budget. The Agency
does have reserves that can be utilized to meet the $698,820 State
mandate, without affecting current projects. The State legislation does
require that the Agency notify the County Auditor -Controller by March 1,
1993 as to how the Agency intends to fund the State imposed obligation.
Staff will submit a report to the Agency in January 1993 which outlines
the options (per State administrative regulations) and a recommendation
on how the $698,820 obligation can be met.
As indicated above, the State budget refers to the 17.4% reduction in
Agency tax increment revenue as a one-time obligation. Given the track
record in Sacramento, it is very possible that redevelopment funds will
be tapped again in 1993-94 to fund schools, reduce the State deficit,
etc. The Agency has the financial capacity to absorb the 1992-93 loss;
however any additional State imposed revenue reductions will require
changes in the Agency's previously approved financial plans and
projects.
WAH
redevbud.wah
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION RDA 92-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE AGENCY BUDGET
AND APPROPRIATING REVENUE OF THE AGENCY FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1992-93.
WHEREAS, in accordance with good fiscal policies, the
Executive Director of the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency has
prepared and submitted to the Board of Directors, a proposed Annual
Budget for the 1992-93 fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors, as the legislative body o
the Agency, has reviewed this proposed budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Community
Redevelopment Agency for the City of Tustin does hereby resolve,
determine and order that the following sums of money are hereby
appropriated from the revenue of the Redevelopment Agency for the
purposes stated during the 1992-93 fiscal year.
Operating Expenses $ 21141,097
Debt Service 925,000
Capital Improvements 7,7491600
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 1992-93 $ 10,815,697
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Community
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin held on the 5th
day of October , 1992.
Leslie Anne Pontious
Chairperson
ATTEST:
Mary E. Wynn, Recording Secretary
a:rdabudgt.res