The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA BUDGET 10-05-92RDA N0. 5 10-5-92 Inter -Com �- ATE: SEPTEMBER 301 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. wAx6"J)O----- Attachments redbudgL wah Direct Cost Allocation Total Costs RDA % RDA COST WTR % WTR COST City Clerk 2993,621 15% 44,943 10% 29,962 City Manager 2983,271 20% 59,654 20% 59, 654 Planning 11503,091 10% 150,309 T 5% 752155 Building 9783,823 10% 97,882 5% 48,941 Finance 595,252 15% 89,288 25% 148, 813 Public Works Administration 508,594 5% 25,430 15% 761289 Engineering 117387348 10% 1732835 15% 2607752 Community Svs 1,214,052 5% 607703 0% 0 TOTAL 7101367052 7027044 699,566 0 O o U H CU cz U O Q cz O co N O T O 0) } O LL CII N .- r-- (h � t!) M N to N LOM C CD � tT to t - tD N '-cr O CD P,- N tf) M r- O m C) cc CD- C7 co (D U') = CD O v- r' d� CA t-- O t� CV to Lo 0 (D U-) Cn to O M to h M N T.— N tf) N "C'• T rn ` O •- M O N l tD M CA - N M N C) M O N h O Lo O to tb h CD M c" ) O CC) t�- O C CO C) O 00 N h N co o0 N Q t- U) 00 O In t` •- tt) CV) •-: O CO 'G' O Orl ti C) N N O M C C7 to co N Cn r- tC Cn O c0 T O CrJ Ln T T C7 - T .- T C O T co (A CD M O t- zr t7 CA t� .- - r r- 00 • O N O h Mqm- CO 00 OO O N CD CA O) T N T to — T O to CD O C T r C7 O) O U) C) O O O C CC r T N U7 M h N N t` co � CC to N CV)T U) M M N to c+ L7 to OU-) C m 0 0 0 r- Q) - T (D O C) N 0) CD CA to C - (D t` to CA O T M tD O O co U') LO •- CO 00 - r- C) `7 N cl N r- (D T V- M CO N 0 O O T T CD O — N Q) 'r C) C7 N CA M C) 'O co O N t -- Q) cr f� h O CD h M _ � - M N N M t� ui � T T T N "C'• O ` O U cz L O M U) N N N C O r- M U) CD O t-- N M - M m f` O- co O M O O M N M T t` N O co O N t -- N m U) co t, M vi T CD h - NT N D N - M N N M t� T C N O M tD Q C 14:1M C) O t - M C O N M N T - CO M N U) CD N O O T C i r Q) LO M t� 00 N 'C* � O O T N "C'• O ` O U cz L O M U) m N l tD M CA - M N C) M O N M , I to I I , C c:) (D cc) (D CO Cn O O CrJ Ln Q) - f-- .- to - (D C O LI) co (A CD C t` t-- U-) O t-- t` c - tt) (0 , O C) C) C) M Co t- co- CD t- C co Lr) t!) N - to N T cn C M t` to N N U) M M N to C L7 to OU-) co N T t� T ._. V) > C v >C� ►- C% O O U t= ,� �_ O Z: U C) •� - O Cn = C � >+ >` ` O U cz L _ F U 0 a lZ m to U- c < 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 $15,72.1 118 $463,782 Page 4 Indirect Cost Allocation Detail City Council/Attomey cost allocation 8412,715 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 Depanamental 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 fWA N0. 6 AGENDA9-21-92 9-� Inter - Com \ ATE: 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 net. 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 of the Agency, has reviewed this proposed budget. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Communitj Redevelopment Agency for the City of Tustin does hereby resolve, determine and order that the following sums of money are herebj 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 7,7494600 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