HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 1991-92 BUDGET 08-19-91PUBLIC HEARING N0. 1
8-19-91
iAE N DA 0), 0
Inter-Corn
SATE: AUGUST -14r 1991 ,
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - 1991-92 BUDGET
The attached staff report. submitted to the City Council at its last
meeting contains the latest information available concerning the impact
of the State budget on the City. As indicated in the report, except for
allocating funds for any additional one-time (non-recurring) expenses,
it is my recommendation that any further adjustments to the draft 1991-
92 budget be deferred until the mid -year budget review.
Page three of the attached report describes the outstanding items which
require a decision by the City Council concerning funding. Requests
submitted by the Feedback Foundation and the Consolidated Transportation
Agency are also attached.
A resolution approving the budget is attached. The amount stated in the
resolution can be adjusted to reflect whatever changes are directed by
the City Council following the public hearing.
WAH
Attachments
pubhear.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 91-106
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CITY BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING
REVENUE OF THE CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1415h of the Tustin City
Code, the City Manager has prepared and submitted to the City
Council a Proposed Annual Budget for the 1991-92 fiscal year,
beginning July 1, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, as the legislative body of the
City, has reviewed this proposed budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Tustin does
hereby resolve, determine, and order as follows:
Section 1. A certain document on file in three (3) copies in
the office of the City Clerk of the City of Tustin,
being marked and designated "City of Tustin Draft
Budget 1991-92". Said document, as prepared by the
City Manager and reviewed and adjusted by the City
Council, is hereby adopted for the fiscal year
commencing July 1, 1991.
Section 2. The following sums of money are hereby appropriated
from the revenues of the City of Tustin for the
purposes stated, during the 1991-92 fiscal year.
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION
Normal Operations Budget $ 26,145,300
Capital Improvements 16,003,552
TOTAL APPROPRIATION GOVERNMENT FUNDS $ 42,178,852
Water Enterprise:
Operations $ 41837,115
Capital Improvements 31527,667
Debt. Service 751,044
TOTAL APPROPRIATION WATER ENTERPRISE $ 91115,826
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
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Tustin,
California, held on the 19th day of August , 1991.
Charles E. Puckett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN)
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 91-106
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk and ex -of f icio Clerk of the City Council
of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the
whole number of the members of the City Council is five; that the
above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19th
day of August, 1991 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
ami tybdgt .91
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
OLD BUSINESS NO. 5
8-5-91
GENDA_
Inter -Com
LiATE: AUGUST 1, 1991
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: 1991-92 DRAFT BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council set August 19, 1991 as the date for a public
hearing on adoption of the 1991-92 budget for all funds.
DISCUSSION:
The City Council has conducted three workshops on the draft 1991-92
budget. Due to the uncertainty about the State budget and its impact on
the City's budget, the City Council decided to defer action on the City
budget. The State has adopted its budget and staff is now able to
identify the impact of the State budget on the City's general fund. The
only outstanding issues at the State level affecting the City's budget
are the jail booking fee and property tax collection fee. It had been
anticipated that the Governor and Legislature would support repeal of
these fees through the State budget process. Unfortunately, they
decided to defer any action until the Legislature reconvenes this month.
The State League of California Cities is hopeful that these fees will be
repealed, but, there is no reason to assume that this will happen.
The adopted State budget causes an additional net reduction of $108,000
in General Fund revenue. The reduction is derived from:
■ Loss of 47% of the $ ( 65,000)
City's cigarette tax
subvention
■ Loss of one-half of the ( 243,000)
City's non -parking fines
■ Increase in sales tax due to 200,000
extension of sales tax to
snack foods, newspapers, etc.
NET LOSS $ 108,000
N
City Council
August 1, 1991
Page two
The loss of $308,000 in fine and cigarette tax income will be allocated
back to the County for the funding of trial courts. The projected
increase in sales tax is based on the City's estimated share of the
anticipated. amount to be collected State-wide. There is no way to
project the City's share of the increased sales tax other than using a
ratio of sales tax currently collected by the City to total sales tax
collected State-wide and applying the ratio to the projected sales tax
amount State-wide for snack food, newspapers, etc.
When the jail booking fee and property tax collection fee (included as
expenses in the draft budget) are taken into account, the State has
taken $408,000 in City general fund revenue to fund State and County
services.
Listed below is a summary showing the impact of the State budget and
other revisions to the projected 1991-92 General Fund balance:
■ Draft 1991-92 budget projected
$ 31627,754
6-30-92 balance
■ Add 1990-91 revised expenses
195,000
and revenues
■ Add 1991-92 reimbursement to
134,000
City from Great Western
Reclamation (recycling program)
■ Deduct loss of 1991-92 cigarette
( 65,000)
tax subvention
■ Deduct loss of 1991-92 fine
(243,000)
revenue
■ Add 1991-92 sales tax revenue 200,000
(snack food, newspapers, etc.)
■ Revised 6-30-92 General Fund $ 31848,754
balance
The increase in the projected fund balance is due to adjustments for
non-recurring revenue being higher than recurring revenue. As pointed
out above, due to the State budget, projected General Fund recurring
revenue is $108,000 less than shown in the draft budget. With the above
adjustments, the draft 1991-92 General Fund budget remains balanced
(projected recurring revenue exceeds budgeted recurring expenditures by
approximately $42,000). The projected fund balance exceeds the 15%
reserve policy established by the City Council.
City Council
August 1, 1991
Page three
Except for allocating funds for any additional one-time (non-recurring)
expenses, it is my recommendation that consideration of any adjustments
to draft 1991-92 General Fund budget be deferred until the mid -year
budget review. This will put the City Council in the position of
knowing whether the jail booking fee and property tax collection fee
will be repealed (saving the City $300,000) and having six months of
information on expenses and revenues.
Based upon the budget workshops to date, the following are items which
require a decision by the City Council concerning funding:
■ Consolidated Transportation Agency $ 11840
(supplemental to the $5,455 included
in draft budget)
■ Feedback Foundation 181,917
(senior meals program)
■ Community groups Unknown
(The City Council allocated
$ 34,000 in 1990-91)
■ Southwest Neighborhood Improvement To be determined
Program - special programs
The Consolidated Transportation Agency and Feedback Foundation
presumably will attend the public hearing on the budget to speak to
their requests. As a matter of policy, the City Council has allocated
a fixed amount of funds for community groups and then appointed a
committee to recommend how the funds should be distributed. If the City
Council decides to appropriate funds for the Consolidated Transportation
Agency, Feedback Foundation and/or community groups, I would recommend
that General Fund reserves be used with the understanding that non-
recurring revenue is being used. This would establish as a matter of
City Council policy that these groups should not expect that City
funding will automatically be available each year.
With regard to the Southwest Neighborhood Improvement Program, the draft
budget includes a substantial commitment of funds in the form of
personnel costs (police, public works and community development). Staff
will be submitting a recommendation to the City Council at a later date
concerning supplemental funding for any special programs (youth sports,
child care, etc).
wAH
9192budg.wah
w . • a .
Inter -Com IN"
,ATE: July 10 , 1991
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: FEEDBACK FOUNDATION REQUEST FOR FUNDING, 1991/92 BUDGET
Pleasure of the Council.
PIANO A-0- ;
1. Approve supplemental budget request for $18,917 to fund both
congregate site and home delivered meals for seniors and home
bound citizens with the recommended conditions.
2. Fund only $9,986 for congregate site meals with the
recommended conditions.
3. Fund only home delivered meals for $8,932 with the recommended
conditions.
4. Deny funding for both programs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
As the Council is aware, no funding for the Feedback Foundation is
in the 1991/92 Budget. If the Council wishes to fund both
programs, a supplemental budget request of $18,917 would have to be
approved.
•�: e�: • u.��
Feedback provides a daily hot meal program for Seniors at the
Tustin Area Senior Center and delivers meals to seniors and
homebound people in Tustin. There is currently no funding proposed
in the 1991/92 Budget for either program. -Last year the Council
appropriated $16,376 to the Feedback Foundation to provide services
for the Tustin Seniors at home and at the Senior Center. An
additional $2,300 was raised for the program by the Congregate Site
Manager.
. 96 V-
The Feedback Foundation met with staff on June 11, 1991 regarding
a request for funding for 1991/92. The request from Tustin is as
follows:
$9,986 for congregate site
$8,932 for home delivered meals
$18,917 total requested
Staff feels support of the program is justified, and suggests that
controls over distribution of the money be w the the e following
Staff
recommends that the funding be granted
conditions:
1. Staff suggests that the amount be divided up over a 12
month period and that payments would be made on a y
basis, and based upon the actual meals served.
The current reporting format used for the
congregate site, adequately documents the program
activity on a monthly basis. However, the home
delivered meals component has had no previous
relationship in reporting to the staff. This
should be a requirement.
2. More detailed reports for home delivered meals should be
given to staff and include the following information:
the number of clients; the number of new clients each
month; the number of total meals delivered; the number of
clients receiving more than 1 meal per day.
3. Staff should have the opportunity to review and comment
on information outlining home delivered meals procedure.
The necessary information should include
eligibility criteria, assessment methods, and
discharge protocols. The Feedback Foundation
should also consult the Congregate Site Manager
regarding discharge of home delivered people, and
subsequent integration of these people into the
Senior Center based program.
SUMMARY:
:
While the Feedback Foundation has clearly expressed that a lump sum
payment is much preferred to payments in arrears, staff iiscal solvency and s
concerned about the Organization's
that funds provided in advance could be forfeited if the Foundation
defaults. By paying on a monthly basis, the staff could prevent
unnecessary loss of money.
This program is vital to senior well being and is an important part
of the Senior Program. Staff is willing to work with Feedback
regarding implementation of the conditions and feels confident the
suggested guidelines will insure and protect the City's investment.
Susan M. Jones Roylee A. White, Director
Recreation Superintendent Commu t & Administrative Services
SMJ/svr
PROJECT T L L
OR4 Sponsored by
COUNTY Inc•
Feedbag. Foundation'
--
1200 N. KNOLLWOOD CIRCLE • ANAHEIM, CA 92801 • (714) 220-0224
June 19, 1991
it U IV r,.
AO
Royleen White, Director
Administrative Services `_:i`;��^
City of Tustin
15222 Del Amo
Tustin, CA 92680
RE: Request for Financial Assistance for Congregate
and Home Meals Program FY 91-92
Dear Royleen:
Thank you for presenting our request to Tustin City Council
for financial assistance for 1990-91 Project TLC's nutrition
and supportive services provided to Tustin seniors. Your
efforts on behalf of both the Home Meal and Congregate Program
are appreciated by our staff and the participants who benefit
from your support.
As it was so late when we finalized our funding for Tustin
FY 1990-91, we are only now able to approach our fiscal
year 1991-1992 program operation in Tustin -- Home and
Congregate Services. Without_ the necessary operational
funds we would have had to seriously curtail or shut down
one or both programs. It made no sense to request funding
for 91-92 until we knew where we stood in 1990-91.
As we indicated previously, in order to continue to provide
these services, Feedback has had to look for a broader base
of financial support than just Federal support, participant
donations, and community fund raising. We do recognize
the pressures on each city to support programs and services
with limited resources.
However, in order to continue both programs we, too, are
requesting funding from the City of Tustin as we have from
all host cities for fiscal year 1991-1991. The total amount
requested for both the Congregate and Home Meal Program
is $18,918.00. This amount represents 13% of the total
program costs of $144,187.00 for nutrition and supportive
services for the Tustin senior population. Tustin is being
asked to provide 574- per meal for the projected 33,400 meals
to be served next year. Of the 315 unduplicated
seniors
Royleen White
June 19, 1991
Page 2 of 2
who will receive services, over 90%. are considered to be
in the moderate or lower income range of which 75% are living
at or below SSI income level of $7,800.00 a year.
Thirty-eight per cent are 75 years of, age or over and 5%
are ethnic minority. As each program serves a somewhat
different senior population I have included two attachments
which clarify the funding requested and projected services
by individual program. The budget for Tustin, as with our
total Congregate and Home Services Program reflects staff
cuts and reductions, again, in order to curtail our rising
costs from sources we cannot control i.e., raw food costs,
paper products, gas, maintenance and repair. We are operating
on a "bare bones budget" with regards to staff. We feel
that we are lucky to have very dedicated staff who are
continually asked to do more with less.
As I am unsure of the avenue through which to make this
request, I am addressing it -to you with a copy to City Council
members.
If you have any questions or need further information, please
call Sharon Phelps or Ron Gray at (714) 220-0224.
Respectfully,
FEEDBACK FOUNDATION, INC.
.46hjum.si(9
Sharon S. Phelps
Operations Manager
SSP/np
Encl. (2)
cc: Mayor Charles Puckett
Council members Jim Potts,, Leslie Pontious ,
Earl Prescott, Richard B. Edgar
'EEDBACK FOUNDATION, INC.
CITY
OF TUSTIN
Project TLC Budget
(Nutrition & Supportive Services)
JULY 1.
1991 -->
JUNE 30, 1992
Tota 1
EXPENSES: Hone Neal
Congregate
Nutrition
Costs
Amount
Requested
Program Costs
Program Costs
Program
15,400
Meals
182000 Meals
33,400 Meals
City of
TUSTIN
TUSTIN
TUSTIN
TUSTIN
)IRECT COSTS:
Salaries & Benefits/Site--
$ 4,070
Site Manager .....••..•.......•• $
$ 13,011
$ 13,011
51916
5,916
Site Aide .....................
59916-
21575
0
Delivery of Meals .............
21575
0
Telephone...
480
480
Caseworker - home meals...........
3,167
3,167
11947
Delivery - home meals.........'...
6,985
6,985
63,985
SUBTOTAL DIRECT COSTS .••..••••••$
10,152
$ 212982
$ 32,134
$ 18,918
ADMINISTRATION/KITCHEN COSTS:
Personnel .......................$
122987
122088
259075
- 0
Contract Payroll ................
929
19272
2,201
0
Rent & Utilities ................
61302
71131
13,333
0
Building Repair & Maintenance ...
12190
1,456
2,646
0
Vehicle Operations:
.as & Repairs ..................
11863
21377
43240
0
.surarce .......................
1,352
13568
21920
0
Raw Food &Meal
Related Supplies ...............
28,028
24,120
523148
0
Co=unications ..................
127
215
342
0
Office Supplies .................
319
588
907
0
Equip-me^t Lease .................
23508
2,911
51419
0
Other Operating Expenses --
Audit, Travel, Volunteer
hxpenses, Etc . .................
1,272
1,450
2,722
0
SUBTOTAL ADMIN/KIT. COSTS ..... $
56,877
$ 559176
$112,053
$ 0
TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS ...............$
67,029
$ 77,158
$144,187
189918
(Cost Per Meal) .................$
4.35
$ 4.29
$ 4.32
$ .57
I I . INCO?E :
Federal Grant ...................$
38,184
$ 30,692
$ 68,876
USDA ............................
8,741
10,217
18,958
Senior Donations ................
10,164
259737
35,901
Other Donations & Fundraising ...
1,007
527
1,534
**City of i'-;!�tin...................
8,933
9,985
18,918
L INCOME ......................$
67,029
$ 77,158
S144,187
S
**In addition, the Citv of Tustin rrc•:ides the facility and utilities for .the
Corlrel..:c ''eal Prr_ 7n.
O .-i
4-) 4-)
O �
O
N U
•ri i4 O
�x
o (z rd
U 4-) Q1
O S4 r.
UI �
r• -I U �
f� fd
: 4-)
�4 4-)
O N
P4-)4
o 4-)
•� N M
>~ 4-) �4
N -r•t
U) 04 W
U] 5
``'' •
r'1
4-)
•� a� 4-3
r-qroa)ul
-H > -r-I
•ri U)
�4 O r -i U)
b
4 040
O ra U)
r -i N -
R'S
44 3 -ri �
O -N O
ms~a
cn O cn
cd U
O N N
���
4-) a�
0) (1) 44
s4 4-J r+ o
U) 4-) U
::3 N 4a O
o r-+ O ,U
a�
a� m a�
•ri �4
O b
�4 S4 S4 U
b O O
44 • r♦ r -'i
O RS
3icnO
.C2 -r-i
M•ra4-)
Q -ri �4 4-3
cn r--1 -ri -ri
�4 (Z 4-J
w a) E
U)
'U
U C
o
Ln
-r-i -ri
o
.--�
b 7 4-1
tet'
M
O N a
E-4 cn H
�4
U
01
E
O
�4
4
a
'I'
� O
,a) ;-)
dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP
U)
O
Ln
O In to t11 N N Ln Kr %D
O
N
O
O
C' tet' a% r-1 -C!' M r- N
O
O
N
4-)
..
t11
(z >4 (n
c
co
W
M 4-) N
r -i
am
(1)-ri a
%
H
a
a
°' O
cn
� •n �
V
W
O b •�
M
N
UX011V
w
a4
w
cd
4
>W4
N
0
H
E-+
�
'
Wco
a
2
"'
��
� cn
'n
A
0
E-
w
tr' -P
czs
cn
Cl)
2
O
y4 W
dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP dP
u
E,
h
a ZrO
o
N
o ao%.Dd'NoLno0
0
q -r-i
CD
ON 01 cn lC qrT J- M
O
W
i
r -i d N
Z
O
(10 N O
M
O
a�:a
Ln
M
a
H
>4
rn
E-4
r-4
a%
4-)
%.
V
-rq
00H
a
O V
ro
A
a
a
ani
a
W
h
a
N
0
E-+
.Q
o
a
U
w
O
�4 N
•�
h
4-)
b5 ro
C4
En
?� U
S4
E{
--
a� 044) >1 a~ �
O
N
E 4J 4J H
3-1
cn
O o b •ra
W
U o P i 4 ?+ W
b
J~ • N O H O O
ro
..
+J
O O -r-i f~ cd O UI
.J
T3
cd
3 00 x z cd z r -i p
U)
N
U
O%. .,A O�
>
.r{
►4 t— O U UI •ri N
a
Sa
r -i
V)- 4-) -r-I (Z +) (n
?+
a
�v E r-+
3
ro
n� • O 4-) (13 ::J-4 Ln Q) M
U
> awUwar- wro
to
b
�
•ra
w
O .-i
4-) 4-)
O �
O
N U
•ri i4 O
�x
o (z rd
U 4-) Q1
O S4 r.
UI �
r• -I U �
f� fd
: 4-)
�4 4-)
O N
P4-)4
o 4-)
•� N M
>~ 4-) �4
N -r•t
U) 04 W
U] 5
``'' •
r'1
4-)
•� a� 4-3
r-qroa)ul
-H > -r-I
•ri U)
�4 O r -i U)
b
4 040
O ra U)
r -i N -
R'S
44 3 -ri �
O -N O
ms~a
cn O cn
cd U
O N N
���
4-) a�
0) (1) 44
s4 4-J r+ o
U) 4-) U
::3 N 4a O
o r-+ O ,U
a�
a� m a�
•ri �4
O b
�4 S4 S4 U
b O O
44 • r♦ r -'i
O RS
3icnO
.C2 -r-i
M•ra4-)
Q -ri �4 4-3
cn r--1 -ri -ri
�4 (Z 4-J
w a) E
,
XE: July 10 1991 Inter -Com
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: 1991/92 FUNDING REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE AGENCY (CTSA)
RECOMIENDATION:
Pleasure of the Council.
1. Provide only the funding proposed in the 1991/92 budget
($5,455), and reduce service.
2. Approve supplemental funding request of $1,840 to provide full
service for the entire contract amount of $7,295.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This year's CTSA contract fee is $7,295. Only $5,455 is proposed
in the 1991/92 Budget. To continue full service, the Council must
approve a supplemental budget request of $1,840.
Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) provides
transportation for senior adults to attend programs at the Senior
Center. This year the Agency is requesting $7,295 which is a 30
percent increase. CTSA is requesting an additional $1,840 this
year to cover increased operational costs and to provide additional
service. Since only a portion of the money has been budgeted, to
continue full service the Council would have to approve a
supplemental budget request.
Staff has contacted CTSA regarding what the consequences would be
if the full amount was not funded. The Agency reported there would
be a reduction in service. There could be some flexibility. The
City could determine how the service would be reduced. Those
cutbacks could include reducing one day of service per week, or to
only provide service through a portion of the year, approximately
9 months. Staff feels comfortable that they can work with the
Agency to work out the details.
Approximately 31000 seniors are transported each year to programs
at the Center. Staff feels that support of the program is
justified, however, periodic reports should be given to staff.
Currently reports are only sent annually. CTSA has the computer
capabilities to provide more data,and have agreed to do so.
Staff needs a decision quickly as the Agency is requesting that all
contracts be in as soon as possible. The Agency has provided a
certificate of insurance in the proper amount naming the City as
additional insured.
Susan M. Jones
Recreation Superintendent
Royleen A. White, Director of
Community and Administrative
Services