20160411 Late CorrespondenceTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF Rt\NCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
APRIL 11, 2016
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
1
Description of Material
Email exchange between Staff and Sharon Yarber;
Email from: Ken Delong
W:IAGENDA\2016 Additions Revisions to agendas\20160411 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Sharon,
Deborah Cullen
Monday, April 11, 2016 4:04 PM
momofyago
Ken Dyda; Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell; Susan Brooks; Anthony Misetich; Doug
Willmore; Gabriella Yap; Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka; Trang Nguyen
RE : Budget workshop 4/11/16
Please see below my responses (in blue) to your email regarding the April 11 , 2016 Staff Report and let me
know if you have additional questions or comments.
I just want to let you know that I am always available to meet with you in person or on the phone to discuss or
answer any questions that you may have regarding City finances. My office number is 310 544-5278 and my
cell number is 310 488-9497.
Deborah Cullen
First, I would like to know why we start this upcoming fiscal year with $15 mil in the bank as our 50% reserve.
Were our budgeted expenses the prior year $30 mil? I don't think so.
The staff report is reconciling the General Fund "fund balance" which reflects the amount of funds available
after reporting the revenues and expenditures for the year; taking into account the 50% reserve which
ultimately nets the City's surplus or deficit at yearend. This is not a "bank reconciliation" of cash held in the
City's bank accounts. Last year, the Adopted General Fund budget was $28.7 (including transfer} as shown in
the fund balance table in the staff report.
Second, the report gives a brief summary of the "major" revenue sources, identified as Property Taxes ( 41 % ),
TOT (19%), UUT (7%) and License and Fees (8%), yet the pie chart on page 7 shows a category of "other
taxes", which presumably includes the UUT since the pie chart does NOT reflect the UUT, and that is 27% of
the budget, so what is the source of the remaining 20%? Is that sales taxes? Clarity on the sources of all revenue
would be appreciated, and congruency between the charts . Knowing the sources of all revenues is required in
budgeting so you can predict the reliability or variability of the numbers in the future . As stated on page 7 of
the staff report, the Other Tax category is Business License Tax, Sales and Use Tax, Franchise Fees Golf Tax
and Utility Users Tax. The following are the percentages: Business License Tax (3%}, Sales and Use Tax
(7%), Franchise Fees (8%} Golf Tax (1.5%} and Utility Users Tax (7%}
Based on input from the Council, we have expanded the revenue detail in the presentation for the budget
workshop scheduled for tonight.
Third , why does the budget fail to disclose how much money is derived from the storm drain user fee? Is that
included in the 27% "other taxes" pie slice? The budget discussion outlined in the staff report is focused on the
City's General Fund. The Storm Drain User Fee is a restricted revenue source and is reported in the Water
Quality Flood Protection Enterprise Fund. The revenues collected for that purpose are not included in the
1 /.
review of the General Fund budget but will be covered in the Capital Program presentation, which will be
focused on next week
Fourth, while I know this is a budget workshop to assess anticipated revenues and expenses, it would be helpful
to have the balances in the storm drain user fee account and the CIP account reflected to give a better
overall understanding of the financial picture of the City. The fund balances will be available for
discussion/review at next week's Council meeting.
Fifth, Table 1 on page 4 demonstrates that our expenses are approximately $20.5 to $20.9 mil , yet when you
look at the summary, there is a line item for "Expenses , transfers out and restricted amounts" (emphasis
added) of $28 . 7 mil, with no explanation as to what funds are "transferred out" or transferred to "restricted
accounts" or why. Clearly we have a surplus of about $7.8 mil per year that could be used to fund storm drain
repairs . In the adopted FY 2015 -2016 budget there were the following transfers scheduled from the General
Fund to the Funds identified below:
• Abalone Cove Sewer Maint. $80,700
• Habitat Restoration $125,000
• Improvement Authority Ab Cove $37,000
• Improvement Authority Portuguese Bend $57,000
• Infrastructure Improvement Authority $5,026,400 TOT transfer-
• Infrastructure Improvement authority $1,189,203 Council Policy to
reduce the GF reserve excess at the end of the fiscal year.
• Street Improvements $1,862,000
• Subregion 1 $40,000
Attached is the detail from the adopted budget that has additional descriptions of each scheduled transfer.
Sixth, on page 7 under expenditures assumptions , there is a line item for an increase in "non-personnel" expense
of $594 ,200. What is this? Further, there is an increase of close to $1 mil for law enforcement. Is this for the
increase of 4 officers? Is there a corresponding decrease somewhere for the fact the Rangers are not going to be
in the Preserve or is that savings reflected in the numbers , and the increase is net of the savings? Non-
personnel expenses include Professional/Technical contracts and services, maintenance services, meetings
and conferences, training, membership and dues, publications, and minor operating equipment. The majority
of the increase over last year's budget is for contracts required by state law or Water Quality and MS-4,
increase for additional RPVtv support and additional consulting support for Community Development.
The increase in law enforcement is a contract increase of $312,800, Preserve Enforcement net increase of
247, 700 and one-time increase of $380,000 for the ALPR system.
Seventh, I would like to see more detail about the expenses, and perhaps that will come out in the workshop, but
I would like a very clear understanding of exactly how much money the Preserve is costing us in terms of
monies that go to the Land Conservancy, and costs of law enforcement. There will be more detail provided
during tonight's budget workshop.
Eighth, is our reserve 50% of actual expenses ($20.9 mil max.) or the amount of deducted expenses, which
include the "transfers out" and transfers to "restricted accounts"? The 50% reserve is calculated on
expenditures net of transfers and the $10.8m reserve in the staff report was updated in the midyear staff
report based on the estimated year-end expenditures.
2
Ninth, and last: why is the extra $2 .2 left over from last year going into the CIP? Per Council Policy, the
amount equal to the prior year General Fund favorable expenditure variance to budget is transferred to the
CIP Fund.
From: momofyago [mailto:momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 1:51 PM
To: Doug Willmore <DW illmore@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCu llen@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Budget workshop 4/11/16
Doug and Deborah,
I meant to copy you on this email, as you would likely be the persons best able to respond.
Thanks.
Sharon Yarber
Sent from my Verizon Wire less 4 G L TE smartphon e
--------Original message --------
From: sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>
Date: 04/09/2016 12:27 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: CC <cc@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Budget workshop 4/11116
Dear Council Members,
I have a few questions and comments about the data in the staff report.
First, I would like to know why we start this upcoming fiscal year with $15 mil in the bank as our 50% reserve.
Were our budgeted expenses the prior year $30 mil? I don't think so.
Second, the report gives a brief summary of the "major" revenue sources, identified as Property Taxes ( 41 % ),
TOT ( 19% ), UUT (7%) and License and Fees (8% ), yet the pie chart on page 7 shows a category of "other
taxes", which presumably includes the UUT since the pie chart does NOT reflect the UUT, and that is 27% of
the budget, so what is the source of the remaining 20%? Is that sales taxes? Clarity on the sources of all revenue
would be appreciated, and congruency between the charts. Knowing the sources of all revenues is required in
budgeting so you can predict the reliability or variability of the numbers in the future.
Third, why does the budget fail to disclose how much money is derived from the storm drain user fee? Is that
included in the 27% "other taxes" pie slice?
Fourth, while I know this is a budget workshop to assess anticipated revenues and expenses, it would be helpful
to have the balances in the storm drain user fee account and the CIP account reflected to give a better
overall understanding of the financial picture of the City.
3
Fifth, Table 1 on page 4 demonstrates that our expenses are approximately $20.5 to $20.9 mil , yet when you
look at the summary, there is a line item for "Expenses, transfers out and restricted amounts" (emphasis
added) of $28. 7 mil , with no explanation as to what funds are "transferred out" or transferred to "restricted
accounts" or why . Clearly we have a surplus of about $7 .8 mil per year that could be used to fund storm drain
repairs .
Sixth, on page 7 under expenditures assumptions, there is a line item for an increase in "non-personnel" expense
of $594 ,200. What is this? Further, there is an increase of close to $1 mil for law enforcement. Is this for the
increase of 4 officers? Is there a corresponding decrease somewhere for the fact the Rangers are not going to be
in the Preserve or is that savings reflected in the numbers , and the increase is net of the savings?
Seventh, I would like to see more detail about the expenses , and perhaps that will come out in the workshop, but
I would like a very clear understanding of exactly how much money the Preserve is costing us in terms of
monies that go to the Land Conservancy, and costs oflaw enforcement.
Eighth, is our reserve 50% of actual expenses ($20 .9 mil max .) or the amount of deducted expenses , which
include the "transfers out" and transfers to "restricted accounts"?
Ninth, and last: why is the extra $2.2 left over from last year going into the CIP? If I am doing my math
correctly, we have almost $10 mil going into the CIP this year; the $7.8 mil of excess revenues and the excess
$2.2 mil from last year. Looks to me like we have lots of money available to pay for storm drains and other
needs.
I am concerned that we are stockpiling money in the CIP account to pay for wants (City Hall , Village Green)
when we are failing to use our money for needs.
I hope these questions and concerns will be addressed on Monday . Thank you and I hope you enjoy the rest of
your week-end.
Sharon Yarber
4
From :
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ken Delong <ken.delong@verizon.net>
Monday, April 11, 2016 11:38 AM
cc
Budget Concerns -April 11, Council Meeting
Commentary Concerning Staff Prepared Budget Data -April 11, 2016 Council Budget Meeting
Page 2 -General Fund Revenues FY 2015 -2016 Year End Estimates. Four categories, Property Taxes, TOT, UUT, and
Licenses and Permits are listed with total Revenues approximating $21,047,420 yet Graph 1 I page 3 has 5 revenue
categories. Why the difference?
Page 6 has FY 2015-2016 Adopted Budget of $27 .9 million in comparison to $21,047,420 identified above . Why the
difference of almost $8 million?
Page 7 -Graph 4 depicts probable Revenues of $28 .5 million with property taxes (41%) being the largest contributor.
This category has proven to be an ongoing stable source . TOT is the next largest category approximating 19% or greater
than $5 million annually. The December 2015 Cash Balance Report has $23.4 million in CIP reserves.
The December 1, 2015 Year End Financial Report depicts GF Reserves approximating $15 million or $4 .6 million in excess
of current 50% Reserve Policy. This reserve policy is excessive and the Council needs to develop a more reasonable
reserve policy in view of the reliability of current revenue sources.
Page 7 -FY 2016-2017 Expenditures Assumptions increases Law Enforcement costs by almost $1 million. This past year
two additional Sheriff Patrol vehicles (with Deputies) were added. Are there any demonstrable results that justify this
added expense?
What plans does City Hall have for reasonable use of RPV current $23 million in CIP funds?
What will the Council do to control Staff "Wants" vs . meeting taxpayer "Needs"?
BTW, the new Cash Balance/ Investment report significantly reduces "Transparency" of RPV finances.
Ken Delong
/.