The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-02-21 - AGENDA REPORTS - PRE BUDGET ISSUES (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Appro6a ZaWr Item to be presented by: George Caravalho DATE: February 21, 1990 SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 PRE -BUDGET ISSUES DEPARTMENT: City Manager BACKGROUND: The annual budget process is once again upon us. The various City departments are now beginning to develop their budget requests for fiscal year 1990-91. Budget preparation instructions and calendars have been distributed to the departments so that the proposed 1990-91 budget can be presented to City Council at the first regular Council meeting in May. The budget calendar is attached for reference. In order to meet the deadlines established by the budget calendar and have an adopted budget by June 26, 1990, the Council needs to establish the dates for the budget review study sessions. Dates should be set for the months of May and June. Council may wish to establish three to four dates for such purpose. An important part of the budget process is the discussion of issues to be addressed in the development of the new budget. A list of issues was distributed to the City Council and department heads (attached). The Council and department heads were asked to score each issue on a scale of 0 to 5 (5 being highest in importance). The results of the survey are attached. As you can determine from the lists presented, the City Council and City staff are in agreement on most of the budget issues presented. As expected, new roads, traffic, the sphere of influence and the general plan are high on everybody's list of priorities. The meeting tonight will help staff get a better understanding of Council's priorities to assist in the preparation of the recommended 1990-91 budget. S ..; ,,nda em: 1990-91 , BUDGET CALENDAR DATES ACTIVITIES January 31, 1990 • 1989-90 YTD expenses completed by Finance. • COLA recommendations due from Personnel. • Budget calendar, estimate forms and instruc- tions distributed to each Department Head. • Budget instructions reviewed with Department Heads. February 21, 1990 • Budget workshop with Council. February 28, 1990 • Personnel costs calculated by Budget Officer. March 15, 1990 • Departments prepare estimates of expenditures and revenues for 1990-91 budget and submit to City Manager., April 2-13, 1990 • City Manager and staff meet with departments to review budget estimates and finalize budget. April 20, 1990 • Department Heads prepare changes and resubmit budgets. • Budgets revised and returned to Department Heads. April 27, 1990 • The preliminary budget and budget message pre- pared and reproduced. April 30, 1990 • Budget to printer. May 8, 1990 • Preliminary budget and budget message pre- sented to City Council. • Budget study session. June 6, 1990 • Budget study session. June 12, 1990 • City Council conducts public hearing and its own review of budget (including CDBG hearing). June 26, 1990 • City Council adopts budget, passes appropria- tion resolution and Gann Limit (Prop. 4) reso- lution. July • Adopted budget prepared and reproduced for dis- tribution. Budget debriefing meeting with Department Heads and City employees. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA , I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council and Department Heads FROM: Dave Jones, Administrative Assistant DATE: February 6, 1990 SUBJECT: BUDGET ISSUES/RANKINGS The following is a list of budget issues which we will discuss with the City Council at the February 21st Pre -Budget study session. Please take a look at the list and rank each item based upon how important an issue you feel it is to be addressed in the FY90-91 budget. Rank each item using a scale of 0 to 5, 5 being of the highest importance/priority. Feel free to add issues/items to the list. Please return your list with rankings and any additions to me by Tuesday, February 13, 1990. Thank you for your assistance. Ranking Issue Traffic New Roads General Plan Sphere of Influence Capital Financing Acquiring Saugus Rehab Site Expanded Recreation Programs Police Recycling Economic Development Air Quality Street Median Beautification Emergency Preparedness Water Fire Ridge Lines and Canyons Aesthetics Recreation Trails Child Care Youth Programs Libraries Legislation/Intergovern- mental Relations River Planning DEJ:sz Rankine Issue Public Transportation Civic Center Complex Sewer Garbage Human Services Green Belts City Entrance Signs Community Promotion Undergrounding Utilities Street Sweeping Tree Program Cultural Arts Program Community Newsletter Redevelopment City Yard City Vehicles Community Standards Annexations Code Enforcement Public Information School Financing Signs Flood Control ` CITY COUNCIL Issues Total Rank Traffic 20 1 New Roads 19 2 General Plan 19 3 Sphere of Influence 17 4 Civic Center Complex 16 5 Capital Financing 15 6 Police Services 15 7 Public Information 15 8 Recycling 14 9 Ridgelines and Canyons 14 10 Garbage 14 11 Annexations 14 12 Code Enforcement 14 13 School Financing 14 14 Libraries 13 15 Expanded Recreation Programs 12 16 Street Median Beautification 12 17 Water 12 18 Aesthetics 12 19 Child Care 12 20 "Youth Programs 12 21 Public Transportation 12 22 Green Belts 12 23 Tree Program 12 24 Community Newsletter 12 25 City Yard 12 26 Emergency Preparedness 11 27 Fire Services 11 28 Acquiring Saugus Rehab Site 10 29 Economic Development 10 30 Recreation Trails 10 31 Street Sweeping 10 32 Cultural Arts Program 10 33 Redevelopment 10 34 Community Standards 10 35 Sewer 9 36 k. I§sues Total Rank City Vehicles 9 37 Flood Control 9 38 River Planning 8 39 Human Services 8 40 Community Promotion 8 41 Air Quality 8 42 Legislation/Intergovernmental Relations 7 43 Underground Utilities 7 44 Signs 7 45 City Entrance Signs 5 46 DEPARTMENT HEADS Issues Total Rank New Roads 30 1 Traffic 29 2 Capital Financing 29 3 General Plan 27 4 Civic Center Complex 25 5 Public Information 25 6 City Yard 24 7 Sphere of Influence 23 8 Green Belts 23 9 Redevelopment 23 10 Acquiring Saugus Rehab Site 22 11 Economic Development 22 12 Annexations 22 13 School Financing 22 14 Emergency Preparedness 21 15 Legislation/Intergovernmental Relations 21 16 Code Enforcement 21 17 Recycling 20 18 Recreation Trails 20 19 River Planning 20 20 City Vehicles 20 21 Flood Control 20 22 Expanded Recreation Programs 19 23 Air Quality 19 24 Street Median Beautification 19 25 Ridgelines and Canyons 19 26 Aesthetics 19 27 Tree Program 19 28 Community Newsletter 19 29 Community Standards 19 30 Youth Programs 18 31 Public Transportation 18 32 Signs 18 33 Water 17 34 City Entrance Signs 17 35 Fire 16 36 Police 15 37 Issues Total Rank Child Care 15 38 Garbage 15 39 Community Promotion 15 40 Underground Utilities 14 41 Libraries 13 42 Cultural Arts Program 13 43 Human Services 13 44 Sewer 11 45 Street Sweeping 10 46 TOTAL Issues Total Rank Traffic 9.8 1 New Roads 9.75 2 General Plan 9.25 3 Capital Financing 8.55 4 Civic Center Complex 8.2 5 Sphere of Influence 8.05 6 Public Information 7.95 7 Annexations 7.2 8 School Financing 7.2 9 City Yard 7 10 Code Enforcement 7 11 Recycling 6.8 12 Green Belts 6.8 13 Ridgelines and Canyons 6.7 14 Redevelopment 6.38 15 Police Services 6.25 16 Emergency Preparedness 6.25 17 Acquire Saugus Rehab Site 6.2 18 Expanded Recreation Programs 6.2 19 Economic Development 6.2 20 Street Median Beautification 6.2 21 Aesthetics 6.2 22 Tree Program 6.2 23 Community Newsletter 6.2 24 Youth Programs 6 25 Public Transportation 6 26 Garbage 6 27 Water 5.8 28 Recreation Trails 5.8 29 Community Standards 5.7 30 Child Care 5.5 31 City Vehicles 5.5 32 Flood Control 5.5 33 Libraries 5.45 34 Fire 5.45 35 River Planning 5.3 36 Legislation/Intergovernmental Relations 5.25 37 Issues Total Rank Air Quality 5.2 38 Signs 4.75 39 Cultural Arts Program 4.7 40 Community Promotion 4.5 41 Human Services 4.2 42 Street Sweeping 4.1 43 Sewer 4.05 44 City Entrance Signs 4.05 45 Underground Utilities 4.05 46 Mayor Darcy and Members of the City Council: When we appeared before the Council in October, you requested that we furnish you with accurate figures supporting our request for Rent Stabilization. The CPI figures presented tonight were obtained from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics in December of 1989 for the years covered in this presentation, and are the percent increases for the CPI -U (Urban Consumers) for the Los Angeles Area. Obtaining the dollar amounts of rent increases from the park residents posed some problems, including length of residence in the park and variables in space rental fees within the same park. The problem of the "variables" in space rental fees stems from the fact that parks still have more than one space rental fee, either from different locations within the park, or length of residence. For example, when Greenbrier was sold in 1985-1986, the fees were to be uniform in the Park. They are not as of this date. We did obtain information regarding the different yearly fees for all of the parks, yet because the amounts were for different coaches within a specific park, those figures were not used. The facts and figures contained in this report are as accurate as we could obtain. The one fact that remains consistent in evaluating the rental fees for the parks is that all of the parks have increased the rental fees far in excess of the CPI increase. For example, in 1983 the CPI increase was 1.8%; Greenbrier increase in 1983 was 9%; Canyon Breeze was 9%; Cordova was 9%; Royal Oaks was 9.3%; Parklane was 6%. In 1986 the CPI increase was 3.2%; Greenbrier was 21%; Canyon Breeze was 10%; Mulberry was 7.5%; Cordova was 5%; Parklane was 15% (As a note, in 1985 and 1986, Parklane increased their space rental 15% each year.) In the period of 1983 through 1989, the CPI figures never reached 5% --the only year some of the park increases were 5% was 1988. For 7 years the cost of living was less than 5% and only a few parks gave a 5% increase only one year. In fairness, Sand Canyon did not increase their space rental in 1987. As an overall picture, the following parks have increased their space rental fees since 1980 the following percentages: Greenbrier 113% Canyon Breeze 100% Cordova 117% Royal Oaks 129% Parklane 131% Sand Canyon 82% -2- L. The actual CPI percent increase from 1981 to 1989 was 43.5% During this time frame, in various parks there have been "assessments" for improvements that have been inferior or never completed. Utilities, once covered by some park owners, have become the responsibility of the mobile home owner. We rent the land --yet we pay for the upkeep and repair not only to our homes but also the park owner's land. Trees, landscaping, and exterior maintenance is the responsibility of the mobile homeowner on the rented space (the "Common Ground" is the park owners responsibility to maintain). When trees need to be pruned or cut down, the park doesn't pay --we do. When a park owner states that his insurance rates have "skyrocketed", so have ours. When a coach is sold and a new resident moves in, the rent increases 3 to 4%, yet the park owner has none of the expenditures an apartment owner has because all on-site repairs, interior and exterior, are paid for by the resident. This is standard practice. It is clear that we must bring the allowable rent increases into perspective with the CPI --a fair and just basis. In good conscience, this Council cannot justify runaway rent increases any longer. Affordable housing must return to and remain "affordable." Not every segment of our society can afford homes in the $150,000 and above -3- range, yet we have the right to exist in this City. We contribute to the community. As a side note, in reading the "California Civil Code Provisions, Mobilehome Residency Law" effective January 1, 1990, Article 1, 798.7 and Article 4.5 798.45, states that newly constructed spaces initially held out for rent after January 1, 1990, "shall be exempt from any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure adopted by any city, county, or city and county, which establishes a maximum amount that a landlord may charge a tenant for rent." Therefore, we are only talking about rent stabilization for existing older parks. With all of the documented information we have received, not once to our knowledge has the County of Los Angeles, or any elected representative of the County, come to the aid or support of the mobile homeowner in this community. They say they will "evaluate" any claim of excessive rents, etc. and I have never heard of the County even taking any interest much less any action against a park owner in our area regarding rental fees. This Council has studied the problems for almost two years with no results. Now it is time for this Council to take action for the people you represent. It has been proven that the park owners will -4- take the highest percentage of rent increases allowed. The County is ineffective and we have no State legislation applicable; therefore, we believe it is your responsibility to take positive action on our behalf. Thank you. n C) -7, 1-7% Year 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 GREENBRIER 1980 - 1989 Amount $213_00 228_00 250_35 272_50 296_50 296 _ 50''r 360_00 390.001 421_00 454_00 Increase= $241_00 Increase since 1980: Increase 7% 10% 9% 9% 0 21% 8% 8% 8% 113% '"Year Park was sold - no increase in October_ Increase in March 1986- 1 1 n 986_1In 1987, new residents of the Park were charged $406 per month_ - They have continued to receive an 8% increase: 1987 $406_00 13% 1988 438_00 8% 1989 473.00 8% Co LLj < Li LL co LL LL, z bN uj Ll z Lij IWJ r'y L2 I L 7- ili L LLi F 7 LLJ I PARKLANE 1980 - 1989 Year Amount % Increase 1980 $160_50 1981 178_33 11% 187_56 (July) 5% 1982 204_63 9% 1983 216_91 6% 1984 236_29 9% 1985 271_73 15% 1986 312_49 15% 1987 334_72 7% 1988 350_00 5% 1989 370_00 6% Increase: $209_50 Increase since 1980: 131% a ROYAL OAKS 1980 - 1989 Year Amount % Increase 1980 $133_00 1981 146.00 9.7% 1982 160_00 9.5% 1983 175_00 9_3% 1984 191_00 9_1% 1985 210_00 10_0% 1986 230_00 9_5% 1987 250_00 9_0% 1988 265_00 7_5% 1989 305_00 7_0% Increase= $172.00 Increase since 1980= 129_0% 01 Li LL z U 0 001 o) z LJ Z 0 NO < 00 0 ry 7-::,::� - ------- - ---- C O R D O V A 1980 - 1989 Year Amount 1980 $168_00 1981 180_00 1982 196_25 1983 213_65 1984 232_75 1985 253_50 1986 265.50 1987 288_00 1988 312_50 1989 339_00 Increase: $171_00 Increase since 1980: Increase 7% 9% 9% 9% 9% 5% 9% 9% 9% 117% In 1978 the inclusion of gas in the rental fee was eliminated and charged monthly to individual home owners_ LLj z IIx, - I0 00 Z > 0 (Y 0 CANYON BREEZE VILLAGE 1980 - 1989 Year Amount 1980 $125_90 1981 138_62 1982 151_23 1983 165_00 1984 179_85 1985 179_85 1986 197_85 1,987 218_00 1988 228_90 1989 251_79 Increase: $125_89 Increase since 1980= Increase 10% 8% 9% 9% 0 10% 10% 5% 10% 100% 1:3v G c 11 LLJ < CO LLJ ry -,,7.* 7 i r Z CL z 0 00 LLJ Li CC,) z o z < C) 1:3v G c 11 lompli. 10 1 1 mp M CO r" ry -,,7.* 7 MENNEN, 1:3v G c 11 Year 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 SAND CANYON 1980 - 1989 Amount $115.00 125.90 137_80 150_30 163_75 180_00 190_00 190_00 200_00 210_00 Increase= $95_00 Increase since 1980= Increase 9_5% 9_0% 9.9% 5_5% 0% 5_3% 5_0% 82_0% I u 1 i i lel I i �� I i I Iry1 I , � I 1 r-..._. �y��.-��\�t__ `'ham\ham- �h ,~�,y\`��'��\�,\• ; f LLI I I I � � ` i ,LI '✓� � I p m moll 1,01 1- [4�_. .-tip •y�,- i�;.-•.,-- _,r–� ; ` �`�. a — Fig► ��_ __-__-_� � ; Ij 1 :: - i j� I , I LU i I 1 I I I I I 4 t MULBERRY 1984 - 1989 Year Amount % Increase 1984 $174_90 1985 190.00 8.6% 218_50 (July) 15.0% 1986 235_00 7_5% 1987 250_00 6_0% 1988 262_50 5_0% 1989 280_87 7_0% Increase: $105.97 Increase since 1984: 60_6% ILLJ < f Ll I 0 0 00 LLL ry LAI 0 l