Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/5/2018 Item 19, Stanwyck-Elke-Ferreira City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum DATE: June 5, 2018 TO: City Council FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Director Brigitte Elke, Interim Finance Director Alex Ferreira, Budget Manager VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager DJ SUBJECT: June 5, 2018 Agenda Correspondence Item 19: 2018-19 Budget Supplement The following are responses to City Council questions regarding the 2018-19 Supplemental Budget were th sent to staff in preparation for the June 5, 2018 Council Meeting: Question: Page A-14. How are the proposed Revenue Stabilization and Capital Project Reserve funds different from the City’s mandatory 20% reserves amount? Answer: The Revenue Stabilization Fund is proposed to respond to one-time interruptions of revenues. Those could be related to the cannabis business tax either not being adopted or not performing as projected. It would also provide a resource to use in an economic downturn should sales tax revenues decline rapidly and could be used to glide into the impact of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant closure. The Water and Sewer Funds both have rate stabilization funds to assist during times of rapid economic change. In contrast, the City’s 20% policy reserve level is in place in the event of an emergency or catastrophic event that impacts the entire City and/or major infrastructure. The Capital Project Reserve was proposed to be another line of defense for unanticipated cost increases or changes in conditions associated with all types of capital projects (fleet, information technology, and major facility replacement included). This need is anticipated with the increased amount in investment in capital and the cost variances that can occur with these projects due to items discovered in the construction process, changes in the prices of goods, and urgent and unanticipated projects. As discussed above, this reserve is also not intended for emergency or catastrophic events. rd Question: Page A-16 3 bullet under “Continued Analysis of a Section 115 Trust.” What is this type of Trust? Answer: A Section 115 Pension Trust allows a municipality to invest funds more aggressively than is otherwise allowed for all other funds pursuant to the government code. The idea is that a Section115 Trust investment portfolio could meet or exceed CalPERS’ investment portfolio’s rate or return and give the City the ability to make additional payments to cover the City’s unfunded liability pension costs. This approach was originally presented to the Council as a part of Strategic Budget Direction on April 17, 2018. Council Agenda Correspondence for 5/15/18, Item 18 Page 2 Question: Page A-17. The Local Revenue Measure pie chart doesn’t reflect the percentage breakout for “Other Vital Services and Capital Projects.” Is the amount for this category zero? Answer: Proposed uses for “Other Vital Services and Capital Projects” for Local Revenue Measure equates to 0.3% of total expenditures of $7.6M. The percentage is small enough that the pie chart doesn’t reflect the percentage. An updated chart will be included in the final budget document. Question: Page A-18, #2 in list of New Projects. Please explain the reference to “over-realized Development Services Fees.” Answer: Development Services Fees cover the full cost for plan review, inspection, and other development services. Often the fees are paid in one fiscal year, yet the inspection services happen in the following year. Hence the “over-realized fees” are simply a way to characterize that the fees are over- realized in one year and must be carried over to the next year to fund services that “lag” rather than return them to the General Fund balance. Question: Page A-21 & Page H-9. As part of the Fiscal Health Response Plan, Parking is reducing contract services in the amount of $10,000. Can you please detail what services will be reduced and how will the reduction impact parking service level to the community? Answer: The reduction in contract services is related to renegotiated landscape maintenance contract services which will not have a service impact to the public. Question: Page B-30, Performance Measures. The increase in the number of work orders for proactive preventative maintenance of city assets can be easily accomplished by increasing the number of submittals for preventative maintenance. What accounts for the variance in the actual increase of 1% compared to the target of 5%? How will the target be reached in 2018-19? Answer: The measure was to increase the total preventative work orders completed by staff, not counting submittals of such orders. The target for 2017-18 was not met due to an increase in the number non-preventative maintenance requests and vacancies in some positions. The target for 2018-19 is expected to be reached through the filling of those vacancies. Question: Page H-1. The last sentence under the “Application of Fiscal Health Response Plan to Enterprise Funds” is unclear. Is it legal for the application of this plan to impact rates? Answer: Rates can be adjusted to pay for unfunded pension liabilities, however, City staff has not recommended this approach. The Enterprise Funds have equally participated in the plan by finding new ways to do business, reduce operating expenditure, concessions, and new revenue options that do not include rate increases. Council Agenda Correspondence for 5/15/18, Item 18 Page 3 Question: Page D-15. Why does the General Purpose CIP fund reflect an increase of $1.5M in Capital Improvement Projects compared to the Original Plan, reflecting a negative balance for the fund? Answer: The majority of the increased expenses is due to the appropriation of funds for the Downtown bollard project as well an increase in Zone 9 – County Grant. The bollard project ($1.3M) was a recommended increase in CIP expenditure adjustment at the 2017-18 Mid-Year Budget review in February 2018. Please contact Alex Ferreira with any questions at aferreir@slocity.org.