Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Information - Sustarsic - Budget Questions from GoldbergDana Enastrom From: Jill Ingram Sent: Monday, June 26, 2617 4:22 PM Cc: Executive Team; Craig A. Steele (CSteele @mglaw.com); Alayna Hoang; Dana Engstrom Subject: FW: Budget questions Attachments: Budget 17 -18 Questions for Public Hearing (3).pdf BCC: CITY COUNCIL Please see attached for staff responses to Councilmember Sustarsic's request regarding tonight's agenda. Given the significant amount of time it took staff to review and prepare responses, in addition to other Council member questions that are still pending, staff can address any further questions at the Council meeting tonight. 1111 R. Ingram, City Manager City of Seal Beach - 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 (562) 431 -2527, EM. 1300 For Information about Seal Beach, please see our city website: htto: / /www.sealbeachca.gov NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. - -0riginal Message- - From: Schelly Sustarsic Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 9:09 AM To: Jill Ingram Subject: Budget questions Hi Jill, I am still wading through the budget. Could I please get answers to Robert Goldberg's questions, and any submitted by others as they are answered? If I have to wait until tonight to receive them, I will not have adequate time to properly review them. I have a few questions of my own that I will submit in a few minutes. Thank you. Schelly Dear City Council Members and City Staff, After review of the recently revised Proposed Budget for FY 17 -18, 1 have compiled the following list of questions for the public hearing scheduled for June 26. These are organized into three sections: 1) New questions following review of the revision, 2) The sub -set of my previous questions which remain unanswered and have potential budgetary impacts of greater than $10,000, and 3) Remaining questions regarding the CIP. Respectfully submitted, Robert Goldberg 6/23/17 11 New Questions Post Budget Revision Page 41 GF Transfer Out: The revised page increased the 16 -17 Estimated figure for "Transfer Out - Operations" by $15,900. Where did this additional GF money get transferred to? The estimated number has been updated to include the purchase order rollover from FY16 -17. Page 237 Vehicle Replacement Fund: The revised page changed the 16 -17 Amended Budget figure for "Capital Outlay — Vehicles" from $343,600 to $434,400, an increase of $89,200. The lower figure was presented to Council and confirmed as adequate for the FY 16 -17 Fleet Replacement on 2/27/17 (Item G). That item did not include a budget amendment. When was a budget amendment adopted to increase the Capital Outlay - Vehicles by $89,100? PO rollover from FY16.17. Page 243 Sewer Capital Fund: The proposed budget shows an interest payment on the three outstanding sewer bonds of $206,400. Page 261 indicates that a principal payment of $334,510 is also required in FY 17 -18. Where is the principal payment of $334,510 budgeted? Principal payment posted directly to the balance sheet account therefore only interest payment is in the budget. Page 257 Retirement Obligation Fund: In 2011, the Sewer Fund (not sure if Operations vs Capital) gave the RDA a $1,200,000 loan to settle a lawsuit with the Bay City Partners over an easement to the sewer lines that run down to the 1" St beach parking lot. The RDA was supposed to pay this money back with interest. Principal payments began in FY 14 -15. In FY 15 -16, the principal payment was $238,234 (per page 122 of FY 15 -16 CAFR). However, this "actual" is not recorded on page 257 of the proposed Budget in Account Number 304 - 081 -47888 "Principal Sewer." Principal is budgeted so that staff can balance to the ROPS as submitted. When the principal payments are received they are posted directly to the balance sheet. Why is this 15 -16 actual payment not shown on page 257? Payment posted directly to the balance sheet account. Why is the RDA /Successor Agency making no principal payment to the Sewer Fund in 16 -17? Although money is requested and approved, if the County does not have sufficient property tax revenue, funding will not be received, which is the case for the current fiscal year. The FY 17 -18 Proposed Budget shows a principal payment on this loan of $242,600 to the Sewer Fund. Why is this payment notshown as revenue to either the Sewer Operations or Capital Fund on page 25? Payment posted directly to the balance sheet account. 2) Remaining Previous Questions Regarding the Budget Revenue Summary by Fund Page 20 Charges for Services: 001- 051 -30740 Refuse Services 15 -16 Actual was $1,007,651. This turned out to be $220,000 less than what we expected at this time last year. What was the reason for this large shortfall? Is there a risk that this will reoccur? The revenue in the budget was not correct, there is no shortfall. General Fund: Analysis of Unassigned Fund Balance Page 35 Storm Drain Assigned Funds: This page is showing no listing, no money assigned for Storm Drains. However, per the CAFR, there was $678,036 assigned to Storm Drains as of 6/30/16. Since that time, I am aware of possible expenditures of up to $118,000 to close out the VFD replacement project at the West End Pump Station (WEPS). Additionally, the Council approved spending up to $200,000 on the emergency pump failure there in January. According to the carry-over figures from the proposed CIP (page 246), only $141,000 of this was spent in FY 16 -17. Therefore, the drawdown for the Storm Drains assignment should be about $260,000, leaving at least $418,000 currently. Why is there no listing of the Storm Drain assigned funds in the listing of these on page 35? Public Works staff will draw down the balance to help cover the cost of EM1701. City Manager "Contract Professional Services" is budgeted at $35,000. $10,000 of this is for Long Beach Transit (Routes 131/171). Please provide a listing and cost itemization of the additional $25,000 in professional service contracts that will be needed in FY 17 -18. $5,000 is for team building and $20,000 for unanticipated professional assistance. Finance -Non Departmental Page 68: The explanation for "Contract Professional" has two new contracts —Gov Invest and Transparency Management. What are these and how much do they cost? Govinvest - $8,000 and Transparency Managment - $3,000. Page 69: The Council was told on 10/24/16 that our retiree medical costs are currently $449,700 /year. This figure was adopted for the FY 16 -17 budget. However, the expenditure for FY 16 -17 is now estimated at $52,000 higher at $502,000. Did we pay $52,000 more than our ARC (Annual Required Contribution)? Yes, when possible the City sends additional funds. "Intergovernmental" is being increased by $45,000. Only about $8000 of this would be due to the 5% increase in the LB Animal Services contract. LB Animal Control and the School Resource Officer. Is the remaining increase related to the "Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) ?" (See the account note on page 68.) If so, what commitment have we made to LAFCO? We do not make commitments to LAFCO. All local governments in Orange County fund LAFCO, this account includes the City's share which is $4,600 this year. City Manager— Information Systems Page 71: Actual expenditures for "Office and Technology Resources" for the past several years have averaged about $72,000 (FY 12/13 $64,955, FY 13/14 $116,670, FY 14/15 $86,451, FY 15/16 $19,047). Please explain why we are budgeting more than twice this amount for 17/18? We identify IT projects based on need. This might mean upgrades to servers, software, replacement of PCs for employees, etc. Our budget reflects this need on annual basis; however, staff may not be able to complete each of the projects within the designated fiscal year because of emerging IT issues that arise from year to year. 004 Special Projects Page 73: $100,000 was transferred into this account in late FY 15 -16 and earmarked for one- time $1000 /employee signing bonuses. $51,000 was paid out in FY 16 -17. Why is the expenditure of these bonuses not shown here? Funds will be transferred to the General Fund. if the bonuses were paid from operating departmental funds, where is the transfer of funds from 004 into these respective departmental funds shown? The transfer will be made as part of the year -end closing process. 1105 Waste Management Act Page 74: The description for "Equipment and Materials" includes non - specific references to "outreach, education, and training." Please explain what is intended here? The goal is to educate the public about the importance of diverting solid waste from the landfill which Is the overarching goal of ABS39 and AB341 (state mandates that require such diversion). What are the legal constraints on the use of this money? The agreement between the City and Republic Services provides for funding regarding landfill diversion. Police — Support Services Page 88: The proposed funding for "Equipment and Materials" at $74,000 is up $20,000 from the actual for 15 -16 and the expected for 16 -17. Why is this figure so high? 2 license plate readers. Community Development — Planning Page 126: The explanation for Contract Professional lists "Local Coastal Planning Consultant." However, this project is not being funded from the General Fund, but rather from Tidelands, Sewer, and Water, and a CCC grant. Therefore, it should not be listed here. Does the proposed budget for Contract Professional on page 127 include money for the LCP consultant? Yes. Page 127: The 16 -17 Estimated for Vacation Payout and Sick Payout are $5100 and $1300, respectively. However, Mr. Basham alone received $22,487 and $13,209, respectively, in May. Why is the General Fund portion (i.e., 80 %) of these payouts not included in these accounts? Payout is spread to various accounts. There is $105,000 proposed for Contract Professional. $60,000 of this is for Civic Stone's administration of the LW bathroom remodels (CDBG). What services /contracts is the other $55,000 for? LCP and other consultants as needed. Public Works —Storm Drains The 17 -18 Proposed Budget for Contract Professional is $42,000 higher than last year. What new contracts are anticipated? Annual maintenance contracts for the West End Pump Station, winter storm pump rental, and NPDES program consultant. Public Works— Building Maintenance Page 161: The Proposed Budget for Contract Professional Services has been increased by $56,000 from the 16 -17 Amended Budget. PO rollover and extra ordinary expenses for roof repairs and HVAC maintenance. What new contracts are anticipated? Public Works — Traffic Impact Fund 049 Page 177: The 16 -17 Estimated indicates that $187,700 was spent on the Parking Management Program project. I am aware of billings from JR Parking Consultants for services in July and August for about $30,000. However, this contract was terminated in August. Please provide an accounting far the expenditure of the remaining $157,700, orso. Other related CIP costs are anticipated to be expended before the end of the year. Community Services — Recreation Admin Page 186: The explanation for Contract Professional Services includes just two contracts — Senior meals and parking at the North Community Center. These cost $30,000 and about $10,000 per year, respectively. However, $71,300 is budgeted on page 187. What contracts make up the additional $31,000? Senior meals - $60,000 and parking at the North 58 Community Center - $11,300. Marine Safety — Tidelands Beach 034 Page 201: The Proposed Budget for Medical Insurance is $91,400 which is $20,000 more than an estimated cost for 16 -17. Why do we anticipate such a large increase in Medical Insurance costs? Changes in coverage elections. There is a new appropriation of $45,000 for Contract Professional with an explanation on page 200 of "Recreation programs at the beach, water watcher tag." What are these beach programs and how much revenue will they generate? The revenue is dependent upon the recreation classes that occur in the Tidelands area. Public Works — Beach Maintenance Page 204: The explanation for Contract Professional now lists "sand nourishment lobbying" which it didn't last year. Who have we hired and for how much? $12,500, there is no consultant at this time, this will be on an as- needed basis. Finance -209 CFO Pacific Gateway Page 229: The Fund Balance for 17/18 projects a year -end (6/30/18) figure of just over $63,000. If this is correct, then this money should be available to contribute more for project ST 1509. On 5/8/17, the Council authorized the use of $119,000 in M2 money to subsidize this project due to a higher than expected bid (total project cost about $250,000). Is there any reason why the "Transfer out' for ST 1509 cannot be increased from $122,000 to $185,000 to reduce the hit to our M2 funds? Pacific Gateway boundaries are very specific. ST1509 is for the project on Westminster and is not necessarily in the project area. Public Works — Water Operations Paee 233: The 15 -16 Actual shows a credit of $87,554 from CalPERS. Is this correct? If so, how did this happen? GASB 68 accounting requirements. The revised Fund Balance Analysis gives an estimated Balance of $2,135,267 as of 6/30/17. How much of this is in cash or bonds? $2.1 million is the year end estimate (cash). Public Works— Water Capital Fund Paee 235: The Fund Balance Analysis gives an estimated Balance of $21,550,434 as of 6/30/17. How much of this is in cash or bonds? $5.2 million is the year end estimate (cash). Public Works — Vehicle Replacement Fund Page 237: The proposed spending for FY 17 -18 is $260,000. However, at the CIP workshop, a figure of $130,000 was presented. Which is correct? The budget document is correct. Public Works — Sewer Operations Paee 241: The Proposed Budget for Contract Professional goes from an estimated $90,000 in 16- 17 to $203,800 for 17 -18. What new contracts are causing this? Increased Pump Station maintenance and GovClarity (GIS) annual subscription. Public Works — Sewer Capital Fund Page 243: The Fund Balance Analysis gives an estimated Balance of $23,793,136 as of 6/30/17. How much of this is in cash or bonds? $4.3 million is estimated for year end (cash). 3) Remaining Previous CIP Questions: FY 16-17 CIP Accomplishments and Project Status Page 5: These listings of ongoing projects omit BG -0904, New Swimming Pool. However, the Swimming Pool assigned balance (page 35, Proposed Budget) dropped by $54,500 in FY 16 -17, and we have a contract with Westbert & White Inc. from FY 13 -14 to do site planning. Was the $54,500 paid to Westbert & White? Yes to Westberg & White. Buildings and Facilities Paste24: Countywide 800 MHz Agreement. When this agreement was presented to Council on 3/23/15, the payment for FY 17 -18 was scheduled to be $155,633. Why has this amount increased to $180,000? This is the anticipated amount needed to complete the project. Page26: Council Chambers AN Upgrade. The write -up states that $30,000 is just for design. Are there any cost estimates for the construction and integration phases of the project? Not at this time. Page28: Police Station Electric Vehicle Chargers Would employees be charged for electricity? Yes. Would there be any net cost recovery for the capital investment costs? Dependent upon the City's ability to qualify for any rebate programs. Streets and Transportation Page 52: Westminster Ave Median Improvements. Theoretically, this project should be paid for by the Boeing Gateway Pacific CFD Fund. However, on 5/8/17, the Council authorized the use of $119,000 in M2 money to subsidize this project due to a higher than expected bid. However, the 17/18 year -end Fund Balance for the CFD is now projected to be just over $63,000. Is there any reason why the 'transfer out" for ST 1509 cannot be increased by $63,000 from $111,000 to $185,000 to reduce the hit to our M2 funds? See previous response. Paee 80: Westminster Ave Water Main Replacement. During the recent discussion on the Westminster Ave repaving project, staff indicated that this main would not be replaced simultaneously with the road rehab project. However, the main was said to be in fair condition and that work could be put off for several years. Additionally, it was stated that the pipe's capacity was adequate enough to allow a trenchless re -pipe (recoating). Given that this project would not involve excavation, would the estimated cost still be $2.9 million? Trenchless technology Is relatively lower In construction cost. Given the current road project and the fair condition of the pipe, shouldn't this project be programmed for some time after FY 17 -18? Based upon the public discussions, this project will be programmed after FY17/18.