Attachment 2
REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS
Options
(Per Management Partners)
Estimates
(Per Management Partners)
1 Institute parcel tax for library services High ($5.6 million) 2 Raise the utility users tax rates by 1% High ($4 million) 3 Implement a vacant parcel tax High ($2 million)
4 Increase real property transfer tax by 20% High ($1.6 million) 5 Create neighborhood improvement district/community facilities district High ($1 million) 6 Increase transient occupancy tax to 10% Low ($300,000) 7 Renegotiate ECIA with Chevron High ($9 million)
8 Conduct an asset inventory and lease surplus properties High ($ 1 million) 9 Redevelop Port Land for alternative revenue‐generating uses Hig h ($1 million) 10 Increase cost recovery on recreation services High ($1 million ) 11 Increase cost recovery on planning, building services Medium ( $700,000) 12 Use surplus properties to provide open spaces for development opportunities Low ($100,000) SERVICE DELIVERY ALTERNATIVE
S
Options
(Per Management Partners, which are not recommended by staff for further consideration)
Estimates
(Per Management Partners)
13 Contract police services with the County Sheriff’s Office High ($6 million) 14 Created a shared fire services model with neighboring agencie s High ($2.7 million) 15 Contract library services to the County High ($2.5 million) 16 Create a regionalized police department High ($2 million) 17 Contract social services work to County agencies and/or nonpr ofit organizations Medium ($900,000) 18 Contract senior center operations/partner with nonprofit orga nizations Low ($300,000) This involves identifying new revenue sources, or enhancing/ increasing existing revenue sources, based on best practices, and comparisons with neighboring communities.
This includes looking at alternative, lower cost service delivery approaches such as shared services, outsourcing or insourcing with other agencies, public/ private partnerships, and contracting for services with private sector service providers.
Voter
Approval
Required
Council‐ Led
Options
OPTIONS FOR FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY
#
EXPENDITURE CONTROLS/COST SHIFTS
Options
(Per Management Partners)
Estimates
(Per Management Partners)
19 Reduce staffing levels for General Fund position by eliminati ng vacant positions High ($5.4 million) 20 Perform fire department study for utilization and organizatio nal efficiencies High ($2.7 million) 21 Perform police department study for utilization and organizat ional efficiencies High ($2 million) 22 Reduce overtime costs High ($1 million)
23 Shift greater percent of pension costs to employees Medium ($9 00,000) 24 Perform organizational assessment focusing on management staf fing levels Medium ($700,000) 25 Shift fire sworn inspectors to non‐sworn inspectors Medium ($6 00,000) 26 Shift police sworn position to non‐sworn positions based on c alls for service analysis Medium ($500,000) 27 Implement equitable healthcare cost sharing with employees Low ($250,000) SERVICE LEVEL REDUCTIONS
Options
(Per Management Partners)
Estimates
(Per Management Partners)
28 Eliminate services funded by the Chevron ECIA funds High ($9 m illion) 29 Reduce overall number of General Fund employees by 5% High ($5 million) 30 Eliminate social service programs/spending and/or push servic e to the County High ($1.9 million) 31 Reduce library operations by reducing hours or closing a bran ch Medium ($700,000) 32 Eliminate General Fund subsidy for recreation programs Medium ($700,000) OPTIONS FOR FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY
This refers to strategies that cap or save General Fund expenditures either by shifting costs to other funds or service providers to reduce the cost of services borne by the General Fund.
This involves reductions based on prioritizing core services and reducing non‐core services. Since we assume that preserving services is a priority, this is typically a fallback strategy when other approaches to restoring the balance between revenues and expenditures are not possible.