Simi Valley City Council
June 13, 2022

AGENDA I

TEM NO.
9A

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
J
une 13, 2022
TO
: City Council
Board of Directors, Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 Successor Agency to the Simi Valley Community Development Agency Board of Trustees, Simi Valley Library
F
ROM: Office of the City Manager/District Manager/Executive Director/Executive Officer
S
UBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE FY 2022-23 BUDGET, APPROVAL OF FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FY 20 22-23 TO FY 2026-27 , APPROVAL OF FY 20 22-23 TRANSIT BUDGET AND

PROGRAM OF PROJECTS, AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
I
t is recommended that the City Council/Boards of Directors/Trustees:

1. A
pprove the Simi Valley Transit FY 202 2-23 Program of Projects (POP) to be forwarded to the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) for final approval and to be included in the City’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 49 U.S.C. Section 5307, Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ), and Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) grant applications;

2. A
dopt the attached Resolution No. 2022-35 (page 29) authorizing the City Manager to execute and submit the filing of grant applications with the FTA for operating, capital, planning, and preventive maintenance assistance funds under 49 U.S.C. Section 5307, CMAQ, and JARC;

3. A
dopt the attached Resolution No. 2022-36 (page 31) authorizing the modification of salary ranges of certain General Unit -designated job classifications, retitle the Waterworks Services Worker series, and provide related salary increases to incumbents, and rescinding all previous resolutions to the extent that they are in conflict herewith;

4. A
dopt the attached Resolution No. 2022-37 (page 35) to retitle the Management- designated classification of Court Liaison to Investigative Assistant;

5. A
dopt the attached Resolution No. 2022- 38 (page 37) to delete the Confidential- designated classification of Assistant City Attorney and related salary range, and reclassify the incumbent to a Confidential -designated classification of Senior Assistant City Attorney and related salary range;
2 6. Adopt the attached Resolution No. 2022-39 (page 39) to retitle the classification of Deputy Police Chief to Assistant Police Chief;

7. Review and modify, as appropriate, the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget and Preliminary Five-Y ear Capital Improvement Program for FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27, incorporating the previously adopted budgets for the Cultural Arts Center and Council On Aging budgets;

8. Adopt the attached joint Re solution No. 2022-4 0/WWD-288/SA-11/PL-32 ( page 41) approving the FY 2022-23 Annual Budget and the Five-Y ear Capital Improvement Program for FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
T
he F iscal Y ear (FY) 2022-23 Proposed Budget and Five -Year Capital Improvement Program were posted on the City’s website for public viewing on May 25 , 202 2, and printed copies were made available to City Council on May 23, 2022. A public meeting was held to present the Proposed Budg et and provide an opportunity for community members to present their input on the City’s budget on June 1, 2022. The FY 2022-23 Proposed General Fund B udget, as presented, is structurally balanced with a funding level that begins to address long -term funding deficiencies with one- time dollars. This budget represents a sustainable and fiscally responsible budget , which funds programs of value to the community and within available resources. Furthermore, the Proposed Budget, as presented, maintains more than the City’s 17% Prudent Reserve policy.

T
he City is in a strong financial position as highlighted by the City’s healthy General Fund balance. The City has been very prudent in managing the budget for many years, which has resulted in revenues exceeding expenditures.

Af
ter a full accounting, the FY 2020-21 ended with a net surplus of $8,053,103. General Fund expenditures ended the year at $4.5 million below budget and revenues came in at $3.5 million above budget.

In lig
ht of the year-end surpluses, staff evaluated the infrastructure and other budgetary needs of the City. In April 2022, the City Council approved a Fund Balance Policy for the General Fund that will strategically allocate prior year-end General Fund surplus dollars.

Included with the FY 2022-23 proposed budget is the reallocation of the FY 2020-21 surplus funds into three specific use “holding” funds. In accordance with the Fund Balance Policy, $3.2 million will be placed in the Infrastructure Investment Fund, $3.2 million will be placed in the Retirement Obligation Fund, and $1.6 million will be placed in a Contingency Fund. Staff will bring to City Council a recommendation for specific uses of these funds after adoption of the FY 2022-23 Budget.

FY 2021-22 Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures FY 2021
-22 General Fund revenue is estimated at $82.6 million, which is approximately $4 million more than the adopted budget. Property tax revenue is estimated to end the 3 year at $37.2 million, about $1.2 million more than the adopted budget, and sales tax revenue is estimated at $22.7 million, almost $2.8 million more than the adopted budget amount. Transient Occupancy Tax is estimated to end the year at $1.8 million, which is $112,000 more than the budgeted amount. Due to the stronger than anticipated tax revenue, the overall revenue from taxes and franchises is expected to be $4.2 million more than the adopted budget.

FY 2021
-22 General Fund expenses are estimated at $73.1 million, which is $5.5 million less than the adopted budget. The majority of the expenditure savings are the result of salary and benefit savings from planned and unplanned staff vacancies during the year.

FY 2022-23 General Fund Revenues
F
Y 2022-23, General Fund operating revenue is budgeted at $84.8 million, which is $2 million greater than the FY 2021- 22 projected Estimated Actuals, largely driven by projected increases in revenue from property tax and sales tax.

FY 2022-23 General Fund Expenditures
FY 2022
-23 General Fund operating expense is budgeted at $84.6 million. This amount is $6 million greater than the FY 2021-22 adopted budget. This difference is mostly due to transfers to other funds, which includes an increased transfer to streets & roads and retiree benefits.

T
he Five-Year Capital Improvement Program contains $3.1 million in funding from the General Fund for FY 2022-23.

FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2021-22 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 E st. vs. Prop Revenue Category Actual Adopted Revised Est Actuals Proposed % Change Taxes and Franchises 66,634,291$ 65,434,417$ 65,434,417$ 69,666,122$ 72,037,922$ 3.4% Revenue From Other Governments
(including Transfers In and Grants) 4,181,914 4,739,895 10,303,283 4,812,524 5,108,428 6.1% Licenses and Permits 3,829,208 2,887,000 2,887,000 3,926,600 3,247,000 -17.3% Use of Money and Property 116,998 890,215 890,215 886,729 1,230,729 38.8% Service Charges 1,989,154 2,319,400 2,319,400 1,760,139 1,266,400 -28.1% Fines and Forfeitures 236,363 580,200 580,200 180,000 580,200 222.3% Other Revenues 1,827,071 1,803,700 1,803,700 1,392,846 1,376,500 -1.2% Total General Fund Revenues 78,814,999$ 78,654,827$ 84,218,215$ 82,624,960$ 84,847,179$ 2.7% FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2021-22 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 Est. vs. Prop Expenditure Category Actual Adopted Revised Est Actuals Proposed % Change Personnel 61,218,886$ 65,853,895$ 66,060,847$ 60,464,837$ 66,609,846$ 10.2% Supplies & Materials 4,779,161 5,605,657 6,170,444 5,409,922 6,190,856 14.4% Services 7,086,886 9,136,849 10,993,291 9,188,032 9,609,213 4.6% Reimbursed Expenditures (8,805,744) (8,860,335) (8,900,835) (8,860,335) (8,889,179) 0.3% Capital Outlay 75,220 29,300 118,979 32,105 5,000 0.0% Transfers to Other Funds 6,407,486 6,831,604 12,260,549 6,835,549 11,142,457 63.0% Total General Fund Expenditures 70,761,895$ 78,596,970$ 86,703,275$ 73,070,110$ 84,668,193$ 15.9% *Revised Expenditures includes previously funded carryovers. 4 Departments also made requests for new items funded from the General Fund. A more detailed description of each item is presented in the Proposed Budget document, in the appropriate Department or fund section. Those Department proposals not ultimately included in the Proposed Budget by the City Manager can be found at the end of the document beginning on page 318 after the Supplemental Schedules tab.

The proposed FY 2022-23 Budget addresses the City Council priorities, which includes funding for the Stre ets and Roads Program and PERS/OPEB obligations. The City, through a $10 million allocation from the American Rescue Plan Act made last fiscal year and funding included in the proposed FY2022-23, provides over $15 million to the City’s Streets and Roads (Major and Minor Streets) projects. With respect to the City’s PERS/OPEB obligations, the City will be able to apply $3.2 million to this issue through the recently adopted Fund Balance Policy as well as another $500,000 included in the proposed FY 2022-23 budget to the City’s OPEB obligation.

General Fund Balance
The General Fund balance is estimated to be $58.1 million at the end of FY 2021-22. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends maintaining unrestricted budgetary fund balance in a general fund of no less than two months (to mitigate current and future risks), or nearly 17%, of regular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures. The City’s $58.1 million fund balance far exceeds the GFOA’s two-month recommendation, and provides an eight month reserve available to the City for immediate and future use. The FY 2021- 22 ending fund balance is equal to 68.6% of the $84.6 million Proposed FY 2022-23 General Fund operating expenditures.

The City continues to maintain an AAA rating from the Standard and Poor’s rating agency.
5 Five-Year General Fund Projection
The Five-Year General Fund Financial Projection and related analyses show that the City continues to implement a structurally balanced budget. The travel and hospitality industry is recovering and the City’s revenues are expected to be back to prior levels in FY 2022-23. Similarly, the City’s Sales Tax revenue is projected to be strong in FY 2022-23. The City is forecasting strong sales tax revenue in FY 2022-23 as the economy recovers from the pandemic and unemployment declines. Vehicles remain in high demand and the sale of general consumer goods is strong. The City is cautious however with the significant shift to on-line sales. In brick-and-mortar purchases, the City receives its full share of sales taxes paid on each transaction. On-line sales result in the City receiving only a share of sales taxes paid. This could result in lower sales tax revenue and City staff continue to monitor this phenomenon.

Furthermore, activity in the housing, and in particular the commercial real estate market, has increased to levels not seen since before the Great Recession. This is good news for the City’s receipt of property tax revenue. Because there is a year lag in real estate transactions converting to increases in property tax revenue and in consultation with the City’s property tax consultant, the FY 2022-23 proposed Budget includes property tax growth assumption of 8.5%.

While these revenue increases are welcomed, they are not assumed as a long-term trend and a softening is on the horizon. The Federal Reserve has initiated a series of interest rate increases intended to slow the economy and address inflation, Federal COVID-19 related stimulus funds that flowed to consumers has ended, and labor and supply chain issues remain albeit to a lesser degree. Additionally, the Simi Valley housing market is experiencing a lack of inventory of existing homes, driving up the median home price and limiting the flow of families migrating to the community. With an eye on these issues, as well as other short-term impacts, staff continues to monitor the national, state, and

ESTI MATED
ACTUAL ACTUAL Proposed
2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
BEGINNING GENERAL GOV'T FUND BALANCE 40,516,618$ 48,569,721$ 58,124,571$ Revenues 78,814,999$ 82,624,960$ 84,847,179$
Net Revenues 78,814,999$ 82,624,960$ 84,847,179$
Expenditures 70,761,896$ 73,070,110$ 84,668,192$
Net Expenditures 70,761,896$ 73,070,110$ 84,668,192$ Operating Surplus/(Deficit) 8,053,103$ 9,554,850$ 178,987$ ENDING GENERAL GOV'T FUND BALANCE 48,569,721$ 58,124,571$ 58,303,558$ 6 regional economies. The City’s future budget projections look for a more moderate growth path, closer to 2% - 3% growth. As we return to moderate increases, the proposed FY 2022-23 Budget was developed with the understanding that the above normal revenue growth seen over the last two years is temporary and thus funds are not being committed to new long-term obligations.

The forecast shown below includes projections for most revenue types with a conservative 0%-2% per year inflationary growth. Projections on the expenditure side include 3% inflationary growth in personnel costs , as well as supplies & materials.

There is an approximately 1-2% growth in most other expenditure types. It is incumbent on all Ci ty staff to operate within the parameters of their prospective budget and to ensure that the b udget remains balanced moving forward.

Five-Year Capital Improvement Program
T
he CIP provides detailed information regarding capital improvement projects proposed for financing in FY 2022-23 . It also serves as a capital improvement spending plan for the subsequent four years. All projects listed in the CIP will not necessarily be funded as proposed; the City Council will consider all projects on a year-by-year basis in conjunction with the Proposed Budget and available funding.

A
total of 1 44 projects, with an estimated five-year cost of $121,997,019, are contained in the Proposed CIP. Funding for FY 2022-23 is proposed for 57 projects in the amount of $23,913,019. Departments propose the balance of $98,084,000, for funding in FY 2023-24 to FY 2026-27.

ESTIMATED PROPOSED

ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27

REVENUES
Taxes And Franchises 66,634,291$ 69,666,122$ 72,037,922$ $74,199,059 $76,425,031 $78,717,782 $81,079,316 Licenses And Permits 3,829,208 3,926,600 3,247,000 3,311,940 3,378,179 3,445,742 3,514,657 Fines And Forfeitures 236,363 180,000 580,200 586,002 591,862 597,781 603,758 Use Of Money & Property 116,998 886,729 1,230,729 1,255,344 1,280,451 1,306,060 1,332,181 From Other Governments 344,846 401,978 341,554 341,554 341,554 341,554 341,554 Grants 347,952 223,229 256,500 261,630 266,863 272,200 277,644 Service Charges 1,989,154 1,760,139 1,266,400 1,291,728 1,317,563 1,343,914 1,370,792 Other Revenues 1,827,071 1,392,846 1,376,500 1,404,030 1,432,111 1,460,753 1,489,968 Transfers In 3,489,117 4,187,317 4,510,374 4,555,478 4,601,033 4,647,043 4,693,513 Total Revenues 78,814,999$ 82,624,960$ 84,847,179$ $87,206,765 $89,634,645 $92,132,828 $94,703,383

EXPENDITURES
Personnel 61,218,886 60,464,837 66,609,846 $68,608,141 $70,666,386 $72,786,377 $74,969,969 Supplies/Materials 4,779,161 5,409,922 6,190,856 6,376,581 6,567,879 6,764,915 6,967,863 Services 7,086,886 9,188,032 9,609,213 9,801,397 9,997,425 10,197,374 10,401,321 Capital Outlay 75,220 32,105 5,000 5,050 5,101 5,152 5,203 Transfers to Other Funds 6,407,486 6,835,549 11,142,457 11,253,881 11,366,420 11,480,084 11,594,885 Reimbursed Expenses (8,805,744) (8,860,335) (8,889,179) (8,978,071) (9,067,851) (9,158,530) (9,250,115) Total Expenditures 70,761,896 $73,070,110 $84,668,192 $87,066,981 $89,535,359 $92,075,372 $94,689,125 Operating Surplus/(Deficit) $8,053,103 $9,554,850 $178,987 $139,785 $99,286 $57,456 $14,258 7 Community Development Agency (CDA)
The process of dissolving the former Community Development Agency (CDA) is ongoing.

Successor Agency (former Community Development Agency) expenditures are limited by State law to recognized obligations in place prior to July 1, 2011. Staff members continue to process prior obligations and debt service under the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) agreement with the State of California Department of Finance. The primary fund expense is the annual debt service and related costs for the former Agency’s 2003 Tax Allocation Bonds, which is $2.4 Million in FY 2022-23.

Staff in the Department of Environmental Services handle Housing Successor Agency functions. At the time of dissolution, the Community Development Agency’s Housing Administration Fund was responsible for over $9.1 M illion in recognized obligations to provide developer loans for the creation of affordable rental or ownership housing units ; these obligations have all been extinguished. The Housing Successor Agency Fund is projected to have a $4.7 million fund balance at the beginning of FY 2022-23 as a result of principal and interest received over the years from prior repaid loans, and these funds will continue to be utilized to encourage the creation of affordable housing in Simi Valley.

Transit Fund
The Transit budget is
funded by farebox revenues from riding passengers, and state and federal grant funds, which are drawn down to pay for all expenditures.

Transit farebox revenue is estimated to be $326,400 for FY 2022-23. Federal Funding is expected to increase by $778,418 from the FY 2021-22 e stimated. The Transit budget includes $2.6 million in funding for Capital Projects, such as the purchase of 2 busses and an overhaul of the bus system.

Transit Proposed Program of Projects (POP) for FY 2022-2023 On December 19, 1988, the City Council established a policy to annually review the Simi Valley Transit proposed fiscal year budget as part of the City Council’s consideration of the Transit Program of Projects. The Transit Program of Projects (POP) provides the foundation for the City’s grant applications for federal funds, which partially offset the cost of operating the Simi Valley Transit System and capital projects. Following City Council approval, Simi Valley Transit’s approved POP will be forwarded to the Ventura County Transportation C ommission (VCTC) , the City’s current designated recipient of FTA funds, who will conduct a public hearing for final approval and inclusion in the City’s FTA Section 5307, CMAQ, and Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) grant applications.

U
nder 49 U.S.C. Section 5307, the CMAQ program, and the JARC program, the City of Simi Valley's Transit Division is eligible to apply for FTA grant funding to assist with its FY 2022-23 operating and capital expenditures. The City Council’s review and approval or modification of Simi Valley Transit’s proposed POP will be forwarded to the VCTC for final approval and will become the basis for the City’s FY 2022-23 Section 5307 grant application for federal financial assistance. 8 The proposed POP allocates Simi Valley Transit’s FTA 5307 grant of $3,498,576, as follows. The POP also identifies 5307 grant funds in the amount of $48,900, which will go directly to VCTC for countywide planning assistance funds.

Planning Assistance
Countywide Planning
Operating Assistance
Simi Valley Transit
Capital Assistance
Preventive Maintenance
Non Fixed Route ADA Paratransit
Dispatch Software
Transit Management System
Federal Grant Local Match
48,900 -
2,778,951 3,536,951
285,840 71,460
280,885 70,221
40,000 10,000
64,000 16,000
$ 3,498,576 $ 3,704,632
After City Council consideration, any adjustments to the POP will be made as appropriate.

It is not yet known whether JARC funding will be available for FY 2022- 23. It should be noted that the estimated FY 2022- 23 funding is based on the amount authorized in the FAST Act reauthorization. Should the adopted FY 2022- 23 Federal Transportation Budget be lower than these estimates, it will be necessary to make changes to the POP.

A resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute and submit the filing of an application with the U.S. Department of Transportation, FTA, for operating, capital, planning, and preventive maintenance assis tance funds under 49 U.S.C. Section 5307, CM AQ program, and JARC program is required and is included on page 29.

Sanitation Fund
The Sanitation financial system is comprised of an Operating Fund, a Replacement Reserve Fund, and a Plant Expansion Fund. The Operating Fund is used to finance the day-to-day cost of operating the sanitation system. The Replacement Reserve Fund is used to finance the replacement of equipment and infrastructure used to collect and treat wastewater. Both funds are financed from user fees (service charges). The Plant Expansion Fund is financed from developer fees and the revenue generated can only be used to expand the capacity of the sanitation system to adequately serve new development. Prior to FY 2022-23, the Operating Fund and Replacement Reserve Fund were combined for reporting purposes in the Annual Budget. The funds are now reported separately.
9 The Sanitation Operating Fund revenue is budgeted at $29.7 million, an increase of $2.2 million (8.2%) over the FY 2021- 22 estimated actual. Expenses, excluding the transfer to the replacement fund, are budgeted at $18.3 million, an increas e of $3.5 million (23.8%) above the FY 2021-2 2 estimated actual. This increase is mostly in salaries and benefits, due to vacancies in the current fiscal year.

The Sanitation Replacement Reser ve Fund is funding the capital pr ojects and has a budget of $4.2 million in FY 2022-23 for new project expenses. Based upon the City Council’s policy to establish a Replacement Reserve Fund, the target funding level of the Fund is $17.5 million by 2024-25.

Both the operating fund and the replacement reserve fund are now holding money aside as reserves for unanticipated expenditures and emergencies as directed by City Council in December of 2019 when the new rate structure was adopted.

Waterworks District No. 8
Waterworks District No. 8 is made up of three funds, similar to the Sanitation Fund. As with the Sanitation Fund, both the Operating and Replacement Reserve F unds use the rates as their source of revenue. Prior to FY 2022- 23, the Operating Fund and Replacement Reserve Fund were combined for reporting purposes in the Annual Budget.

The funds are now reported separately.

The Waterworks Operating Fund is budgeted at $51.6 million, an increase of $2.5 million (5.2%) over the FY 2021- 22 estimated actual. Expenses, excluding the transfer to the Replacement Fund, are budgeted at $43.5 million, an increase of $2.3 million (5.7%) above the FY 2021-2 2 estimated actual. This inc rease is mostly in salaries and benefits, due to vacanc ies in the current fiscal year, and water purchase costs.

The Waterworks Replacement Reserve Fund is funding the capital projects and has a budget of $7.6 million in FY 2022-23 for new project expenses. Based upon the City Council’s policy to establish a Replacement Reserve Fund, the target funding level of the Fund is $17.8 million by 2024-25.

Both the operating fund and the replacement reserve fund are now holding money aside as reserves for unanticipated expenditures and emergencies as directed by City Council in December of 2019 when the new rate structure was adopted.

Planning Commission Review of the Capital Improvement Program The Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 20 , 2022 , reviewed the program of capital improvement projects for conformance with the City of Simi Valley General Plan.

Such a review is required under Government Code Section 65401. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. SVP
C 06-2022, finding that each proposed major
public works project for FY 2022-23 is in conformance with the Simi Valley General Plan. 10 Personnel Updates

Several personnel actions were included as part of the City Council’s adoption of the FY 2022-23 Budget. All of the personnel actions require adoption of resolutions by the City Council in order to take effect with the exception of one, which is informational in nature.

The personnel changes outlined below are located in the de partments of Administrative Services, Public Works, the City Manager’s Office, and the City Attorney’s Office.

Inequity Adjustments

The Memorandum of Agreement between the City and the Service Employees International Union, Local 721 (SEIU) allows for SE IU to request up to three job classifications each year to be studied. This year, SEIU requested a review of the Plant Maintenance Technician series, the Plant Operator series, and the Instrumentation Technician series. The City agreed to look at the job classifications requested and added the Waterworks Services Worker series at the request of the Public Works Department and Industrial Painter since it is benchmarked to the Plant Maintenance Technician series. A series is a grouping of job classifications at progressively higher levels in knowledge, skill, and time in the prior classification that an employee can work their way up through without serving separate probationary periods. Positions within a series are called “flexibly staffed” as it provides the flexibility to bring new employees anywhere within a series when their certifications and experience is taken into account.

The City’s consultant, Ralph Anderson and Associates, studied the pay for the identified benchmarks as compared to our comparable agencies: Instrumentation Technician, Plant Maintenance Technician II, Plant Operator III, and Waterworks Services Worker II.

Benchmarks are job classifications that are recognized in the industry as the basis from which compensation of other job classifications are tied. Appropriate benchmarks are necessary to ensure fair and equitable treatment among all job classifications. Over time, changes in pay for targeted job classifications without regard to the benchmark compensation plan results in distortion of the benchmark relationships. In all benchmarks studied, the City’s pay at the top end of the pay scale for each of the benchmarks was the lowest amongst that of comparable agencies. The comparable agencies are set forth in the Memorandum of Agreement between the City and SEIU.

Job Classification
S.V.Hourly
Range
Max
Comparable
Agencies
Hourly
Market
Median
% +/-
Median
Hourly
Market
Mean
% +/-
Mean
Instrumentation
Technician $38.72 3 $40.74 -5.20% $42.99 -11.0%
Plant Maintenance
Technician II $32.03 6 $38.05 -18.80% $38.79 -21.1%
Plant Operator III $37.85 5 $42.12 -11.28% $42.54 -12.4% Waterworks
Services Worker II $27.96 7 $34.74 -24.24% $35.67 -27.6%

11 Staff reviewed the results of the study and the City Manager is recommending that all benchmark classifications be increased to market median. The City’s benchmark strategy was used to create the proposed revised salary ranges for the classifications affected by moving the upper end of the salary ranges to the market median, while maintaining the current spread between the bottom and top ends of the pay scale, as shown below:

Job Classification
Hourly-
Range
Minimum
Hourly-
Range
Maximum
% Increase Benchmark Strategy
Instrumentation Technician 31.9229 40.7433 5.20% Benchmark Senior Instrumentation
Technician

35.1050 44.8177 10% above
Instrumental Technician
Plant Maintenance Technician I 27.1123 34.5902 10% below Plant Maintenance
Technician II
Plant Maintenance Technician
II

29.8214 38.0493 18.80% Benchmark
Plant Maintenance Technician III 32.8007 41.8542 10% above Plant Maintenance
Technician II
Industrial Painter 29.8228 38.0873 0.10% above Plant
Maintenance
Technician II
Plant Operator Trainee 20.9208 26.7441 57.5% below Plant Operator III
Plant Operator I 27.4663 35.1016 20% below Plant
Operator III
Plant Operator II 29.9963 38.2927 10% below Plant
Operator III
Plant Operator III 33.0188 42.1220 11.28% Benchmark
Waterworks Services Worker
Trainee

22.6868 28.9461 20% below W aterworks
Services Worker II
Waterworks Services Worker I 24.6842 31.5775 10% below W aterworks Services Worker II
Waterworks Services Worker II 27.1951 34.7353 24.24% Benchmark Waterworks Services Worker III 30.7386 39.2405 12.97% above Waterworks Services
Worker II

The total cost in base salary adjustments for 35 existing incumbents within the affected classifications is approximately $377,560 per fiscal year, plus approximately $44,120 additional in averaged overtime costs. As discussed under the Public Works Department personnel change requests, the job classification titles of the Waterworks Services Worker series are proposed to be retitled to Waterworks Operator.

Administrative Services

• The Administrative Services Department requested two additional personnel at the Enterprise Systems Analyst job classification to support the demand for additional technology systems. Over time, the City’s reliance on technology has increased exponentially while the staffing within the Division has remained flat. Many manual 12 paper-driven processes have shifted to digital records and systems. These new systems offer more transparency and efficiency, but take many staff resources to initially implement and troubleshoot. As vendors release new features and upgrades, the demand to implement them also increases. The City Manager is recommending the creation of one additional position at Enterprise Systems Analyst to assist with major systems support and one position at Management Analyst to assist with implementation, testing and training plans for new and upgraded technology as well as any policy initiatives needed to facilitate the Division’s work.

If approved as recommended, an Enterprise Systems Analyst position costing an additional $171,700 and a Management Analyst position costing an additional $124,000 will be created within the Information Services Division. The result will be a reoccurring expense of $295,700 from the General Fund. The authorization and budget authority for both the Enterprise Systems Analyst and the Management Analyst positions are included in the proposed FY 2022-23 budget.

• The Administrative Services Department requested the creation of an Information Services Analyst III classification as an advanced journey level position to match the level of complexity needed for today’s more sophisticated programs that are being purchased, configured, deployed and maintained by many Departments throughout the City. At this time, the City Manager is recommending that the City’s consultant study this item for potential future changes and not make any changes relating to the proposed budget for FY 2022-23. No action is needed by the City Council on this item and is included as information only. Should changes be recommended, this item will be brought back to the City Council for consideration.

City Manager’s Office

• The City Manager’s Office is requesting a reclassification of Theater Technician I/II to Cultural Arts Center Technical Coordinator. The Theater Technician I/II is a General Unit position and the Cultural Arts Center Technical Coordinator is an unrepresented Management position. The Theater Technician II position was last filled in August 2020. A recruitment began in February 2021 for this vacancy in anticipation of reopening the Cultural Arts Center. Despite many extensions of the recruitment, the feedback received from prospective candidates was that the salary was too low to attract the talent sought. Another recruitment was initiated in November 2021 to overfill the position at the Cultural Arts Center Technical Coordinator level. The City did hire for the position, as there was salary savings to do so for the remainder of the current FY 2021- 22. The City Manager is recommending the permanent reclassification of the position.

If approved as recommended, the reclassification of the position will create an ongoing additional cost of $44,300 from the General Fund. The authorization and budget authority for this reclassification is included in the proposed FY 2022-23 budget.

 At the request of the City Manager, staff evaluated the duties performed by the Administrative Assistant assigned to the City Manager’s Office to determine if the incumbent was working out of class. The evaluation revealed the incumbent is responsible for duties outside that of an Administrative Assistant such as identifying issues with the permitting software utilized by the Environmental Services Department and working with City staff and the software vendor to reach resolution. In addition, the incumbent is responsible for creating testing and diagnostic plans. Staff found the duties being performed aligned with that of a Management Analyst. Therefore, the City Manager is recommending that the current position and incumbent be reclassified from Administrative Assistant to Management Analyst.

If approved as recommended, the reclassification of the position and incumbent from Administrative Assistant to Management Analyst will create an ongoing additional cost of $5,400 in salary and benefits from the General Fund. The authorization and budget authority for this reclassification is included in the proposed FY 2022-23 budget.

City Attorney’s Office
 At the request of the City Manager’s Office, staff evaluated the duties performed by one of the three Assistant City Attorney’s in the City Attorney’s Office to determine if the incumbent was working out of class. The evaluation revealed the incumbent is responsible for duties such as providing legal counsel on matters pertaining to employment law, special research projects of higher complexity, advice on transactional contract documents, and in -depth review of City Council items and reports. Staff found the duties assigned to be in line with that of a Senior Assistant City Attorney. Therefore, the City Manager is recommending that the current position and the incumbent be reclassified from an Assistant City Attorney to a Senior Assistant City Attorney.

If approved as recommended, the reclassification of the position and incumbent from Assistant City Attorney to Senior Assistant City Attorney will create an ongoing additional cost of $19,770 in salary and benefits from the General Fund. The authorization and budget authority for this reclassification is included in the proposed FY 2022-23 budget.

Police Department
 The Police Department requested classification title changes for the Deputy Police Chief and the Court Liaison positions. Specifically, that Deputy Police Chief be retitled to Assistant Police Chief and that Court Liaison be retitled to Investigative Assistant without any change to the pay scale for either job classification. Currently there is one incumbent in each of these two job classifications.

The Assistant Police Chief title better aligns with the working title conventions within the Ventura County area. Both Oxnard and Ventura utilize the Assistant Police Chief rank as their second level sworn manager position. The City last changed this job title 13 14
from Police Captain to Deputy Police Chief in 2013 for the same reason. No change to compensation is being requested.

T
he title change to Investigative Assistant better aligns with the duties performed by the position and with titles used in other local police agencies. No change to compensation is being requested.

I
t is recommended that the incumbents occupying the two positions noted be reclassified to the proposed classifications of Assistant Police Chief and Investigative Assistant, respectively. There is no additional cost associated with these changes.

The authorization for these classification title changes require adoption by resolution.

Public Works Department
• T
he Public Works Department requested that the following positions be reclassified permanently for FY 2022- 23 as previously authorized by the City Manager.

Incumbents in these positions are already filling these positions at the requested classifications (two are an overfill, meaning the positions were filled with posit ions paying more than the budgeted position and the other three are underfilled, meaning the positions were filled with positions paying less than the budgeted positions) and their permanent conversion to the proposed classifications would amount to $35,10 0 in salary and benefit savings in the General Fund going forward. Since the incumbents are currently filling the positions listed under Proposed Reclassification, there will be no impact to them. The changes requested are as follows:

Public Works Division Current Classification/
Position Number
Proposed Reclassification
Engineering Division (Traffic) Senior Engineering Technician/ 406516857
Assistant Engineer
Storm Drain Division Heavy Equipment Operator/
406702180
Maintenance Worker II
Parkway/Tree Maintenance
Division
Landscape Architect/
246256489
Maintenance Superintendent
Graffiti/Abatement Division Community Services
Coordinator/
246501629
Community Services Technician
Transit Division Accounting Assistant II/
406603579
Management Assistant
I
t is recommended that the incumbents occupying the five positions above be reclassified to the proposed classifications of Assistant Engineer, Maintenance Worker II, Maintenance Superintendent, Community Services Technician, and Management Assistant respectively, as shown in the above table. Overall, these changes will amount to an ongoing salary and benefits savings of $35,100.

The
authorization for these reclassification s is included in the proposed FY 2022- 23 budget.
15 • The Public Works Department requested a job classification title change of the Waterworks Services Worker series to Waterworks Operator. This revised title will affect all incumbents within the classification series as shown below. This request was not included with the Budget document as it does not affect the salary range or have a cost impact.

Current Classification Proposed Classification Number of Incumbents Waterworks Services Worker Trainee Waterworks Operator Trainee 6 Waterworks Services Worker I Waterworks Operator I 3
Waterworks Services Worker II Waterworks Operator II 5
Waterworks Services Worker III Waterworks Operator III 3

It is recommended that the job classification titles for Waterworks Services Worker series be retitled to Waterworks Operator with the salary ranges remaining at their current level or adjusted as discussed under the inequity study section of this staff report. There is no additional cost attributed to this change for FY 2021- 22. This change requires the adoption of a resolution.

Citizen Participation Meeting

A Citizen Participation meeting to review and discuss the Proposed Budget was held on June 1, 2022. Notice of the meeting was provided through a press release, and posting on the City’s website. Staff from each City department was in attendance to respond to questions from the public. A summary of the comments at the meeting are attached to this staff report as Attachment A (page 19).

ALTERNATIVES

The following alternatives are available to the City Council/Boards of Directors/Board of Trustees. City Council must first adopt the Transit Program of Projects prior to adoption of the FY 2022-23 Annual Budget.

1. Approve the Simi Valley Transit FY 2022-23 Program of Projects (POP) to be forwarded to the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) for final approval and to be included in the City’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 49 U.S.C. Section 5307, Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ), and Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) grant applications;

2. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute and submit the filing of grant applications with the FTA for operating, capital, planning, and preventive maintenance assistance funds under 49 U.S.C. Section 5307, CMAQ, and JARC;

3. Adopt the attached resolution modifying salary ranges of certain General Unit - designated job classifications, retitle the Waterworks Services Worker series, and provide related salary increases to incumbents, and rescinding all previous resolutions to the extent that they are in conflict herewith; 16 4. Adopt the attached resolution retitling the Management-d esignated classification of Court Liaison to Investigative Assistant;

5. Adopt the attached resolution to delete the Confidential-d esignated classification of Assistant City Attorney and related salary range, and reclassify the incumbent to a Confidential-d esignated classification of Senior Assis tant City Attorney and related salary range;

6. Adopt the attached resolution to retitle the classification of Deputy P olice Chief to Assistant Police Chief;

7. Review and modify, as outlined by Council, the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget and Preliminary Five-Y ear Capit al Improvement Program for FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-2027, incorporating the changes previously adopted for the Council On Aging and Cultural Arts Center funds;

8. Adopt the attached resolution approving the FY 2022-23 Annual Budget and the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27;

9. Provide staff with other direction.

S
taff recommends Alternative Nos. 1-6.

SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL/BOARDS MOTIONS

1. I
move to approve the Simi Valley Transit FY 2022-23 Program of Projects to be forwarded to the Ventura County Transportation Commission; and

2. I
move to adopt Resolution No. 2022-35 authorizing the City Manager to execute and submit the filing of grant applications with the FTA; and

3. I
move to adopt Resolution No. 2022-36 to modify salary ranges of certain General Unit-designated job classifications, retitle the Waterworks Services Worker series, and provide related salary increases to incumbents, and rescinding all previous resolutions to the extent that they are in conflict herewith; and

4. I
move to adopt Resolution No. 2022- 37 to retitle the Management -designated classification of Court Liaison to Investigative Assistant; and

5. I
move to adopt Resolution No. 2022-38 to identify a new Confidential-designated classification of Senior Assistant City Attorney; and

6. I
move to adopt Resolution NO. 2022- 39 to retitle the classification of Deputy Police Chief to Assistant Police Chief; and
17 7. I move to adopt Resolution No. 2022-40/WWD-288/SA-11/PL-32 approving the FY 2022-23 Annual Budget and the Five- Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27 incorporating the previously adopted budgets for the Cultural Arts Center and Council On Aging.

SUMMARY
T
he City Council/Boards of Directors/Trustees received the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Program on May 22, 2022. Review and adoption of the FY 2022-23 Simi Valley Transit Program of Projects will be held concurrent with review of the budget.

T
he City of Simi Valley is eligible to apply for FTA 49 U.S.C. Section 5307 and CMAQ funds, and if available, JARC funds, for Simi Valley Transit’s operating, capital, planning, and preventive maintenance for FY 2022-23. Upon City Council appr oval, Simi Valley Transit’s Program of Projects will be forwarded to the Ventura County Transportation Commission for final approval at a public hearing, and for inclusion in the City’s FTA grant applications. The City Council is also required to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute and submit an application with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration for funding assistance under 49 U.S.C. Sections 5307, the CMAQ program, and the JARC program.

S
taff is recommending that the City Council/Boards of Directors/Trustees, after making any desired adjustments, approve the FY 2022-23 Transit Program of Projects, adopt a resolution approving application for CMAQ and JARC Transit funding, and adopt a resolution approving the FY 2022-23 Budget and Five- Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27.
___
_________________________________
Brian Paul Gabler
City Manager/District Manager/
Executive Director/Executive Officer
P
repared by: Carolyn Johnson, Acting Administrative Services Director INDEX Page
A
ttachment A – Public Meeting Summary ……………………………………………….. 19 Resolution No. 2022-35 – Authorize Filing of CMAQ and JARC Funds Application....29 Resolution No. 2022-36 – Modify salary ranges of certain General Unit-designated job classifications…………………………………………………………31 Resolution No. 2022-37 – Retitle the Management-designated classification of Court Liaison to Investigative Assistant………………………………………………..3 5 18 Resolution No. 2022-38 – Identify a new Confidential-designated classification of Senior Assistant City Attorney…………………….……………………………………..37 R
esolution No. 202239 –Retitle the classification of Deputy Police Chief to Assistant Police Chief……………………………………..……….……………………..39 J
oint Resolution No. 2022-40/WWD-288/SA-11/PL-32– Approve the FY 2022-23 Annual Budget and the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27…………………………………………………. ......................41

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMORANDUM June 13
, 2022
TO: City
Council
Board of Directors, Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 FRO
M: Administrative Services Department
SUBJE
CT: CITIZENS PARTICIPATION MEETING SUMMARY
On June 1, 2022, a citizen participation meeting was conducted to provide the community with an opportunity to voice opinions on budget items and submit ideas on items they believe should be included in the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget. The meeting began at 5:30 p.m. and ended at 6:30 p.m. In attendance were staff members representing each City department, the City Manager, and many members of the public.

Budget
Officer and Acting Administrative Services Director , Carolyn Johnson prov ided a PowerPoint presentation outlining the budget for FY 2022-23. Attendees were then asked if they had any questions or comments . Two comments became apparent. R esidents expressed a concern over the Cities CalPERS and OPEB Unfunded Liability balance and future water solutions.

Writ
ten comments that were received are included at the end of this memo. The Following is a summary transcription of the feedback and comments received. • Dan – P
rovided written comments that are attached at the end of this memorandum. • Tom –
Incoming Chairman for Neighborhood Council #1. Discussion within Neighborhood Council #1 meetings with regards to street maintenance and the need of reviewing many of our roads. I see that there is a large amount of money allocated to the improvement of the roads. I don’t know how that compares with the actual need. I’m here to let you know that on behalf of Neighborhood Council #1, we support fixing the roads because there have been regular complaints on social media about the condition of the roads. We want to be sure that’s something that is under strong consideration in the budget, perhaps more than what is currently allotted. Secondly regarding the crime that is being committed within our City. I’m happy to see that many of those folks are being caught, but some are not. We have significant support within our Neighborhood Council to allocate to the Police Department. If they need more funds, give it to them. This is something that is quickly getting out of hand. Thank You.
• Evelyn – I love Simi Valley and I want to talk about the health benefits funding for retired personnel, which is very important. Funding is currently as low as 2%, this is not new news. We need to be sincere and announce to the people counting on this benefit that the benefit has been reduced due to lack of funding. Costs to start catching up the retirees health benefits is $48.8 million , according to page 68 of the FY 2020- 21 financial report.

Pay as you go, is misleading because the unpaid balance went from $38.2 million in 2019 to $48.8 million in 2021. Was the City Council and citizens aware that they just went $10 million deeper in debt? Borrowing is supposed to be disclosed and approved. Where was the $10 million expense on the income statement? The general fund budget is $80 million where is this expense that would have represented 12% of the general fund? Where is this expense in the new budget? Simple math, if the balance is $40 million and the interest rate is 7%, then the annual interest is $2.8 M per year. Giving yourself credit for making a payment of $1million in 2019, are you serious? During these three years, the interest of

ATTACHMENT A
19 $8.4 million, only being able to pay $1 million three years ago and no principle on $8.4 million of the new interest charges should be screaming a loud cry of help. The situation is much worse than my example. The balance grew $10 million in one year. That looks and smells like 26% interest. $10 million growth, $387 million starting balance, equals 26%. Making a small payment of $500,000 in FY 2022- 23 is telling the people of Simi Valley that your retirement plan has already fallen apart. • Staff Comments - The benefit to the retirees has not been reduced. The OPEB liability is not from borrowing. A budget document is a spending plan that accounts for revenues and expenditures over a period of time. It does not account for the overall City financial position nor is it a statement of the City’s liabilities and assets. The City’s proposed FY 2022-23 Budget document provides for expenses related to the PERS and OPEB obligations, as it should. Through the Budget document, the City budgets for expenditures to CalPERS for the annual payments to address the City’s Normal costs and UAL costs. Further, the City budgets for annual payments to address the City’s pay-as-you-go obligations for OPEB. The City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial report (ACFR) is the proper location for the reporting of the City’s assets and debts. The City’s ACFR for the fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2021 (most recent ACFR) fully documents the City’s debts, liabilities, and assets and all other financial matters in compliance with all required government accounting standards.
• John – My concerns are about the unfunded pensions and the unfunded medical payments that we pay for our retirees. In 2010, the unfunded pensions were $63 M. Fast forward to last year, it’s $200 M. It’s all about interest and not funding these accounts. Our experts believe that an 80% funded liability is a minimum standard for a long -term liability. We need to fund these accounts. We can’t continue to borrow and pay 14%, it’s a direct path to bankruptcy.
• I would ask who the actuarial consulting firm that the City is using for the pension plan? Who is evaluating it? Is it once a year or every three years? Someone else besides an actuary at CalPers should be evaluating pension and the retirement medical, who can give you advice on how to get out of the debt that these people are claiming that there are. My husband used to do that for 40 years, so it’s always an outside firm that has to do it. So I would love to hear how that is performed because from what I’m hearing, it’s every three years and I looked up that part of the proposed budget. You’re looking at last year’s numbers. I’m concerned that you are giving a proposed budget for not even the current last year to determine how we should be funding these accounts. • Staff Comments
- The City budgets for current (FY 2022 -23) annual payments to CalPERS to address the City’s Normal costs and UAL costs. The Actuarial Certification in the yearly actuarial valuation document from CalPers is certified by an actuary who satisfies the Qualification Standards for Actuaries Issuing Statements of Actuarial Opinion in the United States with regard to pensions. Also, the C ity contracted with Urban Futures (UFI) to provide potential solutions available to stabilize the City’s payments to CalPers. Their recommendations were presented to City Council on May 13, 2019.
• Sta
cy – I’m also wondering why our pension liability seems to be so out of control and why it is that the City has gone under the recommendation of at least 80% of the pensions being funded. According to the proposed budget, it’s actually just under 70%. Also I would like to know if we are considering doing anything to build our own infrastructure to take care of the water shortage problem and what we are currently exploring and how we would intend to fund a lot of the solutions available.
20 • My
main concern is the pensions but since everyone has talked about it, I’m not going to talk about it. My other concern is water. We are all going to suffer the consequences of drought, but drought is not new in CA. Moorpark has been using reclaimed water and I know LA is. I’m wondering if we can budget that at any time in the future. It’s really important to keep our parks alive. I thank you all, you’re doing a great job. • Jam
es – Has three pages of questions and will submit in writing. • As of the writing of this report, staff (attached) had just received the questions and there was not time to compile a reply.
• Do any
of the City employees here have comments about their pensions?  James – As a former City employee, I find it interesting that when you talk about obligations for future medical and lifetime benefits, that’s a very narrow sector of the City and should be outlined as so. That does not include all retired employees.
• Given the spike in home prices, and a lot of revenue comes from property taxes, wouldn’t there be an anticipated continued higher income stream coming from the inflated property values?
• Staff Comments
- Yes, we are showing the revenues as leveling off.

Wi
th no further comments, attendees were thanked for their participation and told that the budget will be presented to City Council for adoption at the meeting of June 13th.

Carolyn Johnson
Acting Administrative Services Director
Atta
chments:

Dan Porter Comments (Exhibit 1)
James Bartholomew Comments (Exhibit 2)
21 SV Budget Talking Points
Be sure to reference and compare numbers to avoid glib responses that "We are of that" or "We are working on that." I doubt the City Council is aware of the magnitude of the situation.

Unfunded Pension and Retirement Benefits Liability {Debt} Balance in 2005 was $34,974,000
Balance in 2015 was $L07,649,000 (Three times the amount in 2005) Balance inZAZAwas 5200,000,000 {Balance doubled in 5 years){2021CAFR page 68i Duringthe 5 years from 2015 to 2020, the debt increased $20,000,000 peryear {1,4% annual growth). lf the balance doubles again in five years, the annual expense would be $40,000,000 per year. To be clear, that is $40,000,000 on top ofthe $20,000,000 "Pay as you go" cash need to pay out benefits each year.

The current annual general fund budget is just under 580,000,000.

Thepensionincreaseexpenseontheunpaidbalanceis2!o/ooftheannual budget. Whyisthisbeing hidden from the City Council and Citizens of Simi Valley? Where is the discussion that the staff have decided to borrow an additional 5200,000,000 and add it to the pension obligation in the next five to ten years?
Health Benefits Funding for Retired Personnel
Funding is currently as low as 2o/o. This is not new news. iPage 22 of proposed budgeti.

We need to be sincere and announce to the people counting on this benefit, that the benefit has been reducedduetoalackoffunding, ThecosttostartcatchinguptheRetireesHealthBenefitsis $48,800,000 according to the 2021 Comprehensive Financial Report page 58. "Pay as you go" is misleading, because the unpaid balance went from $38,200,00 in 2019 to $48,800,000 in 2020, Was the City Council and Citizens of Simi Valley aware they just went $10,000,000 deeper in debt? Borrowing is supposed to be disclosed and approved. Where was the SL0,000,000 expense on the inconre statement? The general fund budget is $80,000,000. Where is this expense that would have represented 12% at the generalfund revenues? Where is this expense in the new budget? Simple math - lf the balance is $q0 million and the interest raleisTYo, then the annual interest is $Z.g million per year. Giving yourself credit for making a payment of $1 million in 2019 (Page 22), are you serious? During three years, the interest is 58.4 million. Only being able to pay 51 million three years ago and no principal on S8.4 million of new interest charges should be a screaming cry for help.

The situation is much worse than my example. The balance grew $tO million in ONE year. That looks and smells like 26% interest (10 growthl3S starting balance *26%\. Making a small payment of $500,000 in 2A22/2AB is telling the people of Simi Valley that your retirement plan has already fallen apa11.

EXHIBIT 1
22 The City Council paid for Auditors, and the auditors turned out to be misleading The auditors were required by Governmental Accounting Standards 68 *72 to put the loans on your balance sheet and record the growth of your debts as an expense, l'm sad they lied to the City Council and the Citizens of Simi Valley. The auditors claimed to be giving you audited financial statements that were presented in a way that was not misleading. The auditors have a responsibility to warn the City Council and the Citizens of Simi Valley that your debts are growing out of control.

The auditors and staff made up 'economic impact accounting' to pretend that if the City of Simi Valley could make a payment on an expense, then everything was okay.

Daniel Porterhascalledseveral ofyourauditorsandcityaccountingstaffoverthelasttenyears. He asked them why they used ponzy accounting principles of hiding debts and not recording expenses.

They responded that they were just doing what management told them. Daniel Porter clarified that they were misleading the people of Simi Valley by not putting debts on the balance sheet and not recording expenses on the income statement.

Daniel Porter, MBA attained Certified Credit Executive while working in the Treasury Department of Amgen. Certified Credit Executive was the highest level of certification by the National Association of Credit Managers (NACM). He was responsible for monitoring and analyzing financial statements to determine credit lines that facilitated over $5 billion in annual sales.

Solutions

1. Be open and honest by treating the growth as an expense and follow the Government Accounting Standards.

2. Refinance as much as possible to get control of the growth rate. 3" Get a refund from your auditors.
23 City of SimiValley Retirement Plan Debt
Pension Liability
OPEB Liability
Total
6/30/20As
34,974,029
lncrease
Percent lncrease
5 28,155,374 5 72,675,474 $ 29,143,497 $ 6,788,285 $
8lo/o 208% 30o/o 6%
5 34,974,029 S63,129,403 5107,649,503 S136,793,000 S143,581,285 $ 186,600,000 S184,400,000 $200,000,000 6130/20rc
6L,643,649
1,485,754
6BAl2A15
98,712346
8,937,L97
5/301z0rc
106,200,000
30,593,000
6130/2017
133,050,752
10,530,533
513012018
148,100,000
38,500,000
6BOl2AL9
146,200,000
38,200,000
6BAl2A2A
151,200,000
48,800,000
15,600,000
LI%
43,Ar8,7L5 s (2,200,000) $
32% -1%
Pension Liability is the amount the City has not put into the CaIPERS pension fund to pay the future pension obligations.

CaIPERS is treating the unpaid pension payments as a loan to the citizens of Simi Valley.

OPEB - Other Post Employment Benefits - Health lnsurance for retired employees.

Unfunded means no revenue allocated toward paying the loan off and no assets allocated to pay the loan off, Source of lnformation
City of Simi Valley Website - SimiValley.org
Departments - Administrative Services - Budget
Departments - Fiscal Services/ Accounting - Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports 24 Budget Comments

1. There is not much time to review the necessary documents (Staff has stated that it is an ongoing process, and as such the public should have ongoing input).

2. It would be good to have a periodic Budget Advisory Committee review of the Budget for a deeper dive into the details of the Budget.

3. According to the ACFR (Page 161) for street resurfacing, the City has neglected its streets. With the influx of federal funds, this situation will hopefully improve although the CIP capital improvement plan (Page 99-100) doesn’t reflect it.

Pu
blic ways and facilities
Street resurfacing (miles)
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

2.23 6.66 5.67 3.93 3.73 6.38 10.12 23.77 10.12 1.4

4. The B
udget can be confusing. The Proposed Budget FY21 -22 showed that the Streets and Roads Fund estimated actual expenditure for FY20-21 was $10,182,425 but the Proposed Budget FY22- 23 shows an actual expenditure for FY20-21 of $589,789. Apparently, the original Budget for FY21- 22 expenditures (Page 15) was $3,833,224 with a revised Budget of $20,490,507 and an estimated actual of $13,265,507. (Is that factual?) On the revenue side (Page 16), the FY22 -23 Proposed Budget shows a Revised Budget revenue for FY21-22 of $11,067,636 with an Estimated Actual of $3,842,636. This is confusing and makes it appear that the City expended $10 million more than its revenues. (This is a good reason to have historical data – see comments under Recommendations)

5. Page 141 of the Budget shows that traffic striping is Priority #6. I would strongly encourage that this expenditure be approved to mitigate potential liability to the City. The cost of $80,000 is minimal compared to the benefits received.

6. In the Budget, there were several comments concerning the American Rescue Plan/CARES Act but nothing on the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In speaking with staff, it was felt that the City does not have much opportunity under the later.

It is commendable that Sanitation and Waterworks (Pages 10-11) now have Replacement Reserve Funds to acknowledge future needs by establishing a policy to utilize surplus funds. According to

and Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES). According to Page 220 -222, effective April 22, 2022, City has es tablished three fund s (Infrastructure (120 - $3.2 million); Retirement Obligation Fund (121 - $3.2 million); and Contingency Fund (122 - $1.6 million)) for surplus funds received. My understanding is that this is a formula to be used for future surplus funds.

Having said that, it is interesting that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on Page 99, shows that the Revised Budge t for FY21 -22 refle cts Major streets construction expenditures of $5,233,861 whereas each ensuing year is only $2 million. On May 9, 2022, City Council approved a $1 million contract under the Major Streets Rehabilitation Program for Cochran Steet between Sequoia and Tapo Canyon. There is considerably more work to be done. Page 99 of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan is vague simply stating that the proposed FY22-23 projects may include EXHIBIT 2
25 Cochran Street, Madera Road, Los Angeles and Stearns Street. The lack of specificity and funding create does not bode well for correcting road conditions.

7. According to a recent Neighborhood Council presentation, FEMA grants can not be approved until the Hazard Mitigation Plan has been approved, which apparently is not scheduled to be addressed until the end f or this calendar year. Page 122 of the Budget talks about the pursuant of FEMA funding for Citywide floodplain remapping and flood risk correction. Hopefully, this can take place sooner than later.

8. According to the ACFR (Page 161)
Public Safety 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Arrests 3,857 3,472 2,961 3,459 3,377 2,939 3,134 2,964 2,381 1,762 Enforcement
citations 6,827 7,688 8,518 8,308 8,300 6,936 8,988 8,230 4,703 2,454

Annual Arrest/Sworn 33.83 30.46 25.97 30.34 29.62 25.78 27.49 26.00 20.89 15.46 Annual
Citations/Sworn 59.89 67.44 74.72 72.88 72.81 60.84 78.84 72.19 41.25 21.53

Crime does not appear to be escalating and the average number of monthly arrest s per Sworn Officer for 2021 was 1.29 with 1.8 monthly citations. As a result, parking lots are good places to find law enforcement.

9. While there are efforts to reduce overtime in the Police Department, there are issues with Police Management and overtime that is not reported to the public. It is processed in a manner that it is not overtime. According to their MOU,
“Sworn Managers working in the capacity of Watch Commander who are called in early or required to work an extended shift will accrue compensatory time or annual leave for each thirty (30) minutes worked. For Sworn Managers called back to work to handle a significant event, special event, major investigation or other police related activity, such employee will accrue compensatory time or annual leave for each thirty minutes worked…In cases where overtime for Watch Commander is required, any Commander assigned to the Patrol Unit has first right of refusal for the first 24 hours. The second 24 hours shall be available to Police Sergeants as set forth in the Simi Valley Police Offic ers MOU”
(This is overtime without calling it overtime and it is reflected in their total compensation – unlike other Management employees). As a result, Sworn Management has more pay reflected under lump sum and other categories than other agencies since there is no “overtime.” Greater transparency would help.

10. On Page 206, the Liability Insurance Fund shows a current deficit of $333,988 with increasing deficits for ensuing years ($3 million by FY25). There is no narrative to explain this substantial deterioration or plan for resolving. This is a cost that is funded by inter -fund charges and largely born by the General Fund.

11. On Page 208, the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund is in better shape than the Liability Insurance Fund but still has issues with a doubling in one year of claim and legal payments with no change in the foreseeable future.
26 Content Recommendations for the Budget and Capital Improvement Program (CIP)

1. On Page 15 of the CIP, the Category “Fiscal Years” is mislabeled. It should start with 2022-23 not 2021-22.

2. On Page 14 of the Budget, there is an organizational chart of the City that excludes the Library, Senior Center, Cultural Arts, Human Resources and City Clerk. For that reason, it would be prudent to add City Administration with these functions to the chart.

3. On Page 122 of the Budget, “ot” (sp) should be “to”.

4. On Page 239 (Fund 297) -Retiree Benefits Lifetime is only for Sworn. Who gets retiree dental and vision? The current narrative makes it sound like it applies to all retirees whereas lifetime benefits are limited to Sworn.

5. The CIP doesn’t list the historical capital improvements by fiscal year so there is limited accountability for past actions. Only current and future expenditures are presented. If Page 15 of the CIP had a separate page with historical data to compare with future expectations, it would be more meaningful and accurate (see discussion on Streets above).

6. Historical data would also be beneficial for the Budget. While the future is speculative, the past has been cast and should be available for greater transparency and review. It is recommended the extra pages be included to show the Citywide Summary of Expenditures/Revenues (Pages 15- 16)
Questions

1. From bottom of Page 12 , what are examples of interim financial reports? I assume that the comprehensive mid-year report is the ACFR.

2. On Page 15, what is General Fixed Assets (Fund 106) and what is the $11 million?

3. On Page 15, what is the Planning (Fund 207) for $811,000 that was deleted?

4. On Page 164, what is Leave Accrual – Contra Account?

5. Is there anything to show Sworn Annual Leave Purchases?

6. On Page 223, is it accurate that there are no expenses for the Public Education and Government PEG starting this year? Is it anticipated that the 1% fees from cable and video services will continue at the current level despite more people cutting cable?

7. On Page 228, what happened to the library building improvement fund? They ($1.4 million) were in the current Budget and then deleted indefinitely.

8. On Page 240, are not disaster funds contingent upon having an approved hazard mitigation plan, which is not likely in this fiscal year?

9. On Page 251, under Vehicle Replacement what is the criteria for Police unit replacement and how many miles do they average per year?

10. On Page 255, why was the budgeted $740,000 not expended for telephones?

11. On Page 250, w hy is there such a drama tic decrease in funding from FY21 onward from FTA Operating? Was it a spike from federal COVID funding?

12. On Page 290, what happened to the anticipated construction in Sanitation of $39 million that was reduced to under $13 million?

13. On Page 307, What happened to the anticipated Waterworks construction of $11 million which was reduced to $250,000?
27 I apologize for not having more time to completely review this material but given the time constraints, it is my hope that these issues can be addressed by staff. 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-35

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SIMI VALLEY AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF

APPLICATIONS WITH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT

ADMINISTRATION, AN OPERATING ADMINISTRATION OF

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION, FOR FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION
ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. CHAPTER 53
AND FOR ANY TITLE 23 UNITED STATES CODE AND

OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES ADMINISTERED BY THE

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administrator has been delegated authority to award financial assistance for a public transportation project; and

WHEREAS, the grant or cooperative agreement for Federal financial assistance will impose certain obligations upon the City and may require the City to provide the local share of the project costs; and

WHEREAS, the City has or will provide all annual certification and assurances to the Federal Transit Administration required for the project.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1
. The City Manager (for the purposes of this resolution, the term “City Manager” includes the Interim City Manager, if any) or the City Manager’s designee is authorized to execute and file an application for Federal assistance on behalf of the City of Simi Valley with the Federal Transit Administration for Federal assistance authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5307, Chapter 53, Title 23 United States Code or other Federal statutes, authorizing a project administered by the Federal Transit Administration. The City of Simi Valley has received authority from the Southern California Association of Governments, a designated recipient, to apply for urbanized Area Formula Program Assistance authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5307.

SECTION 2 . The City M anager or the City Manager’s designee is authorized to execute and file with its application(s) the annual certification and assurances and other document s the Federal Transit Administration requires before awarding a Federal assistance grant or cooperative agreement.

SECTION 3 . The City M anager or the City Manager’s designee is authorized to execute grant and cooperative agreements with the Federal Transit Administration on behalf of the City of Simi Valley.

29 RES. NO. 2022-35
TRAN2217.RES.LS
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 13th day of June 2022.

Attest:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Keith L. Mashburn, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

David L. Caceres, City Attorney Brian Paul Gabler, City Manager

Ronald K. Fuchiwaki
Public Works Director
30 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-36

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SIMI VALLEY AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2022-16 TO

MODIFY SALARY RANGES OF CERTAIN GENERAL UNIT-

DESIGNATED JOB CLASSIFICATIONS, RETITLE THE

WATERWORKS SERVICES WORKER SERIES, AND

PROVIDE RELATED SALARY INCREASES TO

INCUMBENTS, AND RESCINDING ALL PREVIOUS

RESOLUTIONS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE IN

CONFLICT HEREWITH

WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 2022- 16 establishing changes to the Publicly Available Pay Schedule for amended pay ranges up through February 28, 2022; and

WHEREAS, the retitling of the Waterworks Services Worker series to Waterworks Operator along with modification of the related salary ranges has been proposed, which includes Waterworks Services Worker Trainee (Waterworks Operator Trainee), Waterworks Services Worker I (Waterworks Operator I), Waterworks Services Worker II (Waterworks Operator II), and Waterworks Services Worker III (Waterworks Operator III); and

WHEREAS, salary range changes for the benchmark classifications tied to Instrumentation Technician, Plant Maintenance Technician, Plant Operator and Waterworks Services Worker have been proposed, which include Instrumentation Technician, Senior Instrumentation Technician, Plant Maintenance Technician I, Plant Maintenance Technician II, Plant Maintenance Technician III, Industrial Painter, Plant Operator Trainee, Plant Operator I, Plant Operator II, Plant Operator III; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that it desires to amend Resolution 2022 -16 to implement the proposed title changes and set related salary ranges to market median, and to make related salary adjustments to incumbents occupying the related job classifications.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1
. Resolution No. 2022-16 shall be amended to incorporate the amended job titles and salaries as detailed in Exhibit 1, attached.

SECTION 2 . Those portions of Resolution No. 2022-16 and all prior resolutions are hereby rescinded to the extent that they are inconsistent with this resolution.

[CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
31 RES. NO. 2022-36

SECTION 3. The incumbents occupying the positions detailed in Exhibit 2 shall receive salary adjustments and be reclassified to amended titles, as appropriate.

SECTION 4. The provisions of this resolution shall be effective as of June 20, 2022.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 13th day of June 2022.

Attest:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Keith L. Mashburn, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

David L. Caceres, City Attorney Brian Paul Gabler, City Manager

Jennifer Gutierres
Deputy Human Resources Director

32 RES. NO. 2022-36

EXHIBIT 1

Existing
Job Classification Hourly Min Hourly Max Effective Date Instrumentation Technician $ 30.3450 - $ 38.7294 9-27-21 Senior Instrumentation Technician $ 33.3642 - $ 42.5952 9-27-21 Plant Maintenance Technician I $ 22.8174 - $ 29.1108 9-27-21 Plant Maintenance Technician II $ 25.1022 - $ 32.0280 9-27-21 Plant Maintenance Technician III $ 27.6420 - $ 35.2716 9-27-21 Industrial Painter $ 25.1022 - $ 32.0586 9-27-21
Plant Operator Trainee $ 18.7986 - $ 24.0312 9-27-21
Plant Operator I $ 24.5106 - $ 31.3242 9-27-21
Plant Operator II $ 26.9586 - $ 34.4148 9-27-21
Plant Operator III $ 29.6718 - $ 37.8522 9-27-21
Waterworks Services Worker Trainee $ 18.1152 - $ 23.1132 9-27-21 Waterworks Services Worker I $ 19.8696 - $ 25.4184 9-27-21 Waterworks Services Worker II $ 21.8892 - $ 27.9582 9-27-21 Waterworks Services Worker III $ 24.7452 - $ 31.5894 9-27-21

Proposed
Job Classification Hourly Min Hourly Max Effective Date Instrumentation Technician $ 31.9229 - $ 40.7433 6-20-22 Senior Instrumentation Technician $ 35.1050 - $ 44.8177 6-20-22 Plant Maintenance Technician I $ 27.1123 - $ 34.5902 6-20-22 Plant Maintenance Technician II $ 29.8214 - $ 38.0492 6-20-22 Plant Maintenance Technician III $ 32.8007 - $ 41.8542 6-20-22 Industrial Painter $ 29.8228 - $ 38.0873 6-20-22
Plant Operator Trainee $ 20.9208 - $ 26.7441 6-20-22
Plant Operator I $ 27.4663 - $ 35.1016 6-20-22
Plant Operator II $ 29.9963 - $ 38.2927 6-20-22
Plant Operator III $ 33.0188 - $ 42.1220 6-20-22
Waterworks Operator Trainee
(formerly Waterworks Services Worker
Trainee)
$ 22.6868 - $ 28.9461 6-20-22
Waterworks Operator I
(formerly Waterworks Services Worker I)
$ 24.6842 - $ 31.5775 6-20-22
Waterworks Operator II
(formerly Waterworks Services Worker II)
$ 27.1951 - $ 34.7353 6-20-22
Waterworks Operator III
(formerly Waterworks Services Worker III)
$ 30.7386 - $ 39.2405 6-20-22

33 RES. NO. 2022-36

EXHIBIT 2

Position No. Prior Job Classification New Job Classification 406317415 Instrumentation Technician No Change
406327203 Senior Instrumentation Technician No Change
406321680 Plant Maintenance Technician I No Change
406322239 Plant Maintenance Technician II No Change
406257659 Plant Maintenance Technician III No Change
406323262 Plant Maintenance Technician III No Change
406323312 Plant Maintenance Technician III No Change
406703355 Industrial Painter No Change
406709604 Plant Operator Trainee No Change
406706406 Plant Operator I No Change
406706506 Plant Operator I No Change
406706828 Plant Operator I No Change
406706692 Plant Operator I No Change
406707545 Plant Operator II No Change
406708117 Plant Operator III No Change
406708122 Plant Operator III No Change
406708240 Plant Operator III No Change
406822699 Waterworks Services Worker Trainee Waterworks Operator Trainee 406822851 Waterworks Services Worker Trainee Waterworks Operator Trainee 406822714 Waterworks Services Worker Trainee Waterworks Operator Trainee 406822720 Waterworks Services Worker Trainee Waterworks Operator Trainee 406822722 Waterworks Services Worker Trainee Waterworks Operator Trainee 406822721 Waterworks Services Worker Trainee Waterworks Operator Trainee 406819373 Waterworks Services Worker I Waterworks Operator I 406819496 Waterworks Services Worker I Waterworks Operator I 406819837 Waterworks Services Worker I Waterworks Operator I 406820342 Waterworks Services Worker II Waterworks Operator II 406820378 Waterworks Services Worker II Waterworks Operator II 406820467 Waterworks Services Worker II Waterworks Operator II 406820480 Waterworks Services Worker II Waterworks Operator II 406820495 Waterworks Services Worker II Waterworks Operator II 406821207 Waterworks Services Worker III Waterworks Operator III 406821271 Waterworks Services Worker III Waterworks Operator III 406821274 Waterworks Services Worker III Waterworks Operator III

34 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-37

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SIMI VALLEY AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2021-39 TO

RETITLE THE MANAGEMENT -DESIGNATED

CLASSIFICATION OF COURT LIAISON TO

INVESTIGATIVE ASSISTANT

WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 2021-39 to establish terms and conditions of employment for Management -designated employees; and

WHEREAS, a title change of one Management -designated classification from Court Liaison to Investigative Assistant, with no change to the salary compensation, has been proposed with the FY 2022-23 Budget; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that it desires to amend Resolution No. 2021-39 to retitle Court Liaison to Investigative Assistant maintaining the hourly salary range of $24.3780 to $31.1100.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1
. Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 2021- 39 is hereby amended to retitle the classification of Court Liaison to Investigative Assistant with no change to the hourly salary range.

SECTION 2. The incumbent occupying Position No. 256608448 shall be reclassified from Court Liaison to Investigative Assistant.

SECTION 3. All other provisions of Resolution No. 2021- 39 shall remain unchanged.

SECTION 4. The provisions of this resolution shall be effective as of June 20, 2022.

[CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
35 RES. NO. 2022-37

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 13th day of June 2022.

Attest:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Keith L. Mashburn, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

David L. Caceres, City Attorney Brian Paul Gabler, City Manager

Jennifer Gutierres
Deputy Human Resources Director
36 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-38

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SIMI VALLEY AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2021 -50 TO

DELETE THE CONFIDENTIAL -DESIGNATED

CLASSIFICATION OF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY AND

RELATED SALARY RANGE, AND RECLASSIFY THE

INCUMBENT TO A CONFIDENTIAL -DESIGNATED

CLASSIFICATION OF SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY

ATTORNEY AND RELATED SALARY RANGE

WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 2021-50 to establish terms and conditions of employment for Confidential -designated employees; and

WHEREAS, deletion of the Confidential-designated Assistant City Attorney (Confidential) and related salary range has been proposed; and

WHEREAS, a reclassification of one Confidential -designated employee from Assistant City Attorney (Confidential) to Senior Assistant City Attorney (Confidential), and related salary range, has been proposed with the FY 2022-23 Budget; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that it desires to amend Resolution No. 2021- 50 to delete the Confidential -designated classification and related salary range of Assistant City Attorney (Confidential) and add a Confidential -designated classification of Senior Assistant City Attorney (Confidential) with an hourly salary range of $64.2212 to $82.8379.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1
. Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 2021- 50 is hereby amended to add the classification of Senior Assistant City Attorney (Confidential) with an hourly salary range of $64.2212 to $82.8379.

SECTION 2. The incumbent occupying Position No. 246205413 shall be reclassified from Assistant City Attorney (Confidential) to Senior Assistant City Attorney (Confidential).

SECTION 3. All other provisions of Resolution No. 2021- 50 shall remain unchanged.

SECTION 4. The provisions of this resolution shall be effective as of June 20, 2022.

37 RES. NO. 2022-38

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 13th day of June 2022.

Attest:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Keith L. Mashburn, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

David L. Caceres, City Attorney Brian Paul Gabler, City Manager

Jennifer Gutierres
Deputy Human Resources Director
38 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-39

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SIMI VALLEY AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2022-16 AND
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 -13 TO RETITLE THE

CLASSIFICATION OF DEPUTY POLICE CHIEF TO

ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF

WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 2022- 16 establishing changes to the Publicly Available Pay Schedule for amended pay ranges up through February 28, 2022, and Resolution No. 2022-13 to establish terms and conditions of employment for employees occupying the classifications of Deputy Police Chief and Police Commander;

WHEREAS, a title change from Deputy Police Chief to Assistant Police Chief, with no change to the salary compensation, has been proposed with the FY 2022- 23 Budget; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that it desires to amend Resolution Nos. 2022-16 and 2022-13 to retitle Deputy Police Chief to Assistant Police Chief maintaining the hourly salary range of $70.4141 to $90.8010.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1
. Attachment 1 of Resolution No. 2022- 16 and Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 2022-13 are hereby amended to retitle the classification of Deputy Police Chief to Assistant Police Chief with no change to the hourly salary range.

SECTION 2. The incumbent occupying Position No. 226124137 shall be reclassified from Deputy Police Chief to Assistant Police Chief.

SECTION 3
. All other provisions of Resolution Nos. 2022-16 and 2022-13 shall remain unchanged.

[CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
39 RES. NO. 2022-39

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 13th day of June 2022.

Attest:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Keith L. Mashburn, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

David L. Caceres, City Attorney Brian Paul Gabler, City Manager

Jennifer Gutierres
Deputy Human Resources Director

40 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-40
RESOLUTION NO. WWD-288

RESOLUTION NO. SA-11
RESOLUTION NO. PL-32

A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF SIMI VALLEY , BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF VENTURA
COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 8, SUCCESSOR

AGENCY TO THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR
THE SIMI VALLEY LIBRARY APPROVING THE FY 2022-23

ANNUAL BUDGET AND THE FIVE -YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FY 2022-23 TO FY 2026-27

WHEREAS, the City Manager / District Manager / Executive Director / Executive Officer has submitted the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget and the Preliminary Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27 to the City Council / Boards of Directors / Board of Trustees for its review and consideration on May 23, 2023, in accordance with budget policies; and

WHEREAS, a Citizens’ Participation meeting was conducted with staff on June 1, 2022, at which time members of the public were invited to voice their opinions on any budget items and provide ideas that they believe should be included in the FY 2022- 23 Annual Budget; and

WHEREAS, subsequent to providing the public an opportunity to submit written and oral comments, the City Council reviewed and modified, as appropriate, the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget and Preliminary Five- Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 54, an action of the City Council is necessary to commit budget amounts in various funds for the specific purposes they are intended.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Simi Valley, Boards of Directors of Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8, Successor Agency to the Simi Valley Community Development Agency, and Board of Trustees of the Simi Valley Library as follows:

SECTION 1 . The FY 2022-23 Annual Budget and Five- Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27, on file with the City Clerk, are hereby approved.

SECTION 2. All budget amounts that are to be used for specific purposes, as evidenced by the approved budget document, and any amendments thereto, are committed to these specific purposes by action of the City Council.

41 RES. NO. 2022-40
RES. NO. WWD-288
RES. NO. SA-11
RES. NO. PL-32

SECTION 3 . A General Fund Prudent Reserve, equivalent to 17% of budgeted expenditures, is hereby established. The Prudent Reserve is to be used to respond to catastrophic events (e.g., earthquakes, fires, floods, civil disturbances, etc.).

The City Manager or his/her designee is authorized to expend the reserved funds as necessary.

SECTION 4.

The expenditures and revenues for
anticipated grants shall be included in the budget. Grants with uncertain funds shall be presented to City Council for approval. If approved, the program elements shall be adjusted, with approval of the City Manager, to the final amount of expenditures and revenues provided for in the grant.

SECTION 5. The City Manager has authority to transfer appropriations within a fund and between departments in any amount with justification from the Department.

SECTION 6. After each fiscal year is complete, all budgetary appropriations lapse, the only exceptions are grant fund appropriations and capital improvement project appropriations; carryover may be necessary, however, the exception and not the rule and all budget appropriation carryovers must be approved by the Administrative Services Director and City Manager.

SECTION 7. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the planning and administrative expenses outlined in the FY 2022-23 budget for the Community Development Agency Housing Successor Agency Administration Fund are necessary for the production, improvement, or preservation of low and moderate income housing.

SECTION 8. In the case of customer usage based water purchase expenditures, if the customers usage/demand exceeds the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 FY 2022-23 budgeted expenditure, the Board of Directors hereby authorizes the District Manager to increase the appropriation of water funds for the sole purpose of water purchases by Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8.

SECTION 9. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

[CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

42 RES. NO. 2022-40
RES. NO. WWD-288
RES. NO. SA-11
RES. NO. PL-32

SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 13th day of June 2022.

Attest:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Keith L. Mashburn, Mayor of the City of District Secretary/Agency Secretary/Board Simi Valley, California, Chair of the Secretary Ventura County Waterworks District No.
8, Successor Agency to the Simi Valley
Community Development Agency, and
President of the Simi Valley Library
Board of Trustees

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

David L. Caceres, City Attorney/ Brian Paul Gabler, City Manager/ District Counsel/Agency Counsel/General District Manager Executive Director/ Counsel Executive Officer
43