AGENDA ITEM NO.
9A
FHCITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMORANDUM
J
une 5, 2023
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 2023-24 BUDGET, APPROVAL OF FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FY 20 23-24 TO FY 2027-28 , APPROVAL OF FY 20 23-24 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. Approve the Simi Valley Trans it FY 2023-24 Program of Projects (POP) to be forwarded to the Ventur a 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, Conges tion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ), and Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) grant applications;
2. Adopt the attached Re solution No. 2023-3 2 (page 32) authorizing the City Manager to execute and s ubmit 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 No. 2023-3 3 (page 34) to retitle the Management- designated classification of Deputy Administrative Services Director (Support Services) to Deputy Administrative Services Director (Budget & Purchasing);
4. Review and modify, as appr opriate, the FY 2023-24 Proposed Budget and Preliminary Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2023-24 to FY 2027-28, incorporating the previously adopted budgets for the Cultural Arts Center and Council On Aging budgets;
5. Adopt the attached joint Re solution No. 2023-3 4/WWD-295/SA-12/PL-33 ( page 36) approving the FY 2023-24 Annual Budget and the Fiv e-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2023-24 to FY 2027-28.
2 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The F iscal Y ear (FY) 2023-24 Proposed Budget and Five -Year Capital Improvement Program were posted on the City’s website for public viewing on May 15, 202 3, and printed copies were made available to City Council on May 11, 2023. A public meeting was held to present the Proposed Budget and gather feedback on May 23, 2023. The FY 2023-24 Proposed General Fund Budget, as presented, is structurally balanced with a funding level that continues 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.
The 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 .
After a full accounting, the COVID-19 impacted FY 2021-22 ended with a net surplus of $10,333,888. General Fund expenditures ended the year at $4.7 million below budget and revenues came in at $5.8 million above budget. 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. In light of the year- end surpluses, staff evaluated the infrastructure and other budgetary needs of the City.
Included with the FY 2023-24 proposed budget is the reallocation of the FY 2021-22 surplus funds into three specific use “holding” funds. In accordance with the Fund Balance Policy, $4.5 million will be placed in the Infrastructure Investment Fund, $4.5 million will be placed in the Retirement Obligation Fund, and $1.2 million will be placed in a Contingency Fund. Staff will bring to City Council a recommendation fo r specific uses of these funds after the adoption of the FY 2023-24 Budget.
FY 2022-23 Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures FY 2022-23 General Fund revenue is estimated at $85.5 million, which is approximately $700,000 more than the adopted budget. Sales tax revenue is estimated to end the year at $24.4 million, about $1.2 million more than the adopted budget, and encroachment permits revenue is estimated at $411,225, 37% more than the adopted budget amount.
Inspection Service s Fee is estimated to end the year stronger than anticipated at $509,111, which is $309,111 m ore than the budgeted amount, d ue to construction projects being expedited as interest rates began impacting the housing market and construction lending.
FY 2022-23 General Fund expenses are estimated at $80.8 million, which is $3.8 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. 3 FY 2023-24 General Fund Revenues
FY 2023-24, General Fund operating revenue is budgeted at $87.8 million, which is $ 3 million less than the FY 2022-23 projected Estimated Actuals, and $3 million more than the FY 2022-2 3 adopted budget. The FY 2023-24 decrease from prior year estimates is largely driven by FY 2022-2 3 increases in revenue fr om Transfers In and Service Charges. The Transfers In will be decreasing bec ause the past two y ears have seen COVID-1 9 stimulus funds coming into the General Fund.
FY 2023-24 General Fund Expenditures
FY 202
3-24 General Fund operating expense is budgeted at $87.7 million. This amount is $7.7 million greater than the FY 2022-23 projected estimated actuals and $3.1 million more than the FY 2022-23 adopted budget. This difference is mostly due to significantly lower expenditures in FY 2022-23 on personnel costs.
T
he Five-Year Capital Improvement Program contains $4.09 million in funding from the General Fund for FY 2023-24.
D
epartments also made requests for new items funded from the General Fund. A more detailed description of each item is presented in the Proposed Budget document, in the appropriate Department or fund section. Those Department proposals not ultimately included in the Proposed Budget by the City Manager can be found at the end of the document after the Supplemental Schedules tab.
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23 F Y 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Est. vs. Proposed Revenue Category Actual Adopted Revised Est Actuals Proposed % Change Taxes and Franchises 71,205,622 72,037,922$ 72,037,922$ 72,484,223$ 74,793,349$ 3.2% Revenue From Other Governments
(including Transfers In and Grants) 16,253,524 5,108,428 11,296,632 10,331,600 5,661,557 -45.2% Licenses and Permits 5,116,844 3,247,000 3,247,000 3,337,225 3,072,000 -7.9% Use of Money and Property (183,377) 1,230,729 1,230,729 1,331,129 1,347,440 1.2% Service Charges 1,597,619 1,266,400 1,281,384 1,500,169 1,082,900 -27.8% Fines and Forfeitures 275,599 580,200 580,200 290,000 400,000 37.9% Other Revenues 1,623,377 1,376,500 1,381,500 1,645,525 1,469,100 -10.7% Total General Fund Revenues 95,889,208$ 84,847,179$ 91,055,367$ 90,919,871$ 87,826,346$ -3.4% FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Est. vs. Proposed Expenditure Category Actual Adopted Revised Est Actuals Proposed % Change Personnel 63,043,425$ 66,609,846$ 66,511,005$ 61,664,672$ 67,844,928$ 10.0% Supplies & Materials 5,129,191 6,190,856 6,479,487 6,168,868 6,101,078 -1.1% Services 7,585,250 9,609,213 17,220,484 10,660,335 11,742,805 10.2% Reimbursed Expenditures (8,880,137) (8,889,179) (8,869,448) (8,854,931) (9,131,814) 3.1% Capital Outlay 123,762 5,000 53,731 63,226 306,500 0.0% Transfers to Other Funds 18,553,829 11,142,457 12,287,889 11,142,457 10,847,669 -2.6% Total General Fund Expenditures 85,555,320$ 84,668,193$ 93,683,147$ 80,844,627$ 87,711,167$ 8.5% *Revised Expenditures includes previously funded carryovers. 4 The City Council has prioritized fiscal strength and reinvesting in the community and the proposed FY 2023-24 Budget reflects those priorities.
In December 2022, for the first time, the City made a one- time, $3.2 million additional discretionary payment (ADP) to CalPERS to pay down the outstanding unfunded accrued liability (UAL) for the City’s pension. The City realized immediate savings for the next fiscal year’s UAL required payment, as well as ongoing annual savings due to the revised amortization. The FY 2023- 24 budget includes putting $4.5 million aside from the FY 2021-22 surplus fund for retirement obligations. A separate item for the exact use of those surplus funds will be determined by City Council at a later date.
The proposed FY 2023-24 Budget makes a significant effort to reinvest in the community by maximizing the investment into the City’s streets and roads infrastructure with a $16.5 million proposed budget of which the General Fund contributes $3.8 million towards major and minor street rehabilitation programs, repairs and replacement of curb, gutter, asphalt and sidewalks, slurry seal and crack seal, traffic-related improvements, repairs and replacement of deteriorating signage, and street tree removal where needed in the c ommunity.
In addition to addressing the City Council’s priorities , the City is also investing in its employees. In recognition of the employees’ commitment and dedication to the City, the City Council approved revised labor agreements with an increase in compensation of 10% for each bargaining unit over a two- year period. Emphasizing the City Council’s recognition of the employees’ dedication, the increase becam e effective earlier than required, in FY 2022-23. The FY 2023-24 reflects a full year of these salary increases.
General Fund Balance
The General Fund balance is estimated to be $60.9 million at the end of FY 2022-23. 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 17% of regular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures. The City’s $60.9 million fund balance far exceeds the two- month recommendation with more than a six months or nearly 69% total balance of the $87.7 million Proposed FY 2023-24 General Fund operating expenditures. 5 The City continues to maintain an AAA rating from the Standard and Poor’s rating agency.
Five-Year General Fund Projection
T
he Five-Year General Fund Financial Projection and related analyses show that the City continues to implement a structurally balanced budget. As the pandemic is winding down and the economy is returning to normal, the City expects a more moderate increase in revenues for the upcoming fiscal years when compared to higher than normal revenues during COVID-19. The Real Estate market has slowed down after a couple years of quickly rising home prices as well as an increase in transactions of commercial property and people have begun to travel and enjoy entertainment outside of the home again.
There were concer ns of an escalation of the war in Ukraine, worsening supply chain problems, a return of the coronavirus, high inflation, and a lack of demand for goods and services including autos and housing.
F
ortunately, many of these fears did not materialize. The housing market has cooled, but not enough to drag the rest of the economy with it. The City has experienced positive revenue increases over the past year, particularly in the areas of sales and property tax.
City staff anticipates ending FY 2022-23 with another general fund surplus. The City is cautious however with the significant shift to on-line sales. In brick-and-mortar purchases, the City receives its full share of sales taxes paid on each transaction. On-line sales
ESTI MATED PROPOSED
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET
2021-22 2022-23 2023-24
BEGINNING GENERAL GOV'T FUND BALANCE 48,569,721$ 58,903,609$ 60,925,750$ Revenues 95,889,208$ 90,919,871$ 87,826,346$
Net Revenues 95,889,208$ 90,919,871$ 87,826,346$
Operating Expenditures 85,555,320$ 80,844,627$ 87,711,167$ Net Expenditures 85,555,320$ 80,844,627$ 87,711,167$ Net Surplus/(Deficit) 10,333,888$ 10,075,244$ 115,179$ Transfer In from ARPA Grant Funds (5,325,294)$
Operating Surplus/(Deficit) 10,333,888$ 4,749,950$ 115,179$ Transfer Out of FY 2020-21 Surplus Funds 8,053,103$
ENDING GENERAL GOV'T FUND BALANCE 58,903,609$ 60,925,750$ 61,040,929$ 6 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 real estate market, and in particular the commercial real estate market, is strong; however, as expected, the activity for residential real estate is softening and moving towards more normal levels. The City’s receipt of property tax revenue is positive.
Because there is a year lag in real estate transactions converting to increases in property tax revenue, and with the advice of the City’s property tax consultant, the FY 2023-24 proposed Budget includes a property tax growth assumption of 4%.
As th
e FY 2023-24 budget is being developed, inflation is still high but slowing. As a result of the Federal Reserve’s actions, interest rates have continued to increase with more increases possible. Unemployment claims in California and Ventura County remain low and unfilled job openings remain high; however, many key job sectors have returned to pre-pandemic employment levels. The principal issues of concern are inflation and interest rates, both of which are expected to slow their increases and are beginning to stabilize.
T
he forecast shown below includes projections for most revenue types with a conservative 1%-4% per year inflationary growth. Projections on the expenditure side include 4% inflationary growth in personnel costs for FY 2024-25 and a 3% growth each year thereafter , a 3% growth in supplies & materials based on a combination of past experiences and an inflationary growth. There is an approximately a 1-2% growth in most other expenditure types. It is incumbent on all City staff to operate within the parameters of their prospective budget and to ensure that the budget remains balanced moving forward.
7 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program
T
he CIP provides detailed information regarding capital improvement projects proposed for financing in FY 2023-24 . 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 09 projects, with an estimated five-year cost of $142,123,029, are contained in the Proposed CIP. Funding for FY 2023-24 is proposed for 66 projects in the amount of $31,469,949. Departments propose the balance of $110,653,080, for funding in FY 2024-25 to FY 2027-28.
Community Development Agency (CDA)
T
he 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 $2.1 Million in FY 2023-24.
ESTIMATED PROPOSED
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28
REVENUES
Taxes And Franchises 71,205,622 72,484,223 74,793,349 77,785,083 80,118,635 82,522,195 84,997,860 Licenses And Permits 5,116,844 3,337,225 3,072,000 3,133,440 3,196,109 3,260,031 3,325,232 Fines And Forfeitures 275,599 290,000 400,000 404,000 408,040 412,120 416,242 Use Of Money & Property (183,378) 1,331,129 1,347,440 1,374,389 1,401,877 1,429,914 1,458,512 From Other Governments 483,175 406,554 542,486 547,911 553,390 558,924 564,513 Grants 236,190 481,044 295,705 301,619 307,651 313,805 320,081 Service Charges 1,597,619 1,500,170 1,082,900 1,104,558 1,126,649 1,149,182 1,172,166 Other Revenues 1,623,377 1,645,525 1,469,100 1,498,482 1,528,452 1,559,021 1,590,201 Transfers In 15,534,159 9,444,001 4,823,366 4,871,600 4,920,316 4,969,519 5,019,214 Total Revenues 95,889,208$ 90,919,871$ 87,826,346$ $91,021,081 $93,561,119 $96,174,710 $98,864,021
EXPENDITURES
Personnel 63,043,425 61,664,672 67,844,928 70,558,725 72,675,487 74,855,751 77,101,424 Supplies/Materials 5,129,191 6,168,868 6,101,078 6,284,111 6,472,634 6,666,813 6,866,817 Services 7,585,250 10,660,335 11,742,805 11,977,661 12,217,214 12,461,559 12,710,790 Capital Outlay 123,762 63,226 306,500 309,565 312,661 315,787 318,945 Transfers to Other Funds 18,553,829 11,142,457 10,847,669 10,956,145 11,065,707 11,176,364 11,288,128 Reimbursed Expenses (8,880,137) (8,854,931) (9,131,814) (9,223,132) (9,315,363) (9,408,517) (9,502,602) Total Expenditures 85,555,320 $80,844,627 $87,711,166 $90,863,075 $93,428,339 $96,067,757 $98,783,501 Net Surplus/( Deficit) $10,333,887 $10,075,244 $115,180 $158,006 $132,780 $106,953 $80,519 Transfer In from ARPA
Grant Funds - (5,325,294) - - - - -
Operating Surplus/(Deficit) $10,333,887 $4,749,950.14 $115,180 $158,006 $132,780 $106,953 $80,519 FY 2021-22 Surplus Funds
Transfer to Infrastructure Investment Fund 4,534,755
Transfer to Retirement Obligation Fund 4,534,754
Transfer to Contingency Fund 1,264,379
8 Staff in the Department of Environmental Services handle Housing Successor Agency functions. At the time of dissolution in 2012, the Community Development Agency’s Housing Administration Fund was responsible for ov er $9.1 million in recognized obligations to provide developer loans for the creation of affordable rental or ownership housing units. Th e Housing Successor Agency Fund (Fund 201) is projected to have a $4.6 mi llion fund balance at the beginning of FY 2023-24 as a result of principal and interest received ov er the years from prior repaid loans, and these funds will continue to be utilized to encour age the creation of affordable housing in Simi Valley.
Transit Fund
The FY 2023-2 4 Transit budget includes farebox revenues, and state and federal grant funds. Transit farebox revenue is budgeted at $274,200, an increase of $13,853 from the FY 2022-23 estimates. Federal funding is budgeted at $3,765,676, an increase of $830,185 from the FY 2022-2 3 estimates. In addition, the Trans it budget includes $2.6 million in funding for Capital Projects, suc h as purchasing three (3) electric buses and an electric charging infrastructure at the Transit maintenance facility .
Transit Proposed Program of Projects (POP) for FY 2023-2024 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 Progr am of P rojects (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.
Under 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 2023-24 operating and c apital expenditures. Following City Council approval, Simi Valley Transit’s approved POP will be forwarded to the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC), the City’s current des ignated 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 Rev erse Commute (JARC) grant applications.
The proposed POP allocates Simi Valley Tr ansit’s FTA 5307 gr ant of $3,699,623 as indicated below. The POP also identifies 5307 grant funds for $317,921, which will go directly to VCTC for countywide planning as sistance funds. 9 Federal Grant Local Match
Planning Assistance
Countywide Planning 317,921 -
Operating Assistance
Simi Valley Transit 2,723,980 2,723,980
Capital Assistance
Preventive Maintenance 287,760 71,940
Non-Fixed Route ADA Paratransit 369,962 92,491
$ 3,699,623 $ 2,888,411
A
fter 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 2023- 24. Should the adopted FY 2023-24 Federal Transportation Budget be lower than these estimates, it will be necessary to return to the City Council 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 assistance funds under 49 U.S.C. Section 5307, CMAQ program, and JARC program is required and is included on page 32.
Sanitation Fund
T
he 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 on separately.
The Sanitation Operating Fund revenue is budgeted at $31 million, an increase of $1.17 million (3.9%) over the FY 2022-23 estimated actual. Expenses, excluding the transfer to the replacement fund, are budgeted at $20.5 million, an increase of $3.3 million (19.5%) above the FY 2022-23 estimated actual. This increase is mostly in salaries and benefits, due to vacancies in the current fiscal year, as well as Utilities due to the rise in utility service costs over the past few years.
10 The Sanitation Replacement Reserve Fund is funding the capital projects and has a budget of $ 3.4 million in FY 2023-24 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 six months of operating expenses and one year of average CIP expenses.
B
oth 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
W
aterworks 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 on separately.
The Waterworks Operating Fund is budgeted at $51.6 million, an increase of $5.7 million (12.6%) over the FY 2022-23 estimated actual. Expenses, excluding the transfer to the Replacement Fund, are budgeted at $ 45.1 million, an increase of $ 9.8 million (27.9%) above the FY 202 2-23 estimated actual. This increase mostly in salaries and benefits, due to vacancies in the c urrent fiscal year, utility cost, water purchase costs , and contribution to the Citywide Radio Project.
The Waterworks Replacement Reserve Fund is funding the capital projects and has a budget of $ 5.9 million in FY 2023-24 for new project expenses. Based upon the City Council’s policy to establish a Replacement Reserve Fund, the target funding level of three months of operating expenses; and 5% of commodity sales; and one year of average CIP expenses.
B
oth the Operating Fund and the R eplacement 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 T
he Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 26 , 2023, 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. SVPC 06-2023, finding that each proposed major public works project for FY 2023-24 is in conformance with the Simi Valley General Plan. 11 Personnel Updates
Several personnel actions are included as part of the City Council’s adoption of the FY 2023-24 Budget. Two of the personnel actions require adoption of resolutions by the City Council in order to take effect with the exception of one, which is infor mational in nature. All of the r emaining personnel changes involve reclassific ations of existing positions, some with incumbents and others being vac ant. The personnel changes outlined below are located in the departments of A dministrative Services, Public Works, City Administration, and the Police Department.
Inequity Adjustments
The Memorandum of Agreem ent between the City and the Ser vice Employees International Union, Local 721 (SEIU) allows for SEIU to request up to three job classifications each year to be studied. This year, SEIU requested a review of the Wastewater Collection System Technician series , the Police Dispatcher series, and the Laboratory Technician series. The City agr eed to look at the job classifications requested and added the Building Inspector series at the r equest of the Environmental Servic es Department. A series is a grouping of job classifications at progressively higher lev els in knowledge, skill, and time in the prior classification that an employee can work their way up through without necessarily serving separate probationary periods. Pos itions within a series are called “flexibly staffed” when 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 A ssociates, studied the pay for the identified benchmarks as compar ed to our comparable agencies: Wastewater Collection System Technician II, Laboratory Technician, Police Dispatcher, and Building Inspector II. Benchmarks are job classifications that are recogniz ed in the industry as the basis from which compensation of other job classifications are tied.
Appropriate benchmarks ar e necessary to ensure fair and equitable treatment among all job classifications . Over time, changes in pay for targeted job classifications without regard to the benchm ark compensation plan results in distortion of the benchmark relationships.
In all benchmarks studied, the City’s pay at the top end of the pay s cale for each of the benchmarks was the lowest or close to the lowest amongst that of comparable agencies, after accounting for the six percent (6%) cost of living increase applied in April 2023 (see below c hart). The comparable agencies are set forth in the Memorandum of Agreement between the City and SEIU.
12 When compared with Total Compensation, which includes cash enhancements (i.e.
Deferred Compensation benefits in both contributions and matching dollars), insurance coverage paid by the City, and retirement benefits, the City provides an overall greater compensation package than the comparable agencies (see below chart). Staff reviewed the results of the study and the City Manager is not recommending any adjustments to base salary. However, the City Manager did take into account the difficulty in filling the overnight shift in Police Dispatch and is working through the particulars w ith SEIU for a tentative agreement to add a five percent (5%) night shift differential on base pay, as well as add bilingual pay to any Police Dispatcher or Communications Supervisor qualifying for the bilingual stipend. It was determined that there is sufficient budget in the Police Department to absorb this additional cost.
Administrative Services
• T
he Administrative Services Department requested a retitle change from Deputy Administrative Services Director (Support Services) to Deputy Administrative Services Director (Budget & Purchasing) to reflect the combined duties of this position now overseeing both the budget and purchasing functions. No change in salary is proposed; therefore there is no fiscal impact for this change in title.
If approved as recommended, the title change will be created within the Administrative Services Department. The authorization for this classification title c hange requires adoption by resolution.
City Manager’s Office
• T
he City Manager’s Office is requesting a reclassification of a Deputy City Manager to Assistant City Manager. The incumbent in the position received a promotion earlier in 2023. This reclassification will recognize the change in title and will create an ongoing additional cost of $27,428 from the General Fund. 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 $27,428 from the General Fund. The authorization for this classification title change and related salary range was previously adopted by the City Council as Resolution No. 2023-18. The change in budget authority is included in the proposed FY 2023-24 budget.
13 The Environmental Services Department requested three personnel changes. The first request is to permanently convert a Management Analyst position to a Senior Management Analyst position. The position is currently being overfilled at the Senior Management Analyst level and will result in an annual cost increase of $14,825. The other two requests involve reclassifying one filled position and one vacant position within the Housing Successor Agency, Fund 201: the filled position will be reclassified from Associate Planner to Management Analyst (currently filled at the Management Analyst level), and the vacant position will be reclassified from Home Rehabilitation Coordinator to Management Analyst. The combined cost increase for these changes to Fund 201 will result in an annual cost increase of $2,600.
If approved as recommended, the reclassification from a Management Analyst position to that of Senior Management Analyst costing an additional $14,825 from the General Fund will be created within the Administration Division of Environmental Services. The reclassification of a filled Associate Planner position to that of Management Analyst will result in an annual savings of $2,481 per year and the reclassification of Home Rehabilitation Coordinator position to that of Management Analyst will result in an annual cost of $5,081. The result will be a reoccurring expense of $14,825 from the General Fund and $2,600 from the Housing Successor Agency Fund. The authorization and budget authority for changes to all three positions are included in the proposed FY 2023-24 budget.
Public Works Department
• The Public Works Department requested that the following positions be created for FY 2023-24 to address increased workloads with the Citywide Fiber Optics Project and the backlog of projects in the Streets Maintenance Division: Public Work Inspector (Limited Term) resulting in an additional $123,327 in annual cost and a new Maintenance Worker I-II position in the Streets Maintenance Division resulting in an additional annual cost of $83,452. The total increase in cost to the General Fund for these two new positions is $206,779.
If approved as recommended, the new positions of Public Works Inspector (Limited Term) ($123,327) and Maintenance Worker I -II ($83,452) will cost an additional $206,779 from the General Fund and will be created within their respective Divisions.
The authorization and budget authority for these two additional positions are included in the proposed FY 2023-24 budget.
• The
Public Works Department requested a reclassification of a filled Plant Maintenance Program Technician in the Sanitation Division to that of Plant Maintenance Technician III previously authorized by the City Manager. This proposed change will make the reclassification permanent and will cost an additional $7,850 per year to the Sanitation Fund.
If approved as recommended, the reclassification of a filled Plant Maintenance Program Technician to that of Plant Maintenance Technician III will cost an additional $7,850 from the Sanitation Fund. The authorization and budget authority for this reclassification is included in the proposed FY 2023-24 budget.
Environmental Services
14 • T
he Public Works Department requested the addition of a new Principal Engineer position within the Waterworks Division to fulfill a reorganization plan within the Utilities Division. Currently both Waterworks and Sanitation Divisions are overseen by just one Principal Engineer. This proposed change would enable the Capital Projects section to design and construct both Waterworks and Sanitation projects and the Engineering section to be primarily responsible for customer service, development review, monitoring fee structures, and preparing necessary reports. This proposed change will cost an additional $196,743 per year to the Waterworks Fund.
If approved as recommended, the addition of a new Principal Engineer will cost an additional $196,743 from the Waterworks Fund. The authorization and budget authority for this new position is included in the proposed FY 2023-24 budget. • T
he Public Works Department requested to permanently upgrade a filled part -time (65% FTE, or full-time equivalent) Transit Dispatcher position to full-time as previously authorized by the City Manager. This change acknowledges the permanent staffing need at this level. The Public Works Department also requested to add a part -time Transit Supervisor (75% FTE) to assist with coverage of the day -to-day operations.
Traditionally, Transit is staffed with a minimum of three (3) supervisors to cover operations (6 days per week). Currently, Mondays and Saturdays are only staffed with two (2) supervisors, making it more difficult to cover vacancies and bus exchanges when necessary. The addition of another part -time Transit Supervisor position will assist the Division with covering the normal workload on those days.
If approved as recommended, the reclassification of a part -time (65% FTE) Transit Dispatcher position to full -time ($20,536), and the addition of a part -time (75% FTE) Transit Supervisor position ($98,310), will cost an additional $118,846 from the Transit Fund. The authorization and budget authority for the reclassification of the Transit Dispatcher position and the addition of a new part -time Transit Supervisor position is included in the proposed FY 2023-24 budget.
Citizen Participation Meeting
A Citizen Participation meeting to review and discuss the Proposed Budget was held on March 23, 2023. Notice of the meeting was provided through a press release, and posting on the City’s website. City staff 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 17).
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 2023-24 Annual Budget.
1. Approve the Simi Valley Transit FY 202 3-24 Pr ogram 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 15 U.S.C. Section 5307, Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ), and Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) grant applications;
2. Adopt the attached Re solution No. 2023-3 2 authorizing the City Manager to execute and subm it the filing of grant applications with the FTA for operating, capital, planning, and pr eventive maintenance assistance funds under 49 U.S.C.
Section 5307, CMAQ, and JARC;
3. Adopt the attached Resolution No. 2023-3 3 retitling the Management-designated classification of Deputy Administrative Ser vices Director (Support S ervices) to Deputy Administrative Services Director (Budget & Purchasing);
4. Review and modify, as outlined by Council, the FY 2023-24 Proposed Budget and Preliminary Five-Year Capital Improvement P rogram for FY 2023-24 to FY 2027-28, incorporating the changes previously adopted for the Council On Aging and Cultural Arts Center funds;
5. Adopt the attached Resolution No. 2023-34/WWD-295/SA-12/PL-33 approving the FY 2023-24 Annual Budget and the Five-Y ear Capital Improvement Progr am for FY 2023-24 to FY 2027-28;
6. Provide staff with other direction.
S
taff recommends Alternative Nos. 1-5.
SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL/BOARDS MOTIONS
1. I move to approve the Sim i Valley Transit FY 2023-24 Program of Projects to be forwarded to the Ventura County Transportation Comm ission; and
2. I move to adopt Resolution No. 2023-3 2 authorizing the City M anager to execute and submit the filing of grant applications with the FTA; and
3. I move to adopt Resolution No. 2023-3 3 to retitle the Managem ent-designated classification of Deputy Administrative Servic es Director (Support Services) to Deputy Administrative Services Director (Budget & Purchasing)
4. I move to adopt Resolution No. 2023-34/WWD-295/SA-12/PL-33 approving the FY 2023-24 Annual Budget and the Five-Y ear Capital Improvement Program for FY 2023-24 to FY 2027-28 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 2023-24 Proposed Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Program on May 11, 2023. Review and adoption of the FY 2023-24 Simi Valley Transit Program of Projects will be held concurrent with the review of the budget.
16 The 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 2023-24. Upon City Council approval, 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 2023-24 Transit Program of Projects, adopt a resolution approving application for CMAQ and JARC Transit funding, and adopt a resolution approving the FY 2023-24 Budget and Five- Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2023-24 to FY 2027-28.
___
_________________________________
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 ……………………………………………….. 17 Resolution No. 2023-32…………….………………………………………………………. 32
Resolution No. 2023-33…………………………………………………………….……….3 4
J
oint Resolution No. 2023-34/WWD-295/SA-12/PL-33– Approve the FY 2023-24 Annual Budget and the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2023-24 to FY 2027-28…………………………………………………. .....................36
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMORANDUM June 5, 2023
TO: City
Council
Board of Directors, Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 FRO
M: Administrative Services Department
SUBJE
CT: CITIZENS PARTICIPATION MEETING SUMMARY
On May
23,2023, 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 2023-24 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, Assistant City Manager and members of the public.
Admi
nistrative Services Director, Carolyn Johnson, Deputy Administrative Services Director, Budget & Purchasing, Johanna Medrano, and Budget Management Analyst, Cynthia Orozco provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining the budget for FY 2023-24.
Attendees were then asked if they had any questions or comments . Two comments became apparent. Residents expressed a concern over the Cities landscape maintenance and Transit, in particular our investments in future buses and solutions to increase ridership in our Transit system.
Writ
ten comments that were received are included at the end of this memo. The following is a summary transcription in the order received of the feedback and comments. • Cit
izen #1 – I have several. Let's start with one. So you mentioned the involvement of the city council and meeting their goals. So the basic question is, how do the mayor and the four city council members interact in this budget process? Or is this budget just assembled and given to them to review?
Staf
f Comments – We hear the Council throughout the year. They're on the dais at every meeting. We hear them; we hear what they say. We hear the residents that come to the meetings, we hear what the residents say , and we put this together, and then we do sit down with them and go through i t.
We also provide more feedback from meetings like this to them. They're going through the budget right now. And they can change it in any way they want. This is not the final; they don't have to adopt this as is, they could change it in any way they want.
Citize
n #1 (Continue) - So it's basically assembled by the City Manager, City Staff
ATTACHMENT A
17 and the
n presented to them?
St
aff Comments – Yes, every department puts together their own section. • Ci
tizen #2 – I had a question about the landscape augmentation project. It looks like obviously on Alamo the weeds are getting as tall as the cars but this was finally cut today. I know that budget has been cut over the last several years, looks like it doubled for next year, is that correct? It's on page 268, 269. Because there are areas of town that look really un- kept. There is dead landscaping, weeds everywhere. So I am just wondering, it's such a small percentage of the budget, why there isn't a bigger portion allocated to that to keep the city looking nice and clean and well maintained.
Sta
ff Comments – The Landscape Maintenance District (District) funds the maintenance of special landscape zones throughout the City. A special assessment tax is paid by homeowners that live within each zone. The Landscape Augmentation Fund was established to provide additional funding from General Fund (GF) contributions towards the cost of maintaining those landscape zones. The funds supplement the assessments paid by the homeowners towards the maintenance of landscaped areas. The contribution from the GF increased from $200,000 in previous years to $400,000 for FY 2023- 24. Based on prior recommendations, the City is trying to get the fund to a place where the GF does not have to contribute additional f unds. The City is moving towards more drought -tolerant landscaping and hardscape as well as negotiating contracts with the landscape contractors to try to get better prices. However, the City has seen higher utility costs, both in water and electricity.
Ci
tizen #2 (Continue) – Yeah, I notice when things die, they just have been pulling it out, not replacing it. So is the goal to just pull out all the landscaping so we not have to pay for it or find additional funds?
St
aff Comments – Again, the goal is to move the District fund to a place where the GF does not have to contribute additional money for landscape maintenance and reduce water expenses by augmenting the use of hardscapes.
• Ci
tizen #1 (Continue) – Under the street repair budget of $16.5 million in the coming year, only $2.5 million is for major street repairs, major arteries. Within the past 10 years, it's basically almost a zero budget, with the exception of the past year, which we did get the federal funds to do the streets. I am upset, and hopefully, the City Council can sit there and readjust that $2.5 million of which would not even start till next July according to the report. It is really a gross injustice to the residents of Simi 18 Val
ley, as our streets, major streets are really in disrepair. So that would be that issue.
Unl
ess anyone else has a question? Okay, question on Transit. Question would be, I am not seeing what the total expense to run the whole transit bus system is.
I'm seeing that there's $ 260,000 fare revenues for last year. So the question is, what is the total cost to run that department? All right, and revenues. So that's all subsidized through the City, and federal and other funds that come in grants.
Correct?
Sta
ff Comments – The City’s estimated actual expenditure for this current fiscal year (FY 2022- 23) is $10.4 million. For next year (FY 2023- 24) the City’s proposed budget is $12.8 million. Transit operations and maintenance are 100% funded by Federal grants and Local (state) Transportation Development Act allocations. Transit ’s Capital is a combination of various federal and state grants depending on the City’s capital needs.
Ci
tizen #1 (Continue) – Okay. All right. So now we got, I know you've got a certain amount for capital improvements, which is actually more than the street repairs.
You've got, I think you’ve got $10 million for new electric buses next year. Are the buses going to be the same large buses? In my estimation, I see them traveling about 98% empty. I know we need a bus system, but I'm hopeful that these, this $10 million expenditure is not for the same large buses. Does anybody know the answer to that?
St
aff Comments – The new buses will be smaller.
Addi
tional Information: City’s FY 2023-24 proposed Capital Improvement Program is budgeting $ 1.8 M towards new electric vehicles and infrastructure, of which approximately 25% of the budget will go to the actual purchase of these vehicles. The new vehicles will be small shuttle-type vans.
In the past, 40’ buses were purchased for transit services; however, Transit has been transitioning to 35’ buses and will continue to do so to replace the 40’ buses. For the next fiscal year (FY2023-24), in addition to the two new electrical shuttle vans, Transit will replace two 40’ buses with smaller compressed natural gas (CNG) buses.
Ci
tizen #1 (Continue) -Okay, well, anyway, ask for the City Council to look into that.
Okay, because I know we need a bus system whether it's a loss or not, but it does not have to be those large buses traveling like I said 98% empty. And believe it or not, that's my major concerns out 389 pages.
19 • Citizen #3 – I guess, I mean, just going off the comment on the buses, I mean, just, I hope that the City recognizes that the reason that ridership is so low is that there aren't that many bus routes. Only going one direction. They aren't that frequent. So the system is pretty inaccessible for most people to use, like it cannot be relied upon for frequent travel. So ridership would go up. It's like a phrase I heard was “you can't determine the need for a bridge by how many people are swimming across the river,” who is going to swim across the river, people will cross the bridge but they are not going to swim.
• Citiz
en #1 – The dial -a-ride, the smaller buses, seems very efficient and very available from when I talked to the drivers. So I'm just curious why that's not more of a, available system where the money should go.
• Citiz
en #3 – Metro in Burbank has switched to little vans. They're like $1 a ride.
You just call them and they take you.
• Ci
tizen# 1 Well, I think in the C ity, here, I think he said it was a dollar. A dollar? The dial-a-ride here is very reasonable.
• Citiz
en #3 - They have gone to a very small vehicle. Take a handful of people at a time.
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 5th.
Carolyn Johnson
Administrative Services Director
Atta
chments:
Teresa Jordan Comments (Exhibit A)
Willie Lubka Comments (Exhibit B)
Randy Montgomery Comments (Exhibit C)
Don Diamond Comments (Exhibit D)
20 3152 Shad Court
Simi Valley, CA 93063
May 22, 2023
Ms. Johanna Medrano, Budget Officer
City of Simi Valley City Hall
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Re: City’s FY 2023-24 Proposed Budget Staff/Public Meeting.
Dear Ms. Medrano:
I have read the FY 2023-24 Proposed Budget a couple of
times, and unlike my participation in the process in years past, this time I am focusing solely on property taxes. #1 - It is stated on Page 6 of the Budget Message &
Overview section letter to the City Council that
“With the sudden rise in home prices, the City
enjoyed higher than-normal
sales tax and property
tax revenue”(second paragraph, last sentence).
#2 - It is stated on Page 8 that “The City has
experienced positive revenue increases over the
past year, particularly in the areas of sales and
property tax”(second paragraph, third sentence).
#3 - It is stated on Page 8 that “The City is
anticipating a more moderate increase in property
tax and a flattening of sales tax for FY2023-24
over the estimated FY2022-23 revenues”(fourth
paragraph, first sentence).
Ms. Medrano, on October 19, 2022 I emailed a letter to
Ms. Samantha Argabrite, Deputy City Manager with regards to postings on the City’s Website. In that letter, I covered the City’s Administrative Services Budget’s Access the
Annual Budget Visualization Tool’s Web Page with regards to the millions of dollars in the “Property Taxes/Secured” and the “> Taxes & Franchises” data that did not match the
posted STATE CONTROLLER’S REPORT ON REVENUES - 2016 data! I was and still am concerned over the updated data for all fiscal years by millions of dollars. I also asked 10
questions of Ms. Argabrite. On October 24, 2022,
EXHIBIT A
21 Ms. Argabrite emailed “I am working with the City Clerk and Administrative Services Director on your request”.
Attached is a copy of my October 19, 2022 letter to
Ms. Argabrite. I would really appreciate responses to my questions because property taxes are part of the City’s proposed budget. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Teresa Jordan
EXHIBIT A
22 3152 Shad Court
Simi Valley, CA 93063
October 19, 2022
Ms. Samantha Argabrite
Deputy City Manager
Simi Valley City Hall
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Re: Postings on the City’s Website.
Dear Ms. Argabrite:
On April 16, 2022, when I visited the City’s website and searched for the Budget Advisory Committee’s meetings, I came across the “STATE CONTROLLER’S REPORT ON REVENUES - 2016”. The City of Simi Valley’s data was listed as:
Secured & Property
Total Unsecured Transfer Tax
Revenues Property Tax Revenues
$61,434,153 $18,556,972 $712,157!
On April 28, 2022, I visited the City’s Access the Annual Budget Visualization Tool’s Web Page, and compiled a list of the 2014-15 Actual to 2021-22 Actual posted data. On September 3, 2022, I visited the Tool’s Web Page and the data was updated! On September 7, 2022, I compiled a list of the updated data. I am extremely concerned that the “Property Taxes/Secured” and the “> Taxes & Franchises” data in the City’s Tool’s 2015-16 updates do not match the posted STATE CONTROLLER’S REPORT ON REVENUES - 2016 data:
SCO 2016 Report City Tool 2015-16 City Tool 2015-16 4/16/2022 4/28/2022 9/7/2022
$18,556,972 $27,582,924 $29,835,624!
EXHIBIT A
23 My concern grew when comparing my April 28, 2022 and September 7, 2022 compiled City’s Tool’s fiscal years 2014- 15 Actual, and 2016-17 Actual to 2021-22 Actual updated data lists! The dollar amounts increased by millions:
2014-15 Actual went from $26,927,248 to $29,146,643!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2016-17 Actual went from $28,834,375 to $31,120,875!
2017-18 Actual went from $29,865,105 to $32,197,405!
2018-19 Actual went from $31,255,131 to $33,680,098!
2019-20 Actual went from $36,510,926 to $38,736,680!
2020-21 Actual went from $35,417,137 to $37,709,663!
2021-22 Adopted went from $35,962,298 to $38,323,600!
2021-22 Actual went from $11,554,049 to $38,232,298!
Ms. Argabrite, the Tool’s “> Taxes & Franchises” data
also increased by millions between the two updates:
2014-15 Actual went from $51,499,862 to $57,993,099!
2015-16 Actual went from $54,105,061 to $59,541,269!
2016-17 Actual went from $54,475,716 to $61,133,757!
2017-18 Actual went from $56,720,188 to $63,133,062!
2018-19 Actual went from $60,104,475 to $66,906,113!
2019-20 Actual went from $64,104,232 to $70,908,226!
2020-21 Actual went from $66,634,291 to $72,004,246!
2021-22 Adopted went from $65,434,417 to $70,864,215!
2021-22 Actual went from $22,926,000 to $69,931,649!
EXHIBIT A
24 Ms. Argabrite, by comparison, the State Controller’s Office’s website’s City of Simi Valley’s data broken down by Subcategory 1, and 2 is as follows for General Revenues:
2013 - Taxes $52.73 Million
Secured and Unsecured Property Taxes…$15,264,126!
2014 - Taxes $57.07 Million
Secured and Unsecured Property Taxes…$17,455,530!
2015 - Taxes $60.74 Million
Secured and Unsecured Property Taxes…$18,556,972!
2016 - Taxes $61.43 Million
Secured and Unsecured Property Taxes…$18,775,494!
2017 - Taxes $61.62 Million
Secured and Unsecured Property Taxes…$19,634,060!
2018 - Taxes $63.87 Million
Secured and Unsecured Property Taxes…$18,563,204!
2019 - Taxes $67.89 Million
Secured and Unsecured Property Taxes…$19,455,442!
2020 - Taxes $70.83 Million
Secured and Unsecured Property Taxes…$24,127,586!
QUESTIONS
1. Why were all of the fiscal years updated, and not just the 2021-22 Adopted and Actual budgets’ posted data?
2. Why the huge differences for “Property Taxes/Secured” between the City posted SCO’s REPORT ON REVENUES - 2016, and the City’s Administrative Services Department’s
Budget’s Access the Annual Budget Visualization Tool?
3. Why the huge differences for the “> Taxes & Franchises” dollar amounts?
4. Was the updated data posted after the City submitted its financial information to the State Controller’s Office?
EXHIBIT A
25 5. Was the updated data posted after the City submitted its financial information to the County of Ventura Auditor- Controller’s Office?
6. When did the City first post the Access the Annual
Budget Visualization Tool on the website?
7. Were the Budget Advisory Committee members informed
about the posted “Tool” Budget data?
8. Why is only the STATE CONTROLLER’S REPORT ON REVENUES - 2016 data posted on the City’s website?
9. Why are the 2014-15 to 2021-22 City’s Tool’s April 28, 2022 and September 7, 2022 posted updated data millions of dollars more than the data reported to the State
Controller’s Office?
10.What are the differences due to?
Ms. Argabrite, please note that while the City’s website posted “Source” for the STATE CONTROLLER’S REPORT ON
REVENUES” stated “2016” the data is actually for “2015” as far as the City of Simi Valley is concerned! I have not compared the data for other entities listed under “Source:
https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/158/Financial-Transparency “!
Ms. Argabrite, I recently found the City’s posted STATE CONTROLLER’S REPORT ON REVENUES
- 2016 by entering the words
“property taxes reports” in the website’s “Search”. Please note that my evidentiary material that supports my letter is forwarded separately.
Ms, Argabrite, I would really appreciate a response to
my letter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Teresa Jordan
EXHIBIT A
26 CITY OF SIMI \ALLEY
Home of The Ronald Reogan Presidentiol Library
May 24,2022
Ms. Teresa Jordan
3152 Shad Court
SimiValley, CA 93063
RE: Letters dated May 22,2Q23 and October 19,2022
Ms. Jordan:
I'm sorry for the delay in getting back to you with regards to your letter of October 19,2022.
The dollar amount discrepancies you describe between the information in the City's budget visualization tool that you saw on 412812022 and 91712022 are due to the filtering options that were used in the searchei, The 412812022 numbers are the general fund revenue only and the gl7l2O22 numbers are for all funds. Property Tax is used to fund the Library operations and is a revenue source in the Library Fund (Fund 250) as well as the General Fund (Fund 100). Also, the FY 2021-22 numbers you received from your searches were not final numbers as that fiscal year had not been completed at the time of youi searches.
The City upgraded the data servers which caused the budget visualization tool to not have the ability to feep updating data.' We are working with our consultant to get this reprogrammed so the FY2021-22 and FY2022-23 numbers should be updated soon.
The State Controller's Report has a slightly different total revenue number on the Statement of General and Functional R6venues - Government Funds, Taxes than what came up in your search on the City's website because the information being requested for the State Report is slightly different tlian just a simple search by revenue category. For instance there is property tax that comes in for the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. That property tax is put into a trust fund for payment of enforceible obligations. This is not technically considered Clty of Simi Valley money, ahd therefore is not included on the Statement of General and Functional Revenues in the State Controllers Report.
The State Controllers Report does include Construction Development Taxes for Ne_w Dwelling Fees and Traffic lmpact Fees. Both of these fees are considered "Service Charges" under.the City's revenue strubture, and will not come up in a sort of Taxes and Franchises. Also, Government funded grants to the City that go into our Local Transportation Fund (Fund 238) and Bicycle Lanes Fund- (Fund 233) are included in the State Controllers ..[e,port, as they are considered Transportaiion Taxes by the State, but are categorized under "Other Governments" in the City's revenue structure, not under Taxes and Franchises.
I hope this information puts your concerns to rest. Please let me know if you have any other concerns.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Johnson
Administrative Services Director
City of SimiValley
2929Tapo Canyon Rd.
SimiValley, CA 93063
805-583-6328
Mayor Pro Tem Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Council Member Elaine P. Litster, Council Member Rocky Rhodes, Council MemberFred D. Thomas, Mayor Mike Judge 2g2gTapoConyon Road,SimiValley,CA 9j063-2199 805.583.6700 www.simivalley.org
EXHIBIT A
27 EXHIBIT B
VIA EMAIL – RESIDENTS COMMENTS – WILLIE LUBKA
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2023 7:40 PM
To: Joseph Toney <[email protected]>; Carolyn J. Johnson <[email protected]> Cc: Admin Services <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Budget Meetings/Hearings
Hello Mr. Toney and Ms. Johnson,
I'm reaching out to request the dates and time of scheduled public meetings and/or council hearings regarding the proposed 23-24 city budget. I look forward to hearing from you.
Many thanks,
Willie Lubka
805-218-1189
From: Carolyn J. Johnson
Cc: Johanna Medrano; Martha Coyne
Subject: RE: Public Budget Meetings/Hearings
Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2023 8:50:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Mr. Lubka,
There should be an announcement in this week’s Acorn. The public budget review meeting will be on Tuesday, May 23rd at 5:30pm in the Community Room, at City Hall. The proposed budget is scheduled to go to City Council on June 5th.
FYI- Mr. Joseph Toney has left the City. In the future you can address correspondence to myself and Johanna Medrano ( [email protected] ).
Carolyn Johnson, MBA
Administrative Services Director
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Canyon Rd.
Simi Valley, CA 93063
805-583-6328
28 EXHIBIT C
VIA EMAIL – RESIDENTS COMMENTS – Randy Montgomery
From: Randy Montgomery
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 10:50 AM
To: Mayor Pro Tem Judge <[email protected]>
Subject: Landscape District Maintenance
Mayor Pro Tem Judge-
The city has been neglecting its responsibility to properly maintain the landscaping around town.
As you are aware, all non-HOA and private business landscape is maintained through “Landscape District No. 1,” and is funded through property assessments in specific zones.
These assessments do not cover the actual costs of maintenance and utilities. An “Augmentation Fund” covers the balance out of the City’s General Fund. Despite rising costs, this number has been significantly reduced over the past several years… and if you drive around town, you can see the result… dead and dying landscape, weeds, lack of maintenance, empty medians, and replacement of materials that lack color, ground cover and aesthetics. The basic directive is to let it die and replace it with mulch, but even that isn’t being done in some areas. These budget cuts and directives began prior to the latest water restrictions and have affected landscape beyond turf.
Here are just a few examples…
Much of the median landscaping on Tapo Street was removed years ago, leaving dirt and weeds. Broken decorative fencing has never been fixed or replaced.
Non-turf landscaping along Copperfield has completely died and has never been replaced.
The entry point to “Santa Susana Town Center” on Tapo Street at Los Angeles Avenue was once lush turf and plants. Now, the area is dead grass, weeds, and much of the plant life has disappeared.
Median landscaping along Madera Road near the Regan Library is dead and has disappeared.
Median landscaping along Madera at the 118 (the entry point to the city, where many visitors pass by) is dead.
Groundcover and lush (non-turf) landscaping in parkways and slopes along Alamo, Sequoia, Galena, and Lemon drive have died and have never been replaced.
Landscaped areas between Stearns and Stow on Los Angeles Avenue and Cochran are now just weeds.
Landscaping along Los Angeles Avenue from Christine, south on Kuehner to Sandwalwood has virtually disappeared, leaving nothing but dirt.
Removed turf and groundcover on Kuehner, Galena, Erringer, Alamo and Los Angeles Avenue was replaced with SPARSE drought-tolerant landscaping that lacks color and coverage. Wood 29 EXHIBIT C
chips were used as hardscape, which fades and needs replacement often. These areas are also not properly maintained or watered, resulting in dead drought-tolerant landscaping,
All turf areas around the city have been abandoned completely, without consideration of usage, aesthetics, or recycled water alternatives. These areas have been left to turn to weeds and dirt, with little to no maintenance, and no plan or budget to replace.
Water restrictions, or not… no other neighboring city has let their community deteriorate this way. Santa Clarita, for example, replaced all of their street medians with matching drought- tolerant plants years ago. Their city is inviting, lush and well-maintained. Agoura Hills, Calabasas, and Burbank switched over to recycled water usage for their landscape. Turf areas in Simi Valley that are being abandoned is due to the lack of the city’s foresight and budget investment to switch to recycled water. Other cities are simply choosing to continue to water turf and/or are not enforcing these regulations. Stevenson Ranch in unincorporated Los Angeles County and Porter Ranch in the City of Los Angeles are just two examples.
The aesthetics and appearance of a city, including the condition and maintenance of landscape, parkways, street medians, and common areas are vital to a healthy and inviting community.
Residents use these areas for recreation. Visitors and businesses looking to relocate here judge the city on how well it is maintained. Currently there is a lack of community pride and investment… all at the hands of the City, whose responsibility it is to maintain these areas. This lack of maintenance spreads to residential areas and business complexes and makes the city look uncared for. The look and feel of many neighborhoods has literally been destroyed, affecting quality of life and property values.
There is no excuse for the current state of the City, especially since there has been a budget surplus each year, and the augmentation fund is a small amount that literally does so much.
It’s time for City Council to revisit this line item in the budget, allocate funds to repair and maintain these areas, and direct Public Works to increase frequency of maintenance.
Thank you,
Randy Montgomery
30 EXHIBIT D
VIA EMAIL – RESIDENTS COMMENTS – Don Diamond
From: Don Diamond
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 2:12 pM
To: Johanna Medrano <[email protected]>
Subject: Budget Meeting Discussion, May 23rd
Hi Johanna,
I live in Wood Ranch and when I drive around the city, I notice a large amount of weeds in the center median and other streets. Most of this was probably caused by all the rains we had this year. With Summer fast approaching this could be issue with fires. I would like to see an increase in funding for Code Enforcement so they could address this issue. Additionally, more funding should be allocated to street light repairs in the city. When I drive around the city, several street lights are out and remain out for very long periods of time.
Thanks
Don Diamond
31 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-32
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 ANY
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. Chapter 53, Title 23 United States Code or any other Federal statues 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 certi fication 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.
32 RES. NO. 2023-32
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 5th day of June 2023.
Attest:
Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Fred D. Thomas, 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
33 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-33
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SIMI VALLEY AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2023 -13 TO
RETITLE THE MANAGEMENT -DESIGNATED
CLASSIFICATION OF DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES DIRECTOR (SUPPORT SERVICES) TO
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
(BUDGET & PURCHASING)
W
HEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 2023-13 to establish terms and conditions of employment for the Management -designated employees; and
W
HEREAS, a title change of one Management -designated classification from Deputy Administrative Services Director (Support Services) to Deputy Administrative Services Director (Budget & Purchasing), with no change to the salary compensation, has been proposed with the FY 2023-34 Budget; and
W
HEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that it desires to amend Resolution No. 2023- 13 to retitle Deputy Administrative Services Director (Support Services) to Deputy Administrative Services Director (Budget & Purchasing) maintaining the hourly salary range of $52.0696 to $66.9904 effective April 10, 2023.
NO
W, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
S
ECTION 1. Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 2023- 13 is hereby amended to retitle the classification of Deputy Administrative Services Director (Support Services) to Deputy Administrative Services Director (Budget & Purchasing) with no change to the hourly salary range updated as of April 10, 2023.
S
ECTION 2. The incumbent occupying Position No. 246113612 shall be reclassified from Deputy Administrative Services Director (Support Services) to Deputy Administrative Services Director (Budget & Purchasing).
S
ECTION 3. All other provisions of Resolution No. 2023-13 shall remain unchanged.
34 RES. NO. 2023-33
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
A
ttest:
Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Fred D. Thomas, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California
A
pproved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
David L. Caceres, City Attorney Brian Paul Gabler, City Manager Jennifer Gutierres
Deputy Human Resources Director
35 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-34
RESOLUTION NO. WWD-295
RESOLUTION NO. SA-12
RESOLUTION NO. PL-33
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 2023-24
ANNUAL BUDGET AND THE FIVE -YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FY 2023-24 TO FY 2027-28
WHEREAS, the City Manager / District Manager / Executive Director / Executive Officer has submitted the FY 2023-24 Proposed Budget and the Preliminary Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2023-24 to FY 2027-28 to the City Council / Boards of Directors / Board of Trustees for its review and consideration on May 11, 2023, in accordance with budget policies; and
WHEREAS, a Citizens’ Participation meeting was conducted with staff on May 23, 2023, 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 2023-24 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 2023-24 Proposed Budget and Preliminary Five- Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2023-24 to FY 2027-28; 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 2023-24 Annual Budget and Five- Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2023-24 to FY 2027-28, 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.
36 RES. NO. 2022-34
RES. NO. WWD-295
RES. NO. SA-12
RES. NO. PL-33
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, this is 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 2023-24 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 202 3-24 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.
37 RES. NO. 2022-34
RES. NO. WWD-295
RES. NO. SA-12
RES. NO. PL-33
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 5th day of June 2023.
Attest:
Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Fred D. Thomas, 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
38