City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council receive a report by the Chief Administrative
Officer related to the Mid-Year Budget Review for Fiscal Year 2005/2006 and the
Financial State of the City.
DISCUSSION
Tonight’s overall report will be divided into the following sections:
(1) Mid-Year Budget Review to be presented by the City Controller;;
(2) A Report on the Status of the Self-Insurance Fund to be presented by the
Risk Management Supervisor;
(3) A Report on the Status of the Grants Fund to be presented by the Assistant
Chief Administrative Officer; and,
(4) A Report on the Financial State of the City to be presented by the Chief
Administrative Officer
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council:
(1) Receive the Mid-Year Budget Review from the City Controller and take action
on the recommended budget amendments – Note: A 4/5ths vote is
required for adoption of budget amendments;
Meeting Date: 01/23/06 Item Number: A-4
AGENDA ITEM: A Report by the Chief Administrative Officer Related to the Mid-Year
Budget Review for Fiscal Year 2005/2006 and the Financial State of the City
Contact Person/Dept.: Marlee Chang, City
Controller/Martin Cole, ACAO
Phone Number: (310) 253-6000
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: Master Notification List (01/19/06)
Department Approval:
Marlee Chang (01/19/06)
Martin Cole (01/19/06)
CAO Approval:
Martin R. Cole for Jerry B. Fulwood
(01/19/06)
City Controller Approval:
Marlee Chang (01/19/06)City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
(2) Receive and File a Report on the Status of the Self Insurance Fund to be
presented by the Risk Management Supervisor;
(3) Receive and File the Report on the Status of the Grants Fund to be presented
by the Assistant Chief Administrative Officer; and,
(4) Receive a Report on the Financial State of the City to be presented by the
Chief Administrative Officer and continue this item to the City Council meeting
of March 13, 2006 for further consideration.
ATTACHMENTS
(1) The Mid Year Budget Review
(2) Report on the Status of the Grants Fund
(3) Report on the Status of the Self Insurance Fund
(4) Report on the Financial State of the City
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the proposed budget modifications to the adopted fiscal
2005-06 budget.
This item is a budget amendment and requires a 4/5
th
vote for adoption.
BACKGROUND:
The adopted fiscal year 2005-06 budget includes some significant increases compared
to prior year. They are:
Projected one-time new development monies ($2.5 million revenues);
Increased cost allocation to all departments to fund annual deficit in Self-
insurance Fund ($2.7 million);
Establish Computer Replacement Fund ($300,000)
Transfer of $1.2 million to Capital Improvement & Acquisition Fund which
includes: Pavement Improvement ($325,000), Slurry Seal ($75,000), and
Park Facility Assessment ($50,000); and
Transfer additional funding from Parking Meter Fund to General Fund
($180,000).
After the adoption of the budget, there were several fiscal developments with significant
impacts to the City’s finances. The following is a list of those developments which were
not included in the adopted 2005-06 budget:
1. An estimated loss of General Fund revenue (net loss of $700,000) due to
business relocations;
2. An estimated revenue loss from the Triple Flip “True up” adjustment of `
$703,000;
Meeting Date: 1/23/06 Item Number: A-4
AGENDA ITEM: Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Mid-Year Budget Monitoring Report and
Consideration of Modifications to the Adopted Budget for Fiscal 2005-06 Budget
Contact Person/Dept.: Marlee Chang Phone Number: 310-253-6011
Fiscal Impact: Yes [x] No [] General Fund: Yes [x] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [x] Attachments: [x]
Public Notification: Master Notification List
Department Approval: Marlee Chang
(01/23/06)
CAO Approval: Jerry B. Fulwood
(01/19/06)
City Controller Approval: Marlee Chang
(01/23/06)City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
3. Increased one-time revenue adjustment for the VLF in-lieu fee (i.e. “True up”
for VLF Triple Flip of $367,000);
4. Increased estimate for Property Tax revenue ($133,000) based on the County
Assessor’s property value report, which is higher than the adopted budget
projection;
5. Potential increased appropriation in PERS contribution required by
Memorandum of Understanding, July 1, 2001 to June 30 2005 ($500,000 for
Police Officer’s Association 3% @ 50).
As a result, it is estimated that there will be approximately a $1.4 million operating
budget shortfall in the current fiscal year. This is a preliminary projection based on
activity through the first six months of the fiscal year. The General Fund revenue and
expenditure transactions during the rest of the year may effect this projection. However,
there is no economic indication that the revenue will significantly improve in the near
future to cover this identified budget shortfall; therefore, the budget amendment is
recommended.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
The un-reserved fund balance at the end of fiscal year 2004-05 was $24 million, of
which $1.2 million was appropriated to fund capital projects in the current budget year.
This reduced the fund balance to approximately $22.8 million. As described above, the
mid-year budget review is projecting an approximate $1.4 million General Fund
operating deficit. Consequently, the un-reserved fund balance will be further reduced to
approximately $21.5 million or 29.3% of the City’s General Fund expenditures. Also, it
was identified that the assumption of an annual 96% appropriation spending pattern is
no longer realistic; posing more difficulty to keep expenditures in line with the adopted
budget. In order to close this year’s budget deficit and to minimize the negative impact
to our next budget year, it is necessary to cut back spending for this fiscal year.
Effective December 15, 2005, the following actions were implemented:
Hiring freeze;
Reduce training & education expenses by 30%;
Tighten the use of overtime in all departments;
Freeze any special assignment pay and any accelerated step increases
that were not included in the adopted budget;
Avoid any budget amendments during the fiscal year; and
Reduce the spending from the appropriated reserve account.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
DISCUSSION
General Fund Financial Condition
As of December 31, 2005, the General Fund has collected 34% of the budgeted
revenues and expended 47% of budgeted appropriations. It should be noted that the
personnel expenses may increase in the remainder of the fiscal year due to
Memorandum of Understanding contracts currently being negotiated with the remaining
groups. Additionally, there may be adjustment entries in the expense accounts which
were not recorded before the closing of December. Therefore, the actual annual
expenditures will be higher for the remainder of this fiscal year. The table below
summarizes the budgeted revenues and expenditures for the General Fund:
Summary of General Fund Revenues and Appropriations
2005-06
ADOPTED
BUDGET
2005-06
ADJUSTED
BUDGET
2005-06
REVISED
BUDGET
NET
DIFFERENCE
Beginning Fund Balance 23,534,000 24,091,000 24,091,000 0
General Fund Revenues:
Revenues 71,405,467 71,414,867 70,514,867 (900,000)
Plus: Transfers in 1,391,500 1,391,500 1,391,500 0
Plus: Encumbrance Carryover 0 730,000 730,000
Total General Fund Revenues 72,796,967 73,536,367 72,636,367 (900,000)
0
General Fund Appropriations: 0
Expenditures 72,104,038 72,833,472 73,333,472 500,000
Plus: Transfers out 1,903,940 1,903,940 1,903,940 0
Total General Fund
Appropriations 74,007,978 74,737,412 75,237,412 500,000
Ending Fund Balance 22,322,989 22,889,955 21,489,955 (1,400,000)
The following analysis contains a number of tables and graphs to illustrate the General
Fund revenue and expenditure budgets and year-to-date (YTD) collections or
expenditures for fiscal year 2005-2006. City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Revenues
The following section summarizes revenue receipts for the General Fund. Although
revenue receipts are shown to be below 50% (due to seasonal collections for some of
the major revenues including property tax, sales tax, and business license tax), 2005-06
revenue receipts appear to be relatively on target with the exception of the identified
sales tax loss and Triple-flip potential reduction. The majority of actual receipts for the
Commercial/Industrial tax are expected to be received after the permit review process is
finalized in February or March 2006.
General Fund
According to the mid-year analysis, General Fund receipts as a percentage of the
adjusted budget are down slightly from fiscal year 2004-05. The following table and
corresponding chart provide a more detailed illustration of the General Fund revenues
as compared to mid-year 2004-05:
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Percent of Budget Collected
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Business License Tax
Franchise Tax
Real Prop Trans Tax
Utility Taxes
Trans Occ Tax
Comm/Ind Dev Tax
Fines and Forfeits
2005-06 MID-YEAR SUMMARY
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
MID-YEAR 2004-05 MID-YEAR 2005-06City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
General Fund Revenue Categories
PROPOSED
ADOPTED ADJUSTED YTD MID-YEAR REVISED
BUDGET BUDGET COLLECTED % BUDGET
Property Tax 1,804,000 1,804,000 725,631 40.2% 1,937,000
Sales Tax 17,640,000 17,640,000 5,046,402 28.6% 16,240,000
Public Safety Sales Tax 350,000 350,000 119,051 34.0% 350,000
Business License Tax 8,275,000 8,275,000 393,701 4.8% 8,275,000
Franchise Tax 1,375,000 1,375,000 119,964 8.7% 1,375,000
Real Prop.Trans Tax 2,025,000 2,025,000 869,591 42.9% 2,025,000
Utility Taxes 13,340,000 13,340,000 5,654,169 42.4% 13,340,000
Trans Occ Tax 2,250,000 2,250,000 893,916 39.7% 2,250,000
Com/Ind Dev Tax 1,663,750 1,663,750 47,223 2.8% 1,663,750
Licenses And Permits 1,751,800 1,755,800 584,332 33.3% 1,755,800
Intergovernmental 2,540,000 2,540,000 10,886 0.4% 2,907,000
Charges For Services 7,592,620 7,592,620 3,929,972 51.8% 7,592,620
Fines And Forfeits 3,925,000 3,925,000 1,937,782 49.4% 3,925,000
Use Of Money & Property 905,500 905,500 511,477 56.5% 905,500
Inter Fund/Departmental 5,862,097 5,862,097 2,951,151 50.3% 5,862,097
Other Revenues 105,700 111,100 47,558 42.8% 111,100
Transfers 1,391,500 1,391,500 695,750 50.0% 1,391,500
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 72,796,967 72,806,367 24,538,556 33.7% 71,906,367
As previously mentioned, a majority of receipts for the Commercial/Industrial tax are
expected to be received after the permit review process is finalized in February or
March 2006. Also, projected Commercial/Industrial tax revenues were significantly
increased in fiscal year 2005-06 (from $75,000 in 2004-05 to $1,663,750 in 2005-06)
due to various new construction projects. This increase represents one-time revenue.
Expenditures
General Fund
According to the mid-year analysis, General Fund expenditures as a percent of the
adjusted budget are down from fiscal year 2004-05. The following table and chart
provide a more detailed illustration of the mid-year 2005-06 General Fund expenditures
as compared to mid-year 2004-05:City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Percent of Budget Expended
Total Gen Fund
Gen Gov
Police
Fire
PR&CS
Public Works
Comm Dev
2005-06 MID-YEAR SUMMARY
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
MID-YEAR 2004-05 MID-YEAR 2005-06
2005-06 Mid-Year Summary General Fund Expenditures
PROPOSED
ADOPTED ADJUSTED YTD MID-YEAR REVISED
BUDGET BUDGET EXPENDED % BUDGET
GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES:
GENERAL GOVERNMENT 14,495,108 14,770,969 5,649,811 38.2% 14,770,969
PARKS, REC. & COMM. SVCS 5,967,440 5,993,989 2,770,416 46.2% 5,993,989
POLICE DEPARTMENT 26,900,407 26,956,576 12,536,979 46.5% 27,456,576
FIRE DEPARTMENT 13,980,400 13,991,038 6,599,040 47.2% 13,991,038
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5,667,766 5,815,684 2,552,043 43.9% 5,815,684
PUBLIC WORKS 8,092,917 8,305,216 3,755,424 45.2% 8,305,216
Transfers 1,903,940 1,903,940 969,852 50.9% 1,903,940
Projected 4% excess appropriations (3,000,000) (3,000,000) 0 0.0% (3,000,000)
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 74,007,978 74,737,412 34,833,563 46.6% 75,237,412 City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Conclusion
As discussed above, the General Fund un-reserved fund balance will fall slightly below
30% of the operating budget. This is a concern since the City has virtually no Fund
Balance for its Capital Projects Funds or Equipment Replacement Fund (other than for
vehicles), or an adequate reserve for the Self-Insurance Fund, which means the true
amount available for purely General Fund uses is much lower than 30%. These issues
will be addressed in the coming budget year. Unless significant new on-going revenue
sources are developed, or annual on-going spending is reduced, balancing the City’s
annual budget will become more challenging. It is important that the City continue to
maintain tight budget control and keep proactive fiscal planning to safeguard the City’s
financial health. The Budget & Finance Office will provide monthly budget review reports
to City Council; this will give Council members the opportunity to discuss any budget
issues with the City Controller.
The CAO is presenting the forecast for the next five years tonight as a separate staff
report, which describes in more detail the historical revenue and expenditure trend, as
well as what the City will be facing in the near future with a number of other financial
issues.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A Summary of Revenue Comparison
Exhibit B Summary of Expenditure Comparison
MOTION
That the City Council:
A. Amend the adopted FY 2005-2006 budget to increase appropriation from General
Fund fund balance in the amount of $ 500,000 to fund the Safety PERS
contribution in the Police Department;
B. Amend the adopted FY 2005-2006 budget to revise the following revenue
estimates:
A. Decrease Sales Tax revenue by $1,400,000
B. Increase Property Tax revenue by $133,000
C. Increase Vehicle License Fee in-lieu fee by $367,000
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD CULVER CITY, CA 90232-0507
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: 01/19/2006
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jerry Fulwood, Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Report on the Status of the Self-Insurance Fund
I have reviewed the history and current condition of the City’s Self Insurance
Fund - Fund 309 (SIF) from the period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005 (the inquiry
period). Further, a Self-Insurance Fund Task Force comprised of at least one
member from each of the City’s Departments was convened to discuss the
current status and make recommendations to better manage the SIF. The
purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with a brief history of the
fund, explain its current status, and provide recommendations to improve the
status of the SIF.
HISTORY
This SIF was created in the City’s Internal Service Funds Group of accounts in
order to help manage the financial accounting of the City’s risks (both employee
and external sources). Overall, the SIF expenditures include items such as:
insurance premiums, external liability claims payments, internal workers
compensation claim payments, and IOD (Injured On Duty) benefits. Revenues
have been generated through an allocation formula generally based upon a
percentage of employee salaries attributable to the various City Departments.
Retained Earnings and Fund Equity
The following tables contain the consolidated Statement of Retained Earnings
and the consolidated Balance Sheet for the inquiry period:
Consolidated Statement of Retained Earnings
in 000's
Item FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05
Beginning Balance: 4,533 2,717 (4,070) (10,919) (12,837)
Revenues: 3,606 3,682 3,736 2,991 5,298
Expenditures: 5,422 10,469 10,585 4,909 8,728
Net Change in RE: (1,816) (6,787) (6,849) (1,918) (3,430)
Ending Balance: 2,717 (4,070) (10,919) (12,837) (16,267)Page 2 of 6
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100328.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Consolidated Balance Sheet
in 000's
Item FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05
Current Assets 11,717 9,906 5,388 2,062 1,242
Fixed Assets 42 37 32 28 23
Current Liabilities 9,042 14,013 48 54 53
Long-Term Liabilites 0 0 16,291 14,873 17,479
Fund Equity 2,717 (4,070) (10,919) (12,837) (16,267)
During the inquiry period, the SIF has gone from having a cash position that
exceeds accrued liabilities (a favorable surplus) to having accrued liabilities
which exceed its current cash balance (an unfavorable deficit).
How did we get Here?
As shown in the above tables, the last five fiscal years have seen a significant
reversal in the SIF’s financial status. Historically, the City has been able to
charge each City Department with an amount that not only generated sufficient
revenue to pay current liabilities (defined as those liabilities expected to be
expensed in the current fiscal year) but was also able to accrue a fund cash
balance to pay accrued long-term liabilities (those liabilities expected to be paid
at some point in the future beyond the current fiscal year). This begs the
question – What happened?
Revenues
The SIF’s source of revenues is a “charge for service” to the City’s departments.
Prior to fiscal year 2005/2006, the SIF charges were based upon a percentage of
a department’s salary. The charge rates were based upon the rates used State-
wide. Prior to Fiscal Year 2005/2006, these charges generated and average
annual revenue for the SIF of $3.5 million. Recognizing the prior years’ revenue
shortfall, the approved budget for Fiscal Year 2005/2006 includes use of updated
charge rates that are approximately double what had been used in prior years.
This change in rates increased budgeted annual revenue to the SIF to $7.436
million.
Expenditures
The SIF expenditures are comprised of several components divided into five
major areas:
1) Administration
2) IOD ExpensesPage 3 of 6
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100328.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
3) Liability Claims
4) Unemployment (U/I) Claims
5) Workers’ Compensation (W/C) Claims
The following table shows the claims and expenses paid by the SIF during the
inquiry period.
Summary of Claims and Expenses Paid
(Source: Colen and Lee)
Item FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05
Administration $593,174 $468,793 $300,897 $485,534
IOD Expenses $653,033 $483,078 $703,741 $730,606
Liability Claims $898,063 $3,075,075 $977,650 $1,208,781
U/I Claims ($70,199) $181,596 $95,890 $55,208
W/C Claims $3,067,688 $3,415,471 $3,784,055 $2,790,194
Totals: $5,141,759 $7,624,013 $5,862,233 $5,270,323
Insurance Premiums
As with most entities, both private and public sector, the insurance markets were
negatively affected by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York,
Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C. The resulting high claims and added
uncertainty in the risk markets caused liability and property insurance rates to
skyrocket. This impacted the City through a a significant increase in premiums
paid, including an octupling of workers’ compensation premiums and a
quadupling of liability insurance premiums payable by the City.
In addition to liability and property insurance, the State of California’s workers
compensation insurance program (noted as one of the most generous programs
in the nation) began to experience unprecendented cost increases. Again, the
result was a significant increase to the City in the form of higher worker’s
compensation premiums. The following table summarizes the increases in
premiums experienced by the City during the inquiry period:
Summary of Insurance Premiums Paid
Item FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05
Workers' Comp. $50,514 $288,393 $299,952 $393,026
Liability $111,638 $122,496 $410,880 $423,410
Property/Spec. Ins. $318,598 $541,095 $451,040 $633,374
Totals: $480,750 $951,984 $1,161,872 $1,449,810 Page 4 of 6
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100328.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Unfortunately, the recent natural disasters (Hurricanes Katrina and Rita) will have
a continued tightening effect on the risk markets resulting, at best, in a status-quo
in the currently high premium expenses to the City. It is possible, rates may
increase. Because of recently enacted reforms by the State Legislature, we
present a more slightly rosy outlook for workers’ compensation premiums. The
status quo is expected, with a possibility of a moderate decrease in premiums.
Recording Long-Term Liability
In addition to the direct expenditures outlined in the above tables, in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the City Treasurer’s
Office Accounting Staff books a journal entry to recognize potential future Long-
Term Liability. The jornal entry is reflective of estimations provided by our
workers’ compensation third party administrator and liability consultant. It is an
attempt to account for claims that are outstanding but not fully settled. The
following table outlines the journal entries booked over the inquiry period:
Future Liability Journal Entries
Item FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05
Workers Comp. $5,280,739 $844,529 $112,657 $71,000
Liability $482,746 ($794,100) $243,531 ($109,925)
Totals: $5,763,485 $50,429 $356,188 ($38,925)
These long-term liabilities are subject to change as the claims develop. As
additional claims are filed, the long-term liability will increase. Conversely, as
claims are settled, the long-term liability will decrease. Additionally, settlement of
a claim may result in an increase in short term expenses with a decrease in the
associated long-term liability.
So, What Did Happen?
Flat Revenue Stream Coupled with Increased Claims and State Take-Aways
As seen in the above tables, the SIF got hit with a triple whammy. The City’s
allocation formula remained at the historically adequate rate at a time when costs
skyrocketed. Additionally, the City was significantly and negatively impacted by
the generally lackluster economic conditions prevalent during the inquiry period.
The State of California’s fiscal crisis and the associated raids on local revenues
(punctuated by the VLF take-away and the “triple flip” tax swap) also reduced the
City’s financial resources at a time when the SIF would have benefited by
increased charges for services.Page 5 of 6
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100328.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
The expenditure tables also show a significant increase in costs during the
inquiry period. As mentioned above, the overall costs for insurance premiums
tripled and claims payments for liability and workers’ compensation remained
above the period average. A combination of the flat contribution rates and
significantly higher expenses resulted in the SIF moving from a surplus into a
deficit. Without corrective action, the SIF’s long-term liabilities and current
accumulated defecit pose a significant financial challenge to the City, especially
its General Fund.
Recommended Corrective Actions
After reviewing the condition of the SIF and consulting with the Self Insurance
Fund Task Force, I recommend three actions which would, over time, return the
SIF to firm financial footing and reduce the significant impact on the City’s
General Fund.
Increased Employee Education and Training
Workers’ compensation claims can be minimized by increasing employee
education and training. With the filling of two key positions on the City’s Risk
Management Staff, additional opportunities are being made available for City
Staff to become more aware of ways to improve workplace conditions and,
thereby, reduce the potential for workers’ compensation claims and associated
costs.
Implemetation of an Improved Current Cost Allocation Formula
Risk Management Staff, led by Kermit Francis and Nick Kimball, have proposed
an Improved Current Cost Allocation Formula. In summary, the new formula
would depart from the fixed rate system and improve the SIF’s current revenues
by taking into account changes in claims payments and including a component
consisting of a moving five year average of the claims paid. This would also
moderate potential “wild swings” in the cost allocations attributable to
unexpectedly high claim payment years.
Amortization of the Long-Term Liability Over a 20-Year Time Horizon
Currently, the SIF has a $16.267 million unfunded long-term liability. In
calculating the long-term liability, the City’s third party administrators have used a
20 year time horizon. It is recommended the City amortize this currently
unfunded liability over the same time horizon. This would require an amortization
charge of approximately $815,000 annualy over all City Departments. This
would be over and above any amount allocatable to the Departments through
implementation of the Improved Current Cost Allocation Formula.
ConclusionPage 6 of 6
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100328.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
The City’s Self-Insurance Fund is an important financial and management tool to
help the City properly manage its risk. Generally Accpeted Account Principles
require the City to financially recognize certain of its long-term liabilities. With the
implementation of Government Accounting Standards Board Pronoucements 42
and 45 in 2007, these requirements will be expanded to include future retiree
health benefits.
While returning the SIF to firm financial footing will require significant current and
future financial commitments (especially from the General Fund), to allow a large
long-term liability to accrue without offsetting financial resources to retire that
liability would pose a significant threat to the City’s continued fiscal stability.
Therefore, we recommend the City Council seriously consider implementing the
recommendations contained in this report effective with Fiscal Year 2006/2007.
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD CULVER CITY, CA 90232-0507
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: 01/19/2006
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jerry B. Fulwood, Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Update on Progress with Grants Collection/Administration
One area currently under review is the City’s grants management and collection
programs. Over the past several months, the CAO’s Office has been working
together with all City Departments to evaluate the current situation and to
implement policies that will improve future operations. Following is a summary of
the results of these efforts.
As of June 30, 2005, thirty-one (31) open and closed grants were associated with
a grant receivables totaling $2.48 million (Capital Grant Fund No. 423 $2.32
million and Operating Grant Fund No. 414 $164,800).
In investigating grants receivable, staff reviewed citywide oversight and
responsibilities for managing and administering grants, as well as identifying and
applying for grants. During the course of the review, staff identified the following
deficiencies in the oversight/administration of grant funds:
1. Untimely Drawdown Requests for Funds
Extended delays in reimbursements were caused by departments failing
to submit requests in a timely manner. While the terms of some grant
agreements may not permit immediate replenishment of grant
expenditures advanced by the City, most of the grant agreements permit
funds on a monthly basis. Previous grant procedures have not required
monthly assessment of negative cash balances or of reimbursements in a
timely manner basis. Thus, departments have not initiated request for
grant funds as quickly as permitted under the agreement.
2. Inactive Negative Grant Funds
In identifying grants with negative balances, four (4) grants, totaling
$157,399 are associated with closed out capital projects that were
completed in the mid to late 90s. The negative cash balances maintained
for the extended period indicates expenditures for which reimbursement
may be problematic in receiving from the grantor.
Staff have developed and implemented the following policies, procedures, and
practices to address the identified deficiencies. Page 2 of 2
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100375.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1. Revised Administrative Policy and Procedures
Staff has revised the City’s Administrative Procedures for Grant
Submission and Administration to provide uniform procedures for
monitoring grant drawdowns and closeout activities, and grant
identification, solicitation, and application processes.
2. Grants Taskforce
The Office of the CAO has developed a Grants Taskforce, composed of
Departmental grant liaisons to meet periodically to coordinate and monitor
citywide grant activities.
3. Advisement to Departments to Drawdown
In identifying business units with negative grant receivables, staff has
advised departments to immediately invoice for reimbursement.
4. Investigating Inactive Grants
Staff has begun to investigate inactive grants that have carried negative
balances for an extended period of time. Staff is taking the appropriate
steps to either immediately realize the outstanding revenue, or write–off
the receivable as uncollectible, if it is determined that certain expenditures
are not eligible for reimbursement by the grantor.
Since providing the appropriate oversight to the City’s grant receivables, grant
receivables have been reduced to $1.84 million, a decrease of $640,000.
Further, departments have invoiced grantors a total of $1.3 million dollars of the
outstanding receivable. Due to the nature of reimbursable grants, negative cash
balances will persist for grants for a period of 2-3 months before money is
received from the grantor. Staff will monitor receivables to ensure that the City’s
negative grant receivables will continue to decrease.
Through implementation of the above practices and continued oversight of the
overall grants procedures Citywide, we are confident that every dollar of the
remaining $0.54 million in grants receivable will be either (1) invoiced and
collected or (2) accounted for and appropriately booked in the City’s financial
system.
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD CULVER CITY, CA 90232-0507
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: 12/19/2005
TO: The Honorable Members of the City Council
FROM: Jerry B. Fulwood, Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Financial State of the City
Tonight I wanted to provide the City Council with a more in-depth report on the fiscal state of
the City (especially the City’s General Fund).
FINANCIAL ISSUES
The City is facing challenging financial issues in the coming months and years. Because of
the significant portion of the City’s budget allocated for personnel costs, it is important to
review the City’s financial conditions at this time. It is also important to keep this situation in
mind as the Council considers various new programs and funding requests.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Executive Summary
With consideration of the mid-year budget review, salary survey, labor negotiations and
preparation of the 2006/07 budget in progress, it is important to provide an updated financial
forecast and show the current City’s financial condition with appropriate recommendations.
The following report provides statistical trends and projections that should be factored into
any financial policy decisions.
The City has had years in which General Fund revenues increased sufficiently to keep up
with increased expenditures; however, sometimes budget outcomes deviate from the
projections. Therefore, it is crucial to develop a plan to deal with unanticipated budget
outcomes and take actions to bring the budget back into line. To assist the Council in
developing this plan, the City Controller has prepared a five year projection of revenues,
expenditures, and reserve balance. According to this projection, if the City continues with its
current budget practice, expenditures will outpace revenues and the General Fund reserve
balance will be completely depleted by fiscal year 2010-11 (page 2).
Following are potential negative impacts and challenges to the City’s financial condition that
the City faces in the next few years:Page 2 of 15
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100330.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Increasing recurring expenditures (i.e. personnel costs), which are accounting for a
greater proportion of the City’s General Fund (pages 5 & 6). This may potentially
place an on-going drain on the General Fund; possibly leading to the need for service
reductions to return the City to financial stability.
To compound the issue of increasing personnel costs, the City absorbed funding for
a number of positions over the past few years due to expiring grant money
(approximately $700,000 per year).
Another area of concern is the City’s unfunded liability exposure (pages 9-12.
Currently, there is approximately $17 million of unfunded future liability associated
with the Workers’ Compensation and General Liability programs. Additionally, GASB
45 will require the City to report unfunded retiree health benefits beginning in 2007.
The City needs to develop and implement a long term financial plan to adequately
address funding for these future liabilities.
There are also a number of issues on the horizon that will effect the City’s financial
well being. Some of these issues include: 1) funding for deferred maintenance costs,
2) establishing a constant and sufficient funding stream for capital projects, 3)
possible reductions in available grant money due to budget cuts at the State and
Federal level, which may cause the City to absorb funding for ongoing personnel and
maintenance costs.
Recommendations:
Evaluate current City services, identify the essential services, and determine the level
of services that the City would like to provide.
Appropriate 50% of surplus (when applicable) to the Capital Improvement Fund, 25%
to Self Insurance Fund fund balance, 15% to deferred maintenance, and 10% to IT
and Communication Equipment Capital Fund.
Take a more conservative approach to budgeting. Eliminate the 96% spending
assumption and replace it with a 100% spending assumption; therefore, any savings
realized in the previous fiscal year may be appropriated as a surplus.Page 3 of 15
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100330.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Revenues and Expenditures
Projected
The following table summarizes the five year revenue and expenditure projection completed by the City
Controller. The projected expenditures assume the following: 1) 1%, 3% and 5% annual increase in salary
and salary related costs each year for all employee groups, and 2) a 3% annual increase in maintenance and
operating expenses. Projected 2006-07 revenues include $1,462,000 of one-time Commercial Industrial tax
and Permit fees. As a result, the estimated deficit for fiscal year 2006-07 is approximately ($320,000) at 3%
salary increase.
At 1% Salary Increase
Fiscal
Fund
Balance Revenues/ Expenditures/ Annual
Fund
Balance % Of 30% Of
Year July 1st Transfers Transfers Surplus/(Deficit) End of Year Reserve Expenditures
2005-06 * 24,000,000 72,258,000 74,507,978 (2,249,978) 21,750,022 29.19% 22,352,000
2006-07 21,750,022 73,983,000 73,257,277 725,723 22,475,745 30.68% 21,977,000
2007-08 22,475,745 74,663,000 75,871,296 (1,208,296) 21,267,449 28.03% 22,761,000
2008-09 21,267,449 76,778,000 78,657,173 (1,879,173) 19,388,276 24.65% 23,597,000
2009-10 19,388,276 78,924,000 81,634,090 (2,710,090) 16,678,186 20.43% 24,490,000
2010-11 16,678,186 81,135,000 83,983,990 (2,848,990) 13,829,196 16.47% 25,195,000
At 3% Salary Increase
Fiscal
Fund
Balance Revenues/ Expenditures/ Annual
Fund
Balance % Of 30% Of
Year July 1st Transfers Transfers Surplus/(Deficit) End of Year Reserve Expenditures
2005-06 * 24,000,000 72,258,000 74,507,978 (2,249,978) 21,750,022 29.19% 22,352,000
2006-07 21,750,022 73,983,000 74,254,437 (271,437) 21,478,585 28.93% 22,276,000
2007-08 21,478,585 74,663,000 77,957,716 (3,294,716) 18,183,869 23.33% 23,387,000
2008-09 18,183,869 76,778,000 81,898,235 (5,120,235) 13,063,634 15.95% 24,569,000
2009-10 13,063,634 78,924,000 86,097,790 (7,173,790) 5,889,844 6.84% 25,829,000
2010-11 5,889,844 81,135,000 89,684,090 (8,549,090) (2,659,246) -2.97% 26,905,000
At 5% Salary Increase
Fiscal
Fund
Balance Revenues/ Expenditures/ Annual
Fund
Balance % Of 30% Of
Year July 1st Transfers Transfers Surplus/(Deficit) End of Year Reserve Expenditures
2005-06 * 24,000,000 72,258,000 74,507,978 (2,249,978) 21,750,022 29.19% 22,352,000
2006-07 21,750,022 73,983,000 75,251,045 (1,268,045) 20,481,977 27.22% 22,575,000
2007-08 20,481,977 74,663,000 80,083,826 (5,420,826) 15,061,151 18.81% 24,025,000
2008-09 15,061,151 76,778,000 85,265,720 (8,487,720) 6,573,431 7.71% 25,580,000
2009-10 6,573,431 78,924,000 90,826,490 (11,902,490) (5,329,059) -5.87% 27,248,000
2010-11 (5,329,059) 81,135,000 95,841,090 (14,706,090) (20,035,149) -20.90% 28,752,000 Page 4 of 15
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100330.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
In the coming years, the City’s General Fund budget position shows substantial declines unless major deficit-
reducing actions are taken. The reason for this pattern is that there are several categories of appropriations
that will rise faster than the CPI, such as medical insurance. In addition, it reflects a change of the projected
excess appropriation percentage from 96% to 97% for fiscal year 2006-07. The projection also assumed it
continues to increase by 1% annually for the next three years until a 100% spending assumption is realized.
The one percent can be reduced to a lesser amount. However, it does not include capital project funding
(including the additional $1 million needed for Fire Station #3), increasing contribution to Self-insurance fund,
and possible additional funding for vacation and sick leave accrual payoffs due to retirements. There may be
sales tax revenue adjustments based on the updated 1
st
quarter data in early 2006 which will be provided by
our consultant, HdL. The projected collection of Transient Occupancy Tax revenue in the amount of
approximately $500,000 may not be realized in the near future and it will impact the revenue projection as well.
Trend
On average, the growth rate of expenditures has outpaced the growth rate of revenues over the past five
years. As a result, the General Fund reserve level has decreased and is projected to fall below 30% for the
first time since fiscal year 2000-01 (see Table 2). Chart 1 illustrates that the City generally allocates a
significant portion of the revenues each year.
Table 2:
EXPENDITURES REVENUES GENERAL FUND
RESERVE
FY Expenditures Capital
Projects
%
Change
Revenues %
Change
Surplus
(Deficit)
Reserve %
00-01 $52,652,188 $131,820 $59,910,103 $7,126,095 $15,553,000 29.5%
01-02 $58,626,842 $1,159,618 11.3% $57,413,436 -4.2% ($2,373,024) $22,678,000 37.9%
02-03 $60,362,353 $117,813 3.0% $62,154,897 8.3% $1,674,731 $20,304,000 33.6%
03-04 $61,220,424 $37,134 1.4% $63,689,518 2.5% $2,431,960 $19,568,000 31.9%
04-05 $66,320,465 $1,151,650 8.3% $68,620,902 7.7% $1,148,787 $24,030,000 35.6%
05-06 $73,318,000 $1,190,000 10.6% $72,258,000 5.3% ($2,250,000) $21,758,000 29.2%
5 Yr Avg 6.9% 3.9%Page 5 of 15
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100330.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Chart 1:
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
Millions
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
General Fund Revenues vs. Expenditures
Revenues Total Expenditures Reserve
There have been a number of significant one-time revenues and expenditures over the last five years that
have affected the City’s cash flow, which are outlined in Table 3. The negative values in 2004-05 and 2005-06
represent the State takeaway of property tax.
Table 3:
ONE-TIME REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Fiscal Year Category Approx. Amount
2002-03 Business License $1,000,000
2002-03 Franchise Tax $1,000,000
2004-05 State Motor Vehicle Early Loan Repayment $682,632
2004-05 Property Tax ($971,000)
2005-06 Property Tax ($971,000)
2005-06 Misc. Revenues from New Development $2,400,000Page 6 of 15
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100330.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Personnel Costs
Personnel costs (i.e. salaries and benefits) represent a significant portion of the City’s General Fund
appropriations. Since personnel costs represent locked in dollars, it limits the flexibility that the City has from
year to year to implement new programs or projects or add new positions.
Chart 2 compares Culver City’s personnel costs as a percentage of the total General Fund budget to the
personnel costs of other cities in the area. The chart shows Culver City’s personnel costs as a percentage of
the total budget are higher than most comparable cities in the area (avg. = 74%).
Chart 2:
83.1%
60.7%
75.5%
84.5%
78.2%
67.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Culver City
Beverly Hills
Burbank
Glendale
Redondo Beach
Santa Monica
Personnel Costs as a % of Total BudgetPage 7 of 15
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100330.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Personnel costs are basically fixed, with employees’ salary and benefit increases predetermined, often for
multiple years, by MOU contracts that are negotiated with the labor groups.
In the past, City Council has had to take drastic steps to decrease personnel costs in order to balance the
budget. In 2002-03 and 2003-04, the Council reduced personnel costs through attrition and elimination of
positions.
Chart 4 shows the number of General Fund staff before and after those layoffs. Despite the layoffs, personnel
costs have continued to increase as a percentage of the total General Fund budget (Table 5).
Chart 4:
General Fund Employees
497.00
483.50
466.67
465.42
495.77
440.00
450.00
460.00
470.00
480.00
490.00
500.00
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Table 5:
PERSONNEL COSTS
FY Personnel Costs % Total Budget
2000-01 $42,407,030 80.5%
2001-02 $45,787,140 78.1%
2002-03 $48,722,355 80.7%
2003-04 $49,612,182 81.0%
2004-05 $54,693,323 82.5%Page 8 of 15
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100330.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
The following table and chart illustrate the three fastest growing expenditures over the past five years: retiree
and group medical benefits, PERS contributions, and self insurance costs.
Table 6:
General Fund Significant Expenditures
FY Retiree
Insurance
% Group
Insurance
% PERS
Contribution
% SIF
Contribution
% Total
Expense
%
00-01 $952,764 $2,741,734 $241,000 $2,739,636 $6,675,134
01-02 $1,159,370 21.7% $3,153,090 15.0% $369,000 53.1% $2,834,182 3.5%$7,515,642 12.6%
02-03 $1,647,320 42.1% $3,655,335 15.9% $1,084,000 193.8% $3,247,326 14.6%$9,633,981 28.2%
03-04 $1,979,710 20.2% $3,968,596 8.6% $1,586,000 46.3% $3,445,282 6.1% $10,979,588 14.0%
04-05 $2,157,160 9.0% $4,325,146 9.0% $5,191,000 227.3% $3,591,576 4.2% $15,264,882 39.0%
Chart 5:
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
Millions
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
General Fund Significant Expenditures
Retiree Insurance Group Insurance PERS Contribution SIF ContributionPage 9 of 15
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100330.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Workers’ Compensation Future Liability
Across the State of California, exponential increases in workers’ compensation costs forced the legislature to
pass a sweeping set of reforms with SB 899 (2004). Despite these reforms, workers’ compensation continues
to be a significant expense for the City. Culver City is self-insured for workers’ compensation, which means
that the City is responsible to pay all claims from the first dollar. This has a significant impact on the General
Fund.
Chart 6 compares Culver City to the other cities in the ICRMA’s (the City’s insurance risk pool) Workers’
Compensation program. As you can see, Culver City has the highest workers’ compensation claims cost per
%50,000 of payroll; approximately 82% above the average for ICRMA cities. It should be noted that Culver
City provides a higher level of service, with full service Police, Fire, and Transportation departments, than the
comparative cities.
Chart 6:
ICRMA
Costs of Workers' Compensation Claims
by Member per $50,000 of Payroll
CY 2000-2004
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
Culver City
El Monte
Lynwood
Inglewood
Hermosa Beach
Whittier
Downey
San Fernando
Baldwin Park
Manhattan Beach
Redondo Beach
Alhambra
Monrovia
Huntington Park
El Segundo
Monterey Park
Arcadia
Bell
La Habra
Vernon
Upland
Azusa
Glendora
Averages
$2,145
$3,900
82% above the Avg for ICRMA citiesPage 10 of 15
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100330.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Chart 7 shows the Self Insurance Fund expense over the past five years. It also shows the corresponding
decrease in the SIF’s cash reserves over the same time period. In order to avoid a significant increase in the
General Fund’s contribution to the SIF, cash reserves were used to cover operations. As a result, the SIF
cash reserves have been reduced from $12 million to less than $1 million.
Chart 7:
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
Millions
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05*
Workers' Comp Future Liability vs. Fund Cash
Balance
Future Liability per TPA Ending Fund Balance
(Cash Available)
Cash reserves are needed in the Self Insurance fund for two reasons: 1) cover unexpected large claims costs,
settlements or awards, and 2) cover any future outstanding liabilities (e.g. ongoing l ong term medical treatment
for employees who have been injured at work). The City relies on two outside consultants to determine the
value of our future liabilities: 1) our third party workers’ compensation claims administrator, Colen & Lee, and
2) an actuarial report provided by Bay Actuarial Services. Colen & Lee determines future liability based on
the total cost incurred over the life of an injury. Each claim is evaluated and a reserve is set aside to pay for
future medical expenses. Total future liability is derived by adding the reserves for all open claims. The
actuarial uses a larger sample of data to derive a formula based on claims experience and frequency.
Generally, the actuarial’s determination is more conservative, and therefore higher, than Colen & Lee’s
determination.Page 11 of 15
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100330.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Table 7 contains the City’s future liability as determined by Colen & Lee for the past five years and the
Actuarial Report for the past four years. Actuarial studies were not conducted on a consistent basis prior to
2001-02; therefore some prior year information is not available.
Table 7:
WORKERS' COMP FUTURE LIABILITY FUND BALANCE
FY Future Liability
per TPA
%
Change
Future Liability
per Actuarial
%
Change
Beginning Fund
Balance
(Cash Available)
2000-01 $6,500,508 N/A $11,570,000
2001-02 $11,781,243 81.2% $9,531,338 $9,785,000
2002-03 $12,625,772 7.2% $13,124,679 37.7% $5,342,000
2003-04 $12,738,439 0.9% $17,404,452 32.6% $2,040,000
2004-05 $13,551,429 6.4% $20,295,000 16.6% $1,076,000
Table 8 contains the three cost components of the Self Insurance Fund. These components are: 1)
Administration, 2) Injured on Duty (IOD), and 3) Premiums and Claims. The administration costs pay the
salaries of the staff that manage the workers’ compensation and general liability programs (i.e. Risk
Management staff and a portion of City Attorney staff). IOD pays the salaries and benefits of employees who
are missing work due to a work related injury. After an employee has missed 30 days of work, their salary is
paid out of the IOD fund rather than from their Department’s personnel costs until the employee returns to
work. The Premiums and Claims component is used to pay for insurance premiums (including Property
insurance, General Liability insurance, and excess Workers’ Compensation insurance) and any workers’
compensation and liability claims costs. Claims costs include medical treatment, litigation expenses, third
party administration expenses, and all other expenses associated with workers’ comp and liability claims.
Table 8:
Self Insurance Fund Costs
FY Admin %
Change
IOD %
Change
Premiums %
Change
Claims %
Change
Total
Expense
%
Change
2000-01 $639,889 $289,134 $311,374 $4,182,594 $5,422,991
2001-02 $795,304 24.3% $653,033 125.9% $480,751 54.4% $8,414,704 101.2% $10,343,792 90.7%
2002-03 $654,808 -17.7% $483,078 -26.0% $951,984 98.0% $8,368,570 -0.5% $10,458,440 1.1%
2003-04 $524,137 -20.0% $703,741 45.7% $1,161,872 22.0% $2,516,833 -69.9% $4,906,583 -53.1%
2004-05 $690,879 31.8% $730,606 3.8% $1,449,810 24.8% $5,856,087 132.7% $8,727,382 77.9%Page 12 of 15
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100330.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Chart 8 illustrates that Claims are the largest cost component of the SIF.
Chart 8:
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
$9
Millions
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Cost Components for Self Insurance Fund
Admin IOD Premiums Claims
Miscellaneous Financial Issues
In addition to cash flow concerns, rising personnel costs, and a large unfunded workers’ compensation liability,
the City will be faced with a number of other issues over the next few years including:
GASB 45 (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) will require the City to record non -pension
benefits for retirees’ liabilities; failure to adhere to the requirement can result in poor audits and poor
bond ratings.
Deferred maintenance costs for streets, buildings, and other infrastructure maintenance;
Reduced State and Federal grant money (e.g. CDBG) due to budget cuts at t hose levels may put the
City in the position of absorbing additional personnel and maintenance costs.
Other Issues: TMDL, increased fuel costs ($50,000), funding for Fire Station #3, Promote and attract
economic development projects;
Review and may be implement program proposed cost saving in the Management audit report which
conducted several years;
Evaluate how to maximize the use of the Graphic Service to all department and reduce the operating
costs;
Contract management compliance;
Decrease service level to save costs; and
Increase service fees.
3% @50 Police Safety PERS contribution costs should be a negotiation item?
Part-time employee salary increase;
RECOMMENDATION
In formulating the following recommendations, I have considered many issues. The th ree of greatest
importance are: (1) developing an overall financial management strategy for the entire City organization (City
and Redevelopment Agency) that helps encourage structural operating surpluses in the long term while
providing the high level of services to the Citizens of Culver City in accordance with the high standards set by
the City Council; (2) within budgetary ability, maintain a competitive employment environment for the City’s
valued workforce that allows the City to retain and attract highly qualified and motivated employees; and (3) Page 13 of 15
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100330.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
provide a systematic approach to allow the City to accumulate sufficient financial resources to provide the
Council broader opportunity to address the mounting costs of deferred maintenance and needed infrastructure
maintenance and improvements. With those important goals in mind, I recommend the following specific items
for the Council’s consideration
Financial Management Strategy
Pursuant to the Culver City Charter, accounting functions are a responsibility of the City Treasurer’s Office.
Therefore, any meaningful reform of the financial management of the City must include an evaluation of the
City Treasurer’s Office.
Accounts Receivable
It is important the City collect amounts legally due to it. To this end, I propose the production of an Accounts
Receivable Listing generated on a monthly basis including an “Aging Report.” This A/R Listing would be
provided to the Chief Administrative Officer and Department Heads and reviewed to ensure progress in
collecting sums due the City. This includes refuse billing, ambulance fees, miscellaneous billings and grants.
So that all amounts due the City, regardless of size, are collected using a systematic approach, the past
practice of individual departments invoicing and collection should be centralized.
100% Appropriation Based Budgeting
The past practice of the City appropriating certain funds and then forecasting an amount of expenditures at
some percentage less than 100% has lead to increased unpredictability in projecting actual year end
operational results. In those years of increased financial difficulty (including recent years where the State of
California redirected traditional City funds to the State coffers), this practice can be particularly problematic.
To reinforce the goal of obtaining “structural operational surpluses,” I propose basing budgetary appropriations
at 100% of expected expenditures.
Fees and Charges
In accordance with State Law, the City has the ability to charge fees for certain services that are
commensurate with the City’s expenses in providing that service. Therefore, I propose the City Council review
the City’s fee system to ensure the City’s fee schedule is set at an appropriate level.
Deferred Maintenance and Equipment Replacement
Working with all City Departments, but particularly the Departments of Public Works and Parks, Recreation,
and Community Services, Information Technology, Police, and Fire, develop a plan to systematically address
the ever increasing costs of deferred maintenance of the City’s public rights-of-way and public parks and
facilities.
Realization of Bulk Purchasing Economies and Prompt Payment Discounts
While the City already attempts to achieve savings in bulk purchases and taking advantage of prompt payment
discounts, both of these practices should be expanded to increase savings.
Economic Development Program
The City’s economic development efforts have produced impressive results. The improved commercial base
of the City has resulted in a more varied environment for the City’s residents to obtain goods and services and
provided increased sales tax, property tax, and business license tax income to the City. Economic
development efforts should continue. However, the tendency for the City’s expenditures to “grow into” the
expected revenue stream generated by successful economic development should be discontinued and
increased revenues placed in a special fund in the City’s accounts for allocation by the City Council to address
unmet needs.Page 14 of 15
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100330.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Competitive Employment Environment
Overall, the City Council has provided a competitive salary and benefits package for the men and women who
deliver the various services to the City’s residents – the City’s employees. However, in times of challenging
finances, the City has reluctantly been required to institute lay-offs to keep the City’s operations in surplus. I
believe this is a symptom of the “feast or famine” financial cycle experienced in previous years. To build a
more stable financial foundation upon which current employees and retirees can rely and to improve financial
conditions in the long-term, I propose the following:
Two-Tier Benefits System
As the City Council is aware, costs for medical and retirement benefits have risen by double-digit factors over
the past several years. These increased costs have placed a significant financial burden on the City with costs
rising at a rate outpacing the rate of growth of the City’s revenues. To balance the City’s desire to retain
current employees within the current salary and benefit structure, I propose the implementation of a two-tier
benefits system. Employees appointed on or before June 30, 2006 would be retained under the current
system with employees appointed afterwards being placed in a second benefit tier. This provides a plan by
which the City can both maintain its current workforce at the traditional benefits structure and still recruit new
employees with full disclosure of the terms of employment.
Risk Management
As outlined earlier this evening, the City’s Self-Insurance Fund has experienced significant costs increases
over the past five year period. As part of cost management, the City should undertake increased education
efforts to minimize worker’s compensation and interior liability costs. More broadly, wherever possible, City
employees should be encouraged to help minimize general liability claims through reporting of potential
hazards.
Accumulation of Financial Resources to Address Unmet Needs
While Culver City provides a high level of services to its Citizens, as mentioned above, the City has significant
unmet needs in the areas of deferred maintenance and infrastructure repair and replacement. By
implementing these recommendations, it is expected the City Council could increase its General Fund
Reserve from the current 25%-30% to 30%-35%. This would place the City in a better financial position to
respond to an emergency and to increase investment income. Additional reserves should be set aside for
designated use, such as the Capital Improvement Project Fund.
Attrition
To avoid further lay-offs of current employees, I propose each City Department develop a ten-year attrition
plan that strategically addresses the potential for reorganization of departmental operations to realize savings
through efficiencies with a goal of reducing staff by 5%.
Consultant Evaluation of the City Treasurer’s Office
To ensure the accounting process is properly evaluated and improved, I propose the City Council consider two
items. The first: issuance of a request for proposals for a consulting firm to perform a comprehensive
evaluation of the operations of the City Treasurer’s Office. The consultant would review and make
recommendations issues of concern to the City Council, including the timely preparation and distribution to the
City Council, CAO, and Department Heads of periodic financial reports, consistent with those reports prepared
by other cities, which include accurate and meaningful information necessary to proactively manage the City.
Clearly Define the Responsibilities of the City Treasurer and City Controller
Additionally, I recommend the City Council consider clear definition of responsibility for financial management
of the City’s resources between the City Treasurer and the City Controller, including the potential Page 15 of 15
FILE NAME: $ASQPDF100330.DOC PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
reassignment of the revenue management component to the City Controller. This would include addressing
the items of ongoing production of accurate and useful periodic financial reports.
CONCLUSION
These recommendations are submitted to the City Council at a time when the City’s financial situation is
challenging but not dire. The proposals outlined above request the City Council to consider changing core
elements pertaining to management of the City’s financial resources. By taking action now, the Council has
many options open to it with time to implement them. Ultimately, by placing the City on a firmer financial
foundation, the core values of high service levels to the City’s residential and business communities,
competitive employment environment, and blossoming economic development efforts can not only be
maintained, but ultimately, expanded to meet the future needs of the Culver City community.
These recommendations are presented to the City Council this evening for consideration and initial discussion.
It is staff’s intent to return to the City Council on March 13, 2006 for additional discussion and to receive
direction from the City Council.
CITY OF CULVER CITY
EXHIBIT A
SUMMARY OF REVENUES
COMPARISON OF MID-YEAR FISCAL 2004-05 AND 2005-06
GENERAL FUND
FISCAL 2004-05 FISCAL 2005-06
ADOPTED
BUDGET
2004-05
ADJUSTED
BUDGET
2004-05
MID-YEAR
RECEIPTS
2004-05
MID-YEAR
PERCENT
RECEIVED*
2004-05
ACTUAL
RECEIPTS
2004-05
ADOPTED
BUDGET
2005-06
ADJUSTED
BUDGET
2005-06
MID-YEAR
RECEIPTS
2005-06
MID-YEAR
PERCENT
RECEIVED*
2005-06
PROPERTY TAX 2,670,000 2,670,000 511,354 19.15% 1,868,925 1,804,000 1,804,000 725,631 40.2%
SALES TAX 15,600,000 15,600,000 4,560,839 29.24% 16,621,143 17,640,000 17,640,000 5,046,402 28,6%
PUBLIC SAFETY SALES TAX 325,000 325,000 111,130 34.19% 347,193 350,000 350,000 119,051 34.0%
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX 7,650,000 7,650,000 444,509 5.81% 8,190,779 8,275,000 8,275,000 393,701 4.8%
FRANCHISE TAX 1,230,000 1,230,000 84,180 6.84% 1,114,433 1,375,000 1,375,000 119,964 8.7%
REAL PROP.TRANS TAX 1,500,000 1,500,000 985,481 65.70% 2,277,768 2,025,000 2,025,000 869,591 42.9%
UTILITY TAXES 12,950,000 12,950,000 5,412,320 41.79% 12,617,273 13,340,000 13,340,000 5,654,169 42.4%
TRANS OCC TAX 2,350,000 2,350,000 889,366 37.85% 1,991,981 2,250,000 2,250,000 893,916 39.7%
COM/IND DEV TAX 75,000 75,000 76,641 102.19% 225,140 1,663,750 1,663,750 47,223 2.8%
LICENSES AND PERMITS 988,300 988,300 565,296 57.20% 1,171,893 1,751,800 1,755,800 584,332 33.3%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,895,452 1,895,452 229,817 12.12% 3,375,574 2,540,000 2,540,000 10,886 0.4%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES 7,764,055 7,894,559 2,611,684 33.08% 6,770,229 7,592,620 7,592,620 3,929,972 51.8%
FINES AND FORFEITS 3,310,000 3,423,000 1,996,421 58.32% 4,064,953 3,925,000 3,925,000 1,937,782 49.4%
USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 805,000 805,000 407,997 50.68% 834,081 905,500 905,500 511,477 56.5%
INTER FUND/DEPARTMENTAL 5,333,708 5,333,708 2,034,124 38.14% 5,327,058 5,862,097 5,862,097 2,951,151 50.3%
OTHER REVENUES 204,470 214,307 54,754 25.55% 173,335 105,700 111,100 47,558 42.8%
OTHER 1,177,000 1,292,700 588,500 45.52% 1,292,700 1,391,500 1,391,500 695,750 50.0%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 65,827,985 66,197,026 21,564,413 32.58% 68,264,458 72,796,967 72,806,367 24,538,556 33.7%|10 10|BUILDING SURCHARGE FUND 0 0 0 0.00% 0 50,000 50,000 12,110 24.2%
GRANTS OPERATING FUND 1,014,210 1,373,898 787,830 57.34% 1,322,669 1,095,525 2,231,990 654,734 29.3%
CDBG - OPERATING GRANT FUND 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 87,994 24,381 27.7%
CDBG CAPITAL GRANT FUND 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 193,616 0.0%
PROP A LOCAL RETURN FUND 569,910 569,910 293,301 51.46% 1,283,401 590,390 590,390 254,855 43.2%
PROP C LOCAL RETURN FUND 472,704 472,704 167,949 35.53% 2,182,643 489,698 489,698 224,143 45.8%
ASSET SEIZURES FUND 0 0 51,251 0.00% 94,763 0 0 56,765 0.0%
SECTION 8 HOUSING 3,563,512 3,563,512 1,054,726 29.60% 2,574,685 2,846,104 2,846,104 858,002 30.1%CITY OF CULVER CITY
EXHIBIT A
SUMMARY OF REVENUES
COMPARISON OF MID-YEAR FISCAL 2004-05 AND 2005-06
FISCAL 2004-05 FISCAL 2005-06
MID-YEAR
MID-YEAR
ADOPTED ADJUSTED MID-YEAR PERCENT ACTUAL ADOPTED ADJUSTED MID-YEAR PERCENT
BUDGET BUDGET RECEIPTS RECEIVED* RECEIPTS BUDGET BUDGET RECEIPTS RECEIVED*
2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
REFUSE FUNDS 8,953,913 8,954,413 4,304,572 48.07% 9,119,947 9,879,387 9,879,387 4,750,526 48.1%
MUNICIPAL BUS 14,981,753 14,981,753 7,085,925 47.30% 17,736,579 15,431,787 15,431,787 5,775,000 37.4%
SEWER FUND 6,145,000 6,145,000 3,114,058 50.68% 7,691,331 8,270,000 8,270,000 3,312,513 40.1%
LANDSCAPE MAINT. DIST 47,000 47,000 19,404 41.29% 46,770 47,000 47,000 21,096 44.9%
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 30,127,666 30,128,166 14,523,959 48.21% 34,594,627 33,628,174 33,628,174 13,859,135 41.2%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES 104,896 121,896 42,889 35.18% 125,551 112,000 129,000 54,501 42.2%
NEW DEV. IMPACT FEE FUND 25,000 85,000 3,087 3.63% 7,912 3,000 3,000 1,571 52.4%
SPECIAL GAS TAX FUND 767,000 767,000 259,876 33.88% 643,694 750,000 750,000 498,078 66.4%
PARK FACILITIES FUND 5,000 5,000 7,231 144.62% 54,587 5,000 5,000 8,459 169.2%
CAPITAL IMPWACQ FUND 3,768,520 3,810,827 615,618 16.15% 1,589,047 2,615,000 2,623,906 637,534 24.3%
PARKING IMPROVEMENT FUND 743,200 743,200 413,080 55.58% 867,444 782,800 782,800 479,808 61.3%
GRANTS CAPITAL FUND 583,320 4,063,131 1,490,213 36.68% 2,658,703 949,660 1,355,620 517,768 38.2%
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS 5,996,936 9,596,054 2,831,994 29.51% 5,946,938 5,217,460 5,649,326 2,197,719 38.9%
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
GRAPHIC SERVICES 548,552 548,552 223,640 40.77% 447,567 564,283 564,283 247,618 43.9%
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 1,688,444 1,688,444 848,226 50.24% 1,718,137 1,881,311 1,881,311 972,556 51.7%
CITY GARAGE 5,200,217 5,200,217 2,491,252 47.91% 4,854,101 5,527,574 5,527,574 2,841,900 51.4%
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 4,667,362 4,769,486 2,004,274 42.02% 5,295,027 8,586,040 8,586,040 3,175,126 37.0%
STORES 1,390,000 1,390,000 529,838 38.12% 1,052,828 1,422,250 1,422,250 639,146 44.9%
INNOVATION FUND 5,351 5,351 6,915 129.23% 15,994 5,351 11,903 83,763 703.7%
TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 13,499,926 13,602,050 6,104,145 44.88% 13,383,654 17,986,809 17,993,361 7,960,109 44,2%
TOTAL OPERATING AND
CIP FUNDS 121,072,849 125,503,320 47,379,568 37.75% 129,647,838 134,701,127 136,373,404 50,834,125 37.3%
LESS: INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 13,499,926 13,602,050 6,104,145 44,88% 13,383,654 17,986,809 17,993,361 7,960,109 44.2%
TOTAL BUDGET 107,572,923 111,901,270 41,275,423 36.89% 116,264,184 116,714,318 118,380,043 42,874,016 36.2%
* Mid-year percent received represents the percent of the adopted budget collected at mid-year.
CITY OF CULVER CITY
EXHIBIT B
SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES
COMPARISON OF MID-YEAR FISCAL 2004-05 AND 2005-06
ADOPTED
BUDGET
2004-2005
ADJUSTED
BUDGET
2004-2005
MID-YEAR
ACTUAL
2004-05
MID-YEAR
PERCENT
EXPENDED*
2004-05
ACTUAL
EXPEND
2004-05
ADOPTED
BUDGET
2005-06
ADJUSTED
BUDGET EXPENDITURE
2005-06
MID-YEAR
MID-YEAR PERCENT
EXPENDED*
2005-06 2005-06
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
CITY COUNCIL 252,908 271,836 80,533 30% 195,652 231,903 300,404 101,465 34%
CHIEF ADMIN. OFFICER 875,279 908,061 351,355 39% 849,212 975,118 1,010,421 463,316 46%
CITY CLERK 300,058 305,058 149,523 49% 290,737 371,350 371,750 148,248 40%
CITY TREASURY 2,554,160 2,648,679 1,083,665 41% 2,325,893 2,766,083 2,813,518 1,124,705 40%
CITY ATTORNEY 1,521,694 1,700,422 798,245 47% 1,859,323 1,937,816 2,021,397 945,149 47%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,866,075 2,794,165 976,158
35%
2,426,002 3,896,880 3,850,364
811,064 21%
ADMIN/BUDGET & FINANCE 993,424 997,414 527,548 53% 1,030,196 1,041,531 1,041,764 425,150 41%
PERSONNEL 984,374 1,046,529 446,006 43% 1,013,763 1,057,776 1,086,353 558,611 51%
INFORMATION TECH. 2,105,049 2,156,452 1,013,943 47% 2,073,295 2,216,651 2,265,998 1,072,104 47%
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 12,453,021 12,825,616 5,426,975 42% 12,064,073 14,495,108 14,770,969 5,649,811 38%
PARKS, REC. & COMMUNITY SVCS 5,781,096 5,859,975 2,729,558 47% 5,570,664 5,967,440 5,993,989 2,770,416 46%
POLICE DEPARTMENT 24,524,286 24,554,303 11,868,003 48%
24,402,050 26,900,407 26,956,576
12,536,979 47%
FIRE DEPARTMENT 12,943,134 12,971,741 6,447,279
50%
13,218,799 13,980,400 13,991,038
6,599,040 47%
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5,091,515 5,170,111 2,154,188 42% 4,776,738 5,667,766 5,815,684 2,552,043 44%
PUBLIC WORKS 7,499,784 7,556,600 3,238,038 43% 7,137,196 8,092,917 8,305,216 3,755,424 45%
Transfers 1,381,638 1,485,221 658,929 44% 1,374,893 1,903,940 1,903,940 969,852 51%
Projected excess appropriations (2,793,721) (2,793,721) 0 0% 0 (3,000,000) (3,000,000) 0 0%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 66,880,753 67,632,846 32,522,971 48% 68,544,413 74,007,978 74,737,412 34,833,563 47%
BUILDING SURCHARGE FUND N/A 0 0% 0 50,000 50,000 3,334 7%
TOTAL GRANTS 1,014,210 1,298,052 620,044 48% 1,161,955 1,095,525 2,332,354 671,208 29%
CDBG OPERATING FUND N/A 0 0% 0 0 87,994 44,695 51%
CDBG CAPITAL FUND N/A 0 0% 0 0 67,300 175,482 261%
TOTAL SEC. 8 FUND 3,068,313 3,072,694 1,312,034 43% 2,600,226 2,560,648 2,583,995 886,056 34%
TOTAL PROP A FUND 569,910 569,910 284,955 50% 569,910 590,390 590,390 295,195 50%
TOTAL PROP C FUND 689,327 689,327 175,287 25% 508,621 545,927 545,927 251,624 46%
TOTAL ASSET SEIZURE FUND 41,900 100,978 21,505 21% 146,047 0 512,344 22,429 4%
TOTAL OPERATING 72,264,413 73,363,807 34,936,796 48% 73,531,172 78,850,368 81,507,716 2,350,023 3%CITY OF CULVER CITY
EXHIBIT B
SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES
COMPARISON OF MID-YEAR FISCAL 2004-05 AND 2005-06
ADOPTED
BUDGET
2004-2005
ADJUSTED
BUDGET
2004-2005
MID-YEAR
ACTUAL
2004-05
MID-YEAR
PERCENT
EXPENDED*
2004-05
ACTUAL
EXPEND
2004-05
ADOPTED
BUDGET
2005-06
ADJUSTED
2005-06
BUDGET EXPENDITURE
MID-YEAR
MID-YEAR PERCENT
EXPENDED*
2005-06 2005-06
ENTERPRISE AND USER FEE FUNDS "*
TOTAL REFUSE 9,779,146 9,834,835 4,217,275 43% 8,762,585 10,054,058 10,264,716 4,533,588 44%
TOTAL TRANSIT 17,085,253 25,898,010 10,871,638 42% 15,656,337 17,279,529 23,566,958 8,197,380 35%
TOTAL SEWER 9,214,157 11,292,647 2,950,489 26% 6,773,277 9,762,601 12,187,370 3,610,784 30%
TOTAL LANDSCAPE 47,000 47,000 23,500 50% 47,000 47,000 47,000 23,500 50%
TOTAL ENTERPRISE 36,125,556 47,072,492 18,062,902 38% 31,239,199 37,143,188 46,066,044 16,365,251 36%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 6,395,887 12,869,666 1,598,708 4,587,024 5,610,565 10,998,934
12% 1,756,261 16%
INTERNAL SERVICE FUND 17,074,701 17,467,504 8,188,749 47%
16,669,617 18,213,584 18,591,386
4,286,608 23%
TOTAL BUDGET BEFORE ADJ. 131,860,557 150,773,469 62,787,155 42% 126,027,012 139,817,705 157,164,080 59,591,706 38%
LESS INTERNAL SERVICE FUND 17,074,701 17,467,504 8,188,749 47% 16,669,617 18,213,584 18,591,386 4,286,608 23%
TOTAL BUDGET 114,785,856 133,305,965 54,598,406 41% 109,357,395 121,604,121 138,572,694 55,305,098 40%
* Mid-year percent expended represents the percent of the adopted budget expended at mid-year.