City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council receive a brief update on the City’s financial
situation and the upcoming 2009-10/2010-11 budget process, receive public input,
and direct staff as deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
During the 2008-09 budget process, City Council expressed a desire to provide input
on budget priorities prior to the budget kickoff and give the community the
opportunity to provide input. On March 9, 2009, staff delivered a comprehensive
update of the City’s financial situation for all major funds, as well as a preliminary
overview of the upcoming 2009-10/2010-11 budget process. This matter has been
included as part of the Town Hall Meeting in order to provide a further update and
opportunity for the community to share their thoughts prior to the public meetings
that are typically held starting in late April.
As was thoroughly discussed on March 9
th
, the national and world economies are in
the midst of a historic economic recession. The economic downturn began in the
residential housing market and initially hit financial institutions that had invested in
mortgage-backed securities, causing a near collapse of the financial markets,
including many large Wall Street firms. Since the wealth of most Americans is in
their home’s equity and/or invested in the stock market, the combination of declining
Meeting Date: 03/30/09 Item Number: A-3
AGENDA ITEM: Update of City Finances and FY 2009-10 and 2010-11 Budget
Process.
Contact Person/Dept.: Jeff Muir, Chief
Financial Officer
Phone Number: 310-253-6016
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [X] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification:
This Town Hall meeting has been announced at City Council Meetings, quarter-page
advertisements have been placed in the Culver City Observer and the Culver City News
on March 12, 19, and 26; information signs were placed in 17 areas in Culver City
Parks; the Official Notice of the Meeting was placed on City service counters and on the
City’s website; Three E-Mail notifications Utilizing the Master E-Mail Notification List
were sent between March 2 and March 26, 2009; Master E-Mail Notification List
(03/25/09)
Department Approval:
Jeff Muir (03/23/09)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (03/25/09)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (03/23/09)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (03/25/09) City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
home prices (40% plus in the hardest hit areas) and declining stock market (also
40% plus over the last year) has significantly impacted the financial position of
almost every American. Additionally, the unemployment rate has been increasing
steadily over the last few months as many companies are experiencing losses and
need to cut expenses. As a result, Americans have pulled back dramatically in their
spending habits, which has put the consumer driven American economy in turmoil.
The passage of Propositions 13 and 218 has severely limited California cities’ ability
to raise revenues, especially property taxes, to fund basic municipal services. Most
cities must rely on more economically sensitive revenue streams, such as Sales
Tax, Business Taxes, and development related fees and taxes. Therefore, many
cities throughout California have been hit hard by this current recession. Culver City
is no different, and is severely feeling the effects of the economy.
At the March 9
th
meeting, staff estimated the City was facing a potential operating
shortfall of $500,000 in the current fiscal year in the General Fund. Sales Tax
revenue, which makes up approximately 20.5% of total budgeted General Fund
revenue, is expected to be approximately 8.0% less than last year’s receipts and
Commercial Industrial Tax revenue, which is a one-time tax collected on commercial
renovations and new commercial development, is expected to fall short of
projections. Real Property Transfer Tax is also lagging due to the downturn in the
real estate market.
Unfortunately, the economy is expected to continue contracting through 2009 and is
not expected to begin to turn around until late 2009/early 2010 at best. Additionally,
economists expect a slow recovery that may last two or more years after the
economy hits bottom. Consequently, staff expects that the City is facing at least two
or more years of substantive financial difficulties. In fact, based on current
expenditures and projected revenues for the General Fund at the time of the March |10 10|th
report, a budget deficit of approximately $4 million was estimated in 2009-10 and
approximately $4.5 million (which may grow) in 2010-11. Unfortunately, recent
worsening news on Sales Tax, lower than expected Business Tax receipts and lower
than expected revenue estimates from various departments for their departmental
revenues are likely to result in a budget deficit that is even larger. Staff is currently
in the process of analyzing and assembling the budget information submitted by all
City departments.
The State of California continues to face difficulties of its own. Although it recently
approved a Spending Plan and Budget for the remainder of 2008-09 and the full
year of 2009-10 that closed an approximate $42 billion deficit, there has been
identification by the Legislative Analyst’s Office that the deficit is back up to $8 billion
based on continuing revenue decline. A number of the revenue generating items
placed in the Spending Plan and Budget, such as the one percent sales tax City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
increase, borrowing against the Lottery and Vehicle License Fee (also known as the
“Car Tax”) increase, are also dependent upon voter approval at a statewide special
election to be held on May 19, 2009.
A report containing a number of revenue enhancement and cost reduction options
which was included as an appendix to the Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP) on
March 9
th
is also attached to tonight’s report. Most of these options are long-term
financial solutions and will not make an immediate impact.
The strategy that was presented on March 9
th
for the upcoming budget included a
number of options to ‘weather’ the economic storm over the next two fiscal years
and try at all costs to avoid employee lay-offs and significant program reductions or
eliminations. Given the worsening economic news both nationally and locally, the
‘weathering the storm’ option may only be possible for a one year period. It was
clearly stated that the options presented would not fix the problem, they would only
prolong the inevitable. As we approach the end of 2010, it is hoped that the City will
have a much better idea of where the economy will stabilize and how much of a
rebound we may actually see. However, it must be understood that it is entirely
possible the economy could still be in a tailspin at this time.
A combination of mostly ‘one-time’ options will be incorporated in the proposed
2009-10 and 2010-11 budget to address the deficit for Council consideration. These
will be primarily short-term measures that can be implemented over the next year or
possibly two. They do not solve the ongoing projected structural deficit problem. By
the time the 2011-12 budget planning process starts, the City will have to implement
on-going, longer-term solutions. The bottom line is that this means a dramatic
increase in revenues, or a dramatic decrease in expenditures.
The City’s General Fund budget is approximately 80%+ personnel costs. To achieve
dramatic expenditure reductions would mean eliminating positions and reducing or
eliminating programs and services. Solving a deficit of several million dollars through
such reductions would drastically reduce programs and services for Culver City
residents, businesses and visitors, and layoffs alone have not worked in the past.
Decreases of this magnitude would have to include public safety. Introducing a
dramatic revenue increase in the City would most likely mean one or more items on
the ballot to address the structural deficit. Some major items for consideration are:
• Consideration of a City-wide Assessment District for Landscaping,
Streetlighting, Median Maintenance, Park Maintenance, Tree Trimming and
Ficus Tree Replacement, and Graffiti Abatement. The City spends over $4
million annually on these items.
• Increase Transient Occupancy Tax from 12% to 14% (approximately $420k). City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
• Create a Parking Tax of 10% (approximately $110k).
• Increase Sales Tax by 0.25% (approximately $3.5 to $4 million).
• Paramedic Assessment to add additional paramedic unit and cover future cost
increases (approximately $1 to $1.5 million, but would offset new costs)
• Implementation of a cafeteria plan for employee benefits, with a tiered system
and lower benefit for new employees.
• Consideration of a two-tier pension program.
• Increasing parking meter rates.
• Extending parking meter hours in certain areas.
• Consider contracting or privatizing certain services (e.g. Parking system)
The City must decide if it wishes to pursue any (or more than one) of these options
during this budget process in order to prepare for the 2010 general election.
Culver City, like virtually all other cities, faces a serious, on-going financial
problem. The purpose of this report is to highlight some of the factors that have
led to this situation, what actions the City is proposing to take in addressing it, and
invite public discussion and comment in this Town Hall format.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
There is no immediate fiscal impact for this report. Staff plans to return with a
preliminary budget in late April.
ATTACHMENTS:
Long-Term Financial Options Summary
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1. Receive and file this report; and,
2. Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
MEETING DATE: 03/30/09
AGENDA ITEM: Update of City Finances and FY 2009-10 and 2010-11 Budget
Process.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Long-Term Financial Options Summary
1 - 19Financial Options
Summary ReportTHIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2CITY OF CULVER CITY
COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL STRATEGY UPDATE
Long-Term Financial Options Summary
Report of Findings
INTRODUCTION
Over the past few years, the City has placed an emphasis on long-term financial
planning to further improve the long-term fiscal health of the City. The City has taken a
number of steps to achieve this longer term view, including implementing a two-year
rolling budget and developing a Comprehensive Financial Plan that includes a 5- to 15-
year projection for each of the City's funds and provides a discussion of current and
future year financial issues facing each fund.
During this time, staff has identified and researched a number of potential revenue
enhancement and cost reducing items that will help to solidify the City's long-term
finances. Many of these ideas have been collected from suggestions by employees,
bargaining groups, staff task forces and City Council subcommittees that have been
formed to address the City's financial condition.
The following report summarizes the revenue generating and cost reducing items that
have been received by staff over the years. While not every idea is included in this
report, staff has attempted to present the most feasible options for the City Council's
consideration. Each option is followed by a brief description and, if known, the
additional annual revenue or cost reduction that may be achieved if implemented.
REVENUE ENHANCEMENT OPTIONS
The revenue enhancement options are presented in two categories: 1) Ballot Options,
and 2) Policy Driven Options.
BALLOT OPTIONS
1. Increase Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT, aka hotel tax)
2. Increase Sales Tax (Transaction Tax)
3. Create Parking Tax
4. General Purpose Ad Valorem Property Tax
5. Create Admissions Tax
6. Review/Increase Business Tax
7. Create Additional Special Financing Districts
a. Community Facilities District for Paramedic Services, Street and Alley
repair, or other infrastructure improvements.
b. Benefit Assessment District for Fire Suppression, Landscaping, Tree
Trimming, Streetlights, etc.
8. Issue General Obligation Bond for Capital Projects
9. Issue Pension Obligation Bond
3Approval Process — Taxes (Options 1 — 6)
Proposition 218, enacted in 1996, limited local government's ability to raise taxes and
create assessment districts. The State Constitution (approved by voters as Props 13
and 218) requires that special taxes (i.e. earmarked for a certain purpose) require two-
thirds voter approval and general taxes (non-earmarked) require a simple majority voter
approval. Prop 218, much like Prop 13 before it, fundamentally changed the control of
local government funding and greatly complicated the process involved in implementing
an increase in taxes.
Therefore, the tax options noted above would need approval by the electorate. Placing
an item on the ballot would require a significant effort by the City not only in staff time,
but also in consultation expenses related to public education and polling. While the law
is fairly strict on what cities may spend on public education and polling during an
election campaign, activities that take place prior to placing an item on the ballot are
generally more allowable.
Additionally, if the City Council selects any of the tax options (1 — 4), it should be noted
that, per state law, such a ballot measure must be part of the City's general election
ballot. The City's next general election is in April 2010. Reviewing what state and
county level tax issues may appear on the same ballot will be one important area of
analysis.
The current national, statewide and local economic problems will make a revenue
increasing ballot item that much more difficult to have approved. Locally, there is
discussion by the school district of a local parcel tax for education. The California
teachers union is indicating they may seek a statewide 1% sales tax increase for
education. Part of the Governor's budget solution involves a three year increase to the
State sales tax of 1.5%. Any of these items taking place prior to the City going to ballot,
or even concurrently will decrease the City's chances of having such a measure
approved.
Approval Process — Special Financing Districts (Options 7a and 7b)
Another result of Prop 218 was the extensive process required before a city can create
an assessment district. For the assessment options listed above, the City would be
required to prepare reports describing the amount of the assessments, per parcel, and
the benefits to be received by those assessments. The City would be required to hold
public hearings to review the possible assessments. Formal written notice of the
assessments, along with ballots, must be sent to all those who would be subject to the
assessments. The City could only impose the assessment if a majority of those
returning ballots approve the assessment. No increase to an existing assessment can
occur without going through a similar process.
While community facility districts (CFO) vary from assessment districts slightly, the
formation and approval process is very similar. The biggest difference in the approval
process between an assessment district and a CFD is an assessment district requires
approval by 50% of the affected property owners that return a ballot. A CFD requires
approval by 67% of registered voters in the proposed district that return a ballot.
4Public education and campaign requirements and restrictions similar to those imposed
on ballot measures for tax increases would apply to the assessment process.
Approval Process — General Obligation Bond and Pension Obligation Bond
(Options 8 — 9)
General obligation and pension obligation bonds must be approved at a general or
special election by a majority of electors voting at that election. Public education and
campaign requirements and restrictions similar to those imposed on ballot measures for
tax increases would apply to the election where the voters would be asked to approve
the general obligation bonds.
Option 1: Increase Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
The Culver City Municipal Code authorizes the City to levy a tax for the privilege of
occupying lodgings on a transient basis. The current Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
rate is 12%. An increase in TOT would slightly increase the taxes that area hotel
customers would pay to stay in Culver City. Currently, the average nightly room rate for
Culver City hotels is $125, not including taxes. The current 12% TOT rate adds $15 in
tax to that rate. A 2% increase to the TOT would add $2.50 for a total of $16.50 in
taxes. Many nearby cities have increased their TOT rates over the last few years, as
noted below.
Area TOT rates:
Los Angeles: 14%
Santa Monica: 14%
Beverly Hills: 14%
West Hollywood: 14%
Culver City: 12%
Based on current TOT receipts, increasing the TOT by 2% would increase revenues by
approximately $420,000. If a hotel is included in the future Washington/National Transit
Oriented Development site, this additional 2% may be significant.
Option 2: Increase Sales Tax (Transaction Tax)
In 1969, the State Legislature first authorized counties to seek voter approval of special
transaction and use tax districts. Shortly thereafter, the Legislature also began granting
permission to specific cities to seek voter consideration of a District Tax. In January
2004, the requirement that cities first obtain permission from the State Legislature was
dropped and cities were authorized to go directly to their voters for transaction and use
taxes in multiples of 0.25%. Currently, the combined district transactions tax rates in
any county cannot exceed a total rate of 9.25%.
With the exception of certain goods sold to operators of common carrier aircraft, a
transaction and use tax is imposed on the same goods and merchandise as the local
sales and use tax. However, the sales and use tax is generally allocated to the
jurisdiction where the sale is negotiated or order taken, while the transaction and use
tax is allocated to the district where the goods are delivered or placed into use. As
outlined below, this is an important distinction as it relates to Culver City residents
purchasing merchandise in another jurisdiction.
5For "walk-in" retail stores, the Board of Equalization generally assumes that the
merchandise will be used within the district where the store is located, unless the
retailer is asked to ship the merchandise outside the district as part of the sale. For
merchandise that is shipped, the transaction tax is levied based on the district to which
the merchandise is being shipped. Therefore, Culver City residents and businesses
would pay the additional transaction tax.
Sellers or lessors of vehicles, vessels or licensed aircraft are required to collect the
transaction tax for the district where the conveyance is to be registered. Therefore,
residents cannot escape the tax by purchasing from a dealer outside Culver City as
dealers statewide must collect transaction taxes based on the location of the
registration, not the location of the purchase.
With the approval of Measure R in November 2008, the base sales tax for all LA County
cities will be 8.75% sales and use tax rate. Recently, a number of LA County cities
have successfully added a transaction tax for their jurisdictions, including the Cities of
Avalon (0.50%), Inglewood (0.50%) and South Gate (1.0%). Some early budget
proposals by the state include a 1.5% increase in the existing sales tax, which would
push all cities in LA County above the 9.25% cap. Legislation will most likely be drafted
to address this potential conflict.
Based on current receipts, each 0.25% increase to the transaction tax would generate
$3.5 to $4 million.
Option 3: Create Parking Tax
A parking tax is a tax levied on the rental of public and private non-residential parking
spaces for the privilege of occupying space in a parking facility l in the City. Generally,
a parking tax is calculated as a percentage of the monthly lease amount for that space.
Examples of some surrounding parking taxes are as follows:
Sample Parking Tax rates:
Los Angeles: 10% ($74 million in FY 05-06)
Santa Monica: 10% ($6.8 million in FY 05-06)
Inglewood: 10% ($250,000 in FY 05-06)
San Francisco: 25% ($36 million in FY 05-06)
To determine the amount of money generated by a parking tax, an in-depth analysis
would need to be conducted on the number of spaces in the City and the rental rates
charged for those spaces. However, assuming there was a 10% parking tax in effect in
FY 2007-08, approximately $110,000 would have been generated from the City's three
parking structures alone.
'Definition of parking facility as defined in the LA City municipal code — any outdoor space or uncovered
plot, street, lot, parcel, yard or enclosure, or any portion thereof, or any building or structure, or any
portion thereof, where or in which a motor vehicle may be parked, stored, housed or kept, for which any
charge is made.
6Option 4: Create Ad Valorem Tax or Parcel Tax
An ad valorem tax is a tax based on the value of the property being taxed (e.g. 1.0% of
assessed value) while a parcel tax is typically a per parcel tax that can be levied in a
variety of ways, including a flat per parcel tax or a tax rate based on land use (i.e.
commercial vs. residential) or parcel size. Examples of property based taxes include
the 1.0% property tax levy, voter approved debt (such as school revenue bonds),
special financing/assessment districts, parcel taxes, etc.
Culver City contains approximately 13,500 parcels with a total assessed value
(including redevelopment areas) of approximately $6.9 billion ($3.1 billion City; $3.8
billion RDA). Proposition 13 limits the ad valorem tax on real property to 1% of the full
cash value (i.e. assessed value) except for certain voter approved charges, such as the
voter approved debt and special financing districts mentioned above. Therefore, the
City could not levy an ad valorem tax in addition to the current 1.0% ad valorem tax that
is already levied. With regards to a special financing district or a parcel tax, levying a
charge of $100 per parcel would generate approximately $1.35 million annually and is
subject to voter approval.
Option 5: Create Admissions Tax
An Admissions Tax is a tax on admission tickets sold for events held within the City and
is typically applied to larger capacity venues (e.g. race track, sporting venue, large live
theater, etc.). The general idea behind an admissions tax is, due to the large number of
people coming into the City for a particular event, a significant impact on the City's
infrastructure and staffing is created. The purpose of the tax is to recover some of the
costs related to that impact.
Sample Admissions Tax rates:
Los Angeles:
• 6% on gross receipts attributable to distribution of tickets of admission to or attendance at events
of the 1984 Olympic Games.
Inglewood:
• $0.45 per admission for Horse Racing (adjusted annually by CPI);
• $0.56 per admission for live sporting events, theater events, musical events, etc. (adjusted
annually by CPI);
• 10% of admission price for venues with seating capacity of greater than 25,000.
Pasadena:
• Tax on admission to Rose Bowl equal to 5 cents per dollar admission price but not to exceed 50
cents.
Due to the relative scarcity of large venues, there are few surrounding cities that have
an admissions tax in place. The City of LA charged an admission tax for ticket sales for
the events of the 1984 Olympics and Inglewood has an admission tax that is mainly
applicable to Hollywood Park and the former LA Forum. Although Culver City does
have live theater venues, such as Culver Theater, they are very small venues that
would generate very little revenue.
7Option 6: Review/Increase Business Tax (submitted by GCMG)
As a requirement for conducting business in Culver City, every business must apply for
and receive a business tax certificate and pay the application fee, the required business
tax, and any applicable permit fees. Currently, the application fee is $65 and the tax
amount is approximately 0.1% of a business gross receipts.
Over the last few years, the Finance Department has been focused on increasing
compliance and more aggressively collecting revenues due to the City. Currently, the
Finance Department is working with a consultant to conduct a business tax audit to
ensure that businesses are complying with this requirement. The consultant will also be
working with the City to review the current business tax structure and process and make
recommendations on possible ways to simplify the tax structure and streamline the
collection process to ensure greater compliance. Increasing compliance will result in
increased revenue without having to adjust the amount of the tax. The consultant will
help determine if Culver City's business tax is in line with other cities business tax
amounts.
Option 7a and 7b: Special Financing Districts
Special Financing Districts, such as benefit assessment districts or community facilities
districts, are intended to charge those whose property is receiving a direct and
measurable City service where the relative "benefit" to the property owner can be
computed. One type of Special Assessment District is a Benefit Assessment District,
which is administered as a parcel assessment and is used to fund the provision of a
particular service in a particular area. Benefit Assessment Districts can be formed to
fund fire suppression services, tree-trimming, streetlights, parks, and landscaping.
Benefit Assessment Districts require a nexus between the additional benefit being
provided and the actual cost to provide that benefit. Creating these districts is basically
a method to increase service in a particular area without increasing costs to the City.
Assessment Districts cannot be used to pay for services that the City is currently
providing, therefore, there is no net financial impact on the City's General Fund when a
Benefit Assessment District is created.
Another form of a Special Financing District is a Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District, which allows funding of the construction or acquisition of real or tangible
property with a useful life of five years or more (e.g. streets, sewers, etc.). It also allows
financing of police and fire services, including personnel costs, to accommodate the
growing needs of an area. A Community Facilities District is a special tax levied
annually on each parcel.
While both forms of special financing districts are a way to increase service without
increasing costs, only the CFD can be used to actually offset costs of an existing
service and reduce costs for the General Fund. The City has hired a consultant to
assist with special district formation services and, based on their early assessments, the
City may be able to raise $1.3 to $1.5 million annually to pay for paramedic services.
However, the consultant recommends the use of a polling agency to get a better idea
from residents regarding their priorities and willingness to pay additional taxes to fund
services.
8Option 8: Issue General Obligation Bond
Another financing option is to issue general obligation bonds. General obligation bonds
are bonds that are legally backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing government.
The government is legally obligated to use its full taxing power, if necessary, to repay
the debt. Basically, issuing debt gives the City a lump sum of cash now to use for
capital projects, which will be paid off, with interest, in the future.
Because the City is legally obligated to repay the bond, which includes raising taxes if
the City cannot meet its debt service payments, registered voters must approve issuing
a bond.
The primary advantage to using general obligation bonds is the associated low interest
costs. Since the bonds are legally backed by the full faith and credit of the issuer, they
are considered very low risk for the investor; consequently, they usually sell at the
lowest rates of interest. The bond issue is often less complex then other types of bonds
so administrative costs are less in preparing the issue.
A final advantage to general obligation bonds arises from the necessity of receiving
approval through a bond referendum. The vote confirms popular support for the
project(s) being financed.
There are also disadvantages to issuing general obligation bonds, including the
possibility that the voters will not approve the bond referendum. If a bond referendum is
not approved, City Council will need to find other ways to finance needed projects.
Additionally, repayment of the debt will tie up the City's revenues for 20 or 30 years to
pay the required debt service (i.e. principal and interest payments on the bonds).
Option 9: Issue Pension Obligation Bond
A Pension Obligation Bond is similar to a General Obligation Bond; with the exception
that the bond proceeds received must be invested and used to pay the issuing entities
pension obligation. For example, the City could issue a $100 million POB and invest
that in a trust with PERS (one of many options). The annual investment returns would
be used to offset the City's pay-as-you-go payment. In return, the City would have a
steady annual debt service obligation.
Because the City is legally obligated to pay the bond's debt service, which includes
raising taxes if the City cannot meet its debt service payments, the voters also must
approve issuing a ROB, which, like a General Obligation Bond, confirms popular
support for the obligation being financed.
The disadvantages to issuing a Pension Obligation Bond are similar to the
disadvantages to issuing a General Obligation Bond outlined above.
9POLICY DRIVEN OPTIONS
Options:
1. Review and Update City Fees & Charges Annually
2. Review Development Impact Fees
3. Implement Aggressive Fee/Tax Collection Strategies
4. Privatize Parking Meter Operations and Meter Enforcement
5. Advertise in/on City Vehicles
6. Sponsorship of City-owned Property/Programs/Events
7. Review Parking Rates at All City Structures and Meters
8. Establish Employee Suggestion Incentive Program
9. Establish Stormwater Fund to Capture Mandated Costs
The options presented in this section do not require voter approval; however, they do
require policy direction by the Council. Some of these options may be more popular or
feasible than others. The following provides a brief description and analysis of each
option as well as a discussion of the fiscal impact.
Option 1: Review and Update City Fees & Charges Annually (submitted by CCMG)
There are some service fees and charges the City collects that do not fall under the
restrictions set forth in Proposition 218, and the City must regularly review and update
these fees and charges as applicable to cover and recoup the costs associated with the
services being given. General Fund service charges, though, cannot exceed the cost of
service, including overhead.
In FY 2006-07, City Council approved a comprehensive review of the City's fees and
charges by a consultant. This study resulted in the City Council adopting higher fees for
FY 2007-08 to increase the overall cost recovery level. Subsequently, staff worked with
the City Council Budget & Finance Subcommittee to set a multi-year cost recovery
policy to recover close to 100% of the cost of many fee based activities.
The fees and charges schedule is updated, reviewed and approved by City Council
annually to insure proper cost recovery levels. Now that staff has clear direction on the
City Council's desire to increase cost recovery levels on existing fees, staff will begin
reviewing the fee structure in certain areas as well as explore possible new fees and
charges. For example, the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department is
taking a much closer look at their fee structure and whether or not it is the most effective
structure for their operations. PRCS is reviewing the structure of pool fees, facility
rental fees, skateboard park fees, etc. to evaluate possible new fee structures.
Additionally, staff is exploring the possibility of placing a surcharge on certain fees,
similar to the technology surcharge placed on certain development related fees, to help
fund the City's Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) obligation. At this point, staff is
still exploring the legal and operational issues related to this type of surcharge. Once
those issues have been vetted, information will be provided to City Council.
10A comprehensive fee study by an outside consultant should be conducted
approximately every five years. In FY 2011-12, staff will explore engaging a consultant
to do a comprehensive review of the City's fees and cost recovery percentages.
Option 2: Review Development Impact Fees
Subsequent to the annual review of the General Fund user fees and charges in June
2008, City Council requested information on the development related taxes and impact
fees that the City levies. An agenda item containing that information was presented to
City Council on August 25, 2008. At that meeting, City Council directed staff to resume
charging a Condominium Tax that was already in the City's Municipal Code but, for
some reason, had not been charged historically. The City Council also directed staff to
do an analysis of a 'typical project' to compare the amount of fees and taxes charged for
a typical project in Culver City versus surrounding cities. The Community Development
Department is finalizing that analysis and a full report will be provided to City Council
shortly.
Option 3: Implement Aggressive Fee/Tax Collection Strategies (submitted by CCMG)
Under the direction of the City Council and City Manager, the City has taken steps to
more diligently collect monies and implemented processes to collect funds more
efficiently. Some of the steps that have been taken over the last few years include:
• Drafting and implementing a grants management policy to ensure that grant
funds are collected in a timely manner and do not expire;
• Billing for the annual Fire Inspection and Outdoor Dining Permit fees have been
moved to the Finance Department to improve collections;
• New contract approval procedures that require the Finance Department to sign
off on all contracts with vendors that do business with the City to ensure that they
have a business tax certificate before the contract can be fully executed and
signed by the City Manager;
• The City has begun taking credit card and online payments for certain services,
such as business tax renewal payments, recreation classes, and parking tickets;
• A business tax audit is being performed by an outside consultant to increase
compliance with the City's Business Tax;
• Online payments are being developed for building permits;
• Periodic audits on property and sales tax remittances from the County are
performed by the HdL to ensure that the City is receiving proper payments;
• Periodic audits are performed related to the City's franchise agreements with the
cable company and various oil pipelines.
Improving revenue collection and streamlining collection processes continues to be one
of the City's top priorities. The Finance Department is continually working with staff
from other departments to identify opportunities to increase revenue collection.
Increased revenue collection is a best management practice that does not require
specific direction from City Council. As programs are identified and implemented, the
City Council will be informed and, depending on the program, may need to provide
direction to staff.
11Option 4: Privatize Parking Meter Operations and Meter Enforcement
Parking meter operations and enforcement are services that are historically operated by
municipalities. Over the last few years, some cities have recognized a benefit to
privatizing these activities through a public-private venture or by contracting these
services to a third party. In this particular area, privatization has the potential to
simultaneously enhance revenue and reduce costs while maintaining or increasing the
level of service. More research needs to be done to fully vet the potential benefits and
drawbacks. Staff is looking for direction from the City Council to bring this item back for
consideration at a future meeting.
Option 5: Advertise In/On City Property (submitted by CCMG)
The City and Enterprise funds may be able to generate some revenue by selling
advertising space in/on City property, especially the City's rolling stock. The most
obvious potential candidate for selling ad space is Culver CityBus. In addition to Culver
CityBus, the City could also explore the possibility of selling exterior advertising space
on other rolling stock, including public works vehicles.
Currently, the MTA sells advertising space on the exterior of its buses as well as in
designated interior locations. MTA also offers video advertising shown on video
monitors inside each bus.
In the past, Transit staff has contacted vendors that coordinate and administer ad sales
to explore the potential amount of revenue that could be generated. Due to the
relatively small population reached by advertising on Culver CityBus (as compared to
larger transit operators like MTA and Big Blue Bus), potential ad revenues would be
limited. The ad sales vendor had also indicated that, due to the limited reach of Culver
CityBus, ad revenues might not justify the capital expenditure to install video monitors
on the buses. Bus wraps generate the most amount of revenue. However, to generate
that revenue, Culver CityBus would sacrifice some of its signature brand recognition
because the bus wrap would cover the entire bus, making it less distinguishable from
other transit providers.
If the City Council would like to further explore this option, staff can do some additional
research and agendize the item for future discussion.
Option 6: Sponsorship of City-owned Programs/Events/Facilities (submitted by CCMG)
The City manages and staffs a number of events and programs that are offered free of
charge to the public, including the Fiesta La BaIlona (entrance is free, but vendors do
pay a fee to set up a booth), Farmers' Market, Culver City Music Festival, Music in the
Chambers, and "The Art of..." speaker series. Despite the growing popularity of many
of these programs, the funds available to manage them continue to diminish.
In some cases, programs are sponsored by a business or organization that contributes
money in exchange for name recognition. However, the City could increase its efforts to
solicit monetary or in-kind sponsorships to offset some of the costs of running these
programs. Increasing efforts to solicit sponsorship for community events is a policy
decision that, if directed, staff may begin to implement immediately.
12Additionally, the City may consider soliciting corporate sponsorships in exchange for
naming rights at certain City facilities (such as Vet's Memorial Building, teen center, or
various facilities at City parks). If the City Council were interested in pursuing naming
rights, a policy would need to be drafted and presented to City Council to ensure
consistency and transparency in the process.
Option 7: Review Parking Rates at all City Structures and Meters
Culver City and the Redevelopment Agency own and operate a number of parking
structures and lots to encourage better traffic flow and address some of the parking
issues that most southern California communities face. As parking becomes a scarce
resource, parking rates throughout the region continue to rise, as do costs associated
with operating a parking structure.
In an effort to create a unified parking strategy throughout the City, and especially in the
downtown area, the Redevelopment Agency and Community Development Department
are bringing forward a number of policy options for the City Council to consider over the
next few months, including a comprehensive parking study to review available parking,
parking rates, parking operations, and parking equipment and make recommendations.
A unified parking strategy will then be developed to include policy options for the Ince,
Watseka, Cardiff, and City Hall parking structures, pricing options for parking meters
downtown, and reviewing the City's zoning requirements as they relate to parking in the
downtown area.
Option 8: Establish Employee Suggestion Incentive Program
Employees are sometimes the best resource for new innovative revenue enhancing
and/or cost reducing suggestions since they know the City's operations best and are
experts in their field. Many organizations have developed some form of employee
suggestion program that offers some incentive ranging from recognition to days off to
potentially significant bonuses based on the value of the suggestion. The effectiveness
of a program like this is often directly related to the desirability of the incentive or reward
being offered. Depending on the size and scope of a potential program, it may also
need to be negotiated with the bargaining groups if there is an impact on employee
salary or benefits.
Option 9: Establish Storm water Enterprise Fund to Recover Mandated Costs
See Cost Reduction Option 8(h) on page 16 of this report for more information.
13COST REDUCTION OPTIONS
Over the last few years, a great number of cost reduction options have been identified
through suggestions submitted by City Council members, the bargaining groups,
members of various task forces and subcommittees, and staff research. CCMG
submitted some additional cost reduction proposals in December in response to a
request to all the bargaining groups by the Chief Financial Officer. The current task
force reviewed all ideas and considered the merits of every proposal. The following
options identify the most creative and feasible of those ideas.
Options:
1. Review and Evaluate the City's Organizational Efficiency
2. Flexible Compensation & Benefit Plans
a. Two tiered PERS program for new hires
b. Cafeteria Plan for Medical Insurance
3. Staff Certain Public Safety Positions with Civilians
4. Reduce Overtime and Shift Trades
5. Reconsider the City's Call Back Policy
6. Reduce Subsidies to Special Events (e.g. MLK, Car Show and Taste of the Nation)
7. Streamline Public Notification
8. Explore Public Private Partnership Opportunities
a. Solar power installations on City facilities
b. Streetlight maintenance
c. Street maintenance
d. Sewer Pump Station improvements
e. Parking meter operations
f. Parking enforcement
g. Construct municipal parking structure
h. Stornnwater treatment
9. Short-term Options submitted by CCMG
a. Moratorium on non-self supporting programs;
b. Moratorium on non-essential capital projects;
c. Moratorium on the City's Animal Control Program.
Option 1: Review and Evaluate the City's Organizational Efficiency
The elimination of positions that took place as part of the budget cutbacks in fiscal
years 2002-03 and 2003-04 has placed an additional burden on current staff.
Consequently, it is more important than ever that all operating departments are
"working smarter not harder" in order to maximize efficiency and productivity. There
may be technological advancements that the City can take advantage of to increase
revenue collection and facilitate the flow of information leading to an even greater
level of efficiency and productivity. Additionally, the City should evaluate its
organizational efficiency and internal procedures to ensure effective workflow and
lines of communication between and within operating departments.
In difficult financial times, it is more important than ever to be able to do more with
less as a cost containment measure. Organizational efficiency is a best management
practice, as such; the City Manager's office will continue to work with Department
14Heads to explore methods to further increase organizational and operational
efficiency. The new City Manager may have further ideas in this area.
Option 2: Flexible Benefits and Compensation Packages
Prior to the next MOU negotiations, the subcommittee recommends that the City look
into the following benefit related cost containment measures:
a. Two tiered PERS program for new hires
b. Cafeteria Plan for Medical Insurance
Option 3: Staff Certain Positions in the Police and Fire Departments with Civilians
With the implementation of the 2006-07 Budget, the Police Department has begun the
process of staffing certain positions with civilians rather than sworn personnel. As
lieutenants have retired over the last two years, 5 of those positions have been replaced
with non-sworn personnel. This saves the City money because the salaries for the non-
sworn positions are typically lower, the retirement costs are less, and it reduces the
City's long term OPEB obligation. The City Manager's Office will continue to work with
the public safety departments to staff positions with civilians where appropriate.
Option 4: Reduce Overtime and Shift Trades (submitted by CCMG)
Overtime costs for the General Fund are approximately $1.5 million (excluding Constant
Staffing for the Fire Department, which is an additional $1.4 million). Some overtime is
unavoidable, as emergencies and special situations will arise that require employees to
work beyond their regular schedule. However, one possible way to manage overtime is
to encourage flexible scheduling between the manager and employee. For example,
with adequate advance notice, an employee who needs to attend a work related
meeting after hours might agree with his/her supervisor to start work later in the morning
rather than be paid overtime for the meeting.
Option 5: Reconsider the City's Call Back Policy (submitted by CCMG)
The City may want to review and update its call-back policy and limit standing pay to
those positions that are truly needed in emergencies (i.e. electricians) and eliminate
other positions (i.e. painters) whose services may not be required on a time-critical
basis. A similar analysis of the necessity for "beeper pay" may also be conducted.
Alternately, the City may wish to allow departments to designate a certain number of
call back slots, which can be filled based on expected conditions or usual problems
rather than designating specific trades or positions.
This is an MOU item and will need to be negotiated with the CCEA bargaining unit
during upcoming MOU negotiations.
Option 6: Reduce Subsidies to Special Events (submitted by CCMG)
There are a number of special community events that the City and/or Redevelopment
Agency subsidize either through a direct contribution or in-kind services. Some of these
15events include the Martin Luther King celebration, Culver City Car Show, and Taste of
the Nation. Some of these events have grown in popularity to the point that they are
revenue neutral for the organizations that operate them; therefore, the City can reduce
its direct monetary contribution without having to downsize the event.
Option 7: Streamline Public Notification (submitted by CCMG)
Over the past few years, the City has significantly increased public notification, which
has had an impact on staff time and costs for mailing and other forms of notification.
The current practice of sending out mass mailings on an almost weekly basis is very
inefficient and costly. A more streamlined process could save valuable staff time and
money. One possibility suggested by CCMG is to send a mailing to all Culver City
households on a periodic basis (annually, semi-annually, quarterly, etc.) notifying them
of the many ways that they can stay informed. This mailing could include web
addresses, phone numbers, PEG channels, meeting times, master notification email list,
etc. that will allow any citizen who chooses to remain in touch with the City. Providing
this mailing should replace all special purpose notification, limiting notification to those
required by law.
Option 8: Explore Public Private Partnership Opportunities
An emerging trend for certain large infrastructure projects in the U.S. is the use of Public
Private Partnerships (PPP). PPPs are not new, as many Culver City projects are public
private partnerships to a certain extent. Most street and sewer work is bid out to private
contractors and managed by City staff. In this traditional model, the contractor is
typically responsible for designing and building the project while the City is responsible
for financing and operating the project once construction is complete.
Another PPP model that shifts even more responsibility to the private sector is the
Design-Build-Finance-Operate (DBFO) model. This arrangement has been used more
often in Europe, but is now gaining traction in the U.S. Basically, the responsibility for
designing, building, financing, and operating the project is all shifted to the private
sector. In return, the public agency typically pays a fixed annually payment to the
private operator. The idea is the annual payments made by the public agency would be
less than the cost to the public agency if they were to do the work in-house; while the
private company would garner a profit by taking advantage of the efficiency and cost
savings of the private sector.
a. Solar Power installations on City facilities — Solar power is gaining momentum as
a viable green energy alternative and is also a good fit for a public-private
partnership. Solar power requires a significant initial capital investment for
installation. There are private companies that work with cities to construct and
install the photovoltaic system and amortize the cost over a 30-year period, for
example. Basically, the City would have a debt service payment for 30 years.
The idea is that the annual debt service will be funded through cost savings from
using less energy. Cost savings may be minimal at first, but as energy costs
increase over time, cost savings would also increase.
b. Streetlight Maintenance — Approximately 1,000 of the City's 3,000 streetlights are
the high voltage series circuit, which are much less energy efficient than newer
16multiple circuit lights. As funds become available, the City has been upgrading to
energy efficient low voltage parallel circuit streetlights. However, due to recent
budget constraints, this process has been very slow. Streetlight replacement and
maintenance may be a candidate for the DBFO model with a private company
responsible for replacing and maintaining all of the streetlights over a certain time
period with compensation based on 1) the initial replacement of all streetlights
and 2) a performance schedule for the ongoing maintenance of streetlights.
Similar to the solar power model, cost savings from the increased energy
efficiency may be used to fund the annual payments.
c. Street Maintenance — The City is responsible for maintaining approximately 94
miles of roads and alleyways. Currently, there is a backlog of approximately $20
million in street maintenance work that needs to be done to bring all of the City's
streets to an "A" level. That amount is in addition to the ongoing costs to keep
the streets maintained at their current level. There may be potential for a private
company to assume the responsibility for addressing the backlog of street
resurfacing and maintaining the City's streets for a fixed annual payment. There
would still need to be a certain level of oversight, interaction, and cooperation
between the private company and the City with certain required performance
measures that must be met. The City may be interested in hearing from private
companies that are set up to do this type of work to explore whether or not this
type of arrangement is even feasible.
d. Sewer Pump Station Improvements — the City operates a system of sewer
pipelines and pump stations that convey sewage from Culver City properties to
the Hyperion Sewer System and charges a user fee for the service. The City
may explore the possibility of charging a private company with the responsibility
for capital improvements, operations, and maintenance of the sewer system.
The user fee would be the source of funding for the operating contract.
e. Parking Meter Operations — the City's parking meter infrastructure is in need of a
major facelift. Most of the parking meters in the City use older technology, which
are more subject to theft, damage, fraud, etc. than the newer meter technologies.
Since parking meters generate quantifiable revenue, parking meter operations
are a prime candidate for a DBFO structure. Under the DBFO structure, a
private company would be responsible for securing financing to replace and
upgrade all of the City's parking meters (and possibly install additional meters at
the City's direction), replace and upgrade those meters, provide ongoing
maintenance on the meters, and collect meter revenue. The meter revenue
would be the revenue stream to fund the ongoing contract with the private
company for providing all of these services. In addition to the upgraded meters,
the City may realize staff savings since all of the parking meter related services
(except enforcement, see below) would be contracted out.
f. Parking Enforcement — Currently, the City employs parking enforcement officers
to issue citations for parking infractions. Some cities have realized savings by
contracting these services to a private company. Enforcement is a key
component to making any potential parking meter program successful. With
effective enforcement, the meters will generate increased revenue and parking
would become more efficient as they would be used for short-term parking, as
17intended, instead of long-term parking. Depending on the expertise of private
industry, this may be added to the meter installation, maintenance and collection
activities discussed above, or it may be considered separately.
g. Parking Structure Construction — Parking is a major issue in Southern California.
For any area to remain vibrant and successful, adequate parking is a must. The
Redevelopment Agency had the vision to construct the three downtown parking
structures in anticipation of increased use. However, more parking is needed,
not just in downtown, but in other areas of the City, particularly the Hayden Tract
and Washington/National. Since there is a dedicated revenue stream through
daily and monthly parking fees, construction of new parking structures are
potential candidates for public private partnerships.
h. Stormwater Treatment — Over the last few years, there have been a number of
federal and state environmental quality laws enacted that require greatly
enhanced regional and local stormwater treatment efforts. These requirements
include public outreach, commercial and industrial stormwater inspections, and
management of the local NPDES permit program. All of these additional
mandates have resulted in increased compliance related costs, which are
anticipated to increase significantly as certain compliance deadlines approach.
Some cities have established Stormwater Enterprise funds to fund certain
stormwater related programs through user charges established through City
Council actions. The City currently charges user fees for Local Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan and Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan review
fees that reviewed and approved annually by City Council. These are currently
General Fund user fees. Staff is exploring the possibility of creating an
Enterprise Fund specifically for stormwater treatment purposes and expanding
the number and scope of stormwater user fees that are charged. There are also
capital funds (P-497) currently appropriated to establish a reserve for stormwater
related projects that may potentially be rolled into an Enterprise Fund. If
consistent fee revenue can be generated, stormwater treatment may also be a
candidate for a public-private partnership arrangement.
California's Governor is a proponent of these public-private arrangements and, as part
of his Strategic Growth Plan, has a website dedicated to providing real examples of
"Performance Based Infrastructure." Many state agencies are currently soliciting
opportunities for public private partnerships.
Additionally, the City of Beverly Hills recently used the DBFO model for their reverse
osmosis water treatment plant and a 30,000-square-foot public works building. Beverly
Hills had been purchasing all of its drinking water from the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California. Beverly Hills was looking for a cost-effective and comprehensive
approach to build both a water treatment facility and a much-needed public works
facility. They were approached with, and implemented, an all-inclusive integrated water
management approach offering seamless services in design, construction, project
finance, and operations. The project is funded with water user fees and is the first
design-build-finance-operate (DBFO) water facility in California.
In order to get additional information on potential public-private partnership projects,
staff will pursue a meeting with a firm specializing in facilitating these types of
18arrangements. Staff hopes to get some indication as to the feasibility of a public-private
partnership in Culver City, especially as it relates to the projects identified above. After
meeting with the firm, staff will be in a better position to determine whether this type of
partnership may be a possibility in Culver City at this time.
Option 9: Short-term Options submitted by CCMG
In addition to the long term ideas submitted by CCMG, a number of short term options
were also submitted to cut costs. These options include:
a. Moratorium on non-self supporting programs — Place a moratorium on increasing
a subsidized City service or creating new programs unless there is a revenue
stream that offsets the entire cost of the increase or new program.
b. Moratorium on non-essential capital projects — Current capital projects should be
reviewed and those projects that are not absolutely necessary should be
delayed.
c. Moratorium on the City's Animal Control Program — This is a very costly program
that will be highly subsidized by the General Fund even with the fees that have
been adopted.
19