The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About011993 CC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA CITY HALL - 43174 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE JANUARY 19, 1993 o 6:30 PM At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 PM and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 93-02 Resolution: No. 92-03 CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute Mayor J. Sal Mu~oz presiding Councilmember Parks ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Birdsall, Parks, Roberts, Stone, Mur~oz PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda or on the consent Calendar, a pink "Request To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. egendWO 11993 I 01113/93 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. COUNCIL BUSINESS Develooment Imoact/DeveloDment Processing Fees RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Review the results of the Development Processing and Development Impact Fee (DIF) studies and provide direction regarding the development impact fee. 2 Personnel Policy Revisions RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Revised Personnel Policy Revisions. 3 Revision to Schedule of Authorized Positions RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR AN UPDATE TO THE SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS Authorize the staff to conduct an annual salary survey for the purpose of reviewing and adjusting salaries, as appropriate. egendaA)11883 2 01113/~3 4 Community Services Fundinq Criteria (Continued from the meeting of January 12, 1993) RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Review the philosophy and funding criteria for the Community Services Funding Program; Designate two Councilmembers to review the applications received from organizations requesting funds. 4.2 5 Selection of Council Committee Assianments (Continued from the meeting of January 12, 1993) RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Select and appoint members of the City Council to act as liaison to various City Commissions and to serve on various committees for calendar year 1993. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT \ Next regular meeting: January 26, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California 1992, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, egendWO 11 ~3 3 0 1/13/~3 ITEM NO. 1 APPROVAr. CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer DATE: January 19, 1993 SUBJECT: Development Impact Fees RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review the results of the Development Processing and Development Impact Fee (DIF) studies and provide direction regarding the development impact fee. DISCUSSION: During 1992 two fee studies were prepared. Development Processing Fees The first study looked at the existing development processing fee structure and developed an overhead allocation model. (Exhibit 1) Based on the work performed the study concluded that we are recovering 92% of the cost of providing current planning, engineering and building and safety services taken together. However, since the only historical data available for the study was from the period when Willdan provided these services the study needs to be repeated in approximately 18 months when the City has completed the transition to regular full time staffing. In the interim City staff is proposing certain revisions to the existing fee schedule to correct obvious inequities. (Exhibit 2 - 4) Development Imoact Fees The development impact fee study provided an inventory of capital projects taken from the adopted Capital Improvement Program that are eligible to be funded by a development impact fee (Exhibit 5). All or a portion of the cost of providing the facilities was allocated based on the impact new developments will have on the need for the facility. The cost of providing the facilities arising from new development was then spread based on three scenarios: 1) Only residential development will bear the cost of the facilities. This is the existing method employed by the County of Riverside. (Exhibit 6) 2) The fee will be spread on a benefit basis to all types of development. (Exhibit 7) 3) The fee spread over a range of $.25 to $1.25 per square foot for non- residential construction with the balance borne by residential. (Exhibit 8 - 12) We have reviewed both studies with the Temecula Coordinating Committee. Their response is attached. Atta c h me nts: Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8-12 User Charges and Fees Study Planning Department List of Fee Changes Public Works List of Fee Charges Fee Schedule for Development Services Division of TCSD DIF Summary of Project Cost Based on 1992 Capital Improvement Program DIF Scenario #1 DIF Scenario #2 DIF Scenario #3 Fee Sub-Committee Report EXHIBIT 1 CrrYOF~~ User Charges and Fees Study Marchll, 1992 CORDOBA CORPORATION 13~1 Fomsga Am, .~adm .Sea Dlelo, CA 92101 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION - 1 INVENTORY OF EXISTING MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND I~LATED FEES .................................... 3 A. Backgmund ..................................... .. 3 B. Inventory of Existing Municipal Services .................... 3 C. Inventory of Existing User Fees and Charges .................. 4 D. Findings ........................................ 4 E. Recommenda~ons ................................... 5 FULT~ COST P, TJOCATION PLAN ........................ 7 A. Overview ........................................ 7 B. General Characteristics of Cost Allocation System ............... 7 C. Process for Allocating Overheads to Direct Public Services ......... 8 D. City of Temecula Cost Allocation Plan ....................... 9 E. Cost Allocation Plan ................................. 9 F. Temecula Community Services Diraict CrCSD) ................ 11 G. Temecula Redevelopmeat Agency ......................... 12 DEVE~O~ OF ~ SCHEDULE FOR FULL COST RECOVERY 13 A. Background ...................................... 13 B. Comparison of User Fees and Charges ...................... 13 FINDINGS AND IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........... 14 A. Introduction ...................................... 14 B. Rationale for Fees and CharZes .......................... 14 C. Criteria for Determining Recovery Level .................... 15 D. Fees Slxucturing .................................... 15 E. Computation of Amount to be Charged ...................... 15 F. Current Workload Information ........................... 16 G. Full Cost Recovery of Development Process ................... 16 TABLES, APPENDIX AND ~:xHIslTS Table 1 - List of F. adsting Services and User Fee and Charges Revenue Accounts ........................... 23 Table 2 - Type of Fees by Cost Recovery Cazgory ................ 34 Table 3 - Project Cost Analysis - Selected Projects ................. 35 Appendix A - Cost Allocation Model User Guide ................. 37 Appen& B - City Comparison of User Fees and Charges ............ 44 Appendix C - Full Cost Recovery Analysis (three departments) ......... 63 Exhibit I - Full Cost Allocation Model FY 1991-92 ................ 70 Exhibit 2 - Temecula Redevelopment Agency Full Cost v:-elmate: FY 1991-92 ........................... 72 Exhibit 3 - TCSD Cost Allocation ........................... 73 INTRODUCHON INTRODUCTION A. Purpese and Objectives John McTighe & Associates (JMA), in nqoclntion with Cordoba Corporation, was retained by the City of Temecula to perform a study of user fees and charges and of development impact fees. This portion of the study relat~ to llser Fees snd C--hnWes. The purpose of the user fees and charges study is to provide the City with a stn~gic framework for determining the mount that may be charged by the City in order to teeover all or part of the full cost of performing the related services. This report accomplishes the following objectives: Provides an inventory of existing municipal services and related fees and charges; Provides a full cost allocation plan that captures all actual costs associates with each service area; Develops a proposed fee schedule for full cost recovery; and Describes the proposed full cost recovery impact on municipal revenues and compares the proposals to the practice of other select~l cities. This portion of the report is organized into four sections: Section I provides an inventory of existing City services and associates revenues from fees and charges. Section II presents the results of the full cost allocation system, which captures all actual costs associated with each sea'vice area, describes its development and the software to use it. Section HI provides a table of current and proposed fees and charges to achieve full cost recovery and compares these to three other cities. Section IV discusses our findings and recommendations. B. Methodology We developed a detailed workplan to accomplish the objectives noted above. consisted of: / Collection of dam relevant for project analysis; Review and evaluation of current services and associates fees and charges; The major tasks Ci~,dTamak, Um'bmdireaSUd7 Peel ,/Analysis of current org~nir~rion, and the distinction between general government and indirect services, and direct public services; / Identification and impact of current services provided by private contracts and inter- governmental agreements; .. ,/Development of a full cost nllocation plan; I Identi~c~on of additional user fees and chargu that may be considered by the City; / Development of user fees and charges comparison matrix depicting existing user fees and charges, Ix*oposed changes to existing user fees and charges to ac~evc full cost recovery, and the practices of o~er cities; and / Analysis of the full cost recovery impact on the City. We gave particular attrition to the City's current standards and methods for implementing revenue changes. We have been sensitive to the overall community impact ultimately affected by the proposals. In thig way we believe we have produced vnlid, reliable information and practical recommendations. CitTdTema~UmrbmdFemStudy l*qe2 L INVENTORY OF EXISTING MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND RELATED FEES SECTION I Inventory of Existing Municipal Services and Related Fees The City of Temecula has been in existence since 1989 and is now about mid-way through its second full year of oln-ation. Consequen~y, there is a limited amount of historical workload data available to develop reliable trends related to user fees and charges revenues. In addition, the overall economy is in a recession casting even more doubt on the reliability of p~t conditions to suggest specific partams of private activity susceptible to user fee-supported services. The City also provides services to its citizens in a number of significant areas through private contracts and inter-governmental agreements. This means that ndministrative support and general government services are dia~opoxfionate3y m~11~ than would be expected compared to the overall budget size. The major service areas provided through private and public contracts are: Police protWdon Fire prevention and rulx}nse Solid waste collection Development process services (partial) Aninud conU'o! B. Inventory of ~.*i-.,in~, Municipal Services We developed a list of mt, nir~l~l services and listed the usez fees and chargu related to those services. This provides the City with an inventozy of existing municil~l services and related fees. In completing this task, we lave met with City department heads and principal consultants whose functions generate City revenues dezived from user fees and charges. The City of Temecula provides a number of municipal services through service agreements with the County of Riverside and by contracts with private firms. In our review of municipal services, we listed contracted services where the contract was administered. For example, developer parcel map plan check services (a private contract) are listed under Public Works; and waste management, under the City Manager. The City Attorney was placed under the City Manager because that is where the legal services contract is ~,tministered. We recognize, however, that this is a function having a broad degree of autonomy and is directly responsible to the City Council. To properly reflea the thanact of the services, we broadly categorized the municipal services. As a result, it will be observed that most departments perform a mix of general government, direct public service, and/or support services. We defined each category as follows: CitY°tTemeguk'UmrCbtWesmdlremSmd7 Pages Geaeral Governmeat- Activities relat~ to the City's leg~siot~vc, administrative, and executive functions, inciudingfin~anc~nl ndmini~a'dXion, revenue and tax adminiswation, and general control of City-wide benefit. Direct Public Services - Functions performed by the City in response.. to citizen needs for public safety, public works, health and welfare, and recreation and culture. Support Services - SpeclnliTaJ, City-wide activities performed by City departments in support of general government and direct pubtic services, including information systems, utilities and ~!itles (excluding pubtic works and recreation and culture). We examined all the CAty's depamnents to determine the type of services performed by each and to identify the fees and user charges related to those services. This is the first step toward completing the analysis of the full cost of public services and the non-tax revenues associated with them. The purpose for categori~ing mvnici~! sea'vices as "General Government," "Direct Public Service," and "Suplxn't Services" is to provide guidance in determining the appwpthteness of levying a user charge or fee for the total or partial recovery of municipal service costs. We note that public agencies give greater attention to the recovery of aH or pan of the costs associated with "Direct Public Services." There are two principal reasons for this. The first is that included in direct public services are activities which can be directly linked to individual benefit (e.g., planning and building inspection). The second is that general purpose taxes are becoming insufficient to pay for the services the public wants and funding beyond basic service levels requires a supplement that people are often willing to pay for. We therefore believe it is important to distinguish those services fwm the other categories. C. Inventory of ~'lqbW User Fees and Charges We listed all user fees and charges related to specific municipal services and recorded how much actual revenue was received during the last completed fiscal year. Our source of information regarding revenue performance is the City's FY 1990-91 revenue report. Although some revenue accounts did not show any activity during i=Y 1990-91, we are aware that it may not necessarily be the case for FY 1991-92 (e.g., business licenses). This information is contained in Table 1. Table I lists all the CAty sexvices in accordance to whe~ they are administered. Therefore, they may not always pandlel the departmental format used in the City's FY 1991-92 Budget. While associated revenues from user fees and charges are also listed with each service area, the revenues are centraliy collected and are not presently credited to the related departmental budgets. The City's budget does not presently accumuiat~ workload data for display in departmental budget details. Lacking this information handicaps quantifying propused expenditures in terms that may be familiar to citizens and necessary for d~ental managers to track the consumption of City dTeme~b, ~ErC21mlmmd Foes Study PaW4 resources. The development of a comprehensive and integrated budgeting accounting system cannot take place all at once for the City. This is pan of the evolutionary process of constructing management systems constrained by time and resources. However, a substantial effort toward developing workload data and performance measures will improve accounting and other aspects o budgetary management. The City has begun this process by the introduction of selected worldoad units in monthly reports to the City Council. This is an excellent beginning. E. Recommemaitiom 1. Acco,mtiwf for Promtam Reven.es In order to facilitate the linking of non-tax revenues (user fees, charges, grants, inter- governmental transfers, etc.) to the municipal services which generate them, it would be approprtm to modify future CRy budgets to reflect net municipal costs. This change in preseating the cost of City service would allow citizens to view the mount of revenues that are derived from sources other than local taxes to. pay for these services, and provide departmental managers with additional information to better monitor and make corrections to their program objectives as the fiscal year progresses. We, therefore, recommend the following budget format changes: Costs Salaries and l~ne~ts Matezials and Services C,~Di~d Ou~ Total Direct Costs $XxXX xXxx xxxX $xxxx Indirect l:-gpenses: (from cost allocation model) Total ~ervice Cost~ Funding~ $ < xxxx > Net r~~t.j Cost' $ XXxX This is new information obtained from cost allocation model. This is new infomation. This is new information and includes: revenue from grants, user fees and charges, operating transfers, intergovernmental payments, etc,) This is the mount financed from general taxes; including Vmlxa ty tax, sales tax, etc. CityetTemmmikTukawCkelesadFeesSisdy Reporting and coml~'rin[ actual performance, costs, and revenues for variance analysis is integral to developing a sound user fee and charges system. This information may identify we~t-nesses in the opentim of a deparunent, the over- or under-charging of user fee to achieve Developing units of measurement for the work to bc done by each department is always a major undertaking. However, some units of workload measurement are relatively easy to identify, partictdarly if they relate to the issuance of permits, the review of planning applications, p~fo,,,,ance of field observations, respons~ to calls and counter inquiries, etc. The development process, which currently generates by far the major portion of the City' s user fees We, therefore, x-ecomm,,~l that the City identify work meamirmnent units for the Departments of Playmini,, Public Works, and R,fildin,p and Safety. These work measurement units should be accumulated on a fiscal year basis to provide workload indices for budgeting purposes and revenue management. City dTmmmada, UMrCkarmsMd Fern Stud7 i~8e6 II. H, lr.r, COST/~LrOCAHON PlAN SECTION H Full Cost Allocation Plan A. Overview The purposes of performing a full cost allocation plan are to provide uniformity in the calculation of municipal services costs, and to identify all City expenditures which enter inw the provision of municipal services. Based on the cost information thusly developed, it is possible to determine the user fees and charges that may be establiahed to recover all or pan of a specific municipal service cost. The number of work traits (workload data) and service standards (quality of service provided) are also factored into the formula for determining the appropriate mount to charge. Computation of full costs is a rt~themnticat, step down process by which overhead categories are allocated to direct public senrice depamnents or organizational units. This is accomplished by identifying each of the City's direct, departmental costs, usually found in the City's annual budget. After this is done, the costs of overhead depanmenUtl costs are spread to direct service departmental costs according to a logical allocation basis. Therefore, full service costs include all direct and indirect costs (overheads). Direct costs are the department's line item expenditures which can be specifically identified to the service. Usually these costs are salaries and benefits, materials and services, and equipment acquisition. While depreciation is not budgeted, in a cost allocation model it is a more accurate reflection of average annual equipment costs than the mount of equipment costs budgeted in any one year. Indirect costs are division overhead, department overhead, Citywide overhead, and support services. The calculation for these is as for direct costs above. B. General Characteristics of Cost Allocation System The following schematic design illustrates the allocation process: CATEGORIZE ALLOCATE OVERHEADS {to direct services and other departments} C~d'Temecd~UmrCbm~mmdFemSmdy Psiof Overhead categories ar~ defined as follows: CR~ri~e f~erh~: ,/General CIty Overhead: Cos~ ~~ by ~ Q~ w~ ~ n~sp~ w ~e oval ~ but ~ot ~y ~ i~~ ~ ~~g a ~ pubic ~e or which ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ q~fi~ of ~ pm~d~ m a s~ific Support Overhead: Costs incurred by a service type department in suppon of other departments (e.g., Human Resources, Risk lVhnagement, Purchasing, etc. ). l~.Rrmnont Overhs,nd: Costs inctured within the Department for employees providing administrative and suppon services to personnel in al of the service providing activities in the Department. Divieon Overho-d-._ Costs inctm-ed within the Department for employees providing adminiswative, supervisory, and support services to personnel in some, but not all, of the service providing activities in the Depamnent, and for related services, supplies, and other charges. C. Proem for Allocating Overheads to Direct Public Services 1) Categorize departments - determine which departments are general government, support services, or direct public service. 2) Begin with administrative, legishtive, and support services departments. Compute their individual direct costs. Total for the group. 3) Do the same for direct public services departments. Select an allocation basis - any logical basis for allocating Citywide (general) and support services overheads may be used if it distributes costs equitably and will withstand audit. This is frequently done on the basis of the proportionate share of direct hbor costs a department has in relationship to the C, ity's total labor costs (i.e., if Department A has a $250,000 direct labor cost compared to the City's total $5,000,000 hbor cost, then its proportionate share of the total is 5 96 ). 5') Allocate any support costs which can be a~socint~ directly with operating departments (e.g., legal services). Subtract this mount from the total support costs to compute the remaining cosu to be allocated. 6) Spread the remaining support costs to all departments in accordance with the basis of allocation. In large governmental units, the nilocation process my require determining administnfive and support units benefiting the entire department and spreading to the remaining org~nintional units (divisional overhead). This was not necessary for the City of Temecula. ~ of'Tin Umt'Chm'Bmmd Fern Study E~Bo8 7) Spread the full cost of general government deparunents to all departments in accordance with the basis of allocation. D. City of Temecuh C~st Allocation Model Th~ cost allocation model was designed using the City's FY 1991-92 final operating budget. In the development of the cost *noc.~den model, we mad~ a number of assumptions which are discussed below. In general, however, we have alloca2d indirect costs and administrative overheads to programs and departments in proportion to the mount of servic~ or benefit received. There are three basic approaches to the allocation process: 1) Apply indirect and overhead costs by examining the various pieces of the overhead and allocating each using a measure of the particular benefit it confers; or 2) Apply indirect and overhead costs based on the relationship of the program or depanment's budget to the total budget; or Apply indirect and overhead costs based on the relationship of the program or depanment's salaries and wages budget (labor costs) to the total City budget for personnel expenditur~o In this cost slioc~tion plan we have felt that it would not be ~vpr~zlste to rely on only one of the methods. We needed to avokl potmtial distributive problems due to the City's dependence on contracted services to provide for major programs. Consequently, for some programs, such as Police and Fire Services, allocating overheads on the basis of the Police or Fire services budget in proportion to the total City budget would greatly overstate the City's administrative costs associated with these services. Therefore, in these instances we allocated overheads as accurately as possible based on a direct exnrNn~tion of administrative oversight and contract administration effort provided. Whenever approp~a~, we used the third method (relationship of program budget's salaries and employee benefits to the. City's mial personnel budget). This permitted us to develop proportionate relationships which were used to allocate such expenditures as utilities, space occupancy costs, materials, etc. E. Cos~ AB0--f|oaModel The computer model uses Lotus 1-2-3, Version 3.1, and captures all costs associated with each municipal service ar=. The model ,!ioc~ direct and indirect overhead costs as well as any other support cost attributable to the service area studied. The mudel is flexible and allows a multiple step down approach for allocating costs between operational units and overhead departments. The results show the full costs (direct, indirect, and overheads) of services that directly affect the public. In performing the full cost allocation, we used the inventory of existing municipal services developed earlier. This inventory allowed us to distinguish which municipal functions were: (a) C. k3, etTemeak, Uea'bmd Fen SmdF raps dirca services to the pubtic, fo) of a general government nature, and (c) of support to (a) and (b) . We note that several depafunents perform a mix of general government and direct service functions. The cost allocation model taks these variations into account. The cog allocation model is an interactive model involving two computerized spread sheets. The results arc depicted on two pages as tables. The first page, titled *Indirect and Overhead Costs,' represents aH those City activities that axe primarily legislative, administrative, and support services. The second page, titled *Public Sexricers,* represents all the City's direct public services to which indirect and overhead costs should be allocated in order to calculate their full cost. Key assumptions used in the cost allocation model are as follows: The Community Services DbUi'~ (CSD) was treated as a City department and figures throughout the cost allocation process. CSD's capital outlay was excluded from the Celea:!~tiOne. Some cost allocation models exclude fixed assets. appropriate to factor fixed assets as a cost element. fixed assets inventory. In this instance, we believe it is Our source of data was the City's In accounting for the cost of acquiring fixed assets, we have amortized the cost of a fixed asset over the estlm~,wd service life of such an asset Through this process, we have e~mnfeCl the mount of the total fixed assets costs which can be expensed over one fiscal year. We added a fat:mr of 10% for anticips,ed staff growth in order to produce a realistic amount to :Hoc~te Citywide. This approach has minimized the higher than normal annual expenditures incurred by the City over the past 18 months due to 3) We included personnel adminiswadon in the City Managcr's budget. We excluded contracts admims'wation as a general administrative cost to be shared Citywide. This cost,. estimated at $56,784, was allocated dixectly to the programs under contract. 4) We excluded the oashier activity as a general administrative cost to be shared Citywide. This cost, estimated at $53,125, was allocated directly to the departments having the largest cashieting activity. The City Attomey's costs were direcdy allocated to the bene~ting program on the basis of an examination of billings received by the City from the legal firm. 6) We *lioc~ted Non-Departmentsl costs, excluding fixed assets, on the basis of personnel costs relationships. Fixed assets expenditures are noted above. 7) We did not allocate the following budgeted expenditures, as we consider these costs not attributable to the performance of direct public services: $300,(XX) (City Council) - 45,000 (non-departmental) - Social Services Business Development COC C~ofTemetsikUem'ChargesaadFemSmabr Papl6 8) We allocated indirect and overhead costs to ~e Public Works department on the basis of three proStuns: EnSineerin~, hblic Works, and Roads. In order to undemand the tables and ug of the computer manual, please refer to the Appendix. It contains the ugr's manual for the computer model. F. Temecuh Ce ,m,-tt Services(TCSD) The Temecula Community Servicea District (TCSD) is responsible for providing three functions: (a) recreation services; Co) park planning and development; and (c) landscape services. The TCSD is governed by a Board of Directors (City Council) and as such opea'ates as a subsidiary district of the City. Fir~nci,~lly, it opexates as a special fund program with the attributes of an enterprise activity. In other words, the TCSD's operating and capital outlay expenditures are funded by sources other than the City's General Fund, and is expected to be self-financing. A separate budget unit is ln'pared for the TCSD. The TCSD, moreover, is an operation which has been fully integrated into the City structure, and from a practical standpoint, functions similarly to any other City department. In designing ~c cost allocation model, the TCSD was treated as a City delmtnnent to which general City overhead and indirect costs are allocated. This is due to the pea'f~ of citywide services by "overhead" departments to support TCSD's operations. The mount calculated as indirect costs to the TCSD are, therefore, an appropriate charge to be factored as an additional operating expense of the TCSD. The total of direct and indirect costs axe the estimated TCSD's full cost of operation. General C-overnment ,~qVlZ~rt ,%rviee~. At the present time, however, the TCSD performs certain' services that have a citywide benefit. Theae sea~ices absorb approximately 2.0 labor years of TCSD perurand time to lx~fo~h the following tasks: a) Facility management supportive services for citywide adminiswation (approximately 1.00 LY) b) Automotive maintenance support (approximately 0.75 LY) c) A-~e&~ient administration for street sweeping and refuse and recycling (approximately 0.25 LY) The estirr~ted direct cost of performing these services ba,~d on the 1991-92 budget is $83,815; and the emimated full cost, bas~ on the cost allocation plan, is $163,963. We recommend that the cost of these citywide benefit services be charged to the City's General Fund. The most practical way to do thi.4 is to annually calculate these expenditures and credit the costs of these services to the TCSD, ~ereby reducing the mount due the City' s General Fund from the TCSD for general government support. Development h oer_u ,qqDI}ort gewices. In addition to the above citywide support services, the TCSD is a participant in private development reviews brought to the Planning Department. The ~ of're Lvmm'bmd Fern Study ~ 11 staff of TCSD reviews f~opos;d resideod2l subdivision projects for Quimby fees requirements, ~ic~6on of park lands, and landscape plans. The TCSD staff also checks proposed commercial developments where lan~ medi2ns are to be included in the development. Further,. TCSD pe, xsonnd reviews propose! ~edic~tlons to the City for maintenance of slopes,. medians, open space, and su'e~ lights. The cost of thest activities is absorbed by the .TCSD. It is estimated that the direct cost is approximately $60,1502.00, representing about 1.5 Labor Years of effort. Our examination of these activities in,iic~te lhat they, in pan, serve the development process and may, therefore, be an appropm charge to developers. Consequently, we recommend that these services be charged to the General Fund at this time. We also recommend that the City consider eslablishing a pl.nning fee to recover all or a portion of the costs s-~.,eciseed with those activities beneating the development process. Charging back these service costs to the General Fund produces a General Fund subsidy. However, we believe that is a more desirable inerim solution until such time as a user fee has Com~bedOae. We have recommended that the City give credit to the TCSD for activities its staff performs mgltding citywide support services and patei~i~llon in the development review process. This credit would seduce the amount which the TCSD should reimburse' the General Fund for services it receives from the City's general government and support services functions. The total e~eimnted dite~ coils for these TCSD ac~vitie~ is $144,317.00. Please refer to Exhibit 3 for demil-e. G. Teme~.,,m- Rfslevdopment ANescy (TRA) - AdminisU'a~ve expen~ and overhead. The Temecula Redevelopment Agency CI'RA) is empowered under slate hw to incur loans, advances and other indebtedness in carrying out the redevelopment plan. The TRA may also receive property lax increments providing it files an annual Statement of Indebtedness. In August 1991, the TRA emblished debt by receiving an advance of approximately $2,075,000 from the City of Temecula. Further, the TRA has established an Agency Administrative Fund which may be used to defray administrative expenses. An agreement between the City of Temecula and the TRA authorizes the City Manager/Executive Director of the Agency to make City officers and employees available to the Agency, and to compensate the City for such use. The Agreement estimates the costs for nd~ministrative expenses and overhead of the TRA to be $75,000 per year~ As a part of our review of full program cost we estimated the cost of administrative expenses and overhead which will be provided to the TRA by the City for 1991-92. The mount is $112,515.00. The calcu~tion conservatively assumed that approximately 30 percent of the City Council's, City Manager' s and City Clerk's time were devoted to the work of the TRA. For additional details, please refer to Exhibit 2. III. DEVELOPMENT OF FEE SCHEDUr~ FOR FULL COST RECOVERY SECTION IH Development of Fee Schedule for Full Cost Recovery A. ]!ae, kil~ nd The City of Temecula has imp. lemented a system of fees and charges since incorporation in 1989 and has periodically expanded their application. Fees and charges are an important source of revenue to the City, particularly for services associated with the development process (Planning, Public Works l~nEineering, and Building and Safety). During FY 1990-91, actual user fees and charges produced $6,278,190.00, or about 42% of total City revenues. Budgeted for FY 1991-92 is a projected mount of S3,394,400.00 which represents about 28 % of total City revenues. Bven though the economic recession is affecting user fees and charges revenue levels, it will still be a major source of municipal income. In the City of Temecula, we find that it is difficult, ff not impossible at this time, to reliably calculate the adequacy of a user fee or charge to recover the costs of the service. This is due, in large pan, to the ,youth* of the City which does not have historical data on workload which can help establish trends and forecast future activity levels. In addition, paying for private contractual services which perform a major segment of the development review process, through the retention of a fixed portion of the City's user fees and charges exacted from developen and individuals, handicaps the development of workload and staffing relationships. As the City gradually assumes the performance of all of its development review process in-house, the data base on which to plan for expenditures and recovery of those costs will greatly impwve. B. Comparison of User Fees and Charges We made a comparison of The City's user fees and charges with three neighboring cities: Perrris, Moreno Valley, and Carlsbad. Please refer to the Appendix to view this table. The table also depicts proposed fee schedule changes to achieve full cost recovery for selected services and new proposed fees and charges. The following section fully explains the rationale for these recommendations. IV. FINDINGS AND IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATIONS Fmdin~ and Impact of Recommendatiom Introduction One of the major issues encountered end dlsc~tmssed by City Administrators is the "legitimacy" of fees end charges as sources of revenues for public progrins. California governments have experienced en evolutionary process toward more fees and charges for public services due to two important forces: first, con~totional lax revenue and expenditm'e limits; end second, the public desire for charging public services directly to those who benefit. There are other contributing factors which give impetus to raising of fees and charges which include economic necessity, supplementary sources of funds to make possible the fulfillment of public service obligations, policy consistency, and services provided. All m~,rniciI, nlities and counties have come to rely on fees end charges to finance portions of their services. This study addresses this inctusingly i,upotumt source of revenue for the City of Temecula. Our approach was to determine what City services should be financed, in whole or in part, by fees end charges. A system of fees and charges must, on one hand, supplement other sources available to fund some services while on the other hand, be the sole source of funding for other services. In both cases, the general benefit of the City's services made possible through fees end charges should exceed eny detriment imposed by the fees themselves, end the collections must be practical. All proposed fees end charges for use by the City must be approved by the City Council. B. Rationale for Fees and C~urges It has been generally accepts! that basic revenues received from the general public should not subsidize specific services provided to relatively few'individuals or groups of a private character. Therefore, those who benefit to the exclusion of others would pay something extra or the full cost for the privileges enjoyed. Through the development and proper use of approp, late standards, a more effective revenue operation will result. This general objective was assisted by our application of a common ~cafion system to identify muniapal services which should be funded by user fees and charges. This was done by creating three broad categories: Category I - Fees which may be full cost recovery Category H- Fees which may be less than full cost recovery Category tit, Fees which may be more than full cost recovery By applying these broad categories, we developed a matrix profiling the major type of user fees end c.~ dTmen~ UmrChrWmmd Fee Stud7 l~e ~4 char~es (Table 2). Referring to this matrix can assist in the development of policy guidelines to define the level. of cost recovery the City believes appropriate and be informed of the current practice of other public C. CI'iIir~ fir Dlitfndninf RicovolT ]~veJ Our analysis of existing and pwposed fees and charges was mnd~ on the basis of criteria for det6mini~ which fees should be more than, less than, or equal to 100 percent full cost recovery. Broadly spe~iein,% those fees and clm'ges that should be equal to 100 percent full cost recovery are those that are for City activities which are of a private character and have a direct benefit to individuals or groups. Such activities involve the development pwcess, certain recreational programs, most regulato~ permits, 'sale of documents, and special services such as police parade escorts. Fees and charges which may be less than 100 percent full cost recovery aze those which apply to City activities having a genenl Imblic benefit, as ~ as ~ valu~ to individuals or groups. Such activities may include. the sale of publications, ~ f.aciliti~ tlsige, promoting respect for activity and/or service, charging of full cost 2nds to restrict parfcil~tlon by those unable to pay for the privilege and where a fee will expand activities for all people, with the least possible cost Charging in excess of 100 full cost recovery is usually limited in scope and typically applies to police enforced regulatory permits. In these cases, the fees are greater than the full cost in an attempt to recover potential enforcement costs. This category includes massage parlor permits, cardroom fees, etc. The evaluation of the adequacy of a fee involves assessing how the mount charged covers the cost of performing the utsks that constitute the "total service cost." In particular, how do the number of planned service units (requests for permits, plan checks, etc.) interact with service costs to determine the workload level that can be handled and price necessary to cover all costs? One issue is how price is affected and whether there are feedback affects between fees and the number of service requests. If decreasing requests for services increase service costs (due to fixed costs and narrower spread of costs among service requests), then what mechanisms will be used to bring back service corn in line with fees charged? Computation of Amount to be Charged The fees and charges are determined on the basis of the actual cot of rendering the service. cost (full cost recovery) is the sum of: Actual ~ of Temecd~ Urnf brutal Fees Study Page,IS (1) Direct operating expenses (salaries and benefits of employees performing the service, materials and supplies used in the operation, and authorization of facilities and equipment purchased to perform the service); (2) Indirga expenses (the pro-ntai share of dcparuncnlal and divisional adminisuation and supervision corn - caindated similarly to direa operating expenses) and General City overhead (the pro-rated share of costs associated with the Citywide ~dmini.m-afive and support functions such as City Council, City Manager, Departments of Finance, Human Resour~s, etc. ). The calculate full cost of the sexvice is then divided by the anticipated number of items of activity which have been-selected for cost recovery. (For e~mplc, the number of building permits, applications ~, inspecti~ performed, etc.) Historical data combined with social and economic forecam form the basis for estim=tlnE fUtth-e workload and the number of cost recoverable items that will be performed. A permit rate is computed and becomes the service charge or user fee. Current Workload lnfornm~on Historical workload data is incomplete and limited because the City of Temecula has been operational for approximalely 18 months. In addition, the national economy during this period has declined steadfly and private development activity throughout the region has also declined. The available workload data is therefore not only limited historically, but also uncharacterisfic of a normal economy. This situation handicaps our ability to gauge with accuracy the workload levels and associated revenues in those scrvicc arcas where full cost recovery should occur. Full Cost Recovery of Developanent Process The City has adopted a system of development fees to recover the costs associated 'with private development activity. -The schedule of fees originsted primarily with Riverside County and is Senemily consistent with similar fees charged by neighboring Cities. The Matrix Chart, titled City of Temecula, City Comparison of User Fees and Charges, compares the fees for the Cities of Temecula, Perris, Moreno Valley, and Carisbad. While it is not possible to compare fee for fee exactly, it can be observed from the Table that substantial similarity exists. This, of course, is not accidental. Public agencies, on one hand, are conscious of their neighbors' policies and practices and tend to act similarly; on the other hand, the private sector closely monitors governmental actions and is quick to point out where significant discrepancies exist. In addition to this behavior, there is the desixe of local governments, though not always well articulated, w enact revenue pwgrams that are as economically neutral as possible. Many cities, as pan of the budge~ formulation process, adopt comprehensive packages of fee increases and new fees. Some cities have also implemented through user fees and charges City Council policies requiring that basic revenues received from the general public should not subsidize specific services provided to relatively few individuals or groups. ca7 dTame:de, Uea'Omrgesmdha Study PM, x6 The dev~opment process is a major area of public services which lends itself well to the principle that those are activities for which user fees and charges should recover the full cost. Practices of most local governments in California reflect that principle. The three departments primarily responsible for servicing the development. process are: Building and Safety, Pl=nnlnl~ (Current), and Public Works (Engineering). The cost allocation model we developed gathered the fun cost of these activities. Current user fees and charges of the City indicate a desire to achieve full cost recovery to the extent possible. Our analysis of the costs and associated revenues of these dcpanmcnts assurncd a full cost recovery goal for 811 development Methodolooy. We eramined each department's activities to determine which were directly related to the development proce~. These were confumed by each depatunent head. We then calculated the direct costs of those activities; and using the cost allocation model, we calculated their full costs. The methodology used in determining the adequacy of the user fees and charges level to recover full costs consisted of deducting the actual user fees and charges revenue attributable to that service activity from the computed full corn of these activities. The methodology used in determining proposed user fee and charge levels consisted of examining all the activities which produced revenues for the service area, determining which were the principal contributors, and ~u.~mlmin~ that the principal contributors would continue to be so in the future. Next, using the development forecast developed by JMA, we projected user fees and charges revenue for FY 1992-93 based on current user fee and charge levels. We adjusted the full costs of services based on a CPI increase of 4.5 %. In order to caladate user fee and charges to the level necessary to achieve full cost recovery, we mathematically increased the principal revenue producing The full cost recovery adequacy analysis for each department is discussed in the following sections. For additional derails please refer to the Appendix. I)eliprtn~nt Of !a,a~diwl/mud ~e ~t h bu~ ~ ~ y~ m ~ a ~ff ~~ of ~out 86 ~. ~is is ~ ~ a ~ ~ wff of ~ut $1,275,~ for ~ 1~1-92, ~d pwj~ ~uu of $1,1~,~ ~m ~ ~ ~d ~. ~ ~ ~ ob~ ~m ~e a~mp~g cost ~~ ~ym sm~, ~e d~~t ~ on ~ p~ ~ for ~ ~ d i~ pm~ ~. Conchmions. Using J'MA's development forecast averaging about 21% growth residential development and 14.5 % in non-residential development over the next five years, we conclude as follows: · The department is staffed with City employees who can respond to the demands of an additional workload without incurring significant higher operating costs. In other words, it can be eaix~ted that a portion of the projected additional workload can be absorbed by existing staff. City otTm Uom'b and Fern Study Page17 · The current fee levels are essentially the same as are found in other nearby jurisdictions because they are drawn primarily from the Universal Building Code Fee Schedules. Most California judsdi~'ons have adopted these fees. Proposing major changes in those fees would likely produce substantial political pressure not to do so. · A diffen'ent mix of activities could produce a larger mount of revenue. · Projecting FY 1992-93 user fee and charge revenues using JMA's development forecast produces the following: Fullservicecostestimate User fee and charges revenue estimate Rem=ining City costs: $ 1,333,044 <1.995150 > $ 37,794 Cost recovery is about 97.2 %. Cfhis analysis does not account for current economic conditions.) Recommendations. That the City of Temecula: 1) Monitor user fee and charge revenue~ of the Delmxmumt of Building and Safety; 2) Thick- no action at this time to adjust the level of user fees and charges for the Deparunent of Building and Safety; and Gather workload data for the purpose of identifying the type and frequency of key departmental activities so that year-to-year comparisons may be made with user fee and charge revenues for work planning and budget purposes. I)enartmeet of PubIt,, Work~- ~'-nfineerinv The deparanent is budgeted to achieve a cost recovery for engineering services of about 104.8%. This is based on a full service cost of about $1,877,102 for FY 1991-92, and projected revenues of $1,100,000 from user fees and charges. Currently, the department contracts out a major portion of their work to an engineering consultant who retains 75 % of the user fees and char~es levied by the City for the vations development process services pwvicled. Therefore, we also calculated on a net City cog bs~-~ the cost recovery performance of the deparunent. This additional calculation showed a cost recovery of about 123 %. Conclusions.. Using JMA's development forecast noted earlier, we conclude as forlows: If the department continues to rely heavily on an engineering consultant for engineering services related to the development process, the City will continue to perform at least at a full service cost recovery level, and most likely above that level. · If the City determines that the department should employ its own staff for engineering services related to the development process, it will be necessnry to re-examine full service C. MyotTmUewChmpsmdFemStady Pqell · With the ~t~i~un_ee of the engineering consultant, we made a test of randomly selecte~ ~ to detn'mine if the departnlent's full service costs would be recovered by the present user fees and chargcs. The results present~ in Table 3, were inconclusive. We are making another test of selected projects which will be presented separately. · Projecting FY 1992-93 user fee and charge revenues at current rates using JMA's deveIopment forecast produces the fonowing: Full service cost estimate User fee and charges revenue estimate Rev~au~ Surplus: $ 1,961,572 <9.317.320 $ 355,748 Cost recovery is about 118%. Cfhis analysis does not account for current economic conditions.) Recommendntion$: That tho City of Temecula: 1) Conduct a derailed cost of service analysis of selected engineering activities to establish a baseline of actual costs for adjusting user fees and charges. This is an essential step prior to the City's establishment of its in-house engineering review capability; 2) Monitor user fee and charge revenues of the Public Works Department - Engineering; 3) Take no action at this time to adjust the level of user fees and charges for the Department of Public Works - l:qgineering; and Develop and gather workload data for the purpose of identifying the type and frequency of key departmental activities so that year-to-year comparisons may be made with user fee and charge revenues for work planning and budget purposes. I)~~ Of l~-!~ninf - C-srrr~nt Plpnnlnl, The depamnent provides current and advance planning services. l~or purposes of cost recovery, it was assumed that advance plnnniqg was of a Citywide bellefit, and that user fees and charges should apply principally to the costs of service for current planning,, The department has a contract with an outside planning consulting group to assist in its activities for FY 1991-92. It is estimate! that about 75% of the contracted planning services are to support current planning activities. However, the department is moving away from outside assistance with respect to current planning. Because of this emerging organizational change, we calculated the cost recovery effort of the current planning services without the cost of contracted services. This resulted in a full service cost of about $589,138 and estimated revenues of $359,473 for FY 1991-92. This calculation showed a cost recovery of about 61%. (This analysis does not account for current economic conditions. ) Some public agencies seek to recover the full cost of thP, se services. Other public agencies, however, do not attempt to recover the full cost. They instead, strive to recover most of the City dTsms~sla, L~tCimf~smmIFmsSm~y Pagol9 costs, assuming that there is general public benefits to be gained from current planning activities. This portion tends to vary between 75 and 85 % of full service costs. Conclusions. We conclude as follows: · The an'rent plnnniflg a~dvitie8 are essentially hewruing an in-house function which has fixed costs that lack the ~e, ribilinj Of adjustment when workload expands or contracts, · Current planning user fee and charge revenues are lower than would be expected given the current rates.' This is based on the comparison of the City's planning fees with three other mY cities (Moreno Valley, Penis, and Carlshad). The rates adopted by the City of Temeasla are in line with the user fees and charges of these cities. Fore major revenue ~w. ounts prodtu:ed 93.6% of all revenues for FY 1990-91. For the current ftmll year (1991-92), only six wue ~it, nific~nt. Crhis may be due to current economic conditions.) hug th~ City is new, it is likty that the full range of current planning a,z'dvitiea one would eatpe~t to obgrve in an older community is not yet occurring in Tme~ula. Consequently, the full poumtial of revenues from cmTent planning activities may not have fully dtweloped, accounting for th~ lower revenue level. Curr~nt economic conditions may affect the revenue level, but we note that we usM prior year dam. Consequently, we have to conclude that it would be appropriate to increase planning f~..s · Projecting FY 1992-93 user fee and charge revenues at current rates using JMA's development forecast produces the following: Full sexyice cost estimate User fee and charges revenue estimate Remaining City costs: $ 615,649 <423.356 > $192,293 Coat re~:ovea-y is about 68.8%. Crhis analysis do~ not account for curfeint economic conditions.) · Striving for full service cost recovery at this time, through a rate increase of about 30% over current user fees and charges, may result in over achieving the 100% goal. This is due to the increase to be expected in planning activities as the economy recovers and the department does not make significant gaff increases; rather, the deparUnent would absorb all or pan of the future workload increase. Further, as the City matures, a broader range of planning activities should be expected, thereby increasing overall revenues. Reeommendatiom. That the City of Temecula: 1) Develop and gather workload measures for the purpose of identifying the type and frequency of k~ departmental activities so that year-to-year comparisons may be made of user fee and charge revenues for work planning and budgeting. cay erTe Uwbmd Fee Shrub, Pqo20 Dev~op a plan. to gradually phase in an augmentation of current planning user fee and charge raw. s to achieve 909~ full cost recovery. Such a plan should be based on a detailed cost of service analysis of selected services. Conduct a ~ed cost of service analysis of ~ current planning activities to establi~ a br~.~e of actual corn for adjusaug u~r fees and cites. This is an essential srgp if it is the City's desire to achieve full service cost recovery (100%). ]]tl~,t~ion of Retn.,...a,,..a.,tio~w. It ~ ~~ ~ ~ OW ~ m avoid a sudden in~ h ~t pl~ing ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ h ~fly ~~ucfive, ~cul~ly wh~ a n~ ~W ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~g ~y ~m~t. A phE~ approach ~s ~e im~ ~ ~ ~~t wmm~W ~ h~d~. A phased appwacim to increase current rates to achieve an 90% cost recovery over three years would require an annual adjustment as fonows: Year 1 + 596 Year2 + 896 Year3 + 8% The lack of historical experience on which to confirm that planning fee ram are too low, plus current poor economic conditions strongly suplxxt the recommendation for a detailed cost of service analysis. However, if the City desires to achieve full cost recovery (100%), the phasing in period Year 1 + 7~ Year 2 + 8% Year3 + 896 Year4 + 8% The amounts shown in the Matrix Chart: City of Temecula - City Comparison of User Fees and Charges (Appendix) are to achieve 90% service cost recovery. We recommend less than full cost recovery because culTent pinehieE fees would very lik~y be out of line with other neighboring communities and renewed development activity (after the current recession is over) will generate Developrector Process The preceding sections have discussed individually the three departments principally involved in the development process. We felt it would be useful to e~rnmine the three departments wgether as combined elements of the City's development process. Therdore, we aggregated the full service corn and revenues from service fees and charges. The following table, based on the 1991-92 Budget, ln'uays fitis aggregation: Cit7 dTemend~ Umrb fad Fern Study PQe21 Deimrtnu~/Service Building and Safety Pubtic Works/Engineering Planning/Current Planning Total ]Full Cost Revenue % Cost Recovery $1,275,640 $1,100,000 86 1,877,102 1,968,000 105 589.138 359.473 .. (~ 1 $ 3,741,880 $ 3,427,473 .- 92 As can be seen from the above table, the C. ity's combined revenue performance is 92% of full costs. Development services involve all three depamnents and it is a normal expectation that developers and individuals will require services from all three as well. On this basis, the City may want to consider the establishment of a Development Process Program Enterprise Fund. This would consist of combining the development process functions into a self-financing program. User fees and charges would be the source of revenue and would be adjusted as needed to achieve full service cost recovery. The development process program would be expected to expand and contra~t, depending on the service demands of the community. In addition, during periods of high activity, a fund reserve could be established to offset revenue decreases during drops in temporary business. This would allow not having to make staff reductions and thereby deplete the program of skilled personnel needed when activity rises again. It is the combination of the user fees and charges levied within the total program that forms the basis for cost recovery. This allows a more level overall revenue program because of the sequential character of revenue generation and collect as projects move from planning to implementation. Recommendation. That the City of Temecula: 1) Evaluate the creation of a Development Procen Program Enterprise Fund; and 2) If the City concludes it is feasible, to conduct an organizational study for its implementation. Diqc-.~ion of Reeomnpndmtion% We cit~] some of the advantages for the crcation of an enterprise fund. This would also allow for simplifying the revenue collection program and poterttially consolidate public counter and inquiry activities. We do not believe the overall orgapi~tional structure of the involved departments need to be much affected. Ci~,e~Temond~UmrbmdlreaSemb, Petn V. TABLES, APPENDIX, AND EXHIBITS TabLe 1 - List of Existing Services end User Fees and Charges Revenue Accounts CZTY COUNCIL 1. GENERAL GOVEItNHEIIT SERVICES LegisLative policy to CIty LegisLative policy to RedeveLopBent Agency LegisLative poLicy to ~ 2. DIRECT PUBLIC SERVICES 3. SUPPORT SERVICES n/a pige 1 of 11 REVENUE ACCBJNTS: FY 1990-91 ACCt. ~: I)elcr~ptiort ACtIlLS City Council revenue subtotaL: 0 Cj~Yef'Tema:d~UeerbsadWmSfmb' TabLe 1 * List of Existing Service and User Fees and Chew Revenue Accosts CITY NAliAGER DEPARTlINT 1. GENERAL GOVERNfit SERVICES A. Information Systems: B.. PersonneL: C. Contracts Administration: City Attorney D. Program ministration - Redevetoimaent Agency - Strategic planning - City administration - lntergoverramntat rotations - Dimter preparedfill - Ecofmmi¢ devetolxmnt program 2. DIRECT PUILIC SLIIVICES A. Informtim Systems: n/e B. Personnet: n/s C. Contracts Administration: Cite tatsvision Waste managelent PoLice service · Fire service Mileat control D. Program administration page 2 of 11 REVElIll ACIX)UIITI: FY 1990-91 Acct. Ih Descriptlen Actnets &Q2Q8 Dog ticfie -' 16,13& &o118 Franchise fees 6~'~,88/, 44130 Franchise mlFt'icatton fee 7,OOO 44131 Franchise ;recessing fees 2,390 &(503 Bids &proposals 3,500 zd)30& SoLid ere hmJtJng I;uljt 2,610 City Manager Dqmt revenue mubtotsLs: 503,517 3.A. Intoneslion Systems: City-vide into systems coordination B. Personnel: Befits administration Recrui taent Training - Equal eml~loyment opportunity - Ctsssificatjon/cmee~sation - EmpLoyee teLarises - Efiq~toyee motivatiofVdisciptina C. Contracts AdBinistrstion: - n/a O. Program administration n/a 'c. it7 otTemenl, Um'Chrpami Fea Sad3, rapH TabLe 1 - List of Existing Services and Uler Fees led Charges Re Accmmts CITY CLERK DEPARTNENT 1. GENERAL GOVERIINENT SERVICES Counci t support ELection adBinistrltion LegisLative cleveLolpmlmt HistoricaL searches - Records senageaent - Official Bating support 2. DIRECT PUILIC SERVICES Pubi ic inforfaetien Reception service LegisLative development HistoricaL searches 3. SUPPORT SERVICES Copy center Historical and doctamt scerchec REVENUE ACCOUNTS: Acct. #: Description N|sceLLansous YiLLdan copies IsLe of ~w~cll packets HistoricaL/D~t research Official .siting Nag tape reviews page 3 of 11 FY 1~0-91 Actuats 125 City CLerk revenue sul~otaLs: 4,145 City orTamndt, Urn'brad Item Stud7 r. pu Table I - Lilt of Existing Service end User Fees end Chew lievenue ACCounts F]NANC:~ DEPARTMENT 1. GENERAL GOVERNNENTAL SERVICES - Acceunts peyd:bte - Accounts receivebte - Business Licenses - Budget deveLopunt/ministrat|m - Ftnlnci8i q2erltim everlttl - Cash--qeg: ~t Fund ainistritlen/investmsnts Fixed assets Inventcry ':~g!l.nt 2. DIRECT MLIC SERVICES Cashier Fee end user chirge C~t tectiens 3. StJPP(XT SERVICES Payrot L Revenue collection (1) binas Liceme .' . NieceLie non taxable Returned check fee Annexation fees Netto RoN ;Licetim fee · ;lance Deftmint revenu~ subtotaL: paCe&of 11 FY 1~1 Actants 0 13,841 1,657 8,/,00 24,243 (1) ALL General Fkmd revenues coLLected by the City pursuant to LInd development, aims activity, etc., are coLLected by this Department. City ofTemmuda, UmrC3mrlm sad Item Slmly !"88o36 TabLe 1 - List of Existing Services end User Fees and Charm levenue Accounts NON-DEPARTNENTAL 1. GENERAL GOVERNI4ENTAL SERVICES n/s 2. D)RECT PUBLIC SERVZCES n/a 3. SUPPORT SERVICES UtiLities Postage Coianunications Office supplies Faci Litlee Lee/rentaLs Information eyltlll page 5 of 11 lEVEE ACCOUNTS: FY 1F~0-91 Acct. #: lascriptien ACtate Non-deperlaentaL revenue subtotaLs: city ofTenNoah, OmrCbmp md Fees Scrub, Page2? TaLe I - List of Exalttrig Services end User Fees and Charges lovehue Accmmts PLANNING DEPARTNENT 1. GENEItAL GOVEImNENT SERVICES A. Current PLanning: PLanning Canminion sul;ort -- City Council sul;ort B. Advertcad PLanning: General PLan prelaratton/acioptlan Eerierat PLan mintme/ate Inter jurisdictional coordination - Regimai graph ~ Mg. ' DeveLolxlant coordtnlting mittel 2. DIRECT PIJILIC SEllViCES A. Current PLanning: Public counter assistance Reviml deveLoplm~ prolgelala Procon devilit prqxmlLs Environmental revises Pemtt revise end issuance B. Advanced PLanning: - n/a 3. SUPPORT SERVICES A. Currant PLanning: - n/s B. Achmnced PLanning: IEVENUEA~dITI: 44101 44102 44103 4410& 44105 44106 44107 &6108 44109 44110 44111 44112 44113 4411& 4411S 44116 46117 66118 44119 44121 44126 44123 66126 44131 44137 44138 44139 44160 441&1 44167 44150 44151 pege6of 11 IrY 1990-91 Acct. #: Description Actnets Amended final imp 0 Certificate of Lend dlv compliance Extension of tim Single family treats Nuttt-femi ty tracts Parcel Balm Lot Line adjustment Nlnor change Parcel mP~r (2-6) Lots Recordable suixlivision mps Iteverlion to earsage IIx.:ilt carvice ¢4mtreat ~ service pmrcet Clmneeof zone Conditional use permit Senoral plan .-- -,' Int PLot plan Public use permit levi led Peril t SetlimA adjustment Specific plan lubetantlal confofimnce Tmlerary matdoor event Tmlporary use pemtt Vor i once Zoning informBttan Letter CEOA (initial studies) CEQA envirarment hispact report Deveiqamnt airs Ceoto~y CEM 6eotoey OIW S67 APZ LAFCO Parcel nsp/ullver Amnded flat treat/parcel Certificate of correction Condo tract alp Reversion to earsego Lot revision after check Lot tim adju:tment plan check Certificate of correction plan check Certificate of coel)lim plan check Cmld cart of callpttance plan check Certificate of PAR elrger plan check Vacatiem plan check Docamnt proceuing Condemotion plan check leversion to earsego plan check Parcel mp plan check Treat illip plan check Amended alp plan check 6th & subs mittat FENA study revle. LClM revte. Drainage study roylea IEprove trmpection on-site Oev 8grl nt 8i;itcation fees PLanning Depart revenue subtotal: 38#98~ 0 6,729 12,536 23,293 35,550 8,112 1,353 0 0 0 0 0 8,622 8,950 15,223 0 6,259 10,281 0 9,259 1,616 0 3,395 0 27,591 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,627 0 0 0 0 1,2~4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,219 6,000 231,066 Cky orTemaxik UECkarmmd !rein Study rqe~8 TabLe I - List of Existing Service end User Fees end Charges Revenue Accounts BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTlENT IEVENUE ACCOUNTS: 1. GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Acct. #: A. BuiLding inspection & Peruits: n/a B. Code Enforcement: e DIRECT PUBLIC SERVICES A. BuiLding Inspection & PerBits: Bujtding inspection PLan check ;recessing (contract) Pemjt issuance B. Code Enforcemet: - Sign abatement - A~f~dontd vehicle - Zoning violation Substandard housing PubLic nuisance 3. SUPPORT SERVICES A. Buj Lding Inspection & Permits: n/a i. Code Enforcement: n/s 4~N~O0 41201 66216 44219 44227 ~t28~ 44~85 page 7 of 11 FY 1990-91 Description Actnots In house plan check &l ,S6A PLan check ESGEL 0 Conditional use permit PLOt plan 252 PubLic u~e pemit TlllSOrlry ule permit O Variance filed alone O PLan check 276,716 kJLdJng perBit 769,5/,6 lu!Lding & Safety I)ept revenue subtotaL: 1,088,132 CitT°rTemecuk'tkrChmlmmdlreesSe"~ !'ulel9 Table I - List of Existing ~ervices and User Fees and 13mrge Iteveeue Acemints PU6LIC UORICS DEPAIITNENT 1.A GENERAL GOVERliENT SEllVICES IEVEIJE ACC~jdITIf Page 8 of 11 · OPerations: Trmfffc analyale Acct. #: Descrfptjen FY ' Camus 443~S Viiidan equimmnt rental _ ActumLs " Traffic engineering .. - : 66301 Amended final tap 1,200 i. Engineering ' ~ ~f~Tcate of Land DIv Camptrance 200,000 ' Capital improvements 973 - · ' F-xtenlion of time 600 A A coordination ' Nullf -fatal Ly tracts 6,;68 ' Parcel ~ 10,986 2. DIRECT PtlL/C SEllVICES ' Lot line adjustRent 16,312 · brattons: ' N|nor change ' Drainage "mintshence 9,69~ - 0 ' Street mainSenrage 0 0 28 0 0 0 ter 71,198 0 - 4~316 Trlfffc sflntng & Itrf i ' DeveLopneat roYires ' Permit rayfree and fssuance ' 66317 Consistm~ c~ck~rills 3,583 - PubLic inquiry response ' PLot plan ' PubLIc use pamft 31,162 ' 'ev'-..na, t. ' n/s ' ' Setlack adjustment 3,001 ' SPecific plan 20 I. Engineering ' Substantial conromance " &6328 Zoning information Letter 337 ' 463~9 CEQA (feltfat studies) 442 ' 46330 CE~A environBent fit report 1,744 ' 46.t31 DaYclaimant airesmint 0 ' &63~ LAF~Ooey OIQ r~7 APz 0 . 0 - 44335 parses mmP/N~tver .' final tract/ParseS amp 0 ticate of correction 0 ' trees amp 2,525 ' Mrsion to acreage 1,776 ' at revision after check 0 ' at Line adjustment plan chack 0 ' Rifleate of eorrKtJon Pie check 0 : Certificate of eempljanee plan chac 0 0 0 .' ~ Tract map Nan check 9, oK ' it15~ ~th i subs sulmittat 0 - 44355 FENA study revfeu 1,535 ' 46356 L01M revleu 46357 0 Orsinege study revleu 0 4~358 Trsffic study revjea 144) rd~lS9 l'~ro~ s-~t plan check an-site 5,321 ' ~ IK to; ,t pten check off-site 193,690 ' t6)61 !%-%v~ e.~t Nan revfsfen 1,~,2d~ ' /~362 Grading plan check 1-Lot resi ' 4136& it ackp plan check ' ' 19,325 ' 4436S ough grading plan check maixffvjsj 600 ' 44366 p 44368 3,243 600 4636~ !~krov. Iht inspectten off-site/on-site 1,273,036 XXX- I,& r~: -~g inspection off-site 60,758 TabLe 1 - List of Existing Services and User Fees end Charges Revenue Accomts PUBLZC &/OIlKS OEPMTNENT--Cont|nued REVENUE ACCIXIT$: ACct. l: Description &d372 lieugh Oreding inspection 4~37~ lolls testing, rotest 4~376 lolls rating, trefelm 44377 I~oot permit &/a7l eradine Imratt 41379 Camtraction pemtt idol0 Other Ixrmtts &d381 Wlet dtst II~ltuttorm 41382 Street nile chlnges 41a83 IFeclat fees ; PLan check &6~5 lul Lcling persit 44a88 C~ ~rah~-tve Transport Pten 44390 Cashshort&over kabttcVorksDelDt revenue lubtotat: lage 9 of 11 FT 1990-91 Acteats 8,&53 577 0 0 0 0 11,676 510 0 0 0 0 0 106,?07 17,9~ 9 ~, 191,679 'cby d'Tema:d~ UmrbmdFemSm~ tqe3~ TiLe I - List of Existing Barvices ~ Uler Fees mid Charges lievales Actskate CCleUiITy SERVICES DISTRICT 1. SESERAL GOVEIINIIENT SERVICES SEVENLIE A. Landscape Nefntermncl: ' n/a B. Perk PLanning & DaveLament: C. Recreation Services: 2. DIRECT PUILZC SERVICE A. Landscape Ibistenants: Pork maintenance Nedian/slqM maintenance B. Pork Planning & DeveiqaMnt: - Perk acquisition Perk develolxMnt Asseas~ent administratim C. Recreltion Servtcll_* Youth and adult services Special events Senior and volunteer services 3. SUPP~T SERVICES A. Landscape 14ajntermnce: B. Pork PLanning & Devetolaent: n/s C. Recreation Services: ' . Acct. #: Description - &gO05 Blue 4g00~ !luttt -fill Ly tracts &g007 Parcel lip &g00; BentaLc ' &gO20 PubLIc use permits ' &g02] Specific plane ' &9101 Ikemy and ma &910~ Jazzattica ' &~103 OYmnlmttcl ' &;10i Belief & · 4~10~ Stained glass Creative painting 69107 t~uti Jng ' &9108 BeLl defense - 49109 Iquere dancing 4m10 Surest deyra~ 4~lll kin Leesans ' 49112 Tareis ' &9113 Dram factory 6911& Sports clinic &9115 Cereal es &9116 photogreY - 69117 Dee ,bedim - - &9118 NodeLing 4~119 Basic horsmenehip .& riding -&~12O Teen club &9121 Paper mache ' &9122 Betas 49123 Drl I L tm &912& Guitar &~125 htLlgriphy 49126 Nancy, ~lVB !~t ' &r127 hLf-t% roy- &9128 Quitting 69129 Cooking &9130 T-shirt art ' &9203 Centributfens for valentine bout ' &9301 Youth basketbet &9302 Youth flag soccer 4~ Y~ ecc~er 4~ YMh hamdM~lL - 4~ k maf~tL - 4~ M 4~7 Cmmd ~fbL 4F308 Coed volley bell 49~09 M beske~eil ' 4F310 M Metbet t 4F311 Hens flag fonttaLL 4F312 AduLt soccer 4gS01 Soft tour ' 49502 Teen fair 4~503 Balket tour 4gS0~ Be&Loon and wine 49505 Arts festival 49506 keior dmc~ - 4g~07 Spaclot trtlM 4PS08 Cutturst cysts 4950Q ling. ' 49511 Easier 4~13 Me phme 4~1& Nlljc ImulteJn 49515 ktl Berry Forl ' 4~)70 Larescape plan cheek /~ L~ ~ cqTS Jnmplctfon CSD revenue suretat: Page 10 of 11 FY 1990-91 Actuate 1,125 355 3,905 8C)~ 355 0 200 O 1Q~ O O 175 O 20,115 6,350 0 0 1~5 O 0 1,810 0 O 0 O 0 175 O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 11,285 0 5,127 0 0 0 0 0 430 0 0 0 0 0 1,224 O 0 O O 0 O O 0 ~2,232 C~,tT...c.b, U"rC~aa..dF..S~Z FEE AND USER CHARGE IEVENUE ACCOUNTS page 11 of 11 flUE ACCOUNTS: Acct. #: /.0110 Property tea-secured /.0112 Property tex-unsecured /.011/* SuppLerite[ tax /.0115 Tea increBent /.0116 Property transfer tea /.0120 Transient Oct. 1 -ncy tax /.0122 Interest & penalties /.012/* SaLes & use tax /.0126 Cigarette tea 40128 Neesaner property tax relief /*0200 Off-road vehicle in Lieu /*0202 Notor vehicle tn Lieu /*OZO~ VehicLe code fines /.0301 Contributlens /*0302 Tipping fee /.050~ Recovery of prior mr exla~ee i0600 Investment interest /*0700 Gas tea 2106 /.0701 Gas tea 2105 /*0702 Ga tea 2107 /*070~ Gas tax 2107.5 /*0706 Neesure /*0708 Local trmaportation /.0800 Ce.~.jnityOev BLock Grant 42100 Reimbursements /.2102 Reimbursements frm 42122 Reimburemts fr,m Sheriff 42123 Reimbursmmnts from 42130 Rei.dDurseasnts from YfLtdm 4Z500 Operating transfer 49001 Gemunity service isles/Finis /*9002 Zone A IIIeslFIntS 49003 Zone B assesglints FY 1990-91 Description ActaLe 905,681 O 1,72/* 0 411,766 0 /*,552,891 &6,070 O 214 1,073,571 96,321 0 319,712 132,917 6,000 0 8,&57 2,414 0 1 ,%82,013 576,egO 71,712 LOPER ]HPACT FEES: 47090 Pubtic fecjtities 47091 Plrks/hlbitlt 47092 Pubtic service 4709~ Fire 4T094 Signal 4~ LibriP/ 4~ Road lxneflt 1,8/,8,505 326,598 610,900 325,831 105,751 16,900 3,48~ CkyetTaem:tde, UmrChqmsedFmSmdy hie33 TABLE 2 TYPE OF FEES BY COST RECOVERY CATEGORY · · · · · · · · · CATEGORY 1 Fees which my be full coat · Community Services District activities such es: Admission and recreation services Adult and .youth activities Sports Excursions Misc. police fees and charges Current planmug fees Building and Safety fees Public Works - FASmsel~g fees Use of City property Fire systems plan Fire code plan checking Weed abatement CATEGORY H FmwMchmaybekmthufuilcost Hf. Ov~. y · Advauplamugfm · Businem iiesnes · Sale of publications · Com~-,ity Services District activities / Fa~!ity usages / Youth Mtivities · Fim safety inslx~ens Fees which my be more than full cost recovery These are usually reguhtory permits and are intended to be revenue-producing, such u: City otTemeeuh, UmrCharmm and Fms SemJ7 PaSe34 ,lil=oo-~o;°°'~"o:~---ooo ~ ~ioOooooomooooOoOoOOooOoooOOo : ~i~°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°~°°° City oFTme, l. berChmlm mad Fm Study File36 CITY OF TEI~fFC~A COST ALLOCATION MODEL User Guide APPENDIX A Introduction This report provides a user guide to a computer-based cost allocation model developed by Cordoba Corporation for use by the City of Temec-!n. This model allocates general overhead and indixect costs to City sea'vice programs to calculate the full costs of municipal services. The cost allocation model was developed to allow the City of Temecula to calculate the full cost of municipal services. This information was considered valuable in determining the amounts which should be charged for the recovery of City services costs through user fees and The cost allocation model is designed to nm on an 13M PC or compatible hardware using lotus 173 Rel~.~. 3.1 software. The model output may be printed on any compatible printer. Model The model consists of one data file and two spreadsheets designed to accept manually inputted data from the City's budget. The dam entered by the user can be either expenditures budgeted in any fiscal year, or acuutl expenditutm for any fiscal period. Cun'ently, the 1991-92 Budgeted ExpendiUn'es are loaded into the model, A current model assumption is the distinction of general government and support service deparunents from direct public service depamnents. Other scenarios can be developed by chnnging the budget inputs and organizational structuxe. The model performs all necessary spreading of generdl overhead and indirect costs to City services based on budget data and orpuni~tional ~. UndenNndinl~ the Model, The Cost Allocation Model consists of two automated, interactive spreadsheets (Page 1 and Page 2). Page 1 con~-_ets of the calculation of genend government and support service costs (overheads) which me, in part, ~b~lue~y distributed to direct publi~ ~e~rvk:e depamnent~. Pa~ 2 ~ves input from Page 1 and ~d~iate~ the full cost of dir~t publi~ ~rvice~ (dire~t and overhead ~'t~). Theodore, it is imporumt that only appropriate overhead costs in Page 1 become allocated in Page 2. Care must be taizn in Page 1 's budget analysis. The model primarily nlioc'4tes overhead costs on the bn_~i_~ of the relationship of a program's budgeted salaries and employee benefits to the CAty's total personnel budget. Model O-~-t The cost aliocadon model generates the following outputs: · Relative depamnenlal size to Iotal City Budget (salaries and employee benefits portion only) · Tom/mount of general overhead and indirect costs to be allocated to direct public services Full costs for all departments Model AVi)!i,-don departmen . y tenng budget fizal data, the mode~ can project future service costs and analyze the effect of general overhead and indirect costs on direct public services costs. Model OVermtlon- Overview The model consists of one data file which should be stored in the Tntus 193 RelP~ 3.1 directory on your hard drive. The filetmine is The user can use any budget fiscal data to generate the full costs of City services. Care should be taken, however to input fiscal dam that is consistent throughout (i.e., 'budget' data, 'actual' data, or '~s~u;ed' dam). Only one fiscal dam file is needed to run the model. CurrenUy, this is the 1991-92 budgeted expenditures for all City depamnents. If another scenario is to be run, or if consecutive scenarios are generated, the file must be saved with another name. Additional scenarios can then be run under the same model filens~me. The model responds to the City's current org~nir~tional structure. 'If the organization plan is changed (e.g., new depamnents created old ones consolidated etc.) modifications may be made to the spreadsheets without alte~n~ the model's ability to ~!Cuhte full costs Specific attention must be pwvided to deltanine if the change affects general government ~d support service depmnents and/or ctirect public service departments in order for the model to calculate the approlahe mount of overheads to be spread to direct public services. The model requires fiscal data input into selected columns of the automated spreadsheets to calculate the full costs of direct public services. In order to achieve a flawless full cost allocation, the user must have a thorough understanding of the City's budget structure, departmental frameworks, and organizational units. In the following sections, we describe the inputs and the logic which the model uses to calculate and allocate costs. CitY o/ Temsnda, Cmt&lscakmMsdd. UssrGdds Pags3l Operntine 8tedls Step 1 - Rm4_eve Cost ,allocation Model. Using normal I ntus 123 Release 3.1 commands, Step 2 - Modify V. vldin.f Fiscal Data or Enter new Data to Create a New Scenario. Using T nm,~ 17~ l~-!eme 3.1 riomud comrp~nds, fiscal and org~ni~fional data may be added or modified for any of the fiscal periods analyzed. Enter or modify data only in the following columns: Cost Ailoa~tion Modal. PQre l Column 1 - Overhead Department Colutah 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 10 Column 11 Bl~l_~ed Total Penonnel ]datefiniS & Setvit~ Budgeted Fixed Assets Non-Allocated Costs Direct Cost Allocation Cost AH~tion Me,t,,!. lk~e 9. Column 1 - Direct Public Service Column 3 - Budgeted Total Column 4 - Personnel Column 5 - Materials & Services Column 6 - Budgeted Fixed Assets Formulas that calculate ratios and spread costs have been protected spreadsheet, therefore you will not enter data in the following columns: Cost Aliontion Model. lz~fe 1 Column 2 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 12 % of Salaries and Wages Fixed Assets Pro-Ratio Non-Departmental Allocation lndirect Costs to be Anocated Total Service Cost C~st Allon~on Model. Column 2 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10 - % of Salaries and Wages - Fixed Assets Pro-P, a6o - Non-~enml Allocation - Indirect Costs to be - Non-Allocated Costs oneach Column I 1 o DLrect Cost Allocation Column 12 o Total Se~,'i~ Cost Below we describe each Column for future reference in creating new. scenarios. !~ nee I - Overbend Deunmntlll a) Col-ran 1 - Cost AIIo,'~on Model Overhad Dqmm'Ulm~i * Hnl~' tho namu of tim genenl government and support services ~ts in Column 1. Tim dm is obmin~ from the City's budget documnmts. b) Cob,ran .?* - ~ of ~*l-Pl~ Pnd l~nplovee ~ The model will aumw,~e~lly total Column 4 in Pa~es 1 and 2, and calculate the relationship of each clqmmmnt's r. hries and employee benefits to the City's total personnel corn. Percenta&es will appear in Column 2 with subtotals for C) Coi,,mn 3 * Pa,4EM*ed To*'I Enter the amount app, o~iated for the total department. The dam is obtained "' from the City's budget doct, me~t,s. d) Col-ran 4 - hrsonnel Bnter the amount aFpro~uiated for the salaries and employee benefits for each department. The data is obtained from the City's budget documents. e) Coinran S - Msqerlnl,~ & Rel~m Enter the mount aFprop, hted for matniah and services for each department. The data is obtained from the City's budget documents. f) Col,,mn 6 - Rn4feted Fitod Aqqotq Enter the amount appmr~ed for each department. The dam is obtained ~rom · Ci~'s budget documents. In this cost allocation model, it is for rderence and a check only and does not affect any ,le,dgtion or totals. g) ,Colre,ran 7 - Fh'ed Aeme Pro-Rntios This Column is antOmnti~lly ~!culnK,~ by the model. Refer to the User Charges and Fees Study, Page 10, for the basis of this calculation. In the future, Column 7 input may be canceled from the mudel without affecting other calculations by making NO entries in the Column. City orTemecd~ Cam AbcmfeaModd- UmrGids Pave If Column 7 calculation is canceled from the model, the user may wish to factor Column 6 data. In this case, the dam in Column 6 would need to be manually added to Page 1, Column 9, Indirect Costs to be.Allocated and Page 2, Column 12, Total Service Cost; or the user may choose to ignore fixed assets and delete this input from the model. h) Col-ran 8 - Non-T)CIprtmtmtpl A!lo~tion The model will automnti~lly distribute a propo-tlonate share of the "Non- Departmental* budget appropxlation to all departments listed in Column 1. SubtoUtls will appear in Pages I and 2. Note: Care should be taizn to maim sure that any expenditures in the "Non- Department' budget, which is intended only for a specific department, is Hlallua~y eilterec] into C,4)iumn 9, Page 1, or COLUMN 11, Page 2, as approp-hte. i) Cobsann 9 - IndireCt Cn~l~ to he Alio,~fod The model will automatically sum mounts appearing in Columns 4, 5, 7, and 8. j) Cobsran 10 - Noe-A!!oentad C~ The amount appeazhg in this Column are manually entered after an inspection has been made of each department listed in Page 1 to exclude exlxmditures that would not be attributable to the performance of direct public services. Refer to Page 10 of the User Charges and Fees Study. k) Cob,ran 11 ~- Birel~ test h!lOe~fiOn The mounts appearing in this oolunm are manually entered after an inspection has been made of each department listed in Page I to allocate specific expenditures contained in any general or support service department directly attributable to a specific direct public service. The mount will either be aliocated on a relational basis to mveral direa in,ice departments or as a single amount to one department. Re. for to Page 10 of User Charges and Fees Study. D Cob,ran 1~. - Tofol Rerviee COSt The mociel will antomatic~!iy sum Columns 9, 10, and 11. A subtotal will appear at bottom of oolunm. Pnoe 9. Dlfeet l~blle F. erviees a) Colnmn 1 - Cost A!!o~fion Methi Direct Public Service Dq~mnm~ - Brim' the name of direct public service delm'tments in Column 1. The data. is obtained from the City's budget documents. b) CobIron ? - % of ~o!-ries and I;'.tD!oyee Peglfd:]~ .. The model will autOrtmdC~lly total Column 4'in Pages 1 and 2 and calculate the relationship of each department's salaries and employee benefits to the City's Iotal personnel costs. Pewenlagm will appear in Column 2 with subtotals for Pages 1 and 2. C) Cobsmn 3 - Rtt~,etod Totnl Enter the amount appropthled for the total ~t. The data is obtained from the City's budget ,'Joc'~Jme~ts. d) Cobfinn 4 - Personnel Enter the amount appropriated for salarie~ and employee benefits. The dam is obtained from the City's budget doa~me~t-~. e) Cob,mn S - M~teri-k ~, ~ Enler the amotmt aFpzopxiated for mnterinls and services for each d~ent. The dam is obtained from the City's budget documents. f) Cobsran 6 - astdmsd Fi~sd Am This Column is a manually entered amount for inch department. The data is obtained from City's budget docoments. In this cost allocation model, it is for reference and a check only and does not affect any enlc-in~on or totals. Coltssun 7 - Flytad Aee~ Pro-Rndm If Column 7 calculation is canoeled from the model, the user my wish to factor Column 6 data. In this case, the data in Column 6 would need to be manually added to Page 1, Column 9, Indirect Costs to be Allocnted and Page 2, Column 12, Total Service Cost; or the user may choose to ignore fixed assets and delete this input from the model. City of Tm Cost AlkemkaMsdd - UmrCddde Page4~ h) Column 8 - Non-Del~urtmental Allocation The model will automatically distribute a proportionate share of the "Non- Departmental" budget at,pfop,;sdon to all departments listed in Column 1. Subtotals will appear in Pages 1 and 2. Nora: Care should be token to make sure that any expenditures in the "Non- Department" budget, which is hinttied' only for a specific department, is manually entered into Column 9, Page 1, or Column I1, Page 2, as i) Cobsmw~ 9 and 10 'Should contain zero's (O's) throughout the entirc field. j) ~-obmm 11 - Direct Cost Allocation The model autommtlc~!iy calculates the pfol~utionate share of the indirect costs to be a11oc~,ed (the sum of Column 9, Page 1), and adds amounts appearing in Column 11, Page 1, ~ Cost A11oc-tio,. In the model, contrscts adnxinismuion, cashier Mministr~on, and 'the City Attorney's costs are directly allocated to the beam~ting program. The allocation is also refined by adding mounts in pro~t~on to the surfring level in depamnental subdivisions. Refer to User Charges and Fees Study, Page 10. k) Coinran 1')- - Total F, ervice Cost The model will automatically sum Column 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11. A subtotal and grand total will appear at bottom of each Column. Step 3 - Save Cost Allocation Model. After modifying dam or entering new dam, the cost aUocazion mudel is saved under its existing name using the normal "SAVE/P-m'-PLACE" commands in l ~us 19~t Rel,'-~- 3.1. Step 4 - Print OutlmL Using normal T f~tuS l?~t Rei,m.~- 3.1 commands, the entire cost allocation model output may be printed on any compatible printer. The printer we have used in this report is a Hewlett Packard Laser. let ciy mrTmmmh. CmMAkudkmMMd. UarGdk l~Mm43 City or Teecube, Uar Charam sad Fees Study ~ 44 ~ orTamcd~ the- QErle .,a !;m Sad~ i~,45 ~ or Tananlt, Um'amrUm md Few Stud3, cit7 of'Temecu~ Umr~ md Fee Stud7 hp#7 I I I Ci~ ofTre,cub, User Cbar~aad Fm Sta~ P,~8 ~ ofTemea~, User~Jimlm mid Fm Stldy FaBeSe Ci~ ofTmE:aM, UNrCkrlmmd Fees Smly ~ of'Temecd~ Urn' Clmrpa md Fees Stud7 PqeS3 ~ of Tmseula. Urn' Charas sad Fm Smd~ ~ orTemecds, iJnrCkaztm and Fees SeedJr !"NeSS atyorTemecub. UoerC!ureamdFeaStud7 beeS6 Ci~'~Temecd~UmrbmdFeuSmd7 PqeS"; of' Tanecuk, Urn' ChrWes sad FMs Sudy PaSeSa c~ orTmendt, Urn. C:bm'Sa and Fees Stud7 PqeS~ ~ orTmeadk UserCltmlmammd Fees Sttm~ PZ~e4r~ O~orTamah, Um. Chm~amdFeaSUd3, hp61 Teecult, ~ ~ md Fees Seedy CITY OF TEMECULA COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS BLm',BING AND SAFETY DEPARTMR~ Full Service Cost (Cost Allocation Model) Revenue ~dmnted for 1991-92 Lnudt, eted} Difference $1,275,640 < 1.100.000> < $ 175,640> · Thi~ re~regnts 9 cost recovery of ~Vlp-oi...steiv 86%. Actual revenues for 1990-91: Actual revenues for 1991-92 (July-Nov. 1991) or Estimated 1991-92: $1,088,112 252,290 605,496 Three principal reenue accounts produced approximately 99% of all revenue in 1990-91. They are: Acet # N"me Ammsnt Pe, 46200. In House Plan Check $ 41,564 3.8 46284 Plan Check 276,716 25.4 46285 Building Permit 769,546 70.4 Four principal revenue accounts produced appa0xtmately 99.9% of all current revenue for 1991-92 (S months: July-November Lqgl). ~aey are: Acet/~. Nome Amenlit Pcace, d 445200 In House Plan Check $ 27,469 10.9 *46201 Plan Check ESG1L 11,929 4.7 46284_ Plan Check 23,930 9.5 46285 Building Permit 188,842 74.8 * This account produced $0.00 in 1990-91. C~°fTamecuk'UmrbmmlFomSmtdY PaioJ~ CITY OF ~ FULL COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING Full Service Cost (Cost Allocation Model) Revenue F-~m,.tnt for 1991-92 {Ru4geted} Rnd~eted 1991-92 $ 1,877,102 < 1.968.000> Difference $ 90,898 Thl~ represenf~ a cost recoveFv of ~tpi/t oxi,,,oteiv 104.8%. Actual revenues for 1990-91: $ 4,191,879 Actual revenues for 1991-92 (July-Nov. 1991) or 531,650 106,330/month Estimated 1991-92: 1,275,960 Sixteen principal revenue accounts prodneed 98.2% of an revenue in 1990-91. Am f *46301 46306 46307 *46319 *46352 *46359 *46360 46362 46363 *46365 *46368 *46369 *46378 46379 *46386 46388 They are: Amended Final Map Multi-Family Tracts Plot Plan Track Map Plan Check Improvement Plan Check On-Site Improvement Plan Check Off-Site Grading Plan Check l-Lot Res. Amonnt $ 200,000 10,986 14,312 31,162 71,198 193,490 1,994,269 26,992 XXX-lmprovement Insp. Off-Site Grading Permit · : Construction Permit Encroachment Comprehensive Transport Plan Grading Plan Check for PP, CLIP, PUP 10,325 Rough Cadcling Plan Check Subdiv. 38,901 .' Improy. Insp. Off-Site/On-Site 1,273,036 60,758 44,901 11,676 106,707 17,944 Percent 4.8 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.7 4.6 47.6 6.4 0.5 0.9 30.0 14.5 1.0 0.2 2.4 0.4 B. Of the sixteen revenue aecounts, ten produced 95.79% of all revenue (, above). City ofT, emit, Umr Chargm mad Fees Study C. Eleven principal revenue accounts produced 90.8% of all current revenue for 1~91-~2 (~ months: July-November 1991). They are: Aeet # Hams Amount Percent 46304 Extension of Time $ 10,596 2.0 46306 Multi-Family Tracts 8,881 1.7 46352 Track Map Plan Check 8,887 1.7 46359 Improvement Plan Check On-Site 26,417 5.0 46360 Improvement Plan Check Off-Site 247,033 46.5 46361 Improvement Plan Revision 6,400 1.2 46365 -. Rough Grading Plan Check Subdiv. 6,650 1.3 46368 Imp. Inspection Off-/On-Site 137,426 25.8 46371 l~ndscape Inspection 12,430 2.0 46379 Construction Permit 11,133 2.0 46388 Comp. Transport Plan 8,329 1.6 CITY OFTEMECUIA FUlL COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS PLANNING DEPARTIV~.~ - CURRENT PLANNING ,A NAT .Y,~Ig Nn. 1 Full Service Cost (Cost Allocation Model), K~mat,-d Rev~ues !h,d,aeted 1991-92 $1,150,538 < 359.473 > $ 791,065 ' ~dis represents a cost recovery of * See separate exhibit for calculation. ### Actual revenues for 1990-91: Actual revenues for 1991-92 (July-Nov. 1991) or Estimated 1991-92: $ 311,066 105,289 21,058/month 252,694 A. Fourteen major revenue accounts produced 93.6% of all revenue AllgldE ~ Amm,nt 46102 Appeals $ 38,984 46104 Extension of Time 6,729 46105 Single Family Tracts 12,536 46106 Multi-Family Tracts 23,293 46107 Parcel Maps 35,550 46108 Lot Line Adj. 8, 112 46115 Zone Change 8,422 46116 Conditional Use Permit 8,950 46117 Consistency Cheeks 15,223 46119 Plot Plan 90,854 46121 Revised Permit 10,281 46124 Substantial Conformance 9,259 46129 CEQA (Initial Studies) 27,591 46139 Condo Tract Map 14,625 in 1990-91. They are: Percent 11.8 2.0 3.8 7.0 10.7 2.5 2.5 2.7 4.6 27.4 3.1 2.8 8.3 4.4 CitY of Temecuh, Umm. bmdFemSOdy Page66 B. Six principal revenue seemants produced 81.3% of all current revenue for 1991-92 (5 months: July-November 1991). They are: Am/ Name ~mount Percent 46104 Extension of Time $15,443 14.7 46105 Single Family Tracts 8,000' 7.6 46107 Parcel Maps 23,181 22.0 46116 Conditional Use Permit 8,410 8.0 46118 General Plan Amendment 17,850 17.0 46123 Specific Plan 12,851 12.2 The above dam would indicate the following: For 100~ full cost recovery, fees have to increase 181 ~ For 80~ full cost recovery, fees have to increase 125~ For 75 ~ full cost recovery, fees have to increase 111 · CM3'etTemend~Um'b'dteaSedY Pqo~ CITY OF TEMECULA FULL COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS PLANNING DEPARTMENT - Cr~R~NT PLANNING ,~NAI.YSI.~ Nil, 9 Full Cost AnlJysk ,Am,nlptior~ 1. Contracted consulting services support current phnning by approximately 75 % of contract costs. 2. Calculations based on 1991-92 Budget. 11 Therefore, based on above: Budgeted for Consulling Services contract: 75% = $ 561,400 421,050 #t/# Personnel Se~ees Direct Salat~ ng/;~runenmi Overh,.md F-nXp. P-cne~t*~ ~ 35.5% SubmUd O&M Consulting Services 4.0% of other 0 & M Subtotal $147,564 55.730 $ 203,294 79 $ 275,542 = .879 of total Departmental Personnel Services Cost $ 421,050 51.301 $ 472,351 CaDital Ore"fiR3' 40% of $26,589 (cost allocation model) $ 10,636 General City Overhemd $286,302 x .879 (cost allocation mudel) $ 251,659 Total cost of services F-~t. Revenues $1,010,188 <- 359.473> $ 650,715 ~ or Tmealb, t.~m. Ckrp. mid Yea Sud~ rap a Based on the above calculation, the budgeted 1991-92 expenditures and revenues indicate an estimaZd cost recovery of approximately 35.6%. The following calculation n~sumes no extemnl consulting services contract for current planning activities: Personnel Services Costs O&M Capital Outlay C',ene~,l City Overh,~d Total Cost of Services l~,~timnt,,rl P. evcn.:,,,,~ $ 275,542 51,301 10,636 251.659 $ 589,138 359.473 $ 229,665 This calculation shows a cost recovea3, of approximately 61%. C. kXetTamacdkibeCkrpmdFemSmdy Papde | Cit3, ofTemecula, Um'Chmlcm amd Fee Stmly Pale 70 o§ 'i ill Ci~,e~Tamah, UmrClmqmmdlreBSUdr Pqo~I EXHIBIT 2 ADImllilS'TTLak~ EXPENSES AND OVERHEAD TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ffRA) FULL COST ESTIMATE: FY 1991-92 a. City Council, City Manager (including other d~8~te~ l~'sons), and City Clerk ~llocate about ~0 5 of their dima ~ to funaions of TRA. b. Finance department supports TRA activities in the relationship of personnel expenditures in a. above to total City personnel costs. e Csle-lmtitm - Cost l?atimotp~ a. City Council (30~ of full cost)= b. City Manager (30% of time) e. City Clerk (30% of time) d. Finance Department, [a + b + c salary costs = $75,923; $75,9'23 + $3,247,870 = 0.023; $642,087 x 0.023 = $14,768] Subtotal Public NoUees + pomie, etc. (estimate $18,150 x .30) TOTAL ESTIMATI~ $ 27,219 42,452 22,631 14,768 $ lOT,O00 5,445 $112,515 * Full costs obtained from Cost Model. 'Ciiy ofTemaecmla, UMrCImrplasd FMI Study Pap'Y2 II EXHIBIT 3 JJ A. Cost Co-np-dMion of General Government Support Services Provided. by TCSD, based on 1991-92 City Budget nirect CW~ Personnel C-ost-~ Maintenance Work~ Employee Benefits (3~ .~ % ) Subtotal Estimated 1,5 Labor Year Subtotal: Account clerk Bmployee Bendits (35.5 96 ) Subtoud F~Im=~.d 0.25 Labor Year Subtotal: $22,458 7.973 $30,431 $21,558 7.653 $29,211 SS3 7.303 1;'~*imated Total Labor Costs: (*) MuteriMs & Services $60,557 3.098 (1) ~ted Total Direct Costs: $63.585 Indirect C~'*~ (Ik, Dors~s-~ Overhand) Personnel Costs Director Community Services Employee Benefits (35.5 % ) Subtotal Administrative .Secretary Employee Benefits (35 .S 96 ) Subtotal Total Personnel Costs: $70,530 ?~ .628 $94,158 22,932 8.141 $31,073 $32s,z31 (*) M,,~,d-~ ,m, .~ervices Total: Estimated overhead per one (1) Labor Year ($131,493 + 13) $131,493 10,115 (2) Estimated Indirect Costs: (3) Frtlmoted Total Direct Cost of Gemntl Gov't Support (1) + CI) = (3) $ 83.815 B. Cost Computation of Development Review Process Provided by TCSD, based on 1991-92 City Budget nlfeet Cn-+,g Development Services Administrator Development Assistant Employee Benefits (35.5 Subtotal $22,437 12,972 $47,980 (0.5 Labor Year) (0.5 Labor Year) Estimated total labor costs: Materials ~nd Services (*) $47,988 2.399 (1) Esthnated Total Direct Costs: (2) Indirect Costs (Departnmml. Overhead): (3) Estimated Total Direct Cost of Development Review: (1) + (2) -- (3) $ S0,387 10.1 lS $ 60.502 (*) Basis for proration is relationship of mamrials and services costs to personnel costs for Department of Finance: $19,888 + 432,762 = 0.05 ~ °feTemeada, Userbead Fern Study Page 74 EXHIBIT 2 City of Temecula Planning Department LIST OF FEE CHANGES Application Current Fee Tenant Improvement None Change of Use None Single Family Residence None Signs $ 190.00 (except sign programs) Additions to Single Family None Home Occupations None Change of Copy None 'Old Town None Architectural Review Minor Outdoor Event $ 190.00 (For Profit) Minor Outdoor Event $ 190.00 (Not For ProriO Conditional Use Permit $5,863.00 (Existing Building)* Public Use Permit $6,246.00 (Existing Building)* Second Unit Permit $2,886.00 Lot Line Adjustment $1,160.00 Proposed Fee $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $190.00 No Charge $ 945.00 $ 945.00 $ 945.00 $ 960.00 *Pursuant to Council direction, while the current fees show as $5863.00 and $6246.00, the City has been collecting the fee of $945.00 for those uses that require conditional or public use approval that are going into an existing building. ..--,-..,. ........ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .............. :: :.:.::::.::u ::::::. ::.: .:.:::-: ........-. ::. :: :::: :::::: ... .,.. ............... :::.: :::..:::::.::::::: :: ::::::::::::::::::::: .............. ......................... ....................,. :~:~:::~ :~ :: :~ ~:~:~:~:~ ............... ::.~:::~:.;>:.::~::::~ I .! 'E City of Temecula Development Impact Fee Summary of Project Cost Based on 1992 CIP DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROJECTS Prqject Category & Name Trantgx}rtstion PrOJects Bike Paths (Citywide) Construction Butterfidd Stage Road Extension Margarita Road Improvement Ovedand Crossing Rancho California Road Interchange Sixth Street Paving Solana Way - Ynez to Margarita Traffic Signal System Winchester Road Interchange Ynez Road - Rancho Califomia to Palm Raza Ynez Road - Ranch California to Santiago Date Street Overcrossing gZ C!P Total Cost ~& Related to Paoe E-timate New/Fxleting 34 $300,000 55%/45% 38 5,700,000 69%/31% 54 235,000 100~/0~ 80 16,191,396 5C~/0~* 86 7,602,230 67%/0~* 1 O0 70,000 100~/0~ 104 346,250 100~/0~ 110 797,500 69~ 118 8,328,350 67%/0~* 120 5,631,275 67%/0~* 122 430,000 100~ 126 4.000,000 55%/45% $49,632,001 Public Facilities Prgjects City Corporate Fadlities Fire Station East of I-15 Prc~erty South of Sports Park Fire Station to Replace Station 12 40 $12,500,000 55%/45% 46 1,500,000 100~/0~ 84 2,000,000 100~/0~ ! 28 ~,085,000 38~/62% 18,085,000 Drainage PrOjects Murdeta Creek Improvements 132 $15,400,000 56%/44% Park PrOjects Community Recreation Center Margadta Road Park Improvements Multi-Trail System Sports Cc~nplex Pala Road Park Site Improvements Riverton Park Improvements Sam Hicks Momument Park Sports Park Improvements Sports Park Parking Lot Olympic Swim Complex Recreation Center - Rainbow Canyon 42 5,320,000 10%/90% 58 3,835,000 57%/43% 62 1,000,000 55%/45% 68 Z3,700,000 SS%/45% 82 2,200,000 84%/16% 88 550,000 100%/0% 90 1,400,000 46%/54% 1 O0 2,200,000 1C)O~ 108 500,000 55%/45% 134 4,950,000 55%/45% 136 1.500.000 100% $47,155,000 $130,272,001 EXHIBIT 5 Cost Related to New Devdopment $166,273 3,933,000 235,000 8,168,235 5,093,494 70,000 346,250 547,500 5,579,995 3,772,954 430,000 2.210.384 $30,553,086 $6,91 2,602 1,500,000 2,000,000 800,000 11,21 2,602 $8,620,362 519,764 2,185,000 554,244 13,135,591 1,850,000 550,000: - 650,000 2,200,000 277,122 1,000,000 1.500,000 $24,421,722 $74,807,771 JMA 1/6/93 November 6, 1992 Mr. Dave Dixon City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 RE: Fee Sub-Committee Report Dear Dave, On behalf of the Fee Sub-Committee, I have enclosed the final comments and recommendations on the Development Impact Fees and User Charges, for your consideration. We wish to thank you and your Staff, for the input and courtesy extended in this process. Members- of the Committee from the private sector will be available- to meet with you at your convenience. Thank you again. 'Csaba F. Ko Director of Planning & Land Development CFK:cz Encl. cc: Tony Elmo Steven Ford Bill Green Mary Jane Henry Bo Kemble Larry Markham Dean Meyer Russell Rumansoff Tim Serlet Gary Thornhill Mesa Homes 27555 Ynez Road Plaza Tower, Suite 200 Temecula, California 92591 Telephone 714 676 7290 Facsimile 714 ~ 508J CITY OF TEMECULA COORDINATING COlVIMrrr E Fee Technicsl Sub-CommiQrsc November 6, 1992 Mr. Dave Dixon City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 RE: FEE TECHNICAL SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT Dear Mr. Dixon, The following represents a consensus opinion by the Fee Technical Sub-Committee (private sector) which was arrived from review of the "Development Impact Fee Proposal" and the "User Charges and Fees Study". The Sub-Committee was made up of members of the private sector · along with input from various members of the City staff. The reports and reviews were broken into two main areas of topics: The Development Impact Fee Proposal. User Charges and Fees Study. Development Impact Fee Proposal (DZF) John McTighe (JMA) presented the Development Impact Fee Proposal. This study was based on the 5 year Capital Improvement Projects and was to establish a proposed prorated share of cost between new and existing development. The following is a summary of the Sub- Committee's review and recommendations: The Sub-Committee understands the critical balance between residential and commercial development, along with the City's desire for a strong economic base. However, in order to be competitive with surrounding'- areas the residential fee proposed should be approximated to the County's RSA Fee. We propose a not to exceed $3,000/Unit maximum fee initially, based on the proposed Capital Improvement Projects and the resulting proposed DIF with some type of mechanism for inflation. The current County RSA Fee is $2,767/Unit. The non-assessments of DIF to commercial and industrial properties was considered an important area to be re- evaluated. It was felt that a minimum fee (i.e. $.50/SF), could be charged to these projects to spread the Capital Improvement costs in a more fair manner. Mr. Dave Dixon November 6, 1992 Page 2. Issues were brought up as they relate to projects which are encumbered byCFD~s, A.D. 159 or A.D. 161, bond issues, etc.. It was felt by the Sub-Committee that consideration of possible fee credits for such projects should be looked into and evaluated, so as not to unfairly over burden them. It was felt that certain improvements under the Capital Improvement Program should be eliminated from the DIF and be constructed utilizing a reimbursement agreement tied to the adjacent property. Solana Way from Ynez to Margarita (pg. 104). Properties would normally be conditioned to install improvement at time of development. Cost impact $346,250. b. Margarita Road improvements, east side between Rancho California Road and La Serena Way (pg. 54). This improvement is a requirement of the existing map approved · for this property. Cost impact $235,000. 5 It is our understanding that the proposed Sports Complex (Approx. 17.9 million) has been pulled from the Capital Improvement Projects and will be funded through a G.O. Bond or Certificate of Participation or other means by the public at large· We fully support this move and the public consensus f approval· 6. Any other Capital Improvement Projects (such as area parks and regional roadway improvements) which benefit mostly the existing population should be considered to be funded by G.O. Bond financing or other methods requiring public input. User Char~es and Fee Stud~ John Cordoba of Cordoba & Associates presented the User Charges and Fees Study. The following is a. summary of the Sub-Committee~s review: It was indicated that 92% of current planning, engineering and building and safety costs are recovered through existing fees with engineering subsidizing planning. The proposed fee structure is to be considered an "Interim Fee". This would allow for historical data to be used as a check and balance system, and then, allow the fees to be cross verified. The Sub-Committee recommends an 18 month time frame to obtain current data then adjust the fees per department to recover the costs within each department, for new projects. Mr. Dave Dixon November 6, 1992 Page 3. Current planning should recover 100% of its costs. This' would more fairly distribute real project costs and revenues at the time of service. The use of "percentage of construction costs" as a valuation of fees for engineering plan check and construction inspections should be evaluated. The actual costs of services needs to relate to the fees charged. It was felt that in most cases, whether a small commercial project or a large residential project, costs were much higher than actual services as they relate to private onsite improvements and public offsite improvements. It is recommended that each department expand their standard checklists of requirements for plan submittal. The expanded checklist requirements could possibly be enhanced to help define the different department requirements and the interaction between departments. The Sub-Committee recommended that the engineering plan check fees be evaluated to provide for an "excess plan check fee". This would provide for submittals which require more than the basic three plan checks. This would allow control for inadequate engineering plan submittals for non-conforming plans and make plan checking more efficient. The landscape plan review and inspection fees should be considered as to applicability and costs. Currently there is consideration by planning as to how best perform the function of design review and inspection. The Sub-Committee recommends condensing the process and evaluation by placing the responsibility on the submitting professional. As it relates to Building and Safety Fees and procedures the following comments were made= Model homes should be considered as a temporary use. A check list should be developed as to the model home requirement and fees. Recommend maintaining procedures and fees. existing tract processing Re-evaluate the costs of custom home construction and the tract home costs of construction as it relates to building valuation fees. This recommendation is based on the fact that tract homes are typically of simpler design and one inspector can check many units in Mr. Dave Dixon November 6, 1992 Page 4. succession. Also, the cost differences of the two construction types make the current valuation system inadequate due to the factthat custom home construction cost per square foot is much higher than that of tract homes. The plan check and inspection for additions to existing homes should be re-evaluated and costs of services be 100% recovered. The tenant improvement cost of plan check and inspection should be evaluated as to the relation between services and fees. The Sub-Committee thanks the City Council and the City Manager for the opportunity to have input to and discussions with the City staff on these fee related matters. We hope that these items will aid the City to enact a fair and uniform fee structure for the benefit of the public. The Sub- Committee will be available for any additional discussions should that be desirable. Sincerely, FEE TECHNICAL SUB-COMMITTEE cc: Tony Elmo Steven Ford Bill Green Mary Jane Henry Bo Kemble Csaba Ko Larry Markham Dean Meyer Russell Rumansoff Tim Serlet Gary Thornhill ITEM NO. 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council David F. Dixon City Manager January 19, 1993 Personnel Policy Revisions APPROVAL CITY ATI'ORNEY ~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER PREPARED BY: Luci Romero, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Revised Personnel Policies as presented. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula adopted the current Personnel Policies on October 16, 1990. Since that time the City's Personnel system has evolved to a greater extent than previously existed. As part of this evolution, the Personnel Policies have been reviewed and revised to address the following issues: 1 ) Consistency in terminology; 2) Clarification of intent; and 3) Incorporation of new personnel practices. Over time, the intent of the Human Resources Department is to review and possibly revise all of the personnel policies. DISCUSSION: Twenty-one Personnel Policies are presented for your consideration and approval. Attachment A illustrates the proposed revisions. Attachment B summarizes the major changes and fiscal impact of each policy. Staff will return within sixty days with the remainder of the personnel policy revisions. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of each policy revision is presented in Attachment B. However, overall the policy revisions do not present an appreciable fiscal impact. ATTACHMENT A CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POUCIES POLICY ADOPTED Employment Abandonment Anniversary Dates Categories of Employment Categories of Positions Code of Ethics Drug Free Work Race Dual Employment Gratuities, Acceptance of Harassment Hiring of Relatives Hours of Work - Non-exempt Employees Nepotism Nine/Eighty (9/80) Work Plan Non-Discrimination Personnel Files Personnel Policies Probation Periods Project Employees Recruitment Reference Checks Temporary Upgrade 10/16/90 10/16/90 10/16/90 01/19/93 01/19/93 10/16/90 10/16/90 01/19/93 10/16/90 01 I19/93 10/16/90 10/16/90 01/19/93 10/16/90 10/16/90 10/16/90 10/16/90 01/19/93 10/16/90 10/16/90 10/16/90 Attendance and Leaves Attendance - Non-exempt Employees Bereavement Leave City Holidays Comprehensive Annual Leave Family Care Leave Jury Duty Leave of Absence Without Pay Military Leave 10/16/90 01/19/93 10/16/90 10/16/90 01/19/93 10/16/90 10/16/90 10/16/90 Compansation Garnishments Insurance Overtime Pay Periods and Pay Days Performance Reviews Standby/Call Out Wage Administrations 10/16/90 10/16/90 10/16/90 10/16/90 10/16/90 01/19/93 10/16/90 I~'ipline and Problem Solving Discipline Problem Solving 10/16/90 10/16/90 STATUS Revised 01/19/93 New New New Replaced New New Rev~ed__ 01/19/93 New Reread 01/1S93 Revised 01/19/93 New Revied 01/19/93 ~ 01/19/93 Revised 01/19/93 ~ 01/1t93 ~ 01/19/93 Revised 01/19/93 New ATTACHMENT A Page 2 POLICY Miscellaneous Safety Bulletin Boards Dress and Appearance Lay-off Management Rights Reduction of Work Force Telephones Training and Education Safety Smoking Uniforms Vehicles ADOPTED 10/16/90 10/16/90 10/16/90 10/16/90 01/19/93 10/16/90 10/16/90 10/16/90 10/1 6190 1 011 6/90 10/16/90 STATUS Replaced ReplacesLay-off Revised 01/19/93 ATTACHMENT B SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYMENT This policy has been revised to clarify the appropriate categories of employment. None. SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: CATEGORIES OF POSITIONS This is a newly established policy which designates the appropriate category of each position. None. SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: CODE OF ETHICS This is a newly established policy which specifies the provisions of Code for all City employees. None. SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: ACCEPTANCE OF GRATUITIES This is a newly established policy species the guidelines regarding receipt of gifts by City employees. None. SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: HIRING OF RELATIVES This policy was formerly referred to as Nepotism. The revision serves to clarify the provisions of the policy. None. ---=== SUBJECT: COMMENTS: NINE/EIGHTY (9180) WORK PLAN This is a newly established policy which specifies the provisions of the 9/80 Work Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENT B Page 2 SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: PROJECT EMPLOYEES This is a newly established policy which specifies the provisions of employment for temporary, seasonal or part-time employees not employed on a continuous basis. None. SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: TEMPORARY UPGRADE This policy has been revised to clarify the provision of temporary upgrade assignments. None === SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: BEREAVEMENT LEAVE This is a newly established policy which authorizes a maximum of three (3) working days for bereavement of an employee's immediate family. The adoption of the Bereavement Policy results in a potential increase of three days of paid leave time for employees who have a death in the family. However, this additional leave time will not be discretionary leave, it must be used for the specific purpose intended. Thus, the fiscal impact is projected to be minimal. SUBJECT: COMMENTS: CITY HOLIDAYS This policy has been revised to clarify the provisions of the policy and to incorporate the 9/80 Work Schedule. FISCAL IMPACT: None. SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: None. COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL LEAVE This policy has been revised to clarify the provisions of the policy and to make it consistent with the Categories of Employment Policy. ATTACHMENT B Page 3 SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: FAMILY CARE LEAVE This is a newly established policy which incorporates the provisions of new legislation. None. SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: JURY DUTY This policy has been revised to clarify the provisions of the policy. None. SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITHOUT PAY This policy has been revised to clarify the provisions of the policy. The fiscal impact of a leave without pay situation has been reduced as a result of the revision to the continuation of benefits from four to two months. SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: MILITARY LEAVE This policy has been revised to clarify the provisions of the policy. None. SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: OVERTIME This policy has been revised to clarify the provisions of the policy and to incorporate the 9/80 Work Plan. None. SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: PAY PERIODS AND PAY DAYS This policy has been revised to clarify the provisions of the policy and to incorporate the 9/80 Work Plan. None. ATTACHMENT B Page 4 SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: ~-~- PERFORMANCE REVIEWS This policy has been revised to clarify the provisions of the policy and to incorporate the City new Performance Evaluation and Compensation System (PEACS). None. SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: STANDBY/CALL OUT This is a newly established policy which specifies the provisions of compensating employees who are subject to sendby and/or call out situations. Although this policy has fiscal implications, nonetheless the City is required to compensate employees for overtime situations. SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: REDUCTION OF WORK FORCE This policy was formerly referred to as Layoff. The revision serves to clarify the provisions of the policy. None. SUBJECT: COMMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: UNIFORMS This is a newly established policy which specifies the provisions of uniforms and safety boots for field employees. Approximately $4,000 per year. CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYMENT Adopted: October 16, 1990 Revised: PURPOSE: For purposes of salary administration, employment and other personnel matters, it is necessary to classify employees in defined categories. POLICY: The terms which identify these categories are used throughout these policies. Wherever used, their meaning will be as follows: II. III. IV. Regular Employee: An Executive, Management, Professional or General Employee who has successfully completed six (6) months of continuous service and .has been recommended for Regular status. Probationary Employee: An Executive, Management, Professional, or General position who has not successfully completed six (6) months of continuous service. Promotional Probationary Employee: An employee who has been promoted to another position and has not successfully completed six (6) months of continuous service in his/her new position. Project Employee: An employee who is hired to work a specific duration. Project employees are not eligible for participation in the City sponsored employee benefits program. Part-time Employee: A Regular, Probationary, Promotional Probationary or Project employee who is normally scheduled to work less than forty (40) hours per week. Part-time employees are scheduled at the convenience of the City. Revieed Jenuety 19, 1993 CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: CATEG 0 RI ES Adopted: OF POSITIONS Revised: PURPOSE: In order to comply with the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and to aid Human Resources, positions within the City are broken into four like groups or categories. These categories are hereby set forth. POLICY: The category of positions are as follows: I. Executive: Assistant City Manager Chief Building Official City Clerk City Engineer/Director of Public Works City Manager Director of Community Services Director of Planning Finance Officer I1. Management: Budget Administrator Chief Accountant Development Services Administrator Human Resources Administrator Maintenance Superintendent Recreation Superintendent Principal Engineer Senior Planner Traffic Engineer Adopted January 19, 1993 CATEGORIES OF POSITIONS Page 2 III. Professional: Accountant Assistant Engineer Assistant Planner Associate Engineer Associate Planner Building Inspector II Deputy City Clerk Development Analyst Executive Assistant Management Analyst Permit Engineer Public Works Inspector Senior Accountant Senior Building Inspector Senior Management Analyst Senior Public Works Inspector Street Supervisor Systems Analyst IV. General: Accounting Assistant Accounting Specialist Administrative Secretary Administrative Technician Building Inspector l Building Technician Cashier Code Enforcement Officer Development Assistant Engineering Aide Engineering Technician Landscape Technician Lead Maintenance Worker Maintenance Worker Office Assistant Office Specialist Personnel Specialist Adopted JarHjerylg, 1993 Planning Technician Recreation Coordinator Recreation Supervisor Traffic Technician Volunteer Coordinator CITY OF TEMECULA SUBJECT: PURPOSE: PERSONNEL POLICY CODE OF ETHICS Adopted: Revised: To develop and ensure the highest standards of professional conduct in its employees. POLICY: .11. Ill. IV. VI. As trusted public employees, it is essential to maintain a constructive, creative, and practical attitude toward your job, as well as a deep sense of social responsibility. A high standard of dignity and worth should be reflected in the services rendered by the City of Temecula. In order for employees to merit the respect and confidence of elected officials, 'other officials, the public and 'employees, it is necessary to maintain a dedication to the highest ideals of honor and integrity. Employees must recognize that the City of Temecula's chief function, at all times, is to serve the best interest of all citizens. The public's interest is the employee's primary concern rather than their own-personal considerations. In the event of submitting recommendations, it is the employee's responsibility to provide facts and advice on policy matters as a basis for making decisions and setting community goals. Municipal policies adopted by the City Council shall be upheld and implemented by all employees. City employees should refrain from participating in the election campaign of City Councilmembers, and from all partisan political activities that would impair employee performance. It is unacceptable for City employees to-seek favors. Efforts to achieve personal gain, obtain profits secured by confidential information, or misuse public time are regarded as highly dishonorable for all employees. Adopted Je/~uety I 9, 1993 CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE : OF GRATUITIES Adopted: Revised: PURPOSE: The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines regarding the receipt of gifts by City employees from private individuals, firms, or organizations. POLICY: Employees shall not accept or solicit any non-consumable personal gifts or gratuities offered to them in their capacity as City employees from individuals, firms, or organizations having occasion to do business with the City. II. Personal gifts or gratuities provided to City employees, which cannot be refused or returned are the property of the City of Temecula and not the individual employee. III. Employees may accept, on behalf of the City, consumable, non-alcoholic items which shall be placed in a central location for consumption by the public as well as all City employees. City employees may accept inexpensive items for use at City Hall. Adep. nd Janu~ le, ~ee3 CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: HIRING OF RELATIVES PURPOSE: Adopted: Revised: The City wants to ensure that it does not give preferential treatment to relatives of employees in the recruitment process, or create a potential conflict of interest resulting from the working relationship between related employees. POLICY: All appointments to positions shall be reviewed by the Human Resources Department to determine eligibility. II. "Relative" shall mean a spouse, mother, father, child, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, step-relative, in-law or someone of similar relationship to the employee as determined by the City Manager. All Project and Regular employee hires shall be reviewed by the Human Resources Department to ensure that: Be No person is hired into a position with the City who has a relative with supervisory or payroll responsibility over that position. No person is hired into a position with the City that, because of that position's relationship to a relative's position, has the potential of creating a conflict of interest. Adepted Jev, ag.y 19. 1993 CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: NINE/EIGHTY (9/80) WORK PLAN Adopted: Revised: PURPOSE: The Nine/Eighty (9/80) Work Plan facilitates increased City services to the public and facilitates trip reductions for employees. POLICY: A 9/80 Work Plan is a work schedule whereby employees work 80 hours in a nine day rather than the traditional ten day period. II. III. IV. V. VI. Participation in the plan is on a City-wide basis. Employees in all departments have the option of participating in the 9/80 Work Plan. VII. The work period, for FLSA and overtime purposes, begins on each Friday at 12:01 p.m. and end at 12:00 noon on the following Friday. Under the 9/80 Work Plan, employees receive I day off every two weeks. Friday will be the only alternating day off of the week. Holidays will continue to be paid at the rate of 8 hours. If a holiday occurs on a 9-hour day, employees will be required to: Use an hour of Comprehensive Annual Leave (CAL) time to make-up the 9 hour day; or B. Elect to receive only 8 hours of pay for that day; or Ce Work an extra hour within the same work week in which the holiday OCCURS. If a holiday occurs on an employee's scheduled day off, the employee will receive an eight (8) hour day off immediately prior to the holiday. The employee will be required to use one of the options in Section VI above to complete the nine (9) hour day. Adef~ed JaraaW 18, 1883 CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: PROJECT EMPLOYEES Adopted: Revised: PURPOSE: To establish uniform guidelines for the employment of Project Employees in the City of Temecula. POLICY: A Project Employee shall be defined as an employee who is hired to work a specific period of time, (i.e., temporary, seasonal, part-time employee not employed on a continuous basis). Project Employees shall not be employed in the City of Temecula more than 1000 hours in a fiscal year. II. Project Employees shall be scheduled at the convenience of the City. III. Project Employees shall not be eligible for City sponsored benefits. IV. Project Employees serve at the will of the City Manager and may be terminated at any time. V. Project Employees are excluded from the Discipline policy. VI. Project Employees will be required to comply with all State and Federal government employment requirements including the I-9 immigration requirement, Driver's License requirements and Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action information. VII. The Human Resources Department shall be responsible for administering the employment procedure for Project Employees. VIII. The Human Resources Department will provide assistance to all City departments relative to recruitment, selection and retention of Project Employees. IX. City departments will be responsible for ensuring that Project Employees follow all City policies and procedures. Adep4ed Jareey 19, 1~3 PROJECT EMPLOYEES Page 2 Xe City departments are responsible for notifying the Human Resources' Department of a change in employment status for Project Employees (i.e., separation). Adepted Jenue~/19, 1093 SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY TEMPORARY UPGRADE' Adopted: Revised: October 16, 1990 PURPOSE: As a result of vacancies, leave of absence or other reasons, it may be necessary to temporarily reassign the duties of an authorized position to another employee. When such assignments require the employee to assume significant additional duties which are outside the scope of his/her regular assignment, it may be appropriate to adjust the employee's salary to reflect the interim changes. This policy allows the City to temporarily upgrade the affected employee. POLICY II. III. Approval Required: With the approval of the City Manager an employee may .be temporarily appointed to a higher level classification to perform additional duties on an interim basis provided that: the higher level position is vacant as a result of a retirement, termination, leave of absence, promotion, a new vacant position, or an extended vacation, and, the duties of the higher level position are clearly outside of the scope of the employee's current classification as determined by the City Manager, or design.e, and, Ce the vacancy is expected to continue for at least 30 calendar days, but not longer than one (1) year. Salary: The salary of an employee in a TemporaW Upgrade Assignment shall be adjusted by 5.0% or to the minimum rate of the temporary classification, whichever is greater, for the period of the temporary assignment. At the discretion of the City Manager, a higher salary rate may be established for a Temporary Upgrade assignment. Effective Dates: The City Manager, or designee, shall establish the effective dates of a Temporary Upgrade appointment. livleed JarHey 19:, 1993 CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: BEREAVEMENT LEAVE Adopted: Revised: PURPOSE: The City recognizes the importance of providing employees time off to mourn and take care of any details relating to the death of a member of the family. POLICY: Employees may receive a maximum of three (3) working days for bereavement of an individual who is a member of the employee's immediate family or of other similar relation as determined by the City Manager. For the purposes of this policy, immediate family shall be defined as spouse, mother, father, sister, brother, daughter, son, and grandparents· A Leave Request form must be completed by the employee and approved by the supervisor. ,A41epted Janue~ 1S, 1993 CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY II. III. SUBJECT: CITY HOLIDAYS Adopted: October 16, 1990 Revised: PURPOSE: The City recognizes the importance of granting holidays to employees. POLICY: Employees receive ten City Holidays each year. references to Regular Employees shall include Probationary Employees. For the purposes of this Policy, Probationary and Promotional I. The City observes the following holidays: New Year's Day Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday President's Day Memorial Day July 4th Labor Day Veteran's Day Thanksgiving Day Friday after Thanksgiving Christmas Day Observance: Holidays which fall on a Saturday will normally be observed on the preceding Friday. Holidays which fall on a Sunday will normally be observed on the following Monday. The City Manager will determine the actual dates holidays will be observed each year. Eligibility: Regular employees who are on paid status for their entire regular work shift immediately prior to and immediately following the holiday will be paid for the holiday. B. Project employees are not eligible for holiday pay. Revised January 19, 1g~3 CITY HOLIDAYS Page 2 IV. Compensation: Regular full-time employees who are eligible for holiday pay receive eight hours holiday pay on a City observed holiday. Regular part-time employees who are eligible for holiday pay receive holiday pay for the hours that they would have normally been scheduled to work had the day not been a holiday. Work on a Holiday: If a Regular Non-exempt employee who is not scheduled to work on a holiday, is required to work on a holiday, he/she will be paid for the actual hours of work at the rate of one and one half times his/her regular rate. In addition, the employee will be paid holiday pay in accordance with the above. 9/80 Work Plan - Holiday on a 9-hour day: If a holiday occurs on a 9- hour day, employees will be required to: Use an hour of Comprehensive Annual Leave (CAL) time to make- up the 9 hour day; or 2. Elect to receive only 8 hours of pay for that day; or Work an extra hour within the same work week in which the holiday occurs. 9/80 Work Plan - Holiday on Employee's Scheduled Day Off: If a holiday occurs on an employee's scheduled day off, the employee will receive an eight (8) hour day off immediately prior to the holiday. The employee will be required to use one of the options in Paragraph D above, to complete the nine (9) hour day. Revleed Janamy 19, 1~93 CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE Adopted: October 16, 1990 ANNUAL LEAVE Revbed: PURPOSE: The intent of this policy is to ensure that all employees have an adequate amount of time off each year for rest and relaxation, personal business or personal/family illness. POLICY: I. Eligibility: Regular employees earn Comprehensive Annual Leave from the date of hire. Employees who are paid for less than eighty (80) hours in a pay period will earn Comprehensive Annual Leave credits on a pro-rated basis for that pay period. II. C. Project employees do not earn Comprehensive Annual Leave. Accruah A. The accrual rate for non-exempt employees is as follows: Annual Days of Biweekly Maximum Increment Annual Leave Accrual Rate Accumulation Hire - through 1 year 15 4.616 2 - 4 years 17 5.231 4- 6 years 22 6.769 6- 8 years 24 7.384 8-10 years 26 8.000 10+ years 29 8.923 240 hrs. 272 hrs. 352 hrs. 384 hrs. 416 hrs. 464 hrs. Pavbed Je,uery le, lee3 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL LEAVE Page 2 B. The accrual rate for exempt employees is as follows: Annual Days of Biweekly Maximum Increment Annual I save Accrual Rate Accumulation Hire - through I year 19 5.847 304 hrs. 2 -4 years 21 6.462 336 hrs. 4 -6 years 26 8.000 416 hrs. 6 -8 years 28 8.616 ~?-8 hrs. 8 -10 years 30 9.231 480 hrs. 10 + years 33 10. 154 528 hrs. III. Annual Leave Accruah Annual leave will be accrued on a prorated rate each pay period. IV. Maximum Balance: The maximum Comprehensive Annual Leave accumulation which an employee may have at any one time is two (2) times the employee's annual accrual. However, the City Manager may grant an employee the ability to accrue annual leave above two times the annual accrual limit. Requesting Time Off: A Leave Request form is to be submitted by the employee and approved by his/her supervisor prior to the leave commencing. VI. Scheduling: The scheduling of Comprehensive Annual Leave shall be determined by the employee's supervisor based upon: A. The needs of the city; and B. The employee's desires. VII. Holidays During Comprehensive Annual Leave: City holidays which occur during an employee's Comprehensive Annual Leave are not deducted from Comprehensive Annual Leave balance. VIII. Separation of Employment: Upon separation from employment with the City, an employee shall be entitled to cash out his/her remaining Comprehensive Annual Leave balance. Revised January 10, 1M3 CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: FAMILY CARE LEAVE Adopted: Revised: PURPOSE: On January 1, 1992, the Family Care Leave Law took effect. Family care leave may be used for the birth or adoption of a child of the employee or to care for a seriously ill child, spouse or parent. POLICY: The requesting employee must have one year or more of continuous City employment. II. Employees must request a family care leave as much in advance of the date for the leave as possible. III. Duration of the leave shall not exceed four months in a twenty four month period. IV. Employees may be required to submit a doctor's certificate to verify the need for family care leave. Ve Employees will not be required to use Comprehensive Annual Leave time for family care leave while under the care of a physician. VI. Employees shall not accrue Comprehensive Annual Leave during a family care leave. VII. Employees shall be responsible for the continuation of City provided health care insurance premiums if on family care leave for more than two (2) monthly premium payment periods. VIII, Employees shall retain the status of employee while on family care leave. However, family care leave which exceeds thirty (30) days shall result in an adjustment to the employee's salary review date. IX. A request for family care leave may not be granted if (1) it would create an undue hardship on the City, or (2) the employee's spouse is taking a family care leave or is unemployed. Adeted ,Jama~ le, 1~3 CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: JURY DUTY Adopted: October 16, 1990 Revised: PURPOSE: The City encourages employees to serve as jurors when called upon to do so. POLICY: When an employee serves on jury duty, the employee receives full pay from the City. (Government Code Section 1230) Employees are not required to submit to the City any compensation received from the court for serving as a juror. II. A Leave Request form should be filled out by the employee and approved by the supervisor prior to the proposed leave commencing. III. Employees are required to attach verification of jury duty attendance to the Leave Request form. IV. When released from any day of service more than two hours prior to end of normal work schedule, an employee shall report as soon as practical to full duty. V. Project employees are not covered by this policy. I~evleed Jenuey 19, 1893 CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: OVERTIME Adopted: October 16, 1992 Revised: PURPOSE: The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires that work performed by non-exempt employees in excess of forty hours in a seven day work period be paid at the rate of time and one half the employee's regular rate of pay. Whether an employee is exempt (salaried) or non-exempt (hourly) is determined by the type of duties they perform. Exempt and non-exempt status is determined by the Human Resources Department. POLICY: II. III. IV. Eligibility: Non-exempt employees receive overtime pay at the rate of one and one half times their regular rate of pay after forty (40) hours work in a seven (7) day work week. VI. VII. Work Week Defined: For the purpose of computing overtime, the workweek for employees who work the regular schedule is a seven day period beginning at 12:01 a.m. on each Saturday and ending midnight on each Friday night. 9/80 Work Week Defined: For the purpose of computing overtime, the work week for employees who work the 9/80 Plan is a seven day period beginning at 12:01 p.m. on each Friday and ending 12:00 noon on the following Friday. Time Worked: For purposes of this policy, hours worked includes only those hours in which the employee performs services authorized by the City. Time Paid but not Worked: Holidays, Comprehensive Annual Leave and Jury Duty are not considered time worked for purposes of this policy. Exempt employees are not eligible for overtime pay. Authorization: All overtime work must be approved in advance by the employee's supervisor or a management employee. FiwbedJeue~19, li CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: PURPOSE: PAY PERIODS AND PAY DAYS Adopted: October 16, 1990 Revised: The identification of Pay Periods and Pay Days establishes a consistent and equitable time keeping method, POLICY: Pay periods include a fourteen (14) day period, consisting of two work weeks as defined below. II. III. IV. Work Week Defined: For the purpose of computing overtime, the work week for employees who work the regular schedule is a seven day period beginning at 12:01 a.m. on each Saturday and ending midnight on each Friday night, 9/80 Work Week Defined: For the purpose of computing overtime, the work week for employees who work the 9/80 Plan is a seven day period beginning at 12:01 p.m. on each Friday and ending 12:00 noon on the following Friday. Recording Time Worked: Employees must record their starting and ending time on an approved City form as required. Employees shall not make an entry on another employee's time report for any reason. Be Corrections to time reports can be made only by the employee's immediate supervisor. All corrections must bear the initials of the person authorizing the correction. Tampering with any time reports may result in discipline, up to and including termination. Pay day is every other Thursday following the final Friday in the pay period. If a holiday falls on a pay day, pay day will be the first working day prior to the holiday. The Human Resources Department will post a list of pay days at the beginning of each calendar year. Firbed Jar~m~y 19, 11e2 CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITHOUT PAY Adopted: October 16,1990 Revised: PURPOSE: Leave of absence without pay is to be used for the purpose of unforeseen circumstances or other situations where leave is needed by the employee and granted by the Department Director. POLICY: Requests for Leave of absence without pay may be granted by the Department Head, subject to the approval of the City Manager or his designee. II. Employees must provide a two-week notice, in writing, to request leave of absence without pay. III. Employees must give reasonable notice before returning to work. IV. The maximum leave which may be taken is four months. Employees shall not accrue Comprehensive Annual Leave (CAL) time if on a. leave of absence without pay in excess of five (5) working days. VI. Employees may be required to exhaust their Comprehensive Annual Leave (CAL) prior to commencing leave of absence without pay status, except as provided in the Family Care Leave Policy. VII. Employees shall be responsible for the continuation of City provided health care insurance premiums if on leave of absence without pay for more than two (2) monthly premium payment periods. VIII. Employees shall retain the status of employee while on leave of absence without pay. However, a leave without pay which exceed thirty (30) days shall result in an adjustment to the employee's salary review date. Revieed Jenuery 16, 1603 CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: MILITARY LEAVE Adopted: October 16, 1990 Revised: PURPOSE: The City recognizes the importance of allowing employees time off to defend the United States. This policy allows for employees to take time necessary for the defense of our Country. POLICY: An employee who enters the armed forces of the United States will be placed on an extended leave of absence without pay for a period not to exceed twelve (12) months. Upon completion of military service, the employee will be reinstated with full seniority to his/her former position or to a comparable position, if application for reemployment is made within 90 calendar days of release from the service or related hospitalization. II. An employee who is a member of the National Guard or of a reserve component of the armed forces shall, upon furnishing a copy of the official orders or instructions, be granted a military training leave. Training leaves will not, except in an emergency, or in the event of extenuating circumstances, exceed two weeks per year, plus reasonable travel time. Upon presentation of a military pay voucher, employees will be reimbursed for the difference between their normal City compensation and pay received while on military duty. RevieedJetuey19,19113 PAY PERIODS AND PAY DAYS Page 2 Pay checks will be given only to the employee unless the employee provides a .w~itten authorization permitting the Human Resources Department to release the check to another individual. Revieed Jertu~f 18, 1M2 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: PERFORMANCE REVIEWS Adopted: October 16, 1990 Revised: PURPOSE: The City's performance evaluation system provides a formal, periodic review of the performance of each employee in relationship to the performance of expectations of his/her supervisor. POLICY: The completion of a performance evaluation does not automatically entitle the employee to a merit increase. Merit increases are based upon overall performance. Each supervisor is responsible for determining the eligibility of each employee under his/her supervision for a merit increase. II. III. Each employee is eligible for a performance evaluation at or near the completion of the first 3 months of continuous employment and at or near the completion of six months of continuous service and at least annually, at or near the employee's anniversary date thereafter. A promoted employee is eligible for a performance evaluation at or near the completion at or near the completion of three months of continuous employment in his/her new position and at least annually, at or near the anniversary date of the employee's promotion thereafter. Performance evaluations will be written on the Performance Evaluation and Compensation System (PEACS) form. A copy of each completed PEACS shall be retained in the for the employee's personnel file. The employee shall be given a copy of the completed performance evaluation. CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: STANDBY/CALL OUT Adopted: Revised: PURPOSE: The City may deem it beneficial to have employees on standby to handle emergencies. POLICY: Standby is distinguished from call out as the time spent "waiting to be engaged in work". Call out is actually "being engaged in work". Employees on standby are expected to maintain a state of mental alertness and physical dexterity similar to that which is required for performance of their regular duties. II. Standby duty intervals shall be determined by the appropriate supervisor. III. IV. VI. VII. Employees designated on standby shall be compensated at the rate of one hour of their regular hourly rate of pay, for each standby day. The employee designated as on standby shall be supplied a 'duty pager' to provide for continuous availability. Employees are guaranteed a minimum of two hours pay for call outs. All call outs are compensated at the rate of 1-1/2 times an employee's hourly rate of pay. Employees called out on emergencies are compensated from the time they leave home to the time they return home or until their normal shift begins. Employees called out on emergencies are required to be attired in a manner which allows for clear identification as a City employee and which allows for the safe resolution of the situation. Adopted ~ 19, 1903 CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: REDUCTION OF Adopted: ' WORK FORCE ---- - Revised: PURPOSE: It is the intent of the City to establish an equitable means of reducing the work force during times that the City judges it necessary to reduce the work force for non- disciplinary reasons. POLICY: The City reserves the right to lay off employees due to lack of work or lack of funds. I. In the event of a lay off, employees will be selected based upon the following criteria in the order listed:. A. The needs of the City, B. Performance, II. C. Seniority by department and classification, In the event of a recall from a lay off, employees shall be recalled based upon the needs of the City in reverse order of lay off. Ada~ed JenuNy 18, CITY OF TEMECULA PERSONNEL POLICY SUBJECT: UNIFORMS Adopted: October 16, 1990 Revised: PURPOSE: Uniforms are provided to allow customers and the public to easily identify City employees, to assure a professional appearance and for the convenience of employees. POLICY: Each field employee is responsible for wearing a City furnished uniform at all times while performing City-related work. II. III. IV. V. VI. The City provides designated field employees with uniforms. The uniforms consist of shirts and pants. The City provides laundry service for the uniforms. Each field employee shall take proper care of uniforms and maintain high standards of personal grooming and neatness. Hair, jewelry and accessories must not impede the safe and efficient execution of your duties. A uniform, or any part of it, is to be worn only during working hours and in traveling between work and home. City uniforms are not to be worn outside of w. orking hours. The City will determine the need for and timing of uniform replacement. The City provides each field employee with appropriate safety equipment, as determined by each Supervisor. Safety-toe boots or shoes provided by the City shall be worn with the uniform. Ordinarily tennis shoes, sandals, etc., are not permitted for safety reasons. A $95.00 boot allowance is budgeted for each field employee annually. livleed Jenur/le, 1993 ITEM NO. 3 APPROVAL CITY ATI'ORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council David Dixon City Manager January 19, 1993 Revision to Schedule of Authorized Positions PREPARED BY: Luci Romero RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula No. 93- , Providing For An Update to the Schedule of Authorized Positions". Authorize staff to conduct an annual salary survey for the purpose of reviewing and adjusting salaries, as appropriate. BACKGROUND: The Schedule of Authorized Positions (Schedule) is a listing of all classifications in the City and their approved salary ranges. The City's current Schedule was adopted on February 13, 1990. Although revisions have been made to the Schedule to incorporate new positions, no salary adjustments, including cost of living increases, have been made to any of the classifications. A cursory review of the approved Schedule 'reveals some concerns which are the catalyst for this report. The most prevalent concerns are: The establishment of appropriate classification titles. The establishment of salary ranges which are appropriate to the individual classifications and are aligned internally and in accordance with the hierarchy of positions. The relationship between the established salary ranges and the external job market. SUBJECT: Revision to Schedule of Authorized Positions Page 2 Staff compiled information both internally and externally to help assess the organization's overall status relative to the above concerns. Internally, a review was conducted of all classifications in the City. The classification reviews addressed issues such as duties; supervisory and reporting relationships; and similarities/differences among other positions with identical classification titles. Externally, staff conducted a salary survey in January, 1992, which was supplemented by updated information. Salary information was obtained from both public and private businesses. Twenty-five classifications were surveyed and used as the basis for review of all of the ranges. DISCUSSION: Attachment I represents the assimilation of the above information. For discussion purposes, Attachment I will be addressed in three categories: 1) Classifications; 2) Salary Range Adjustments; and 3) Employee Salary Adjustments. 1. Classifications: Attachment I represents all classifications in the City, excluding City Council and City Manager. A total of 56 classifications are listed, including 11 new classifications. The proposed reclassifications serve to more accurately identify positions and to facilitate the development of classification descriptions. The descriptions are a critical element of any personnel system, because they specify the criteria of the position. Several of the classification descriptions have been prepared in draft form and upon adoption of the classifications by the City Council, staff will process the appropriate reclassifications and proceed with the development of all classification descriptions. 2. Salary Range Adjustments: The salary survey information compiled by staff indicated that adjustments are necessary to appropriately align salaries. Further, staff considered an additional issue in reviewing the salary ranges. Although, cities typically have six or more steps within a range, we have five steps. In an effort to retain employees, the proposed ranges have been adjusted to reflect a sixth step within the range. The additional step results in a 3% increase to the range. This adjustment facilitates longevity among employees. Although the proposed adjustments range from 2% to 33%, it is important to note that since the adoption of the Schedule of Authorized Positions, approximately three years ago, the City has not authorized any salary range adjustments. SUBJECT: Revision to Schedule of Authorized Positions Page 3 3. Employee Salary Adjustments: Employee salary adjustments will result from the adjustments to the salary ranges. Although staff recommends that all employee salaries reflect adjustments to the new salary ranges, maximum adjustments are recommended as follows: Proposed Salary Range Adjustment a. 0% - 9.9% b. 10%- 14.9% c. 15%- + Actual Employee Salary Adjustment As Specified Maximum of 10% Maximum of 15% Additionally, it should be noted that reclassifications may result in salary adjustments above the proposed percentages in order to place employees at the minimum step within the new range. An additional issue of consideration is the establishment of an annual salary survey for the purpose of maintaining equitable and competitive salaries. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to conduct an annual salary survey and formulate salary range adjustments, if appropriate, for consideration with the adoption of the fiscal year budget. FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended revision to the Schedule of Authorized Positions does not result in an increase to the total number of allocated positions. The Employee Salary .' Adjustments will be implemented in conjunction with the February 11, 1993, payroll. The adjustments are estimated at $50,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year. As a result of salary savings, funds are available in the budget, therefore no new appropriations are required in the current fiscal year. ATTACHMENT 1 CURRENT SALARY 1303 - 1824 1303 - 1624 __ __ __ 1454 - 1811 1454 - 1811 1424 - 1774 1887 - 2078 1826 - 2398 1835 - 2285 1702 - 2120 1600 - 1993 1993 - 2481 1835 - 2285 2105 - 2621 2105 - 2621 2193 - 2731 2193 - 2731 2193 - 2731 2193 - 2731 2414 - 3006 2285 - 2846 2431 - 3027 2431 - 3027 2498 - 3111 2484 - 3068 __ __ 2498 - 3111 2498 - 3111 2675 - 3331 2675 - 3331 2788 - 3471 2885 - 3592 2885 - 3592 3047 - 3794 3047 - 3794 2807 - 3495 3331 - 4148 3331 - 4148 3331 - 4148 3424 - 4236 3377 - 4205 3794 - 4725 3C~47 3794 4148 5165 5236 6519 5236 6519 5236 6519 5236 6519 5763 - 7176 5763 - 7176 PROPOSED SALARY 1386 - 1787 1396 - 1787 1507 - 1930 1507 - 1930 1507 - 1930 1507 - 1930 1507 - 1930 1705 - 2182 1705 - 2182 1926 - 2466 1926 - 2486 1926 - 2486 1993 - 255 t 1993 - 2551 1g~3 - 2551 1993 - 2551 2048 - 2619 2046 - 2619 2193 - 2807 2193 - 2807 2193 - 2807 2193 - 2807 2193 - 2807 2237 - 2684 2347 - 3004 2414 - 3090 2414 - 3090 2431 - 3112 2431 - 3112 2509 - 3211 2509 - 3211 2509 - 3211 2748 - 3517 2748 - 3517 2748 - 3517 2943 - 3767 2943 - 3767 3047 - 3900 3047 - 3900 3047 - 3900 3260 - 4173 3260 - 4t 73 3260 - 4173 3431 - 4392 3431 - 4392 3431 - 4382 3431 - 4,182 3527 - 4514 3527 - 4514 3527 - 4514 3527 - 45t 4 4060 - 5197 4060 - 5197 4355 - 5575 5236 - 6703 5236 - 8703 5238 - 8703 5236 - 6703 5783 - 7377 5763 - 7377 % VAR. 7% 7% N/A N/A 4% 4% N/A 20% 2% 0% 5% 13% 25% 0% N/A N/A 11% 11% 4% 4% 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A 10% 10% 10% 10% N/A 3% 3% 3% N/A N/A 4% 5% CURRENT CLASSIFICATION TITLE OFFICE ASSISTANT DUPUCATING TECHNICIAN NEW NEW MINUTE CLERK SECRETARY NEW RECREATION LEADER MAINTENANCE WORKER SENIOR MAINTENANCE WORKER LEAD MAINTENANCE WORKER ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY ACCOUNT CLERK ACCOUNT TECHNICIAN NEW NEW SR. REC. SERVICES COORDINATOR SENIOR SERVICES COORDINATOR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN TRAFFIC TECHNICIAN PLAN/BLDG TECHNICIAN SENIOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANT PLANIRLDG TECHNICIAN NEW CODE ENFORCEMENT OFRCER DEPUT~ CITY CLERK EXECUTIVE SECRETARY BUILDING INSPECTOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR ACCOUNTANT ASSISTANT PLANNER NEW NEW MANAGEMENT ANALYST NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR 8R BUILDING INSPECTOR SR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR SENIOR ACCOUNTANT ASSISTANT ENGINEER ASSOCIATE PLANNER ASSOCIATE ENGINEER PERMIT ENGINEER SR MANAGEMENT ANALYST NEW MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT SENIOR PLANNER NEW NEW CHIEF ACCOUNTANT PRINCIPAL ENGINEER TRAFFIC ENGINEER CITY CLERK CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR OF PLANNING RNANCE OFRCER ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER CITY ENGINEER/PW DIRECTOR PROPOSED CLASSIRCATION TITLE NO CHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICIAN ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT CASHIER OFFICE SPECIAUST OFFICE 6PECIAUST VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR RECREATION COORDINATOR NO CHANGE LANDSCAPE TECHNICIAN NO CHANGE NO CHANGE ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST ENGINEERING AIDE PERSONNEL SPECIAUST RECREATION SUPERVISOR RECREATION SUPERVISOR NO CHANGE NO CHANGE BUILDING TECHNICIAN DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANT PLANNING TECHNICIAN BUILDING INSPECTOR I NO CHANGE NO CHANGE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT BUILDING INSPECTOR II NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE STREET SUPERVISOR DEVELOPMENT ANALYST NO CHANGE SYSTEM8 ANALYST NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATOR BUDGET ADMINISTRATOR NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REVISING THE SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS WiIERF_AS, pursuant to the authority under Chapter 2.08.060 of the City's Municipal Code, the City Manager has the authority to hire, set salaries and adopt personnel policies; and, ~, the City Manager has recommended and the City Council now wishes to adopt the Revised Schedule of Authorized Positions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: SECTION 1. The attached Schedule of Authorized Positions (Exhibit A) is hereby adopted pursuant to Section 45001 of the California Government Code. Such list is attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The Schedule of Authorized Positions shah become effective immediately and may be thereafter amended. SECTION 3. The City Manager shah implement the above Schedule of Authorized Positions and has the authority to select and appoint employees in accordance with the City's personnel policies. SECTION 4. All prior resolutions and parts of resolutions in conflict with this Resolution are hereby rescinded. PASSED, AND ADOFrED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of lanuary, 1993 ATTE3T: J. Sal Mu~oz, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I I-rRREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 19th day of January, 1993, by the following vote of the Council: COUNCILEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS EXHIBIT A POSITION TITLES AUTHORIZED POSITIONS MINIMUM MAXIMUM Accounting Assistant .5 Accounting Specialist 3 Accountant 0 Administrative Secretary 6 Administrative Technician 1 Assistant City Manager 1 Assistant Engineer 2 Assistant Ranner 2 Associate Engineer 2 Associate Planner 2 Budget Administrator 1 Building Inspectcr I 1 Building Inspentor II 2 Building Technician 2 Cashier 1 Chief Accountant 1 Chief Building Official 1 City Clerk 1 City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works 1 City Manager 1 Code Enfcrcement Officer 1 Councilmember 5 Deputy City Clerk 1 Development Analyst 0 Development Assistant 1 Development Services Administrator 1 Direntor of Community Services 1 Director of Planning 1 Engineering Aide 1 Enginaedng Technician 2 Executive Assistant 1 Finance Officer 1 Human Resources Administrator 1 Landscape Technician 1 Lead Maintenance Worker 1 Maintenance Superintendent 2 Maintenance Worker 4 Management 'Analyst 0 Office Assistant 10 Office Specialist 2.5 Permit Engineer 1 Personnel Specialist 2 Planning Technician 3 Principal Engineer 2 Public Works Inspector 2 Recreation Cocrdinatcr 2 Recreation Superintendent 1 Recreation Supervisor 2 Senior Accountant 1 Senior Building Inspectcr 2 Senior Management Analyst 1 Senior Planner 2 Senior Public Works Inspector 2 Street Supervisor 0 Systems Analyst 1 Traffic Engineer 0 Traffic Technician 1 Volunteer Coordinator I $1,993 $2,551 $1,993 $2,551 $2,509 $3,211 $1,926 $2,466 $1,396 $1,787 $5,763 $7,377 $3,047 $3,900 $2,509 $3,211 $3,260 $4,173 $3,047 $3,900 $3,527 $4,514 $2,237 $2,864 $2,431 $3,112 $2,193 $2,807 $1,507 $1,930 $3,527 $4,514 $5,236 $6,703 $4,355 $5,575 85,763 $7,377 ****** $8,655 $2,347 $3,004 $ 300 $ 300 $2,414 $3,090 $2,748 $3,517 $2,193 $2,807 $3,431 $4,392 $5,236 $6,703 $5,236 $6,703 $1,993 $2,551 $2,193 $2,807 $2,414 $3,090 $5,236 $6,703 $3,527 $4,514 $1,926 $2,466 $1,926 $2,466 $3,431 $4,392 $1,705 $2,182 $2,748 $3,517 $1,396 $1,787 $1,507 $1,930 $3,260 $4,173 $1,993 $2,551 $2,193 $2,807 $4,060 $5,197 $2,431 $3,112 $1,705 $2,182 $3,431 $4,392 $2,046 $2,619 $3,047 $3,900 $2,943 $3,767 $3,260 $4,173 $3,527 $4,514 $2,943 $3,767 $2,509 $3,211 $2,748 $3,517 $4,060 $5,197 $2,193 $2,807 $1,507 $1,930 EXEMPT/ NON/EXEMPT NE NE NE NE NE E NE NE E NE E NE NE NE NE E E E E E NE E E E NE E E E NE NE E E E NE NE E NE E NE NE E NE NE E NE NE E NE E NE E E NE NE E E NE NE TOTAL 95.0 ITEM NO. 4 APPROVAT. CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer DATE: January 19, 1993 SUBJECT: Community Service Funding Criteria RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Review the philosophy and funding criteria for the Community Services Funding Program. e Designate two Councilmembers to review the applications received from organizations requesting funds. DISCUSSION: Each year the City's budget includes an amount for funding requests from community based organizations which provide services to the citizens of Temecula. Attached is the most recent fund philosophy and criteria. We are requesting that the Council approve or modify the attached so that we may proceed with the Fiscal Year 1992-93 program. In addition, we are requesting that Council designate two members of Council to review the applications for funding and make recommendations to the Council based on their review. FISCAL IMPACT: An unencumbered balance of approximately $77,500 is available as of December 31, 1992. A'I'I'ACHMENTS: Attachment - Fiscal Year 1991-92 Application ITEM NO. 5 ~DPROV~T. CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: City Clerk DATE: January 19, 1993 SUBJECT: Selection of City Council Committee Assignments RECOMMENDATION: Select and appoint members of the City Council to act as liaison to various City Commissions and to serve on various committees for calendar year 1993. BACKGROUND: The City Council has established the policy of appointing one of its members to serve as liaison to each of the City Commissions. This policy also included appointing Councilmembers to a number of Council Committees. Attached, for your convenience, is a list of the Committee Assignments for 1992. ATTACHMENTS: Committee Assignments List TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL 1999 Committee AssiOnments Commission liaison (One Member) Parks and Recreation Commission: Planning Commission: Public Safety Commission: Traffic and Transportation Commission: Patricia H. Birdsall Ronald J. Parks Karel Lindemans Sal Mufioz Committee Assignments One or two members) Administration Committee: Airport Committee: City Promotion/Economic Development Committee: Cultural Preservation Committee: Design Standards Committee: Finance Committee: General Plan Committee: Integrated Waste Management Committee: JPIA Committee: K-RAT, JPA: Legislative Committee: Old Town Specific Plan Committee: Old Town Advisory Committee: Public Works/Facilities Committee: RCTC: RDA Committee: Regional Transit Authority Representative: Sister City Committee: Sphere of Influence Committee: WRCOG Representative Ron Parks/Peg Moore Peg Moore/Sal MuSoz Karel Lindemans/Peg Moore Pat Birdsall Peg Moore Karel Undernans/Peg Moore Ron Parks/Sal Mu~oz (Peg Moore, Alternate) Karel Undernans, Peg Moore Peg Moore Ron Parks, Sal Mur~oz Peg Moore Ron Parks, Karel Lindemans Peg Moore Peg Moore, Ron Parks Sal Mu~oz Sal Mu~oz, Ron Parks Sal Mufioz Pat Birdsall, Karel Lindemans Sal Mufioz, Ron Parks Ron Parks, Pat Birdsall