HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-19 e-packet
~ 't 1\. S::4N'
s~:;
>- .~
~ :~
v C)
(> \"?,
4lIFOR~
SPE~CIAL MEI~rrING
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRA.NCISCO
P.o. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, California 94083
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
400 GRAND AVENUE
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19,2006
6:00 P.M.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the
State of California, the City Council ofthe City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting
on Wednesday, the 19th day of April 2006, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Hall Conference Room, 400
Grand A venue, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
ll. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting
Agenda
4. Interview applicants for Housing Authority Commission
5. Discussion and appointments to Housing Authority
6. Study Session: Long term budget projections
7. Discussion: Board/Commission attendance policy
8. Closed Session: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9,
Conference with Legal Counse1- anticipated litigation, significant
exposure to litigation: one case
9. Adjournment
/<J~'i~()7 .
City/Clerk
'1/)
I~'~
/
City of South San Francisco
Inter-Office ME~morandum
SP. AGENDA ITEM #4
DATE:
April 19, 2006
TIME:
6:00 P.M.
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM:
City Clerk ~~
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING - INTERVIEWS FOR HOUSING
AUTHORITY TENANT AND NON-TENANT COMMISSION SEATS
SUBJECT:
Council is requested to consider the following:
1) Appointment to Housing Authority Commission - one (1) Tenant seat is open; Tenant
commissioners may serve four 2-year terms.
2) Appointments to Housing Authority Commission - two (2) Non-Tenant seats are open;
Non-knant commissioners may serve four 4-year tc:nns.
Interview schedule:
Tenant Commissioner Seat:
[==0 6:05 [Bancy Britt (seeking reapp(~tment to 4th term)
Non-tenant Commissioner Seat:
1. 6:12 Gary Smith
2. 6:19 \Villiam Breite
3. 6:26 Cameron Tate Crisp
4. 6:33 Natalie Gore
5. 6:40 Cyrus Kon
6. 6:47 Vvallace Moore
7. 6:54 Buenaflor Nicolas
8. 7:00 Efrain "Frank" Roman
9. 7:07 Alfred Salogga (seeking real
ppointment to 2rd term)
DISCUSSION AND APPOINTMENTS:
Ifthere is a consensus from Council to move forward with the appointment process this evening,
ballots have been provided.
A motion to confirm the appointments is required.
Enclosures: Board and Commission Interview Questions
Applications
Ballots for Non- Tenant Commission Seats
~P. AGENDA ITEM #6
!;. "?~'t~I/~~ ~W
(0 c:"l
>- iJ;
~ c"')
V C)
~llPO~~ Staff Report
DATE: April 19, 2006
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jim Steele, Finance Director
SUBJECT: LONG TERM BUDGET PROJECTIONS
RECOMMENDA TION:
This staff report is for information purposes, and is being presented to the Council to obtain
feedback on what will likely be a multi-year dialogue and program to bring revenues in line
with expenses.
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION:
Staff met with the Budget Subcomittee several times over the past two months (Mayor Fernekes and
Councilmember Matsumoto) to discuss the upcoming 2006-07 budget and to update them on the
long term (10 year) outlook for the General Fund. The results are now being presented to the full
Council.
Stormwater Fund
Of concern over the next 1- 2 years is the Stormwater Enterprise Fund. It is depleting its reserves, as
its annual costs are higher than the revenue generated by the countywide property tax assessment.
Staff projects with this frozen revenue source and rising staffing costs, the Storm water Fund will
deplete its reserves at the end of 2006-07. (On a budget basis, it would appear that reserves would be
used up earlier in 2006-07, but recent years' experience is that there are usually operating budget
savings by year-end).
Therefore, in the next 1- 2 years, staff projects some steps will need to be taken to bring Stormwater
expenses into alignment with revenues. This will require a staffing reduction, a shifting of expenses
to the General Fund, or new fees/revenue.
In addition, except for the Lindenville improvements to be funded by the Redevelopment bond sale,
the current storm drain operating budget does not contain funding beyond repairs to include ongoing
capital rehabilitation and replacement program for our storm drain infrastructure. Historically, the
City has funded modest annual storm water capital improvements $25,000 - $50,000) out of Gas Tax
funding from the State, funds which could otherwise go to road improvements.
Staff Report
Subject: Long Term Budget Projections
Page 2 of 6
Staff recommends and the Budget Subcommittee concurs that for the 2006-07 budget, the fund shift
of .2 FTE to the Stormwater Fund adopted in 2005-06 be reversed. This will only result in a modest
savings, but one that the General Fund can absorb ($25,1000). The preliminary budget figures
presented to Council already assumes this shift back to the General Fund.
The Budget Subcommitee concurred that the financial stabilllty of the Stormwater Fund is of concern.
Staff therefore further recommends that the budget contain an additional $200,000 in Gas Tax
funding for the Stormwater Fund, offset by a reduction in General Fund gas tax reimbursements for
street crew work. The numbers being presented to Council tonight contain this storm water
augmentation and General Fund funding reduction.
Police Department Funding
The Budget Subcommittee concurred with the City Manager's recommendation that the Council
consider augmentation of Police Department staffing. In 2004-05, three vacant police officers were
frozen. Those officers would be an important priority to add back, because the Department is in
actuality down eleven positions: the three frozen position" three officers assigned to county task
forces (for which we are reimbursed), three other self-imposed positions left open to stay within the
overtime budget, and two officers who are in Iraq.
The Department has tried to bridge this loss of personnel by reassigning a school resource officer to
patrol and utilizing the motor officers as part of the minimum staffing numbers (having them work a
beat rather than just traffic), and not filling other specialized positions. These reassignments have
impacted Police's contacts with the schools where gang intelligence gathering and traffic
enforcement has suffered.
Overall calls for service have increased, and gang activity is also on the rise. Based on all the
activity in the County, our officers have done an excellent job in keeping the gangs in check and
meeting the other needs of the community. However, the service is becoming more reactive than
proactive. For all of these reasons, the City Manager recommends restoring the three frozen Police
Officer positions at a cost of $400,000.
Finally, for the 2006-07 budget, staff has previously recommended and the Budget Subcommittee
has concurred that approximately $1.0 million be made available for capital improvements next year,
funded from the extra Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) refund from the County
during 2005-06. If Council agrees with this strategy, staff will focus the extra dollars on street
improvements.
Other than these changes, the General Fund budget for 2006-07 will contain no new service level
changes.
Strategies for the medium term (2-5 years):
Several factors point to an ongoing budget imbalance in 2-5 years that will need to be addressed over
that time. The reasons for the imbalance include the following:
Staff Report
Subject: Long Term Budget Projections
Page 3 of 6
· The surplus dollars built up in years of low PERS costs in the Benefits Fund will be used up
during 2006-07, and the $1.0 million transfer to the General Fund that we have been tapping
will no longer be possible. That will mean a direct $1.0 million loss to the General Fund
operating budget beginning in 2007-08.
· The temporary fund shifts to the Redevelopment Agency and to other funds are not
recommended to be continued indefinitely. A total of $2.9 million annually has been shifted
out of the General Fund to meet revenue shortfalls and PERS and wage increases over the
past 3 years, with the bulk of those shifts, $2.1 million, going to the Redevelopment Agency
annually. While some of them could be justified on an ongoing basis, such as the shift of
Conference Center debt payments to the Agency, many of the costs are operating in nature.
Most of these shifts were initially presented to the Council as temporary in nature.
Staff recommends that these fund shifts begin to be weaned from the General Fund budget in
four years, i.e., beginning in 2009-10, or five years after the largest shifts began. A workable
target might be to reduce the transfers by $1.0 million in 2009-10.
· Health costs have been rising at double digit increases over the past five years, much higher
than either the overall inflation rate (CPI), and much higher than overall revenue growth.
· Long-term wage growth has also been faster than n~venue growth, meaning each year the
budget is brought more out of balance without other corrections.
· Enhanced PERS benefits and the decline in market performance have raised PERS costs by
$6.4 million over the past 4 years.
Several options are available to the City in dealing with the medium term budget imbalance. They
include:
1. Revisiting budget cuts in departments. Staff could reconsider the list of cuts already
identified, but not yet taken if additional cuts were warranted. However, the reduction lists
generated to date did not necessarily attempt to prioritize service levels or offer a systemic
approach to cuts citywide.
2. Another direction for future budget reductions is to consciously seek to prioritize city
services and eliminate lower priority services. More money can potentially be freed up from
eliminating services then in cutting line item expenses. In addition, prior budget cuts have
been chosen in part where vacancies arose and/or where surplus dollars (travel, meetings,
consultant services) were easily available. Those cuts mayor may not reflect where service
priorities are for the Council.
3. Increasing fees in areas where full cost recovery is not met. If Council were to consider this
option, staff recommends that two areas should be tocused on. First, target those fees for
service areas that reflect more discretionary services to the community. Second, target
program participants that are non-City residents first.
Staff Report
Subject: Long Term Budget Projections
Page 4 of 6
4. Strategies that reduce the high growth in employee costs in relation to revenue growth. A
wage freeze is one option. Holding wages to the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (cPI) is
another. The bargaining units' contracts begin to expire in 2008-09, and as they expire, the
Council could consider freezing each unit's wages for one year. This, combined with either
eliminating the automatic salary survey process, or reforming it to include all City wage and
benefit costs', could result in permanent, ongoing savings. (Note that a one-year wage freeze
with no change to the salary survey process would not result in permanent savings). Savings.
that could be generated in 2008-09 from wage freezes in the General Fund are estimated at:
ExecutiveslMid Management
$200,000
All others (Police, Fire, AFScME,
confidentials, Hourlies)
$1,775,000
Total General Fund:
$1,975,000
Besides wage freezes, other strategies include holding down health costs by requiring larger
co-payments by employees and/or placing lower caps on what the City will pay for in health
plan premiums. Those strategies are not as dramatic in savings as are wage freezes.
5. Consider a cost sharing arrangement with property owners for sidewalk replacement. The
City spends approximately $300,000 in ongoing costs for sidewalk repair and maintenance in
the General Fund. Such an arrangement would not only save the General Fund annual
operatJing budget costs, but would also address a risk management practice that ABAG
recommends, which is to shift the liability for sidewalk repairs (and trip and fall claims) to
property owners' and their homeowners' insurance policies.
6. Consider revenues that could generate additional dollars for road improvements:
a. A street impact fee could be assessed against trucking companies to finance a higher
level of street repair. hnpact fees do not require a vote of the electorate.
b. Somewhat related, voter approved tax increase to the Business License Tax for those
businesses that require a large City operating budget requirement in terms of services
provided by the City and which pay relatively low business license taxes. Two
examples include trucking firms (road maintenance and repair costs) and oil and gas
storage firms (fire prevention and potential hazardous materials mitigation services).
7. Consider an arrangement to shift street sweeping services to the garbage bill. The City
budgets about $475,000 annually for street sweeping. The attorney's office has confirmed
that this option could be considered; however, there are some Proposition 218 implications
that would need to be analyzed further. In addition, if the Council were interested in this
option, the Scavenger Company would also need to consent to this option.
I Current salary survey methodology does not count full City cost of all employees' vacation, sick leave,
administrative time off, and paid holidays, nor does it include social security or the cost of health insurance for
retirees.
Staff Report
Subject: Long Term Budget Projections
Page 5 of 6
8. Consider a 911 Emergency Dispatch Fee that is assessed on all phones in the City. Recent
court rulings have removed some of the legal obstacles so that this option can again be
considered. Staff has not yet looked at this alternative in depth, due to the prior pending
court cases, but other cities' research suggests that a relatively modest monthly fee ($1-2 per
phone line per month) could generate $500,000 - $1,.0 million annually to offset the cost of
the City's 911 Communications Center.
9. Consider service sharing with surrounding communities. Other cities have found the most
savings in consolidating fire stations with adjoining cities.
10. Consider a modest stormwater fee for 2007 -08 to raise approximately $300,000. Such a fee
would require a public vote. Under Proposition 218, a stormwater fee may be funded either
as a property related fee or a special assessment. If it is considered a property related fee,
then it must be approved by a majority of the property owners to which would be levied the
fee, or, alternatively by 2/3 of registered voters. A special assessment also requires a
majority approval of property owners affected.
11. consid.er a downtown Business Improvement District to pay for some of the downtown
maintenance costs.
12. Drawing down on reserves. Staff does not recommend using reserves to fund ongoing
programs, but reserves can be used to fund capital priorities, to fund one time needs, or to
cushion a multi-year budget reduction plan.
Longer Term Financial Outlook
Staff has updated the scenarios presented to the Council last year, which continue to show a
structural operating budget deficit.
A summary of the findings is as follows. The objective is not to accurately predict specific
outcomes, but instead to point to trends, and the relative impact of alternative courses of action. The
scenarios below suggest that wage freezes and/or other methods of holding down employee costs
have more dramatic impacts on the City's longer term fiscal health than revenue increases, unless
almost all possible positive revenue scenarios go in the City's favor.
· If a status quo budget occurs, i.e., wages and benefits continue their growth trends of the
recent past, we will have a deficit of $2.6 million in 5 years (Table 1). IfRDA subsidies are
reduced. by $1.0 million, the deficit reaches $3.6 million by year 5 (Table II). While
projections can never be reliable, what is of concern is that revenues do not keep up with
employee costs. Ongoing deficits and corrections will occur to the extent this imbalance
persists.
· Even if the two potential big box retailers' development projects are approved, reducing the
RDA subsidy by $1.0 million will still result in a $2.7 million deficit by year five (Table III).
Staff Report
Subject: General Fund Ten- Year Financial Outlook
Page 6 of 6
. The most optimistic of the revenue growth options, two big boxes plus a stronger annual
growth in annual sales and hotel tax (TOT) revenue plus the addition of a large, business
class hotel still results in a $.8 million deficit in year 5 (Table IV).
. Holding down employee costs has a more pronounced impact on the ongoing deficit.
A one year wage freeze would generate approximately $2.0 million in savings, as stated
before,
With the two potential big boxes, a one-year wage freeze results in a $.6 million deficit in
year five, even when reducing the RDA subsidy by $1.0 million (Table V), while extending a
wage freeze to two years results in a $1.4 million surplus (Table VI).
In discussions with the Budget Subcommittee recently (Mayor Fernekes and councilmember
Matsumoto), there was concern expressed about only staying with a "status quo" level of services.
Both mentioned that current levels of street and park maintenance, for example, are not desirable for
the future, and that in addition to budget strategies to realign revenues and expenditures over the next
five years, additional reprioritization of existing service levels should be done.
CONCLUSION:
Additional discussion and consideration of budget alternatives is needed for the 2-5 year time
horizon. Staff expects that with initial feedback from Council, some of the strategies discussed in
this staff report, and/or others from the Council, can be studied in more depth over the coming
months. Staff also expects that the work needed to bring the budget into balance over the longer
term will be an iterative process.
BY:~
~~
Finance Director
AP~ved:~~ I. ~.
a . agel
City Manager
Attachments:: General Fund Summary and Reserves Projection for 2006-07
Ten year Financial Forecasts Under Differing Assumptions
JSIBN:ed
Attachment A
As of 4/12/06
Projected General Fund Budget,
2006-07
Year-End Adopted Amended Projected
Actual Budget Budget Actual
2004-05 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06
Revenues and Other
Financing Sources
Property Taxes 11,076,530 11,538,588 11,326,042 11,449,639
ERAF One Time Refund from
County 1,337,037 650,000 1,521,298 1,521,298
Sales Tax 10,975,749 11,525,384 11,614,273 12,374,645
Transient Occupancy Tax 4,518,293 4,800,000 5,150,000 5,300,000
Motor Vehicle In Lieu Fees 2,977,292 2,735,600 4,433,834 4,433,834
Revenue from Other Agencies 1,212,142 1,238,536 1,228,731 1,220,536
Franchise Fees 2,710,213 2,850,000 2,850,000 2,800,000
Business License 1,771,282 1,665,000 1,760,000 1,760,000
Building and Fire Permits 2,479,694 2,750,000 2,925,000 2,950,000
Charges for Services 4,970,407 5,456,900 5,340,500 5,340,500
Fines 971,050 1,083,000 1,090,000 915,000
Interest 433,264 476,000 525,000 525,000
Net Change Investment Value -5,750 0 0 0
Rent 2,485,932 2,450,000 2,500,000 2,510,000
Administrative Charges 2,133,950 1,986,774 1,986,774 1,986,774
Other 688,986 590,981 620,981 644,004
Transfers In 2,837,897 2,123,500 2,285,921 2,285,921
Total Revenues: 53,573,969 53,920,263 57,158,354 58,017,15H '1)IIM.lMfil'lt19,9~11.~'
Plus Prior Year Carryovers 371,816 371,816
Total Revenues and Other
Financing Sources $ 53,573,969 $ 53,920,263 $ 57,530,170 $ 58,388,967
Expenditures
Employee Services 38,331,607 42,024,201 42,184,126 42,184,126
Non Salaries 14,438,930 12,231,812 12,729,526 12,679,526
Subtotal, Operating
Budget Expenditures 52,770,537 54,256,013 54,913,651 54,863,651
Net Operating Budget Impact $ 803,432 $ (335,750) $ 2,616,519 $ 3,525,315
Attachment B
Total General Fund Operating and Capital Budget,
& Projected Changes to General Fund Reserves
Projected Budget, 2006-07
Net Operating Budget Impact (from Table I)
Adopted Amended Proiected Proiected
Year End Budget Budget Budget Budget
2004-05 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06 2006-07
803,432 (3~15,750) 2,616,519 3,525,315 $ 109,807
(338,493) (82,000) (803,330) (803,330) (1,110,000)
(136,154) (1::10,000) (130,000) (130,000) (130,000)
$ 328,785 $ (547,750) $ 1,683,189 $ 2,591,985 $ (1,130,193)
Less Transfers to Capital Projects:
Less Transfers to Debt Service
Net Impact on General Fund Reserves
IGeneral Fund Reserves Projection
I. Discretionary Reserlfes!
Liquid Reserves Available
Emergencies
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
1,200,000
1,153,000
Economic Contingencie:;
3,500,000
3,800,000
3,800,000
4,061 ,000
4,037,000
Designated for future Economic Development and Capital
Projects
3,600,000
3,600,000
3,600,000
4,620,000
3,620,000
Undesignated Reserve
4, 125,250 ~13,030
5,460,822
5,701,765
5,642,571
II. Non-Discretionary Reserves!
Reserves Already Committed
Encumbrances
381 ,400
371,816
Advances to Other Funds
Inventory and Other
40,300
910,000
90,000
40,000
40,000
Appropriated Capital Projects
283,830
291,330
Total General Fund Reserves
$ 13,030,780 $ 12,483,030 $ 14,713,968 $ 15,622,765
14,492,571
2016
76,596
85,067
2015
7A 101::
'"""T,Ic...v
81,372
2014
71,747
77,936
2013
69,454
74,640
2012
67,248
71,312
2011
f;C; 1?O
........., .-....
67,755
2010
63,068
64,289
Table
City of South San Francisco
10 Year Projection, Operating Budget
2007 2008 ,. 2009
57,773 61,091
57,357 61,477
59.090
58,818
Revenues
Expenditures
(8.471 )
(7,247)
(6.189)
(5,186)
(4,064)
(2,635)
221)
(1
(386)
272
416
by Year 5
Deficit
Status Quo
(Year 5 = $2.6
million deficit)
~ Revenues
-M- Expenditures
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
I/)
(:)
o
o
.5
I/)
~
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ -~ -~ -~ -~ -~
~- ~- ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fiscal Year
Table I
City of South San Francisco
10 Year Projection, Operating Budget
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Revenues (;,7 77? 59,090 f>1 nQ1 63,068 65,120 67,248 69,454 71 7117 74,125 76,596
_, ,f'_ ..., .J""..... . .,. ..
Expenditures 57,357 58,818 61,477 64,289 68,755 72,361 75,740 79,090 82,582 86,336
Deficit by Year 5: 416 272 (386) (1,221 ) (3,635) (5,113) (6,286) (7,343) (8,457) (9,740)
Status Quo Less $1.0 million RDA Subsidy in
5 years
(Year 5 = $3.6 million deficit)
Ul $80,000
0
0 -
o $70,000 ~ Revenues
.5 __ Expenditures
.UI $60,000
0-
0-
0- $50,000
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ft,c;:)..... ft,c;:)..... ft,c;:)..... ft,c;:) , ~ ' ft,c;:) , ft,c;:) , rr,c;:) , rr,c;:) ,
Fiscal Year
2016
77,761
86,336
2015
75,251
82,582
2014
72,835
79,090
2013
70,506
75,740
2012
68,264
72,361
2011
66,101
68,755
2010
64,016
64,289
Table
City of South San Francisco
10 Year Projection, Operating Budget
2007 2008 2009
II
62,007
61,477
59,803
58,818
57,773
57,357
Revenues
Expenditures
(8.575)
(7,331 )
(6,255)
(5.234)
(4,097)
(2,654)
(273)
530
985
416
by Year 5:
Deficit
Status Quo Less RDA Subsidy,
wI Two Big Boxes
(Year 5 = $2.7 million deficit)
-+- Revenues
___ Expenditures
Ul $80,000
(:)
o
o $70,000
.5
_Ul $60,000
o
o
o $50,000
.....&- .....()'b .....()OJ ",,() ",," ",,<1- .....,,0;) .....,,1>< ,,"~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fiscal Year
Table IV
City of South San Francisco
10 Year Projection, Operating Budget
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Revenues 57,773 59,986 63,330 65,616 68,000 70,484 73,072 75,773 78,587 81,525
Expenditures 57,357 58,818 61,477 64,289 68,755 72,361 75,740 79,090 82,582 86,336
Deficit by Year 5: 416 1,168 1,853 1,327 (755) (1,877) (2,668) (3,317) (3,995) (4,811)
Most Optimistic Revenue:
Status Quo Less RDA Subsidy wI Two Big Boxes,
Major New Hotel, and More Optimistic Sales and TOT
Revenue Assumptions
(Year 5 = $.8 million deficit)
g $80,000_
o ..... . . .
o $70,000 ... ... .... ... .. . -+- Revenues
~ $60,000 ~.__ ..... . ". . ~ . . -+-Expenditures
: $50,000 .. .... . . ...
& ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fiscal Year
Table V
City of South San Francisco
10 Year Projection, Operating Budget
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Revenues 57,773 59,803 62,007 64,016 66,101 68,264 70,506 72,835 75,251 77,761
Expenditures 57,357 58,818 59,583 62,298 66,667 70,168 73,437 76,673 80,043 83,673
Deficit by Year 5: 416 985 2,424 1,718 (566) (1,904) (2,931 ) (3,838) (4,792) (5,912)
Status Quo Less RDA Subsidy,
wI Two Big Boxes & 1 Year Wage Freeze
(Year 5 = $.6 million deficit)
o $80,000
(:)
0 -
o $70,000 -+- Revenues
.5 -II- Expenditures
_0 $60,000
0
0
o $50,000
~~ r::.,fO _t:;)OJ ....() _........ _....1'], _....~ _....b< _,?;'
~. ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fiscal Year
2016
77,761
81,135
(3,374)
2015
75,251
77,626
2014
72,835
74,371
2013
70,506
71,244
2012
68,264
68,080
2011
66,101
64,676
2010
64,016
60,404
Table VI
City of South San Francisco
10 Year Projection, Operating Budget
2007 2008 2009
62,007
59,583
59,803
58,818
57,773
57,357
Revenues
Expenditures
(2,375)
536)
-
(1
(738)
Status Quo Less RDA Subsidy,
wI Two Big Boxes & 2 Year Wage Freeze
(Year 5 = $1.4 million surplus)
184
1,425
3,612
2,424
985
416
by Year 5
Deficit
-+- Revenues
-II- Expenditures
III $80,000
o
o
o $70,000
.5
_III $60,000
0-
0-
0- $50,000
,,~
...S'
"b<
...S'
~Oj ,,() ,," "fJ... "O:!
.55 ~ ""<:) ""() ...S'
Fiscal Year
s- ~'b
.55 .-;,,(5
Procedures for Making Appointments and Reappointments
Any person desiring to be considered for an appointment to any city board or commission must
complete an application indicating on which board or commission he or she desires to serve.
Applications may be made on an on-going basis. Applications are considered current for one
year from the date received. The process for selection of commissioners is set forth in Appendix
9.
Any appointees must comply with appropriate provisions of law regarding disclosure of fmancial
interests, if applicable. It is the policy of the City Council not to appoint any person to a board or
commission who would have continually recurring conflicts of interest requiring abstentions, or
an excessively high percentage of such situations.
Appointments are for a single term. At the conclusion of this term, after consideration of the
member's record (including attendance), an individual may be reappointed for a second term..
Vacancies in any board or commission are filled by appointment in the same manner as original
appointment. 'When a vacancy occurs leaving an unexpired portion of the term, any appointment
is for the unexpired portion of the term.. The Council may remove a commissioner and declare
the position vacant if the commissioner misses three consecutive regular meetings or more than
one-third of the regular meetings within any twelve month period, or is removed by majority vote
of the council.
Government Code Section 54974 provides that whenever an unscheduled vacancy occurs, a
special vacancy notice shall be posted within twenty (20) days after the vacancy occurs and that
final appointment to fill such vacancy shall not be made for at least ten (10) working days after
such posting. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54927 the City Clerk maintains a list of all
board and commission members.
COUNCIL POLICY ON EXPRESSION OF CITY OR COUNCIL POSITIONS
Individual City councilmembers are not authorized to speak on behalf of the City or the Council
with regard to city or council policy or positions, except when such policy or position has been
clearly established or when the councilmember has been designated as a spokesperson on a given
subject.
Periodically the City Council is requested to formally support or oppose state or federal
legislation. In considering whether or not to take such action, it is Council policy to determine
first if the legislation involves matters pertaining directly to the City of South San Francisco or
its residents as a whole. If the subject matter does not relatf~ directly to city business or to local
citizens, then the Council declines to take a position. If the legislation could be expected to
affect the city or its citizens, then the Council may elect to take a position.
270f28
SP. AGENDA ITEM #7
City of South San Francisco
Inter-Office Memorandum
DATE: April 7, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: City Clerk ~
SUBJECT: BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS ATTENDANCE REPORT FOR
1 st Quarter 2006
Attached is the Board and Commission Members Attendance Report for the first quarter of 2006
and includes a breakdown for a rolling year.
If you should have any questions please give me a call.
Attachments
cc: City Manager
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS 2005-2006 ATTENDANCE REPORT
FOR A TWELVE MONTH ROLLING PERIOD ]'1 Quarter- 2006
Conference Center Authority
*Met twice in June (6/16 & 6/27)
Members
DaCunha
Dwaretzky
Femekes
Herbert
Gonzalez
Metz
Noftsger
Ortiz
Rosaia
A
pr May Jun* Jul Aug Sep Oct Nav Dee Jan Feb Mar J" Qtr YTD
'06 2006
P PIP P P P P 0 0
-- ----p
P PIP P P P 0 0
--
P OIJ PIP A OIJ P OIJ OIJ P CJJ P CJJ 0 1
-- .S .S oS .S '---p .5 f-- r:::
P PIP P P A .... 1 1
~ ~ ~ ~ ..... .....
-- -- ~ rp- ~
.. (1) - .. (1) .. '(1) .. ~ ~ 0 0
-- S S S S ----p S I-- S
P 0 PIP P 0 P .,0 0 0 P 0 0 0
-- Z Z Z Z ----p Z f-- Z
P PIA P A P 0 2
-- -1\
.. .. P P P 0 1
-- op-
P PIP P A P 0 1
Cultural Arts Commission
Members
Burgess
Dimminger
Donati
Fourie
Gonzalez
Ige
Nichols
Nisperos
Violanti
Wendler
.pr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nav Dee Jan Feb Mar J" Qtr YTD
'06 2006
P P P P P P P P P P 0 0
P P P P P P P P P P 0 0
"Ci -0
P P P A ~ P P P ~ P A P 1 2
P P A P ~ P P P ~ P P P 0 1
(.) (.)
p P P A ~ P P P ~ P P P 0 1
ro ro
(.) (.)
P P P A OIJ P P P OJ) P P P 0 1
P P A P oS P P P .S P A P 1 2
~ .....
(1)
p P P P (1) P P P (!) P P P 0 0
::;s ::;s
P P P P A P P P P P 0 1
P P P P P P P A P P 1 1
A
Historic Preservation Commission
Members A
Acosta
D' Angelo
Iskra
Kon
Vieira
Housin2 Authori!y
Members A
Britt I
Lineberger I
Patrick I
Reardon I
Salogga I
Stampfer P
vacant
pr
May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nav Dee Jan Feb Mar 1" Qtr YTD
'06 2006
P P P P P 0 0
01)"0 P 01)"0 P 01)"0 P OIJ P CJJ"O P CJJ'1::l 0 0
r::2 r::2 r::2 .S r:::..2: =..2:
",p ~ ",p Q) 0'" _ ~Q) ~Q)
A P ..... (1) A .... P P 0 2
<l) <..> (1) (.) (1) U (1) ~ " ~ "
(1) r:: (1) r::: (1) r:: (1) ~ r::: ~ =
~ c<:l P ~ ro P ~ ro P ::;s P ~ ~ P ~ ~ 0 0
U U U U U
P P A A P 0 2
P
P
P
P
P
pr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nav Dee Jan Feb Mar }" Qtr YTD
'06 2006
) P P P A P P P P P P P 0 1
) P P P P P P P A P P A I 2
) P P P P P P P P P P P 0 0
) P P P P P A P P P P P 0 1
) A P P P P A P P P P P 0 2
A P P P P P P P P A P I 2
Library Board
Members Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Noy Dec Jan Feb Mar 1" Qtr YTD
'06 2006
Baldocchi P P P P P P P P P P P 0 0
Battaglia P P A P P A P P 0/)"0 P P P 0 2
c:~
Boldenweck P P A P P P P P oz '";jj A P P I 2
" <.)
" c:
Breite A P P P P P P P ~ ~ P P P 0 I
Hansen P P P P P P P P P P P 0 0
Parkin2 Place Commission
Faria
Irli
Luster
.
v
~
pr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Noy Dec Jan Feb Mar 1" Qtr YTD
y '06 2006
-p] P P ,,>" A P ~] P ~] P ..,'0 P 0 I
5~ f---- ~ c~
:"8 p p P A .~ "E ~ ".;::-u P ''::: Cj P 0 1
~ ~ lj u " u
~ ~ ~ :; !3 " c
:E u - :E e
'U p P P P P P P 0 0
Members A
Parks and Recreation Commission
Members Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Noy Dec Jan Feb Mar ]" Qtr YTD
-- '06 2006
Bush P P A P "0 P P P P P P 0 1
Gonzalez A P P A ~ P P ] P P A P I 3
Q) "i)
Greenwald P P P A u P A () P P P P 0 2
~ c
o:l
Le P P P P u P P () P P P P 0 0
OJ) OJ)
Levene P P P P .s P P c P P P P 0 0
.... .~
Nelson P P P P CI) P P P P P P 0 0
CI) ~
Tauilloepeau A P P P :;E P P P P P P 0 I
Personnel Board
Members Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Noy Dec Jan Feb Mar 1" Qtr YTD
. '06 2006
Bernardo P P P P P A A P P P P 0 2
Bertolozzi P P P P A P P P P P P efI"O 0 1
.5 ~
Elliott P P P P P P P P A P P .... Q,j 0 I
Q,j CJ
Irli P P P P P P P P P P P CI) = 0 0
:;g ~
CJ
Taormina P P P P P P P P P P P 0 0
Plannin2 Commission
Members Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nay Dec Jan Feb Mar 1" Qtr YTD
'06 2006
Giusti PiC PiP CiP CIA CIP CIP PIP PIP PIP C/P PIP PIP 0 1
Honan PiC PIP C/P C/P CIA C/P PIP PIP PIP C/P PIP PIP 0 1
Prouty PiC PIA C/P C/P C/P CIP PIP PIA PIP C/P PIP PIP 0 2
Romero PiC PIP C/P C/P C/P C/P AlP PIP PIP C/P PIP PIP 0 1
Sim PiC PIA C/P C/P C/P CIP PIP AlP I PIP C/P PIP PIP 0 2
Teglia PiC AlA C/P C/P C/P C/P PIP PIP PIP C/P PIA AlP 2 4
Zemke PiC AlP C/P C/P C/P C/P PIP PIP PIP C/P PIP PIP 0 1
Mosquito Abatement District
Member Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Noy Dec Jan Feb Mar 1" Qtr YTD
'06 2006
Honan p p p p C p P A C P P P 0 1
A Absent
C Meeting Cancelled
P Present