HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/30/92y�. ei-76— )
AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARING - HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, June 30, 1992 - Council Chambers, City Hall
7:30 p.m.
,,MAYOR
l5J Robert Essertier
MAYOR PRO TEM
Albert Wiemans ✓
COUNCILMEMBERS
b Robert Benz ✓
Sam Y. Edgerton
Kathleen Midstokke
All Council meetings are open
CITY CLERK
Elaine Doerfling
CITY TREASURER
Gary L. Brutsch
CITY MANAGER
Frederick R. Ferrin
CITY ATTORNEY
Charles S. Vose
to the public. PLEASE ATTEND.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
1. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION REGARDING SPECIAL ELECTION TO
BE HELD NOVEMBER 3, 1992. Memorandum from City Clerk
Elaine Doerfling dated June 25, 1992. 5559 --SS,y
2. RESOLUTION ON PROP A EXCHANGE, INFORMATION ON PROP C
USES. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael
Schubach dated June 24, 1992. _55C.5
3. CONSIDERATION OF FY 92-93 - FY 96-97 FIVE YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PRELIMINARY BUDGET.
4. OVERVIEW OF ADJUSTMENTS TO PRELIMINARY 1992-93 BUDGET.
5. SUBMISSION OF ANSWERS TO REMAINING QUESTIONS FROM JUNE
8, 1992 WORKSHOP
6. ADOPTION OF 1992-93 BUDGET RESOLUTION.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Citizens wishing to address the Council within the Coun-
cil's jurisdiction may do so at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
June 25, 1992
City Council Meeting
June 30, 1992
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
RESCIND PRIOR ACTION AND ADOPT CERTAIN OTHER RESOLUTIONS
NECESSARY FOR A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE CONSOLIDATED
WITH THE NOVEMBER 3, 1992 GENERAL ELECTION
Pursuant to Council direction, the following resolutions are
presented for adoption:
1. RESOLUTION NO. 92-.5559
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 92-5547,
92-5548, 92-5549, 92-5550, 92-5551 AND 92-5552 WITH REGARD TO
THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON SEPTEMBER 15,
1992
2. RESOLUTION NO. 92-.S56E)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING
OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1992, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS
OF A PETITION INITIATIVE MEASURE RELATING TO OPEN SPACE ON
THE BILTMORE SITE
3. RESOLUTION NO. 92-.55e0/
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD. OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3,
1992, WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE
PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTION CODE, FOR THE
SUBMITTAL OF A CERTAIN MEASURE TO THE ELECTORATE
4. RESOLUTION NO. 92- S.s(o-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE SUBMITTED AT THE
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 1992
5. RESOLUTION NO. 92556
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL
ARGUMENTS FOR A CITY MEASURE SUBMITTED AT THE SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1992
6. RESOLUTION NO. 92- 550
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY
THE CITY CLERK FOR THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER
3, 1992
Background
At its meeting of June 23, 1992, Council reconsidered its prior
action calling for a special election to be held September 15,
1992 for the submission to the voters of a petition initiative
measure relating to open space on the Biltmore Site; directed the
City Clerk to prepare a resolution rescinding all previously
approved resolutions related to the September 15 election and to
prepare all resolutions necessary for a consolidated election on
November 3, 1992; and continued the matter to its special meeting
of June 30 for final action.
The basis for Council's decision to change the election date was
the verbal opinion obtained from the Secretary of State's office
indicating that "there was sufficient legal authority for the
City Council to consider consolidating the Special Election with
the State General Election" (quote from the City Attorney's June
18 memorandum). This opinion was obtained during a conference
call between the City Attorney, Councilmember Edgerton, and
Oliver Cox of the Secretary of State's office, pursuant to
Council direction at the June 9 meeting.
As Council is aware, this opinion conflicts with the earlier
opinions obtained by the City Clerk from the City Attorney and
the election consultant, and the opinions previously obtained
from the Secretary of State's office by both the City Clerk and
the City Attorney (during independent research on the issue).
While these opinions were also verbal, they were consistent.
Elaine Doerfling
Cit
Clerk
1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 92-5547, 92-5548, 92-5549,
3 92-5550, 92-5551 AND 92-5552 WITH REGARD TO THE CONDUCT OF A
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1992
4
5
6
7'
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1992, Council adopted a series of
resolutions necessary for the holding of a Special Municipal
Election on September 15, 1992, for the purpose of submitting to
the voters a Petition Initiative Measure relating to Open Space
on the Biltmore Site; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 1992, the City Council reconsidered the
date of the election and directed the preparation of appropriate
documents to rescind its previous action and instead call for a
Special Municipal Election to be consolidated with the November
3, 1992 General Election, for the purpose of submitting to the
voters the above -noted measure.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council does hereby rescind
Resolution No. 92-5547 (calling and giving notice of the
election), Resolution No. 92-5548 (requesting specified services
from the County), Resolution No. 92-5549 (directing the City
Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis), Resolution No.
92-5550 (providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments),
Resolution No. 92-5551 (ordering the canvass of the election to
be made by the City Clerk), and Resolution No. 92-5552 (fixing
the City Clerk's compensation for the election).
- 1 -
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk sha3._ certify to the pasage
and adoption of this resolution and entar it into the book of
original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of June, 1992.
PRESIDENT of the City Council, and
MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
- 2 -
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 92-5547, 92-5548, 92-5549,
3 92-5550, 92-5551 AND 92-5552 WITH REGARD TO THE CONDUCT OF A
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1992
4
5 WHEREAS, on June 9, 1992, Council adopted a series of
6 resolutions necessary for the holding of a Special Municipal
7 Election on September 15, 1992, for the purpose of submitting to
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the voters a Petition Initiative Measure relating to Open Space
on the Biltmore Site; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 1992, the City Council reconsidered the
date of the election and directed the preparation of appropriate
documents to rescind its previous action and instead call for a
Special Municipal Election to be consolidated with the November
3, 1992 General Election, for the purpose of submitting to the
voters the above -noted measure.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council does hereby rescind
Resolution No. 92-5547 (calling and giving notice of the
election), Resolution No. 92-5548 (requesting specified services
from the County), Resolution No. 92-5549 (directing the City
Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis), Resolution No.
92-5550 (providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments),
Resolution No. 92-5551 (ordering the canvass of the election to
be made by the City Clerk), and Resolution No. 92-5552 (fixing
the City Clerk's compensation for the election).
6
3
4
r
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shawl certify to the pa'ssage
and adoption of this resolution and eri1ar it into the book of
original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of June, 1992.
PRESIDENT of the City Council, and
MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 92—
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
3 CALIFORNIA_, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER
4 3, 1992, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS OF A PETITION
INITIATIVE MEASURE RELATING TO OPEN SPACE ON THE BILTMORE SITE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-:-WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general
law cities in the State of California, a Special Municipal
Election shall be held on November 3, 1992, for the purpose of
submitting to the voters a Petition Initiative Measure relating
to Open Space on the Biltmore Site.
WHEREAS, the City Council of said City is thereupon
authorized and directed by statute to submit the proposed measure
to the qualified voters.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE,
DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of
the State of California relating to general law cities within
said State, there is hereby called and ordered to be held, in the
City of Hermosa Beach, California, on Tuesday, November 3, 1992,
a Special Municipal Election for the purpose of submitting the
following Petition initiative measure regarding Open Space on the
Biltmore Site.
SECTION 2. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and
authority, does order submitted to the voters at the Special
Municipal Election the following question:
//
//
REZONING THE BILTMORE SITE AS OPEN SPAC'EJPUBLIC PARR
1 Shall the Petition Initiative Ordinanxe which designates the
Biltmore Site as Open Space O -S-2 for preservation and use s a
2 public park be adopted?
3 YES NO
4
SECTION 3. That the proposed ordinance submitted to the
5 5
voters shall be as follows:
6
//
7
//
8
//
9
//
10
//
11 //
12 //
13 //
14 //
15 //
16 //
17 //
18 //
19 //
20 //
21 //-
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
9!A PETITION INITIATIVE ORDINANCE OF THE VITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, CREATING AND DESIGNATING THE "BILTMORE SITE" AS OPEN
31SPACE O -S-2, TO ENSURE ITS PRESERVATION AND USE AS A PUBLIC PARK.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach find and declare that
the City -owned Biltmore Site property shall be saved from
commercial and residential development, because of existing
problems of parking, density, congestion, traffic, and air and
noise pollution from traffic in the immediate area and elsewhere
in Hermosa Beach.
WHEREAS, steps have to be taken to improve our quality of
life, our environment, and to help save our earth. Therefore,
the Biltmore Site shall be landscaped, and maintained as a 100%
Open Space Oceanfront Strand Public Park with grass, trees, and
flowers for present and future generations to enjoy.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City -owned property commonly known as
the Biltmore Site (hereinafter referred to as "Biltmore Site")
shall be landscaped, and maintained as a 100% Open Space O -S-2,
Oceanfront Strand Public Park, with grass, trees, and flowers for
present and future generations to enjoy.
SECTION 2. That the Municipal Zoning Code of the City of
Hermosa Beach (the "Code") is hereby amended to add a new zone
designated as O -S-2, Restricted Open Space, as follows:
"Intent and Purpose.
The O -S-2 Zone is intended to restrict further the use of
certain designated open space to assure permanent open space for
- 3 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
public park purposes.
Permitted Uses.
A Public Park -- with landscaping, beautification, grass,
trees, flowers, plants and other uses if specifically
authorized as a permitted improvement herein.
Permitted Improvements.
Improvements in the O -S-2 Zone shall be as follows:
(a) Only non -building public improvements relating to
landscaping, beautification grass, trees, flowers,
plants, soil, unobtrusive park lighting, some benches to
view the ocean, existing public utilities, one flag pole
for our American Flag, and erosion and irrigation
improvements to assure permanent open space for park
purposes shall be permitted.
(b) No buildings, malls, plazas, or structures temporary
or permanent in nature -- shall be built, developed,
constructed or erected on the Biltmore Site.
(c) Softscape shall include grass, trees, plants, soil,
flowers, and shall be artistically designed to cover all
of the Biltmore Site.
(d) The use and improvements to the park areto ensure a
natural, peaceful, serene and safe environment to
improve and enhance the quality of life in Hermosa
Beach."
SECTION 3. Ordinance No. 91-1062 is hereby repealed and the
Land Use Element of the Hermosa Beach General Plan and the
official zoning map are modified by reclassifying and rezoning
certain property commonly known as the Biltmore Site.
2
3
Two.
SECTION 4. The Biltmore Site is herby reclassified ash -S-2
Open Space Two under the Land Use Element of the General "man
(hereinafter the "General Plan") and rezoned as O -S-2 Open Space
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
- 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 5. For the purposes of this ordinance and the
rezoning reclassification of the subject property, the Biltmore
Site is defined as follows:
(a) The Biltmore Site consists of that certain property
identified as Lots #1 through 9, inclusive, Lots 19, 20,
and 32 all in Block 15 of the Hermosa Beach Tract in the
City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of
California, as per map recorded in Book 1, pages 25, 26
of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said
county, together with all of the vacated portion of
Beach Drive and 15th Court adjacent to the above noted
`lots.
SECTION 6. The City shall seek necessary approvals from the
California Coastal Commission for the amendments made by this
ordinance and take all further actions necessary to implement and
enforce the terms and intent of this ordinance.
SECTION 7. If any section or sub -section of this ordinance
is for any reason held invalid or unenforceable, such holding
shall not affect in any respect the validity of the remaining
portions of this ordinance or any such part thereof.
SECTION 8. There shall be no modifications, amendment, or
repeal of any provision of this ordinance without a vote of the
people.
SECTION 9. Any ordinance which is adopted concurrently with
- 5 -
//
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
this ordinance which receives less votss"and is in conflictwith
any provisions herein shall be repealed im its entirety and Jae of
no force and effect.
SECTION 10. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner
prescribed by law.
SECTION 11. This ordinance shall only take effect if it
receives a majority vote of the people.
SECTION 12. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted
as required by law.
SECTION 13. Funding for the improvements, landscaping and
maintenance of the Park shall come from the following source
(a) Parks and Recreation monies.
SECTION 14. Additional funding for the improvements,
landscaping and maintenance of the Park may come from the
following sources:
(a) Private donations -- money, trees, flowers, soil, grass,
etc.
(b) Volunteers to help landscape the Biltmore Site by
planting grass, flowers and trees, etc.
(c) Fundraisers and other sources should they become
available.
SECTION 15. The Biltmore Site is not to be sold, leased, nor
consolidated with other land, or lands, without a vote of the
people.
SECTION 4. That the ballots to be used at the election:ahall
1'
be in form and content as required by law_
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and
directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots,
notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and
paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and
lawfully conduct the election.
7
SECTION 6. That the polls for the election shall be open at
8
seven o'clock a.m. of the day of the election and shall remain
9
open continuously from that time until eight o'clock p.m. of the
10
same day when the polls shall be closed, except as provided in
11
Section 14301 of the Elections Code of the State of California.
12
SECTION 7. That in all particulars not recited in this
13
resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided
14
by law for holding municipal elections in said City.
15
SECTION 8. That notice of the time and place of holding the
16 election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed
17 and directed to give further or additional notice of the
18 election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
19
SECTION 9. That the City Clerk shall certify -to the passage
20
and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of
21 original Resolutions.
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27
23
2
3
4
5
6
- 7 -
13
12
31�
4!�
5'
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 0!TH DAY OF JUNE, 199
ATTEST:
PRESIDENT of the City Council, and
MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
-8-
1 RESOLUTION NO. 9'A--
9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 'C:3TY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
3 LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID
CITY TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1992, WITH THE GENERAL
4 ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE
ELECTION CODE, FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF A CERTAIN MEASURE TO THE
5 ELECTORATE.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach
called a Special Municipal Election in said City to be held on
November 3, 1992 for the purpose of submitting to the voters of
said City the following measure: Petition Initiative Measure
relating to Open Space on the Biltmore Site; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that said Special Municipal
Election be consolidated with the General Election to be held on
the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling
places and election officers of the two elections be the same;
and that the Registrar of the County of Los Angeles canvass the
returns of the Special Municipal Election; and that said Special
Municipal Election be held in all respects as if there were only
one election;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of Section
23302 of the Election Code, the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Los Angeles is hereby requested to consent and agree to
the consolidation of a Special Municipal Election with the
//
//
//
'General Election on Tuesday, November 3,,,1992 for the purpce of
;submitting to the electors of the City of Hermosa Beach a meatsure
,to appear on the ballot as follows:
3
4
REZONING THE BILTMORE SITE AS OPEN SPACE/PUBLIC PARK
5 Shall the Petition Initiative Ordinance which designates the
Biltmore Site as Open Space O -S-2 for preservation and use as a
6 public park be adopted?
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
YES NO
SECTION 2. That said Registrar is hereby authorized to
canvass the returns of said Special Municipal Election which it
is hereby requested to consolidate with said General Election.
Said elections shall be held in all respects as if it were only
one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used.
SECTION 3. That said Board of Supervisors is hereby
requested to issue instructions to the Los Angeles County
Registrar to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of
said consolidated election.
SECTION 4. That the City of Hermosa Beach recognizes that
additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this
consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for such costs.
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa
Beach is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this
resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of the
County of Los Angeles.
//
//
//
- 2 -
SECTION 6. That the City Clete shall certify to the
passage and adoption of this Resolutiond enter it into the
book of original Resolutions of said City.
3
4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 30th day of June, 1992.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRESIDENT of the City Council and
MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
1
9
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C2TY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
3 CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL
ANALYSIS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE SUBMITTED AT THE SPECIAL
4 MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 1992
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election is to be held in the
City of Hermosa Beach, California, on Tuesday, November 3, 1992,
at which there will be submitted to the voters the following
measure:
REZONING THE BILTMORE SITE AS OPEN SPACE/PUBLIC PARK
Shall the Petition Initiative Ordinance which designates the
Biltmore Site as Open Space O -S-2 for preservation and use as a
public park be adopted?
YES NO
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to
transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney. The City
Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure
showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the
operation of the measure. The impartial analysis shall be filed
by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary
arguments.
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage
and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of
original resolutions.
//
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ori thies .J 0th day of June, 16.92 .
PRESIDENT of the City Council and
MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
- 2 -
/f
1
9
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HER_OSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR A
CITY MEASURE SUBMITTED AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE
HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1992
WHEREAS, Section 4015.5 and 5014.5 of the Elections Code
of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by
majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of
rebuttal arguments for City Measures submitted at municipal
elections;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sections 4015.5 and 5014.5
of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the clerk
has selected the arguments for and against the measure which will
be printed and distributed to the voters, the clerk shall send
copies of the argument in favor of the measure to the authors of
the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the
authors of the argument in favor. The authors flay prepare and
submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal
arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not more than ten
(10) days after the final date for filing direct arguments.
Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the
direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately
follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut.
SECTION 2. That all previous resolutions providing for
the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures are repealed.
SECTION 3. That the provisionspf Section 1 shall pply
only to the election to be held on November 3, 1992, and shall
2
then be repealed.
3
SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the
4
passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the
5
book of original Resolutions.
6
7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 30th day of June, 1992.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRESIDENT of the City Council and
MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO..10-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THEtEITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE COMPENSATION TO HE RECEIVED BY THE CITY
CLERK FOR THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 3, 1992
WHEREAS, the matter of the Special Municipal Election of
November 3, 1992, as it relates to additional duties and staffing
was reviewed by the City Council on June 30, 1992.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to Ordinance No. 78-603 of the City
of Hermosa Beach, adopted December 14, 1978, the compensation of
the City Clerk shall be fixed by resolution of the City Council.
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall receive an additional
monthly salary of six hundred ninety-nine dollars and twenty-five
cents ($699.25) per month for the four-month election process,
commencing August 1, 1992, through November 30, 1992, payable
semi-monthly at the same time and in the same manner as the
salaries paid to each of the officers and employees of the City.
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage
and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of
original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of June, 1992.
PRESIDENT of the City Council, and
MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
ZL
Jae 24, 1992
Honorable Mayor and Members of Special Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council June 30, 1992
SUBJECT: PROPOSITION A FUNDS EXCHANGE AND PROPOSITION C FYI
INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL
PURPOSE: TO IMPLEMENT PART OF THE 1992-93 BUDGET PROGRAM
Recommendation
To adopt the attached resolution approving the exchange of
Proposition A funds.
Background
Staff was directed to process a Proposition A Fund exchange with
West Hollywood at the June 18, 1992 budget meeting.
Analysis
Proposition A Funds
The City of West Hollywood has over a million dollars worth of
committed projects and is interested in exchanging $200,000.
Staff negotiated the price at 53 cents on the dollar which will
provide $106,000 to our general fund.
It should be noted that the City of West Hollywood has not
officially approved buying the Proposition A funds. This matter
will be placed on their City Council's agenda in the near future.
Proposition C Funds
Staff attended an informational meeting regarding the allocation
and use of Prop. C funds. The following was learned:
1. Prop. C funds can be used for development, improvements, and
maintenance of streets and highways utilized by public
transit vehicles. Thus, Hermosa Avenue may be repaved with
the use of these funds if Los Angeles County Transportation
Commission (LACTC) determines that Hermosa Avenue is utilized
to an acceptable degree by public transit vehicles (buses);
acceptable degree, as of yet, is not specified.
2. An initial amount of $143,489 will be allocated to the City,
and a monthly allotment of an unspecified amount will occur
starting in July, 1992. The overall total for '92-'93 is
conservatively estimated at $250,000.
3. Prop. C funding will require a 3 year program submittal, but
initially single projects can be submitted for funding.
4. Prop. C funds cannot be exchanged.
5. Prop. C funds can be used for the same projects as Prop. A
funds.
Attachments
1. Resolution of Approval
2. Proposition A Assignment Agreement
CONCUR:
R spectfully su mitte
// -(:-// L -Z1
Michael Schubach
Frederick R. Ferrin Planning Director
City Manager
NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT:
Viki Copeland
Finance Director
p/ccsrprop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $200,000 IN PROPOSITION A
TRANSIT FUNDS IN EXCHANGE FOR $106,000 IN GENERAL FUNDS FROM THE CITY
OF WEST HOLLYWOOD.
WHEREAS, the City has financed all of its current transit programs for the fiscal year 1992-
1993 and made the following findings:
A. The surplus funds to be transferred will be lost if not utilized within the allocated time.
B. The City of West Hollywood has agreed to exchange $106,000 in General funds for
$200,000 in Proposition A Transit funds from the City of Hermosa Beach.
C. The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission has granted permission for the
exchange of funds;
D. The proposed budget for 1992-1993 will not be in balance if this exchange is not
consummated;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California:
1. The City Manager is authorized to execute an agreement with the City of West Hollywood
for the exchange of Proposition A transit funds, amounting to exactly $200,000 for
$106,000 in General funds from the City of West Hollywood.
2. The City Manager of Hermosa Beach is authorized to execute and file any other document
required by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission.
3. The City Manager is authorized to furnish such additional information as the Los Angeles
Transportation Commission may require.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 30th day of June, 1992.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
23DEC3I 15:06 FROM 62047136 657005OD TO 2133726186
This FAX was sent by:
CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD
8611 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90069
1.1;.-1 AT&T EN_. 'L IUr;
a
Please deliver the following pages to: LINDSAY HIRSCH
Total number of pages, including cover sheet transmitted: 3
AGE
ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT
This Assignment Agreement is made and entered into this day
of , 1992, by and between the City of Hermosa
Beach, California and the City of West Hollywood, California
with respect to the following facts:
A. The City of West Hollywood proposes to provide a
community shuttle and taxi -jitney service to serve its
transportationally disabled population and the general
public. Given the grave traffic congestion and parking
problems of the City, West Hollywood is committed to reducing
auto dependency by providing alternative modes of
transportation. Adequate Proposition A Local Return funding
for such a service is not available given the limited amount
of West Hollywood's Local Return allocation and the needs of
other priority transit projects in the City.
B. Hermosa Beach has uncommitted funding authority for its
Fiscal Year allocation of Proposition A Local Return
funds which could be made available to West Hollywood to
assist in providing the services discussed in Paragraph A of
this Agreement. In exchange for the assignment. by West
Hollywood of the amount of its general funds indicated in
Section 1 below, Hermosa Beach is willing to assign
uncommitted Proposition A Local Return funding to West
Hollywood for the purpose identified in Paragraph A.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be
derived by the parties and of the premises herein contained,
it is mutually agreed as follows:
1. Exchange Hermosa Beach agrees to assign $200,000 of its
Fiscal Year Prop. A Local Return funding authority to
West Hollywood. In return, West Hollywood agrees to assign
$106,000 of its general funds to Hermosa Beach.
2. Consideration Hermosa Beach shall assign the agreed
upon Proposition A Local Return funds to West Hollywood in
one lump sum payment. West Hollywood shall assign the agreed
PAGE 2 OF 4
DEC % 3 191
II 230EC9I 15:06 FROM 6.2047.336 85700901] TO 21337E6186 U:-" AT&T Es 5' L I •JK PAGE 3 OF 4
upon general funds to Hermosa Beach, in one lump payment. The
lump sum payments shall be due and payable within ten (10)
days of approval by the Los Angeles County Transportation
Commission of the project described in Paragraph A. Before
the effective date of:this Agreement the Los Angeles County
Transportation C_onumission, shall approve West Hollywood's
project description covering the services discussed in
Paragraph A.
3. Term This Agreement is effective on the date above
written and., for' such. time as. is necessary for both parties to
complete their mutual obligations under this Agreement.
4. Termination Termination of this Agreement may be made
by either party before the date of approval of.the project
description covering the funds in question by the LACTC so
long as written notice of intent to terminate is given to the
other party at least five (5) days prior to the termination.
b. Notice Notices shall be given pursuant to this
Agreement by personal service on the party to be notified, or
by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of
the United States Postal Service addressed•as follows:
a.
City of Hermosa Beach
Hermosa Beach, CA •
b. Paul Brotzman, City Manager
,'City of West Hollywood
8611 Santa Monica Blvd.
West Hollywood, CA 90069
6. •Assurances
A. West Hollywood shall use the assigned Prop. A Local
Return funds'only for the. purpose of providing the services
discussed in Paragraph A of this Agreement and within the
time limits. specified in LACTC's Proposition A Local Return
Program Guidelines. •
B.Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement,
West Hollywood shall provide LACTC with the Standard
Assurances and Understandings Regarding Receipt and Use of
Proposition A funds specified in the Guidelines regarding the
use of the assigned Prop. A Local Return funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Assignment Agreement to be executed by their respective
officers, duly authorized, on the day and year above
written.
•
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM
June 25, 1992
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Viki Copeland, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Adjustments to 1992-93 Preliminary Budget
Attached is a table summarizing adjustments made to the budget
subsequent to the first workshop on June 8, 1992.
Budget reductions and increased revenue presented at Workshop II
on June 18, 1992 resulted in the availability of approximately
$67,000. The pilot computer program was originally listed as a
reduction since deferral would save $47,000, however, it does not
show on the summary since it is budgeted for 91/92 and deferral
would not have reduced our 1992-93 budget deficit.
Page two of the table summarizes Council requested actions and
City Manager changes. The Business License Inspector is shown as
reinstated back to full time since a re-examination of the salary
decrease corresponding to a 32 hour week makes the voluntary
furlough unfeasible. Also, the Public Works Department
discovered that their reductions submitted after the first
workshop contained some incorrect assumptions. A memo is
attached which outlines the replacement reductions and increased
revenue; the result is an additional $1,436 available.
After City Council and City Manager adjustments, and the Public
Works correction, $58,500 is available. Departments were allowed
to add back a total of $19,500, as shown on page two, leaving a
balance of $40,436 in Prospective Expenditure for unanticipated
needs which arise during the year.
Note: On June 9, 1992, the City Council approved a higher amount
for the election budget, however, the original amount is used for
budget adoption since the earlier election is unnecessary.
budget/memobud
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND ADJUSTMENTS TO 1992-93 PRELIMINARY BUDGET
Deficit at the end of Budget Workshop I
Potentially disallowed surcharge on Refuse Bill, AB939
Total to be reduced for Workshop II
WORKSHOP II CUTS
$308,000
84,000
Records Management Equipment, Supplies $(40,000)
Records Management Consultant Services (28,000)
Council Benefits (19,000)
Department Reductions (256,000)
Total Proposed Reductions
Amount still to be reduced
INCREASE IN REVENUE
Prop A Fund Exchange
General Fund Interest Increase
$106,000
10,000
$392,000
($343,000)
Total Increased Revenue $116,000
Excess Revenue Available
($ 49,000)
$67,000
Council Add -Backs or Cuts
Remove Cable TV Coordinator
Remove Solid Waste Coordinator
Retain Clerk/Typist in Fire Department
City Manager Add -Backs
Not Needed Unemployment Benefits
Council Benefits
Reinstate Business License Inspector to full time
Net Result of Council/City Manager Adjustments
Excess Revenue Available
Net Result of Council/City Manager Adjustments
Funds Available
Department Additions
City Manager
Data processing
Police
Fire
Finance
Community Resources
Building
Parking Enforcement
Planning
Public Works
$18,600
30,300
(32,600)
$ 16,300
$ 3,500
(19,000)
(9,300)
($ 24,800)
$67,000
(8,500)
$58,500
Monthly expenses
Memberships
Add back Part-time Clerk Typist hours
Training/Salary-one additional paramedic
Overtime
Add back Part-time Clerk Typist hours
Plan Checking
Meter parts, citations
Add back Part-time intern hours
Used to offet miscalculation of previous
reduction(see separate memo)
Public Works Correction
Results in additional funds
(see attached memo)
$ (323)
(380)
(3,063)
(6,000)
(977)
(979)
(1,159)
(2,440)
(678)
(3,501)
($19,500)
1,436
Balance of available funds to be appropriated
Prospective Expenditures $40,436
2
($ 8,500)
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM
TO: Rick Ferrin, City Manager
FROM: Public Works Budget Committee
SUBJECT: Revision of June 18, 1992 Memo re. Reduction in Public Works
Expenditures
DATE: June 25, 1992
It has come to our attention that the reductions made in Street and
Fishing Pier Maintenance are incorrect. Basically, some of the figures
were not based on the services and charges of the old 1990-1991 contract
which is the basis of Specialty Maintenance's billing, currently and for
FY 92-93. Using these correct figures, the previous reductions are less
than estimated in the June 18, 1992 memo.
Street Maintenance:
Revised reductions to the private contractor for the Downtown/Pier
maintenance are estimated as follows for FY 92-93: Below are shown
the new figures and the net changes to the previous figures:
1. Power sweeping, etc. outside of VPd to be done by City:
June 18, 1992 Reductins: $ 9,288
Revised Reduction: $ 8,748
Reduction decrease: $ 540
2. Steam cleaning (to be done by City) outside of VPD area:
(This service should not have been listed in the previous memo
since the new contract was not awarded.)
June 18, 1992 Reduction: $ 6,960
Revised Reduction: $ 0
Reduction Decrease: $ 6,960
Also, after further deliberation, staff realized that the proposed City
maintenance of the Fishing Pier would be inadequate given its heavy usage
and the proposed budget reductions. Below, are shown the new figures and
the net changes to the previous figures:
Fishing Pier Maintenance:
1. Trash pickup (reduced from 7 days to 5 days a week):
June 18, 1992 Reduction: $ 952
Revised Reduction: $ 0
Reduction Decrease: $ 952
2. Maintenance of pier (reduced from 7 days to 5 days a week):
June 18, 1992 Reduction: $ 1,988
Revised Reduction: $ 0
Reduction Decrease: $ 1,988
Reductions for the above activities were originally estimated to total
$19,188. In reality, reductions now total $8,748. This leaves an
additional $10,440 reduction in expenditures which Public Works proposes
to make as follows:
Administration/Engineering:
1. Reduced full time position of Administrative Aide to
3/4 position. (Loss of salary and benefits.)
2. Reduce Motor fuels and lubes.
3. Reduce auto maintenance.
4. Equipment Less than $500 (new):
- 1 chair: 200
- 1 drafting stool: 150
- 1 drafting machine: 300
- 1 drafting light: 200
850
5. Equipment more than $500 (new):
(Drafting Table) Added Reduction:
$ 9,969
$ 200
$ 200
$ 850
$ 525
$ 1,375
Parks Maintenance:
1. Delete Tree Trimming: $ 8,000
Building Maintenance:
1. Delete Police Department once monthly floor striping/rewaxing
currently done by private contractor. $ 2,500
2. Maintenance Materials (new):
- Janitorial Supplies: 1,000
- Paint: 1,000
2,000
Other:
$ 2,000
Added Reduction: $ 2,000
Return of additional $3,501 available from City Manager "Add Back:
$ 3,501
Total additional reductions are:
$ 1,375
2,000
3,501
$ 6,876
Subtracting this subtotal from the $10,440 shortfall leaves $3,564.
Public Works originally estimated a FY 92-93 revenue of $23,000 for
Account 3831 (Street Cut Inspection) based on FY 91-92 current revenues
in this account. However, a backlog of more than $5,000 in unbilled
utility permits exists which Public Works is actively pursuing.
Street Cut Inspection:
Current Estimate: $28,000
Previous Estimate: $23,000
Total Added: $ 5,000
cc: Viki Copeland, Finance Director
Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer
TB:tb
pwadmin/budmem2
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
INTER -OFFICE MEMO
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS DATE: 6/25/92
RE: CABLE TV COORDINATOR FROM: MARY ROONEY
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
In responding to what appears to be a Council majority with
regards to the potential elimination of the 15 hour per week
Cable TV Coordinator position for FY 92-93 in addition to a
sentiment to examine "speeding along" the Franchise renewal
process, I offer the following suggestions:
Approve the retention of the Coordinator position through
October, 1992: This is projected to be the shortest time period
necessary to process a Franchise renewal legally and with
appropriate reviews by the public, Cable TV Board and Council.
The 15 hour per week Coordinator position would be involved
strictly with the business of Franchise renewal and the costs
associated with the retention of the position (estimated to be
under $5,000) would be reimbursed by the Cable TV Franchise.
As the City has already invested dollars in the current
Coordinator who has invested time preparing for this renewal, I
think it would be in the best interests of the City to allow him
to monitor this process to its completion. He is willing to work
to expedite the renewal process and has prepared an agenda item
for the Board (will be available for Council review on Monday,
6/29) discussing this possibility.
Transfer clerical duties/complaint processing to Administrative
Aide in General Services: There are an estimated 3-5 hours per
week of clerical tasks associated with the Cable TV Coordinator
position including scheduling and recruiting camera
operators/volunteers; scheduling meetings for live cablecast;
collecting and posting agendas; processing department requests
for access information and processing and auditing complaints.
As the Community Resources Department has faced reductions in
clerical staff (from 2 1/2 positions to 1), the added burden
cannot be absorbed.
The Administrative Aide in General Services has previous
experience with Cable TV (45% of her job was listed as such prior
to the transfer of duties to the current Coordinator) so these
duties could be absorbed quickly by the employee. While this
will add to her list of duties, this period of short staffing
necessitates staff's willingness to share in picking up the
duties previously performed by positions that have been vacated
or frozen in the budget process.
Plan for post renewal contract administration: As staff
anticipates drafting a renewal document that would address
several specific requirements on the part of the Franchise, there
will have to be some systematic oversight and auditing practices
to insure that the terms of the agreement are adhered to. As
this has been traditionally a function of the Cable TV
Coordinator, this important task will need to be assigned to an
appropriate staff member by the City Manager.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mary '. :•oney, Director
Comm nity Resources Dept.
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 1
TO: CITY C0uNcIL9bfE. B'R5, ,�CC/I'T 1Y MANAGER
M
FROKATHLEEN MIDSTO9 E l ,
RE: BUDGET COMMENTS
DA'1'I.: JUNE 2;51992
Pursuant to the Mayor's request, I am putting in writing my comments regarding the
current proposed budget as presented at the latest workshop on June 18, 1992.
Overall
The City Manager and employees deserve recognition for the many hours of work and
sacrifice that has gone into the drafts and revisions of the proposed budget for the
1992-1993 Fiscal Year. However, the proposed budget leaves me with great concerns as
to the operations of the City. Because seven (7) positions are being left vacant and no
current frit -time permanent employees are to be laid off - instead we are left with
existing staff with no `tools' to do their jobs. Also, there may be critical staff and
productivity problems in the departments who have the unfortunate luck to have the
vacancies. There may need to be some reassignments among existing staff to address
those problems.
I feel the Council's precise direction, which was repeated by the new City Manager at
the Special Meeting regarding Pogue/General Services cutbacks - has not been
adequately responded to.
1) No analysis of where and why regarding escalating expenditures.
2) N9 complete audit of ticket revenue and correction.
3) No tong term plan regarding retirements.
A thorough review of positions and functions still needs to be addressed in the
immediate future. Example: justifying keeping the clerk/typist in the Fire
Department and other clerical- positions in the Police Department. We were informed
of what functions they perform, but not how many hours they expend in a typical
week/month performing these duties. Maybe the functions can be adequately
accomplished with a part-time as opposed to furl- -time position. Also, we need to
demand that some of these functions, such as the Personnel time accruals, get on the
computer now. We have sent Personnel- staff to school to [earn Lotus 1,2,3 computer
programming, yet the Department still tabulates monthly vacation, administrative
and sick time by hangar each employee.
2
I feet this proposed Budget is a band-aid approach to the solution of the very critical
problem the City faces, that being increased expenditures and decreasing revenues.
Some of the problems are due to the economy, but many seriousones are not.
On a Department by Department basis, the following suggestions/concerns should be
addressed if a majority of the Council concurs:
City Manager
'The City Manager's Secretary should be approached re: early retirement. Also PERS
should be contacted and see if they would accept retirement with fess than a one year
notice under the current financial conditions of the City. If negotiated - all current
Administrative Aides if eligible could take the Civil Service Test and if one id
appointed, we could eliminate the current General Services Admin. Aide without a
forced fay -off.
Also, is the amount of monies we wilt have to pay the tong -term City Managers
secretary at retirement been budgeted.? What about the two thirty-year employees
retiring from Public Works? Has anyone calculated the hundreds of flours in sick: time
and vacation that will have to be paid out upon their retirement and budgeted for it?
'The expectation that there will be no unexpected needs and to not adequately fund the
Prospective expenditures is an extremely dangerous presumption. With the bare bones
individual Department budgets, this fund will be used to fit- in gaps when things must
absolutely be done and expenditures made.
One of our most out of control cost items is overtime and accrual- of time off which
affects productivity and service to the public. There needs to be tighter control over the
use and approval of these items. They should not automatically be approved by
management. The City Manager should make the Directors accountable for all
exceptions approved. 'The sped project/reason should be documented and what was
accomplished by the additional hours and why this could not be accomplished within
the normal working hours. Staff attendance at commission and other meetings should
kept to bare minimum. They should not attend the meetings, just because it would be
nice to have them there, but there attendance should be absolutely necessary, and they
should leave as soon as their item is over. We have all noticed certain staff members
staying at council meetings to the wee hours when all their agenda items have been
addressed.
3
City Council
Elimination of benefits. 'he benefits stiff could be offered, with the Councilmem6ers
responsible for the premiums. Ttirement - eliminate.
Personnel'
Employee benefits, liability and workers' compensation claims are one of the areas the
cost are escalating extremely high. 'The benefits package that the City offers not only
the employee, but also the spouse, at no cost, are extremely generous when compared-
with
omparedwith surrounding cities.
Currently, allfull time City Employees and their spouse are offered health care benefits
free of charge. This probably amounts to over $400.00/month for employee and spouse.
With so many double income situations nowadays, many employees/and or spouses do
not need the benefits, but go ahead and take them anyway. If a monetary amount
could be offered as an alternative, say $50.00/month instead of benefits, many
employees might opt to take the money as they already have adequate coverage with
their spouse's employment. 'phis, of course, would have to be negotiated as an
emergency issue with the `Union under the current Mall. Cost savings could be
substantia!
A long-term plan, as directed by the Council, of two to three years regarding expected
retirements needs to be formulated. Voluntary and or incentives to early retirement
need to be explored.
We should look at attempting to do as much work on liability/workers' comp claims
in house as possible and keep the contracted administrators work at an absolute
minimum.
Building/Planning Department
The consolidation of these Departments needs a serious evaluation. Many cities have
already done this and information regarding organization could be obtained from them.
Public Works and Capital Improvement Projects
Explore elimination of Chief Deputy City Engineer position and move down to 2nd
vacant Engineer position. The long term vacancy of the Directors Position has shown
that this position was a mistake to ever create. 'The two engineers reporting to the
4
Director is what should be maintained if it can be demonstrated that there is enough
engineering work to justify the two positions.
The proposed budget in this Department in very concerning. There are many policy
and service changes which should be carefully analyzed and considered. If there is any
way to hold over this budget, or to tentative approve subject to the new director's
review and input to come back, to the Council, I think, this would be to everyone's
benefit.
I am very concerned that the Strand repair project is not moving forward at this time.
We can potentially Pose the grant monies. Also, the next planned sewer rehabilitation
project does not appear to be moving forward either. Instead we are being presented
agenda items that certain staff members have thought up aff on their own as good
ideas (sidewalks and surveying). I hope staff can prove me to be wrong regarding the
progress of the Strand project aruf the sewers.
Proposed cuts in contract services and bringing the job back, in-house are a poor fiscal'
decisions. It was demonstrated that the functions could be performed more efficiently
and for fess cost by the outside contractors when the item was first contracted out. Aff
the background materials and analysis should be available. Instead, this budget
proposed that we do things such as eliminate week; end cleaning of the Pierhead. (When
use is most intense). `Why not Tuesday and Thursdays? Is this a set-up for City
¶mpfoyees to take over this work who don't work, on weekends?
We are going to buy surveying equipment and have the Deputy City Engineer survey
the City. yob security? If anything should be contracted out, it's surveying and I'm
sure it would be fess than the hourly cost of the current employee. 'We are going to pay
for this equipment with State Gas Taxi money, instead of repairing our terrible streets.
I know of no surrounding cities our size that do their own surveying. Also, we need to
put pressure on both the County and Caf'rans to reestablish their monuments first.
No money is budgeted for sidewalk repairs. 9-fow many liability claims do we have
concerning sidewalks? Plaintiff's attorneys will rove to hear we have no $ budgeted for
this. 'This must be a high priority, responsibly funded program. State Gas Tax should
be considered. Why isn't the Risk Manager bringing this lack of funding to our
attention?
5
.`attached is a copy of information regarding the change in the telephone area codes
indicating that the new area codes `will not increase the costs of your calls.'.
Public Works erroneously justified increased expenditures on telephone due to the
change in the area codes. Miiy wasn't this error caught by the Finance Director or City
Manager? 9V other Department budgets tried this justification. Is anyone
proofreading the document for consistency between Departments?
Hopefully staff will respond that my concerns are illfounded or that many of these
items have already been addressed. They are just proposed as suggestions in an effort to
save taxpayers money.
?hank, you for your consideration and time in reviewing this.
5f)
TWO NEW AREA CODES TO BE INTRODUCED
San Francisco Area
Adds Area Code 510
Beginning September 2, 1991, Alameda
and Contra Costa Counties will change
from the 415 Area Code to a new tele-
phone Area Code — 510. Cities that will be
part of the new 510 Area Code include
Oakland, Concord and Berkeley.
San Francisco, the. Peninsula, Marin
County, the San Francisco Bay islands,
Novato, and parts of Santa Clara County
will keep the 415 Area Code.
Los Angeles Area
Adds Area Code 310
Beginning November 2, 1991, portions of
Los Angeles and Orange Counties will
change from the 213 Area Code to a new
Area Code — 310. The new code will in-
clude the western, coastal, southern and
eastern portions of the current 213 Area
Code, including Los Angeles International
Airport. Cities such as Santa Monica,
Downey and Long Beach will be part of the
new Area Code.
Downtown Los Angeles and surrounding
communities such as Hollywood and
Montebello will keep the 213 code.
• smear
• Oakland
Manuela • San Raman
• San Leandro
K• • ►l••••rb Plaasantion
• Lirermare
•
Other Important Information Regarding These Area Code Changes
The new Area Codes are being introduced to satisfy the need for telephone numbers created by population increE
and the growing demand for advanced telecommunications services.
F,Th 'introduction of the new Area Codes will not Increase the cost of your calls. Customers affected also will keep
their current seven digit telephone number.
40
I" .
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Response to QUESTIONS/REQUESTS, 1992-93 BUDGET WORKSHOP
JUNE 8, 1992
ANSWER:
9. Provide comparison of citation revenue with fully
burdened expenditure of parking enforcement function
to determine return per officer.
Assumptions
The 1991-92 Budget as of 5-31-92 is used to compare
costs to revenue. Estimated revenue for 91-92 is
$1,127,000. Since it appears that revenue may be below
budget by $100,000, a revenue estimate of $1,027,000 is
used.
Appropriations for Parking Enforcement were adjusted to
include citation payment processing costs budgeted in
the Finance Department and to remove costs relating to
meter maintenance and collection. For this comparison,
no purchase of vehicles is included, however,
depreciation costs are included. No cost is included
for computer time. Costs related to the enforcement of
the parking permit program are inherent in the overall
costs since they are incurred as part of the regular
enforcement program.
A full time equivalent of 8.90 officers is used for the
comparison, which is the result of 7.25 full time
officers and 5 part-time officers for four months.
Return
Revenue $1,027,000 or $115,393 per officer
Cost 832,238 or 93,510 per officer
Return $21,884 per officer
or $1.23 for each $1.00
spent
This return is based on estimated revenue which is at
an all time low. Obviously if the revenue increases
with better weather, increased productivity or a change
in policy, the return also would increase.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1992-93
WHEREAS, a budget for the fiscal year 1992-92 has been
prepared by the City Manager, and
WHEREAS, said budget incorporates expenditures for operating
purposes, capital outlay and capital improvement projects, and
WHEREAS, said final budget will include the appropriations
limit and total annual appropriations subject to limitation as
required by Section 37200 of the government Code.
WHEREAS, the City Council has examined said budget and, after
due deliberation and consideration, has made such amendments to
the budget as it deems advisable.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council does hereby approve and
adopt the revised budget for the 1992-93 Fiscal Year as presented
in the documents entitled "City of Hermosa Beach Budget Summary
1992-93", as amended by the City Council through June 30, 1992,
and attached as "Exhibit A".
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1992.
PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
audit/reso9293
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
c3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STAT,.._.OF ..CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
I, Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk of the City Council
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 92- was duly and regularly
passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Hermosa Beach at a special meeting of said Council at the regular
meeting place thereof on ,1992.
The vote was as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DATED:
yy
City Clerk
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUDGET SUMMARY 1992-93
VEHICLE
GENERAL LIGHTING PARKING PARKING STATE GAS COUNTY GAS
FUND FUND DISTRICT .FUND TAX FUND TAX FUND
ESTIMATED REVENUE 001 105 109 110
115 120
Taxes 56,913,393 $187,882 f0 f0
Licenses/Permits $O $0
!265,863 f0 f0 f0 !0 50
Fires/Forfeitures $120,746 50 f0 S1,127,390
Use of Mone /Pr 50 76
Money/Property !483,149 !65,165 $203,772 (9,072 (52,258 $1,176
Intergovernmental/State $748,526 f0 f0 f0 $320,886
Intergovernmental/County t0
SO f0 t0 f0 f0 !28,000
Intergovernmental/Federal f0 f0 $0 f0
!0 $0
Current Service Charges (471,193 $0 $0 $922,556
!0 f0
Other Revenue (16,550 f0 f0 f0 f0
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE $9,019,420 $253,047 5203,772 $2,059,018 5373,144 $29,176
INTERFUNO TRANSFERS IN 51,737,695 f0 SO SO 50 SO
ESTIMATED FUNDS AVAILABLE 510,757,115 5253,047 $203,772 $2,059,018 $373,144 $29,176
ACTUAL FUND BALANCE
7/1/92 51,587,258 51,427,987 $809,628 51,327,672 $1,367,629 58,711
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 512,344,373 $1,681,034 (1,013,400 53,386,690 $1,740,773 537,887
APPROPRIATIONS
Operating Budget $9,708,743 5326,518 587,236 $776,915 f0 f0
Capital Outlay $109,814 51,000 50 f0
Capital Improvements $21,000 5152,000 557,000 SO $1,693,329 $28,000
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $9,839,557 (478,518 $144,236 5777,915 51,693,329 $28,000
INTERFUND TRANSFERS OUT $917,558 (27,514 $2,59$ $1*297,604 (42,000 50
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS/TRANSFER OUT $10,757,115 $506,032 $146,834 (2,075,519 51,735,329 528,000
ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE $1,587,258 * $1,175,002 $866,566 ** $1,311,171 *** $5,444 $9,887
6/30/93
* RESERVES/DESIGNATIONS
AFFORDABLE HSG (111,831
CONTINGENCIES $1,475,427
(includes ICRMA Premium)
FUND BALANCE INCREASE
PENDING PERS A8702
DECISION AS OF 4/30/92 5599,164
•
** DESIGNATION ***RESERVED
LAND ACQUISITION 514,846
$100,000
FIXED ASSETS
FIXED ASSETS 51,296,325
5617,441
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUDGET SUMMARY 1992-93
PARK REC UUT RR RIGHT 6% UUT PROP A GRANT
FAC TAX FUND OF WAY FUND FUND FUND FUND
ESTIMATED REVENUE 125 126 127 145 150
Taxes $17,500 $937,742 $1,406,613 $201,924 SO
Licenses/Permits SO SO SO SO SO
Fines/Forfeitures SO SO SO SO SO
Use of Money/Property 540,113 $20,000 $7,550 $19,479 SO
Intergovernmental/State SO SO $0 SO $38,000
Intergovernmental/County SO SO SO SO SO
Intergovernmental/Federal SO SO SO $0 SO
Current Service Charges SO SO SO $18,000 SO
Other Revenue $100,000 SO SO $0 SO
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE $157,613 $957,742 $1,414,163 $239,403 $38,000
INTERFUND TRANSFERS IN SO SO SO SO SO
ESTIMATED FUNDS AVAILABLE $157,613 $957,742 $1,414,163 $239,403 $38,000
ACTUAL FUND BALANCE
7/1/92 $370,205 $1,357,251 $312,565 $205,826 $172,353
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $527,818 $2,314,993 $1,726,728 5445,229 $210,353
APPROPRIATIONS
Operating Budget SO SO SO $454,342 $1,800
Capital Outlay SO SO SO SO SO
Capital Improvements 5498,000 $662,091 SO SO $30,000
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $498,000 $662,091 SO 5454,342 $31,800
INTERFUND TRANSFERS OUT SO $0 $1,186,706 SO $0
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS/TRANSFER OUT 5498,000 $662,091 $1,186,706 $454,342 $31,800
ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE $29,818 $1,652,902 $540,022 ($9,113)* $178,553
6/30/93
*PROP -A BALANCE WILL BE A POSITIVE $134,376
WHEN USE OF PROP C FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $143,489
IS REFLECTED FOR EXISTING PROGRAMS
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUDGET SUMMARY 1992-93
CR GRD SEWER ASSET FORF FIRE INSURANCE
FUND FUND FUND PROTECTION FUND TOTAL
ESTIMATED REVENUE 155 160 170 180 705
Taxes $59,843 SO SO SO SO $9,724,897
Licenses/Permits SO SO SO SO SO $265,863
Fines/Forfeitures SO SO $275,306 SO SO $1,523,442
Use of Money/Property $3,110 593,178 $66,941 $22,737 SO $1,087,700
Intergovernmental/State 50 50 SO SO SO $1,107,412
Intergovernmental/County SO $7,000 SO SO SO $35,000
Intergovernmental/Federal SO SO $0 SO SO SO
Current Service Charges SO $10,100 SO SO SO $1,421,849
Other Revenue $0 SO $1,500 $70,000 SO $188,050
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE 562,953 $110,278 5343,747 592,737 SO $15,354,213
INTERFUND TRANSFERS IN $0 $800,000 SO 50 $1,035,508 $3,573,203
ESTIMATED FUNDS AVAILABLE $62,953 $910,278 5341,747 $92,737 $1,035,508 518,927,416
ACTUAL FUND BALANCE
7/1/92 573,949 $2,180,578. $1,374,107 $511,835 $351,320 $13,438,874
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $136,902 $3,090,856 $1,717,854 $604,572 51,386,828 532,366,290
i
APPROPRIATIONS
Operating Budget $61,459 $152,484 $423,858 $100,000 51,006,097 513,099,452
Capital Outlay SO $1,600 5242,479 SO 5354,893
Capital Improvements SO $341,000 $250,000 SO
SO 53,732,420
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 561,459 $495,084 $916,337 $100,000 $1,006,097 517,186,765
INTERFUND TRANSFERS OUt $8,973 512,807 $67,443 $10,000 SO 63,573,203
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS/TRANSFER OUT $70,432 $507,891 $983,780 $110,000 61,006,097 520,759,968
ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE 666,470 $2,582,965 • 6734,074 $494,572 $380,731 $11,606,322
6/30/93
•
s
* DESIGNATED FOR
SEWER CONTINGENCY
$100,000
Hermosa Beach,Mayor:.and .
Members:of the City Council
Mr. Rick Ferrjn, City Manager
Mr. Charles Vose, City Attorney
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254
Parker R. Herrio.tt.. .
224. 24th Street
Hermosa Beach, Ca.90254
(310) 379-7196
6-30-92
Dear Mayor, Members of the City Council, City Manager and City Attorney:
Regarding the decision to have the Open Space Park Initiative concerning
the Biltmore Site on the November 3, 1992 ballot instead of the September
15, 1992 ballot itisthe correct legal decision-;.
My intent all along wasto have the Open Space Park Initiative petition
on the November 3, 1992 ballot. No one ever wanted to have an earlier
election, because we never thought it would be possible to have one before
the 12 months were up. Nor would we have wanted to subject the city to the
additional costa of conducting a Special Election, prior to the November 3,
I992:..GeneraltFhection.
I was aware of the 12 month rule from past experiences with elections, and
I had read and relied upon the California Elections Code, Chapter 3, Munici-
pal Elections Section 4014. to quote as follows:
"4014. More than one ordinance at same election.
Any number of proppsed ordiances may be voted upon at the same
election,.,but the same subject matter shall not be voted upon
twice within any 12 -month period at a special election under the
provisions of the article.
(Added by Stats. 1976,c 248,3.)
I believe the intent of the California Legislature in passing section 4014
was to prohibit the voting on the same subject matter within a 12 -month
period of time was an attempt to protect the voters from being worn down
and where the voters may not vote on the subject any more.
I would the council to also read Section 4020 of the California Elections
Code, and I quote in -part as follows;
' 402a Condition"for special election; doisoldat-ion with regular electioi
...When it is legally possible to hold a special election under this
chapter within six months prior to a regular municipal election, the
legislative body may submit the proposed ordinance at the regular
election instead of at a special election.
Sections 4014, and 4020 alto rc for - the open space park initiative petition
measure to be placed before the voters November 3, 1992. Section 4010
would not apply because tf.would violate the 12 -month rule regarding voting
on the same subject matter, since we voted on the open space park measure
last November 5, 1991.
I would the city council to permit the printing in the official sample
ballot, a copy of the Parcel Map showing the property of the Biltmore Site,
since most voters are,. unaware of the true size of the Biltmore Site property,
Please find a copy of the'Parcel Map showing the Biltmore Site and adjoining
properties. I would pay for any extra costs if there are any to include the
map.
64( \AA
,).,1 •
I-- 3,
• 0 r
•
. .
(f) far.. 0 pl •
100
\ " .
.I.
HERMOSA BEACH
M.B. 1-25-26
:t
40
nrY• A:Shr. SEE: 159-10
CONDOMINIUM
PARCEL MAP
P. M. 196 - 58 ,