Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/91Where there is no vision the people perish... HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA XL9A--OZA26 /YAIPIfr WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are participating in the process of representative government. Your government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the City Council meetings often. Meetings are televised live on Multivision Cable Channel 3 and replayed the next day (Wednesday) at noon. Agendas for meetings are shown on Channel 3 the weekend before the meetings. Opportunities for Public Comments Citizens may provide input to their elected Councilmembers in writing or oral- ly. Letters on agenda matters should be sent or delivered to the City Clerk's or City Manager's Office. If sent one week in advance, they will be included in the Council's agenda packet with the item. If received after packet com- pilation, they will be distributed prior to the Council meeting. Oral communications with Councilmembers may be accomplished on an individual basis in person or by telephone, or at the Council meeting. Please see the notice under "Public Participation" for opportunities to speak before the Council. It is the policy of the City Council that no discussion of new items will be- gin after 11:30 p.m., unless this rule is waived by the Council. The agendas are developed with the intent to have all matters covered within the time allowed. Note: City offices are open 7 A.M. to 6 P.M., Mon. - Thurs.; Closed Fridays. There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers. (over) THE HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach has the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager appointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The Mayor and Council decide what is to be done. The City Manager, operating through the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration is considered the most economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agendas for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items ... A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval requires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember may remove an item from this listing, thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Calendar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings ... Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law or by direction of Council. The Hearings afford the public the opportuni- ty to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Ordinances ... An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or public conduct. All ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least 5 days later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Most or- dinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications ... The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by Noon the Tuesday preceding the Regular City Council meeting and request they be placed on the Council agenda. Municipal Matters ... Non-public Hearing items predicted to warrant discussion by the City Council are placed here. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Manager ... The City Manager coordi- nates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council ... Members of the City Council may place items on the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council ... These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. "The only people who fail are those who never try." -Ilka Chase AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 22, 1991 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 7:15 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR Kathleen Midstokke MAYOR PRO TEM Robert Essertier COUNCILMEMBERS Roger Creighton Charles Sheldon Albert Wiemans CITY CLERK Elaine Doerfling CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch INTERIM CITY MANAGER Steve Wisniewski CITY ATTORNEY Charles S. Vose All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. The Council receives a packet with detailed information and recommendations on nearly every agenda item. Complete agenda packets are available for public inspection in the Police Depart- ment, Public Library, the Office of the City Clerk, and the Cham- ber of Commerce. During the meeting a packet also is available in the Council foyer. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: HERMOSA VALLEY SCHOOL STUDENT OF THE MONTH: Melissa Calhoun PROCLAMATION: Red Ribbon Week, October 19 - 27, 1991 EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER AWARD: Tracy Yates, Senior Clerk Typist Public Works Department PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Members of the Public wishing to address the City Council on any items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. (Exception: Comments on public hearing items must be heard during the public hearings.) Please limit comments to one minute. Citizens also may speak: 1) during Consent Calendar consideration or Public Hearings, 2) with the Mayor's consent, during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters, and 3) before the close of the meeting during "Citizen Comments". 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following more routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with themajority consent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. * Councilmember requests to remove items from the Consent Calendar. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) * Public comments on the Consent Calendar. (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on October 8, 1991. Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (b) (d) (e) (f) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommendation to receive and file September, 1991 financial reports: 1) Revenue and Expenditure Report; 2) City Treasurer Report. Recommendation to extend for thirty (30) days the tem- porary appointment of one (1) General Services Officer. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dat- ed October 8, 1991. Recommendation to return $9,765.42 of Federal -Aid Urban (FAU) funds to Caltrans for CIP 85-102, Highland Avenue Widening. Memorandum from Interim Public Works Director William Glickman dated October 8, 1991. Recommendation to accept as complete Slurry Sealing project CIP 89-170 and authorize Mayor to sign the Notice of Completion. Memorandum from Interim Public Works Director William Glickman dated October 8, 1991. Recommendation to accept the installation of the new fire alarm system at the Community Center as complete. Memorandum from Interim Public Works Director William Glickman dated October 8, 1991. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #21868 for a three -unit condominium located at 350 Man- hattan Avenue, aka 212 Fourth Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 10, 1991. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #20304 for a two -unit condominium located at 1840 Hermo- sa Avenue. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 14, 1991. "/D 6i (n) (0) 6q9 (p) (q) (r) (s) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #20755 for a two -unit condominium located at 345 Manhat- tan Avenue, aka as 120 Fourth Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 14, 1991. Recommendation to receive and file response to Council - member Sheldon's request for information regarding the City's Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation invest- ment. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated October 15, 1991. Recommendation to adopt resolution of intent directing staff to examine the problem of vapors and odors due to operation of businesses and to study possible methods for alleviating the problem. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 14, 1991. Recommendation Holdin• FeLitiLtULTIILIV 1‘:" • t resolution ad k,:A Memorandu"`"om Acting General '='ces Director Henry L. Staten dated October 10, 199 n• Im•ound and al Shelter. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving and adopt- ing the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Con- struction, 1991 Edition", and repeal all previous edi- tions of these specifications. Memorandum from Interim Public Works Director William Glickman dated September 24, 1991. Recommendation to approve plans for new signalized crossing of Valley Drive at Hermosa Valley School, CIP 89-150, and make the determination that public bidding is not required for this project. Memorandum from Interim Public Works Director William Glickman dated October 10, 1991. Recommendation to utilize Proposition A funds for recre- ational purposes for Fiscal Year 91/92. Memorandum -from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated October 10, 1991. Recommendation to award contract for outfitting new Police Department patrol vehicles. Memorandum from Act- ing Police Chief Val Straser dated October 14, 1991. Report and recommendation regarding D.A.R.E. grant for the cities of Redondo, Manhattan and Hermosa Beach. Memorandum from Acting Police Chief Val Straser dated October 14, 1991. Recommendation to approve conceptual design of Greenbelt parking lot, CIP 91-511. Memorandum from Interim Public Works Director William Glickman dated October 16, 1991. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Letter from June Williams, 2065 Manhattan Avenue, dated October 15, 1991 regarding the City Treasurer's FHLMC investment figure. Staff Recommendation: Refer to City Treasurer's agenda item #1(1) on this subject. (b) Letter from Kevin M. Peterson, GTE California Inc., dat- ed September 23, 1991 regarding telephone competition in video services business. Staff recommendation: That City Council direct staff to write a letter in support of legislation which would permit telephone companies to provide cable television service, when such service is demonstrated to be in the public interest and if they are subject to identical local franchise regulatory re- quirements as currently required from cable television operators. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT PROPOSAL FOR PROVIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PARKING EN- FORCEMENT SERVICES FOR THE CITY. Memorandum from Inter- im City Manager Steve Wisniewski dated October 12, 1991. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 6. PROPOSED ORDINANCE MODIFYING TERMS OF OFFICE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISO- RY COMMISSION, for introduction. Memorandum from City Attorney Charles S. Vose dated October 1, 1991. 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 8. (a) (b) MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL Vacancies - Boards and Commissions Planning Commission - One unexpired term ending June 30, 1995. Request for authorization for City Clerk to attend the annual League of California Cities, City Clerks Depart- ment, New Law and Election Seminar December 11 through December 13, 1991. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated October 16, 1991. (c) Request for authorization for Planning Commissioner Ketz to attend the 2nd Annual Southwest Area Planning Council Catalina Conference November 15 - 16, 1991. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 16, 1991. 9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. Please limit comments to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, October 08, 1991, at the hour of 7:50 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - the closed session was held at 7:05 P.M., regarding matters of Real Property Negotiations with Macpherson Oil regarding the City Yard site: pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; matters of litigation, United States, et.al. vs. Montrose Chemical Corporation, et.al.: pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a); and, matters of potential litigation: pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b). The closed ses- sion was recessed at 7:48 P.M. to the regular scheduled public meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - William Glickman, Interim Director of Public Works ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Essertier, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Midstokke Absent: None PROCLAMATIONS - Fire Prevention Week, October 6 - 12, 1991; Mayor Midstokke presented a proclamation, on behalf of the City, proclaiming October 6 through October 12, 1991 as "Fire Preven- tion Week" to Vince Bruccolieri, Engineer with the Hermosa Beach Fire Department, and called upon the residents of Hermosa Beach to participate in fire prevention activities at home, work and school, and to heed the message: "Fire Won't Wait - Plan Your Escape" as the 1991 Fire Prevention theme suggests. Engineer Bruccolieri thanked the City and invited all residents to par- ticipate in the Fire Department "Open House" on Saturday, October 12, 1991, from 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. - Torrance Cultural Arts Center; Mayor Midstokke presented a proclamation, on behalf of the City, congratulating Mayor Katy Geissert and the Torrance City Council on the occasion of the grand opening and formal dedication of the long awaited Torrance Cultural Arts Center on Saturday, October 26, 1991. Item No. 1, the Consent Calendar, was taken out of order before Public Participation, but is shown in order for clarity. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION a Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: Richard Sullivan - 824 Third Street, urged the Council and all interested residents to write State officials to protest the proposed lay-off of alcohol and drug agents, also expressed con- cern with the reported co-sponsorship of a can- didates forum by the Hermosa Beach Police As sociation at the Lighthouse; City Council Minutes 10-08-91 Page 7577 Ia Michael Stifano - 1704 Loma Drive, asked the Council for the reason he was removed from the Planning Commission; Jim Rosenberger - 1121 Bayview Drive, questioned the response given to Michael Stifano and said that he would like a clearer reason given by the Council for its removal of Mr. Stifano from the Planning Commission; and, Roy McNally - 207 Twenty-ninth Street, thanked Councilmembers Creighton and Sheldon for their time and service on the Council, thanked all Councilmembers for serving. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (f). Motion Mayor Midstokke, second Creighton. So ordered. Coming forward to address the Council on items not removed from the consent calendar was: June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, questioned item 1(d), in particular the amount shown for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. invest- ment, which she believed was incorrect. She stated that in 1987, the former City Treasurer had purchased two FHLMC investments of approxi- mately $250,000 each: one paying 9.5%, the other 8%; the present City Treasurer had kept the one investment paying 8% and sold the one paying 9.5% for $190,000 in 1990 (that amount reflects a payback of principal and was sold at 99.75% of par). She questioned the amount shown on the report and asked for the correct balance of the account at this time (she felt that payback of principal should have reduced the amount by as much as $100,000); if one was sold because it was illegal, was the other illegal as well; and, if the payback of prin- cipal had been included in total interest earned. She asked if our auditor should respond to this. She submitted copies of docu- ments to the City Clerk. Action: To request a written report from the City Treasurer addressing the concerns raised by June Williams. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. Also coming forward to address the Council at this time was: Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., expressed concern with item 4(d), a letter under Written Communications. City Council Minutes 10-08-91 Page 7578 (a) (b) Recommendation to approve the following minutes: 1) Special meeting of the City Council held on Thursday, September 19, 1991; 2) Regular meeting of the City Council held on Tuesday, September 24, 1991. Action: To approve the minutes of September 19 and Sep- tember 24, 1991 as presented. Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. 38455 through 38522 inclusive and 38524 through 38612 inclusive; noting voided warrants Nos. 38456, 38457, 38458, 38486, 38524, 38525, and 38561. Action: To ratify the demands and warrants as presented. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. Action: To receive and file the tentative future agenda items. (d) (e) Recommendation to receive and file the September, 1991 investment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated October 1, 1991. Action: To receive and file the September, 1991 invest- ment report. Recommendation to award contract for sidewalk repairs, CIP 89-142, to Los Angeles Engineering Inc. and au- thorize Mayor to sign the contract upon submittal of the required contract documents from the contractor. Memo- randum from Interim Public Works Director William Glick- man dated September 30, 1991. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) award the contract to remove and replace deterio- rated sidewalk, curb, gutter and driveway ap- proaches at various locations throughout the City to Los Angeles Engineering, Inc. (the lowest cost responsible bidder) at a cost of $33,500 (plus 4.3% contingency of $1,500) to be funded from the State Gas Tax Fund; 2) authorize the Mayor to sign the contract upon sub- mittal of the required contract documents from the contractor; and, 3) authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary, within budget limitations. (f) Recommendation to approve request by Chamber of Commerce for closure of Pier Avenue from Beach Drive to the City Council Minutes 10-08-91 Page 7579 Strand for the annual tree lighting ceremony and to ap- prove the annual bagging of the parking meters in the downtown area. Memorandum from Interim City Manager Steve Wisniewski dated October 2, 1991. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) authorize the closure of Pier Avenue from Beach Drive to the Strand and move the Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony from the more easterly area near the intersection of Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue to the Pierhead for attendee safety; and, 2) authorize the bagging of parking meters from Decem- ber 1, 1991 to January 1, 1992 to allow two hour free parking. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES (a) ORDINANCE NO. 91-1060 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO TERMS OF OFFICE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PLAN- NING COMMISSION. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 91-1060. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. The motion carried with Essertier and Wiemans dissenting. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION There were no items removed from the Consent Calendar. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Items 4(a), (b), and (c) were heard as one subject. (a) Letter from Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste, dated September 19, 1991 regarding helicopters and banner -towing airp- lanes. Supplemental letter from Shawn E. Hamilton, 401 Manhattan Avenue, #5, received October 7, 1991. Staff recommendation: Direct staff to contact neighboring cities to ascertain what action, if any, they are taking. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: Jim Lissner - 2715 El Oeste Drive, stated that there were two issues of concern: 1) Bannertowers; Mr. Lissner stated there was a Colorado Ordinance now being tested in the courts which placed restrictions on Banner - towers; suggested Hermosa Beach talk to neigh- boring Cities in order to have the same Or- dinance enacted; and, 2) Helicopters: Mr. Lissner stated they were becoming noisier and more powerful as well as City Council Minutes 10-08-91 Page 7580 r (b) (c) (d) more abundant; suggested large identifiable numbers (for complaint of violation); the City petition for restriction below 1,000 feet; request the Helicopter Pilot Association (HPA) to observe the 2,000 foot limit in noise sensi- tive areas; and, offered a spotting guide to anyone interested in receiving it. Action: To direct staff to contact neighboring cities and other agencies to ascertain what action, if any, they are taking; determine our jurisdiction; and report back to Council. Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Midstokke. So ordered. Letter from Janet Hamilton, 3417 Hermosa Avenue, dated September 23, 1991 regarding helicopters and banner - towing airplanes. This item was considered with 4(a). Letter from Allan Mason, 625 Monterey Boulevard, dated September 27, 1991 regarding banner -towing airplanes. This item was considered with 4(a). Letter from W. Powell, 1218 So. Ramona Ave., Hawthorne, CA 90250, dated September 26, 1991 regarding the Lighthouse. Staff recommendation: Receive and file. Action: To receive and file. Motion Mayor Midstokke, second Sheldon. So ordered. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None MUNICIPAL MATTERS 5. RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE GENERAL, SUPERVISORY, AND ADMINISTRATIVE BARGAINING UNITS REPRESENTED BY THE CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS, PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL EMPLOYEES' UNION, LOCAL 911. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dat- ed September 31, 1991. Action: To approve the staff recommendation and adopt Resolution No. 91-5495, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 911, GENERAL, SUPERVISORY, AND ADMINISTRA- TIVE EMPLOYEES, BARGAINING UNITS.", which is a two year term MOU containing a salary adjustment for: 1) September 1, 1991 through February 29, 1992 of 2% (plus additional increases in selected classes for "equity adjustment"); _ City Council Minutes 10-08-91 Page 7581 2) March 1, 1992 through August 31, 1992 of 3%; and, 3) September 1, 1992 through August 31, 1993 to be negotiated. It also contains terms for increased co -payments for medical services, reduced medical stipend, a cap on "administrative time" accrual, allowed conversion of a maximum of 160 hours of vacation accrual in final year, a change of holiday schedule to work on Thursday if the holiday falls on a Friday or Saturday, elimination of ability to appeal written reprimands to arbitration, and provides for development of certain policies regarding smoking, parking fees, and drug/alcohol. The "total compensation" increase for the contracts is valued at 4% ($117,600) for the first year. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. 6. PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT WITH MACPHERSON OIL COMPANY. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 2, 1991. Supplemental memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 8, 1991. Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Eric Scudder - 825 Bard Street, questioned if studies had been done on salt water intrusion into the fresh water supply; and, Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., urged the Council to sign the papers and let the drilling begin. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) approve the language of the new lease agreement for drilling from the City Yard site into both the up- lands and tidelands subject to the addition of the business points identified in the letter of October 8, 1991 from Macpherson Oil Co., Inc.; and, 2) authorize the Mayor to sign the lease agreement that includes those terms. Motion Essertier, second Wiemans. The motion carried with Creighton and Mayor Midstokke dissenting. 7. AWARD OF AGREEMENT FOR RECORDS MANAGEMENT SERVICES. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated Oc- tober 1, 1991. Supplemental memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated October 08, 1991. City Clerk Doerfling presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) select Susan Bigelow Associates for Records Manage- ment Consultant services and award the attached City Council Minutes 10-08-91 Page 7582 agreement for the development and implementation of a citywide program, for a maximum amount of $50,000 for services and a maximum amount of $2,500 for other direct expenses, for a total amount not to exceed $52,500; 2) reappropriate the unused $20,000 previously ap- propriated for this project in the FY 90-91 budget; 3) appropriate an additional $5,000 from the unap- propriated FY 91-92 General Fund balance; 4) appropriate $27,500 in the FY 92-93 budget; and, with the understanding that the Council general policy for the retention schedule is to maintain those records required by law for the length of time mandated by law; place the Clerk's Office as the office in charge of determining that the record files are cleared as they reach the end of the retention period; and, direct the City Clerk to discuss the appropriateness of the reten- tion schedule with the City Attorney at the start of the program. Motion Creighton, second Wiemans. So ordered. 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER Interim City Manager Wisniewski reported that on Satur- day, October 12, 1991, at 9:30 A.M., there would be a Hermosa Beach Youth Chess Tournament in the City Council Chambers. 9. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Appointment of voting delegate for League of California Cities annual meeting. Action: To appoint Michael Schubach, Planning Director, as voting delegate for the League of California Cities annual meeting to be held October 13 - 16, 1991 in San Francisco. Motion Mayor Midstokke, second Creighton. So ordered. Mayor Midstokke questioned the County property tax bills that showed a voted indebtedness for the City of Hermosa Beach, in some instances at zero and in others at one cent credit, and asked for an explanation. 10. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request by Councilmember Creighton for discussion re. wood chips on the Greenbelt. City Council Minutes 10-08-91 Page 7583 Councilmember Creighton stated that no action was needed as Walt Dougher of the Southern California Edison Compa- ny was going to supply wood chips to keep dust down on the Greenbelt. (b) Request by Councilmember Creighton for discussion of reconstruction of the Strand. Councilmember Creighton asked if this item could be placed on the next agenda, as he would like to have the project started as soon as possible in order to have the work completed before the beach season next summer. Interim Public Works Director Glickman responded that he had a meeting scheduled with the Consultant for that project within two weeks and would have the item back within a month. Councilmember Essertier requested that the computer program be started on a trial basis, with a few microcomputers placed in one or two departments, and requested that the Mayor direct staff to work with the computer subcommittee toward this purpose. Mayor Midstokke directed the computer subcommittee to explore Councilmember Essertier's suggestion. CITIZEN COMMENTS Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: Gary Brutsch - City Treasurer, wished to go on record: 1) that he had never been accused of falsifying a government record or of fraud; 2) everything in his office was subject to audit and had passed with flying colors; and 3) the issue of the sale of the investment had been audited: the investment had been sold because it was probably illegal as it was over the five years allowed for holding an investment and did not meet the liquidity criteria, and had been reinvested at higher than its rate of 8%. Mr. Brutsch stated that he would respond in writing to June Williams questions. Richard Sullivan - 824 Third Street, thanked the Council for their work; Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., expressed concern regarding the "slurry seal" schedule for Monterey Blvd. Interim Public Works Direc- tor Glickman responded that Monterey was not scheduled for slurry seal this year, but he would check to determine when it was scheduled; and, Eric Scudder -.825 Bard Street, expressed concern about two parking tickets he had just received: one for not displaying new tags; the second for City Council Minutes 10-08-91 Page 7584 a parking violation seconds after the flag dropped. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday, October 08, 1991 at the hour of 9:25 P.M. to the Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 22, 1991 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. r Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 10-08-91 Page 7585 OCT -22— •9+1 11.1'51 • .LD:i_iT 1r G W. 'BRAD" PARTON 4/ MAYOR 415 DIAMOND STREET POST OFFICE BOX 270 REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277-0270 With deep sorrow The City Qf Redondo Beach announces the death of District 5 Councilman Joseph Robert White Vtsttatton will be from 5:00 - 9;00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 23, 1991 at White & Day F nneral Chapel 901 Torrance Boulevard, Redondo Beach Funeral Services will be at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 24, 1991 at St. Paul's United Methodist Church 2600 Nelson Avenue, Redondo Beach and Interment at Pacific Crest Cemetery with Military Honors 14594 PO2 TELEPHONE (213) 3721171 rill � .. OCT -72— ' 91 10: 55 I D : t= I Tr OF FEDOt ' - TEL HO: 14217.* 7.7c..+: CITY OF REDONDO BEACH 415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach, CA 90277 (213) 372-1171 FAX NUMBER: (213) 379-9268 SENT TO: ATTENTION: Document Contains Pages: Date Sent: Sent by: Phone: #1;c.14 F01 Comments: Addl. Info; CITY MANAGER 1 through 2 October 22, 1991 Mayor W. Brad Parton (213) 372-1171, ext. 2260 URGENT - Dated Material Please Forward Immediately Please notify your Mayor and Council St. Paul's United Methodist Church 1 370-4319 2600 Nelson Avenue, Redondo Beach 2 blocks north of Artesia Blvd. at Felton Lane Pacific Crest - 2701 W. 182nd at Inglewood Ave. Redondo Beach, Phone: 370-5891 October 9, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 22, 1991 PRESENTATION OF OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE AWARD The City of Hermosa Beach Employee Performance Award honors City Employees who have displayed either sustained performance above expected levels or have performed a one-time action which exceeds expectations. Nominations for the award may be made by citizens, City Council Members, department heads and other employees. From the nomina- tions, the Management Team selects the award recipient(s). For the first quarter of Fiscal Year 91-92 (July/August) the Man- agement Team, after consideration selected the following employee for recognition: Tracy Yates, Sr. Clerk Typist, Public Works Department Tracy has been with the City since September 1988. During this time, Tracy has sat in one of "the hottest seats" in City Hall. This seat became particularly warm during the summer when Public Works was responsible for six major construction projects just these past few months. Each of these major projects required extensive public interface (fielding questions and complaints) as well as liaison work with the engineering staff, contractors, supervisors and installers. Tracy is the initial contact point for all inquiries from the Public into the Public Works Depart- ment; not just during Public Works construction projects, but on a daily basis, including fielding calls to the "graffiti hotline". Tracy's willingness to contribute to all the department's activi- ties and her initiative in suggesting innovative techniques to save time and/or handle situations more efficiently are extremely valuable to the Public Works Department and to the City. Tracy is being presented with a plaque to commemorate her selection. Respectfully Submitted: Concur: n,t/.4 Robert A. Blackwood Steve S. Wisniewski Personnel Director Interim City Manager October 16, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of October 22, 1991 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS November 12, 1991 Final Map #22560 for a 2 -unit condo at 544-546 25th Street Audit of Workers' Comp Award annual fuel bid purchase Planning Director City Treasurer Public Works Director Report on cost effectiveness of downtown enforcement (GIP) Police/Finance Report on increasing police foot patrol Police Chief Plan checking and inspection fees for public improvements Public Works Director Council 8/27 Study of camping in public parking lots General Services 1st quarter status report on CIPs Public Works Director Quarterly report on Goals Implemen- tation Program City Manager Alternatives for parking solutions on PCH (GIP) Building Director Draft formal agreement on City maintenance of school property in exchange for allowing use of school property for recreation when available Participate w/school civics program coordinator (GIP) CIP 85-137 - Valley Ardmore overlay accept as complete Award contract for downtown area maintenance Review of Civil Service Board applications Community Resources Dir. Personnel Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Personnel Director Hearing Recommendation on Park Pacific Shopping Center street improvements Public Works Director November 26, 1991 Installation of new Councilmembers, Treasurer, City Clerk City Clerk Rental agreement for office copier Interim City Manager CIP 89-406, Accept sewer project as complete Public Works Director RFP for Traffic Engineer Public Works Director City Mgr.3/25/91 Amendment of ordinance regulating real estate signs Building Director CIP 89-151 - Award contract for Office of Traffic Safety grant Public Works Director Council 6/25/91 Agreement on Prospect/ Aviation signs & review of left turn arrow at Prospect & Aviation Public Works Director December, 1991 Appropriate funds for the purchase of South School Finance Director Council 8/13/91 Report on procedure for protecting survey monuments 16th to 19th sts. Public Works Dir. Report on implementation of new computer system (GIP) Data Processing Award contract for janitorial services Public Works Director Project Touch Lease renewal Community Resources Dir. Statistical survey - requested at 4/23/91 meeting January 14, 1992 Hope Chapel Lease Renewal (Rm. 13) Community Resources January 28, 1992 2nd Quarter CIP status report Public Works Director - 2 - Quarterly update Goals Implementa- tion Plan City Manager Award contract for Traffic Engineer Public Works Director Appeal of P.C. denial of request to allow a 2nd story office addition providing less than required off- street parking at 415 Pier Ave. Planning Director February 11, 1992 Approval of Land Use Element (GIP) Planning Director Council 7/23/91 Vehicle parking on unimproved r -o -w including pedestrian walk streets Public Works Director February 25, 1992 Street lighting/Crossing Guards - resolutions ordering preparation of reports Report on improving T.V. capabilities for Council Chambers (GIP) Identify misc. revenue, develop appropriate fee (GIP) March 24, 1992 CIP 89-142 - Accept sidewalk repairs as complete Public Works Director Public Works Director Community Resources Finance Director Report on Management audits (GIP) Finance Director April 14, 1992 Rotation of Mayor April 28, 1992 Proclamation declaring May Water Awareness Month 3rd Quarter CIP status report Public Works Director Quarterly update of Goals Implementation Program City Manager May 12, 1992 Proclamation Public Works Week May 18 to 22 Public Works Director Project Touch lease renewal (Rms. 3 & 11) May 26, 1992 Street lighting/Crossing Guard (a) resolution approving report (b) resolution setting public hearing for June 23 June 9, 1992 Dispute Resolution Services lease renewal June 23, 1992 Report on civilian enforcement officers (GIP) Street lighting/Crossing Guard public hearing July 28, 1992 4th Quarter CIP status report Quarterly update of Goals Implementation Program August 11, 1992 Hope Chapel Lease renewal (Rms. 5, 6A) September 8, 1992 Recommendation on changing telephone system (GIP) Association for Retarded Citizens lease renewal (Rm. 1, 2, 15) South Bay Hospital District lease renewal (Rm 9) Easter Seals lease renewal (Rms. 16, 17) December, 1992 Housing element (GIP) Project Touch lease renewal (Rm.C) Community Resources Dir. Public Works Director Community Resources Dir. Public Safety Director Public Works Director Public Works Director City Manager Community Resources Dir. General Services Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Planning Director Community Resources Dir. *********************************************************#******* Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared Caltrans utility maintenance agrmt. Historic Preservation Ordinance (with Land Use Element) Public Works Director Planning Director ***************************************************************** Initiated by Party Date Council 5/8/90 Re. oil project CUP - define "temporary" as relates to height of project Planning Director Goal 4 5/16/90 Options to computerize per- sonnel as part of payroll function Finance Director Council 8/14/90 Review of standard CUP conditions Planning Dir. Council 10/9/90 Map and time schedule for street sweeping Public Wks. Dir. Ordinance for new Chapter 19 of HBMC entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" Public Works Dir. City Mgr.2/21/91 RFP for computer system General Svcs. Dir. Council 3/12/91 South School Conceptual design Community Resources Dept. 3/27/91 CIP 89-176 - Call for bids, traffic signal pre-emption Public Works Director Council Bid spec. for office systems (furniture) Finance Director VPD recommendation on sidewalk scrubber General Services Director Award of bid for purchase of computer equipment for Police Dept. Police Chief Council 6/6/91 Review Bldg/Zoning Code changes to improve liveability Planning Director Staff 7/25/91 Adjustment of Park Tax Building Director - 5 - Council 8/13 Later parking hours in residential areas in downtown area Council 8/27 Revision of allowable uses in open space zone Council 9/24/91 Effect of nonconforming ordinance on damaged structures General Services Planning Planning Dept. City Mgr. 9/26/91 Contract Cities Trust Fund Program modifications Personnel Council 10/8/91 Report on reconstruction of Strand Public Works Report on productivity incentives for employees (GIP) Personnel Director ` October 8, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 22, 1991 REPORT ON COMPLETION OF THE NEW FIRE ALARM SYSTEM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER CIP 89-615 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council accept the installation of the new fire alarm system at the Community Center as complete. Background: On February 14, 1989 the City Council approved the initial plans and specifications for this project. Only one bid was received in the amount of $42,381. At the March 14, 1989, City Council meeting, the Council rejected the bid and authorized the staff to advertise again. In the adopted CIP program for fiscal year 1989-90, only $12,000 was funded although $48,400 was the total estimated project cost. Three bids were received at the second bid opening and the range was from $32,519 to $46,150. At the June 27, 1989 meeting of the City Council, the project was returned to staff with the request that the costs be reduced. The staff was instructed to "revamp" the system and revise the specifications. The owner of the existing system was contacted and he submitted a proposal for review in September 1989. In a December 6, 1989 memo to the City Council, the staff recommended that all bids be rejected and that the upgrading work be done by the present fire alarm system contractor. The engineering staff estimated that the needed fire alarm control equipment could be purchased directly from the supply house at a cost of $4,600. The control equipment would then be permanent city property instead of belonging to the contractor. Analysis: The total budget for FY 1990-91 including the control equipment, new wiring and new sensors was approved at $10,000. On February 2, 1991, the contractor sent a letter to the City requesting termination of the agreement and all services with the City. The contractor agreed that his system would continue in operation as a month to month rental until the City system was fully operational. However, the new City system would have to be installed by the City. - 1 - 1h Installation of the new fire alarm system by City staff was started May 1, 1991. The system divides the Community Center into six (6) zones or areas for better fire fighting control. The number of sensors has been increased from 80 locations up to 162 locations as directed by the Fire Department. Also 8,000 feet of new wiring was installed. Both the communicator control panel at the Community Center and the receiver at the Police 911 desk are digital units, they automatically self check the total system daily and they are connected by two dedicated telephone lines. The new system was checked by the Fire Department for final approval on September 25, 1991. The old contract was cancelled effective September 30, 1991. The work on this revised system doubled the size of the project and was completed by the City Public Works staff, on a part time basis, while still fulfilling their required duties. These dedicated City employees did an outstanding job. Fiscal Impact: FY 1990-91 Budget Funds Spent for materials and equipment. $10,000.00 9,886.68 Remaining Funds $ 113.32 Alternatives: 1. Do not accept the installation as complete. 2. Require additional work to be done. Respectfully submitted, Concur: Lynn Terry C/ i� lliam Glickman, Interim Deputy City Engineer 'erector of Public Works 11 I Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager pworks/ccsr615 l CI'T'Y OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY TREASURER RE: RESPONSE TO COUNCIL MEMBER SHELDON'S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION DATE: OCTOBER 15, 1991 The California Government Code (section 53601) states that for liquidity purposes investments should be limited to five year maturity dates or less. In March and May 1987 the former City Treasurer purchased two Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation pieces. The May purchase cost was $249,320.88 at 9.5% interest with a maturity date of August 1, 2016. The March purchase cost was $248,733.64 at 8.0% interest with a maturity date of March 1, 2017. These investments are safe. However, they do not have the liquidity prong of our three prong goal of safety, liquidity and yield. I began tracking the market price, and when the market price equaled the purchase price (par) that was paid for the investment purchased in May the investment was sold. Unfortunately the instrument purchased in March has yet to reach par. The instrument purchased in March has had a principle pay down of $29,797.79 with a balance of $218,936.15. The Investment Report is a document generated to illustrate purchase value of City investments, date of investment and interest rate of return. The Investment Report is not a balance sheet. The Treasurer's Report is the investment balance sheet. Investment principle pay back is registered on this report. The $29,797.79 has been recorded in the investment total in the Treasurer's Report. The interest numbers reflect interest generated from investments. All auditor adjustments have been made to the interest accounts as of June 30, 1991. Total fiscal year 1990-1991 interest earned is $966,952.25. 11 Since my election in 1987, the City's financial transactions have been audited 4 times by 2 different auditing firms. The method by which we record and carry our investments was recommended and approved by our auditor in 1986. Additionally, in 1991 the City received a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its comprehensive annual financial report for fiscal year ended June 30, 1991. (;t! ; / ,1:6 ( Gary L. u sch City Treasurer Addenda 1 letter dated October 15 to J. Williams 2 information on Medium Term Note 3 letter to City Attorney 4 investment market pricing 5 Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: JUNE WILLIAMS FROM: CITY TREASURER RE: ANSWER TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING FHLMC DATE: OCTOBER 15, 1991 The answers to the questions you addressed to me and the Mayor and City Council are as follows: 1. The balance of the Fhlmc investment is $218,936.15, and the principal payback amount is $29,797.79. 2. The City Attorney will be responding to this question. 3. The principal payback is not included in my percentages of interest earned. Sincerely, Ga Brut ch City Treasurer SB 962 —6— (j) Medium-term notes of a maximum of five years maturity issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States. Notes eligible for investment under this subdivision shall be rated in a rating category of "A" or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized rating service. Purchases of medium-term notes may not exceed 30 percent of the agency's surplus money which may be invested pursuant to this section. (k) Shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies, as defined in Section 23701m of the Revenue and Taxation Code, investing in the securities and obligations as authorized by subdivisions (a) to (1), inclusive, of this section and which comply with the investment and deposit restrictions of this article and Article 2 (commencing with Section 53630) . To be eligible for investment pursuant to this subdivision, these companies shall either: (1) attain the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two of the three largest nationally recognized rating services, or (2) have an investment advisor registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years experience investing in the securities and obligations as authorized by subdivisions (a) to (m), inclusive, of this section and with assets under management in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) . The purchase price of shares of beneficial interest purchased pursuant to this subdivision shall not include any commission that these companies may charge and shall not exceed 15 percent of the agency's surplus money which may be invested pursuant to this section. . (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this section, Section 53635 or any other provision of law, moneys held by a trustee or fiscal agent and pledged to the payment or security of bonds or other indebtedness, or obligations under a lease, installment sale, or other agreement of a local agency, or certificates of participation in those bonds, indebtedness, or Lease installment sale, or other agreements, may be invested in 95 130 i - • '^• ►•. '7- -;•• sy Merrill Lynch. Pierce. Fenner & Smith Inc. :400 imoeriai Bark Tower B Street San Diego. Caurornia 92101 "e;ecnone 0'9 099-3700 May 16, 1988 Mr. Gary Brutsch City Treasurer 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 Dear Gary, Enclosed please find a copy of Senate Bill 962 which amended Sections 5360L and 53635 of the Government Code, relating to local agency funds. The bill revised the provisions concerning the medium-term corporate notes (MTN's). The full description is located under Section 1, (j) of 53601 of the Government Code as noted. The highlights are: 1) Revised from 15% to 30% of local agency's surplus money for investment in authorized securities. 2) Allows investment in MTN's by depository institutions operating within the United States. 3) Rated in a rating category of "A" or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized rating service versus 2 of 3 largest nationally recognized rating services. Please find a copy of Credit Ratings from Moody's, S&P, Duff and Phelps, and Fitch. We have underlined the cut-off for MTV's. Below is the information on the MTN you purchased for the City of Hermosa Beach: $500m Ford Motor Credit MTN, rated Aa2/AA-, 19.10% coupon, maturing 5/2/93, with interest payments semiannually on 3/15 and 9/15. The MTN was bought at par (100) with no accrued interest. Settlement date is 5/19/88. You will receive an actual "Securities Purchased" confirmation from Merrill Lynch for your records. With the Government Code increasing the percentage of MTN's in the portfolio from 15% to 30% of the surplus money, this allows local agencies greater flexibility to lock in attractive yields relative to Treasury and Agency securities. MTN's are highly liquid investments and enjoy an active secondary market. ra Merrill Lynch CREDIT RATINGS Corporate Bond Rating Equivalents Moody's Standard & Poor's Duff & Phelps Fitch Aaa AAA 1 AAA Aal Aa2 • Aa3 AA + AA AA - 2 3 4 AA+ AA AA- . Al A2 A3 A+ A A- 5 6 7 A+ A A- - Baal Baa2 Baa3 BBB+ BBB BBB - 8 9 10 BBB+ BBB BBB - Bal Bat Ba3 BB+ BB BB - 11 12 13 Bl B2 B3 8+ B B- 14 I BB+ BB BB - B+ B B- Caa CCC CCC Ca CC I CC C C D C D / Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. 2400 Imperial Bank Tower 701 B Street San Dego. California 92101 Teieonone 619/699.3700 October 6, 1988 Mr. Gary Brutsch Treasurer City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Gary, The Medium Term Note (MTN) secondary market is a significant market with substantial trading volume that allows virtually any holder of a medium term note to resell that paper with ease. There are no restrictions on Medium Term Notes that preclude them from being resold at any time at the discretion of the holder. Since� Raymond L. Hi s Senior Fina i 1 Consultant RLH/jl UZ Merrill Lynch HERMOSA BEACH HOLD 04349 PHM: (213) 318-0221 FAX: (213) 372-0180 41 -Oct --91 TYPE FAQ CUT SOL ASK PX 6Q PX . MARKET votive INT PUT CATE oesin FHLMC 8.00% 280201 P#ACR 8.1096 06/20193 T 7.326% 12131/31 T 8.375% 02116/03 7 3.509102/29102 T 8.609! 02/20/92 T 8.50% 03/31/92 T 8.60% 06130/04 TOTALS: MBS MTN TSY TSY TSY TSY TSY TSY 250,000 500,000 500.000 1.000.000 1.000,000 600.000 1,000,000 1.000.000 5,750,000 04/72!88 06/19/88 01/03/90 06/26190 03/06190 03108100 04/20/90 06114/80 88.007600 100.000000 88.843750 90.087500 100.015825 99.984376 90.531250 100.503750 97.910000 103,000000 100.530000 103.250000 101.220000 101.220000 101.600000 105.440000 227.041 615,450 602.060 1,082.800 1,012.200 508,100 1,016.000 1,064,400 5,886.241 13111 03/1606116 08.00 12110 02/16081/6 02120 08120 02/28 06129 03/9100/30 06/3012130 OE381E & RAY HIGGINS PH: (800) 877-3043 FAX: (019) 985-0283 MERRILL LYNCH MERRILL LYNCH MERRILL LYNCH MERRILL LYNCH MERRILL LYNCH MERRILL LYNCH MERRILL LYNCH MERRILL LYNCH CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY TREASURER RE: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM JUNE WILLIAMS DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1991 Please review the attached letter and respond appropriately. Thank You, (moi ,U Gary L. Brutsch City Treasurer c.c. Mayor and City Council V June 1Viir�iams : l lankactan _-4elmoua Lack. 40214 Mayor and Council City Treasurer October 10, 1991 After reviewing Mr Brutsch's remarks at the last Council meeting, it is apparent he has no idea what I was requesting. Here is a clarification which I'm sure would be verified by reviewing my remarks. #1 What is the correct balance of the FHLMC investment, showing the payback of principal ?. #2 I•s the FHLMC investment an illegal investment? (This opinion should come from an attorney and not Mr Brutsch.) #3 Was the pricipal payback included in Mr Brutsch's percentages of interest earned ? - ,' 2 `'Ql L �'LG�6t11� 1p Are. • j / OCT 10 '991 Ctty Clerk 7-14 City of Mermnsk esseN \� liN \` Iv � October 14, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO STUDY THE IMPACTS OF OBNOXIOUS VAPORS AND ODORS BEING RELEASED FROM BUSINESSES PURPOSE: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO DIRECT STAFF TO EXAMINE THE PROBLEM OF VAPORS AND ODORS AND TO STUDY POSSIBLE METHODS FOR ALLEVIATING THE PROBLEM INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution of intent. Background At their meeting of September 17, 1991, the Planning Commission considered adopting a resolution of intent to study vapors and odors. Rather than initiating the study themselves, however, they recommended that the City Council take the lead in initiating such a study. Analysis The Commission initially expressed interest in pursuing this issue at the September 3, 1991, meeting when a conditional use permit for an auto body and painting shop was being discussed. The study would include reviewing existing local and regional laws and the extent they are being enforced, surveying regulations used by other cities, and recommendations for enforcement and/or ordinance changes. Although the most obvious problem with obnoxious odors and vapors are from auto body and painting businesses, other automotive businesses, and perhaps some food establishments cause similar problems. As such, staff believes all types of businesses should be considered in the study. C ONg'L?3 Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager Attachments 1. P.C. Resolution 2. P.C. Minutes 9/17/91 3. Staff memo 4. Correspondence p/ccsrbid Associate Planner RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING STAFF TO INVESTIGATE THE IMPACT OF VAPORS AND ODORS RELEASED FROM BUSINESSES AND TO STUDY POSSIBLE METHODS TO MONITOR AND CONTROL THESE VAPORS AND ODORS WHETHER THROUGH ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS OR THROUGH AMENDMENT OF EXISTING LAWS. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on October 22, 1991, to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission of September 17, 1991, to study the issue of vapors and odors and made the following Findings: A. The release of vapors and odors from certain businesses, especially automotive related business but also some other types of establishments such a fast food restaurants, are resulting in a nuisance and a potential health hazard to nearby residents; B. The Air Quality Management District is responsible for monitoring and controlling emission with respect to impact on air quality, however, their efforts do not necessarily address all vapor and odor causing emissions which may have only localized impacts; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby direct staff to study the impact of the release of vapor and odors from business and to study potential methods to alleviate the problem. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 22nd day of October, 1991, by: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 40.4.4-1"4°. CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 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 P.C. 91-56 A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO DIRECT STAFF TO INVESTIGATE THE IMPACT OF VAPORS AND ODORS RELEASED FROM BUSINESSES AND TO STUDY POSSIBLE METHODS TO MONITOR AND CONTROL THESE VAPORS AND ODORS WHETHER THROUGH ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS OR THROUGH AMENDMENT OF EXISTING LAWS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on September 17, 1991, and made the following Findings: A. The release of vapors and odors from certain businesses within the City are resulting in a nuisance and a potential health hazard to nearby residents; B. The Air Quality Management District is responsible for monitoring and controlling emissions which impact air quality, but their efforts do not necessarily address all vapor and odor causing emissions which may have only localized impacts; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend to the City Council to direct staff to study the impact of the release of vapor and fumes from businesses and to study possible text amendments or enforcement procedures to address the problem. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Di Monda,Marks,Peirce,Stifano,Chmn.Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 91-56 a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of September 17, 1991. Christine Ketz,JChairperson Michael Schubach, Secre my Date p/persodor Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Marks stated the mural was an excellent idea. MOTION by Comm. Marks, seconded by_Comm. Di-Monda, to approve the request. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce, Stifano, Chmn. Retz NOES: None ---• ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: --"-� None RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO STUDY THE PROBLEM OF ODORS AND VAPORS BEING RELEASED FROM BUSINESSES. Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Schubach stated at the September 3, 1991, the commission expressed concern regarding odors and vapors. Although agencies currently control emissions, obnoxious odors are not necessarily controlled. Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution of Intent if the Commission wishes further study and suggests this item be passed to City Council as a Consent Item. Comm. Di Monda questioned the wording, "investigate the impact", stating there is a problem which should be addressed by asking Staff to present an ordnance to help control toxic grease, etc. being released into the atmosphere, to which Mr. Schubach suggested, "to examine vapors and odors released and to study possible methods to monitor and control these vapors ...." Comms. stifano and Di Mondo discussed the inclusion of the fact that the Commission recognizes citizen complaints and other Public Hearings that the State and other ordnances do not address the problems. An investigation of impact is not the need, rather a manner of control is necessary. Comm. Peirce suggested a review of other cities which have had the same problem and review the solutions implemented. Comm. stifano stated another issue raised was whether or not the study should be proposed to City Council or immediately begun. Comm. Peirce stated he felt the staff should start the study. Comm. Marks, Di Monda and Chmn. Ketz felt it should go to city council before staff conducts a study. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:26 P.M. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:26 P.M. Mr. Lee stated he could ask for clarification in terms of the release of vapor and fumes, asking if the Commission wishes to regulate all types of vapors, fumes or only noxious, toxic ones. Comm. Marks felt the Resolution should be narrowed to include only noxious and harmful vapors, using the Air Quality Board Guidelines. MOTION by comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. stifano, to approve the Resolution of the Planning Commission to recommend to the city council to direct staff to investigate the impact and odors released from businesses, study possible methods to monitor and control vapors and odors, whether it is through enforcement of existing laws or through amendment of existing laws. P.C.Minutes 9/17/91 AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Peirce, Stifano, Chmn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None STAFF ITEMS MEMORANDUM REGARDING PUBLIC TELEPHONES AT 635 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, LE MASTERS. Mr. schubach stated Staff was directed a memorandum to the City Manager. Staff has discovered the General Services Department is in the process of removing the telephones and notified General Telephone and the property owner. Staff therefore believed the memorandum was unnecessary, but will prepare it if the Commission so wishes. Comm. Di Monda requested follow-up on this item. Mr. Schubach said this has been included in the'CUP. i RECEIVE AND FILE. MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON FOR/SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. T'\ Chmn. .Ketz stated the agenda item is the appeal/of the Planning Commission's denial of a two -lot subdivision at.596 19th Street. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 1 AND 15, 1991. No comments. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 1991. i RECEIVE AND FILE. COMMISSIONER ITEMS i N comm. Peirce brought forth.the basement issue, discussing fire -exits and the associated dangers in exiting. Chmn. Ketz asked if PubliSafety has expressed an opinion on this issue, to which Mr. Schubach stated it h dn't been asked. Comms. Di Monda and Peirce discussed Commission vs. Departmehtal authority and responsibilities, as well as finished grade vs. existing grade vs. building site. Mr. Lee suggested that typically the interpretation the Uniform Building Code rests with the Building Director, subject to his interpretation, subject to the Municipal Code as a Board of Appeal to interpret building requirements. Mr. Lee stated application is the Commission's purview and suggested\ amending the Zoning Code for clarity if the commission so wished. He stated the Building code could be amended to provide for local jurisdiction definition and consistency. Mr. Lee read the Zoning Code basement definition, stating, it lacks clarity. Comm. Peirce and Mr. Lee discussed the problem of the Commission's vs. the Building Department's interpretation of what constitutes and basement and the applicable provisions apply. P.C.Minutes 9/17/91 5 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commissio r� :1 FROM: Michael Schubach, Planni g/J or SUBJECT: Resolution of Intent to Study the Problem of Odors and Vapors Being Released From Businesses DATE: September 12, 1991 At the meeting of September 3, 1991, the Commission expressed concern about the problem of odors and vapors that are released from auto body paint shops and other businesses. It was noted that although the AQMD monitors and controls emissions to protect regional air quality, the more localized concerns about obnoxious odors and vapors are not necessarily controlled. If the Commission desires further study of this issue staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution of intent so both options of more thorough enforcement of existing laws and the ordinance amendments can be considered. p/memo3 6 r City of 2lermosa rl3eack. September 30, 1991 Mr. James Lissner 2715 El Oeste Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Subject: Response to Letter of 8/25/91 Regarding the Release of Pollution From Restaurants Dear Mr. Lissner: For your information, the Planning Commission recently adopted a resolution to recommend studying possible enforcement actions or ordinance amendments to alleviate the problem of the release of fumes and odors from businesses in the City. Although the basis for this request was primarily related to auto body and painting businesses, it also applies to any other businesses that release air contaminants. The City Council will be considering the Planning Commission's recommendation at their meeting of October 22, 1991. Your letter will be included in the same agenda item for the City Council's consideration. Thank you for your suggestion on this matter, and for your interest in improving the City. If you have any questions you may contact the Planning Department at (213) 318-0242. Sincerely, Michael Schubach,' Planning Director cc: City Manager James Lissner 2715 El Oeste Hermosa Beach, California (310) 376-4626 August 25, 1991 The City Council City Of Hermosa Beach City Hall Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Honorable Councilmembers: REcE/V£D AUG d ,yy Cory MQR C) In the near future the Pioneer chicken at Artesia and PCH may be replaced by a KooKooRoo, an El Pollo Loco -type operation. The current UBC and AQMD requirements for restaurant smoke and odor -abatement equipment are "very old technology," and have too many loopholes, for a severe impact to the neighborhood to be avoided. You have required extra equipment, far beyond that required by Code, to limit the emissions from an auto body shop. A fast food outlet puts out much more pollution than does a body shop of the same scale. The smell may be more pleasant, but an aerosol of burnt grease and the other carcinogenic and toxic byproducts of the combusiton of large amounts of natural gas is a much greater health risk (and does property damage as well). Also, nearby residents are likely to be exposed to much more of the cooking smoke since the restaurant hours are much longer and, unfortunately, coincide with the hours that the residents are likely to be in their homes. Equipment capable of capturing almost 100% of cooking emissions now is available at reasonable prices. I would like to suggest that this City should require a CUP for all restaurant operations whenever new or different stoves or grilles are installed. This would bring our requirments closer to those in Manhattan, where a CUP is required for all new restaurants. (Presently we do not require a CUP unless there is to be alcohol or a drive through, and generally, these requests do not come in until the restaurant is all built and has been in operation for a while.) I hope you will consider this suggestion and act on it as soon as you can so that we won't have a bunch of fast food applications grandfathered in. Sincerely, g • October 16, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 22, 1991 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF GREENBELT PARKING LOT CIP 91-511 Recommendation: The Public works staff recommends that the City Council review the three drawings from the consultant and the two drawings from the staff (to be provided at the meeting) and approve for construction Staff concept "B", the 130 space parking lot. Background: On February 26, 1991, the City Council authorized staff to utilize the services of Lawrence R. Moss and Associates to .prepare conceptual landscape drawings for the Greenbelt parking lot. The proposed project is to construct a tree lined parking lot with landscaped areas on the railroad right-of-way. The site location is between Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue east of the existing City Hall parking lot and southerly to 11th Street. On April 24, 1991, three conceptual drawings from the consultant were presented to the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission for their review. During May 1991, the Public Works staff added two additional conceptual drawings to the project. On June 6, 1991, those five drawings were presented to a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission for review. The project was sent back to staff for additional information. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. The Consultant's Drawings. 2. Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission Review. 3. The City Staff Drawings. 4. Conceptual Design Data. 5. Visibility. 6. Landscaping. 7. Traffic Safety. 8. Pedestrian Safety. 9. Parking. 10. Overnight Parking. 11. Estimated Local Recreational Parking Demands. it - 1 - 1. THE CONSULTANT'S DRAWINGS Lawrence R. Moss and Associates prepared three parking concept drawings for the parking lot. Concept No. 1. - DOUBLE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE Under concept number one, 95 regular sized parking spaces (or 102 compact spaces) could be provided. The concept uses an entrance at 11th Street and a exit for vehicles across from City Hall between 11th Place and Pier Avenue. The jogging path is moved to the east. This concept is similar to that used in Manhattan Beach, just north of Manhattan Beach Boulevard. (See attached photos on Page 3) Concept No. 2 - SINGLE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE This approach provides a single entrance and exit located across from 11th Place. With this parking configuration, better security can be provided. Also, overnight parking of large vehicles would be reduced by making it difficult for them to turn around. Similar to Concept No. 1, the jogging path is relocated to the east. Concept No. 2 provides 80 regular parking spaces (or 91 compact spaces). Concept No. 3 - MAXIMIZED LANDSCAPE AREA This concept maximizes the amount of new green area at the expense of reducing the parking area and does not comply with present City development standards. The jogging path would essentially run down the center of the Greenbelt and all parking would be located to the west of the Greenbelt similar to the parking situation across from Clark Stadium. With perpendicular parking it would provide approximately 75 spaces (or 82 compact spaces). The proposed parking is old fashioned; would require a large hard surface area next to the moving vehicles on the street; allow overnight parking of R.V.'s or large trucks and removes the existing lawn, oleanders and large trees. 2. PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES COMMISSION REVIEW The Advisory Commission discussed the Consultant's three concepts. The choice of the Commission was Concept No. 3. The reasons given for that choice were: Maximized green area, safe path to school, visibility of City Hall, lessens hazard to parking in evening, overnight parking problem reduced, compatible with rest of Greenbelt and may be desirable to use angle parking. The Commission has not had the opportunity to review the staff's two alternate concepts. 3. THE CITY STAFF DRAWINGS The City staff reviewed the conceptual drawings prepared by the consultant and provided two additional drawings for review. These two drawings were labeled Concept "A", with 75 parking spaces, and Concept "B", with 130 parking spaces. r+:*�•'i+#*;(aDLidO_� a .II1 I 14 0 4 W G4 H H W 0 H H U 4. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DATA GREENBELT PARKING LOT CIP 91-511 Notes: 1. Total width of Greenbelt area is 100 feet 2. Approved budget amount for construction is $123,887 pworks/gbpklot - 4 - CONCEPTS CONCERN #1 #2 #3 "A" "B" Number of standard parking spaces. 95 80 75 75 130 Width of parking area 60 62 32 40 55 Width of landscaped area 40 38 68 60 45 Number of access points 2 1 75 1 1 Can access be controled Yes Yes No Yes Yes Can overnight parking be controled Yes Yes No Yes Yes Can large truck park- ing be controled No Yes No Yes Yes Are parked vehicles protected from traveling vehicles on Valley Drive Yes Yes No Yes Yes Can the existing large Eucalyptus trees be saved Yes Yes No Yes Yes Are trees provided internally within the parking area for shade No No No Yes Yes Estimated construction costs in $ 90,800 104,700 164,000 130,600 123,700 Recommended Priority By Public Works Staff 3 4 5 2 1 Notes: 1. Total width of Greenbelt area is 100 feet 2. Approved budget amount for construction is $123,887 pworks/gbpklot - 4 - The Engineering staff, Planning staff, Police staff and Traffic Engineer have all spent time in the review of this project. The items of concern are provided in the following analysis sections. 5. VISIBILITY The staff recommends that the approved concept should provide open visibility across the Greenbelt area. This would require the existing oleanders to be trimmed to a maximum 36" height which is just high enough to cover the radiator of the parked cars. Good visibility across the Greenbelt area would also help the Police Department and provide more of an open space feeling in keeping with the intent of the Greenbelt concept. 6. LANDSCAPING The staff recommends that the maximum amount of internal and perimeter landscaping should be installed for each concept while providing the needed parking. This can be accomplished by leaving in place the existing lawn, oleanders and large Eucalyptus trees along the east side of Valley Drive. All of the proposed concepts recommend the existing landscaping to remain along Valley Drive except Concept No. 3. The existing dirt area used for parking can be narrowed and the existing landscaped area along the west side of Ardmore Avenue can be widened to include the jogging path. A number of additional landscaped areas can be installed between the parking spaces. By using the proper type of shade trees in these areas, it is possible to shade 20 to 30 percent of the proposed parking spaces. Additional landscaping can also be provided by allowing the front of the cars to overhang low plants in the first three feet at the front of the parking spaces. This method allows a total width of 45 feet for landscaping and jogging as shown in Concept "B". 7. TRAFFIC SAFETY The staff recommends that only one point of ingress and egress be provided to the proposed parking lot and that the access be located at the 11th Street intersection. This access would separate the vehicles using the proposed parking lot from the vehicles going to the parking lot at City Hall. The recommended concept also provides a landscaped area separation between the cars traveling on Valley Drive and the parking spaces. Because Valley Drive is the through street and the vehicle speeds are higher, stop signs should be installed at the parking lot exit and for the north bound vehicles on 11th Street. It is not in keeping with present standards to have vehicles backing out on to a street as shown in Concept #3. The City would not allow any private developer to install proposed new parking in that manner. 8. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY The City has provided a wide sidewalk for pedestrians along the west side of Valley Drive. Because of the existing narrow travel lanes and the landscaping on the east side of Valley Drive, there is no pedestrian walk area constructed along the west edge of the Greenbelt anywhere within the City. Pedestrian crossings can be provided at the existing street intersections from the parking lot to the existing sidewalk on the west side of Valley Drive. Pedestrians using the proposed jogging path are also protected by a landscaped area separation from the parking spaces. 9. PARKING The staff is aware of the need to provide additional parking spaces within the City. During the summer months, parking for the beach extends easterly of Pacific Coast Highway. CALTRANS has now removed some of the parking along PCH which will increase the parking problem. Also there is insufficient parking for Clark Field and the Community Center when there are large activities at those locations. The staff recommendation is to install Concept "B" with two rows of parking for 130 cars. This layout is the same as presently exists and is in keeping with the ordinance that was approved by the voters on November 7, 1989. Concept "A" with 75 spaces would reduce the parking area and add an additional 15 feet to the landscaping area. However, that 15 feet is much more useful to the City if it is used for parking. 10. OVERNIGHT PARKING The existing parking across from Clark Field has R.V. and other vehicles parked there overnight. This creates a Police problem at night and a cleaning problem in the mornings. With only one access, the proposed lot can be posted and controlled to not allow overnight parking and thus reduce the Police and cleaning problems. Also, large trucks are presently parking in the existing dirt parking area at night. By restricting the access to the parking lot with only one entrance, the large trucks will not be able to easily get out of the parking lot and will prefer to park somewhere else where it is easier to park. 11. ESTIMATED LOCAL RECREATIONAL PARKING DEMANDS The Community Center has 500 seats in the auditorium and over 200 seats in the gym, plus other rooms that can all be occupied at the same time. At the Clark Field site the Clark Building allows 250 persons standing and 170 persons seated. In addition, the baseball field seating can also hold 400 more persons. On hot days in the summer, the existing greenbelt parking is always full due to people using the beach. Shown on the next page is an estimate of the maximum parking demand due to local recreation needs which does not include beach parking. ESTIMATED PARKING DEMAND Community Center Clark Field Existing parking spaces tennis courts on the street at City Hall =122 = 18 = 70 on Valley Drive basketball ct's at City Hall =70 =30 =70 shopping ctr. = 60 170 270 Estimated maximum (500+200+20) 170+400+20) spaces needed at 1.8 = 400 1.8 = 328 1.8 persons per car Number of spaces with proposed 130 lot added (270+130) = 400 (170+130) = 300 Remaining demand for parking spaces -0- 28 Alternatives: Alternatives considered by staff in priority to the City Council are : 1. Recommend 2. Recommend 3. Recommend 4. Recommend 5. Recommend 6. Recommend Staff Concept "B". Staff Concept "A" consultant's concept consultant's concept consultant's concept some other concept. Respectfully submitted, ynn Terry Deputy City Engineer Concur: NOT AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE Michael Schubach Planning Director pworks/ccsrgrb - 7 - - #1. - #2. - #3. Concur: order and available Not available for signature. William Glickman, Interim Director of Public Works Mary<Rgoney, Director of Community Ressu ces Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager F INI,NCE--SFA:i.iO TIME 14-00:01 PAY VENDOfMAME I,! -SCR IPT (ON R A I•. F TROPHIES MI_• CIL'•.SCFS/OCT 91 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 10/10/91_ VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 02744 10306 10/01/91 001-400-1101-4319 00117 $20.74. CITY COUNCIL /SPECIAL EVENTS *** VE1::;:•i;7 10 IAd_ *:*;F.x*+***it#•u•attF********#3F?t•1F4t•It************iF-n#iF3F•IF****#•N*iFji••IF****#iFiFiF** R ACTS, INC. PURt.ICAT 1 OM.5/FINANCE 03015 10/09/91 PAGE 0001 J _ DATE 10/10/91 INV/REF PO # CHI; # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $20.74 001-400-1202-431.6 00383 $28.00 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING *4.4 v17.0T) lu TOTAL *,144 r*x****af****? **-n***##ar-zr*•>******•n**********-nsr*•»*********** r*•tt**#•u R AMERICAN STYLE FOODS MISC. CHARGES/OCT 91 00857 001-400-2101-4306 ...01050 6638 10/01/91 POLICE $28. 00 $111.00 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE nx•n VENDOR TOT/ ** i> il*******atat*?t*•;tat#•> ********************prat***** ********* *stat•* *** R ARATEX/RED STAR UTII_.ITY RAGS/SEP R ARATEX/RED STAR UTILITY RAGS/SEP R ARATEX/RED STAR UTILITY RAGS/SEP R ARATEX/RED STAR UTILITY RAGS/SEP R i- ARATEX/RED STAR UTILITY RAGS/SEP INDUSTRIAL. 91 1377 INDUSTRIAL 91 1377 INDUSTRIAL 91 1377 INDUSTRIAL 91 1377 INDUSTRIAL 91 1377 $111. 00 00152 .. 001-400-2201-4307..__01159__....... _..._____*67.60 09/30/91 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00152 001-400-3104-4309 00745. $54.20 09/30/91 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00152 .. 001-400-4204-4309 ..02116______ _ __ ._ .$191.88 . _ 09/30/91 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00152 001-400-4205-4309 00591.._. .... _ $62.60 09/30/91 EQUIP SERVICE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00152 110-400-3302-4309 00793 _ .._..... .... _ _ ..$9.35 _ 09/30/91 PARKING ENF /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL *********trar*** •********•n*•nater•n*•n*•u•nor********************ar**•n******** ASPHALT MAINTENANCE COMPANY PMT 3/SLURRY SEALING 86 $405.63 10306 00102 .1. F $0. 00 J 11 pH 38616 0 10/10/91 02732 38617 $0.00 10/10/91 ,`.6638 00105 *0.00 .....;41377 00017 *0.00 1377 00017 $0.00 ...1.1377. 00017. . . $0.00 1377 00017 $0.00 _1377. 00017 $0.00 38618 10/10/91 38619 10/10/91 38619 . 10/10/91 38619 10/10/91 38619 10/10/91 38619 10/10/91 04160 305-400-8170-4201._ 00022____ .*46,327.54 86 .02966 38620 _. 09/24/91 CIP 87-170 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/10/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL **-n*******at*****•n*********************;t*ar***•n*********************ar* R BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY 02509 MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 2645 09/30/91 • $46.327.54 001-400-1202-4305 00406 ..., ..,.. *21.92 FINANCE ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES . 2645. 00098 38621....'. $0. 00 10/10/91 • o I ' '1 • 'J FINANCE-mFA.:140 TIME. 14:00:01 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 10/10/91 VND w ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN ft AMOUNT n.s':n,Rr,ou DATE INVC PROJ ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION LxUR/s z °pnnwSTszw CIFF PAYMENT REFUND 70884 04295 110-300-0000-3302 4200*.*wzoo 10/08/91 /COURT FINES/PARKING °"" v:7-wnnm mnv. °°°°°°°°°°°*°°°°°°°°°*=*°****°°*°*°***°***°°°°°° °°°*—__ __ *4a.00 n nsrxw LINEN SERVICE PRISONER LAUNDRY/SEP 91 . 00163 001-400-2101-4306 010*9 09/30/91 POLICE - $210.20 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE **» VENDOR Torm- *********y*vv******************************°********°******»******** n BROWNING u FERRIS INDUSTRIES TRASH p1Cxup/nnr 71 n BROWNING u FERRIS zmooarnIss TRASH PICKUP/OCT 91 — 00155 001-400-1206-4201 00802. . $578.37 - ' 10/01/91 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT PAGE 0002 DATE 10/10/91 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 970884 02726 ~ 38622 1o/1o/p1 00099 38623 $0.00 10/10/91 �^| i {• |'| .. .! !`/ /.i ^ i � ° 00005 36624 | $0.00 10/10/91 1-1 i| `| 4 |^. ^ :`. | " 3225e 03026 3o626 !^ $0.00 10/10/91 • . .� oa�an 38627 [l --- ' $0.00 10/10/91 1'4 ] ' u" ` 4 00155 109-400-3301-4201 000ao _ $516.63 ' — -_ 10/01/91 VEH PKG DIST /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT * **° ****************************»*******«******** *4* vs,mon ror�� ��°***'�'******** * * ' - n BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES DUMP CHARGES/SEP 91 37002 *1.op5.on 00005 38624 $0.00 10/10x91 _'00158 001-400-3103-4201 .__00355 $2,479.26__ 910900-0037002 00004 09/30/91 ST MAINTENANCE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 **° VENDOR TOTAL °°*°°°°°°****°v***°************°*************************°********** n BUSINESS m-LsGAL REPORTS _ -' 03735 705-400-1217-4316 00022 _ *189.95 PUBLICATIONS/PERSONNEL 322.58 10/08/91 WORKERS COMP /TRAINING *2'479.oa *°^ VENDOR Torm- ***^*°«»»******v****************v***°**********v*°*o******o****o**** R C.G.A. --- _ 04294 001-400-4201-4305 00711_-_ -*27_74 10/01/91 BUILDING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES **« VENDOR TOTAL **«*°«°*°******y*****«********************************************** � CA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, INC. MEDIAN MAINT/JUL 91 $27.74 00599 - 001-400-3101-4201_00080_______$3,202.59. 07/31/91 MEDIANS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 38625 10/10/91 111 00044 38628 $0.00 10/10/91 , � � ��- FINANCE—SFA310 TIME 14: 00:01 PAY VENDOR NAME D!c.SCR U T T ON CA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE,_ INC. MEDIAN MAINT/AUG 91 CA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, INC. PARKS M.;INT:'JULY 91 R CA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, INC. PARKS MAINT/AUG 91 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 10/10/91 r;k:. ri PAGE 0003 DATE 10/10/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF, PO # CHK # DATE INVC• PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT IJNF_I'JC DATE EXP 00599 001-400-3101-4201_ 08/31/91 MEDIANS 00081______.. $3,202.59 /C ONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00599 001-400-6101-4201...00240 07/31/91 PARKS 00599 001-400-6101-4201 00241 OB/31/91 PARKS $10,544.15 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $10, 544. 15 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT * *** VENDOR TOTAL **, ?**41******** ******#iFi ******** tit*** ******1 ******************* R CA MUNICIPAL STATISTICS, INC. PREPARE DEBT STMT/AUDIT _03066 001-400-1202-4201,..00278_ 09/30/91 FINANCE ADMIN s.` $27,493.48 _ .... $350, 00. _ 4 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL **********tri******************************************************** R R R R R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLINGS/SEP 91 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLINGS/STEP 91 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLINGS/SEP 91 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLING S/SEP 91 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLINGS/SEP 91 00016 _.... 09/30/91 001-400-2101-4303..__00052_ POLICE 00016 001-400-3101-4303 00165 09/30/91 MEDIANS 00016 001-400-4204-4303.._.00487 09/30/91 BLDG MAINT 00016 001-400-6101-4303 00374 09/30/91 PARKS 00016 001-400-6101-4303_ 00375_ 09/30/91 PARKS $350.00 00044 38628 $0.00 10/10/91 00044 38628 $0.00 10/10/91 00044 38628 $0.00 10/10/91 02726 $350.00 30629 10/10/91 $6..08 -_ ___.___...... _......__ _ . 09101 38630 /UTILITIES $0.00 10/10/91 $680.39 .. 00910 38630 /UTILITIES $0.00 10/10/91 /UTILITIES $1, 858. 39. /UTILITIES $13. 80 — - _ /UTILITIES *** VENDOR, TOTAL ***4**1*-iI****************»************************-p****************** R WARREN*CARTF_R MILEAGE_/CABLE TV CONF. 190 04257 001-400-1205-4317 ,00054 09/30/91 CABLE TV $2,934.15 $21.42 /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *w* VENDOR TOTAL ****nay**********************************************4*************** $21.42 NO CINTAS CORPORATION._ _. UNIFORM RENTAL/SEP 91 00 A 41 00153 .- _..001-400-4202-4187 ._ 00181__._...__,...__.-$546, 09/30/91 PUB WKS ADMIN /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 00910 38630..., $0.00 10/10/91 00910 38630 $0.00 10/10/91 .. 09101 38630 $0.00 10/10/91 03517 $0.00 38631 10/10/91 00002 38632 .. $0.00 10/10/91 '1 J J I� J FINANCE- SI ?.10 TINE II. 00:01 ,''Y VENDOR NAME Ur. -,i,.. ,.'T I21 R CINTAS CORPORATION UNIFMM RENTAL./SEP 91 CITY OF HERMOSA REACH DEMAND LIST FOR 10/10/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00133 110-400-3302-4167._00310 09/30/91 PARKING ENF /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE *** VF Z.)0; TnTAL *:fir-;c**m.*.n****er?r#?->fif****•u•»*+r#***********nit******#********** . R CON SYSTEMS, INC LC1IJ3 DISTANCE/SEP 91 fT CON SYSTEMS, INC 1.2110 DI':TATJ �E/FFP 91 R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DISTANCE/SEP 91 COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG Di: T,', E/SEP 91 R COM SYSTEMS, .INC _. LONG DISTANCE/SE P 91 R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONA DISTANCE/SEP 91 R . COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DI_3TANCE/SEP 91 R CON SYSTEMS, INC LOIS.; LISr(I- 'E/ Io' 91 P. CON SYSTEMS, INC 00017 001-400-1121-4304 00435 75156 10/01/91 CITY CLERK 75156 75156 00017 10/01/91 00017 10/01/91 001-400-1141-4304.._.00455 CITY TREASURER 001-400-1201-4304 00469.. CITY MANAGER 00017 001-400-1202-4304 00501 75156 10/01/91 FINANCE ADMIN 00017 _. _001-400-1203-4304 _00505 75156 10/01/91 PERSONNEL INV/REF t AMOUNT ,rt $568.13 __ $11.81 /TELEPHONE $8.53.. /TELEPHONE .. _ $4.70 /TELEPHONE . $38. 63 /TELEPHONE /TELEPHONE 00017 001-400-1206-4304 00392 $37.83. 75156 10/01/91 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE 00017 ... 001-400-1207-4304.._.._00320 75156 10/01/91 75156 LONG DIST/POL.ICE/SEP 91 —4625 R CON SYSI EMS, INC LONG DISTANCE/SEP 91 75156 R CON SYSTEMS, INC LONG DISTANCE/SEP 91 R COM SYSTEMS, INC LOIF, DISTANCE/SEP 91 75156 00017 10/01/91 BUS LICENSE /TELEPHONE 001-400-2101-4304 POLICE 00887 $294. 45 /TELEPHONE 00017 . 001-400-2101-4304 .00689 09/30/91 POLICE 00017 10/01/91 00017 10/01/91 001-400-4101-4304 00504 PLANNING 001-400-4202-4304 00521 PUB WKS ADMIN 00017 001-400-4601-4304 00590 75156 10/01/91 COMM RESOURCES $2.32 /TELEPHONE $19. 44 /TELEPHONE . $68.76.. /TELEPHONE $71.36 /TELEPHONE PO UNENC PAGE 0004 DATE 10/10/91 . CHR if DATE EXP 00002 38632 $0.00 10/10/91 I 00575156 00916 38633 $0. 00 10/10/91 00575156 00916 $0. 00 00575136 00916 $0.00 00575156 00916 $0. 00 00573156 00916 38633 $0.00 10/10/91 38633 10/10/91 38633 10/10/91 1 • I 'I v iJ •II 10/10/91 38633 I I L,I J L.I 00573156 00916 38633 $0.00 10/10/91 , - 00575156 00916 38633 $0:00 10/10/91 1 00575156 00916 $0. 00 374-4625 00917 $0.00 00375156 00916 38633 $0.00 10/10/91 36633 10/10/91 36633 10/10/91 00575156 00916 38633 $0.00 10/10/91 00575156 00916 38633 $0.00 10/10/91 J • R . CON SYSTEMS, INC 00017 105-400-2601-4304...... 00184.___.__._._______.$16.74_._.__-_____ _..00375156 00916 38633 I" LONG DISTANCE/SEP 91 75156 10/01/91 STREET LIGHTING /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/10/91 • •1 1 FINANCE-SrA110 TIMr. 14:00:01. PAY vt:NOOR NAME DFFCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST • FOR 10/10/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PAGE 0005 DATE 10/10/91 INV/REF PO ft CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 4 1- R NR COM SYMEMS, INC . __. 00017 110-400-3302-4304 00505. 541. 97___ _, 00975156 00916 38633 LODMTANCE/SEP 91 75156 10/01/91 t PARKING ENF /TELEPHONE ' $0.00 10/10/91 I. arl.* vEN00R 'TOTAL **?***********4(*****4t*********************************41************ $636.99. •,, li 1 ' 4 Li R COOPERS ?a. LYBRAND 03498 001-400-1202-4201l' -I 00279_ .. $8,530.00 1726-000252 02725 38634 PRO(.; FMT/AUDIT FY 91 • 00252 09/17/91 FINANCE ADMIN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT -, $0.00 10/10/91 4t- : •--4i *** VENboR ToIAL. i4,.4.************************************************************** __ $8,530.00_ - : R CROWN STERLING SUITES _ . 04297 001-400-2101-4312 .01759_5509.76 . . ._ HOTEL/K. MICHEL 10/09/91 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE • POST 1 4/ 02636 38635 _II ' $0.00 10/10/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL *-,Av*-,!************************************************************* _ ___ 5509.76 1 , , R THE*DATLY BREEZE . ...._ _ 00642..___001-400-1203-4201_00608 $150.92. 00919 38636 ' 1. 4 MIEC. CHARCES/SEP 91 09/30/91 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0. 00 10/10/91 !" .1 *4# VENDOR roTAL *t*.AV-VM41-4*-*************************-******-*******1-****************** $150.92 R . DANIEL FREEMAN LAX MED. CLINIC__ 02390 - 705-400-1217-4182_00197. $42. 19. , 001291-30 00323 38637 MED SERV/T. ECKERT 91-30 09/20/91 WORKERS COMP /WORKERS COMP CURRENT YR $0.00 10/10/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL ****rn************************************************************ $42. 19 .. fatt R 1 E. T. SURFBOARDS, INC. 04290 _ 001-210-0000-2110 _04537_ _ _ .. $500.00 25730 03254 38638 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 25730 10/03/91 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 10/10/91 L -1 **I VENDOR TOTAL **-**********1*******************************-4-*********44******** . $500.00 R EA3TMAN,INC. 02514 . 001-400-1208-4305 00962 $439. 10 . .00925 38639 •••' MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 09/30/91 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 10/10/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $439.10 .4, R _ECONOMIC_DEV CORP_ OF LA CO. 04291 . 001-400-1202-4316_00382_ 38640 PUBLICATIONS/FINANCE 10/09/91 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING $0.00 10/10/91 V I FINANCE—SF ,040 TIME 14:00:01 FAY VENPCR NAME D�_s::R I.Trc!ra CITY OF HERt1OSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 10/10/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ 1 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION . 4 PAGE 0006 DATE 10/10/91 INV/REF" PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 4,,,;. VENDOR TOTAL 4 Y,.,,r.******x****ter**as.********************************** ****#•******.----------...$10..00 _ _ EXECUTIVE --SUITE SERVICES INC. JANlTOOR _'.A=RV/: EP 91 0/060 01294 001-400-4202-4201...00329_ 09/30/91 PUB WKS ADMIN w, $1.325.00. . 066/060 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *4* VENOOR TOTAL r.!.w,. *****n**�s***n********n*********** t*******-ni*** z************* R STEVE*FTLLMr;r.: V—BALL_ TOURNEY SERVICE *4* VENDOR TOTAL s* $1,325.00 03169 001-400-4601-4201 01027_ 10/02/91 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT .!.. a.,..*****?r**•r.*44* ******************************ter**************-- ____$150.00__ . FIRE S"RINKLER ADVISORY BOARD 03763 .. 001-400-2201-4316._. 00314.___._._ . $50.00.__. SEM I MAR REG/P. OSEKOWSKY 10/02/91 FIRE /TRA INING *4* VENDOR TOTAL =°•' =:+* "il.*** ******* * ***********4**************?r?rpt#*?tial?r?t•**********__-------.- $50. 00__......_- R FR I DEN AL_Cf 1 EL E•GUIP MAINT/TO 8/30/92 z 00039 38641 $0.00 10/10/91 03518 36642 0 ' 1, $0.00 10/10/91 j-' 00011 38643 $0.00 10/10/91 03998 001-400-1208-4201 . 00801___.__..._.._.._ $525.56- . .. M60931601A 08054 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 1601A 09/24/91 GEN APPROP •a4* VENDOR TOTAL..* ** #*********************** **•n•*********************44*444.4444#44.-- ...S525.58_ GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CI -1t RGES/SEP GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CHARGES/SEP GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE C_W:!:GFS/SEF INCORPORATED 91 INCORPORATED 91 INCORPORATED 91 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00393_...__. $67.50. 09/30/91 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE 00015 . 001-400-2101-4304 _00888 _.... ... . $252.33 09/30/91 POLICE /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-2201-4304 09/30/91 FIRE 00369 $170.41 /TELEPHONE *44 VENDOR. TOTAL *a**;r:r*****+r**-n;r*;r#***#*#**•n**#•n*#**#*•x#****#+r**#+t*##*Ir*****#**# *#.----.----- $490.44 ..... .. * 4* R GTEL 01340 . 001-400-2101-4304. 00890 __. $154.68 EQUIP RENT/JUL.—SEP 91 67663 09/22/91 POLICE /TELEPHONE VENDOR.TOIAL_4n=n4n444*41.444*44444444+1444*4*4#444*4*4*4***4*4n:r*444•n4*•4*4*444•n?r*--------$154.68. R DEVIN*GUZMAN MEALS/HOTEL/POST CLASS 02741 10/01/91 001-400-2101-4312 _...01757 __—._._.._.. $1,062.00.. . _ .... .. POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 38644 10/10/91 I: 00931 38645 $0.00 - 10/10/91 00931 38645 $0.00 10/10/91 00931 $0. 00 1567665 00934 $0.00 38645 10/10/91 38646 10/10/91 02631 38647 $0.00 '10/10/91 J J F IL:WCr: -SI AR 10 TIME 14.00:01 FAY VENDOR NAME T}ESCR I P?ION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 10/10/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION - PAGE 0007 a-. DATE 10/10/91 INV/REF' PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VEF4DI_Is;. TOTAL- * .-,.** .*.,y.* **************** ************* F*********iF4J•* iF********iF'F#•ll** --_---------_bl, 062. oo _ ,•t CASSAN1?I'AIHACGTNS 04538 $100. 00 . • 25734 03253 DAM.,GE [:EPOSIT REFUND 23734 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE *** VENDOR TOTAL_ ? *? **************?t**** **** ********pit***************************** 04292 001-210-0000-2110 10/03/91 R HALPR I 1 SU'I'PLY COMPANY BOOTS/LICKHALTEI: 70524 00946 001-400-2201-4187 00290 09/20/91 FIRE $100.00 $58.46 /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL-******************************************************************** R R R R R HERMOSA CAR WASH MISC. CHARGES/SIP 91 HERMOSA CAR WASH MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 HERMOSA CAR WASH MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 HERMOSA CAR WASH MISC. CHARGES/ SEP 91 HERMOSA CAR WASH MISC.. CHARGES/SEP 91 HERMOSA CAR WASH MISC. CHARGES/ SEP 91 *** VENDOR TOTAL ****** $58.46_ 00065 001-400-1207-4311 00058 $48.95 1377 09/30/91 BUS LICENSE /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00065_, 001-400-2101-4311_____01246.__________$135. 95 1377 09/30/91 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00065 001-400-4201-4311 00262. .$20.00 1377 09/30/91 BUILDING /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00065 .. 0017400-4202-4311_ 00191`_ _______$20.00 __ __ _ _ __ _ 1377 PUB WKS ADMIN /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00065 001-400-4601-4311 00124 _... _ $11.00 COMM RESOURCES /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00065. .. J05-400-2601-4311 _00234_____. _ . __$5.00 . ... 1377 STREET LIGHTING /AUTO MAINTENANCE 09/30/91 1377 09/30/91 09/30/91 h'. IL. BOCCACCIO DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 25588 *;.tt VENOOR 1UTAI. t-* ****.*** ******:r** R __._._.THE* INNOVATION GROUPS__ PURLIC AT IONS/PERSONNEL $240. 90 04289 -. 001-210-0000-2110.. _ 04534._._._..._... _ .. $500.00_ 10/03/91 !/DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE ** ********************* 3?F *** ******:F*** **...N.>`F*** . $500.00 _.. 04296.__._.... 001-400-1203-4316 .___00208 _$29.-95_____..._. 10/08/91 PERSONNEL /TRAINING $0. 00 38648 10/10/91 70324 03401 38649 $38.46 10/10/91 1377 00936 38630 $0.00 10/10/91 1377 00936 38650 I.., $0.00 10/10/91 1377 00936 38650 $0.00 10/10/91 _1377 00936 . 38650 $0.00 10/10/91 1377 00936 38650 $0.00 10/10/91 __1377 00936 38650 $0.00 10/10/91 25588 ._ 03255 $0. 00 38651 10/10/91 03025..._ 38652 $0.00 10/10/91 1 FINANCE -5r.%:140 TIME_ 14.00:01 PAY VENDOR rI',ME I? :�.•;:PII'TION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 10/10/91........___,__. VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TEN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION **it VEM! fV? I'(1 ¶ I. .. .+!>t',`t ***ir+a Vit'_`?►'t't'.F'a•3F•:tiF+•F?FiFiF'.fit'a•iF#i1iF?tiF* iFfFiliF'.t'1iF'kiF•'kiF'k'.F+.t3!** *1**####'.li *** R L_E.1RNFD L_I. l .'=R MIS'`:. CIL": R :; •... "-lc! T1 LEARNED LUMBER 111 SC. C.: fARGR/SEP 91 R LEARNED LUMBER MI'_C. C11^.RGS/EFP 91 00167 O•?/30/91 001-400-3103-4309 ._01232 ST MAINTENANCE 00167 001-400--4204-4309 02117._ 09/30/91 BLDG MAINT 00167 305-400-8506-4309 00046 09/30/91 CIP 86-506 PAGE 0008 DATE 10/10/91 INV/REF j PO ft CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $29. 95 _. $15.69 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS __ ... . .$17.48 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $111.13... /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL =*.,*..* r- ***** *********** =f#itifit*il•16161616+t*****if*****•u;fffif*if*ititit*itittfit****___.-------.$144. R cnnir RAlLE?DEORD CITATION PAYMENT REFUND L • w its 00937 38653 $0.00 10/10/91 00937 38653 $0. 00 10/10/91 00937 38653 $0.00 10/10/91 04293 110-300-0000-3302.. 42005_.._ ..$46.00 .2300289 02730 00..28? 10/02/91 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 *** VENDOR 'TOTAL ='•. =^f I..,* *******+t:Y;+x;t**ififn*;f?tit>ti;?til•?r*ifil•*#->tif't*it**itit*#it't;ri;•*>t=fifltit**$x*#...__.. R LIEUERT, Crl!;SIDY ?: FRIERSON LEGAL S!-: V/AL)o ?1 02175 . 001-400-1203-4201 . 00807 __. _ _... ...$836.25 09/17/91 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL*****as-.,**•*******.*.*************itis•It*att•n*tf*ififitit* pitttit*ititit#itititifitififttitit*##_.-_ R KURT*M'_CHEL MEAL';, P 0. 5 T. CLASS 02719 . 10/09/91 001-400-2101-4312 POLICE 01760. _ . $231.50 /TRAVEL EXPENSE POST #4* VEMPCl4 TO rALi.*r,.h.:;.h*i:*?.***ifif********if-1*•n****if*it** tit*if**'tif*it**an*: if;urxiif rel****it*#it — — $231. 50 ** R MOORE BUSINESS FORMS COMPUTER PAPER/POLICE 57046 00423 001-400-2201-4305 09/19/91 FIRE • 38654 .. 10/10/91 .. 03024 38655 $0.00 10/10/91 02635 38656 $0.00 10/10/91 i. 00499 .. . $686.25 67957046 03156 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $566.36 VENDOR TOTAL . #**!f* r*************rf***n*:t*n*;r*****itis*nit*it*if*****:P#it*nnit#itif******it# .--.--_....__$666. 25 . L� OL•t'I`LF IC . AUTO CENTER BODY 110,-.V,/S1' C. I TE TRUCK 12500 *¢r* VENDOR TOTAL _**K***********,*.>t.,t*n*a!!* U ❑PALACE CQ—L'HERIFF'S DEPT. i'fi : I MN MM I CHEL_ 00093 105-400-2601-4311. 00233..... . $1,175.96 09/:30/91 STREET LIGHTING /AUTO MAINTENANCE *************n#******#*#**** f***************. ---$1, 175..96-_--- . 02954 . 001-400-2101-4312_ $477.00 10/09/91 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 38657 10/10/91 . 12500 02912 36658 $1,175.96 10/10/91 02637 38659 $0.00 10/10/91 J I•. J I„ J J I 1.=!..r. 01 Vr.NDOR NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 10/10/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDUR TOTN. .**m****************************************************************__ P PASHA 04298 705-400-1217-4315 00001 10/08/91 WORKERS COMP PUES/R. 1..;LACWOOD __ $477.00 $45. 00 , /MEMBERSH IP 4,1.* VW19 TOT ,-*,,************************************************************** $45.00 PAr.:E 0009 DAZE 10/10/91 POft CHR # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP PArRICr. & CO. 01834 001-400-2401-4305 00202 $238.39 14940 01692 38661 1971-72 DOG LICENSE TAGS 14940 09/16/91 ANIMAL CONTROL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $238.51 10/10/91 *** V7.Nr:OR TOTAL 41.4M***#.11**********4#41.***####****-11-****-***************11.# $238.39... 03022 38660 $0.00 10/10/91 R PEP novs 00608 001-400-2101-4311 01247 . $23.18 15780 01013 38662 ' MISC. CMRGES/OCT 91 157E0 10/01/91 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 10/10/91 ,... *** VENDOR TOTAL ********************************************************************_._$23.113 1.i _ ...... _ J • 'I 8 PrWO PAINT CO.—.., 01316 NED TRArFIC F,\THT 59492 09/17/91 305-400-8170-4309 . 00019_ . $2,727.90 . 759492 02936 38663 CIP 87-170 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $2,540.79 10/10/91 *4* VENDOR TOTAL ********************************************************************. ___. $2,727_90_ IH'ft• ________._ __ _ .__ 8 PNENTIC HALL, INC. 02371 PI.T,ACWIONRKING • 15005 110-400-3302-4305 00825. _ . .. $48.95 22-91206-15005 03309 38664 10/01/91 PARKING ENE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 10/10/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL 4*-,1,1******-1.****************************************************I' i ibr• $48. 95 ._ _ R PRICE INDUSTRIES 03864 . 305-400-8150-4309 00006 ___ . $265.54 IRRIGATION PIPE PARTS 1071 . 1071 02950 38665 09/18/91 CIP 89-150 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 3265.54 10/10/91 *** VENOM"! rOTAL ******************************************************************** $265.54 8 RADIO SHACK. 01429 MISC. CHARGES/0CT 91 001-400-4202-4305, 00631_ ___ $27.34 . _ 64951 01055 38666 64951 10/02/91 PUB WKS ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 10/10/91 wNooR TOTAL ****r*************************************************************** * * * $27,34_ PAINBOWCAMERA & VIDEO 00173 001-400-2101-4306 __$105.89_ . 00956 38667 MISC. CHARGEE/CP 91 09/30/91 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 10/10/91 „ S 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1 FIrct":17310 DEMAND LIST s PAGE 0010 FOR 10/10/91 . DATE 10/10/91 / . r, -.y VF_PMOR i4. -ME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN 4 AMOUNT INV/REF . PO # CH.4pr=lr!!;]m DATE INVC PROJ -1 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT L'NENC DATE EXP r R RAINTIOU CAMERA !, VIDEO 00173 001-400-4202-4303 00632 $43.34_ CMRCi,:S/SFP 91 09/30/91 PUG WKS ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00956 38667 $0.00 10/10/91 .7,vA VIDEO 00173 105-400-2601-4309 00743 . _ $15.04 . 00956 38667 ' 91 09/30/91 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS il. $0.00 10/10/91 7 ' f -littil VENDOR TOTAL*****mm****n.*******************************************. ,. _ $164.27 . .., . .i P! 7.v!.TA''FCC.17 04061 001-400-4102-4201 00323 _ _ .3117.00 '1. 239 01941 38468 ?I. 239 09/19/91 PLANNING COMM /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT . $0.00 10/10/91 'I ..../ **if vEvuty-3 m ' " **'-4* r(-*********** ft********************il ********ttit .3117.00 R MICHAELnSCHUDACH 00536 001-400-4102-4316 . 00029 $7.06 MON. ExPENSE/OCT 91 10/01/91 PLANNING COMM /TRAINING. *** VEN, TOTFA_ **.,,-**** *4* 01942 38669 $0.00 10/10/91 $7.06. R SIR SFEEDY 00361 110-400-3302-4305 00526 .3324.29 14307 03305 38670 CITE OVERLAYS!INCREAfi:S 14307 09/30/91 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 1324.30 10/10/91 VENDOR TOTAL **************4*****4*******************************************_ _ . • . ! FIAL IRIE. COMPANY 00114 001-400-4601-4300 00602 .___. $74.31 529252 00960 38671 MISC. 29= 09/30/91 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0. 00 10/10/91 .. 1. • *** VENDOR TOTAL *41.*171.*-7,n-**1.**.7.-******4**3i****************************************1**41.__$74.31 CAL PERSONNEL MGMT ASSOC 01600 001-400-1203-4315 00061 $30.00 03027 38672 ;;L';;;R. BLACVWOOD 10/08/91 PERSONNEL /MEMBERSHIP $0. 00 10/10/91 *** VENDOR IOTAL.***,1-1-1-*-41************4****************************************_ _430.00 R . SO CALIF_RAPID TRANSIT DISTR. 00843 145-400-3403-4251 00109 ._ . . _ $319.00 . 56975 03306 38673 . , BUS PASS SALES/AUG 91 56975 09/18/91 BUS PASS SUDIIDY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 10/10/91 ;, 1 .*** VENDOR TOTAL $4Ann-**1-**************************rn**************************. _____.$319. 00 R SOUTH BAY_HO2PITAL 00107 001-400-2101-4201 00876. $401.88 . _ 03113 38674 PRISONER EMEND SERVICES 09/30/91 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/10/91 1.,1, H TIME. 14 0`.).: 01. rAy VENDOR rlivir. 9OUTH UA'' MUNICIPAL CgiRT CITATION couRT BAIL CITY OF HERMOSA PEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 10/10/91 VND 8 ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ #- ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00400 110-300-0000-3302 42006 10/03/91 7 t INV/REF1, AMOUNT $401.88 . $592.00. /COURT FINES/PARKING vr,NmR MTN, *:*4-*******n*******************************n********************* rAY M31ICING AND MISC. CMC,ROLS/UCT 91 ER10A 03882 001-400-4101-4201 00118 10/03/91 PLANNING $592. 00 $920.00 91HER10A /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 41.1* VENDOR TOTAL ****;!.************-tHiii****!******************************************** --- R R 717:TH BAY NE1..DEP5 • CHr,Rfr.7./9EP 91 SOUTH BAY UELL:.7.HS.____ MISC. CHARGES/SriP 91 SOUTH HAY WELDERS • CH(sRGEF/8:-T 91 00018 001-400-2201-4309 09/30/91 FIRE 01160 . _ _ 00018 . 001-400-3103-4309 __ 01233_ 09/30/91 ST MAINTENANCE 00018 001-400-3104-4309 00746 09/30/91 TRAFFIC SAFETY 2920.00_ $35. 18 . . /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $60. 76 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *4* VNi!n: n***m****-**************************************************___ _$109,44 *4* R SOUTH COAST hIR QUALITY ANNUAL PERMIT FEES 10-91 VENT..09 01638 09/16/91 re UN,7NC PAGE 0011. DATE 10/10/91 4 CHK # DATE EXP 03313 38675- . 00 10/10/91 al 01078 38676 .1.-.' 10.00 10/10/91 -.I ,.... o'l 00962 38677 $0.00 10/10/91 00962 38677 . $0.00 10/10/91 00962 38677 $0.00 10/10/91 001-400-3104-4251 00077 $450.00 007274-10-91 02961 _ . TRAFFIC SAFETY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 10.00 rorAL **.1*3,************************************************************* $450,00.. - CALIFORNIA GAS CO. GAS BILLS/SEF 91 00170 09/30/91 001-400-4204-4303 00488 $400.74 BLDG MAINT /UTILITIES *** VENDOR TOTAL*?**** -n*********************************************************** $400.74 * * * 8 5r,"-P/4.1_r_TTS DRINKING WATER CORP 00146 001-400-4601-4305 _00994 $38. 43 .. _ . 11.1,78 COOLER PENT/SEP 91 08794 09/30/91 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL R SPORTMART_. 38678 10/10/91 00964 38679 $0.00 10/10/91 _808794 00033 20.00 03479._ 001-400-4601-4308._ 00601_ ... __.$33.39 4246/4262 .01075 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 91 /4262 10/01/91 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS 10. 00 36.!..90 10/10/91 38681 10/10/91 '1 •-t, __.1 •I • 0 • FINANCE -SFA340 TIM14:0f7-01 VENDOR NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 10/10/91 VNO # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN 1* AMOUNT INV/REF DATE INVC PROJ ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT it vENDOR !0!AL -1.;:,-************11.*****************___ $32.29 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION !at; TAX DUE/JUL-SEP 91 rt—ipn EQUALIZATION SALES 17:',X E!..:E./,.N.,L-SIIP 31 • STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 5.7ALES TAX D!JE/JUL-SEP 91 nrA.7.7 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION SALES TtO! DUE/JUL-SEP 91 • STATE 00/.R1) OF EQUALIZATION SALES TAX DUE/JUL -SEF 91 • STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION SALES TAX DUE/JUL-SEP 91 OTATE EC/RD CF EQUALIZATION TALES T. DUE/JUL-SEP 91 00707 001-400-2101-4205 09/30/91 POLICE 00707 001-400-2101-4306 09/30/91 POLICE 01595 _. $12. 00 . /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 01047. /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 00707 001-400-2101-4309 00448 09/20/91 POLICE 00707 001-400-4101-4205 00574. 09/30/91 PLANNING 00707 001-400-4201-4305 00710_ 09/30/91 BUILDING 00707.. .... 001-400-4205-4310 . _00211. 09/30/91 EQUIP SERVICE 00707 001-400-4601-4308 . 00600 09/30/91 COMM RESOURCES $4.00 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $2.00 _ /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $3.00 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $16.00 . _ /MOTOR FUELS AND LUDES /PROGRAM MATERIALS ** VENDOR TOTAL **i.HiA*4*************m*N.******************************************__ _.$47.00___ OT:'.TE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION qAS TAIJ FEES/JUL-SEP 91 . . 03962 . 305-400-8601-4201 00016_ . $76.86 09/30/91 CIF 86-601 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** vLHDC HENRY L. *STATEN MONTHLY EXPENSE/OCT 91 _.. $76.86 00500 001-400-2401-4316 00024 .$84.79 10/07i91 ANIMAL CONTROL /TRAINING vamai TOTAL -i.iii!=,.:1-1?************************************************** _$64.79 R TIERRA LNGINaRING COMPANY SLWRY SEAL ADMEN PMT 2 •2145 R ..TIERRA ENGINERING COMPANY SLURRY SEAL ADMIN/PMT 3 -2145 04137 305-400-0170-4201 00023 09/0/91 CIP 87-170 r UNENC PA'E 0012 LAI': 10/10/91 • CITA DATE EXP 00072 30682 10. 1D/10/91 00072 36662 $0.00 10/10/91 00072 38682 10.00 10/10/91 000,72 30682 $0.00 10/10/91 00072 38682 .1 $0. 00 10/10/91 1 00072 38682 $0.00 10/10/91 00072 30602 $0.00 10/10/91 02734 30603 $0.00 10/10/91 03314 28684 $0. 00 10/10/91 . $9, 100.00 92091-2145 02967 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 10.00 04157 J05-400-0170-4201 .......00024_.,.$2,700.00 . 100191-2143 02968 10/01/91 CIP 87-170 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0. 00 30685 10/10/91 FINANCE-SFA310 TIME 14:00.01 .'!NDP:, mmr: nre,!FArTroN VND # DATE INVC CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 10/10/91 ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION INV/FIEF I AMOUNT *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $11,88000__ TRIANGLE HARDWARE TR3AHC;LE HARDWARE DISCOUNT TAV.EN R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 • TRItiNGLE HARDWARE CHARGF.S/SEP 91 • TRIANGLE HARI:PARE MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 TRIANGLE HARDWARE CHARGES/SEP 91 • T1-'TA,1GLE HARrWARE MISC. CHRGES;EF 91 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 T'TTANGLE HARDWARE 17.0r79/CP 91 • TRIANGLE_HARDWARE _ MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 • TRIANGLE,HARDWARE MLC. CHARGES/SEP 91 TA: CLE HARDWARE MISC. C;;ARGES/SEP 91 R TRIANGLE_HARDWARE MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 00123 09/30/91 001-202-0000-2021 00123 001-202-0000-2022 09/30/91 00123 09/30/91 00123 09/30/91 00123 09/30/91 001-400-2201-4309 FIRE 00085 $88.02, 4 DISCOUNTS OFFERED 00005 188. 02CR tf I /DISCOUNTS TAKEN 7 01158_ , .158.31 • - -. /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4. 001-400-2401-4309 .00178 ANIMAL CONTROL 001-400-3101-4309 .00113 MEDIANS 00123._ 001-400-3103-4309 . _01231_ 09/30/91 ST MAINTENANCE 00123 09/30/91 001-400-3104-4307 00744. TRAFFIC SAFETY _ 00123. _ 001-400-4204-4304.. 02115 07/30/91 BLDG MAINT 00123 001-400-4205-4309 00590 09/30/91 EouIr SERVICE 00123 001-400-4601-4305_ 00993 09/30/91 COMM RESOURCES $9,70. /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $20. 11 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS .188.42 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 137.20 . . /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $8-74 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $3..40 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 001:T.3 001-400-6101-4309 . 01112 . .$27.45 09/30/91 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00123 160-400-3102-4:209 - co6q2. $37.57 09/30/91 SEWER /ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00123 07/30/91 305-400-8506-4309 00045 . $127.31 - CIF 66-506 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS .1,44 VEMOR TOTAL *******************************************.**********A*****:_. • • V & V.MANUFACTHRING BADGE & CASE/POLICE 20140 • 01939, . 001-400-2101-4187. $68. 32 . 09/17/91 POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE PO UNENC '7.07;'0 $0. CO 0013. .b 10/10/91 CHV # DATE E.:.r 304,66 10/10/91 T' 1 a 1:011 00970h‘b 38606 /0.00 10/10/91 1_1 00970 39686 . I 30.0') 10/10/91 00970 $0.00 10/10/91 00970 10.00 38686 10/10/91 4 00970 10.00 10/10/91 rft 00970 10.00 3Ee06 .10/10/91 00770 38686 . 10.00 10/10/91 00970 30666 10.00 10/10.'91 00970 38686 $0.00 10/10/91 007.70 30666 10/10/91 00970 10.00 10/10/91 00970 38686 10.00 '10/10/91 120140 02482 $65. 44 38687 . 10/10/91 • • • n 1 11, r :"-• •:: .-• . •I.• : t vENDoR VN!) # DATE 1NVC AIY OF HLRMOSA BEACH DLMAND LIST 0'114 FOR 10/10/71 ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT' PROJ i ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 4 4 0 2.1 INV/ROF !! :I. Yi"! ! • !1 ! • ' • -• if** 41* 4.************************************-1!*!N N!!!1•131 $68.32 _ W. M. micrmN ASSOCIATES INTERIM P. W. DIR/SEP 91 W £1.2!.TC"tv%14 AFriCTAr::; 1.14. !J117/SFP 91 t4 M. CLICMAN ASSOCIATFS flEPIM P.W. DIP/SEP 91 W. M. (7,LIC!4.MAN !! ASSOCIATES INTERIM P.N. DIP/SFr 91 ASSOCIATES 1111• 1,:u1M N. DIR/SEP 91 U. M. CLICMAN & ASSOCIATES INTERIM P.W. DIR/SEP 91 0420E 001-400-3103-4201 00354 10/01/91 ST MAINTENANCE 04288 001-400-3104-4201 . 00090 10/01/91 TRAFFIC ',')Ai,ETY 042138 001-400-4202-1201 00228.. 10/01 "J PUB WKS ADMIN 01239 10/01/91 0428E 10/01/91 001-400-4204-4201 . 00478. BLDG MAINT 001-400-4205-401 00001 EQUIP SERVICE _160-400-3102-4201_00027_ 10/01/91 SEWER/ST DRAIN _ $599. 50 ' /CONTRACT SEM/TCL/FRIVAT $1,199.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $1,798.50 . . /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $599. 50 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $599.50 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT ......._ $1,199.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *.nq vENDuri ToTAL •!---?I'**P.*-71*4*4.1$4*****-144******431***41*A****4*15,995.00 • S.*tIAND ;!: COMPANY . LIABILITY ADMIN/OCT-DEC 023 02507 . 705-400-1209-4201 ... .00223. $4.412.50 . ...... 023 10/01 /91 LIABILITY INS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT vrAgx!i TOTAL -1---n4****1-***44;1.-A********************************. . 14,412.50 44••"+il• •A•!`: 10 71****31. i1•41.********************** ********•31. **if •;t1 431 •1••:•! 4•l********** 132, 170.18 rorAL wARRANTS **n*****************************A*****ii**4144-gl************ $132,170,18 DATE 10/1u, PO if CFR # DATE EXP 0OC.T1 3SLES $0.00 10/10/91 00071 38688 $0. 00 10/10/91 OCU '1 !TO. 00 10/10i91 00071 30680 $0. 00 10/10/91 00071 10/10/PI 0501 304.133 10.00 10/10/91 00012 $'. 00 10/10/91 1 I' I I I ti. `r V, FINANCE-SFA340 -TIME 03:51:51 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION -- -HERMOSA BEACH--PAYROLL-ACCOUNT-- PAYROLL/9-16 TO 9-30-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/10-01 TO 10-15 H • HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/9-16 TO 9-30-91 H • HERMOSA-BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT-- PAYROLL/9-16 TO 9-30-91 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST • FOR -10/17/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC-- PROJ #-- - -- ACCOUNT --DESCRIPTION------ ---- ---00243 ----• ---001-202-0000-2030 10/01/91 --HERMOSA BEACH -PAYROLL ACCOUNT---- PAYROLL/9-16 TO 9-30-91 00243 • 001-202-0000-2030 10/16/91 00243 -- • 105-202-0000-2030 10/01/91 00243 -- 109-202-0000-2030 10/01/91 00243 --------110-202-0000-2030 10/01/91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 00243---- PAYROLL/9-16 TO 9-30-91 10/01/91 H HERMOSA-BEACH-PAYROLL-ACCOUNT- PAYROLL/9-16 TO 9-30-91 HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT- PAYROLL/9-16 TO 9-30-91 HERMOSA BEACH-PAYROLL-ACCOUNT- PAYROLL/9-16 EACH-PAYROLL-ACCOUNT-- PAYROLL/9-16 TO 9-30-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT- PAYROLL/9-16 TO 9-30-91 145-202-0000-2030 ------- 00243 -------155-202-0000-2030 10/01/91 -00243 --160-202-0000-2030 10/01/91 - - 00243-----170-202-0000-2030 10/01/91 00243 - --305-202-0000-2030 10/01/91 --HERMOSA-BEACH-PAYROLL ACCOUNT.-----00243- PAYROLL/9-16 CCOUNT-------00243-PAYROLL/9-16 TO 9-30-91 10/01/91 705-202-0000-2030 - --00442— $227,355.-77- / /ACCRUED 227,355.-77- /ACCRUED PAYROLL PAGE 0001 DATE -10/17/91 INV/REF Y PO # CHK # --AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP • 00443------- $315,700.75.-A-- /ACCRUED 315,700.75 ---t.-.-./ACCRUED PAYROLL, 00246---------- $8,101: 35 -- /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00044 --$1,-157.82 /ACCRUED PAYROLL -00248-----$43/227.47 /ACCRUED $43,227:47/ACCRUED PAYROLL 00241--- - ---$1,872.02• /ACCRUED 1,872:02- /ACCRUED PAYROLL —00243 $3r318.64 /ACCRUED PAYROLL - 00240 - -- $10, 171; 59 /ACCRUED PAYROLL ---00096------$20v584:65------ /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00011---- - - - $138.34 - /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00204 -$4,721:00. - /ACCRUED PAYROLL *** VF_NDOR TOTAL********************************************************************-.-.--$636, 349. 40 --_.. PUB -EMPLOYEES - RETIREMENT -SYS: ------ -- 00026- ------ 001-400-1213-4180----- 00532 --- RETIREMENT ADV/SEP 91 10/10/91 RETIREMENT • /RETIREMENT *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************•***********************************************...----$97,730.25-.. • - _-----***- PAY- CODE- TOTAL-************•**********-*************************-************-*****4► $7347-079:-63 v -----A: P: ELECTRONICS INSTALL ALARM/COMP ROOM 53/54 - 38523 - $0. 00 10/16/91 $0.00 $0.00 38691 -- 10/16/91 38523 10/16/91 •J ,�J 1 / - -38523-- $0.00 -38523---$0.00 10/ 16/91 I; -- 38523 $0.00 10/16/91 :a ,7 .38323 -- :3 $0.00 10/16/91 in 31 - 38523 ------ '_• $0.00 10/16/91 ,4 $0.00 - 38523 10/16/91 - - - ---- 38523 ---- ;; $0.00 10/16/91 2 - 38523 $0.00 10/16/91 $0.00 38523 -- 10/16/91 $0.00 10/16/91 04165 --- - 001-400-2101-4309 - 00452 - - -$183:-45 8653/54 -03130 ----38694-- 10/09/91 POLICE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 3183.45 10/16/91 7,5 J • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 019:51::M PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R -A. P. ELECTRONICS---------------- INSTALL LECTRONICS- INSTALL ALARM/COMP ROOM 53/54 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 10/17/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # - '04165-- 10/09/91 4165 -- --- 10/09/91 -ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION ----- -- t INV/REF 11. AMOUNT 001-400-4204-4321---00603— --$183.-45 - 8653/54 BLDG MAINT /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT *** VENDOR 'TOTAL ********•iter****** -u***********•**************************************** ------------ R - ADVANCED ELECTRONICS EMERG RADIO REPAIR 39359 $366.90 PAGE 0002 - DATE 10/17/91 PO # CHK # UNENC DATE EXP - ; 7 03130 - ----38694 ---1,- 3183.45 10/16/91 - 00935 ----110-400-3302-4201 - -110-400-3302-4201 - 00299- - - 3118. 75---- - -- -- 39359 -03311-- 08/27/91 PARKING ENF /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 *=t* VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R AMERICAN STYLE FOODS 00857 - 001-400-2101-4306 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 91 6657 10/08/91 POLICE $118:75 --- 01057- - $16:-25 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE *t* VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************************--------$16:.25- 38695 - 10/16/91 rt 76657 - 00105 .. -38696 - $0. 00 10/16/91 ie I31 -R- .---ANGEL HAIR --&-NAILS -__..._....._.._._._......_-. 04314-------001-210-0000-2110---04548 $250:-00------------20388 03265 - -38697-7; BANNER DEPOSIT REFUND 20388 10/14/91 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 10/16/91 1'4 *** VENDOR TOTAL ********************************************************************.._.. R --.-- --ASSOCIATED-DIESEL- FUEL -ASSOCIATED-DIESELFUEL PUMP REP/ST SWEEPER 79246 04300 09/25/91 -- $250.00. I001-400-3103-4311---00701 351. 19 P279246--02958--38698----,) ST MAINTENANCE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $51.19 10/16/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** - - - 351:19-- i t R R R R -AVIATION-LOCK & KEY - MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 AVIATION -LOCK ' KEY MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 ----- AVIATION -LOCK &-KEY MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 -- -AVIATION-LOCK & KEY MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 ----R-----AVIATION-LOCK &-KEY------- MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 ------ 00407 -- -- --001-400-2101-4306 ----01056---------- 314:88 09/30/91 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 00407 -- . 001-400-4204-4309-02122' 09/30/91 BLDG MAINT 00407 ------001-400-4601-4305-----00997 09/30/91 COMM RESOURCES 00407 001--400-6101-4309 -. _ 01114 09/30/91 PARKS -$1:33 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 37. 31 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 381:12 .. /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS ---'00407 - 00407 ----- 110--400-3302-4311- - - 00739 $3.25 09/30/91 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00097 -- 38699 - - $0. 00 10/16/91 00097 38699 30.00 10/16/91 �A $0.00 10/16/91 H 00097-----38699-- 00097 0097-----38699 - 00097 - 38699 - $0. 00 10/16/91 00097-----38699-- $0.00 0097----38699----$0.00 10/16/91 C. .1 7.: ti • J • • F-' I NANO E--SFA340 TIME 08:51:51 - -- PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST --------------- FOR 10/17/91 PAGE 0003 DATE 10/17/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF ' PO # CHK # DATE INVC PROJ # - ACCOUNT --DESCRIPTION- ---- --- -- -- AMOUNT t:NENC DATE EXP s VENDOR TOTAL****•rt**-n***•»•a*****-»*****-p•***************-z►**-u-n•* **** *****-u**** -*****-- R BALL INDUSTRIES - JANITORIAL SUPPLIES $107:89 00232 001-400-4204-4309-- 02128 ------- --- - $863. 46 - 21473 09/23/91 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS ** VENDOR TOTAL ******-**************************•*****-****************************** f2 BEACH CITIES COALITION DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 26944 ------ - -- 3863. 46 S 621473 02942 38700 Ti $867.04 10/16/91 n 04307 001-210-0000-2110 - 04344------------$500:00 26944 03259 10/10/91 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R - BEACH CITIES ESCROW CASH DEPOSIT REFUND 04311 001-210-0000-2110 04546 09271 10/10/91 $500. 00 - $1, 620. 00 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0. 00 ,{ -I-38701 10/16/91 09271 03263 --•72.8702 *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************************-_-_-_.—$1r620:00------------- R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE,- INC. -- INSPECTION FORMS/BLDG 2838 • 02664 001-400-4201-4305-• - 00715-------------$134:23-09/23/91 BUILDING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES .*4*- VENDOR -TOTAL--***************************************************************** R BLICKMAN, - INC. ------------- THEATRE TECH SERV/10-07 R- --; .....-BLICKMAN,--INC: THEATRE TECH SERV/10-05 03092 - 001-400-4601-4201 -01036- 10/10/91 COMM RESOURCES -03092 ----001-400-4601-4201-----01037- 10/10/91 COMM RESOURCES S134;'23 ---$49.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT --- $70:00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL-******-+*************************************************************---- 4,r -- $119. 00 - GARY*BRUTECH, -CITY-TREASURER--- ------02016-------001-400-1202-4201---00283---------$8. 15 --- PETTY CASH/9-17 TO 10/10 10/10/91 FINANCE ADMIN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT - GARY*BRUTSCH,-CITY TREASURER PErrY CASH/9-17 TO 10/10 02016 001-400-1202-4305---- 00408- 10/10/91 FINANCE ADMIN -$2.75 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES -• -- R---GARY*BRUTBCH, CITY TREASVRER '-02016 001-400-2101-4305--01600 $32.-46 PETTY CASH/9-17 TO 10/10 10/10/91 POLICE /OFFICE -OPER SUPPLIES $0. 00 10/16/71 3• 31 2838 -02258 38703- $134.23 8703-$134.23 10/16/91 • 03526 --- 38704 -- - -t; $0. 00 10/16/91 , , 03527-------38704-- -.4-r! $0.00 10/16/91 Ili 03256-----38706--- $0.00 3256----38706---30.00 10/16/91 + 03256- ----- 38706 -- - $0.00 '10/16/91 - 03256-----38706-- $0.00 3256----38706----$0.00 10/16/91 t, •J r O • J Et' CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE -5'A:340 DEMAND LIST TIME 08:51:51 FOR -10/17/91 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R --CARY*BRUTSCH,-CITY-TREASURE PETTY CASH/9-17 TO 10/10 VND t ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN AMOUNT • DATE INVC PROJ t - ACCOUNT -DESCRIPTION R- 02016 001-400-2101-4306- 01058 $9:00 10/10/91 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE INV/REF 11- PO AMOUNT UNENC R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER - 02016 -- PETTY CASH/9-17 TO 10/10 R • GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER - PETTY CASH/9-17 TO 10/10 R GARY*EUTSCH,. CITY TREASURER PETTY .CASH/9-17 TO .10/10 10/10/91 02016 -- 10/10/91 001-400-2101-4310- 00331-----------------------t126.00 POLICE /MOTOR FUELS AND LURES -001-400-2101-4316-- 00783 361.62 POLICE /TRAINING 02016 001-400-2201-4305 00502 -18.39- 10/10/91 FIRE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES R - GARY*BRUTSCHr-CITY-TREASURER 02016 PETTY CASH/9-17 TO.10/10 10/10/91 tz• ChRY*BRUTSCH. CITY -TREASURER --- 02016 -- rETTY CASH/9-17 TO 10/10 10/10/91 GARY*BRUTSCHF-CITY--TREASURER PETTY CASH/9-17 TO 10/10 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/9-17 TO 10/10 GARY*BRUTSCHr-CITY-TREASURER PETTY .CASH/9-17 TO 10/10 R GARY*BRUTSCH,-CITy TREASURER PETTY CASH/9-17 TO 10/10 R IRARY'.BRUTSCHr CITY -TREASURER. PETTY .CASH/9-17 TO 10/10 -77 PAGE 0004 DATE 10/17/91 -Th CHK DATE EXP 03256 ---------38706 $0.00 10/16/91 03256 - 38706 40.00 10/16/91 .12] • 4 03256 ---38706 -- 30.00 10/16/91 :r 03256.- - 38706 . -$0.00 10/16/91 2= J 001-400-4101-4316 00233 $42:-00 -03256 - 38706 -- PLANNING /TRAINING • . 10.00 10/16/91 j , 001-400-4102-4205 00137 $9:74 03236 -20706 *--1:.-, PLANNING COMM /OFFICE -OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 -10/16/91 h 31 $9:-30---------------- -**- - 03256' '------38706-- 10/10/91 PUB ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES , $0.00 -10/16/91 .,, 135 02016 C01 -4O0 -401-43o5 - 00998- - - -$10. 77-- -- --------- 03256' 3E3706- - F_;1 10/10/91 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0. 00 10/16191 I:4 03256 38706---- 30.00 10/16/91 FL. - - 02016 --- 001-400-4601-4315 00087 ------ - 310.00 03256 - 38706 10/10/91 COMM RESOURCES /MEMBERSHIP- 40.00 10/16/91 1, 02016. 001-400-6/01-4309. 01115 -$0:-85 03236 38706-----il 10/10/91 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 10/16/91 L, 02016 - 160-400-3102-4309 ' 00645---------414:72 ----- •- 03236 38706 10/10/91 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 .10/16/91 ----- 02016 ------001-400-4202-4305-00635 02016 -001-400-4601-4308 00606 $30703 10/10/91 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS R GARY*BRUTSCH; TREASURER - - PETTY CASH/9-17 TO 10/10 ----GARY*BRUTSCH,-CITY-TREASURER -02016- 305-400-8137-4316 00005 -$19;00 PETTY CASH/9-17 TO 10/10 10/10/91 CIP 85-137 /TRAINING '$0;00 10/16/91 *** VENC -TO T AL. - o*st it-!$ it 4* II- ****************** it * *******************.N .,..:i• il * *** 11 * 1*** 4 * * *** - "7------7-.--:$294: 98 . . ‘.1 .. . (;! i . . J , Gl , . R --dAMES*BUROUE--------------------02544-----001-400-4601-4201---01035 $337-00 03528-----38707 --- w THEATER TECH SERV/10-05 10/10/91 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/16/91 71 7.! 7.1 75 74/ 1. • 1 111 411 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH r'MCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST . • TIME 08:51:51 FOR -10/17/91 PAY VENDOR NAME DERCRIPTMM VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ----ACCOUNT -DESCRIPTION TOTAL******************************************************************** R CA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCF, INC. - MEDIAN MAINT(SFP 91 10901 00599 09/30/91 .4 i INV/REF AMOUNT MENG PAGE 0U05 • UATE 10/17/91- T. 2 PO1$ CHR4$ *53,6o 31. 001-400-3101-4201-- 00085 -------$3,800:00 - 7610904 00044 - MEDIANS /COM1RACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 DATE EXP **-4 k.q."_Ni;OR lOTAL **************************************************444***************------$3,800.00 R ' CALIF: POLICE CHIEFS ASSOC: - - .• 01263 -- 001-400-2101-4315 DUES/V. STRASER 00566 10/14/91 POLICE 00200 -$100.00 0005A6 03136 - /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 *** VENDOR TOTAL **A**************************************************************** R. DOUGLAS*COLLINS CITY SHARE/ARBITRATION 04305 - 07/19/91 -$100.00 001-400-1203-4201 -- 00812 -$788.50 -• PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR-TOTAL.***************************************************************** R - PRINTING-- • • COMMERCIAL PROPERTY APPS $7850 01847 001-400-1207-4305- -00250 $63.33 09/24/91 BUS LICENSE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL- R DEPARTMENT OF -CONSERVATION- - SEISMIC FEES/JUL-SEP 91 $63.33 00049 001-300-0000-3204 02386 $343:94 09/30/91 /BUILDING PERMITS 38708 10/16/91 1 6 9 38709 10/16/91 •2 •:3 1,1 0302H - - 38710 $0.00 10/16/91 n 33 77. 33 34 35 37 11089 38711 $63.33 10/16/91 13 ..1 J :3 41, 02273 -- - 38712 - $0.00 10/16/91 - .,..N...1-vFND0R.T0TAL-*******************************************.*************************--,-,-,--$345,94 • R --EASY READER 00101 001-400-1203-4201 00811 -$43.00 -9033 MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 9033 09/30/91 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** •-VENDOR -TOTAL- - R --GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED • - --00015 -- TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 10/01/91 T --------R-----GTE CALIFORNIA,--INCORPORATED- DIRECT DIAL CHGS/OCT 91 -0200 $43. 00 001-400-1101-4304--• 00400- A$1.80" CITY COUNCIL /TELEPHONE ----001-400-1401-4304-00401 10/01/91 CITY COUNCIL /TELEPHONE 00927 38713 $0.00 10/16191 01031--------38716 $0.00 10/16/91 318-0200-01032--- SO.00 !•:1 1 1. 9 10/16/91 ,6 • 16 , 11 4111 1 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 08:51:51 PAY VENCOR NAME CESCRIFFION R 'GTE CALIFORNIA,- INCORPORATED -- TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST . FOR 10/17/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE INVC PROJ ft TRN -----00013-----001-400-1121-4304---00437 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED - DIRECT 'HAL CHGS/OCT 91 -0200 10/01/91 10/01/91 CITY CLERK AMOUNT - 00015 -• 001-400-1121-4304---00438- R • -•GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED ------•00015 TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 10/01/91 R • GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED - 00015 -- DIRECT DIAL CH0S/UCT 91 -0200 10/01/91 • R GTE- CAL IFORN IA, INCORPORATED -------00015 TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHCS/OCT 91 -0200 10/01/91 CITY CLERK 001-400-1-131-4304-- 00320 - CITY ATTORNEY -001-400-1131-4304 - 00321 CITY ATTORNEY 00i-400-1141-4304------00457 CITY TREASURER -- 00015 -- 001-400-1141-4304 ---00458 10/01/91 R GTE CALIFORNIA ------INCORPORATED 00015 TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/OCT 91 -0200 - - R ------ GTE CALIFORNIA, ---INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/OCT 91 -0200 R • --- •GTE -CAL I FORN IA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, 'INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/OCT 91 -0200 10/01/91 00015 10/01/91 CITY TREASURER INV/REF PAGE 0006 DATE 10/17/91--p 121-, il PO # CHK* . • 6 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/16/91 !) 1 !I $19.02 - 318-0200 01032 38716 - /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/16/91 - 01031 /TELEPHONE $0.00 /TELEPHONE $4.90 /TELEPHONE $19:02 -- /TELEPHONE :4 drp 38716 10/16/91T?: —318-0200 01032 38716 $0.00 10/16/91 23 01031 -38716--- $0.00 10/16/91 f27 ----318-0200 01032-- 38716 $0. 00 10/16/91 131 001-400-1201-4304---00491-- ---$4:12---------------------...............01031 38716 CITY MANAGER /TELEPHONE 001-400-1201-4304 —00492 - CITY MANAGER 00015- 001-400-1202-4304 -00503 10/01/91 FINANCE ADMIN • - $16. 02 — - 318-0200 /TELEPHONE 00015 - 001-400-1202-4304 -00504- 10/01/91 FINANCE ADMIN - ----00015---001-400-1203-4304 —00507 10/01/91 PERSONNEL $14.94 /TELEPHONE 30.00 10/16/91 154 25 -01032--- --- -38716 $0.00 10/16/91 22 06 - / TELEPHONE -$6:18 /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400--1203-4304 00508 $24.02- 10/01/91 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE 01031-----38716---- $0.00 10/16/91 318-0200 01032 ----38716 $0.00 10/16/91 .1! 01031 -38716 - 30.00 10/16/91 •,1 318-0200 01032 38716 $0.00 10/16/91 GTE -CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 -001-400-1206-4304 -00396- $103.-13 -01031-----387167 TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 10/01/91 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/16/91 R ..........GTE CALIFORNIA, -INCORPORATED' o' • DIRECT DIAL CHGS/OCT 91 -0200 • -5 GTE -CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED - TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00397 -318-0200 01032 38716 10/01/91 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE $0.00 .10/16/91 L' 00015' -001-400-1207-4304- 00322 54-790 01031 38716--- 10/01/91 BUS LICENSE /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/16/91 -" 10; Ti 72 74 J J 3 .0 J FINANCE-SFA34O TIME 08:51:51 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION t. - GTE-CALIFORNIA.---INCORPORATED-- DIRECT DIAL CHCS/OCT 91 -0200 R • GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 R • GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/OCT 91 -0200 R • ' GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 -GTE-CALIFORNIA,--INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/OCT 91 -0200 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 --GTE CALIFORNIA,---INCORPORATED-- DIRECT DIAL CHGS/OCT 91 -0200 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 - GTE CALIFORNIA, -INCORPORATED ---- DIRECT DIAL CHCS/OCT 91 -0200 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED - TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 CALIFORNIA, --INCORPORATED- DIRECT DIAL CHGS/OCT 91 -0200 R -GTE CALIFORNIA; -INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 ----GTE-CALIFORNIA,--INCORPORATED--- DIRECT - DIRECT DIAL CHGS/OCT 91 -0200 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED - TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 10/17/91 VMD # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC - • PROJ • 4t.-- ------ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION-- -00013-- 10/01/91 ESCRIPTION--- ---- - -- -00015 ----- 10/01/91 00015 - 10/01/91 --001-400-1207-4304---00323 BUS LICENSE 001-400-1208-4304 - --- 00161 --- GEN APPROP 00015 - -001-400-1203-4304 ----00162-- 10/01/91 00013 -- 10/01/91 00015 ----• - 10/01/91 00015 -- 10/01/91 - --00015---- 10/01/91 - 10/01/91 --00013 10/01/91 - ---00015 10/01/91 00015 - 10/01/91 GEN APPROP PAGE 0007 DATE 10/17/91-•T 2 INV/REF. PO # CHK # --AMOUNT UNENC -DATE EXP ---- $19:.02--- --- 318-0200 - 01032 -- --- - 38716 ---- /TELEPHONE 30.00 10/16/91 -....__...- 32.58 . ... /TELEPHONE 01 ------- /TELEPHONE 01031 - - 38716 -- $0. 00 10/16/91 318-0200 01032- 38716 10/16/91 o Jl 30. 00 J.) .L 001-400-2101-4304 - 00893----------- $236.54 ----------- - �: -- 01031 36716 ---- POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/16/91 22 001-400-2101-4304--00896 $373: 38 -- - ---- 318-0200 -- 01032------3B716------ POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/16/91 :c 001-400-2201-4304 -- -00371 42;38— FIRE 2:38--- FIRE /TELEPHONE 01031 ----38716 38716 30.00 10/16/91 3c 31 --001-400-2201-4304-00372 $95. 35------ 318-0200 - 01032 — 38716-1 FIRE /TELEPHONE 30.00 10/16/913. I35 001-400-2401-4304- -00402•821:54 01031 ----- - 38716 71 '3G ANIMAL CONTROL /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/16/91 36 n --001-400-2401-4304 --00403 - -- ------ -$147 00----------318-0200-01032 --38716-- r ANIMAL CONTROL /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/16/91 ' -001-400-4101-4304-- -- 00506--- -312.37- 01031 ----- 38716. - I: PLANNING /TELEPHONE 30.00 10/16/91 ' 371-65-------318-0200 --- 01032---- 38716 --------r-;; /TELEPHONE 30.00 10/16/91 ...3 31 .✓ 01031 - - 38716 -- 30.00 --30.00 10/16/91 -., 38716----',:;, ..L 00015- 001-400-4101-4304----00307 10/01/91 PLANNING -- 00015 -- 001-400-4201-4304 ----004313- 10/01/91 --00438 10/01/91 BUILDING /TELEPHONE - 00015 --- 001-400-4201-4304----00459 377. 08 318-0200-01032 10/01/91 BUILDING /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/16/91 00015 001-400-4202-4304----00523 - 8127.83` 10/01/91 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE R ------GTE CALIFORNIA,---INCORPORATED--------00015-------001-400-4202-4304---00524 $106:-1-1 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/OCT 91 -0200 10/01/91 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE 01031-----38716 --- 30. 00 10/16/91 -318-0200 ---01032 - 38716--- 30.00 8716 ---__.30.00 10/16/91 ti .,, .r+ IS 1114 • 1 FIRIANCE-SFA340 TIME 08: 31: 51 PAY VENDOR NAME DESC:RIPTrON R • GTE CALIFORNIA,---INCORPORATED-- TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CH.-.RGES/OCT 91 R • GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/OCT 91 -0200 R ' GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 GTE CALIFORNIA. -INCORPORATED • DIRECT DIAL CHGS/OCT 91 -0200 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED • DIRECT DIAL CHGS/OCT 91 -0200 --GTE CALIFORNIA, -INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/OCT 91 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 10/17/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT - DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION -- 1, 1.4 PAGE 0008 DATE 10/17/91' 1 1, INV/REF '' PO 4 CHK 4 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 00015 -001-400-4204-4321--'-00602---- $23.91-_____..__._._._'-�..._. 10/01/91 BLDG MAINT /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT - 00015 001-400-4601-4304 10/01/91 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE 00015 -• 001-400-4601-4304 —00593 - $29.03- 10/01/91 29:03- 10/01/91 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE 00015 - 001-400-6101-4304 -00358 52.58 10/01/91 PARKS /TELEPHONE 00015 - 001-400-6101-4304 "- 00359- - - $10.01 10/01/91 PARKS /TELEPHONE 00015 -- 10/01/91 10/01/91 110-400-3302-4304- -00507---------$120.12 PARKING ENF /TELEPHONE PARKING ENF /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL ************** r******•x•u*x•**•r• •*******#•******#*•u•!t****•u************** --------$1; 811. 33 - Yj v 318-0200 01032 7 01031 ----38716--- 50.00 ----38716 ----- 50.00 10/16/91 01031 •- 38716 50.00 10/16/91 38716 '-- $0. 00 10/16/91 1- 01031 38716 50.00 10/16/91 J 11 14 • 318-0200 01032 '-'- - 38716 50.00 10/16/91 I'. 318-0200 01032 ' " --38716 - ;, 50.00 10/16/91 01031 38716 __..- 50.00 10/16/91 J 3 J iv • R --- - HARBOR -CITY -ENTERPRISES,--' INC.- ---'--03571- 001-400-2101-4311 `— 01251 $29a93----------- —23365 01076'—' 38717 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 91 25365 10/01/91 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE ----- 50.00 10/16/91 i *** VENDOR TOTAL er*±.*«•#±r#±!*-n it+rtt•*#**#x•n•a•***a*srn•*+rtr****au*u*x•***nna*+r*#+r**•na•x•n***#x•**a•a•----- 5298:93— i_' f I 02001001-400-2101-4201 ---00880- --- - $201 00 -'- ------ -'------4459 --03138 ---'38718 - J 10/14/91 POLICE_ /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 50.00 10/16/91 !9- *** VENDOR TOTAL + •> ************************* r*****+r*•x•a•*•n#**********p•*****+i***•******** — 5201: 00 i.,. R -----IDENTICARD-SYSTEMS-INC — - SERV AGREEMENT/FY 92 4458 - - - -- INGLEWOOD=WHOLESALE- ELECTRIC -- MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 29405 - —02458 -'----- 001-400-4204-4309 02123 — $121: 24---'---------29405 -00974-----38719---- 09/23/91 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 50.00 10/16/91 - ***- VENDOR' TOTAL -******************+r*******. *****at***** r **+ * *********a•n ************------- - 5121.-24 - R ---------INTERNATIONAL_ -INET- OF DUES/DOERFLING/VALDES 5, --0066B -- 001-400-1121-4315' 00069- $120:'00 09379----38720 -- -; 10/14/91 CITY CLERK /MEMBERSHIP 50.00 10/16/91 ,.o .1 !4 SIJ • • 1 • 1 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-SFA34O DEMAND LIST PAGE 0009 -TIME 08:51:31 FOR -10/17/91 DATE -10/17/91- T PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # �3 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC. PROJ # - --ACCOUNT-DESCRIPTION------ AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP - s 5 7 ***-VENDOR TOTAL *•-n*******•x***************-»-n******-u***- ***- ******-u*#*•n************** 3120, 00.- * * * R JOHN*KEARIN 01032 - 001-400-2101-4316---00785 --- - $415;44-- TUITION/BOOKS/FALL 91 10/07/91 POLICE /TRAINING VENDOR TOTAL *****-#***-x******:n**-n**-a-n**-a****tr*****-x****-n**•x***#***#+t**-x*+►-n*-n***-n*-------- 5415. 44 ----- -- 03133 - - -- 38721 - $0.00 10/16/91 R LANDSCAPE WEST, INC.- • 04303 ----001-400-6101-4201---00245 - $7, 685. 50 006034 00073 -- 38,22 PARKS MAINT/SEP 91 06034 09/18/91 PARKS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/16/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************•***********•nor**********•****-- -$71-685;50-- -------- .. _. I J-' —V '9 z3 ,za + J6 r: '7 CAROLYN A. *LEE - 04308 001-210-0000-2110 ----04545 $100;00 25621 03258-.-.-- - -38723 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 25621 10/10/91 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 10/16/91 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL-x*******-u***********•ir*****************•i►*******at*****-n*************** $100.00 R DAVE*MABEE - - .- -. -. - . 03097 - 001-210-0000-2110 .- -04542----------$100: 00 26856 03260 - -.38724 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 26856 10/10/91 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 10/16/91 *4* VENDOR--TOTAL********************************************************#*-a-********* $100.-00 R TRACY*MAC DONALD-. - - 04313 - -110-300-0000-3302 --42085 $18.00 968271 02735-------38725 CITATION PAYMENT REFUND 68271 10/08/91 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 10/16/91 *4* VENDOR TOTAL -********************************************************************---.- R MONARCH BROOM • - 00084 --- 001-400-3103-4309 —01237-$535:83 8356/8357 00947 38726 MISC. CHARGES: SEP 91 /8357 09/30/91 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 10/16/91 I-•, $18. 00 - 31 33 J/ J' J/ J/ J, H ' '/ • 7.3 , _*** VENDOR TOTAL-*******************************************************************r $535. B3 55 R ----DONALD*NEUHUYS 04306 --- 001-210-0000-2110 04543 — $50.00 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 26216 10/10/91 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE ***VENDOR TOTAL.-tet********-ir*•-ir*****************************-!r************************•r- $50.- 00 26216 -03262----•38727 - $0. 00 10/16/91 (�r Ir.. • R-- --NEW-PACIFIC-LUMBER CO:- . 00606 - 001-400-3103-4309— 01238- -- 607132 00949-------- ---- 38728------ MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 07132 09/30/91 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 10/16/91 y • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 00:51:51 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST . -FOR 10/17/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT -DESCRIPTION-- *** VENDOR TOTAL ********************************************************************— R (CCAA CONFERENCE) CONF REG/J. BRIAN TR3B1 -r PAGE 0010 - - DATE 10/17/91—r INV/REF 1 PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $81:19 TR3B1 00381 $0. 00 04310 001-400-2101-4317 -- 00187 3150.00- -- 10/15/91 POLICE /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *** VENDOR TOTAL ********************************************************************--------$150.00 R OLGUIN-RUTHERFORD - 01917 - WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 9348 10/14/91 -0 001-210-0000-2110 - 04547 .$1,600.00 :79348 03264 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE *** VENDOR TOTAL ********************************************************************------$1f600.00 R • PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPUTER HOOKUP/OCT 91 00321 001-400-2101-4304 00697 $2:07 10/01/91 POLICE /TELEPHONE *** VENDOR TOTAL ********************************************************************----- ---$2: 07 R PAK WEST • • MISC. CHARGES/SEP 91 00519 001-400-4204-4309 -02124 86611 09/30/91 BLDG MAINT R - PAK WEST----------- ----- --------------00519-----001-400-4204-4309---02127 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 87770 10/08/91 BLDG MAINT I - - 38729 10/16/91 I I 38730 $0.00 10/16/91 b. 1:3 00036 - 38731 • $0.00 10/16/91 ---------3177:46-- -785559/786611 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS -$923:29-- —785951/787770 - /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL ****************************4***************************************---$1. 100.75- - 00951 --'38732 $0.00 10/16/91 Is.: -02943 -- 38732-4i- $923.47 10/16/9147 !,7 38733 10/16/91 R - - RON*PONCIANO 02967 -001-400-4601-4201- 01034 $168.00 03535 SUMMER CLASS INSTRUCTOR 10/12/91 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 *** VENDOR TOTAL ********************************************************************--- $168:00 RADISSON-HOTEL- 04304- 001-400-2101-4312 01765 $120.00 02642- 38734 HOTEL/S. WISNIEWSKI 10/14/91 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE POST $0.00 10/16/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL-******************************************************************** $120.00 ---R----RIVERSIDE--COMMUNITY-COLLEGE- —01421 001-400-2101-4312- .01767 $12:00 4285--02640-----38735--- TUITION/K. MITCHELL 4285 09/23/91 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE # POST $0.00 10/16/91 3 -? • .!) J J J Mt* •1• FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 00.5151 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 0011 DEMAND LIST . PAGE Ji 4 DATE -10/17/91--1. PAY DATE-10/17/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT]-' INV/REF,* PO # CHK # 2 1 DATE INVC. PROJ #. -ACCOUNT-DESCRIPTION 4 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP e 1 .r.- *** VENDOR TOTAL ********************************************************************---------$12,00,------- n e.,-- ,.. R SYLVIA*ROOT .•• 04061 •• 001-400-4102-4201-- 00325---------$9100-- ---- • -4 241 241 10/07/91 PLANNING COMM /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT ; 41' SEC SERV/10-01-91 *** VENDOR TOTAL.********************************************************************------..--*91r00 ,.: R SCCCA 02852 001-400-21014315 00199- $25:00 4 -03137 -38737 -T DUES/J. BRIAN 10/14/91 POLICE /MEMBERSHIP 30.00 10/16/91 ,t. 73 01943 - 38736 $0.00 10/16/91 7 4' • *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** -----125.00--------t 3. R MICHAEL*SCHUBACH 00536 001-400-4101-4316 00232 $28.00 01944 38738 MONTHLY EXP/SEP 91 09/30/91 PLANNING /TRAINING $0.00 10/16/91 ***.VENOOR TOTAL-******************************************************************* R SCR CAFES, INC.- 04309 - -001-300-0000-3115---04124 -$116:00 -24178 11090 —.38739 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 24178 10/14/91 /BUSINESS LICENSE $0.00 10/16/91 17 ?-4 15 32 17 - -***-VENDOR-TOTAL-******************************************************************** $116:-00----- R SENTINEL SIGNAL SYSTEMS -01025 001-400-4204-4201- 00481- -$200:00 02969-----38740---z ALARM SERV/OCT-NOV 91 10/07/91 BLDG MAINT /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/16/91 - - -*** VENDOR-TOTAL-******************************************************************** $200.00 51 '41 R SERVICE MERCHANDISE 04161 - - - 001-400-4101-5401-00039-------$101-; 35 01945 ----38741 --1, REPLACE POLAROID CAMERA 10/08/91 PLANNING /EQUIP -LESS THAN $500 $0.00 10/16/91 --, fa. 1 - ------***-VENDOR-TOTAL-******************************************************************** $101-:-35 ,A - ,.9 R- -, SHORELINE -PRINTING -- - 03505 - - - 001-400-2101-4305 ---- 01601---------- $1677 79------ --------------9483- 02484 ----- 38742--- SUBPOENAS/BOOKING FORMS 9483 08/08/91 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $167.79 10/16/91 ft '1 ; -- ----41.**-VENOOR-TOTAL-******************#4141.***A4*****######******************************* $167-.-79 221 G I Gri R- SOUTH BAY -HEATING 02535- 001 -400 -4204 -4309---02126-------$1,-49000------14517/14297--02957-----38743 -- EMERG AIR COND REPAIR 14297 09/30/91 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 10/16/91 m 71 74 75 • • • • 1 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 08:51:71 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 10/17/91 - - • . - VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ ACCOUNT -DESCRIPTION - * ** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. • ELEC BILLS/SEP 91 R .-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ELEC BILLS/SEP 91 00159 001-400-2101-4303 00054 09/30/91 POLICE EDISON CO. -- —00159-001-400-3101-4303- 00167 09/30/91 MEDIANS R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ELEC BILLS/SEP 91 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ELEC BILLS/SEP 91 • -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ELEC BILLS/SEP 91 - R --SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ELEC BILLS/SEP 91 00159 001-400-3104-4303---00086 09/30/91 TRAFFIC SAFETY 'EDISON C0; 00159' 001-400-4204-4303- 00491 09/30/91 BLDG MAINT EDISON CO. - - 00159 - 001-400-6101-4303-- -00378- 09/30/91 PARKS EDISON--00.........---- 00159 ----WS-400-2601-4303 —00314 - • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.- ELEC BILLS/SEP 91 09/30/91 STREET LIGHTING 00159 160-400-3102-4303-- 00172 09/30/91 SEWER/ST DRAIN INV/REF $1r490.00 - $25.33 /UTILITIES $27; 97 /UTILITIES $593.22 /UTILITIES $8,8513.15 /UTILITIES ----- $1549.80 /UTILITIES - - - - -$264.61 /UTILITIES $68: 66 /UTILITIES . • - • • • • *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** —#11,-3977 74 * * * R SOUTHERN -CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. - - 00442 • - 105-400-2601-4303-00313------$13,626:01--- ST. LITE BILLS/SEP 91 09/30/91 STREET LIGHTING /UTILITIES R SPECIALTY-MAINTENANCE CO SWEEPING SERV/SEP 91 2730 R---- -SPECTALTY-MAINTENANCE-CO SWEEPING SERV/SEP 91 VENDOR TOTAL 01- PAGE 0012 DATE 10/17/91 PO # CHKI* AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP • 00115 001-400-3103-4201 00358 83,106.00 --- --2730 09/30/91 ST MAINTENANCE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00963 38744 $0.00 10/16/91 00963 38744 $0.00 10/16/91 00963 38744 $0.00 10/16/91 1,3 -00963 —38744 - $0.00 10/16/91 00963 -- 38744 -- $0.00 10/16/91 r 00963 39744 $0.00 10/16/91 H I 3 00963 38744 $0.00 10/16/91 ha 4/P ../ 7!) 00012 - - 38745 $0.00 10/16/91 143 00027 --------38746 - $0.00 10/16/91 k, --- ---------------00115--------109-400-3301-4201----00067 $3,837.00 -2730--00027------3B746-------,-7 2730 09/30/91 VEH PKG DIST /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/16/91 1 - lc, 840:00 CSTI-723---02638-----38747--- /TRAINING $0.00 10/16/91 Ir•4 lc, ********************************************************************------$6,943.00 STATE OF -CALIFORNIA- 00951- 001-400-2101-4316 D0784 ADMIN FEES/DISASTER CRSE 1-723 10/09/91 POLICE I • • I • W • 0 .1j ef, 5 7r- • FINANCE--SFA340 -TIME 08:51:51 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR -10/17/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ........ACCOUNT -DESCRIPTION------. - *** VENDOR -TOTAL *************** -n*************-************************************** R SWAPC TRAVEL EXP/L. HIRSH R - SWAPC CONF REG/L. HIRSH R - SWAPC TRAVEL EXP/P. STOOPS R - SWAPC _ CONF REG/P. STOOPS TR389 TR389 TR388 TR388 R SWAPC TRAVEL EXP/K. ROBERTSON TR387 R 00385 001-400-4101-4317 00076 10/14/91 PLANNING 00385 - - 001-400-4101-4317 --- 00077- 10/14/91 PLANNING 00383 10/14/91 00385........ 10/14/91 001-400-4101-4317- 00078 PLANNING 001-400-4101-4317- 00079 PLANNING 00385 001-400-4101-4317 - 00080 10/14/91 PLANNING -SWAPC -------------- -00385-----001-400-4101-4317-00081 CONF REG/K. ROBERTSON TR387 10/14/91 PLANNING TRAVEL EXP/C. CHALFANT TR390 00385 - --001-400-4101-4317-- 00082- 10/14/91 PLANNING PAGE 0013 1 ' DATE -I0/17/91- T. INV/REF PO # AMOUNT UNENC $4Q: 00 - ---TR389 00389 $0. 00 $35.00 /CONFERENCE EXPENSE _.._ $67.00----- /CONFERENCE 67.00----- /CONFERENCE EXPENSE CHK # DATE EXP 4 s 7 % -38748 -- 10/16/91 ;4 s -----TR389 00389 - - - 38748 -- $0.00 10/16/91 $35.00- - -TR388 - 0038B- ---- - 38748 /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 10/16/91 3- — _.. $67.00 - -TR388- 00388--- -....38748 ....- /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 10/16/91 _._ - ... -$35.00 • /CONFERENCE EXPENSE TR387 00387 ..--. 38748 $0. 00 10/16/91 $67.00 —TR387 00387 — 38748 /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 10/16/91 --------- - -- $35.00 /CONFERENCE EXPENSE R---- - SWAPC -------- 00385 -------001-400-4101-4317----00083-- TRAVEL EXP/C. CHALFANT TR390 10/14/91 PLANNING TR390 -- 00390 ------ - 38748 .. - $0. 00 10/16/91 -------$67:-Q0--------------TR390---00390 /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 *** VENDOR TOTAL + *- **-a-? *****?***-p-***************?r*?r*?r*******+r***+ -»**a-*+ *****-p**-r-****----....------•$408. 00 .R------.-WAXIE --- JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 70905 03632 - - - 001-400-4204-4309- --02125---------$1,010.32 - -9070905 02941 09/24/91 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $1.010.75 *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************************************************it-********* $17010.32 38748-- 10/16/91 8748--- 10/16/91 38749 — 10/16/91 R----•--WEST-PURL-ISHING-COMPANY 00141------001-400-1131-4201---- 00676--- ------- =$63. 46---------652-893-746--09381 —38730 --- PUBLICATIONS/LEGAL 3-746 10/03/91 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/16/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** - STEVE*WISNIEWSKI 01364 -- 001-400-2101-4312-01766 MEALS/P. O. S. T. WORKSHOP 10/14/91 POLICE $51. 50 /TRAVEL EXPENSE 7 POST 02641----- 38751 - -- $0.00 10/16/91 :3 26 27 3, 12 I3 34 35 37 711 12 ;31 .0 43 4 55 , ,a 7,3 71 J7 W J' .,v • ' Ti �.J F I NANCE—SFA340 TIME OB: 31:31 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 4 PAGE DATE 0014 10/17/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF-.; PO # CHK 3F DATE INVC PROJ # ---ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR • TOTAL ********-************ *************SHF************** t***************** -$51:-50 ------ *** PAY CODE TOTAL***********at****at************************************************* - - $60,078.87- * * * 60,078.87- *** TOTAL WARRANTS **a•**•n*********************#*******•r**t**•r**it********#***atit**•r*at*•n---$794r 158. 52 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DEMANDS OR CLAVI ,1 THS WARRANTS LISTED ON PAGES / T9/�7' WARRANT REGISTER FOR /0//7/'7/ FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT, AND ARE TO THE UI FT. FINANCE DIRE [03 /D//7/V DATE t x 1 4 7 11! S COVERED BY.22 INCLUSIVE, OF ARE ACCURATE, I;,, IN CONFORMANCE s.3 31 141 Iw :' 126 3; M •t r4 e October 16, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of October 22, 1991 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORTS, SEPTEMBER 1991 Attached are the financial reports for September. General fund revenue for 25% of the year is 15.4% received; after adjusting for property taxes, which will not be received until December, revenue would be 23%. Parking Fund revenue is 23.8% received. Sales tax for the first quarter is down 14% from last year. The decrease will be evaluated as soon as sales tax audit reports are available. In addition to lower sales tax receipts, other revenue such as police court fines will also be lower due to the State's budget balancing raids on City funds. After the evalua- tion, if modification is necessary, staff will come back to the Council with a recommendation. General Fund expenditures are 23% for 25% of the year; Parking Fund expenditures are 23.2%. Concur: Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager Attachments Viki Cope and Finance Director 1d ) CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0001 TIME 12:42:39 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 23. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREAL I ZED FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 001 GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 3100 TAXES 3101 3102 3103 3106 3107 3108 3110 3111 3112 3113 3114 3113 OBJECT SUBTOTAL /CURRENT YEAR SECURED /CURRENT YEAR UNSECURED /PRIOR YEAR COLLECTIONS /SUPPLEMENTAL ROLL SBB13 /TRANSFER TAX /SALES TAX /CABLE TV FRANCHISE /ELECTRIC FRANCHISE /GAS FRANCHISE /REFUSE FRANCHISE /TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY /BUSINESS LICENSE 3200 LICENSES AND PERMITS 3202 /DOG LICENSES 3203 /BICYCLE LICENSES 3204 /BUILDING PERMITS 3203 /ELECTRIC PERMITS 3206 /PLUMBING PERMITS 3207 /OCCUPANCY PERMITS 3209 /GARAGE SALES 3211 /BANNER PERMITS 3212 /ANIMAL/FOWL PERMITS 3213 /ANIMAL REDEMPTION FEE 3214 /AMPLIFIED SOUND PERMIT 3215 /TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT 3216 /SPRAY BOOTH PERMIT 3217 /OPEN FIRE PERMIT 3218 /AUTO REPAIR PERMIT 3221 /BEACH VOLLEYBALL APP OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3, 369, 640. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3, 369, 640. 00 0. 0 255, 703. 00 0. 00 177, 682. 10 78, 022.90 69. 4 20, 000. 00 0. 00 28, 220. 02 8, 220. 02- 141. 1 123, 000. 00 6, 717. 92 46, 747. 93 78, 232. 07 37. 3 70, 000. 00 7, 96B. 83 16, 484. 48 53, 313. 52 23. 3 1, 730, 000. 00 119, 646. 36 286, 046. 36 1, 463, 933. 64 . 16. 3 130, 000. 00 0. 00 34, 421.'22 93, 378. 78 26. 4 41, 478. 00 0. 00 0. 00 41, 478. 00 0. 0 ' 29, 603. 00 0. 00 0. 00 29, 603. 00 0. 0 134, 330. 00 14, 137. 64 42, 067. 00 112, 283. 00 27. 2 244, 048. 00 8. 76 33, 884. 46 208, 163. 54 14. 7 432, 400. 00 26, 661. 71 138, 460. 93 313, 939. 07 30. 6 6, 642, 224. 00 173, 161. 22 806, 014. 30 3, 836, 209. 30 12. 1 18, 000. 00 682. 00 1, 478. 73 16, 321. 23 8. 2 200.00 31. 30 64. 50 135. 50 32.2 170, 000. 00 8, 397. 20 33, 117. 71 136, 882. 29 19. 4 40, 000. 00 693. 05 4, 202. 03 33, 797. 93 10. 5 32, 000. 00 1, 733. 10 4, 703. 10 27, 296. 90 14. 6 9, 000. 00 830. 23 2, 430. 25 6, 369. 75 27. 0 140. 00 30. BO 81. 80 38. 20 38. 4 4, 070. 00 183. 00 1, 110. 00 2, 960. 00 27. 2 630. 00 0. 00 100. 00 330. 00 13. 3 3, 300. 00 322. 00 1, 442. 00 2, 038. 00 41. 2 1, 030. 00 217. 30 742. 30 307. 30 70. 7 900.00 281. 30 431. 30 468. 30 47.9 73.00 0.00 0.00 73.00 0.0 172. 00 0.00 0.00 172. 00 0. 0 114.00 0.00 0. 00 114. 00 0.0 200. 00 0. 00 0. 00 200. 00 0. 0 280, 071. 00 13, 603. 90 49, 904. 16 230, 166. 84 17. 8 3300 FINES & FORFEITURES 3301 /VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS - 135, 000. 00 14, 174. 35 29, 123. B8 105, 874. 12 21. 5 3303 /COURT FINES/POLICE DEPT 60, 000. 00 3, 949. 89 7, 636. 08 32, 343. 92 12. 7 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 193, 000. 00 18, 124. 24 36, 781. 96 138, 218. 04 18. B 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 / INTEREST INCOME 237, 180. 00 282, 391. 87- 66, 208. 34- 303, 388. 34 27. 9 3402 /RENTS & CONCESSIONS 3, 000. 00 177. 75 747. 24 2, 232. 76 24. 9 3403 /PIER REVENUE 10, 700.00 1, 238. 30 3, 871. 50 6, 828. 30 36. 1 0 • • 4 r id CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (DY FUND) PAGE 0002 TIME 12:42:39 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 7. 001 GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3404 /COMM CTR LEASES 90, 000. 00 4, 014. 00 25. 452. 90 64, 947. 10 28. 2 3405 /COMM CTR RENTALS 52. 000. 00 3, 469. 50 16, 908. 25 35. 091. 75 32. 5 3406 /COMM CTR THEATRE 30, 000. 00 2, 045. 00 10. 568. 40 19, 431.60 35. 2 3411 /OTHER FACILITIES 26, 000. 00 2, 230. 79 6, 769. 29 19, 230. 79 26. 0 3412 /TENNIS COURTS 13. 000. 00 983. 00 2, 676. 75 10, 323. 25 20. 5 3414 /PROP A CONVERSION 110, 000. 00 O. 00 O. 00 110, 000. 00 O. 0 3418 /SPECIAL EVENTS 30, 000. 00 1, 640. 00 13, 714. 00 16, 286. 00 45. 7 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 601, 880. 00 266, 977. 57- 14, 499. 95 587, 380. 09 2. 4 3900 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/STATE 3504 /IN LIEU OFF HIGHWAY 333.00 0.00 166.79 166.21 50.0 3505 /IN LIEU MOTOR VEHICLE 688, 312.00 97, 732.03 167, 471.01 520, 840.99 24.3 3507 /HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE 4,000.00 0. 00 2,565.81 1, 434. 19 64. 1 3508 /MANDATED COSTS 0.00 0.00 918.00 918.00- 0.0 3509 /HOMEOWNER PROP TX RELIE 66,500.00 0.00 0.00 66, 500.00 0.0 3510 /POST 48, 700. 00 243. 40 2.803.36 45, 896. 64 5. 7 3511 /STC -SVC OFF TRAINING 8,500.00 0.00 0.00 8,500.00 0.0 3514 /CIGARETTE TAX 36.790.00 1,180.87 4.430.64 32, 359.36 12.0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 853, 135.00 59, 156.30 178, 355.61 674, 779.39 20.9 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3801 /RESIDENTIAL INSPECTION 9, 000. 00 831. 00 2, 031. 00 6, 969. 00 22. 9 3802 /SIGN REVIEW 4, 000. 00 247. 90 1, 047. 50 2. 952. 50 26. 1 3803 /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 7, 965. 00 1, 824. 00 3, 299. 00 4, 666. 00 41. 4 3805 /CONDTL USE PERMIT AMEND 1, 650. 00 1, 659. 00 2, 619. 00 969. 00- 158. 7 3806 /BOARD OF APPEALS 300. 00 0. 00 0. 00 300. 00 0. 0 3808 /ZONE VAR LANCE REVIEW 3, 700. 00 925. 00 925. 00 2, 779. 00 29. 0 3809 /TENTATIVE MAP REVIEW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 3810 /FINAL MAP REVIEW 4, 050. 00 0. 00 450. 00 3, 600. 00 11. 1 3811 /ZONE CHANGE G P A 2, 400. 00 1, 255. 23 1, 255. 25 1, 144. 79 52. 3 3812 /CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW 24, 000. 00 307. 50 2, 727. 50 21, 272. 50 11. 3 3813 /PLAN CHECK FEES 105, 000. 00 6, 142. 01 32, 418. 33 72. 581. 67 30. 8 3814 /PLANNING/ZONING APPEAL 2, 132. 00 0. 00 533. 00 1, 999. 00 25. 0 3815 /PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES 10, 000. 00 648. 79 5, 240. 35 4, 799. 69 52. 4 3817 /SPECIAL CURD MARKING 420.00 0.00 0.00 420.00 0.0 3818 /POLICE SERVICES 23, 000. 00 901. 45 3, 247. 45 19. 752. 55 14. 1 3819 /JAIL SERVICES 10, 200. 00 1, 273. 00 5, 523. 00 4, 677. 00 54. 1 3820 /TRUSTY ADMIN FEE 150. 00 81. 00 349. 00 195. 00- 230.0 3821 /FINGERPRINT SERVICE 2, 000. 00 273. 00 693. 00 1, 307. 00 34. 6 3823 /SPECIAL EVENT SECURITY 25, 000. 00 4, 040. 00 12, 629. 00 12, 375. 00 50. 5 3824 /VEHICLE INSPECTION FEES O. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.0 3825 /PUBLIC NOTICE POSTING 80.00 0.00 20. 00 60. 00 29.0 n'f co, 1,10 d ra 4D FINANCE-FA484 TIME 12:42:39 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 001 GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 3800 CURRENT 3826 3827 3831 3834 3836 3837 3838 3839 3840 3841 3856 3837 3858 3859 3861 3862 3863 3866 3867 3868 3869 3870 3871 3872 3873 3874 3875 3876 3877 3878 3883 3884 3890 OBJECT SUBTOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 SERVICE CHARGES /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES /LIBRARY GROUNDS MAINT /STREET CUT INSPECTION /ENCROACHMENT PERMIT /FUMIGATION INSPECT FEE /RETURNED CHECK CHARGE /SALE OF MAPS/PUBLICATIO /PHOTOCOPY CHARGES /AMBULANCE TRANSPORT /POLICE TOWING /GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT /PKG PLAN APPLICATION /TENANT REFUSE BILLING /REFUSE LIEN FEE /HAZARDOUS MAT PERMIT /ALARM PERMIT FEE /FALSE ALARM FEE /NONCONFORMING REMODELS /PRECISE DEVLMNT PLANS /PUBLIC NOTICING/300 FT /2ND PARTY RESPONSE /LEGAL DETERMINATION HRG /PARAMEDIC RESP/NON-TRSP /LOCK -OUT (CAR) /LOCK --OUT (HOUSE) /FLOODING WATER REMOVAL /SPRAY BOOTH INSPECTION /FIRE PROTECT/SYS EXISTG /SPRINKLER CERT TEST /COMML BLDG/APT INSPECT /FINAL/TENT MAP EXTNSION /LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT /300'RADIUS NOTCG/APL CC 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3901 3902 3903 3904 3909 3955 OPERATING /SALE OF REAL/PERS PROP /REFUNDS/REIMB PREV YR /CONTRIBUTIONS NON GOVT /GENERAL MISCELLANEOUS /LATE FEE TRANSFERS IN EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE 80. 000. 00 9. 254. 00 16, 518. 00 5, 075. 00 0. 00 0. 00 40. 000. 00 758. 75 9. 763. 75 12, 000. 00 1. 861. 50 3, 896. 50 8, 000. 00 1, 187. 00 2. 864. 00 1.000.00 80. 00 270. 00 500. 00 150. 80 233. 00 1.200. 00 43. 35 251. 10 9. 000. 00 825. 00 4, 485. 00 26, 500. 00 2. 533. 00 9. 538. 30 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 840. 00 920. 00 1, 840. 00 130. 00 10. 50 40. 50 500. 00 0. 00 371. 03 1.300. 00 0. 00 0. 00' 1, 800. 00 213. 00 783. 00 2. 000. 00 300. 00 630. 00 2. 680. 00 700. 75 2, 040. 75 1, 143. 00 0. 00 1, 145. 00 7, 975. 00 2, 991. 25 6, 181. 25 1, 500. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 046. 00 1, 046. 00 1, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 240. 00 0. 00 0. 00 190. 00 65. 00 65. 00 174. 00 87. 00 87. 00 900. 00 0. 00 0. 00 210. 00 0. 00 0. 00 92. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 750. 00 0. 00 0. 00 450. 00 225. 00 900. 00 515. 00 0. 00 0. 00 920.00 0.00 345.00 445. 833. 00 43, 660. 36 138. 293. 76 8. 000. 00 500. 00 5, 000. 00 3, 000. 00 0. 00 1. 649, 655. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2. 485. 42 8, 059. 79 11480. 00 5, 424. 41 14. 87 840. 95 0. 87 2. 87 137, 471. 25 412, 413. 75 PAGE 0003 DATE 10/16/91 25. 07: OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED BALANCE 7. 63, 482. 00 5. 075. 00 30, 236. 25 8. 103. 50 5. 136. 00 730. 00 267. 00 948. 90 4. 515. 00 16, 961. 50 0. 00 0. 00 89. 50 128. 97 1. 500. 00 1, 017. 00 1, 370. 00 639. 23 0. 00 1, 793. 75 1, 500. 00 1, 046. 00- 1. 000. 00 240. 00 125. 00 87. 00 900. 00 210. 00 92. 00 1, 750. 00 450. 00- 515. 00 573. 00 307, 539. 24 8, 000. 00 7, 559. 79- 424. 41- 4, 159. 05 2. 87- 1. 237. 241. 25 20. 6 0. 0 24. 4 32. 4 35. 8 27. 0 46. 6 20. 9 49. 8 35. 9 0. 0 100. 0 31. 1 74. 2 0. 0 43. 3 31. 5 76. 1 100. 0 77. 5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 34. 2 30. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 200. 0 0. 0 37. 5 31. 0 0. 0 1611. 9 108. 4 16. 8 0. 0 25. 0 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0004 TIME 12:42:39 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 7. 001 LIGHTING DISTRICT FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 3900 OTHER REVENUE • OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1, 668. 155.00 141, 452.41 426. 741.77 1.241. 413.23 25.5 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 10, 686. 298.00 184, 582.86 1,650,591.71 9.035. 706.29 13.4 FUND TOTAL 10. 686. 298. 00 184. 582. 86 1, 650. 591. 71 9. 035. 706. 29 15. 4 • 1 • 4 i FINANCE-FA484 TIME 12: 42: 39 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 10, LIGHTING DISTRICT FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0005 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 25. 0%. OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE X 3100 TAXES 3101 /CURRENT YEAR SECURED 179, 637. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3103 /PRIOR YEAR COLLECTIONS 7, 000. 00 0. 00 407. 40 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 184, 637. 00 0. 00 407. 40 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 90, 783. 00 9, 830. 86 14, 916. 29 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 90, 785. 00 9, 830. 96 14, 916. 29 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 275, 422. 00 9, 830. 86 13, 323. 69 FUND TOTAL 275, 422. 00 9, 830. 86 15, 323. 69 179, 637. 00 0. 0 4. 592. 60 8. 1 184, 229. 60 0. 2 73, 868. 71 . 16. 4 75. 868. 71 16. 4 260, 09B. 31 5. S 260, 098. 31 3. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ' FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0006 TIME 12:42:39 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 23.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE iC • 109 VEHICLE PARKING DIST DEPARTMENT 0000 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 1,809.00 849.26 1,184.98 624.02 65.5 3407 /PARKING LOT RENTAL 13, 713. 00 1,304.10 2,608.20 13, 104. 80 16.5 3409 VEHICLE PKG DIST/LOT B 22, 990.00 0.00 0.00 22, 990.00 0.0 3413 VEHICLE PKG DIST/VPD LEASE 69, 388.00 13, 000.00 46, 308.10 22, 879.90 67.0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 109, 900.00 17, 133.36 30, 301.28 39, 398.72 45.7 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3845 /VPD LOT PERMITS/DAILY 8,000.00 0.00 3846 /VPD LOT PERMITS/MONTHLY 10, 000. 00 0.00 3847 VEHICLE PKG DIST/VALIDATION STAMPS 22,000.00 0.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 40, 000.00 0.00 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 149, 900. 00 17, 133. 36 FUND TOTAL 149, 900.00 173. 89 138. 40 340. 54 672. 83 30, 974. 11 17, 133.36 30, 974. 11 7,826.11 2.1 9,841.60 1.5 21, 639.46 L5 39, 327.17 1.6 98, 925. 89 34. 0 98, 923. 89 34. 0 FINANCE-FA484 TIME 12:42:39 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 110 PARKING FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 3300 FINES & FORFEITURES 3302 /COURT FINES/PARKING OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 3407 /PARKING LOT RENTAL OBJECT SUBTOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0007 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 'DATE 10/16/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE f - UNREALIZED EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE X 1, 300, 000. 00 • 1, 300. 000. 00 10, 894. 00 7. 200. 00 26. 094. 00 90. 613. 00 295. 064. 20 90. 613. 00 290, 564. 20 927. 69 1, 862. 61 600. 00 1, 800. 00 1, 027. 69 3, 662. 61 1, 004, 430. 80 22.7 1, 004, 435. 80 22. 7 17, 031.39 5,400.00 22. 431. 39 9. 8 25. 0 14. 0 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3842 /PARKING METERS 708, 000.00 07, 680. 01 227, 468.07 030, 031.43 30.0 3843 /PARKING PERMITS: ANNUAL 191, 000.00 2,295.78 14, 201. 28 176, 798.72 7.4 3844 /DAILY PARKING PERMITS 1,500.00 240.00 1,240.30 204.70 83.0 3848 /DRIVEWAY PERMITS 000.00 28.75 193.75 306.25 38.7 3849 /GUEST PERMITS 600.00 08.70 370.70 224. 30 62.6 3800 /CONTRACTOR'S PERMITS 1,000.00 101.00 021.00 479.00 52.1 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 902, 600.00 60, 409.74 244, 000.60 708, 094. 40 23.6 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 2, 278, 694.00 102, 000.43 043, 232.41 1, 730, 461.09 23.8 FUND TOTAL 2, 278, 694. 00 102, 000. 43 043, 232. 41 1, 730, 461.09 23.8 FINANCE-FA484 TIME 12:42:39 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 119 STATE GAS TAX FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0008 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 29.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 23, 984. 00 10, 660. 96 13, 012. 10 10, 971. 90 99. 1 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 23, 984. 00 10, 660. 96 13, 012. 10 10, 971. 90 99. 1 3300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/STATE 3901 /SECTION 2106 ALLOCATION 74, 169. 00 6, 861. 42 19, 069. 81 99, 099. 19 20. 3 3902 /SECTION 2107 ALLOCATION 199, 400. 00 14, 416. 48 27, 876. 20 127, 923. 80 17. 9 3903 /SECT 2107.9 ALLOCATION 4, 000. 00 0. 00 4, 000. 00 0. 00 100. 0 3912 /SECTION 2109 (PROP 111 ) 78, 080. 00 6, 850. 97 17, 729. 90 60, 334. 10 22. 7 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 311, 649. 00 28, 128. 87 64, 667. 91 246, 977. 09 20. 7 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 339, 229. 00 38, 789. 83 77, 680. 01 297, 948. 99 23. 1 FUND TOTAL 333, 229. 00 38, 789. 83 77, 680. 01 297, 948. 99 23. 1 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0009 TIME 12:42:39 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 • 27.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE • • • • • • • • • 120 COUNTY GAS TAX FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 1,809.00 241.89 241.89 1.567. 11 13.3 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1,809.00 241.89 241.89 1,567.11 13.3 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 1,809.00 241.89 241.89 1, 567.1. 1 FUND TOTAL 1,809.00 241.89 6;'. 11 13.3 a • • • • • • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0010 TIME 12:42:39 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 1'1,16/91 UNREAL 1 ,_11: FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 123 PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 3100 TAXES 3116 /PARK REC FACILITY TAX 7, 000. 00 143. 00 7, 143. 00 143. 00- 102. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL_ 7, 000. 00 1.43. 00 7, 143. 00 143. 00- 102. 0 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 92, 728. 00 13, 891.83 20, 062. 82 72, 663. 18 21. 6 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 92, 728. 00 13, 891. 83 20, 062. 82 72, 663. 18 21. 6 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3910 /PARK/RECREATION IN LIEU 130, 000. 00 0. 00 18, 976. 00 111, 024. 00 14. 3 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 130, 000. 00 0. 00 18, 976. 00 111, 024. 00 14. 3 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 229, 728. 00 14, 036. 83 46, 183. 82 183, 344. 18 20. 1 FUND TOTAL 229, 729. 00 14, 036. 83 46, 183. 82 183, 344. 18 20. 1 • • • a Ilb • • • • • FINANCE—FA484 TIME 12:42:39 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0011 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 7. 411. • 126 UUT RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 • 3100 TAXES 3120 /UTILITY USER TAX 906, 934.00 74, 136. 99 218, 272.68 688, 681.32 24.0 op OBJECT SUBTOTAL 906, 934.00 74, 156.99 218,272.68 688, 681.32 24.0 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY o 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 30, 000. 00 3,385.13 7,971.25 22, 028. 75 26.3 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 30, 000.00 3,385.13 7,971.25 22, 028.75 26.5 A+ 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3955 /OPERATING TRANSFERS IN 33, 685.00 2,807.08 8,421.24 25.263.76 24.9 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 33, 683.00 2,807.08 8,421.24 25, 263.76 24.9 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 970, 639. 00 80, 349. 20 234, 665. 17 735, 973. 83 24. 1 • FUND TOTAL 970, 639. 00 80, 349. 20 234, 669. 17 733, 973. 83 24.1 • • • • • • • • • AO • gab CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0012 TIME 12:42:39 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 127 67.. UTILITY USER TAX FUND f DEPARTMENT 0000 3100 TAXES 3120 /UTILITY USER TAX 1, 360, 441.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1, 360, 441.00 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 8,375.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 8,375.00 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 1, 368, 816.00 FUND TOTAL 1, 368, 816.00 111, 233. 47 111, 233. 47 327, 408. 92 327, 408. 92 1, 033, 032. 08 24. 0 1, 033, 032. 08 24. 0 594.70 752.47 7,622.53 8. 9 594.70 752.47 71622.53 8. 9 111, 830. 17 328, 161.39 1;040,654.61 23.9 111, 830.17 328, 161.39 1, 040, 634.61 23.9 FINANCE-FA484 TIME 12:42:39 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 140 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) , PAGE 0013 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 7. 3700 INTERGOVERNMENT/FEDERAL 3713 /HOUSING REHABILITATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 3713 /CDBG ADMINISTRATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 FUND TOTAL 0.00 r • • • • • S 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0014 • TIME 12:42:39 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 25.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE • UNREALIZED • FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE X • 145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND • DEPARTMENT 0000 • • 3100 TAXES 3117 /PROPOSITION A TRANSIT 210. 914. 00 20. 739. 00 50, 918. 00 159. 996. 00 24. 1 • 3121 SUBREGNL INCENTIVE FUNDS 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 0 • OBJECT SUBTOTAL 210, 914. 00 20, 739. 00 50. 918. 00 159, 996. 00 24. 1 • 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY • 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 23, 182. 00 2. 754. 90 4. 122. 47 19, 059. 53 17. 7 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 23, 182. 00 2. 754. 90 4. 122. 47 19. 059. 53 17. 7 - • 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3854 /FARES. DIAL A RIDE 11, 500. 00 0. 00 0. 00 11. 500. 00 0. 0 • 3855 /BUS PASSES 6. 000. 00 524. 00 966. 00 5. 034. 00 16. 1 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 17. 500. 00 524. 00 966. 00 16. 534. 00 5. 5 • DEPT 0000 TOTALS 251, 596. 00 24;017. 90 56, 006. 47 195. 589. 53 22. 2 • FUND TOTAL 251, 596. 00 24. 017. 90 56, 006. 47 195. 589. 53 22. 2 • • • a. • • • tic • 0 a J • • • • • • • • • • • • • FINANCE-FA484 TIME 12: 42: 39 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 150 GRANT FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0015 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 29.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 3500 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/STATE 3917 /OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFET 40, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 40, 000. 00 0. 0 OBJECT SUB TOTAL 40, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 40, 000. 00 0. 0 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3902 /REFUNDS/REIMB PREV YR 0.00 53.61 53.61 33.61- 0.0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0.00 93.61 93.61 93.61- 0.0 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 40, 000. 00 53. 61 53. 61 39, 946. 39 0. 1 FUND TOTAL 40, 000. 00 53. 61 53. 61 39, 946. 39 0. 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0016 TIME 12:42:39 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 7. • 155 CROSSING GUARD FUND • • • • • • • • • • DEPARTMENT 0000 3100 TAXES 3101 /CURRENT YEAR SECURED 53, 953.00 0.00 3103 /PRIOR YEAR COLLECTIONS 5,000.00 0.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 58, 953.00 0.00 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 2,479.00 447.17 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 2,479.00 447. 17 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 61, 432. 00 447. 17 FUND TOTAL 61, 432.00 447. 17 0.00 469. 19 469. 19 685. 74 685. 74 1,154.93 1, 154. 93 53, 953. 00 0. 0 4, 530. 81 9. 3 58, 483. 81 0. 7 1, 793. 26 27. 6 1, 793. 26 27. 6 60, 277. 07 1. 8 60, 277. 07 1 8 • S s • • • AP e, 41 41 A A • • • • • • a FINANCE-FA484 TIME 12:42:39 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 160 SEWER FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME OBJECT SUBTOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0017 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 29.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE i( 140, 298.00 14, 971.67 18.331. 48 121, 966.32 13.0 140, 298.00 14, 971.67 18, 331.48 121. 966. 52 13.0 3600 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/COUNTY 3602 /BEACH OUTLET MAINTENANC 4,000.00 0. 00 0. 00 4,000.00 0. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4,000.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 0.0 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3828 /SEWER CONNECTION FEE 18, 000.00 2,065.73 2,967.20 15, 032.80 16.4 3829 /SEWER DEMOLITION FEE 1,400.00 158.20 758.20 641.80 54.1 3832 /SEWER LATERAL INSTALLTN 1,200.00 0.00 1,130.00- 2.300.00 95.8 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 20, 600. 00 2,223.93 2,575.40 18.024. 60 12.3 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3955 OPERATING TRANSFERS IN 800, 000.00 66, 666.67 200, 000.01 S99, 999. 99 20.0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL B00,000.00 66.666.67 200, 000.01 S99, 999. 99 25.0 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 964, 898.00 83, 862.27 220, 906.89 743, 991.11 22.8 FUND TOTAL 964. 898.00 83, 862.27 220, 906.89 743, 991.11 22.8 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0018 TIME 12:42:39 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 23.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE % 170 ASSET SEIZURE/FORFEITURE FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 , 3300 FINES & FORFEITURES 3304 /FORFEITED FUNDS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3993 OBJECT SUBTOTAL /OPERATING TRANSFERS IN 400, 000. 00 400. 000. 00 8. 309. 00 8, 309. 00 20, 090. 00 20, 090. 00 9.706.76- 9.706.76- 9.812.76 .706.76- 9.706.76- 9.812.76 9.812.76 20, 090. 00 20, 090. 00 1, 304, 436. 81 1. 304. 436. 81 9. 908. 04 9. 908. 04 20, 090. 00 20. 090. 00 1.104.456.81- 376. 1 1.104.456.81- 376. 1 1. 399. 04- 1. 399. 04- 116. 4 116.4 0. 00 100. 0 0. 00 100. 0 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 428, 399. 00 20. 196. 00 1, 334. 434. 83 1. 103. B33. 83- 338. 0 FUND TOTAL 428, 399. 00 • 4111. 4, 20. 196. 00 1, 534. 434. 85 1, 105.833.83- 338.0 I CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0019 TIME 12:42:39 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 25.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE VNREALIZED FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE Y. 180 FIRE PROTECTION FUND • • • • • • O • • a • • • DEPARTMENT 0000 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 20,368.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 20.368.00 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3912 /FIRE FLOW FEE 100.000.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 100,000.00 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 120.368.00 FUND TOTAL 120, 368.00 3,222. 53 3,222.53 3,787.60 3,787.60 7,010.13 7,010.13 4,782.65 4,782.65 16, 165. 44 16, 165. 44 20. 948. 09 20, 948. 09 15. 585. 35 23. 4 15, 585. 33 23. 4 83, 834. 56 16. 1 83. 834. 56 16. 1 99, 419.91 17.4 99, 419.91 17.4 • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • 0 • FINANCE_-FA484 TIME 12:42:39 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3955 OBJECT SUBTOTAL /OPERATING TRANSFERS IN DEPT 0000 TOTALS FUND TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 EST REV 3, 721, 343. 00 3, 721, 343. 00 3, 721, 343. 00 3, 721, 343. 00 MONTHLY REV 493, 086. 14 493, 086. 14 493, 086. 14 493, 086. 14 YEAR TO DATE 1, 086, 649.70 1, 086, 649.70 1, 086, 649.70 1, 086, 649. 70 PAGE 0020 DATE 10/16/91 29.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED BALANCE 2;634,693.30 2. 634. 693. 30 2. 634. 693. 30 2. 634. 693. 30 29. 2 29. 2 29. 2 29. 2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH wr II FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0021 TIME 12:42:39 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/16/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE Afb UNREALIZED FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE % 411. 40 700 INSURANCE FUND a 0 0 • I I 0 I I I 1 1 DEPARTMENT 0000 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3902 /REFUNDS/REIMB PREV YR 0. 00 0. 00 9.107.84 9.107.84 0. 0 3955 OPERATING TRANSFERS IN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 3997 /TRANSFER IN -DEPT INS SVS 913. 197.00 76. 100.00 228, 300.00 684. 897.00 25.0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 913. 197. 00 76. 100. 00 237. 407. 84 675. 789. 16 25. 9 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 913, 197. 00 76:100.00 237. 407. 84 675. 789. 16 25. 9 FUND TOTAL REPORT TOTALS 913. 197. 00 76. 100. 00 237. 407. 84 675. 789. 16 25.9 22, 797, 968.00 1, 314. 138.67 6, 104, 636.98 16.693. 331.42 26.7 4 5 FINANCE-FA454 TIME 19: 17: 58 FUND DIV ODUT DFSCR 001 GENERAL FUND 1101 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 APPROPRIATION DEPT: LEGISLATIVE 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4303 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4319 SPECIAL EVENTS 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CMGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 23, 472. 00 352. 00 352. 00 18, 000. 00 0. 00 209. 00 42, 385. 00 2, 500. 00 2, 500. 00 300. 00 7, 500. 00 6, 000. 00 2, 750. 00 500. 00 3, 198. 00 20, 248. 00 65, 133. 00 1121 CITY CLERK DEPT: LEGISLATIVE 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4315 MEMBERSHIP 27, 600. 00 414. 00 414. 00 19, 133. 00 0. 00 678. 00 48, 239. 00 1, 285. 00 1, 285. 00 668. 00 2, 300. 00 297. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 1, 955. 96 0. 00 130. 60 1, 500. 00 18. 60 17. 40 3, 622. 56 0. 00 0. 00 17. 11 333. 57 0. 00 0. 00 15. 43 267. 00 633. 11 4,255.67 2, 064. 60 0. 00 0. 00 1, 735. 98 25. 08 55. 10 3, 880. 76 0. 00 0. 00 58. 91 161. 69 0. 00 5, 867. 88 0. 00 391. 80 4, 500. 00 55. 80 52. 20 10, 867. 68 0. 00 0. 00 54. 25 1, 131. 30 - 1, 557. 00 0. 00 107. 04 801. 00 3, 670. 59 14, 538. 27 - 2, 064. 60 0. 00 0. 00 10, 217. 38 326. 80 164. 28 12, 773. 06 100. 00 100. 00 176. 61 560. 42 100. 00 PAGE 0001 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 17, 604. 12 352. 00 39. 80- 13, 500. 00 55. 80- 156. 80 31, 517. 32 2, 500. 00 2, 500. 00 245. 75 6, 348. 70 4, 443. 00 2, 750. 00 392. 96 2, 397. 00 16, 577. 41 50, 594. 73 25, 535. 40 414. 00 414. 00 8, 915. 62 326. 80- 513. 72 35, 465. 94 1, 185. 00 1, 185. 00 491. 39 1, 739. 58 197. 00 24. 9 O. 0 111. 3 25. 0 0. 0 24. 9 25. 6 0. 0 0. 0 18. 0 15. 3 25. 9 O. 0 21. 4 25. 0 18. 1 22. 3 7. 4 0. 0 O. 0 53. 4 0. 0 24. 2 26. 4 7.7 7. 7 26. 4 24. 3 33. 6 j 3 0 FINANCE-FA454 TIN 19:17:53 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 1121 CITY CLERK CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 APPROPRIATION DEPT: LEGISLATIVE 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4323 PUBLIC NOTICING 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CMGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 1, 033. 00 660. 00 10, 185. 00 1, 829. 00 16, 972. 00 1, 400. 00 1, 400. 00 67, 896. 00 1122 ELECTIONS DEPT: LEGISLATIVE 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 1, 100. 00 1, 100. 00 25, 500. 00 25, 500. 00 172. 00 1, 15.1. 00 1, 287. 00 660. 00 3, 270. 00 29, 870. 00 1131 CITY ATTORNEY DEPT: LEGISLATIVE 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 120, 000. 00 120, 000. 00 200. 00 :325. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 0. 00 0. 00 2, 028. 2.7 152. 00 2, 400. 87 0. 00 0. 00 6,281.63 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 320. 71 0. 00 0. 00 320. 71 320. 71 16, 879. 31 16, 879. 31 20. 94 5. 80 .kIrVg It it 00 0. 00 0. 00 2, 157. 27 436. 00 3, 430. 30 0.00 0.00 16, 323. 36 0. 00 0.00 3, 000. 00- 3, 000. 00- 3. 00 1, 203. 37 0. 00 0. 00 1, 203. 37 1, 796. 63- 32,862.51 3- 32,862.51 32, 862. 51 68. 71 23. 99 PACE 0052 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR CCM('I Fir ENCUMBRANCE UNEFIC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 747.50 747. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 747. 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 1, 033. 00 0. 0 660. 00 0. 0 8, 027. 73 21. 1 1, 373. 00 24. 9 13, 321. 70 20. 3 1, 400. 00 0. 0 1, 400. 00 0. 0 51, 572.64 24. 0 1, 100. 00 1, 100. 00 27, 752. 50 27, 752. 50 172. 00 52. 37- 1, 287. 00 660. 00 2, 066. 63 30, 919. 13 87, 137. 49 87, 137. 49 131. 29 301. 01 0. 0 0. 0 8. 8 8. 8 0. 0 104. 5 0.0 0. 0 36. 8 3. 5 27. 3 27. 3 34. 3 7. 3 100 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 1::- o• 6 12 FINANCE-FA454 - TIME -19: 17:98 f..1-0F4,1i !'r r ? R 'drnt al::, IPs� '; � ., , f Vit FUND -DIV- OBJT- DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND ------------4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER OBJECT SUBTOTAL pe+fi'f ;t. ' ljp,9y+t,;;Alt!,of +F-!; r r,l CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) - FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 PAGE 0003 DATE-1Of15/91 ,25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE - APPROPRIATION - - MONTHLY-EXPY-TD-EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE- UNENC-BALANC 529. 00 26. 74 92. 70 0. 00 432.30 17.6 DIVISION TOTAL -- - ----1132 -CITY-PROSECUTOR 11 Or" I,. 0,17 is 02` I11I 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4112-PART-TIME/TEMPORARY OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200--CONTRACT-SERVICES 120, 529. 00 16, 906. 05 DEPT: ---LEGISLATIVE 32, 959. 21 0. 00 87, 569. 79 27. 3 0. 00 0. 00 0-00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 .0 0. 0 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 63, 004. 00 63, 004. 00 3, 750. 00 3. 750. 00 4, 312. 50 4, 312. 50 0. 00 0. 00 58, 691. 50 58, 691. 50 6. 8 6. 8 0 'o 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4396-TRSFR OUT -INS USER -CHCS 200. 00 831.-00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1, 031. 00 0. 00 69. 00 69. 00 0. 00 207:- 00 207. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 200. 00 0. 0 624. 00 ---- 24. 24. 9._- 824. 00 20. 0 1- .I DIVISION TOTAL 64, 035. 00 3,819. 00 1141 -CITY -TREASURER DEPT -LEGISLATIVE 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111- ACCRUAL CASH IN ----- 14: ` 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 4189 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL ----4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4, 519. 50 0. 00 59, 515. 50 7. 0 30, 288700 -- 2, 524700 250. 00 0. 00 454. 00 0. 00 454: 00 -- - - 0. 00 15, 144. 00 1, 262. 00 0. 00 0. 00 659. 00 54. 90 47, 249. 00 3, 840. 90 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 6aat `, 2, 000. 00 2, 000. 00 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER-SUPPLIES 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCEEXPENSE 7, 572700 240. 24 0. 00 0. 00 3, 786. 00 0. 00 168: 18 11, 766. 42 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 22, 716700- - - 25: 0- 9. 76 96. 0 454. 00 0. 0 454. 00 -- - -- 0. 0 - 11, 398. 00 25. 0 0. 00 0. 0 490:82 35, 482. 58 24. 9 0. 00 45. 28 0. 00 45. 28 0. 00 1, 954. 72 0. 00 1, 994. 72 840. 00 545.00 185.00 250. 00 500. 00 56. 10 160:'61 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 190. 40 420:'97 0. 00 0. 00 0.-00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 Q 689. 60 17. 9 1,124.03--- -27.2 185. 00 0. 0 250. 00 0. 0 500. 00 0. 0' 4 FINANCE-FA454 TIME 19:17:58 FUND pIV ORT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 1141 CITY TREASURER DEPT: 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1201 CITY MANAGER DEPT: 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LURES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAININGG 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 1202 FINANCE ADMIN DEPT: 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 APPROPRIATION LEGISLATIVE 1, 571. 00 4, 891. 00 54, 140. 00 401, 599. 00 MGMT/SUPPORT 108. 484. 00 1, 627. 00 1, 627. 00 3, 640. 00 226. 00 1, 242. 00 116, 846. 00 205. 00 205. 00 500. 00 1, 750. 00 0. 00 0. 00 725. 00 3, 500. 00 2, 300. 00 5, 012. 00 13. 787. 00 130, 838. 00 MGMT/SUPPORT 226, 733. 00 3, 500. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 131. 00 347. 71 4, 188. 61 35, 771. 67 9, 765. 96 0. 00 130. 40 0. 00 0. 00 107. 84 10, 004. 20 11.00 11. 00 40. 32 94. 52 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 56. 00 418. 00 608. 84 10, 624. 04 16, 977. 53 596. 32 higid 393. 00 964. 37 12, 776. 07 79, 315. 78 28, 095. 88 0. 00 391. 20 0. 00 0. 00 318. 94 28, 806. 02 98. 31 98. 31 128. 86 296. 91 0. 00 0. 00 615. 00 0. 00 131. 30 1, 254. 00 2, 426. 07 31, 330. 40 53, 321. 70 1,491.69 PACE 0004 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE ENCUMBRANCE UNEI:IC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 747. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 S '�a j s�4 '1 t,, r. IIw}'id Li l'E:i;317tF i 1,178.00 3,926.63 41,363.93 321, 535. 72 80, 338. 12 1, 627. 00 1, 235. 80 3, 640. 00 226. 00 923. 06 88, 039. 98 106. 69 106. 69 371. 14 1, 433. 09 0. 00 0. 00 110. 00 3, 500. 00 2, 168. 70 3, 758. 00 11, 360. 93 99, 507. 60 173, 411.30 2,008.31 25. 0 19. 7 23. 5 19. 9 25. 8 0. 0 24. 0 0. 0 0. 0 25. 6 24. 6 47. 9 47. 9 25. 7 16. 9 0. 0 0. 0 84. 8 0. 0 5. 7 25. 0 17. 5 23. 9 23. 5 42. 6 iP CP' 0 0 0 0 0 1° 0 F INANCE-FA454 TIME 19: 17: 58 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 1202 FINANCE ADMIN CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PACE 0005 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4.189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4396 TRFR OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 3, 401. 00 3, 401. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 368. 00 238, 403. 00 39, 995. 00 39, 995. 00 2, 500. 00 10, 600. 00 250. 00 3, 652. 00 850. 00 8, 090. 00 25, 942. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 0. 00 145. 60 0. 00 0. 00 92. 01 17, 811. 46 4, 867. 49 4, 867. 49 160. 50 747. 47 0. 00 194. 10 0. 00 674. 00 1, 776. 07 304, 340. 00 24, 455. 02 1203 PERSONNEL DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 61,816.00 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 927.00 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 927.00 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 3,640.00 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 226.00 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 53.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 67, 589. 00 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 14, 000. 00 3, 000. 00 17, 000. 00 1, 000. 00 7, 000. 00 5, 035. 08 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 22 5, 035. 30 2, 046. 73 0. 00 2, 046. 73 128. 98 605. 88 0. 00 1, 019. 20 0. 00 0. 00 307. 19 56, 139. 78 5, 126. 03 5, 126. 03 476. 69 2, 740. 51 115. 00 266. 10 0. 00 2, 022. 00 5, 620. 30 ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 350. 00 1, 350. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 66, 886. 11 1, 350. 00 15, 301. 09 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 22 15, 301. 31 2, 267. 18 0. 00 2, 267. 18 333. 83 1, 260. 20 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3, 401. 00 2, 381. 80 0. 00 0. 00 1, 060. 81 102, 263. 2.2 0. 0 29. 9 0. 0 0. 0 22. 4 23. 5 33, 518. 97 16. 1 33, 518. 97 16. 1 2,023.31 19.0 7, 859. 49 25. 8 135. 00 46. 0 3, 335. 90 7. 2 850. 00 0. 0 6, 068. 00 24. 9 20, 321. 70 21. 6 236, 103. 89 22. 4 46, 514. 91 927. 00 927. 00 3, 640. 00 226. 00 52. 78 52, 287. 69 24. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 4 22. 6 11, 732. 82 16. 1 3, 000. 00 0. 0 14, 732. 82 13. 3 666. 17 33. 3 5, 739. 80 18. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I1 0 n, FINANCE-FAA54 TIME 19: 17: 58 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 1203 PERSONNEL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0006 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4320 MEDICAL EXAMS 4327 ACRID INCENTIVES 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 600. 00 2, 700. 00 750. 00 20, 000. 00 1, 200. 00 2, 034. 00 35, 284. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 119, 873. 00 1205 CABLE TV DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 1206 DATA PROCESSING 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 15, 216. 00 228. 00 228. 00 1, 344. 00 83. 00 240. 00 17, 339. 00 5, 000. 00 5, 000. 00 700. 00 1, 000. 00 400. 00 350. 00 500. 00 956. 00 3, 906. 00 26, 245. 00 DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 0. 00 230. 00 150. 00 1, 174. 00 90. 00 169. 00 2, 547. 86 9, 629. 89 1, 645. 48 0. 00 0. 00 119. 00 7. 38 17. 89 1, 789. 75 164. 00 164. 00 136. 66 0. 00 200. 00 69. 00 400. 00 80. 00 885. 66 2, 839. 41 80, 232. 00 6, 426. 40 4.,�y���� N , (Pt�vf r �.. tike, i• 41 4:1P ti .y vj•":r A, ' (,t++ ? "^d 250. 00 687. 00 150. 00 1, 832. 00 250. 00 507. 00 5, 270. 03 22, 838. 52 2, 339. 16 0. 00 0. 00 346. 50 21. 48 21. 19 2, 728. 33 ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 489. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 489. 00 489. 00 350. 00 2, 013. 00 111. 00 18, 168. 00 950. 00 1, 527. 00 29, 524. 97 96, 545. 48 41. 6 25. 4 85. 2 9. 1 20. 8 24. 9 16. 3 19. 4 0. 00 12, 876. 84 15. 3 0. 00 2228. 00 0.0 0. 00 228. 00 0.0 0.00 997. 50 25. 7 0.00 61. 52 25.8 0. 00 218. B1 8. 8 0. 00 14, 610. 67 15. 7 164. 00 0. 00 4, 836. 00 3. 2 164. 00 0. 00 4, 836. 00 3. 2 138. 34 0. 00 295. 00 69. 00 400. 00 240. 00 1, 142. 34 4, 034. 67 0. 00 561.66 19. 7 0. 00 1, 000. 00 0. 0 0. 00 105. 00 73. 7 0. 00 281.00 19. 7 0. 00 100. 00 BO. 0 0. 00 716. 00 25. 1 0. 00 2, 763. 66 29. 2 0. 00 22, 210. 33 15. 3 19, 797. 23 0. 00 60, 434. 77 24. 6 Y,',¢4't,jihftl!i, s43j.'�1,,�aa��1`'•C ` .E4i�,,rl�tif;,++ r..iF.1 amu) ,04 rig • es' • 0 0 • • • C, • 0 0 • • 0 0 0 0 FINANCE-FA'54 TIME 19:17:58 FUND DIV MUT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 1206 DATA PROCESSING CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0007 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPP.OPRIAT ION DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 500. 00 1, 203. 00 1, 203. 00 83, 138. 00 68, 764. 00 68, 764. 00 3, 700. 00 6, 500. 00 300. 00 620. 00 160. 00 800. 00 3, 107. 00 15, 187. 00 135, 000. 00 135, 000. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 6, 426. 40 4, 227. 16 4, 227. 16 348. 79 20. 76 0. 00 225. 00 0. 00 0. 00 259. 00 853. 55 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 19, 797. 23 17, 288. 73 17, 288. 73 1, 025. 15 78. 98 0. 00 490. 00 0. 00 0. 00 777. 00 2, 371. 13 ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 050. 55 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 050. 55 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 302, 089. 00 1 1, 507. 1 1 1207 BUS LICENSE DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL. SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATIOJ/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE_/PRIVATE 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 82, 549. 00 52.5. 00 1, 238. 00 1, 238. 00 0. 00 393. 00 85, 943. 00 25. 00 170.'00 195. 00 6, 760. 82 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 32. 34 6, 793. 16 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 39, 457. 09 1, 050. 55 20, 097. 17 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 97. 84 20, 195. 01 19. 60 0. 00 19. 60 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 500. 00 0. 0 1, 203. 00 0. 0 1, 203. 00 0. 0 63, 340. 77 23. 8 51, 475.27 25.1 51, 475.27 25.1 2, 674. 85 27. 7 5, 370. 47 17. 3 300. 00 0. 0 130. 00 79. 0 160. 00 0. 0 800. 00 0. 0 2, 330. 00 25. 0 11, 765. 32 22. 5 135, 000. 00 0. 0 135, 000. 00 0. 0 261,531.36 13.4 62, 451. 83 525. 00 1, 238. 00 1, 238. 00 0. 00 295. 16 65, 747. 99 5. 40 170. 00 175. 40 24. 3 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 24. B 23. 4 78. 4 0. 0 10. 0 0 C) 3 0 Q 4> 0 0 0 • FINANCE-FA454 TIrr. 17: 17: 58 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 1207 BUS LICENSE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 APPROPRIATION DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LURES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4315 MEMEERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 1203 GEN APPROP DEPT: 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F 1 C A) 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4316 TRAINING 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 520. 00 4, 600. 00 165. 00 110. 00 50. 00 1, 366. 00 500. 00 4, 695. 00 12, 006. 00 230. 00 230. 00 98, 374. 00 MGMT/SUPPORT 28, 043. 00 421. 00 421. 00 0. 00 407. 00 29, 292. 00 26, 000. 00 26, 000. 00 286. 00 350. 00 200. 00 888. 00 1, 724. 00 0.00 0.00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 48. 78 369. 44 14. 49 0. 00 0. 00 108. 39 282. 93 391. 00 1,215.03 0. 00 0.00 8, 008. 19 153. 33 836. 83 31. 82 4. 00 0. 00 426. 39 282. 93 1, 173. 00 2, 908. 30 229. 49 229. 49 23, 352. 40 2, 289. 00 6, 867. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 33. 19 99. 57 2, 322. 19 6, 966. 57 1,319.56 2,645.35 1,319.56 2,645.35 23. 80 77. 12 4, 149. 08- 16, 661. 69- 0. 00 0. 00 74.00 222.00 4, 051. 28- 16, 362. 57- .,S4'M t +, ler tfr -P"1` or4,1 %`?• igy dye i 2.10 2.10 , ` 2. 10 2.10 ( ?i_ 'Po PACE 0000 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR CONFLETE ENCUMBRANCE U'IEN,C BALANCE 0. 00 63. 33 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 63. 33 0. 00 0. 00 63. 33 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 366. 67 3, 699. 84 133. 18 106. 00 50. 00 939. 61 217. 07 3, 522. 00 9, 034. 37 0. 51 0. 51 74, 958. 27 21, 176. 00 421. 00 421. 00 0. 00 307. 43 22, 325. 43 23, 354. 65 23, 354. 65 2.08. 88 17, 011. 69 200. 00 666. 00 18, 086. 57 2. 10- 2. 10- 29. 4 19. 5 19. 2 3.6 0.0 31. 2 56. 5 24. 9 24. 7 99 7 99. 7 23. 8 24. 4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 24. 4 23. 7 10. 1 10. 1 26. 9 4760. 4 0. 0 25. 0 949. 1 0. 0 0. 0 e V' • VP ®' e v a 0 m 0 GD 0 0 0 0 0 0 i' Itr',tt;E•-ri\4 4 19: 1 7:58 FUND DIV OI?JT DESCR P1 001 GENERAL FUND rn 'R 1 9 I 1 1208 GEN APPROP CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PACE 0009 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UN17.NC BALANCE '! 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DIVISION TOTAL. 57, 016.00 407.43- 6.748.55- 0.00 1212 EMP BENEFITS DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 700, 000. 00 700, 000. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 700, 000.00 1213 RETIREMENT DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 410C PERSONAL SERVICES 4.180 RETIREMENT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1, 178, 181. 00 1, 178, 181. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 1, 178, 181. 00 1214 PROSP EXP DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4322 UNCLASSIFIED 4397 3.57. ANTICIPATED SAVINGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 179, 194. 00 369, 849. 00- 190, 655. 00- 53, 471. 81 158, 032. 10 53, 471. 81 158, 032. 10 53, 471.81 158, 032. 10 97, 024. 59 192, 949. 02 97, 024. 59 192, 949. 02 97, 024. 59 192, 949. 02 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 190, 655. 00- 0. 00 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT OBJECT SUBTOTAL• 131, 166. 00 131, 166. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 131. 166. 00 8, 538. 09 8, 538. 09 8, 538. 09 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 63, 764. 55 541, 967. 90 541, 967. 90 541,967.90 985, 231. 98 985, 231. 98 0. 0 0. 0 11.8 22. 5 22. 5 22. 5 16. 3 16. 3 0.00 985, 231.98 16.3 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 47, 618. 54 47, 618. 54 47, 618. 54 0.00 0.00 0.00 179, 194. 00 369, 849. 00- 190, 655. 00- 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 190, 655. 00- 0. 0 83, 547. 46 83, 547. 46 83, 547. 46 36. 3 36. 3 36. 3 f3 0 m CrO 0 Q 0 m el' n nit F INANCE—FA454 TIME 19:17:58 FUNT DTV O:,JT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT TOTAL 2101 POLICE ,f • DEPT: 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4103 REGULAR SALARIES/SAFETY 4105 SPECIAL DUTY PAY 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4107 PREMIUM OVERTIME 4109 COURT TIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 4114 POLICE RESERVES • 4117 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 4118 FIELD TRAINING OFFICER 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4187 UNIFORMS 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4303 UTILITIES 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4306 PRISONER MAINTENANCE 4307 RADIO MAINTENANCE 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4312 TRAVEL EXPENSE • POST 4313 TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4396 TRSFR OUT—INS USER CHGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT—LESS THAN $500 d, r YQ� Vptav CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 APPROPRIATION 2, 857, 467. 00 POLICE 578, 239. 00 1, 743, 364. 00 25, 200. 00 35, 000. 00 100, 800. 00 20, 000. 00 34, 076. 00 34, 076. 00 7, 800. 00 16, 000. 00 9, 065. 00 5, 000. 00 1, 294. 00 38, 500. 00 14, 980. 00 2, 663, 394. 00 T•N 7 {l 1 1.1 i MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 225, 690. 72 579, 750. 30 43, 439. 81 129, 483. 95 150, 566. 31 443, 458. 03 2, 100. 00 6, 300. 00 4, 410. 02 12, 798. 56 8,262.60 31, 787. 41 771.93 2,774.42 0.00 0.00 2,802.38 12, 439. 04 553.00 1,713.00 1,269.00 2,977.50 616. 11 1,814.56 151.34 309.26 114.21 290.93 2,173.17 6,863.14 1,384.58 4,572.43 218, 634. 46 657, 584. 25 116, 923. 00 3, 807. 07 32, 475. 25 32, 851. 00 297. 00 297. 00 149, 774. 00 4, 104. 07 32, 772. 25 0. 00 24. 56 49. 12 28, 000. 00 2, 140. 74 6,807.19 37, 900. 00 2, 878. 14 7, 808. 17 10, 668. 00 796. 01 1, 683. 94 4, 112. 00 1, 159. 60 1, 493. 41 7, 500. 00 15. 97 1, 889. 52 21, 175. 00 1, 650. 69 5, 217. 61 27, 000. 00 2, 127. 11 7, 347. 49 22, 575. 00 318. 42 2, 001. 37 8, 500. 00 1, 326. 73 1, 326. 73 1, 660. 00 0. 00 110. 00 14, 000. 00 389. 69 873. 79 4, 500. 00 0. 00 0. 00 402, 998. 00 33, 583. 00 100, 749. 00 590, 588. 00 46, 410. 66 137, 357. 34 9, 603. 00 0. 00 10, 204. 35 PF .. � T. 1� . 3.. 7 . 4. 1A t--, i •r. 4 i 17 • PAGE 0010 DATE 10/15/91 25. 07. OF YEAR COMrLE IE ENCUMBRANCE U d[='NC BALANCE 2, 952. 88 2, 274, 763. 82 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 241. 99 0. 00 241. 99 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 587. 20 201. 89 0. 00 0. 00 901. 42 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 690. 51 0. 00 448, 755. 05 1, 299, 905. 97 18, 900. 00 22, 201. 44 69, 012. 59 17, 225. 58 34, 076. 00 21, 636. 96 6, 085. 00 13, 022. 50 7, 250. 42 4, 690. 74 1, 003. 07 31, 394. 87 10, 407. 57 2, 005, 567. 76 84, 447. 75 32, 554. 00 117, 001. 75 49. 12- 20, 605. 61 29, 889. 94 8, 964. 06 2, 618. 59 4, 709. 06 15, 957. 39 19, 652. 51 20, 573. 63 7, 173. 27 1, 550. 00 13, 126. 21 4, 500. 00 302, 249. 00 451, 540. 15 20. 3 2.2. 3 25. 4 25. 0 36. 5 31. 5 13. 8 0. 0 36. 5 21. 9 18. 6 20. 0 6. 1 22. 4 18. 4 30. 5 24. 6 27. 7 0. 9 21. 8 0. 0 26. 4 21. 1 15. 7 36. 3 37. 2 24. 6 27.2 8. 8 15. 6. 6. 6 6 2 0. 0 24. 9 23. 5 601.35— 106.2 [Yew• rz ::C�, r d , • • • • • • s' PAF}'S:4a`1rr'1.•'k. CJ4 F I NAr ICE-FA454 TIME 19:17:58 FUND DIV OCJT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 2101 POLICE DEPT: 5400 EQUIPMENT 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 5403 VEHICLES OBJECT SUBTOTAL 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 2201 FIRE DEPT: 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4103 REGULAR SALARIES/SAFETY 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4108 FLSA OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4119 FITNESS INCENTIVE 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4187 UNIFORMS 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4307 RADIO MAINTENANCE 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 APPROPRIATION POLICE 41, 893. 00 9, 984. 00 61, 480. 00 159, 766. 00 159, 766. 00 3, 625, 002. 00 3, 625, 002. 00 FIRE 45, 198. 00 945, 721. 00 106, 500. 00 65, 678. 00 14, 864. 00 14, 864. 00 6, 000. 00 0. 00 21, 726. 00 3, 599. 00 1, 224, 150. 00 27, 566. 00 27, 566. 00 2, 750. 00 3, 300. 00 0. 00 7, 200. 00 2, 500. 00 1, 000. 00 650. 00 2, 500. 00 2, 000. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 11, 177. 67 0. 00 11, 177. 67 0. 00 0. 00 280, 326. 86 280, 326. 86 3, 694. 50 78, 110. 50 13, 491. 40 6, 641.29 0. 00 5, 175. 20 0. 00 0. 00 450. 00 325. 99 107, 888. 88 354. 40 354. 40 254. 43 420. 86 0. 00 302. 71 191. 95 82. 04 0. 00 595. 00 0. 00 15, 721. 06 0. 00 25, 925. 41 37, 500. 89 37, 500. 89 891, 140. 14 891, 140. 14 11, 083. 50 234, 324. 70 47, 762. 17 24, 607. 92 0. 00 9, 124. 24 2, 950. 00 0. 00 1, 350. 00 948. 41 332, 150. 94 13, 077. 97 13, 077. 97 540. 92 603. 78 424. 77 1, 551. 81 519. 70 110. 07 300. 00 595. 00 0. 00 PACE 0011 DATE 10/15/91 25. 07. OF YEAR COMPLETE_ ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 932. 50 1, 932. 50 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 58. 46 0. 00 58. 46 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 586. 36 ' 0. 00 218. 57 0. 00 1, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 26, 171. 94 9, 984. 00 35, 554. 59 122, 265. 11 122, 269. 11 2, 731, 929. 36 2, 731, 929. 36 34, 114. 50 711, 396. 30 58, 737. 83 41, 070. 08 14, 864. 00 5, 739. 76 3, 050. 00 0. 00 20, 317. 54 2, 650. 59 891, 940. 60 14, 488. 03 14, 488. 03 2, 209. 08 2, 109. 86 424. 77- 5,429.62 1, 980. 30 110. 07- 350. 00 1, 905. 00 2, 000. 00 37. 5 0. 0 42. 1 23. 4 23. 4 24. 6 24. 6 24. 5 24. 7 44. 8 37. 4 0. 0 61. 3 49. 1 0. 0 6. 4 26. 3 27. 1 47. 4 47. 4 19. 6 36. 0 0. 0 24. 5 20. 7 111. 0 46. 1 23. 8 0. 0 FINANCE-FA454 TIME 19: 17: 58 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 2201 FIRE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0012 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: FIRE 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CMGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 2401 ANIMAL CONTROL 110, 992. 00 132, 892. 00 2, 400. 00 6, 490. 00 8, 890. 00 82, 541. 00 82, 541. 00 1, 476, 039. 00 1, 476, 039. 00 DEPT: ANIMAL REGULTN 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4117 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4187 UNIFORMS 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4315 MEMBERSHIP 99, 906. 00 1, 100. 00 1, 498. 00 1, 498. 00 400. 00 0. 00 400. 00 896. 00 105, 698. 00 1, 500. 00 6, 000. 00 7, 500. 00 700. 00 1, 700. 00 600. 00 1, 600. 00 2, 200. 00 50. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 9, 249. 00 11, 095. 99 432.139 0. 00 432. 89 0. 00 0.00 27, 747. 00 32, 393. 05 830. 87 0. 00 830. 87 25, 003. 60 25, 003. 60 119, 772.16 403, 456.43 119, 772.16 403, 456.43 f� 'lltr, 4 t " ms •s4t91 to ',�'�it t i. `J.,ttil2i t . +'fir, ^ .,,�Ly .ti � '�ti%i".i. 1 �.�E'�#? f t + ��..,.ti" ,+�` s b:.�.�'•'1 7, 407. 63 104. 94 0. 00 158. 56 35. 70 0. 00 0. 00 69. 12 7, 775. 95 81. 00 725. 67 806. 67 50. 20 9. 51 69. 03 151. 96 0. 00 0. 00 20. 731. 86 330. 84 0. 00 872. 02 102. 00 0. 00 0. 00 134. 69 22, 171. 41 247. 34 1,2.45.02 1, 492. 36 160. 73 385. 33 69. 03 347. 80 100. 00 0. 00 ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 7. 0. 00 1, 804. 93 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 863. 39 1, 863. 39 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 443. 10 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 83, 245. 00 98, 694. 02 1, 569. 13 6, 490. 00 8, 059. 13 57, 537. 40 57, 537. 40 1, 070, 719. 18 1, 070, 719. 18 24. 9 25. 7 34. 6 0.0 9.3 30. 2 30. 2 27. 4 27. 4 79, 174. 14 20. 7 769. 16 30. 0 1, 498. 00 0. 0 625. 98 58. 2 298. 00 25. 5 0. 00 0. 0 400. 00 0. 0 761.31 15. 0 83, 526. 59 20. 9 14(',,;'! '4I' 41s,4 + .• I'.. 1,252.66 16.4 4,754.98 20. 7 6,007.64 19.8 539. 27 22. 9 871. 57 48. 7 530. 97 11. 5 1, 252. 20 21. 7 2, 100. 00 4. 5 50.00 0.0 • • • • • • • • • • m 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FINANCE-FA1S4 TIME 19: 17: 58 FM7 DIV OBJT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 2401 ANIMAL CONTROL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0013 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: ANIMAL REGULTN 1300 MATE_RIAL.S/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5100 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 2701 CIVIL DEFENSE 150. 00 500. 00 11, 797. 00 19, 297. 00 1, 050. 00 1, 050. 00 0.00 0. 00 133, 545. 00 133, 545. 00 DEPT: DISASTER PREP 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4103 REGULAR SALARIES/SAFETY 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4187 UNIFORMS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4316 TRAINING 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 26, 373. 00 396. 00 396.00 175. 00 27, 340. 00 4, 249. 00 3, 448. 00 7, 697. 00 2, 725. 00 200. 00 3, 600. 00 3, 086. 00 9, 611. 00 2, 500. 00 2, 500. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 0. 00 0. 00 983. 00 1, 263. 70 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 9, 846. 32 9, 846. 32 2, 284. 00 0. 00 0. 00 14. 58 2, 298. 58 330. 18 0. 00 330. 18 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 257. 00 257. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2, 949. 00 4, 011. 89 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27, 675. 66 ENCUMBRANCE UN:74C BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 443. 10 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 443. 10 27, 675. 66 443. 10 6, 766. 00 0. 00 194. 63 43. 74 7, 004. 37 1, 070. 31 0. 00 1,070.31 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 771. 00 771. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 150.00 500.00 8, 848. 00 14, 842. 01. 1, 050. 00 1, 050. 00 0. 0 0. 0 24. 9 23. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 00 0. 0 0. 00 0. 0 105, 426.24 21.0 105, 426.24 21.0 19, 607. 00 396. 00 201.37 131.26 20, 335. 63 0. 00 3, 178. 69 0. 00 3, 448. 00 0. 00 6, 626. 69 0. 00 2, 725. 00 0. 00 200. 00 0. 00 3, 600. 00 0. 00 2, 315. 00 0. 00 8, 840. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2, 500. 00 2, 500. 00 25. 6 0. 0 49.1 24. 9 25. 6 25. 1 0.0 13. 9 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 24. 9 8. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Cr d b O 0 m O 0 m Qr C, • • 1 4 4 FINANCE-FA4•54 TIME 19: 17: 58 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 3101 MEDIANS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 APPROPRIATION 47, 148. 00 47, 148. 00 DEPT: ST/HWY/ST. DRAIN 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4303 UTILITIES 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 51, 729. 00 300. 00 776. 00 776. 00 287. 00 53, 868. 00 50, 000. 00 1, 300. 00 51, 300. 00 8, 800. 00 5, 000. 00 350. 00 500. 00 5, 496. 00 20, 146. 00 125, 314. 00 3103 ST MAINTENANCE DEPT: ST/HWY/ST.DRAIN 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4189 MEDICARE_ BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 154, 083. 00 500. 00 2,311.00 2, 311. 00 0. 00 729. 00 159, 934. 00 80, 250. 00 80, 250. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 2, 885. 76 2, 885. 76 4, 255. 18 89. 85 0. 00 0. 00 24. 76 4, 369. 79 8, 845. 68 8, 845. 68 12, 591. 67 134. 78 0. 00 110. 70 24. 76 12, 861. 91 PAGE 0014 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 38, 302. 32 38, 302. 32 18. 7 18. 7 0. 00 39, 137. 33 24. 3 0. 00 165. 22 44. 9 0.00 776.00 0.0 0. 00 665. 30 14. 2 0.00 262. 24 8. 6 0. 00 41, 006. 09 23. 8 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 50, 000. 00 0. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 300. 00 0. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 51, 300. 00 0. 0 33. 47 167. 14 0. 00 0. 00 458. 00 658. 61 5, 028. 40 12, 256. 60 0. 00 2, 409. 08 0. 00 0.00 87. 66 14, 753. 34 6, 144. 13 6, 144. 13 1, 015. 28 167. 14 1. 04 0. 00 1, 374. 00 2, 557. 46 15, 419. 37 37, 057. 55 186. 59 2, 409. 08 110. 70 0. 00 205. 55 39, 969. 47 12, 887. 81 12, 887. 81 0. 00 7, 784. 72 11. 5 0. 00 4, 832. 86 3. 3 0.00 348.96 0.2 0.00 500. 00 0.0 0. 00 4, 122. 00 25. 0 0. 00 17, 588. 54 12. 6 0. 00 109, 894. 63 12. 3 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 117, 025. 45 313. 41 98. 08- 2, 200. 30 0. 00 523. 45 119, 964. 53 67, 362. 19 67, 362. 19 24. 0 37. 3 104. 2 4. 7 0. 0 26. 1 24. 9 16. 0 16. 0 '17,•?, iff F I I+Ir INCE-FA4 34 TIME 19:17: 58 FUND DIV O3JT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 3103 ST MAINTENANCE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0015 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: ST/HWY/ST.DRAIN 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4316 TRAINING 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT 7402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 14, 000. 00 4, 600. 00 13, 700. 00 600. 00 59, 304. 00 92, 204. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 330. 60 229. 42 142. 79 0. 00 4, 942. 00 5, 644. 81 3, 395. 80 788. 23 695. 89 0. 00 14, 826. 00 19, 705. 92 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 20, 844. 00 20, 844. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 353, 232.00 3104 TRAFFIC SAFETY DEPT: ST/HWY/ST.DRAIN 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE./PRIVATE 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 97, 996. 00 500. 00 1, 470. 00 1, 470. 00 0. 00 101, 436. 00 12, 000. 00 8, 400. 00 20, 400. 00 1,736.78 1,736.78 28, 279. 06 7, 215. 21 46. 08 3, 497. 00 0. 00 28. 67 10, 786. 96 0. 00 407. 86 407. 86 5, 210. 34 5, 210. 34 77, 773. 54 23, 463. 26 46. 08 3,497.00 844. 30 28. 67 27, 879. 31 0. 00 407. 86 407. 86 ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 7.. 286. 44 0. 00 793. 74 0. 00 0. 00 1, 080. 18 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 080. 18 10, 317. 76 3, 81 1. 77 12, 210. 37 600. 00 44, 478. 00 71, 417. 90 26. 3 17. 1 10. 8 0. 0 25. 0 22. 5 0. 00 0. 0 0. 00 0. 0 15, 633. 66 15, 633. 66 24. 9 24. 9 274, 378.28 22.3 0. 00 74, 532. 74 0. 00 453. 92 0. 00 2, 027. 00- 0. 00 625. 70 0. 00 28. 67- 0. 00 73, 556. 69 0. 00 12, 000. 00 0. 00 7, 992. 14 0. 00 19, 992. 14 23. 9 9. 2 237. 8 57. 4 0.0 27. 4 0. 0 4.8 1.9 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4303 UTILITIES 6,365.00 710.84 1.157.72 0.00 5,207.28 18.1 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 37, 800.00 578.53 5,193.92 '83.53 32.522.55 13.9 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 1,570.00 151.96 502.12 0.00 1.067.88 31.9 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE , 1,300.00 14.86 14.86 0.00 1,285.14 1. 1 4315 MEMBERSHIP 200. 00- 0. 00 60.00 0. 00 260.00- 30. 0 4316 TRAINING 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.0 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS 9,986.00 832.00 2,496.00 0. 00 7,490.00 24. 9 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 57, 121.00 2.288. 19 9,424.62 83.53 47, 612.85 16.6 • • AV I • I • I- s tro • 0 9 F INANCE-FA454 TIME 19: 17: 50 F114^ DIV OSJT D1=SCR 001 GENERAL FUND 3104 TRAFFIC SAFETY DEPT: 6900 LEASE_ PAYMENTS 6900 LEAEE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 4101 PLANNING DEPT: 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPFLIES 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 4102 PLANNING COMM 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE DEPT: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 APPROPRIATION ST/HWY/ST. DRAIN 10, 096. 00 10, 096. 00 189, 053. 00 667, 599. 00 PLANNING 219, 516. 00 300. 00 3, 293. 00 3, 293. 00 9, 000. 00 642. 00 2, 379. 00 238, 423. 00 7, 975. 00 7, 975. 00 1, 832. 00 17, 050. 00 242. 00 630. 00 855. 00 1, 800. 00 1, 300. 00 8, 592. 00 32, 301. 00 2, 000. 00 2, 000. 00 280, 699. 00 PLANNING 6, 000. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 855. 11 855. 11 14, 338. 12 47, 645. 58 17, 375. 01 40. 53 0. 00 0. 00 492. 19 30. 51 183. 59 18, 121. 83 950. 25 950. 25 155. 06 689. 57 20. 38 0. 00 40. 00 218. 42 0. 00 716. 00 1, 839. 43 1, 028. 38 1, 028. 38 21, 939. 89 479. 50 3, 406. 62 3, 406. 62 41, 118. 41 134, 311. 32 49, 776. 27 40. 53 0. 00 0. 00 1, 870. 32 115. 95 557. 97 52, 361. 04 2, 825. 31 2, 825. 31 454. 27 1, 480. 61 26. 22 0. 00 80. 00 218. 42 0. 00 2, 148. 00 4, 407. 52 1, 028. 38 1,028.38 60, 622. 25 893. 50 PAGE 0016 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE ENCUMBRANCE U1;ENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 83. 53 1, 163. 71 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 6,609.38 6,689.38 147, 851. 06 532, 123. 97 169, 739. 73 259. 47 3, 293. 00 3, 293. 00 7, 129. 68 526. 05 1, 821. 03 186, 061. 96 5,149.69 5,149.69 1, 377. 73 15, 569. 39 215. 78 630. 00 775. 00 1, 581. 58 1, 300. 00 6, 444. 00 27, 893. 48 971. 62 971. 62 220, 076. 75 5,106.50 X 33. 7 33. 7 21. 7 20. 2 22. 6 13. 0. 0 O. 0 20. 7 18. 0 23. 4 21. 9 35. 4 35. 4 24. 7 8. 6 10. 8 O. 0 9. 3 12. 1 O. 0 25. 0 13. 6 51. 4 51. 4 21. 5 14. 8 19 O Q S1 b,1 910 FINANCE-FA454 TIME 19: 17: 58 FUN;) DIV OBJT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 4102 PLANNING COMM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0017 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25. O OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: PLANNING 1200 CONTRACT SERVICES OBJECT SUBTOTAL 6, 000. 00 4300 MATER IALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 5, 500. 00 4316 TRAINING 228.00 • 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 1,320.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 7, 048. 00 DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 4201 BUILDING 13, 048. 00 293, 747. 00 DEPT: CONST/ENGIN/ENF 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CMGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 245, 103. 00 500. 00 3, 677. 00 3, 677. 00 0. 00 2, 602. 00 255, 559. 00 69, 709. 00 900. 00 70, 609. 00 2, 400. 00 7, 149. 00 0. 00 980. 00 750. 00 300. 00 2, 000. 00 1, 600. 00 32, 302. 00 47, 461. 00 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 608.00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 479. 50 167. 82 0. 00 0. 00 167. 82 647. 32 22, 587. 21 20, 215. 47 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 187. 33 20, 402. 80 430. 95 0. 00 430. 95 190. 49 439. 77 0. 00 88. 56 12. 00 75. 00 210. 00 0. 00 2, 6'72. 00 3, 707. 82 893. 50 637. 19 0. 00 0. 00 637. 19 1, 530. 69 62, 152. 94 58, 690. 29 499. 88 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 535. 79 59, 725. 96 5, 142. 91 0. 00 5, 142. 91 621. 30 1, 200. 48 0. 00 226. 56 32. 58 100. 00 695. 00 0. 00 8, 076. 00 10, 931. 92 0. 00 6138. 47 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 5, 106. 50 14. 8 4, 862. 81 228. 00 1, 320. 00 6, 410. 81 11, 517.31 11. 5 0. 0 0. 0 9. 0 11. 7 231, 594. 06 2.1. 1 0. 00 186, 412. 71 0. 00 0. 12 0. 00 3, 677. 00 0. 00 3, 677. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2, 066. 21 0. 00 195, 833. 04 23. 9 99. 9 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 20. 5 23. 3 12, 365. 32 52, 200. 77 25. 1 0. 00 900.00 0.0 12, 365. 32 53, 100. 77 24. 7 0. 00 1, 778. 70 25. 8 134. 23 5, 814. 29 18. 6 0. 00 0. 00 0. 0 0.00 753.44 23. 1 0. 00 717. 42 4. 3 0. 00 200. 00 33. 3 1, 049. 75 255. 25 87. 2 0. 00 1, 600. 00 0. 0 0. 00 24, 226. 00 25. 0 1, 183. 98 35, 345. 10 25. 5 0.00 0.47- 100.0 /h p. p. A p 0 p. p. O A* FIN(,NCE-FA454 TIME 19: 17: 58 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 5400 EQUIPMENT OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 APPROPRIATION 688. 00 374, 337. 00 4202 PUB WKS ADMIN DEPT: CONST/ENGIN/ENF 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4187 UNIFORMS 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 188, 935. 00 0. 00 2, 834. 00 2, 834. 00 0. 00 7, 570. 00 1, 861. 00 204, 034. 00 1, 500. 00 1, 500. 00 5, 950. 00 10, 000. 00 0. 00 1, 250. 00 882. 00 840. 00 2, 000. 00 BOO. 00 50, 891. 00 72, 613. 00 278, 147. 00 4204 BLDG MAINT DEPT: CONST/ENGIN/ENF 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4187 UNIFORMS 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 1 15B, 067. 00 1, 685. 00 2, 371. 00 2, 371. 00 200. 00 37. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 0. 00 24, 541. 57 13, 529. 13 0. 00 3, 497. 00 0. 00 0. 00 627. 15 184. 41 17, B37. 69 1,413.00 1, 413. 00 476. 46 529. 41 0. 00 32. 89 97. 78 0. 00 668. 96 0. 00 4,241.00 6, 046. 50 25, 297. 19 12, 660. 55 0. 00 3, 497. 00 0. 00 16. 68 7. 04 688. 47 76, 509. 26 42, 871. 95 B. 87 3, 497. 00 110. 70 0. 00 1, 121.83 709. 48 48, 319. 63 3,125.69 3,125.69 1, 327. 16 2, 450. 47 40. 03 133. 92 118. 66 0. 00 681. 46 0. 00 12, 723. 00 17, 474. 70 68, 920. 22 38, 913. 47 342. 82 3, 497. 00 679. 70 50. 04 7. 04 PACE 0018 DATE 10/15/91 25. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE ENCUMBRANCE UNT:IJC BALANCE 0. 00 13, 549. 30 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 43. 30 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 43. 30 43. 30 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 47- 100. 0 284, 278. 44 146, 063. 05 B. 87- 663. 00- 2, 723. 30 0. 00 6, 448. 17 1, 151. 52 155, 714. 17 1, 625. 69- 1, 625. 69- 4, 622. 84 7, 506. 23 40. 03- 1, 116. OB 763. 34 840. 00 1, 318. 54 800. 00 38, 168. 00 55, 095. 00 209, 183. 48 119, 153. 53 1, 342. 18 1, 126. 00- 1, 691.30 149. 96 29. 96 24. 0 22. 6 0. 0 123. 3 3. 9 0. 0 14. 8 3B. 1 23. 6 208. 3 208. 3 22. 3 24. 9 O. 0 10. 7 13. 4 O. 0 34. 0 O. 0 25. 0 24. 1 24. 7 24. 6 20. 3 147. 4 28. 6 25. 0 19. 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 i.) 0 0 e�► .'`,. , �c., c Vit. �'t FINANCE-FA454 TIME. 19:17:58 FUND DIV OBJT DECCR 001 GENERAL FUND 4204 BLDG MAINT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES OBJECT SUBTOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 001.9 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25. OX OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: CONST/ENGIN/ENF 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4303 UTILITIES 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE .4316 TRAINING 4321 BUILDING SAFETY/SECURITY 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 164, 731. 00 16, 181. 27 27, 566. 00 27, 566. 00 94, 500. 00 35, 090. 00 968. 00 600. 00 200. 00 5, 000. 00 29, 107. 00 165, 465. 00 0. 00 2, 100. 00 2, 100. 00 ENCUMBRANCE UMENC BALANCE X 43, 490. 07 0. 00 422. 50 882. 50 422. 50 882. 50 8, 832. 27 1, 747. 37 127. 89 226. 39 0. 00 607. 03 2, 426. 00 13, 966. 95 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 359, 862. 00 30, 570. 72 4205 EQUIP SERVICE DEPT: CONST/ENGIN/ENF 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4316 TRAINING 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CMGS 107, 270. 00 600. 00 1, 609. 00 1, 609. 00 0. 00 0. 00 454. 00 111, 542. 00 4, 725. 00 1, 815. 00 1, 815. 00 200. 00 11, 779. 00 7, 799. 90 0. 00 3, 682. 34 0. 00 869. 60 53. 91 57. 88 12, 463. 63 625. 99 302. 86 203. 83 0. 00 982. 00 18, 565. 21 4, 549. 85 393. 05 482. 17 0. 00 890. 83 7, 278. 00 32, 159. 11 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 3, 252. 65 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3, 252. 65 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 76, 531.68 3,252.65 25, 922. 25 62. 90 3, 682. 34 110. 70 869. 60 53. 91 119. 03 30, 820. 73 834. 84 511. 27 422. 72 0. 00 2, 946. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 121, 240. 93 2.6. 4 26, 683. 50 26, 683. 50 75, 934. 79 27, 287. 50 574. 95 117.83 200. 00 4, 109. 17 21, 829. 00 130, 053. 24 3.2 3.2 19. 6 22. 2 40. 6 80. 3 0. 0 17. 8 25. 0 21. 4 0. 00 0. 0 2, 100. 00 0. 0 2, 100. 00 0. 0 280, 077. 67 22. 1 81, 347.75 24.1 537. 10 10. 4 2,073.34- 228. 8 1,498.30 6.8 869. 60- 0. 0 53.91- 0.0 334. 97 26. 2 80, 72 1.27 27.6 3.890. 16 17. 6 1, 303. 73 28. 1 1, 392. 28 23. 2 200. 00 0. 0 8, 833. 00 25. 0 In 01 /• 0 at V 0 • I, QQ, 0 1 n FINANCE-FA454 TIME 19:17:58 FUND DTV (NWT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 4205 EQUIP SERVICE_ CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PACE 0020 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: CONST/ENGIN/ENF 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER OBJECT SUBTOTAL 20, 334. 00 5400 EQUIPMENT 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 4601 COMM RESOURCES 10, 207. 00 10, 207. 00 5, 016. 00 5, 016. 00 147, 099. 00 1, 159, 445. 00 DEPT: COMM PROMOTION 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4302 ADVERTISING 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4308 PROGRAM MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 2, 114. 68 10, 365. 23 10, 365. 23 417. 96 417. 96 4, 714. 83 10, 365. 23 10, 365. 23 1, 253. 88 1, 253. 88 25, 361. 50 47, 154. 67 105,770_98 269, 115.83 183, 878. 00 14, 051. 20 43, 834. 69 1, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2, 758. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2, 758. 00 0. 00 0. 00 69, 803. 00 4, 098. 26 21, 261. 75 4, 328. 00 254. 12 1, 318. 28 2, 133. 00 157. 1 1 601. 44 266, 658. 00 18, 560. 69 67, 016. 16 60, 750. 00 10, 350. 00 21, 894. 65 60, 750. 00 10, 350. 00 21, 894. 65 13, 000. 00 717. 01 742. 01 4, 600. 00 214. 78 519. 83 9, 500. 00 633. 74 2, 519. 13 12, 500. 00 405. 09 3, 672. 72 750. 00 77. 68 171. 51 350. 00 120. 11 124. 11 700. 00 18. 00 18. 00 1, 000. 00 6. 00 6. 00 1, 600. 00 0. 00 0. 00 20, 233. 00 1, 686. 00 5, 058. 00 ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 7.. 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 16, 845. 25 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2, 854. 24 0. 00 177. 53 209. GO 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 ar ii�r.:!ttµµ ,ia,[1rrq rir..-ry 'T tjnr Y'.kp�@ rd `i.>.' j:P, y�. R• . i�, .� ��'2' i') �' '�....,ir ,1 ';d�E: �A .A'•y1'6 ��1�.+/�. .7r} .,i, r: :'�{ . i�r a. r�I . 1:i'z 1'.:1, S - : •�•ii' i'�AA lr�,. •t`•iA,.�f= l (..,., ), .o .i�C•'C.�4�,iA,��..`.11y;•1•�01�,7. ;, �M�.+� ..i li, � 'f. '.f�S�rd. d.•M. bb-.,k4Fi.i 1'" �.�.WAr ',f.j�A•!�r r, �«:C., »aT ,: �1ri.�.7.. .'� • 15, 619. 17 23.1 158. 23- 158. 23- 3,762.12 3- 3,762.12 3,762.12 99, 944. 33 101. 5 101. 5 24. 9 24. 9 32. 0 873, 483. 92 24. 6 140, 043. 31 23. 8 1, 000. 00 0. 0 2, 758. 00 0. 0 2, 758. 00 0. 0 48, 541. 25 30. 4 3, 009. 72 30. 4 1, 531. 56 28. 1 199, 641. 84 25. 1 38, 855. 35 36. 0 38, 855. 35 36. 0 9, 403. 75 27. 6 4, 000. 17 11. 3 6, 803. 34 28. 3 8, 618. 28 31. 0 578. 49 22. 8 225. 89 35. 4 682. 00 2. 5 994. 00 0. 6 1, 600. 00 0. 0 15, 175. 00 24. 9 '"1 *n, got Ito FINANCE-FA434 TIME 19: 17: 38 I",Ply? DIV OBJT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 4601 COMM RESOURCES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PACE 0021 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: COMM PROMOTION 1300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER OBJECT SUBTOTAL 64, 233. 00 3400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 6101 PARKS 2, 000. 00 2, 000. 00 4. 000. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 3, 878. 41 12, 831. 31 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 395, 641. 00 395, 641. 00 DEPT: PARKS/REC 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4303 UTILITIES 4304 TELEPHONE 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUDE_S 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CMGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 80, 566. 00 500. 00 1, 208. 00 1, 208. 00 0. 00 287. 00 83, 769. 00 144, 875. 00 144, 875. 00 50, 000. 00 375. 00 15, 000. 00 900. 00 1, 500. 00 200. 00 300. 00 14, 673. 00 82, 948. 00 32, 789. 10 101, 742. 12 32. 789. 10 101, 742. 12 6, 658. 29 89. 85 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 24. 79 6, 772. 93 19, 800. 99 134. 78 0. 00 110. 70 0. 00 86. 33 20, 132. 80 ENCUMBRANCE_ UNENC BALArJCE 7. 3, 240. 77 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3, 240. 77 3. 240. 77 48, 160. 92 2, 000. 00 2, 000. 00 4, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 290, 658. 11 290, 658. 11 25. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 26. 5 26. 5 0. 00 60, 765. 01 24. 5 0.00 365.22 26.9 0. 00 1, 208. 00 0. 0 0. 00 1, 097. 30 9. 1 0. 00 0. 00 0. 0 0. 00 200. 67 30.0 0. 00 63, 636. 20 24. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 144, 875. 00 0. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 144, 875. 00 0. 0 1. 513. 03 20. 94 354. 75 195. 91 99. 35 0. 00 0. 00 1, 223. 00 3, 406. 98 7, 519. 40 68. 71 349. 33 385. 83 183. 66 0. 00 0. 00 3, 669. 00 12, 375. 93 0. 00 42, 480. 60 15. 0 0. 00 306. 29 18. 3 0. 00 14, 450. 67 3. 6 0. 00 514. 17 42. 8 0. 00 1, 316. 34 12. 2 0.00 200.00 0.0 0. 00 300.00 0. 0 0. 00 11, 004. 00 25. 0 0. 00 70, 572. 07 14. 9 Cr • • O 0 Q • 0 B C et 1 a P) p. A. • A FINANCE-FA454 T I M7 19:17:58 (l_n Div' OBJT DEFCR 001 GENERAL FUND DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 0142 CIF 87-142 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (DY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 APPROPRIATION 311,592.00 311,592.00 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL +S,"� �1r,w;,, MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 10, 179. 91 32, 508. 73 10, 179. 91 32, 508. 73 0.00 10. 00- 10.00- 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 11,368,824.00 I��hi"' - it��j7l�lrta hs?1' lY M%'s•� 10. 00- 10. 00- 10. 00- 893,256.27 0- 893,256.27 10. 00- 10. 00- 10.00- 2,590,004.93 0- 10.00- 2,590,004.93 PACE 0022 DATE 10/15/91 25.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE is 0. 00 279, 083. 27 0. 00 279, 003. 27 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 29, 189. 10 �a�yJ�r4t►��3"ij1-w��ICYaAyt :4= t- 14��1�. J' 10. 00 10.00 10. 00 10. 00 8, 749, 629. 97 10. 4 10.4 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 23. 0 41 4;4 f1. 01 w 0 0 0 0 3 J 0 0 0 F INANCE-FA454 TIME. 19:17:58 r'..'r DIS.' OBJT DESCR 105 LIGHTING DISTRICT FUND 1297 BUDGET TRANSFER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0023 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25. 0%: OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4'300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 2601 STREET LIGHTING 22. 000. 00 22, 000. 00 22, 000. 00 22, 000. 00 DEPT: STREET LIGHTING 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112 PART TI)1E/TEMPORARY 4180 RETIREMENT 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4188 EMPLOYEE_ BENEFITS 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4303 UTILITIES 4304 TELEPHONE 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LURES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4316 TRAINING "-' 4396 TRSFR OUT --INS USER CMGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL 96. 536. 00 500. 00 1. 448. 00 1. 448. 00 2, 000. 00 13. 312. 00 0. 00 12. 024. 00 572. 00 127, 840. 00 2. 000: 00 407. 00 2. 407. 00 172, 345. 00 301. 00 9. 975. 00 3. 750. 00 4, 200. 00 300. 00 11. 231. 00 202. 102. 00 332. 349. 00 332. 349. 00 354. 349. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 1. 833. 33 11833. 33 1, 833. 33 1, 833. 33 8. 007. 14 46. 08 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 105. 04 0. 00 980. 12 48. 13 10. 186. 51 1 , 928. 00 517. 86 2, 445. 86 11, 781. 28 13. 09 744. 41 86. 11 356. 97 0. 00 936. 00 13, 917. 86 26. 550. 23 26. 550. 23 28, 383. 56 5, 499. 99 5, 499. 99 5, 499. 99 5, 499. 99 23. 921. 66 66. 90 0. 00 843. 50 0. 00 2, 184. 52 0. 00 2. 660. 44 162. 57 29, 839. 59 1, 931. 00 517. 86 2. 448. 86 23. 625. 64 16. 08 808. 38 337. 06 470. 92 0. 00 2. 808. 00 28. 066. 08 60, 354. 53 60. 354. 53 65, 854. 52 ENCUMCRANCE UNEMC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 16, 500. 01 16. 500. 01 16, 500. 01 16. 500. 01 72, 614. 34 433. 10 1, 448. 00 604. 50 2, 000. 00 11, 127. 48 O. 00 9, 363. 56 409. 43 98, 000. 41 69. 00 110. 86- 41. 86- 0. 00 148, 719. 36 0. 00 264. 92 0. 00 9. 166. 62 0. 00 3, 412. 94 1. 175. 96 2, 553. 12 0. 00 300. 00 0. 00 8, 423. 00 1. 175. 96 172. 859. 96 1, 175. 96 270, 818. 51 1, 175. 96 270, 818. 51 1, 175. 96 287, 318. 52 24. 9 24. 9 24. 9 24. 9 24. 7 13. 3 0. 0 58. 2 0. 0 16. 4 0. 0 22. 1 28. 4 23. 3 96. 5 127. 2 101. 7 13. 7 5. 3 8. 1 8. 9 39. 2 0. 0 25. 0 14. 4 18. 5 18. 5 18. 9 4.' k+ 1) h 0 0 • • FINANCE-FA434 TIME. 19: 17: 58 FUND DIV OBJT DFSCR 109 VEHICLE PARKING DIST 1259 BUDGET TRANSFER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PACE 002.4 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR CONPL.ETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4700 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL. DEPARTMENT TOTAL 3201 VEH PKG DIST 15, 705. 00 15, 705. 00 15, 705. 00 15, 705. 00 DEPT: PKG FACILITIES 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4180 RETIREMENT 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT 5420 DEPRECIATION -MCH & EQUIP OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5600 BUILDINGS/IMPROVEMENTS 5620 DEPRECIATION/BLDGS?�IMFRV OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL :;.� „+!'Fo�{`i�Y 4a Y' •:' J?rf!}.y SsQ•¢. r ` !''tN `�!+�?�'1!{!{;f' i!.ti.. �' i' ?..ai'.�4 "ql r '�.. Act.. {' •: rn'l n'��'.� • A,. „ rf, tl ,.r:,�. r/�.6� k, 7da:'�I�� lii,a, 15, 711. 00 236. 00 236. 00 1, 827. 00 1, 300. 00 138. 00 19, 448. 00 75, 000. 00 75, 000. 00 175. 00 1, 000. 00 1, 000. 00 629. 00 2, 804. 00 265. 00 265. 00 2, 145. 00 2, 145. 00 99, 662. 00 99, 662. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 1, 308. 75 1, 308. 75 1, 308. 75 1, 308. 75 3, 926. 25 3, 926. 25 3, 926. 25 3, 926. 25 1, 157. 82 3. 219. 63 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 171.43 342. 72 89. 83 293. 43 0. 00 0. 00 1, 419. 08 3, 855. 78 4, 353. 63 9, 223. 89 4, 353. 63 9, 223. 89 10. 00 30. 57 22. 83 80. 61 0. 00 997. 41 52. 00 156. 00 84. 83 1, 264. 59 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 5, 857. 54 14, 344. 26 5, 857. 54 14, 344. 26 ENCUMBRANCE U ENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 11, 778. 75 11, 778. 75 11, 778. 73 11, 778. 75 12, 491. 37 236. 00 236.00 1, 484. 28 1, 006. 57 138. 00 15, 592. 22 65, 776. 11 65, 776. 11 144. 43 919. 39 2. 59 473. 00 1, 539. 41 25. 0 25. 0 25. 0 25. 0 20. 4 0. 0 0. 0 18. 7 22. 5 0. 0 19. 8 12. 2 12. 2 17. 4 8. 0 99. 7 24. 8 45. 0 265. 00 0.0 265. 00 0. 0 2, 145. 00 2, 145. 00 85, 317. 74 85, 317. 74 0. 0 0. 0 14. 3 14. 3 i et a' 0 OP m 0 3 J 3 0 �4 FINANCE-FA454 TIME 19:17:58 FUND DIV OBJT D'.SCR 109 PARKING FUND 3301 VEH PKC DIST CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0025 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: PKG FACILITIES 13'DO MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER FUND TOTAL 'Q 4 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 115, 367. 00 7,166.29 ENCUMBRANCE UMPN': BALANCE 18, 270. 51 0. 00 97, 096.49 15.8 tr Q 6 4 QI a., a' 't 1 '1 1 ,1 1 4 11 9 F I NANCE-FA4 54 TIME 17: 17: 58 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PACE 0026 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25. O% OF YEAR CO:1'1 E1E_ 01': O5..,T DEMCR APPROPRIATION 110 PARKING FUND 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4200 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATIPNG TRANSFERS OUT 1, 319, 781.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1, 319, 781.00 DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 7302 PARKING ENF 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME_ 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL. CASH IN 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 4117 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 4180 RETIREMENT 4135 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 4187 UNIFORMS 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4129 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1, 319, 781. 00 1, 319, 781. 00 DEPT: PKG FACILITIES 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE_ OPER SUPPLIES 4307 RADIO MAINTENANCE 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS ABJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EGUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 491, 694. 00 12, 000. 00 7, 375. 00 '7, 375. 00 44. 035. 00 5, 500. 00 68, 528. 00 2, 240. 00 1, 400. 00 62, 520. 00 2, 957. 00 705, 624. 00 6, 300. 00 6, 300. 00 3, 500. 00 70, 000. 00 4, 000. 00 12, 000. 00 7, 260. 00 12, 600. 00 500. 00 1, 000. 00 1, 000. 00 48, 429. 00 160, 289. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 109, 995. 84 109, 995. 84 109, 995. 84 109, 995. 84 329, 987. 53 329, 987. 53 329, 987. 53 329, 987. 53 32, 483. 92 99. 784. 90 1, 546. 86 2, 600. 39 0. 00 0. 00 423. 33 1, 413. 08 7, 873. 51 28, 113. 43 258. 94 908. 91 4, 665.:37 9, 280. 25 470.80 1, 646. 29 52. 50 103. 49 4, 272. 52 13, 130. 91 170. 11 627. 01 52, 217. 86 157, 708. 66 2, 743. 36 5, 624. 54 2, 748. 36 5. 624. 54 404. 96 1, 222. 67 2, 208. 66 8, 407. 94 0. 00 628. 00 54. 01 67. 92 593. 22 1, 643. 40 1, 082. 44 1, 768. 35 100. 00 100. 00 450. 00 450. 00 0. 00 0. 00 4, 036. 00 12, 108. 00 0, 929. 29 26, 396. 28 1, 700. 00 0. 00 ENCUMBRANCE Uiru': BALANCE !. 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 989, 793. 47 989, 793. 47 989, 793. 47 989, 793. 47 0. 00 391, 909. 10 0. 00 9, 399. 61 0. 00 7, 375. 00 0. 00 5, 961. 92 0. 00 15, 921. 57 0. 00 4, 591. 09 0. 00 59, 147. 75 0. 00 593. 71 0. 00 1, 296. 51 0. 00 49, 389. 09 0. 00 2, 329. 99 0. 00 547, 915. 34 0. 00 675. 46 0. 00 675. 46 0. 00 6, 024. 30 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 4, 631. 91 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 10, 656. 21 0. 00 0. 00 2. 277. 33 55, 567. 76 3, 372. 00 11, 932. 08 3, 616. 60 6, 199. 74 400. 00 550. 00 1. 000. 00 36, 321. 00 123, 236. 51 25. 0 25. 0 25. 0 25. 20. 2 21. 6 0. 0 19. 1 63. 8 16. 5 13. 6 73. 4 7. 3 21. 0 21. 2 22. 3 89. 2 89. 2 34. 9 20. 6 15. 7 0 5 22. 6 50. 7 20. 0 45. 0 0. 0 25. 0 23. 1 1, 700. 00 0. 0 ?`4".. esr ....y ",k1' ,1�...Pt 1S r"'(•.y 1",'� 0P.:IF t '� )' ''.1'"7" ^}t ; FINANCE-FA454 TINE 19:17:58 FUND DIV Ur: -..IT lisp;(:R 110 PARKINS FUND 3302 PARKING ENF CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 APPROPRIATION DEPT: PKG FACILITIES 5400 EQUIPMENT 5103 VEHICLES 3420 DEPRECIATION -MCH & EQUIP 5499 NON -CAPITALIZED ASSETS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 6'700 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL 50, 000. 00 25, 000. 00 10, 000. 00 B6, 700. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 958, 913. 00 953, 913. 00 2, 278, 694. 00 63, 895. 51 169, 729. 48 63, 895. 51 189, 729. 48 173, 091.:35 519, 717.01 PAGE 0027 DATE 1O/15i9L 25.0% OF YEAR CONP:_E. I E ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 10, 656. 21 10, 656. 21 10, 656. 21 50, 000. 00 25, 000. 00 10, 000. 00 86, 700. 00 0.00 0.00 758, 527. 31 758, 527. 31 1, 748, 320. 78 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 0 0. 0 20. 8 20. 8 $ 0 F INANCE-FA434 'tt _ „ 17.58 FU'O .OTV OBJT DESCR 115 STATE GAS TAX FUND 1.7?9 BUDGET TRANSFER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0026 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 7201 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER -7:3'39 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL !`; . u) f0 tAL 1, 754, 667. 00 1. 754, 667. 00 1, 734, 667. 00 1, 754, 667. 00 1, 754, 667. 00 .tyF i� W.... �': i�Y �'JTtA �.. .:i �r 't t �L "i' i lN',r' rr MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 168, 034. 08 168, 034. OS 163, 034. 08 163, 034. 08 168, 034. 08 432, 787. 88 432, 767. 88 432, 787. 88 432, 787. 88 432, 787. 8B ENCUMBRANCE UN.ENC BALANCE is 0. 00 1, 321, 879. 12 24. 6 0. 00 1,321,877.12 24. 6 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 221, Si?. 12 1,321,679.12 1, 321, 879. 12 ..d.. ;.. F 1 '? r 21. ,. 24.6 24. 6 ccw Cb 0 0 0 a V U m FINANCE-FA1 94 TmE 17: 17:179 !•!'} 1 ;: OBJT DESCR 120 CUUNTY GAS TAX FUND 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0029 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 PATE_ 10/19/91 O1' .i• -AR COMPLETE APPROPRIAT IUN MONTH!_Y EYP DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT OBJECT SUBTOTAL p1'..'ISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL 34, 1341. 00 34, 841. 00 34, 841. 00 34, 841. 00 34, 1341. 00 2,903.42 2,903.42 2,903.42 2,903.42 2.903.42 YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UN3r!C BALAf1:E: 8, 710. 26 8, 710. 26 8, 710. 26 8, 710. 26 8, 710. 26 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 26, 130. 74 26, 130. 74 26, 130. 74 26, 130. 74 26, 130. 74 5. 0 . O 25. 0 23. 0 7S. (' i 0 4' @'t f:+ Qr n (70 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT' (BY FUND) PACE OCCu FROM 09/01/91 10 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE I':'':D DTV ORJT DFSCR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP 125 PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES ^VOGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT :r., Ptl.:.RTA'....,/S'!PPLIEO/OTHER 4399 O:'EIAFTMG "M,'•NP -ERS OUT OBJECT SUBfUTAL DIVISION TOTAL P7IPARTNENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL. 531, 185. 00 531, 185. 00 531, 18'.5. 00 531, 185. 00 531, 185. 00 223, 432. 08 223, 432. 08 :223,432.00 223, 432. 08 223, 432. 08 YTD EXPND. F;3CUN:li. 320, 296. '4 320, 296. 24 320, 296. 24 320, 296. 24 (01:1 T; 1 t {^I 11*i., t7h •l in ,` ll .. : t �_ +I1,,•i ,r� •: Y 's''ie ii 0. 0O 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 !R',7NC BALANCE is 210, 888. 76 710, 030. 76 210, 8E10. 76 210, 808. 76 210, 888. 76 4!..(1.+.,' 60. 2 60.2 60. 2 60. 2 I , 1. , ,z: ©� @' a 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 J V v J 0 0 0 • • I 1 -----FUND-D I V-CIEKIT- -DESCR 5 ta 7 - CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA454 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) -TIME-19: 17: 38 - FROM 09/01/91- TO 09/30/91 [67 APPROPRIATION 126 UUT RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY FUND 8314 CIP 89-514 DEPT: PARKS 4200 -CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL tit ; 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL PAGE 0031 DATE -10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE -MONTHLY- EXP--YTD-EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE 1LJNENC-BALANC 40. 085. 00 0. 00 40. 085. 00 0. 00 618. 813. 00 618. 813. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 446. 710. 00 0.00 0. 00 --446. 710. 00 07-00 • A,- 40. 085. 00 40. 085. 00 0.0' 0.0 3 4 11 14 1. IG 172. 103. 00 172) 103. 00 72.1 72.1 DIVISION TOTAL-- -658,898.00 0:00- -----446c710:00 0. 00 188:00- - DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL 658, 898. 00 658, 898. 00 0.00 446.710.00 0.00 212.188.00 67.7 0. 00 446. 710. 00 0. 00 212. 188. 00 67. 7 14i • 0 • ; el; 5. 5. . 5. 0 • 4 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA454 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0032 TIME -19:17:58 FROM 09/01/91- TO 09/30/91 25. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE J . 'I : I I ..,1, ____FUND-D.I-V-OBJT-DESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY -EXP YTD-EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE---UNENC BALANCE -X- 127 6% UTILITY USER TAX FUND 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES1OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1.050. 000. 00 1. 050o 000. 00 DIV rsION TOTAL 050, 000. 00 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1, 050, 000. 00 FUND TOTAL 67: 500. 00 262. 500. 00 0. 00 787. 500. 00 29. 0 137. 500. 00 262. 300. 00 0. 00 787. 500. 00 25. 0 87, 500. 00 87, 500. 00 lo 050. 000. 00 67. 900. 00 262. 500. 00 0. 00 787. 500. 00 25. 0 262. 500. 00 0. 00 282, 000.-00 7137, 500. 00 23. 0 0. 00 787 500. 00 .25. 0 :4 F2.4 fr. 1-•-• 40 4 a • • 3 .+1. .'w' ',1.=fir., . FINANCE-FA4'?4 -- TIME -19. 17. J6 01 ;.. iu.11.'•• i:, -„N µ.•s,!":�r,r,+!:: M, �N ;'rvor •;p9`t't t. u.";'.��r., FUND-DIV-OBJT-DESCR C' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GR 4701 HOUSING REHAB 4200 CONTRACT--SERVICES- ii rrN..,'tw AP, ri10:4t CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91•--TO-09/30/91 PAGE 0033 DATE -10/15/91 20.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION MONTHLY-EXP-YTD-EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE-UNENC-BALANCE DEPT: OTHER 6 6 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 0. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0: 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 0 0. 0 0. 00 0. 0 4703 CDBG ADMIN DEPT: OTHER 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL C e DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND -TOTAL • O 1: • ri 17 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0;00 0. 00 0. 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 14' 0.00 0.00 i 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 ... 0.00 0.00 •O 0. 00 0. 0 0.00 0.0 .00 0.0 f4 C e 3. • n l 411 0 KFUND -DIV- OBJT--DESCR 145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND FINANCE-FA454 1 It'{c-19 =1 8 iI • 11 rI, 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: 4300 MA-TERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT OBJECT SUB TO CAL . DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM-O9/O1/91--TO-09/30/91 APPROPRIATION MGMT/SUPPORT --3401---DIAL--A-RIDE DEPT: 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4180 RETIREMENT ' 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS • 1 JI OBJECT SUBTOTAL : 4200 CON TRACT -SERVICES PAGE 0034 DATE -10/-15/91 25. OX OF YEAR COMPLETE MONTHLY EXP YTD E-XRND. €NCUMBRANCE VENC -BALANCE X 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 PUBLIC -TRANSIT 18,-620- 00 - 853. 00 1, 482. 00 219. 00 21, 174. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 399.-04 3, B92-09 202.34 402.31 110. 38 264. 79 -le. 51 16. 51 1, 728:27 4, 575. 70 0.00 0. G0 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 r 727..-91 450. 69 1, 2f7. 21 rr 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 20. 9 47. 1 17. 8 16, 598. 30 21. 6 IU 11 1.1 14 IC -r„ Ia 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE C3JECT SUBTOTAL - 158, 755. 00 158, 755.-00 0. 00 0. 00 O. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 1305 OFF ICE- OPER--SUPPLIES 4396 TRSFR OUT --INS USER CHGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5D: 00 500.- 00 125. 00 675. 00 DIVISION ' TOTAL .12 0 i4 m 0 4. 16 10. 00 15. 14 .180, 604. 00 - 12. 48 0. 98 30. 00 43.46 158, 755. 00 1.58, 755. 00 0. 00 37.-52 0.00 499.-02 0. 00 95. 00 0. 00 631. 54 1,743.41 .4,619. 16 0. 00 175;984184 3402 COMMUTER BUS DEPT: -----4101, r'�R'�•_litiAL ScRV10ES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4180 RETIREMENT -4188 EMPLOYEE -BENEFITS 4189 MEDICARE BENEFI CS OBJECT. _511;;1 U LAI_ . PUBLIC TRANSIT 4200 CUN[RACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL_ - - - 2, 451. 00 290.00 280: 00 - 15. 00 3. 036. 00 . 20. 000: 00 20000.0 00 222. 24 70. 63 -- 36:83 1.34 331.04 661.-78 141. 53 88:00 1. 34 •892:65 0. 00 0. 00 -O. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 789. 22 148. 47 192. 00 13. 66 2. 143. 35 0:-00 0. 00 4, 791. 50 4, 791-50 0.0 0. 0 .24.9 24. 0 6. 4 2. 5 -27. 0 4C 8 31. 4 6.9 29. 4 0. 00 15, 208.--S0 23. 0. 00 15, 208-'30•------- 23. 9 21 2J 2C 3' 33 34 37 3C 30 - 0 • "i 4111.. w 4111, , t''f1'Jlkft j(I lilt y ".^4'! hr;6lr1y ,4 Sr �.., roomw ' •$:''Illy �i. l:ifl►..�^r �,.Y..h,J,.t .. 7'W... xI�... .,.• .;.i • F I NANCE-FA454 ---TIME i9. 19. 58 FUND-DIV-UBJT-DESCR 145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TU -09/30/91 PAGE 0035 DA7t-10/15/91 ,20.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION MONTHLY-EXP-YTD-E-XPND. ENCUMBRANCE WNENC-BALANCE-- /. 4 1 3402 COMMUTER BUS DEPT: PUBLIC TRANSIT 4300--MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS OBJECT SUBT0TAL. 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 3. 00 3. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2. 00- 300. 0 2. 00- 300. 0 1i s is 'DIVISION TOTAL 23, 037. 00 332. 04 5, 687. 15 0. 00 17, 349. 85 24. 6 a 3403 BUS PASS SUBSOY DEPT: PUBLIC TRANSIT 4100 PERSONAL--SERVICES- 4102 REGULAR. SALAH IES/MISC '1. 649. 00 137. 40 412. 20 O. 00 1, 236. 80 24. 9 4130 RE'r IRETIEN f 227. 00 18. 87 37. 80 0. 00 189. 20 16. 6 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 294. 00 16. 49 48-10 0. 00 245:-90 16. . 4199 MEDICARE BENEFITS 24. 00 1.99 1.99 0.00 22. 01 8. 2 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 2, 194. 00 174. 75 500. 09 0. 00 1, 693. 9.1 22, 7 s - 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4396 TRSFR OUT-INS-USER-CMGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 14, 332. 00 0. 00 643. 00 0. 00 13, 689. 00 - , 4. 4 14, 332: 00- 0700 643-00 0. 00 13, 6E9700 - 4. 4 7457,50 - --------62-00 745. 00 62. 00 186.-00 186. 00 0. 00 559:00' ---24.9 0. 00 559. 00 24. 9 DIVISION TOTAL 17, 271. 00 236. 75 -�40 FUNU-EXCHANGE DEPT--PUBLIC--TRANSIT • • �; -- or"! 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4251 .CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 11 Or000. 00- 110, 000. 00 DIVISION . TOTAL 110, 000. 00 ---3408- COMMUTER-XPRESS DEPT- PUBL IC -TRANS IT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES - -- 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4100 RE C I f3t_MLNT • 4108 EMPLOYEE 'BENEFITS - 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 1,-030700 143. 00 126. 00 0. 00 1, 329. 09 0. 00 15,941.91 7.6 0.-00 0. 00 0-00 0. 00 0700 T10, 000. 00 0. 00 110, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 110, 000. 00 92. 16 276-48- - - 0.00 16..16: 32. 32 0. 00 8. 34 16. 68 0. 00 1.34 1.34 0.00 0. 0- 0. - 0. 0 0. 0 758. 52 - 26.7 • 110. 68 22. 6 109. 32 13. 2 ("i 6 w 0. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA434 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (13Y FUND/ PAGE 0036 -TIME-19:-17: 8-- FROM 09/01/91 ---TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 G' 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE OI a O o e ----FUND-DIV---OBJT- DESCR 143 PROPOSITION 'A FUND 3408 COMMUTER XPRESS 41-00 PERSONAL -SERVICES OBJECT SUBTOTAL APPROPRIATION MONTHLY -EXP ----YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE '"UNENC BALANCE----% DEPT: PUBLIC TRANSIT - 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES •--------- 4231 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1, 304. 00 118. 00 9. 000. 00 9, 000. 00 DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL 326. 82 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 977. 18 .25. 0 9, 000. 00 9, 000. 00 0. 0 0. 0 10, 304. 00 118. 00 326.82 341, 216. 00 2. 430. 20 11,962.22 341, 216. 00 -- -------2, 430: 20 11r982-2 0. 00 0. 00 O. 00- 9. 977. 18 3. 1 329.253. 78 3.5 329,-233: -78 3. 5 4 4111 6 11 4 4110 FINANCE—FA474 TIME-19:-1-7.DB f�ki('tYGGPf:FSI'`12'.Jlllu:b:.P'{NAi4Ilin $6111 if4+ T 4,;,00 CITY y,�,�: � ,�; ,., ,tN:� h•,; .,car CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO -09/30/91 r a4hy PAGE 0037 DATE -10/15/91 2'.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE 2 FUND—DIV OHJT DESCR a APPROPRIATION— MONTHLY`—EXP--YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE—UNENC BALANCE 5 6 130 GRANT FUND 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT IJj i - — 4300—MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER13 �„ 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 40, 000. 00 3, 333. 33 9. 999. 99 O. 00 30. 000. 01 24. 9 is Ii, OBJECT SUBTOTAL 40, 000. 00 3, 333. 33 9, 999. 99 O. 00 30, 000. 01 24.9 '`' c a IG 'DIVISION TOTAL 40, 000. 00 3, 333. 33 9, 999. 99 0. 00 30. 000.01 24. 9 2: 1 n'DEPARTMENT TOTAL 40, 000. 00 3, 333. 33 9, 999. 99 0. 00 30. 000. 01 24. 9 2z H 23 H FUND -TOTAL 40,000.-00---- --3, 333.-33 9, 999.99 0. 00 30,-00.3:-01-----24: 9---- 1, ''c7 2s 31 17 ai il • • v • • 'I s >. ap .11 1...' ja.>1 • 144, �:r • • • • • I tit O 9 7 • • FINANCE-FA454 TINS 19:17:08 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0038 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE N I1_CIt APPROPRIATION F1'.'1NIFLY EX!' YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE I CSU'3SING GUARD FUND 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MCMT/SUPPORT 4.900 M.!,IP IA: S.,SuPF'LIN'S/C]THER "> U=,'RAT1NC TRANSFERS OUT till JEC T SUB TOTAL 1. 00 1.00 DIVISION TOTAL 1.00 DEPAR Cp1ENT ,:: 11 -IC> GUARD DEPT: POLICE 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR :SALARIES/MISC 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4113 CROSSING GU,;laF'F 4100 RETIREMENT 410 F0uIAI_ SECURITY(F I C A) 4187 UNIFORMS 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SFRvIC5S 4291 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE CUNTRP.CT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHIC; OBJECT SUBTOTAL. DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 00 0. 00 12, 01.2. 00 1.01; 00 180. 00 34, 209. 00 1, 317. 00 2, 121. 00 300. 00 1, 200. 00 437. 00 51. 956. 00 2, 000. 00 600. 00 2, 600. 00 2, 665. 00 2, 665. 00 57, 221. 00 57, 221.00 57, 222. 00 LI/1<0011c" r4.Fg ij..l 1> 4i 934. 80 0. 00 0. 00 2, 224. 41 128. 91 129. 20 0 00 -.8.:33 30. 23 3, 515. 88 967. 83 110.00 1.077.03 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 Ii. 00 2, 803. 41 0. 00 0. 00 2,224.41 257. 69 129. 20 0. 00 229. 59 30. 23 5, 674. 53 97:3. 03 110.00 1, 083. 83 1. 00 1. 00 0. 0 0. 1) 0.0 1.00 0.0 0. 00 9, 208. 39 x'3.:3 0. 00 100. 00 0. 0 0.00 180.00 0.0 0. 00 31, 984. 59 6. 5 0. 00 1, 059. 31 19. 5 0. 00 1, 991. 80 6. 0 0. 00 300. 00 0. (: 0. 00 970. 41 19 1 0.00 406. 77 6. 9 0. 00 46, 281.47 10. 9 0. 00 1, 026. 17 48. 6 0. 00 490. 00 18. 3 0. 00 1, 516. 17 41. 6 222. 00 666. 00 0. 00 1, 999. 00 24. 9 222. 00 666. 00 0. 0(1 1, 999. 00 24. 9 4, 81 5. 71. 4, 015. 71 4, 815. 71 7,424.36 7,424.36 7,424.36 0. 00 • 0. 00 0. 00 :{/' . k,t4(F ��I'a�.t,•I'U.,y :.r .p,•.��j ,. ��9 49, 796.64 12.9 49, 796.64 12 7 49, 797. 64 12. 9 1 01 2;! 010I(0 CE-FA4 34 11118 19: 17: 38 FUND DIV OBJT DE CR 9'_1,1'_P FUND CITY OF HE_RMOSA DEACIi EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (6Y FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 APPROPRIATION 1279 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTE-IFR 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT OBJECT SUB TO I ( L DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 3102 SEWER/ST DRAIN DEPT: 13100 PERSONAL 'SERVICES 1102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4180 RETIREMENT 4185 SOCIAL_ SECURITY(F I C A) 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4109 MEDICARE B-.ENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/o1J'.'T OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4303 UTILITIES 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND -TOTAL 1, 268, 428. 00 1, 288, 428. 00 1, 288, 428. 00 1, 206, 420. 00 ST/HWY/ST.DRAIN 96, 321. 00 1, 500. 00 1, 445. 00 1, 445. 00 13. 283. 00 0. 00 11, 304. 00 492. 00 125, 790. 00 2, 100. 00 3, 255. 00 5, 355. 00 500. 00 11, 000. 00 1, 1.00. 00 4, 000. 00 29, 654. 00 46, 254. 00 177, 399. 00 177, 399. 00 1, 465, 827. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 110, 158. 09 110, 158. 39 110, 1._513. 179 110, 158. 89 6, 566. 03 73. 32 3, 497. 00 0. 00 1, 099. 47 0. 00 727. 78 34. 44 11, 998. 84 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 21. 27 230. 11 59. 38 0. 00 2, 471.00 2, 781. 76 14, 780. 60 14, 780. 60 124, 939. 49 296, 998. 03 296, 998. 03 296, 998. 03 296, 998. 03 21, 507. 39 620. 76 3, 497. 00 221. 40 2, 182. 72 0. 00 2, 192. 46 86. 14 30, 307. 67 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 56. 75 1, 286. 80 250. 77 381. 58 7, 413. 00 9, 388. 90 39, .596. 77 39, 696. 77 336, 694. 80 PAGE DA IF 10/ 1f5/ ...;. 0 1.317 YEAR COMPLETE EP1CLiMGRf\NCE UNENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 525. 85 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 525. 85 325. 85 525. 65 525. 85 991, 429. 97 991, 429. 97 991, 429. 97 991., 429 97 74, 1313. 61 879. 24 2, 052. 00- 1, 222. 60 11, 100. 28 0. 00 9, 111. 54 405. 86 95, 482. 13 2, 100. 00 3, ;253. 00 5, 355. 00 443. 25 9, 187. 35 849. 23 3, 618. 42 22, 241. 00 36, 339. 25 137, 176. 38 137, 176. 36 1. 12B, 606. 35 23. 0 23. 0 73. . 23. 0 22. 3 41 3 242.0 19. 3 16. 4 0. 0 19. 3 17. 5 24. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 11. 3 16. 4 22. 7 9. 5 24. 9 21. 4 22.6 22. 6 23. 0 V 4• lv t.. �!r P' 1 1 11) F- I r1. NCF_-FA454 TIME 19: 1 7: 58 FUND DIV OBJT DEECR 170 A':3SET SEIZURE/FORFEITURE FUND 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER CITY OF HER".MOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FR0t1 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 APPROPRIATION DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT OBJECT suB rD I AI_ DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 2103 SPEC INVESTGTNS 37, 000. 00 37, 000. 00 37, 000. 00 37, 000. 00 DEFT: POLICE 4100 PERSONA!.. SERVICES 4103 REGULAR SALARIES/SAFETY 4105 SPECIAL DUTY PAY 4107 PREMIUM OVERTIME 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4120 RETIREMENT 4187 UNIFORMS 4128 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPL1ES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4316 TRAINING 4322 UNCLASSIFIED 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EOUIPMENT 54171 E:1UIP;IENT-LESS THAN $500 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 5403 VEHICLES OBJECT SUBTOTAL 6700 INTEREST 6700 INTEREST 7 186, 570. 00 10, 560. 00 38, 000. 00 4, 000. 00 56. 615. 00 2, 800. 00 12, 000. 00 1, 260. 00 311, 805. 00 5, 000. 00 5, 000. 00 8, 448. 00 5, 000. 00 0. 00 500. 00 5, 000. 00 16, 270. 00 35. 218. 00 2, 800. 00 8, 099. 00 22, 050. 00 32, 649. 00 0. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 3, 083. 33 3, 083. 33 3. 083. 33 3, 083. 33 15, 671. 00 880. 00 3, 593. 43 0. 00 3, 480. 73 233. 36 636. 33 206. 86 24, 921. 71 159. 39 159. 39 1. 363. 09 0.00 400. 00 114.50 0. 00 1, 356. 00 3, 263. 59 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 9, 249. 99 9, 249. 99 9, 249. 99 9, 249. 99 38, 939. 00 2, 200. 00 9, 789. 01 2. 722. 00 6, 961. 46 583. 40 2, 812. 90 206. 86 64, 214. 63 516.68 516. 68 2, 097. 02 059. 52 1, 223. 16 966. 00 0. 00 4, 068. 00 9.213.70 0. 00 5, 108. 33 0. 00 5. 108. 33 2, 400. 00 PAGE 0040 DATE 10/15/?1 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 832. 44 0. 00 832. 44 0. 00 •"�1 ��1'•1,71. le , • 27, 750. 01 27, 750. 01 27, 750. 01 27, 750. 01 147, 631. 00 8, 360. 00 28, 210. 99 1, 278. 00 49, 653. 54 2, 216. 60 9, 187. 10 1. 053. 14 247, 590. 37 4, 483. 32 4, 433.:32 6, 350. 98 4, 140. 48 1, 2.23. 16- 466. 00- 5, 000. 00 12, 202. 00 26, 004. 30 2, 500. 00 2, 158. 23 22, 050. 00 26, 708. 23 2, 400. 00- i 24. 9 24. 9 24. 9 24. 9 20. 8 20. 8 25. 7 68. 0 12. 2 20. 8 23. 4 16. 4 20. 5 10. 3 10. 3 24. 8 17. 1 0. 0 193. 2 0. 0 25. 0 26. 1 O. 0 73. 3 O. 0 18. 1 0. 0 0 •J 0 J J 0 •1 t FINANCE—FA454 TIME 19:17:n8 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 170 FIRE PROTECTION FUND 2103 SPEC INVESTATNS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL CITY OF HERt10SA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0041 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/1/91 21.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: POLICE MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 0.00 0. 00 384, 672. 00 384, 672. 00 421, 672. 00 28, 344. 69 28, 344. 69 31, 428. 02 2,400.00 81, 453. 34 81, 453. 34 90, 703. 33 ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 0.00 832.44 832. 44 B32.44 2, 400. 00— 0. 0 302, 386. 22 302, 386. 22 330, 136. 23 21. 3 21.3 21. 7 4 W 4• le 1. 1: dO 7 9 4. .7 0 I, 1! FINANCE-FA454 TIME 19:17:35 I'tJr17 DIV ODJT DESCR 1.30 FIRE PROTECTION FUND 2202 HYDRANT UPGRADE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 • APPROPRIATION DEPT: FIRE 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES •9201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL 100, 000. 00 100, 000. 00 100, 000. 00 100, 000. 00 100, 000. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 "7, ifi; w :a1ri;' ; F-": '""4";+7;•',',174,63.- '' x..'41.'11 . >x :f .� ., ' nr r 7 (>.. t . j •; 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 PAGE 0042 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE ENCUMBRANCE UNENC VALANCE 7. 31, 737. 00 31, 737. 00 31, 737. 00 31, 737. 00 31, 737. 00 68, 263. 00 68, 263. 00 60, 263. 00 68, 263. 00 68, 263. 00 31. 7 31. 7 31. 7 31. 7 31. 7 0 m 0 0 b 0 Q 4 1 FINANCE -F,:154 TIME_ 19:17:78 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0043 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV ORJT DFTCR APPROPRIATION 30).7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 8137 CIF 05-137 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 635, 067. 00 635, 067. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 635, 067.00 8141 CIF 09-141 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 8142 CIF 99 14' 155, 564. 00 155, 064. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 155, 564. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ENCUMBRANCE UO!_NC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 635, 067. 00 635, 067. 00 0. 0 0.0 630, 067. 00 0. 0 155, `564. 00 155, 564. 00 0.0 0. 0 155, 564. 00 0. 0 11 b 4'. - - DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 35,000.00 10.00- OBJECT SUBTOTAL 10.00- 0.00 35, 010. 00 0.0 39, 000. 00 10.00- 10. 00-O. 00 35, 010. 00 O. O t' A DIVISION TOTAL 35, 000.00 10.00- 10.00- 0.00 35, 010.00 0.0 4, / 8144 CIP 90-144 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4100 PERSONAL SERVICESC. A 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 0.00 126.11 2,332.67 67 4185 SOCIAL SECURITY(F I C A) 0.00 2,332.67- 0.0 4199 MEDICARE BENEFITS O. 00 7.97 144.64 0.00 144.64- 0.0 82 0.00 1.86 33. OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0.00 33.82- O. 0 1 O. 00 133.34 2,511.33 0.00 2,511.33- 0.0 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 1 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 845,011.00 29.30 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 29.30 0.00 844, 981.70 0.0 845, O 1 1.00 29.30 29.30 0.00 844, 96,1. 70 0.0 1 DIVISION TOTAL 845, 011. 00 167. 64 2, 540. 63 O. 00 842, 470. 37 0. 3 1 8146 CIP 89-146 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 5, 000. 00 O. 00 O. 00 O. 00 5, 000. 00 O. 0 . t s 014 ,e 'I I, 41) FINANCE-FA454 TIME 19:17:58 r :ND DIV OBJT DEOCR 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES OBJECT SUBTOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (DY FUND) PAGE 0044 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION 5, 000. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 5,000.00 8150 CIP 89-150 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 20, 000. 00 20, 000. 00 0. 00 0.00 DIVISION TOTAL 20, 000. 00 0151 CIP 89-151 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 ENCUMBRANCE Ut!Et'\!C BALANCE 'I. 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 265. 54 265. 54 265. 54 5, 000. 00 0. 0 5, 000. 00 0. 0 20, 000. 00 20, 000. 00 265. 34- 265. 54- 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 19, 734.46 1.3 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 40, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 40, 000. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 40, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 40, 000. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 40, 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40, 000.00 8165 CIP 37-165 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 17, 545. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 17, 545. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 17, 545. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 17, 545. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 17, 545. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 17, 545. 00 8170 CIP 87-170 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE_/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 229, 321. 00 229, 321.00 0. 00 0. 00 140, 423. 07 140, 423. 07 1,685.45 1,685.45 140, 423. 07 140, 423. 07 2,927.35 2,827.35 810. 00 810. 00 2, 540. 79 2, 540. 79 88, 087. 93 88, 087. 93 5,368.14- 5,368.14- 0. ,368.14- 5,368.14- 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 61. 5 61. 5 0. 0 0. 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 • • • C) 0 0 0 0 �,: a .. �%.�,nti r$ {fix •,I f , a r •L,.,,} rLy +t�1a"M1;f.1q is , }� : ,.{ ganyk7^.u., trz j 8(: 's'h: ,. 1;.. }.. " !Y'.. , i� � ! . (.X�' •.i . �a ili F Y. ,fy r7/� .. Ki M .� .7 h.. 1�.1 , la .% � Y� �, � K ,t:.t','��� .1. „,.+!';/�ri•t'n :.f� �:r}t++C+:+,J,„ ';�'�,. '53�.�" �t^',,a' ,,.� ,ti.N�ro,,.�,, ���'t, �� �� FIN =.NCE--FA434 TIME 19: 17: 58 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0045 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 2225. O7. OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OBJT DESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 8201 CIP E5--201 229, 321. 00 1, 982, 508. 00 DEPT: STREET LIGHTING 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 0406 CIP 83-406 22, 000. 00 22, 000. 00 22, 000. 00 22, 000. 00 DEPT: SANITARY SEWER 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 8506 CIP 86-506 1, 138, 428. 00 1, 138, 428. 00 1, 138, 428. 00 1, 138, 428. 00 DEPT: PARKS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 0508 CIP F7-508 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 20, 000. 00 20, 000. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20, 000. 00 DEPT: PARKS 142, 108. 52 142, 266. 16 O. 00 O. 00 O. 00 O. 00 13, 126. 43 13, 126. 43 13, 126. 43 13, 126. 43 1,366.00 1,366.00 2,532.53 2,532.53 1,375.35 1,375.35 1,273.88 66, 000. 00 0. 00 143, 250. 42 145, 781. 05 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 371, 532. 71 371, 532. 71 371, 532. 71 371, 532. 71 1, 366. 00 1, 366. 00 2, 653. 02 2, 653. 02 1, 375. 35 1, 375. 35 5, 394. 37 3, 350. 79 3, 616. 33 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 173. 70 173. 70 0. 00 0.00 173. 70 0. 00 0. 00 82, 719.79 63.9 1, 833, 110. 62 7. 5 22, 000. 00 22, 000. 00 0. 0 0.0 22, 000. 00 0. 0 22, 000. 00 0. 0 766, 895. 29 32. 6 766,895.29 32. 6 766, 395. 29 32. 6 766, 895. 29 32.6 18, 634. 00 18, 634. 00 2,826.72- 2,826.72- ,826.72- 2,826.72- 1,375.35- 1,375.35- 1,375.35- 1,375.35- 6. 6. 6. 8 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14, 431.93 27.8 66, 000. 00 0. 0 ht 4 V, lt" It! 4.1 7 9 a 9 9 7 0 0 FINANCE-FA454 TIME 19: 17:58 FUND DIV ORUT DESCR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0046 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP YTD EXFND. 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES OBJECT SUBTOTAL 66, 000. 00 0. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 66, 000. 00 0. 00 8511 CIF 90-511 DEPT: PARKS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 111, 500.00 O. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 111, 500.00 0. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 111, 500. 00 O. 00 8513 CIF 89-513 DEPT: PARKS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 50, 000. 00 50, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 50, 000. 00 0. 00 8515 CIP 89-515 DEPT: PARKS 5500 LAND 5501 LAND OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 8601 CIP 86-601 200, 000. 00 200. 000. 00 200, 000. 00 447, 500. 00 DEPT: BLDGS & GROUNDS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 8604 CIP 86--604 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE_/PRIVATE 2. 000. 00 2, 000. 00 2, 000. 00 DEPT: BLDGS & GROUNDS 1`''. �r\ c:r7r.: T. C -i, _. rpin. 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 5, 273. 98 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 17, 533. 00 488. 00 ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 66, 000. 00 0. 0 0. 00 0. 00 66, 000. 00 0. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 200, 000. 00 200, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 200. 000. 00 0. 00 205, 394.37 173.70 0. 00 - 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 488. 00 0. 00 111, 500. 00 111, 500. 00 111, 500. 00 50, 000. 00 50, 000. 00 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 50. 000. 00 0. 0 0.00 100.0 0. 00 100. 0 0. 00 100. 0 241, 931. 93 45. 9 2, 000. 00 2. 000. 00 0. 0 0. 0 2, 000. 00 0. 0 17, 045. 00 2. 7 FINANCE-FA454 TIME 19: 17: 38 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0047 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/1/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OBJT DESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES OBJECT SUBTOTAL 17, 533. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 17, 533. 00 8606 CIP 87-606 DEPT: BLDGS & GROUNDS 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER • 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 488. 00 488. 00 0. 00 17, 045. 00 2. 7 488. 00 488. 00 0. 00 17, 045. 00 2. 7 0. 00 0.00 116. 49 0. 00 116. 49- 0. 0 0.00 0.00 116.49 0.00 116. 49- 0.0 0.00 0.00 116.49 0.00 116.49- 0.0 8&08 CIP 89-608 DEPT: BLDGS & GROUNDS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 21, 000. 00 21, 000. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 21, 000. 00 8609 CIP 89-609 DEPT: BLDGS & GROUNDS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 30, 000. 00 30, 000. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 30, 000. 00 8615 CIP 89-615 DEPT: BLDGS & GROUNDS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 8616 CIP 90-616 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 45,000.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 21, 000. 00 0. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 21, 000. 00 0. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 21, 000. 00 0. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 30, 000. 00 0. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 30, 000. 00 0. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 30, 000. 00 0. 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 374.00 0.00 270.40 0.00 103.60 72.2 374.00 0.00 270.40 0.00 103.60 72.2 374.00 0.00 270.40 0.00 103.60 72.2 DEPT: SLOGS & GROUNDS 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 45, 000. 00 0. 0 U: 11 14. FINANCE-FA454 TIME 19: 17: 58 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0048 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OBJT DESCR APPROPRIATION 205 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 8701 CIP 89-701 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 45, 000. 00 0. 00 45, 000. 00 115, 907. 00 DEPT: OTHER PROJECTS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL 15, 000. 00 15, 000. 00 15, 000. 00 15, 000. 00 3, 721, 343. 00 :e RN!01.>.4.0: iR ...0't.' . .4.�",; 4. 0. 00 488. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 161, 154. 47 1: tti•a . ENCUMBRANCE UNEHC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 874. 89 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 723, 583. 02 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3, 790. 03 45, 000. 00 45, 000. 00 113, 032. 11 15, 000. 00 15, 000. 00 15, 000. 00 15, 000. 00 2, 993, 969. 95 0. 0 0. 0 0. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 19. • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 FINANCE-FA454 TIME 19: 17: 68 F'JNI) DI`.' OB.!T DESCR 705 INSURANCE FUND 1209 LIABILITY INS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0049 • FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4190 RETIREMENT 4138 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL '300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4324 CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 24, 305. 00 365. 00 365. 00 3, 352. 00 3, 972. 00 32, 359. 00 370, 630. 00 370, 630. 00 300. 00 1, 005. 00 250. 00 70, 000. 00 71, 555. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 474, 544. 00 1210 AUTO/PROP/BONDS DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE ' OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4324 CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 37, 000. 00 37, 000. 00 10, 500. 00 10, 500. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 47, 500. 00 1215 UNEMPLOYMENT DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4186 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 7, 700. 00 7, 700. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 1, 967. 24 0. 00 0. 00 271. 29 218. 72 2, 457. 25 6, 149. 41 6, 149. 41 44. 00 0. 00 0. 00 876. 21 920. 21 ENCUMBRANCE U!N!ENC BALANCE 5, 861. 35 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 546. 54 0. 00 654. 18 0. 00 7, 062. 07 0. 00 236, 277. 92 236, 277. 92 96. 56 0. 00 49. 00 6, 307. 19 6, 452. 75 9, 526. 87 249, 792. 74 0. 00 0. 00 19, 565. 00 19, 565. 00 18, 443. 65 24. 1 365. 00 0. 0 365. 00 0. 0 2, 805. 46 16. 3 3, 317. 82 16. 4 25, 296. 93 21. 8 0. 00 134, 352. 08 63. 7 0. 00 134, 352. 08 63. 7 0. 00 203. 44 32. 1 0. 00 1, 005. 00 0. 0 0. 00 201. 00 19. 6 0. 00 63, 692. 81 9. 0 0. 00 65, 102. 25 9. 0 0. 00 224, 751.26 52. 6 0. 00 17, 435. 00 52. 8 0. 00 17, 435. 00 52. 8 423. 07 423. 07 0. 00 10, 076. 93 4. 0 423. 07 423. 07 0. 00 10, 076. 93 4. 0 423. 07 19, 988. 07 0. 00 27, 511. 93 42. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 7, 700. 00 0. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 7, 700. 00 0. 0 7, 700. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 7, 700. 00 0. 0 d. 1W tai k's r', R; �:1 zr 1. 1 0 1 F INANCE-FA454 TIME 19:17:58 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 709 INSURANCE FUND 1217 WORKERS COMP CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0050 FROM 09/01/91 TO 09/30/91 -- .- -- -- DATE 10/15/91 25.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4180 RETIREMENT 4182 WORKERS COMP CURRENT YR 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 1201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4291 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4313 MEMBERSHIP 4:.316 TRAINTNG 01.11C1 1;01111)1AI 31. 000. 00 465. 00 465. 00 4, 244. 00 290, 000. 00 6, 834. 00 333, 008. 00 47, 000. 00 0. 00 47, 000. 00 400. 00 45. 00 2, 000. 00 1111. (00 DIVISION TOTAL 382, 453. 00 1218 MEDICARE DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4159 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL REPORT TOTALS MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 2, 753. 76 0. 00 0. 00 378. 85 34, 878. 93 392. 00 38, 403. 54 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 20. 94 0. 00 0 00 38, 424. 48 8, 220. 90 0. 00 0. 00 759. 18 76, 996. 46 1, 141. 32 87, 117. 86 23, 095. 21 406. 59 23, 301. 80 ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 0. 00 22, 779. 10 26. 5 0. 00 465. 00 0. 0 0. 00 465. 00 0. 0 0. 00 3, 404. 82 17. 8 0. 00 213, 003. 94 26. 5 0. 00 5, 692. 68 16. 7 0. 00 245, 890. 14 26. 1 0. 00 23. 904. 79 49. 1 0.00 406. 59- 0. 0 0. 00 23, 498. 20 50. 0 63.54 0. 00 336.46 15. 0. 00 0. 00 45. 00 0. 0 82.53 0. 00 1, 917. 47 4. 1 146. 07 0. 00 2, 298. 93 5. 9 110, 765. 73 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 912, 197. 00 912, 197. 00 25, 206, 302. 00 0. 00 48, 374. 42 48, 374. 42 1, 961, 042. 69 0. 00 380, 546. 54 380, 546. 54 6, 225, 765. 61 0. 00 271, 687. 27 28. 9 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 531, 650. 46 0. 00 531, 650. 46 77, 906. 59 18, 902, 629. SO 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 41. 7 41. 7 25. 0 V Y • r f'I r O O s 0 0 O m • CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1991 FUND GENERAL NUMBER ACCOUNT 9/1/91 BALANCE CASH ADJUSTMENTS WARRANTS ADJUSTMENTS 001 GENERAL 105 LIGHTING DISTRICT 109 VEHICLE PARKING DIST. 110 PARKING 115 STATE GAS TAX 120 COUNTY GAS TAX 125 PARK REC.FAC.TAX 126 RAILROAD RT.OF WAY 127 6% UTILITY USERS TAX 140 CDBG 145 PROPOSITION A FUND 150 GRANT FUND 155 CROSSING GUARD DISTRICT 160 SEWER MAINTENANCE 170 POLICE ASSET SEIZURE 180 FIRE PROTECTION FUND 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 705 SELF INSURANCE FUND TRUST ACCOUNTS $2,916,544.44 1,450,733.56 125,325.38 136,899.29 1,573,230.98 35,695.78 2,050,011.87 698,988.89 87,759.79 -0- 406,539.62 72,544.08 65,988.53 2,209,360.89 1,448,063.70 475,546.77 107,375.90 304,876.27 $14,165,485.74 $ 421,862.17 -0- 16,304.10 166,104.74 28,128.87 - 0- 145.00 77,490.10 111,235.47 - 0- 21,263.00 -0- - 0- 2,223.93 - 0- 3,787.60 10.00 288.55 $ 848,843.53 $ 188,868.78 9,830.86 849.26 927.69 133,220.18 241.89 13,891 .85 2,807.08 594.70 - 0- 2,754.90 - 0- 447.17 81,638.34 37,234.52 3,222.53 503,586.14 76,100.00 $1,056,215.89 $ 861,894.51 25,989.19 5,867.99 76,576.69 - 0- - 0- - 0- -0- - 0- - 0- 2,357.13 - 0- 2,209.87 10,078.23 41,291.41 - 0- 162,810.40 68,612.36 $1,257,687.78 $ 240,136.86 2,855.44 1,383.58 115,325.11 290,593.30 2,903.42 233,932.08 -0- 87,500.00 -0- 73.98 3,333.33 222.00 112,689.27 4,439.33 - 0- - 0- 50.61 $1,095,438.31 9/30/91 BALANCE $ 2,425,244.02 1,431,719.79 135,227.17 112,029.92 1,443,986.73 33,034.25 1,830,116.64 779,286.07 112,089.96 -0- 428,126.41 69,210.75 64,003.83 2,170,455.66 1,439,567.48 482,556.90 448,161.64 312,601.85 $13,717,419.07 BALANCE RECEIVED PAID BALANCE STATEMENT BALANCE PAYROLL $12,793,357.73 INACTIVE DEPOSIT $572,998.70 INACTIVE DEPOSIT RAILROAD $243,743.67 $3,930.11 $1,008,993.05 HELD BY FISCAL AGENT RIGHT OF WAY INTEREST RECEIVED TO DATE 659,338.18 658,954.36 Alr L.". GAR BRUT.0 , ,ITY TREASURER OCTOBER 6, 1991 4,313.93 GENERAL $ 455,328.12 PAYROLL 3,216.36 458,544.48 103,167.91 355,376.57 INACTIVE DEPOSIT 13,366,356.43 BALANCE 13,721,733.00 OUTSTANDING CHECKS 1dca) October 8, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 22, 1991 REQUEST FOR 30 DAY EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT FOR ONE GENERAL SERVICES OFFICER Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council extend for thirty (30) days the temporary appointment of one (1) General Services Officer. Background: There is currently one vacant General Services Officer position which is being filled on a temporary basis. Filling this position is being held pending completion of a review of department staffing levels. Analysis: Section 2-33 of the Hermosa Beach City Code precludes a temporary appointment of an individual to a permanent Civil Service position for more than six months without approval from the City Council every thirty days. Respectfully submitted, Concur: V� ,(LLjJ!(,Lc a9 Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director rab/extend 2 - 1 - Steve S. Wisniewski Interim City Manager to October 8, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 22, 1991 RETURN OF FEDERAL -AID URBAN FUNDS FOR HIGHLAND AVENUE WIDENING CIP 85-102 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. return $9,765.42 of Federal -aid Urban (FAU) funds to Caltrans for CIP 85-102, Highland Avenue Widening. 2. use State Gas Tax funds to replace the FAU funds as a funding source and that the funds be transferred from the State Gas Tax Fund balance. Background: On April 4, 1991, the City received final reimbursement for this project. Analysis: On August 20, 1991, Caltrans notified the City that the preliminary engineering on this project had been reimbursed by mistake. The preliminary engineering was not eligible for reimbursement and Caltrans overpaid the City $9,765.42 in FAU funds. The work performed in the preliminary engineering is eligible for State Gas Tax Funding. Therefore, the recommended funding source is the State Gas Tax Fund. Fiscal Impact: The City is required to return the $9,765.42 to Caltrans, the administrative agency for the FAU funds. Therefore, the staff recommends that State Gas Tax funds be transferred from the State Gas Tax Fund balance to replace these returned funds. Respectfully submitted, • Brian Gengle Assistant Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Director of Finance pworks/ccst102 Concur: Lynn A. Terry -4247---- Deput City Engineer W1 liam Glican, Interim D rector of Public Works Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager 1f October 8, 1991 Mayor Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 22, 1991 ACCEPT WORK AS COMPLETE FOR SLURRY SEALING CIP 89-170 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Accept as complete the Slurry Sealing constructed by Glick Corporation DBA: Asphalt Maintenance Company of California (hereinafter referred to as "Glick Corporation") at a cost of $299,967.89. 2. Accept as complete the inspection services provided by Tierra Engineering Company at a cost of $22,342.50. 3. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Notice of Completion. 4. Authorize staff to: a) Release the retention payment to Glick Corporation 35 days after the Notice of Completion is recorded. b) Release Glick Corporation from the Faithful Performance Bond and the Labor and Materials Bond. Background: On March 26, 1991, the City Council awarded a contract that included slurry sealing and thermal bonding repair. The contract construction cost was not to exceed $300,000 and the low bidder was Glick Corporation of Visalia, California. The work was to seal the top surface of 43 selected asphalt streets west of Valley Drive. On April 9, 1991, City Council awarded a professional services agreement to Tierra Engineering company for contract administration and inspection services. The cost of these services was not to exceed $22,000. On September 24, 1991, the City Council increased this amount to $22,342.50. - 1 - t Analysis: This section is divided as follows: 1. Construction A. Project Constructed According to Plans and Specifications B. Time Schedule C. Notice of Completion D. Release of Bonds E. Release of Retention Payment F. Construction Costs 2. Inspection 3. Fiscal Impact and project Accounting 1. Construction A. Project Constructed According to Plans and Specifications The staff recommends acceptance of the work as complete. The project was constructed according to the plans, specifications and change orders prepared by the staff. B. Time Schedule Below is a summary of the project time schedule: Start Date Original contract time Original completion date Days added by Change Orders Adjusted Contract Completion Date Date of Substantial Completion The project was substantially completed contract time. C. Notice of Completion May 31, 1991 60 calendar days July 30, 1991 30 calendar days August 29, 1991 August 22, 1991 within the adjusted Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a Notice of Completion. The signed Notice of Completion will be recorded with the County Recorder's Office at the request of the City Clerk's office. D. Release of Bonds Pending City Council authorization, after the Notice of Completion is recorded, staff will release Glick Corporation from the obligation of the following bonds: FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND Bonding Company Original Bond Amount Amount to be Released Bond numbers and LABOR AND MATERIALS BOND E. Release of Retention Payment Allied Mutual Insurance Co. $240,240.00 each bond $240,240.00 each bond BD415710 both bonds Pending City Council approval, the retention payment in the amount of $29,996.79 will be released to Glick Corporation thirty-five (35) days after recordation of the Notice of Completion (provided no stop notices or mechanics liens are received within that time period). F. Construction Costs Original Contract Amount Quantity Adjustments (increases) Change Orders: (increases) #1 - #2 #3 Grinding of Large crack Large crack existing sealing sealing cracks $7,400.00 3,160.00 9,480.00 #4 - Monterey Blvd. crack sealing -0- #5 - Revisions in pavement repair methods (change in bid quantities) -0- #6 - Monterey Blvd. crack sealing (revised) 6,270.00 #7 - Adjust Contract Time -0- #8 - Monterey Blvd. Thermal Bond A.C. $ 2,108.65 Amount Expended Summary Amount not -to -exceed Less Amount Expended Balance $240,240.00 31,309.24 $ 28,418.65 $299,967.89 $300,000.00 (-) 299,967.89 $ 32.11 2. Inspection Inspection services on this project were provided by Tierra Engineering Company to staff's satisfaction. Shown below are the inspection costs for this project. Amount Not To Exceed $22,342.50 Less Amount Expended 22,342.50 Balance $ -0- 3. Fiscal Impact and Project Accounting Shown below are project expenditures and funding by FY. Expenditures Plans, Specs and Construction Inspection Other Costs (B) (A) (B) (C) Funding FY 90-91 FY 91-92 Total Estimates(A)$ 395.22 $ -0- $ 395.22 92,733.16 207,234.73 299,967.89 10,462.50 11,880.00 22,342.50 4,649.82 3,066.65 7,716.47 $108,240.70 $222,181.38 $330,422.08 (C) Prepared in-house by engineering staff. Slurry sealing of Boundary Place by the City of Manhattan Beach - $906.24. Painting and supplies for street restriping. FY 90-91 FY 91-92 Total State Gas Tax Fund $108,240.00 $228,978.00(D) $337,219.00 Amount Expended Balance 108,240.70 222,181.38 330,422.08 (D) Reappropriated from FY 90-91 -0- 6,796.92 6,796.92 Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Do not accept construction as complete. Respectfully submitted, Brian Gengle Assistant Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Director of Finance pworks/ccstbbct Concur: Lynn A. Terry Deputy City Engineer W liam Glickman, Interim Director of P b is Works Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager r' October 10, 1991 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #21868 (C.U.P. CON NO. 90-5) LOCATION: 350 MANHATTAN AVENUE, AKA 212 4TH STREET APPLICANT(S): WILLIAM J. CAMPBELL REQUEST: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR A 3 - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #21868 which is consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #21868 at their June 5, 1990 meeting. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. CONCUR: Michael Schubac Planning Direc or Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager p/srfinmap Respectfully submitted, ( �1%A% en Robertson Associate Planner li RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #21868 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 350 MANHATTAN AVENUE, AKA 212 4TH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on October 22, 1991 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66427.1, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the Subdivi- sion Map Act; B. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code; C. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject division of land will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/ or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the subject division of land; D. The approval of said map is subject to all conditions out- lined in Planning Commission Resolution P.C. No. 90-30 adop- ted after hearing on June 5, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1 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 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map #21868 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 12, Block 44, First Addition to Hermosa Beach, as recorded in Book 1, Pages 59 and 60 of Maps in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County, for a three - unit condominium project on land commonly known as 350 Man- hattan Avenue, aka 212 4th Street, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 22nd day of October, 1991. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: (K6fr,,,4 p/rsfinmap PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. CITY CLERK .12t/ CITY ATTORNEY 2 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL October 14, 1991 Regular Meeting of October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #20304 (C.U.P. CON NO. 88-30) LOCATION: 1840 HERMOSA AVENUE APPLICANT(S): MICHAEL AND CASSANDRA LAWTON REQUEST: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR A 2 - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #20304 which is consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #20304 at their November 1, 1988 meeting. On October 16, 1990, Planning Commission granted an extension of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #20304 to November 1, 1991 pur- suant to applicant's request. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. CONCUR: Respectfully submitted, 1--c i_ Ken Ro� c ael Schuba Planning Director Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager p/ sfinmap Associate Planner isi RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #20304 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1840 HERMOSA AVENUE, HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on October 22, 1991 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66427.1, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the Subdivi- sion Map Act; B. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code; C. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject division of land will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/ or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the subject division of land; D. The approval of said map is subject to all conditions out- lined in Planning Commission Resolution P.C. No. 88-95 adop- ted after hearing on November 1, 1988. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map #20304 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 14, Block 32, First Addition to Hermosa Beach, as recorded in Book 1, Pages 59 and 60 of Maps in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County, for a two -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 1840 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 22nd day of October, 1991. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: p/rfinmap PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY October 14, 1991 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #20755 (C.U.P. CON NO. 89-5) LOCATION: 345 MANHATTAN AVENUE, AKA 120 4TH STREET APPLICANT(S): PERRY HERWOOD REQUEST: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR A 2 - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #20755 which is consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #20755 at their April 18, 1989 meeting. The map was expired on April 18, 1991. Reinstatement of the map was submitted and was granted by Planning Commission at their September 17, 1991 meeting. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. CONCUR: Michael Schubach Planning Dire tor C - Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager T/srfinmap Resp-ctfully submitted, Ken Roser "s:n Associate Planner lk RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #20755 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 345 MANHATTAN AVENUE, AKA 120 4TH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on October 22, 1991 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66427.1, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the Subdivi- sion Map Act; B. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code; C. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject division of land will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/ or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the subject division of land; D. The approval of said map is subject to all conditions out- lined in Planning Commission Resolution P.C. No. 91-58 adop- ted after hearing on September 17, 1991. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 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 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map #20755 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 13, Tract 1076, as recorded in Book 17, Page 140 of Maps in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County, for a two -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 345 Manhattan Avenue, aka 120 4th Street, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 22nd day of October, 1991. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: �'2.( CITY ATTORNEY T/rsfinmap PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. CITY CLERK 2 September 24, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 22, 1991 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION, 1991 EDITION" Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. adopt the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 1991 Edition". 2. repeal all previous editions of these specifications. Background: The 1991 Edition of the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction", popularly known as the "Green Book", is the ninth edition of this important document. These standards are updated and published every three years. The original edition was published in 1967. These Standard Specifications represent the latest and best professional thinking of the leading public works officials and members of the construction industry. The document was written to answer a need for uniform specifications governing the construction of public works projects performed in the cities, counties and public agencies of the Southern California area. This edition of the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" was prepared as a joint effort by both (a) the Joint Cooperative Committee of the Southern California Chapter, American Public Works Association and (b) the Southern California districts, Associated General contractors of California. It is requested that the City Council adopt the 1991 edition of these standard specifications. Alternative: 1. Take no action. Respectfully submitted, Homay.•�n Behboodi Assistant Engineer pworks/ccsrsps Concur: Lynn Terry Deputy City Engineer liam Glickma , Interim Direc or of Pu•li Works Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager 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. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION, 1991 EDITION" FOR USE BY, IN AND FOR THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That a full, true, and correct printed copy of "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION, 1991 EDITION" prepared by the JOINT COOPERATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER, AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION, and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICTS, ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF CALIFORNIA be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk, open to public inspection, and that said printed copy on file, shall be and the same is hereby referred to and by this reference incorporated herein and made a part of this resolution. SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby approve and adopt the said "Standard Specifications for Public works Construction, 1991 Edition" on file as aforesaid, and all subsequent amendments thereof, for use in and in connection with all public works improvements in the City of Hermosa Beach, California and all previous editions are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution; shall enter the same among the original resolutions of the City Council of said City; and shall make a notation of the passage and adoption thereof in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 22nd day of October, 1991. PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: pworks/resosps October 10, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 22, 1991 APPROVAL OF. PLANS FOR NEW SIGNALIZED CROSSING OF VALLEY DRIVE AT HERMOSA VALLEY SCHOOL, CIP 89-150 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Make the determination that public bidding is not required for this project. 2. Approve the plans for a new signalized pedestrian crossing of Valley Drive at Hermosa Valley School, CIP 89-150 3. Authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limitations. 4. Authorize City staff to purchase the required traffic signal equipment and to proceed with the installation of said equipment. 5. Retain the crossing guard presently budgeted for the existing crosswalk at Hermosa Valley School. Background: On June 26, 1990, Council adopted the Capital Improvement Program Budget which includes this project listed under CIP 89-150, Miscellaneous Traffic Signal Improvements. This project provides for a new pedestrian ramp and pedestrian traffic signal on Valley Drive across from Hermosa Valley School, per a School District request. Analysis: This section is divided as follows: 1. Exemption from Public Bidding 2. Project Plans 3. Crossing Guard 1 1. Exemption from Public Bidding Staff recommends to perform all work in-house and not to advertise for bids on this project for the following reasons: A. Sole Supplier All traffic signal equipment in the City (poles, mast -arms, signals, switches, controllers, etc.) is supplied by Econolite. All the stock replacement parts are from the same supplier. City policy is to stay with the same supplier so that parts are interchangeable. The sole supplier condition is sufficient for exemption from public bidding. B. Expediency In the interest of the improved safety of a signalized crossing, the changes should be implemented in a timely manner. Public bidding of the project would require the following: 1. The preparation of plans and specifications ready for bidding, 2. Advertising the bids, and 3. Awarding the bid,and executing the contract. The bidding process would delay the installation of the project by a minimum of two months. Also, the time to receive the materials after they are ordered adds an additional two months to the project. This results in a minimum total of four months before installation can begin. C. Installation is under $5,000 State law requires public projects exceeding $5,000 to be publicly bid. The estimated labor cost for installing the traffic signals is $3,000 and this project is therefore exempt from public bidding. 2. Project Plans Attached is a plan of the proposed crosswalk and traffic signal as prepared by staff. A full bid package is not prepared at this time predicated upon the recommendation not to publicly bid this project. 3. Crossing Guard Currently a crossing guard is budgeted for the existing crosswalk at Hermosa Valley School. The school district and staff recommend to retain the crossing guard for the relocated crosswalk to insure safety for the school children. - 2 - Fiscal Impact: Estimated costs for this project are as follows: Amount Budgeted $15,000 Estimated Materials (A) 12,000 Labor (B) -0- Estimated Balance $ 3,000 (A) Traffic signal components include poles, pedestrian signals, push button controllers, 3 second signals, back plates, etc. (B) The estimated in-house labor costs by City crews is $3,000. (This cost is not spent against the Capital Improvement Program Budget for this project, but is charged against the General Operating Budget). Funding Source: State Gas Tax Fund Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to Council are: 1. Advertise for construction bids on this project. Respectfully submitted, Brian Gengle Assistant Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Director of Finance pworks/ccsr150 Concur: Lynn A. Terry Dept ty City Engineer an, Interim c Works Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT HERMOSA VALLEY SCHOOL VALLEY DRIVE LEGEND: ®-f--o Signal face with backplate Signal face with arrow indications in o Pedestrian signal face o Standard with luminaire and signal mast arm PPB Pedestrian push button Signal conduit ® Signal controller cabinet ❑ Vehicle detector O Location designation for Pole Schedule A Conduit run designation for Conductor Schedule F___l Service Cabinet October 10, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of October 22, 1991 RECOMMENDATION TO UTILIZE PROPOSITION A FUNDS FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 91/92 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council approve the allocation of $9,000 from the Proposition A Fund to the Community Resources Department to be utilized for recreation programs scheduled for FY 1991-92. BACKGROUND At the August 27, 1991 City Council meeting, Council approved in concept, the utilization of Proposition A monies for City recreation programs with transportation needs. Staff requested approval for the utilization of these funds for existing programs (in place of general fund expenditures) as well as for new programs. Per Council direction, $6,500 has been allocated to date for senior citizen excursions and for Wave bus service for the Kid's Club program. Currently there is approximately $155,000 in surplus Proposition A funds. ANALYSIS Staff has drafted a list of proposed excursion categories to implement during FY 91-92 to include youth nature trips; teen club trips and excursions open to all ages (attachment A). Following Council approval, these excursions will be submitted to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) for review and approval. The $9,000 requested represents an estimated direct cost of $7,000 for the various bus charters as well as $2,000 to be charged for administrative costs for the programs. Per the LACTC, up to 15% may be charged to a program for administrative purposes. The $2,000 represents a 15% administrative cost for both the current requested allocation and the previously approved projects. Charging staff costs to the Prop A Fund is advantageous as it results in a direct savings to the general fund (fulltime salaries). If approved, Proposition A Funds allocated for recreation programs will total $15,500 for this fiscal year. The use of these surplus funds for excursions will serve to greatly enhance 1 l our community recreation programs without posing a burden on the general fund. Other alternatives available to Council include: 1. Deny the funding request. 2. Reduce or increase the allocation. 3. Approve an allocation for administrative costs for previously approved projects only. 4. Request more information. Concur: Mary G1, --Rooney, Director Community Resources Department Michael Schubach, Director Planning Department Respectfully Submitted, 544 Carol e Recreation Specialist Community Resources Dept. Noted for Fiscal Impact: Steve Wisniewski Viki Copeland, Director Acting City Manager Finance Department Finance Director Note: For budgeting purposes, each Prop A recreation program will be set up separately within the Prop A Fund to correspond with LACTC project approvals. (as is done for existing projects, ie, Dial a Ride, Commuter Bus) ATTACHMENT A PROPOSITION A FUNDS PROGRAMS AND EXCURSIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION AGE GROUP PROGRAM AND DESTINATION Youth Spring Camp - Nature Excursions . Griffith Park - Los Angeles . Wilderness Park - Redondo Beach Summer Blast . Monsoon Lagoon/Castle Park - Redondo . Comedy and Magic Club - Hermosa . Los Angeles Zoo - Los Angeles Miscellaneous Youth - After School . L. A. Childrens Museum - Los Angeles . Cabrillo Sea Museum - San Pedro . Universal Studios - Universal City . Knotts Berry Farm - Buena Park Teen Teen Summer Club . Raging Waters - San Dimas . Magic Mountain - Valencia Adult Family Excursions . Bear Mountain - Big Bear . Pageant of the Masters - Laguna Beach* *Currently budgeted in FY91-92 - Prop A Funds will replace General Funds (i) that all the amounts are previously approved, un- spent funds from the 1990-91 budget and are not included in the 1991-92 budget; and, 2) revise the appropriation for CIP 144, Replace Strand Wall and Walkway, to the correct amount available from TDA Article 3 funds of $845,011. Recommendation to receive and file status report on Pacific Coast Highway P.M. parking prohibitions. Memo- randum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August 21, 1991. This item was_ removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Sheldon for separate discussion later in the meeting. Director Antich responded to Council questions by ex- plaining that the report was to apprise the City Council that Caltrans had rejected the language of the Resolu- tion adopted by the Council on May 28, 1991 prohibiting peak hour PCH parking; on May 31, 1991, Caltrans took unilateral action (raising concerns about the status of the "benchmarks" contained in the Resolution) to issue an order Regulating Parking on PCH through Hermosa Beach, pursuant to the delegation of authority from the Director of Transportation; and, responding to a letter from the City, Caltrans informed the City that due to workloads and staffing levels they would be unable to respond with a nine month status report as agreed. Di- rector Antich informed the Council that staff could do the survey report on the "benchmarks", as they could get the information from the same source as Caltrans, in a matter of two to four days. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: Jerry Compton - 832 Seventh Street, to suggest a public hearing in nine months to receive input of complaints from the residents regarding the parking removal by Caltrans. Action: To direct the City staff to compile the infor- mation for the survey required to validate the "bench- marks" and send it to the State for review, and send a letter to Caltrans expressing the City's disappointment that they were not adhering to their agreement. Motion Creighton, second Mayor Midstokke. So ordered. (j) Recommendation to utilize Proposition A funds for recre- ation programs purposes. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated August 21, 1991. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Wiemans for separate discussion later in the _meeting. City Council Minutes 08-27-91 Page 7544 Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) receive and file the report on permitted uses for Proposition A Funds; 2) approve the concept of utilizing Proposition A Funds for recreation program transportation needs where possible; 3) approve a designation not to exceed $5,000 of Prop A monies to be utilized for transportation for the City's Kid's Club Park Program; and, 4) approve $1,500 of Prop A funds be designated for Senior Citizen Excursions with a corresponding re- duction .in general fund monies from the 1991-92 Fiscal Year budget previously appropriated for this purpose. and to direct staff to contact other cities for possible uses. Motion Wiemans, second Mayor Midstokke. So ordered. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 91-1059 - AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PRO- CEDURE FOR CREATING PREFERENTIAL RESIDENTIAL PARKING AREAS. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 91-1059. Motion Mayor Midstokke, second Essertier. The motion carried with Sheldon dissenting. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items 1(f), (i), and (j) were discussed at this time but are listed in order for clarity. * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar are listed under the appropriate item. At 8:10 P.M., Item 4 was tabled until after the public hearing, Item 5, could be heard. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Letter from Planning Commission dated August 20, 1991 regarding camping in public parking lots. Staff recommendation: to direct staff to study this matter. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: Joseph DiMonda - Planning Commissioner, stated that the intent of the Planning Commission was to bring to the attention of the Council the matter of over- night parking on open space, particularly the "Greenbelt", by trailer trucks and campers, and the resulting parties with drinking and littering. He suggested looking at Manhattan Beach and Redondo City Council Minutes 08-27-91 Page 7545 October 14, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of October 22, 1991 RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR OUTFITTING NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT PATROL VEHICLES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Award the contract to The Precinct Company for outfitting new police department patrol vehicles at a cost of $3,062.55 per vehicle, and 2. Reject the bid from Pursuit Specialties, as it was incomplete and did not meet all specifications. BACKGROUND: In September 1991, the city advertised for bid proposals for outfitting new patrol vehicles. A copy of the bid proposals was sent out via certified mail to area vendors. All bids were opened and recorded on October 10, 1991 in the council chambers by the City Clerk. ANALYSIS: Five bids were received, and are as follows: The Precinct Company Film Vehicle Services Hi Standard Company Professional Communications Installation * Pursuit Specialties $3,062.55 4,029.91 3,225.36 3,128.01 3,056.17 Per Unit ► It ► n NOTE: Pursuit Specialties failed to provide a cost bid on one item listed in the proposal. The item was a trunk equipment organizer. It has been determined that The Precinct Company is the low bidder meeting all specifications. Respectftaly submitted Val Straser Acting Chief of Police Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT:. Viki Copeland, Finance Director ir REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The City of Hermosa Beach is soliciting sealed bids from qualified vendors to : Furnish specified equipment, install that equipment and other equipment furnished by the City in six (6) 1991 Chevrolet Caprice patrol units per specifications set forth in Attachment A. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Sealed proposals must be on file in the office of the City Clerk on or before 2:00 on Thursday, October 10, 1991. The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to extend any time frame as necessary. No late proposals will be accepted. Late proposals received after the deadline will be returned to the bidder, unopened. Proposals are to be submitted in a sealed envelope with "OUTFITTING OF POLICE UNITS " written or typed in the lower left hand corner of the envelope. Proposals must be submitted as cost per unit with cost for each item listed. For additional information and other particulars regarding this bid, contact: Commander Michael Lavin or Commander John Kearin 540 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 318-0303 or 318-0302 EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL AND BASIS FOR AWARD 1. The City of Hermosa Beach intends to make an award to the responsible vendor meeting all requirements of the RFP whose proposal is most advantageous to the City of Hermosa Beach. 2. The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to negotiate with the overall lowest responsible bidder meeting qualifications and specifications set forth. 3. The City intends to make an award within 30 days of the bid closing date. 4. The City reserves the right to reject any and /or all bids, to delete items, and to waive any informalities. ATTACHMENT A Furnish and install the following equipment: • Federal Jetstream Lightbar (independant motor, rotating lights, alley lights, rear amber lights, center takedown lights) • Federal HKCP91 gutteriess mount kit for light bar * Unitrol TM -4 Siren and Light Controller with option 12 * Unitrol NCT Noise Cancelling Mike * Setina Cage transfer kit • Setina 113 push bumpers * Pro Straint prisoner safety seat(black) * Copilot map light * Solenoid, 80 amp • Trunk side panels * Shotgun rack * Timer, gun lock (DBN-GCT) * All labor and materials to install above equipment Furnish labor and materials to install customer supplied equipment as follows: * KDT terminal, UHF, and VHF radios on floor mount console Fabricate and/or furnish and install the following: * Flashlight charger to be mounted on dash • Rubber baton mount on driver door • Tape recorder microphone installed in rear seat area and accessable from trunk • Bike rack fabricated to mount on push bumpers • Equipment box(per department specifications) between front seats • Dividers(per department specifications) inside trunk All installations of equipment must meet or exceed the following minimum specifications: Light Bar: securiy mounted to roof of unit with power cord through roof using conduit connector and sealed with high quality silicone Radios: To be trunk mounted on platform with hinged door for protection Electrical: 4 gauge cable properly routed from terminal block under hood with a 50 amp circuit breaker to radio platform in trunk to power all equipment. A continuous duty solenoid to be used for light bar toad. Unitrot and radios to be wired through circuit breakers and all connections to be soldered, numbered, split loomed and property routed and secured. Trunk panels: constructed of 1/2 plywood and mounted on both sides of trunk area to protect quarter panels from loose items moving in trunk. Brackets: all mounting brackets to made of 1/8 and 3/16 milled steel and to be mounted with nuts and bolts (no sheet metal screws) Unitrol: all connections to be soldered and numbered for ease of maintenance. Brake light and back-up light black out to incorporate the lighted digital speedometer read out. The main voice radio to be wired through the P.A. system for radio rebroadcast Siren Speaker: to be mounted behind grill KDT terminal and radio control heads: securiy mounted in center dash area with KDT processer mounted on radio platform in trunk Miscellaneous: all used and fabricated equipment and parts to be cleaned and painted as appropriate. All mounting hardware to be plated to resist rust from the beach climate. All holes to be thoroughly sealed to resist leakage. All wiring to be adequately insulated/protected to resist cutting, chafing, and shorts. Warranty: all installation work to be unconditionally guaranteed for at least 12 months. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RESULTS "OUTFITTING OF POLICE UNITS" On Thursday, October 10, 1991 at approximately 1405 hours the Deputy City Clerk, Naoma Valdes opened the sealed bids for outfitting the new police units. Present were, Val Straser, Chief of Police, John Kearin, Commander of Staff Services Division and two representatives of The Precinct. The first bid opened was from Film Vehicle Services. Total cost per unit, including installation and tax was: $4,029.91. The second bid was from The Precinct. Total cost per unit, including installation and tax was: $3,062.55. The third bid was from Professional Communications Installations. Total cost per unit, including installation and tax was: $3,128.01. However they failed to bid on the following items: * Door mounted rubber baton holders. * SL -20 flashlight charger. * Trunk equipment organizer. The fourth bid was from Hi Standard. Total cost per unit, including installation and tax was: $ 3,225.36 The fifth bid was from Pursuit Specialties. Total cost per unit, including installation and tax was: $3,056.17. However they also failed to bid on one of the items listed in the request for proposal, which was: * Trunk equipment organizer. Based on this information the bid should be awarded to The Precinct as the lowest responsible bidder. John J Kearin Commander Staff Services 1 BID OPENING ok,10E- PROJECT NO. BIDDERS NAME BID OPENING LOG SHEET EH+ct.E EQ»1 I 1 kir SET- up P CLE ) -8ID aaND AMOUNT OF BID M N 1CLC SERVICES p UI) I i tis u.ED C63 Li) s T&tX4 Limo LI, 0 al. �� pE '' 30c,a,55 (NE- FI:R' EC (/JO- = viva- rt%)srfu r»x 44HOR P% (�a FESsro NI}L I °TA -4_ PER L)Jn �7' 3 Ia F. or 1 +Ht11l�IC�4T10�S tab I /� [1.ED ��u1s Tf}x� I�RSDR� 1.1..}}-rI r7 Al ..S) S _ iorPr F U,uIT 4 � �s 1Tl T 71->�D L7 1 1J57 -4 -14.F -z C+ -os TAX c..heoR) AUTO£ -J rfL 9R UiJIT 305G.=I- Fc i r I as , 1 kST i4> -EDC T448 R Nor 4-d4- ire./4S /t.ulvt REC IVED4\ t8 OCT 101991 �2 cit, CIM* tiff rR H•^"°•' i"'r / \ P. n�` OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 1315 Valley Drive • Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PATROL CAR CONVERSIOi DESCRIPTION PRICE PER UNIT Federal Jetstream Lightbar 562.50 Independant,motor RotatingLights with Alley Lights, Rear Amers, Center Takedown lights. Federal HKCP91 Gutterless Mount Kit 9.75 Unitrol TM -4 Siren and Light Controller 420.00 with Option 12 Unitrol NCT Noise Cancelling Mike Setina Cage Transfer Kit Setina 113 Push Bumpers Pro Straint Prisoner Safety Seat Co Pilot Map Light Solenoid, 80 Amp. Trunk Panels Shotgun Rack (This shotgun rack is fabricated specially for Timer, Gun Lock (DBN-GCT) Misc. Materials and Labor for the above Fabricate an Install floor console for KDT Terminal UHF and VHF radios, CUnitrol can be mounted in same) (Price does not include lace plates at 35.00 ea.) Flashlight charger to be mounted on dash Set rubber Baton Mount Tape Recorder Mike to be mounted in trunk Bike Rack fabricated to mount to push bumpers Box fabricated to mount between seats Dividers inside trunk NOTE: Option would be Pro -Guard Super Trunk Organizer. Kill switch in the park position ygJ- :10)1y . A (8-1 OCT101991 p -2 '. J City Clerk Cthr of H.vT0111 Mach 66.95 47.95 88.50 312.50 16.50 14.70 20.00 90.00 the 91 Caprice) Taxable Sub Total Labor TOTAL 22.75 784.50 155.00 84.50 15.35 4.00 18.95 50.00 50.00 50.00 N/C 2159.40 178.15 725.00 3062.55 0 -1 -i V = z O z f 5 7 rn THE PRECINCT WILL COME TO YOUR LOCATION WITH OUR FULLY EQUIPPED MOBIL INSTALLATION SHOP. ALL WORKMANSHIP IS WARRANTED BY THE PRECINCT FOR A PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHS. TURN AROUND TIME ON CARS IS TWO TO THREE DAYS. THE PRECINCT • P.O. BOX 1425 • T MPLE CITY. CA 91780 • (818) 282-9985 • FAX (818)2_82-6809 ED 5 1 Pi/ -till_g_11-tc_44.721±271(sR67V_ ,.2j0= :f. 1'//��/�/'��]� City of Hermosa Beach 540 Pier Ave. Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 Attn: City Clerk i41) (EP, 0 CT 101991 f C2 ChY C • Cm, of Kermess eea Sym:. Proposal for the outfitting of new Police Vehicles Federal Signal Jetstream Lightbar as specified Gutterless Mounting Kit for above Siren speaker suitable for grille mount Unitrol TM -4 with mic, Lock timer and Option 12 Gunlock electric solenoid type Flashlight Charger Streamlight SL -20X Co-pilot halogen maplight Prisoner Barrier Setina 4 lexan,4 expanded Transfer kit if barrier re -used in new car Prostraint brand prisoner safety seat Setina push bumpers Headlight Flashers Shotgun Rack Baton mounts Solenoid 80 Amp Bracket for KDT and radios Antennas, if replaced also requires mount and coaxial cable Dividers for trunk and console per spec to be determined Trunk side protective panels metal AO teadv41 lit♦ Attie The installation price for the above listed items, complete $550.00 $ 75.00 $120.00 $575.00 $ 65.00 4, 23.00 $ 30.00 $320.00 $ 75.00 $400.00 $120.00 $ 32.00 $ 75.00 $ 30.00 $ 12.00 $ 75.00 included $ 35.00 $125.00 $ 70.00 2151 30 •q j -`R $1000.00 Specifications also mention two items which seem to have ambiguous descriptions. Further specs required. Bike rack, to be mounted to front pushbars (?) $ 75.00 Tape recorder, mount in trunk w/mic in parcel tray,recorder supplied $ 25.00 by HBPD To -n -L-- 41-,1("1.q i In my discussions with Commander Kearin, I was informed that threr may or may not be transfer equipment from old units. I listed what I felt would be needed to complete a car without benefit of any old equipment(except radios and KDT) Please eliminate the things that won't be needed for each changeover. If you have any questions regarding this bid, please feel free to call at (818)559-4952, my digital pager or (818)371-5091. HI STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE 2299 So. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, Ca. 92705 (714) 435-9063 - FAX (714) 1817, 435-052p'• L OCT 101991 Clew Ci... ,V of I4.neo.s BMetc/, IN QE', ('Lri RIIILLC� Pos-ic._._ u r. rs O7z I Y NO. `ESTIMATED DELIVERY 'From receipt of order [ 1ay. TERMS t AV otcE CSAIFSMAN F.O.B. �P.�TA Afr. A1r`Q SHIP VIA CtsS•Ibm !Ma. 167-Ae-ALi' FOLLOW UP DATE QUANTITY LES '\ bESCfIPTION MOE �r- tlflt L._ LV -4- f) -9.1 M9 Y 1 L_..�1=unm tN AC30* .._.._. t• Cr -1Z. fikas1-34-ta-rLf-EAL q 9.5.ao 2AQZTTZ'l 1 n ►?fit ry 1 -PL (3;-1 -BuM_ - - Ass ` - `oQ cc i ?al soft -ea Srte3z c zl. to c.4Npo-1c ..... 10.00 Zen AL....1-�c�,cJrJ ( N _.(0/. MLC ..groor_e_o) Go «ncx... G4 -T' 8 sec__ boy .1r TMS . 2ro.00 L--Zox. FZAS(-N.1 c�•l i U -t A>Rh . . Z t • co S'Lr 3PmiJ 11oc.Dt 5 - Q4.0502-derirz_ Mtou8 •co .. l3l Vi. 2i&'. 5b.� u.L -t3 - -s�T , 1 zS cc Co►.srlPaA<5E Z UNIT EA AMOUNT 3Sitt OZ. 1P CL1MI. 4 CLI 34Z„ Qo 1. tO 3 es, l Vo. 00 Ea 1 26/00 tura . 48.1= . :7st.p0. rte► _ 840_. ABOVE PRICES GOOD FOR (c DAYS. FL EASE REFER TO THE ABOVE OUOTATION NUMBER WHEN PLACING YOUR ORDER MC 3813 SIGNATURE HI STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE 2299 So. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, Ca. 92705 (714) 435-9063 - FAX (714) 435-0520 TO: OF- c?iNG0...- a / No. "DATE INQUIRY NO. "ESTIMATED DELIVERY From receipt of order TERMS SALESMAN F.O.B. SHIP VIA FOLLOW UP DATE OUANIttY tiescrttProm PRICE UNIT kbT_AlaE7Zukc- ;-_c_4x=ta ? crm se Imp, 2;7 • Acs-7400.1. -rrat,<4_4(settr Abt_e. Pea eecIpc4Arlict. LL ars:Liv etz ulcnots 1,1pciN) U.(,L LAE3c0.. t I8 Llzs pesz igoLik _ nAsuARC+3 A-MR.1 ALS .P.1244 LL)if\tCM.P.Nr19 O .a P10011-1 A2oz. m Atm thcs _TM IS lit SL)ftmIrrE1).. AMOUNT 00 7/6,- fit ••;,•• '1E33 OCT 101901 --ttrf Guild • City Df Hermoss BIWA ^. . • . cb 720,03 Cd3 26 AA • FA 432Q mok 73"5t —72-7:1•• ABOVE PRICES GOOD FOR 6r) DAYS. .EASE REFER TO DE ABOVE OUOTAT1ON NUMBER MEN PLACING YOUR ORDER. C Ort -ens NC 3813 SIGNATURE PC9LP e4mmagieaecsoalw /galetatieUit4, 13996 South Van Ness, Gardena, Calif. 90249. 329•2455_ 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH OUTFITTING OF POLICE UNITS FEDERAL JETSTREAM LIGHT BAR (independant motors, rotating alley lights, rear amber flashing, center takedown light) 1 FEDERAL HKCP91 GUTTERLESS MOUNTING KIT. 1 UNITROL TM -4 SIREN LIGHT CONTROLLER W/OPTION 12 1 UNITROL NCT P.A. MICROPHONE. 1 SETINA CAGE TRANSFER KIT. 1 SETINA PUSH BUMPERS. 1 PRO-STRAINT PRISONER SEAT (black). 1 CO-PILOT MAP LIGHT. 1 SOLENIOD 80 AMP. 1 PAIR TRUNK PROTECTOT PANELS. 1 SHOT GUN LOCK AND TIMER. TOTAL PARTS SALES TAX LABOR CHARGE TO INSTALL ABOVE EQUIPMENT, TO CITY WRITTEN SPECIFICATIONS AND WIRED COMPLETE. TOTAL LABOR lights, $615.00 $ 12.50 $425.00 $ 55.00 $ 40.00 $ 95.00 $305.00 $ 25.00 $ 20.00 $ 10.00 $ 40.00 $1642.50 135.51 $1350.00 TOTAL PER UNIT $3128.01 TOTAL X6 UNITS $18768.06 ALL INSTALLATION WORK IS UNCONDITIONALLY GUARANTEED FOR THE ENTIRE PATROL LIFE OF THE VEHICLE. �un�Z v31(41"T''), I34Tv" 4oLD S S L -1-0 X rLA5I4 LL(. ctf4"e - TRuriIL eWurhi vr2GAtilZzti N v i3 i D Fot Z- nJ 0 all) Poo— No ato 1 rl-.. **** PRICE QUOTE **** PAGE: 1 PURSUIT SPECIALTIES SOLD TO: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH POLICE 555 6TH STREET HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 CONFIRM TO: CITY CLERK \SEALED BID ORDER NUMBER: 0000396 ORDER DATE: 10/09/91 SALESPERSON: 0001 CUSTOMER NO: HERM SHIP TO: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH POLICE 1315 VALLEY DR. ATTN:CITY CLERK HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 CUSTOMER P.O. SHIP VIA ESTIMATE UPS GROUND F.O.B WHITTIER TERMS NET 30 SALES ITEM NO. UNIT ORDERED *FED JSTRM EACH 1 FEDERAL CUSTOM JETSTREAM BAR *FED HKCP91 EACH 1 GUTTERLESS MOUNT FOR LIGHTBAR *UNITROL TM -4 EACH 1 TOUCHMASTER AS PER SPECS. *UNITROL NCT EACH 1 / MIC FOR TOUCHMASTER METINA CAGECONV EACH 1 / CAGE TRANSFER KIT RETINA 12" PB EACH 1 PUSH BUMPER. BODY GUARD /AEDEC CS 1111 EACH 1 SEAT BLACK FOR 1991 CAPRICE /O R ML012 EACH 1 OSRAM K30 10" MAPLIGHT *pOLENOID, 80A EACH 1 / 80 AMP SOLENOOID /TRUNK PANELS EACH 1 /TRUNK SIDE PANELS (*SHOTGUN RACK EACH 1 USTOM MADE SHOTGUN RACK D GLT EACH 1 TIMER, GUN LOCK LABOR EACH 1 LABOR TO INSTALL ABOVE EQUIP. SHIPPED BACK ORD PRICE AMOUNT 0 0 0 0 0 WHSE: 000 0 WHSE: 000 0 WHSE: 000 0 WHSE: 000 0 0 0 0 WHSE: 000 0 e;\ferr . `1L� 1 fa? OCT 101991 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 My Clerk City of Hermosa Beech r L 537.84 9.57 401.46 60.17 65.00 96.25 342.50 17.48 14.70 20.00 65.00 27.00 500.00 537.84 9.57 401.46 60.17 65.00 96.25 342.50 17.48 14.70 20.00 65.00 27.00 500.00 CONTINUED **** PRICE QUOTE **** PAGE: 2 PURSUIT SPECIALTIES SOLD TO: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH POLICE 555 6TH STREET HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 CONFIRM TO: CITY CLERK \SEALED BID ORDER NUMBER: 0000396 ORDER DATE: 10/09/91 SALESPERSON: 0001 CUSTOMER NO: HERM SHIP TO: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH POLICE 1315 VALLEY DR. ATTN:CITY CLERK HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 CUSTOMER P.O. ESTIMATE SHIP VIA UPS GROUND F.O.B WHITTIER TERMS NET 30 SALES ITEM NO. UNIT ORDERED SHIPPED BACK ORD PRICE AMOUNT FURNISH LABOR AND MATERIALS TO SUPPLIED EQUIPMENT AS FOLLOWS: /M KDT TERMINAL,AND RADIOS /M INSTALL FLASHLIGHT CHARGER /M INSTALL BATON HOLDERS /M INSTALL OF TAPE RECORDER SYSTM /M .INSTALL OF BIKE RACK /M SUPPLY&INSTALL EQUIP. BOX /M INSTALL CUSTOMER /a�LI�.I�' 433 OCT 101991 - 721 CM Clerk MT of /ramose Beach r� \� SUPPLY & INSTALL TRUNK DIVIDER THE LAST TWO ITEMS CANNOT BE PRICED AT THIS WE NEED TO HAVE THE CORRECT SIZES FOR THESE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL CAN BE REFERRED TO MR. TIMOTHY CALDERA 213-692-8266 No Fog_ i72u, -►/C. (27, 6E26,4^', TIME ITEMS. NET ORDER: LESS DISCOUNT: FREIGHT: SALES TAX: 150.00 16.00 6.50 45.00 45.00 .00 .00 2,419.47 .00 .00 136.70 ORDER TOTAL: 2,556.17 October 14, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of October 22, 1991 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING D.A.R.E. GRANT FOR THE CITIES OF REDONDO, MANHATTAN & HERMOSA BEACH RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Appropriate the grant amount of $20,000 to the Police budget. 2. Authorize expenditure of funds in accordance with the Grant Agreement, and 3. Authorize the Interim City Manager to sign the Grant Agreement. BACKGROUND: On August 8, 1991 the South Bay Hospital District granted to the cities of Redondo, Manhattan and Hermosa Beach a grant to fund their D.A.R.E. Programs. The grant runs from September 1, 1991 and ends June 30, 1992. ANALYSIS: The Hermosa Beach Police Department will be hosting the grant this year. Manhattan Beach hosted the grant last year. Hermosa will be responsible for administering the grant and submitting quarterly reports for all three south bay cities. The grant will pay for workbooks, D.A.R.E. T-shirts, videos, reproduction costs and maintenance money to fix the D.A.R.E. robot. The purpose of the grant is to provide support supplies and educational materials used in the Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program (D.A.R.E.) in the cities of Manhattan, Redondo and Hermosa Beach over a 10 -month period. R tful3 sLtted, 46244 Val Strase r Acting Chief of Police CONCUR: teve Wisniewski Interim City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director TS SBHD 410> 4 PUBLIC ENTITY �arccPti Hospital District GRANT AGREEMENT No. 91-100 The grant to your organization from the District is for the explicit purpose(s) described below and is subject to your acceptance of: :the following conditions. To acknowledge this agreement, to accept"the grant and to be eligible to receive the funds when needed, PLEASE. RETURN A SIGNED COPY OF THIS GRANT AGREEMENT TO THE DISTRICT. Grantee: City of Hermosa Beach Amount of Grant: $20,000 Date Authorized: August 8, 1991 Grant Purpose: To provide support for supplies & educational materi- als used in the Drug Abuse Resistance Education Pro- gram (D.A.R.E.) in the cities of Manhattan, Hermosa, and Redondo Beach over a 10 month period, in accord with the service projections and budget contained on page 5 of this document. Grant Period: Begins: September 1, 1991 Ends: June 30, 1992 Special Grant Conditions: Distribution of funds among the three Police Depts. will be on a per capita basis, determined by the number of stu- dents served by each city. Hospital District Officer for this Grant: Linda Pappin 2615 Pacific Coast Highway Suite 120 Hermosa Beach. California 90254 (213) 374-3426 FAX (213) 376-4738 MAID OF DIRECTORS DIRECTOR Aflaflfl Patricia A. Oreizler Gerald R. Wilt Virginia 0. Fischer Ken Johnson EXEC/MDRTEL1DR James M. Riewer Philip Valera Eva T. Snow SPECIAL PROVISIONS: All grants are made in accordance with current and applicable laws and pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and the regulations issued thereunder. Please read the following carefully: I. ANNOUNCING GRANTS Announcements of the grant award are to be made by the District as well as the grantee unless otherwise indicated by the District. Grantees are expected to review the text of any an- nouncements and plans for publicity with the District's officer for this grant and obtain approval from the District before announcing the award. All subsequent public announcements, news features, publications or information concerning the grant program will indicate the District's participation in the pro- gram's funding. Please send a copy of any published accounts mentioning the project or the District to the District officer. II. EXPENDING OF FUNDS This grant is to be used only, for the purpose described in the grant proposal to the extent approved by the District and in accordance with the approved budget. The program is subject to modification only with the District's prior written approval. A. The grantee shall return to the District any unexpended funds: 1. At the end of the grant period, or 2. If the District determines that the grantee has not performed in accordance with this agreement and ap- proved program budget, or 3. If the grantee loses its exemption from Federal income taxes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. B. No funds provided by the District may be used for any polit- ical campaign, or to support attempts to influence legisla- tion by any governmental body, other than through making available the results of nonpartisan analysis, study and research. C. Expenses charged against this grant may not be incurred prior to the effective date of the grant or subsequent to the termination date, and may be incurred only as necessary to carry out the purpose and activities of the approved program. 2 D. The grantee organization is responsible for the expenditure of funds and for maintaining adequate supporting records. E. Equipment or property purchased or leased with grant funds shall be the property of the grantee organization so long as it is not diverted from the purposes for which the grant was made. If the purpose of the organization or the use of grant funds is changed, the equipment or property reverts to the District, at its option. F. Real property purchased with grant funds shall be the property of the grantee organization so long as it is used - for the purposes for which the grant was made. If the real property purchased with such funds is changed, or if the property is transferred without District approval to any third party, the District shall be entitled to recover. -from. the grantee an amount bearing the same ratio to the -then fair market value (as determined by an independent appraiser selected by the District) as the amount of the grant funds used to purchase the real property bore to the total_pur.- chase price of the real property. G. Reports, materials, books and articles resulting from this grant may be copyrighted by the organization receiving -the grant or by the author, in accordance with the policies of the grantee organization toward the goal of obtaining the widest dissemination of such reports, materials, booksand articles. The District reserves the royalty -free license to use such publications. For projects involving possibility of patents, the grantee should request further information from the District. III. REPORTS TO THE DISTRICT, Full financial accounting of the expenditure of these grant funds and narrative reports on the grant -supported projects are re- quired as a condition of this grant. They should be in writing and submitted according to this schedule: INTERIM OR PROGRESS REPORTS should be submitted quarterly two weeks after the end of each quarter. These reports may be brief but should include a financial summary, indicating how District funds have been expended during the periodr, and a narrative comment on development of the program. FINAL REPORTS, required within 60 days after the end of the grant period, should include a complete financial statement showing all funds received and expended for the programs covered by the grant, and a narrative report on the project and its signifi- cance. The financial and narrative reports should, in each case, compare actual expenditures and accomplishments with the budget and objectives cited in the original proposal. 3 As a matter of policy, the South Bay Hospital District requires that its grantees be prepared to make available to the District, and upon request actually disclose to the District, names and addresses of clients who have received, are receiving or, to the extent identified, will receive services funded by the District. Such information, if and when obtained by the District, will be handled and maintained by the District in the strictest confi- dence to the greatest extent permissible by law. IV. LIMIT OF COMMITMENT Unless otherwise stipulated in writing, this grant is made._with the understanding that the District has no obligation to provide other or additional support to the grantee. V. INDEMNIFICATION Grantee hereby covenants and agrees to hold harmless, defend_ and indemnify the District against any liability, loss, damagei cost or expense arising from the use of the grant funds by grantee. FOR THE GRANTEE: Signature of Authorized Representative Date Print Name and Title 4 QUANTIFIED SERVICE PROJECTIONS Hermosa Beach DARE Program Over the 10 month period of the grant: 1. Approximately 1,057 classroom presentations of about 40 minutes each will be offered to a total of about 2,200 students in 6th grade, 8th grade, and 10th grade classes in 23 schools in the three Beach Cities. 2. The presentations will be offered in sets which range from 10 to 17 sessions. Budget Up to 2,200 students will receive D.A.R.E. instruction at an average cost of $9.09/student for supplies and educational materials. Supplies and materials covered by this grant include: D.A.R.E. films $ 3,200 Workbooks 2,500 T-shirts 8,800 Reproduction costs 2,000 Robot maint./update 3,500 $20,000 5 Hermosa Beach - D.A.R.E. Program 9/1/91 - 6/30/92 SERVICE No. of new students instructed:* H.B. Schools R.B. Schools M.B. Schools Quarterly Report # Projected for Actual Actual Actual Actual Ye Grant Period 'It Quarter 2n4 Ouarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter to - (9/1/91 -11/30/91 (12/1/91-2/29/92) (3/1/92-5/31/92) (6/1/92-6/30/92) 170 1,200 830 TOTAL 2,200 No. of classroom presentations delivered: H.B. Schools R.B. Schools M.B. Schools BUDGET 78 626 353 TOTAL 1,057 Allocation at $9.09 average per student: H.B. Schools 1,546 R.B. Schools 9 M.B. Schools 7,545 TOTAL $20,000 J Supplies & Educational materials coverd by grant include: j✓ D.A.R.E. films $ 3,20 Workbooks 2,500-' T-shirts 8,800 Reproduction Costs 2,000 Robot maint./update 3,500— Ov "oxl 177 $20,000 *Each student instructed should be counted only once during quarter 1,2,3, or 4 and only once in the Year -to -Date total. Reports are due 2 weeks after the end of each quarter. Payment will be made approximately 2 weeks after receipt of a satisfactory report, and will be based on the number of students instructed in that quarter. TO: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, Planni SUBJECT: Greenbelt Parking Lot DATE: October 21, 1991 ctor I do not concur with the staff report since I believe a more extensive parking study is necessary including actual observation, and alternative means of accommodating parking demand without the use of the greenbelt. Also, if this matter is not already intended to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, then, it is recommended that this matter be sent to the Planning Commission for public hearing. Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manger cc: William Glickman, Interim Public Works Director p/memo5 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 1t qune 11LLLams 2005 _ llan/ attan rt. --Jilin:,1a :Stack L.. Q,254 Mayor and Council Oct 15, 1991 It has come to my attention that the City Treasurer has made statements to the effect that he plans to sue me for my remarks concerning the FHLMC investment figure. that I made at the last Council meeting. This causes me to be especially concerned that the Council has been given the correction that I requested. Mr Brutsch was correct in that he did give me the information that there was a principal reduction in the FHLMC investment figure that is not shown. I would greatly appreciate the Council clarification of this matter. and please advise me if the Council has received the correction. Please enter this letter on the agenda of Oct. 22, 1991. Thank you, C. n -. OCT 15199 1 . r - toC1` L1 0/� Cork TOta BNS �/ h ` 4 a RECEIVED SEP 2 5 1991 CITY MGR. rr''CE GTE California Incorporated K. M. Peterson P.O. Box 1277 District Manager Torrance, CA 90505 -0277 - September 23, 1991 Mr. Kevin Northcraft, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Kevin, Last year we were delighted to add the City of Hermosa Beach to a grow- ing list of more than 50 California cities who spoke out on behalf of telephone company competition into the video services business. Increased competition from telephone companies not only would address current problems in the cable T.V. business, but would also stimulate innovative video services and enhance America's communications tech- nology. The Cable Act of 1984 currently prohibits telephone companies from pro- viding video services within their service areas. Unless this federal restriction is lifted by Congress, the public benefits stemming from telephone company competition to cable TV may not be realized. GTE hopes to bring the benefits of what it has learned in it's "network of the future" test project in Cerritos to all GTE customers. The FCC granted special permission to experiment with fiber optic switched video at this single site location. Cerritos consumers are not only enjoying home entertainment, but also interactive government services, home shopping, home banking and interactive teaching services. Cerritos students who are ill or disabled will soon be able to dial into a class- room and participate in a lecture via two-way interactive video. Video tapes of previous lectures will some day be able to be dialed -up from home to review as needed. Two cable bills died in 1990 with the closing of the 101st Congress. This year, GTE urges the City of Hermosa Beach to -join with the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the U. S. Con- ference of Mayors, the League of California Cities, the California Public A part of GTE Corporation 4 b Video Services 9/23/91 Page - 2 - Utilities Commission, the California School Boards Association and the Bush Administration, in support of the Communications Competitiveness and Infrastructure Modernization Act of 1991 - S 1200 and H.R. 2546. Thank you for your ongoing support. With your help we can introduce technology in America that will greatly improve the quality of life of all citizens and address some of our most pressing social needs. A description of S 1200 and HR 2546 and a suggested resolution and support letter are attached along with an updated brochure outlining the telco competition issue. If I can answer any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (213) 373-7331. Sincerely, Kevin M. Peterson District Manager KMP:1f Attachments Advanced Communications: We need your help to bring the "Information Age" to all Americans. GTE urges you to support a bill that Congress is considering — the Communications Competitiveness and Infrastructure Modernization Act of 1991 (S. 1200 and H.R 2546). The legislation: • Sets a goal for a nationwide advanced communications network by the year 2015 with emphasis on education, health care, small business and rural areas • Provides consumer benefits/choices • Promotes competition • Requires review and approval of network deployment plans by each state's regulatory commission and the Federal Communications Commission • Includes strict cross -subsidy safeguards Communications networks are America's information "highways." They help to: 1. Keep America competitive: The U. S. economy is becoming increasingly dependent on the distribution of information. The U. S. must begin deployment of an advanced communications network to stimulate American technology for domestic use and export abroad or face the necessity of importing that technology from foreign competitors. 2. Provide consumers with new services & choices: Education: Interactive video education and training for children and adults. Classes offered to all students via the network; interactive access to remote databases and services. Health Care: Video house calls by physicians; remote health monitoring; remote diagnostics; long-distance visual transmission of X-rays or other patient information. Business: Enhances communications services for all businesses; reduces personal/business travel; promotes telecommuting. Home: Interactive governmental services; shop at home; video programs "on - demand"; video phone calls. For further information, contact your local GTE representative Local Government Letter June 1991 (Date) The Honorable (Member of Congress) United States Senate or United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. zip code Dear (Senator/Representative) rm writing to encourage your support of America's competitiveness in the next century. The "Communications Competitiveness and Infrastructure Modernization Act of 1991" seeks to advance the national interest by mandating the more rapid deployment of advanced communications networks by the year 2015. As a local government official, I see this as a way of beginning to address the domestic agenda. I believe the bill offers the following benefits: • Educational opportunities to children and adults in all areas of the country through two- way interactive video education and training. • Improved access to affordable health care through transmission of medical imaging afd diagnostics. • Entrepreneurial opportunities for American business and individuals and an improved ability to compete in the global marketplace. • Increased usage of telecommuting and video conferencing thus relieving personal and business travel, and bringing a multitude of information and entertainment opportunities to American homes. I hope you can support this legislation. America's postion of continued leadership in the global information economy depends on your actions. Sincerely, Name and address TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL COORDINATOR C FROM: WARREN S. CARTER, CABLE TELEVISION 0 SUBJECT: TELEPHONE COMPANY ENTRY INTO CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1991 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** Staff recommends that the City Council write a letter in support of legislation which would permit telephone companies to provide cable television service, when such service is demonstrated to be in the public interest and if the telephone companies are subject to identical local franchise regulatory requirements as is currently required from cable television operators. Present statutory, federal regulatory, and judicial crossownership restrictions prohibit the entry of telephone companies into cable television business. Nevertheless, telephone companies continue to be leaders in developing new technologies that could benefit cable consumers. In order to foster competitive alternatives to cable operators, telephone companies, under proper safeguards, should be allowed to provide cable television service when in the reasonable judgment of the franchising authority such service is in the public interest. As a user of public rights-of-way and facilities in common with cable operators, telephone companies should be allowed to provide cable service (including any form of cable services such as "video dial tone") only under the framework of local franchising and regulation. It is staff's strong belief that any legislation which permits the telephone company to provide cable service creates a "level playing field" for all competitors. Such competition should be permitted only if it is clearly demonstrated to be in the public interest, and where one competitor not receive an unfair advantage over another competitor. Staff also believes that when a competitive environment is created, one does not want the game to end with only a single winner. Staff supports legislation which creates competition for the long term. Staff urges the City Council to proceed cautiously in permitting telcos to own and distribute programming, and careful Federal safeguards should be included. The Council should support a flat prohibition against cross subsidization by telephone rate payers, and a limitation on telco programming ownership of its channel capacity. Finally, staff urges the Council members to support a general prohibition against telcos acquiring existing cable systems within their telephone service areas, except in exceptional local circumstances subject to franchising authority approval. The effects of telco entry should be comprehensively assessed by the FCC, state and franchising authorities to determine whether competition and consumer choice have been furthered. As the pending legislation is presently written, the City would lose all rights/oversight in regard to enforcement and monitoring of cable television service in Hermosa Beach. Pending legislation would also exempt telcos from the 5 percent franchise fee, which cable operators are required to pay. The telcos have been reluctant to agree in writing to the local regulation of telco/cable. Absent of such written assurances staff urges Council to proceed cautiously with their support of legislation which authorizes the telco entry into cable. 2 Respectfully submitted, b,/ Warren S. Carter Cable Television Coordinator Community Resources Dept. October 12, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of October 22, 1991 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT PROPOSAL FOR PROVIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PARKING ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FOR THE CITY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Direct staff to create a committee to audit current operations in order to determine areas of the current operations where reductions in the cost of providing the services can be achieved, and 2. To present a report to Council within 90 days outlining how current operations can be reorganized and modified in order to reduce operating costs by at least $400,000. BACKGROUND: At the budget workshop session on March 30, 1988, questions were raised regarding the cost of operating the Fire and Police Departments. The Director of Public Safety was directed to prepare a report comparing the staffing levels and costs for Police services between the City of Lawndale and our City and Fire services between the City of Palos Verdes Estates and our City. That information was presented to Council on June 27, 1988. The City goals adopted in 1989 included "Improve the Financial Picture" and "Improve Organizational Effectiveness." "Analysis of Contracting Police, Fire, Parking Enforcement, Animal Control and Park Maintenance" were included as goal objectives for the next 1 to 3 'year period. 1 In responding to the goal direction, the City Manager instructed the Director of Public Safety to complete and present a report regarding potential cost for contracting for Police and Fire services. This report was submitted to Council on February 26 1991. Regarding Fire services and based on information available, the Director reported that the City was currently providing Fire services at a cost equal to, or less than the County could provide the same services and there was no viable potential for cost reduction or other advantages of having the County provide Fire services. No further action was directed by Council. For Law Enforcement services, the preliminary analysis of the information available indicated a potential cost savings in excess of $1 million annually if the City contracted for Law Enforcement services from the Sheriffs Department. This estimate of potential cost savings was based on general information obtained from various sources. To obtain a more accurate cost estimate, staff was directed to request a Phase I study by the Sheriffs Department which was to include Parking Enforcement services. The dual purpose of the Phase I study was to determine contract costs and to serve as a management audit of the current department operations. The Phase I study was formally requested on March 6, 1991 and was conducted by the Contract Law Enforcement Bureau. ANALYSIS: On August 20, 1991, the City received the completed proposal for Law Enforcement and Parking Enforcement services from the Contract Law Enforcement Bureau. Copies of the proposal were provided to the Police Association, the Teamster Union, the news media, members of City Council, Department Heads, and copies were made available to the public. 2 Following receipt, several meetings were held with representatives of the bargaining units, department heads, officials in current contract cities and officials of the Contract Law Bureau in order to discuss the proposal, determine any additional or ancillary costs, and to obtain clarification and additional information in order to make a recommendation to Council. The Finance and Personnel Departments were directed to determine, as accurately as possible, the cost for providing Law Enforcement services in order to provide a cost comparison between current cost and contract cost. The information gathered, discussion of the proposal, comparison of the proposed and current service, and recommendations will be presented as follows: I. Contract Proposal II. Current Cost for Services III. Comparison of Cost for Services I V . Comparison of Level of Services V. Recommendations I. CONTRACT PROPOSAL The Sheriffs proposal for contract law enforcement and parking enforcement services was directed primarily at law enforcement and there was little information provided with regard to parking enforcement. Following their review of the reported workload of the City and sample surveys of scheduling and calls for service, the Sheriffs Department developed a recommended daily staffing level. This daily staffing level, which would provide general law enforcement, traffic enforcement and all related support services, consists of: 7:00am to 3:00pm - (3) one officer patrol units, (1) traffic unit, and a field supervisor for a total of 4 units and 4 officers. 3 3:00pm to 11:00pm - (2) one officer patrol units, (1)two officer patrol unit. and (1) traffic unit for a total of 4 units and 5 officers. 11:00pm to 7:00am - (2) one officer patrol units and (1) traffic unit for a total of 3 units and 3 officers. Included in the proposal is provision for four(4) additional officers during the summer months for beach patrol; two(2) civilian services officers; two(2) narcotics officers; continuation of the drug education programs for Hermosa Valley and Our Lady of Guadalupe schools; and (6) civilian parking control officers. This recommended level of service, which includes parking enforcement, is offered at an estimated cost of $3,514,438 for the 1991-92 budget year. Although the quoted contract cost includes the cost of funding the liability pool funded by all contract cities, available information indicates that the annual cost was expected to rise significantly. Staff was informed that the increased funding cost for 1991-92 was included in the proposal, but there is another anticipated increase of at least 2% within the next year and staff believes that this amount should be added to the proposal cost. Meetings with officials in other contract cities have led staff to believe that a minimum contingency of 3% increase in the proposal cost should be planned for in order to cover unexpected costs that will be discovered. As mentioned previously, there was little information regarding the provision of parking enforcement services. Although more information was obtained during subsequent meetings with representatives of the Contract Law Bureau, some questions and concerns remained. One of these concerns was the need to increase the parking enforcement services during the summer months for the expanded enforcement in the impacted areas of the City. The representatives informed us that this had not been considered in their proposal and there would be an increase in 4 the cost for this expanded service. Staff calculated that cost to be an additional $61,973 annually. This would provide four (4) additional parking control officers for 4 months of the year. Accounting for the above, staff is estimating that the minimum cost of contracting for the first year would be $3,757,377. II. CURRENT COST OF SERVICES In order to make a precise comparison of cost, any additional costs associated with contracting and any non-recurring costs in the current budget should be calculated. Current Costs: City staff has determined that the current cost of providing law enforcement and parking enforcement services is: $4,652,092 - law enforcement $ 631,237 - parking enforcement Total cost $5,283,329 This total cost figure is based on the 1991-92 revised budget and does not include amounts that are being reappropriated from the 1990-91 budget. The total includes the budgeted amounts for the various insurance and benefit costs which are not reflected in those department's operating budget. Additional Costs: Staff determined that there would be a continuing need to provide for dispatching of the Fire and Paramedic services as well as maintaining administrative direction of the Fire Department, responsiblity for emergency preparedness, and administration of the law enforcement contract. 5 The cost of maintaining/providing these functions is: Fire and Paramedic dispatch services from RCC $ 85,323 (annually) Required start-up costs for joining RCC $146,520 (one time) Fire Chief/Contract Administrator $ 71,849 (annually) Total additional costs $303,692 Non-recurring costs: Included in the current costs is the last year of a lease/purchase of the dispatch radio system. This will not be a continuing budgeted expenditure for next year and should be treated as a budget reduction for purposes of cost comparison. This amount is $63,800. III. COMPARISON OF COST FOR SERVICES Current annual cost $5,283,329 Cost of Maintaining Services <$ 303,692> Non-recurring costs <$ 63,800> Revised Current costs $4,915,837 Estimated First Year Contract Costs <$3,757,377> Potential Cost Reduction for first year $1,15 8,460 6 IV. COMPARISON OF LEVEL OF SERVICES For purposes of this report, "level of service" shall refer to the number of police traffic and patrol units or parking enforcement units on duty during a given period of time. It does not include ancillary and support personnel such as Dispatchers, Records Clerks, Police Services Officers, Detectives, civilian supervisors, or special units. County Recommended Staffing: As previously stated, the Sheriffs recommended level of service in the proposal was based on reported workload. This workload includes arrests, citations, and calls for service. Their recommended level of service calls for daily deployment of officers on eight (8) hour shifts; days, evenings, and nights, as follows: Law Enforcement * four(4) police units /4 officers and one(1) supervisor unit on the day shift * four(4) police units/5 officers on the evening shift * three(3) police units/3 officers on the night shift A probable schedule is shown below: Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat. Sun. 7:OOam to 3:OOpm 5 5 5 5 5 5 5(units) 3:OOpm to 11:OOpm 4 4 4 4 4 4 4(units) 11:OOpm to 7:OOam 3 3 3 3 3 3 3(units) * four(4) additional officers daily for summer beach patrol 7 Parking Enforcement * Six(6) units/6 officers daily (no provision for summer enforcement) A probable schedule is shown below: Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat. Sun. 6:00am to 4:30pm 3 3 3 3 3 3 3(units) 12:30pm to 11:00pm 3 3 3 3 3 3 3(units) Current Hermosa Beach Staffing: Law Enforcement The Hermosa Beach Police Department is currently scheduled on twelve(12) hour shifts, days and nights. The department fields no less than three(3) police units/3 officers on each of the two shifts, although there are different numbers of officers scheduled to work on certain days of the week. Three units/officers is our minimum level of service, has been established for officer safety and is agreed to in the current memorandum of understanding. Patrol and Traffic scheduling for the 6 month period September 1990 to February 1991 was generally as follows: Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat. Sun. 7:00am to 7:00pm 4 4 5 6 5 4 5 (units) 7:00pm to 7:00am 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 (units) Traffic Enforcement 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 (units) An analysis was conducted to determine how many scheduled units were actually deployed during the period September - February. The analysis indicated that the actual number of units deployed was considerably less than scheduled as a result of various factors including vacation, IOD, sick leave, comp time, and training. 8 During the period, the day shift was working at minimum level (3 units) 87 of the 181 days or 48% of the time. In order to field the 3 units, overtime was necessary on 22 of the 87 days or 25% of the time. The night shift was working at minimum level 134 days or 74% of the time during the period and overtime was necessary on 68 days or 48% of the time in order to maintain the minimum staffing level. During this same period of time, there was an average of 16 hours of traffic enforcement daily. Parking Enforcement Parking Enforcement is generally scheduled as follows: Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat. Sun. 6:00am to 4:30pm 3 3 3 3 2 2 2(units) 12:30pm to 11:00pm 2 2 2 2 2 2 2(units) Based on this information, it is staff opinion that the level of service proposed, while not the same in all instances, is comparable to the level actually provided. V. RECOMMENDATIONS Although contracting for services with the County could initially be a cost savings for the City, there are many unknowns and variables which could increase the contracting cost. Other disadvantages would include the loss of identity as a full service City and potential loss of control over inevitable increases in the cost of the service. Meetings with citizens to discuss the proposal, opinions expressed by Council candidates, and correspondence received from the public is a strong indication that the public desires to maintain a local police department. 9 Staff believes that the cost saving gap between current costs of operation and the contracting proposal can be narrowed by continuing to consider cost reduction methods such as reorganization, possible reduction or elimination of positions, and civilianization of positions. This method would allow the City to maintain it's own police department while still meeting the goal of providing services at a reduced cost to the citizen. Based on the above, it is staff recommendation that no consideration be given to contracting for Law Enforcement services. There have already been efforts to reduce costs associated with these services and staff believes that there is potential to further reduce the costs of the current operation by using the County proposal as a guide. It is recommended that direction be given to create a committee comprised of representatives of the various groups to study the current operations and return to Council, within 90 days, with a report on possible cost reductions. Staff recommends that the committee be directed to audit all areas of the police and parking operation including, but not limited to, consideration of reductions in staffing levels, reorganization, consolidation of the two operations, civilianization of some services, and elimination or modification of some services. Respectfully S bmitted, Steve Wisniewski, Interim City Manager 10 CIITY CIF HERMOSA MACH Ml MOIIBAIYIIDNM October 22, 1991 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Steve S. Wisniewski, Interim City Manager RE: Analysis of the POA report ***************************************************************************** Councilmember Sheldon requested that I provide Council with a brief review/analysis of the POA's report from my perspective. For the purposes of this review; be advised that we will only be comparing actual Police services involving officers in the field. All of the other services "overhead" shall be considered included and not broken out separately. On page 2 of the POA narrative there are remarks about the number of calls for service. There is no indication of how many of the 28,287 calls to the dispatch center were 911 calls or whether they were for Fire, parking, or other than Police related matters. I have been previously informed that our computer can not differentiate between these calls. Of the 11,439 priority calls for service mentioned on page 2, it is important to note that the 5,615 "daily report numbers" for crime reports are not in addition to the 11,439 calls for service, but a part of it. Their further discussion of traffic stops, citations, booking, and warrant detentions do not, for the most part, count as a call for service. These calls are mostly officer initiated activity, but are in many cases logged by the computer as a call for service. F HOURS OF SERVICE In discussing this topic, it is important to keep in mind that the number of hours quoted by LASD would be actual hours of service provided while the numbers of hours touted by the POA report are based on the total of number of potential hours of service that could be provided by all of the department employees, both sworn and non -sworn, if everyone was at work the entire 2080 hours per year- not what we actually deliver. There is discussion on page 3 of the POA narrative that speaks to hours of service. Their report indicates that the LASD would provide 44,928 hours per year, we assume that this does not include parking enforcement. * We can only verify 36,664 hours of field service(does not include the 4,160 hours of narcotics officers) per year as follows: Patrol, Traffic = 34,112 ( 656 hrs per week x 52 weeks) Beach Patrol = 2,240 (160 hrs per week x 14 weeks) SANE/DARE = 312 (15% of 2080 hrs per year) 36,664 hours of field service This total number of hours would be the number of hours contracted for and delivered they do not include the overhead services such as investigators, narcotics officers, supervisors, and clerical which are included in the contract cost and are additional hours of service. We'll use this number (36,664)for further comparison. There is also discussion regarding the number of hours of service provided by the Police Department. First, it is important to indicate that the number of hours referred to are scheduledlpotential not delivered in all cases. The POA report lists the number of potential hours for sworn personnel at 72,529. Again, the calculation of this number escapes us. Using their explanation that this reflects the number of hours for all sworn budgeted positions does not work out to the true numbers. We have 41 budgeted sworn positions which equates to 83,200 potential work hours(2080 hrs. per year x 41 positions). Their number equates to 34.9 positions(72,529 hours / 2080 hrs per year per person). If we wish to compare apples to apples then we should only consider the number of field personnel(32) which equates to 66,560 potential work hours(2080 hrs per year per person x 32) and is close to their number. In order to determine the number of hours of work delivered - vs - the number of hours scheduled, I conducted an analysis of the last 5 months(March 91 - July 91). This analysis includes all personnel working in the field (patrol, traffic, SEU, and K-9), these facts are presented below: actual 3,218 March '91 = 72.1 % of scheduled scheduled 4,464* actual 3,507.5 April '91 = 75.7% of scheduled scheduled 4,632* actual 3,783 May '91 = 75.1% of scheduled scheduled 5,040* actual 3,780 June '91 82% of scheduled scheduled 4,608* actual 3,816 July '91 78.9% of scheduled scheduled 4,836* actual 18,105 average = 3,621 per month Totals scheduled 23,580* average = 4,716 per month * the scheduled hours do not include a sworn position (2080 hours) whose hours were lost because he was out on IOD for the entire period. Projecting these averages over a twelve(12) month period equates to an average total of 56,592 scheduled hours and an average total of 43,452 delivered hours. These numbers will be used in further comparison. The POA report also represents, on page 20, that the PD "generally, on weekend nights in particular, fields seven to nine regular units, traffic, special enforcement, and four to six reserves." My analysis of the weekends in May, June, and July revealed that the average total number of units fielded per day on the weekends was 10 out of 15 scheduled in May; 13 out of 15 scheduled in June; and 12 out of 15 scheduled in July. These totals include K-9, day shift patrol, night shift patrol, traffic, and SEU. COST PER MINUTE If it was difficult to determine how the number of hours was arrived at, it was even more difficult to determine how the cost per minute calculations were done and on what budget number they were based. It was extremely difficult to determine how Dr. McKee arrived at his figure of .73C for the Police and $1.23 per minute for the LASD. There is a lot of discussion regarding the cost per minute and a lot of remarks about statewide averages, but the Finance Director and I can't definitively pin down where the numbers come from. Using the average scheduled number of 56,592 hours of work would equate to a budget of $2,478,730 which is not a valid number. Using their total(sworn and non -sworn personnel) hours of 107,033 would equate to a budget of 4,688,045 which is close to the budgeted costs, but still not accurate. The most accurate cost determination by staff is $4,652,092 and will be used in this review. Using their formula to determine average scheduled cost per minute, we calculate that it would be $1.37 per minute (4,652,092 / 56,592 scheduled hours/ 60 minutes). For comparison, the average delivered cost per minute would be $1.78 per minute(4,652,092/43,452 delivered hours/60 minutes) The cost per minute for the LASD was equally elusive in their, report. Our calculations indicate that the delivered cost per minute would be $1.46 for the LASD ($3,205,695 /36,664 delivered(contract)/60 minutes). MISCELLANEOUS Page 22 of the POA report indicates that the LASD proposal did not take into consideration the additional cost for Fire dispatch and the cost for City Prosecution services - That was taken into consideration by staff and added into the calculations on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report. The term "borrowing" is used on page 3 of Dr. Mckee's report and eludes to the possibility that the City would lose money and/or service because of this. This is nothing more than "mutual aid" which we currently provide and receive....at no cost. If, as Dr. McKee suggests, make a rule that no car leave without some compensation - then we would not be giving or receiving mutual aid very much longer. The cost per minute discussion on page 4 of Dr. McKee's report assumes, as was done throughout the POA report, that all personnel report for duty 2080 hours per year. The facts speak differently. Reality is that the 3/12 schedule only has an availability factor of 38.6% which translates to 142 shifts(12 hour) per year per officer. Dr. McKee's summary he states that "it is definite that an overhead rate was used" for the LASD rate - 'Of course it was, LASD clearly indicated that it was'. Other than the crime comparisons following page 5 of McKee's report, there is little left that could be called "meaty" in the remainder of the report. In fact, pages 12, 13, 14, and 20 through 30 are just examples and fluff. CONCLUSIONS The "recommended level of Service" by the Sheriffs Department, in relation to the delivered service level by the Police Department, is comparable. Taking into consideration that the LASD would consistently field 12 units per day, the reduction of 6,788 hours does not represent a "drastic" reduction in the level of service provided. The cost per minute for PD scheduled services is calculated to be $1.37. The cost per minute for PD delivered services is calculated to be $1.78 The cost per minute for LASD delivered services is calculated to be $1.46 Respectfully Sub ' it ed: Steve Wisniewski, Interim City Manager TELECOPIER 1213) 376-3531 NEWTON AND NEWTON sietooweyo at Yaw 555 PIER AVENUE, SUITE 4 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 TELEPHONE (213) 372-4636 October 15, 1991 Kathleen Midstokke Mayor of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 RECEIVED OCT 1 5 1991 CITY WESTWOOD OFFICE 10880 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 1900 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024 (213) 208-7300 Re: HBPD v. LASO Public Hearing: October 22, 1991 Dear Mayor Midstokke: On October 22, 1991, the City Council will have a public hearing on the question of whether or not to contract with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office for services now provided by the Hermosa Beach Police Department. I expect that council chambers will be filled with residents desiring to express an opinion on the subject. I have opted to submit my views in writing and save you at least 3 minutes on what promises to be a very late evening. I profess no expertise on the subject under discussion, nor do I profess to have a command of all the facts. However, my perception is that our local police force may be disbanded because of fiscal considerations. I would object to such action. Hermosa Beach has a scandal -free, responsive police department. That is not something that can be purchased. The officers on the street are professional, well-trained and courteous. Those of us in the business community who come in contact with them on a daily basis want them to remain a part of our community. Fiscal constraints are not irrelevant. However, the first duty of government is to provide for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. If there is any justification for remaining a separately -incorporated city, it is to provide these services. If additional funds must be raised to maintain our own essential services, then the council will have to make the hard choices they were elected to make. Thank you for your time. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION iJ r HERMOSA BEACH f POLICE OFFICER'S f ..,.ASSOCIATION r i t t i i L L L ANALYSIS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S CONTRACT PROPOSAL HB POA/LEMC®1991 HBPOA I L L L HERMOSA BEACH POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 722 Hermosa Beach, California 90254 ABOUT DR. JOHN MCKEE AND L.E.M.C.: INTERNATIONAL UNION OF • POLICE ASSOCIATIONS John McKee was responsible for cost analysis and budgeting of the various defense and commercial programs for the McDonald Douglas Corporation for twenty eight years. Upon his retirement, he became a partner in the firm of McKee/Wright/La Verne College Management Center. This took place in 1968 and the firm was certified by the Commission on Police Officers' Standards and Training, known as POST. McKee and Wright taught budgeting analysis, organiz- ation theory and management, to all law enforcement agency personnel in California that qualified under the P.O.S.T. program. On the death of Wright, John McKee founded the well known firm of the Law Enforcement Management Center and continued to conduct courses in cost and budget analysis, statistics and systems analysis. All of these programs were directed at law enforcement agencies in California. For the past twenty two years, McKee has been the only individual certified to teach these courses by the Commission. Over 2,000 law enforcement managers have taken these courses. McKee began analyzing police and sheriff department costs from the beginning and is the only source of the book on police and sheriff costs. It is called the "Law Enforcement Manager's Handbook." He has consulted with/and analyzed the cost structure of well over two hundred California agencies and was invited by Canadian law enforcement to review their systems. In May of 1984, McKee was awarded the Certificate of Commendiation by the California Attorney General's Office for his work with law enforcement. He is in Who's Who in the World, America's Men of Science, the Blue Book of England, and the Police Hall of Fame. AFL-CIO LOCAL 1985 r. F F i i i DEDICATION ... This report and analysis is DEDICATED to the residents of the City of Hermosa Beach and the greater South Bay Community. We are greatful and appreciative of your continuing support. ,; PREFACE As professional Law Enforcement officers, the members of the HBPOA have always had the greatest respect for the services provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. All of our officers were trained at the LASD Academy. Many of our officers have worked in special assignments and investigations with LASD personnel. We have always enjoyed an excellent rapport with deputies and field supervisors assigned to the area. However, our organization (and others in the County) are concerned at the Sheriff's attempts to "take over" Municipal Law Enforcement. We, and the others, compare the practice to a "hostile take-over" in the corporate world. We are even more concerned with claims made by the Sheriff's Department's Contract Services unit that they can provide equal or better service at a reduced cost to cities. Lastly, we are amazed at the process utilized by LASD Administrators in developing a proposal for potential client cities. The process lacks a true comparison of levels of service currently provided by the city and level of service they determine and recommend. In earlier reports on the Sheriff's completing such a study -- instead of contracting a professional, independant evaluation -- we said that's like "sending a fox into your henhouse to count your chickens." We were not taking lightly a subject we consider most important to the future of the City of Hermosa Beach. The HBPOA did commission an independant study and analysis. What follows, after a brief Introduction, is our narrative comments on the Sheriff's proposal; followed by the Cost and Budget Analysis completed by Dr. John McKee, Ph.D., Director of Law Enforcement Management Center. L INTRODUCTION In early 1968, the City first commissioned an independent study and Cost Analysis of providing police services in Hermosa Beach. The study was conducted by Associated Consultants, a firm headed by G. Douglas Gourley, a highly respected expert in police administration. The firm conducted extensive research into every aspect of police operations, including called -for -services, uniform crime reporting and statistics, patrol operations, investigative functions, deployment, communications and records, etc. The final report consisted of an in-depth analysis of police department operations. The bottom-line conclusions included the simple fact that "if Hermosa Beach were removed five miles inland, it could provide police service at half the total cost." The report also indicated that the staffing was less than desirable, considering the "large influx of visitors to the beach community." Based on the report, the then City Council undertook an effort to obtain some funding from Los Angeles County, since, as the report pointed out, "...nearly all of the policing costs result from visitors from throughout the County." In early 1972, again in 1978, and finally in 1983, internal studies were ordered to determine if contracting the services of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department would provide law enforcement services at a reduced cost. In each case, three different police chiefs found, and recommended to the city manager(s) and City Council that the LASD services would cost considerably more to maintain the same, desired levels of service. Estimates for patrol and traffic services ranged up to 42% more; and investigative and support services would have been decreased. The administrators basically relied on a simple "apples to apples" comparison of total manhours provided by patrol, detectives and support services; and made a comparison to the LASD contract cost to provide the same level of service. This year, in February (1991), during contract negotiations between the City and HBPOA, the questions was again raised about contracting the LASD service. Ironically, in three of the prior cases, the internal study was initiated during contract negotiations. Hi I 3 E L 1. L L The City claimed that the timing was "purely a coincidence" and that the study had been under consideration since 1988 as part of an overall program to explore cost reductions, initiated by the City Council. At the bargaining table, the Director of Public Safety, Steve Wisniewski, who represented the City, assured us that ...I don't believe they (LASD) can provide the same level of service at our budgeted cost, but the City Council wants a report." He went on to tell us that we, the officers of the Department "...have been doing a great job...everything I've asked...but the City just doesn't want to pay more." The City, who had brought in an attorney to assist the Director and personnel administrator in negotiating, voiced the same observation in his second meeting with us. His threat wasn't even vailed. He said "...if you don't settle, the Council is going to consider contracting with Sheriff's." At the City Council meeting of February 26, 1991, Wisniewski presented a recommendation for a "Phase I" study of going to LASD services. The Sheriff's Department would provide the study. He concluded his report by saying his preliminary investigation showed the City would save $1.9 million over current costs. The HBPOA commissioned Dr. McKee the following week to complete an in-depth analysis of the police department's budget and total operating costs. That initial report was completed five weeks later. The report included all direct and indirect costs, and determined that the police department was currently operating at a cost of .73 cents per minute. Dr. McKee's initial review consisted of approximately 128 pages. Besides evaluating the police budget, he reviewed the total City operating budget; reviewed the 1989- 1990 Comprehensive Annual (City) Financial Report (Including the Report from an Independent Auditor), prepared by Finance Director Viki Copeland; and other records. When the Sheriff's Department.presented their final proposal (received by the City August 20, 1991) six months later, we provided our consultant with a complete copy. He completed a second analysis, of the final proposal, and re- turned that analysis to us on September 19, 1991. Dr. McKee's analysis follows a narrative of our observations, based in large part on his report, but including some separate data, comments and comparisons. We also translate some of the more complex data into understandable terms for the public. The combined text of our report(s), including Dr. McKee's 30 page summary, will be distributed to the general public, City Council, Council Candidates and press, several days prior to the scheduled public hearing on October 22, 1991, at approximately 7:30 pm. Two members of our Association who studied Cost and Budget Analysis under Dr. McKee will be available at the meeting to make a formal presentation and answer questions. They also spent many hours going over both the initial report and the Sheriff's final proposal with Dr. McKee and his staff. Finally, some of the material provided in the initial report will be offered for consideration in the next fiscal budget preparation. We believe that many of our department's current costs can be reduced and we shall look forward to working with the next City Manager to accomplish this goal. HBPOA BOARD OF DIRECTORS V s— :j a sy- 1 HBPOA NARRATIVE SUMMARY Over the past couple of years -- and more recently, upon the release of the Christopher Commission Report on the Los Angeles Police Department after the Rodney King incident -- two new phrases have emerged in Law Enforcement Administration. ,They are: "Community Oriented Policing" and "Service Oriented Policing." In hearings after the release of the Commission report, both current and former executives of the LAPD have publicly stated that to implement the recommended Community Oriented Policing for that agency would take 12 years and cost $36 million. One of the goals of community oriented policing (COP) is to assign officers to a specific community where they will interact with the residents and become truly involved in bettering the community. Police administrators from across the Nation have requested copies of the commission report in order to assess both their strengths and weaknesses. Many Sheriff's Departments, not only in California, but Nationwide, have already coined the phrase "Service Oriented Policing" (SOP). The goal in both orientations is the same, i.e., to cause the law enforcement personnel to be more responsible to the community they see. The Hermosa Beach police department has been engaged in community oriented policing for decades. Some of the methods recommended by the commission report, such as officers walking a foot beat, bicycle patrols, etc., have been in existance for years. We mention the above only because the Sheriff's Department representatives have consistantly, in meetings with our representatives, talked as though they had the "corner on the market." THE SHERIFF'S "STUDY": When we first received the Sheriff's study and proposal for contract service, we immediately found several serious "flaws" in their approach to determining policing needs for the City of Hermosa Beach. In addition, we found they compared "apples to oranges," failing to make accurate comparisons with available data. First, they selected three (weeks) out of a year, a week in April, July and October 1990, to calculate i.e., averaging in called -for -services, numbers of calls/hour/year, and relied on those weeks to determine manpower allocation/deployment. Those calculations were then used to compare real data in four cities they patrol; Duarte, Lomita, South El Monte and West Hollywood. Crime, arrest, DUI enforcement, traffic enforcement and traffic accident data was then compared among all five cities. (For the DUI, traffic enforcement and accident indexes they did later add data from Redondo Beach and Hawthorne.) In calculating total calls for service (page 25, LASD), they again used the three week averaging method, calculating a total of 11,575 for the year. They concluded "this is probably an overestimate." Computer data was available for calculating each category: During the 365 day period, there were 28,287 calls to the dispatch center. Of those, 11,439 involved priority calls for service. There were 5,615 "daily report numbers" issued (called DR#s) involving crime reports. During the period, our officers made 8,264 traffic stops and issued 5,279 traffic citations. There were 1,276 arrest (bookings) and 582 warrant detentions (released to other agencies/no booking). We also question the use of the cities LASD used for comparison. As noted in the 1968 Associated Consultants Survey, "...if Hermosa Beach were removed five miles inland..." (NOTE: In the LEMC analysis, page 15, the commentary indicates: "Beach cities are tourist attractions. During the summer or on any given holiday or very warm weather, their population swells to many times that of the resident population." During the year surveyed (1990), Los Angeles County Lifeguards reported 3.46 million visitors to Hermosa Beach. The cities we used for comparison, i.e., Huntington Beach, Monterey, Dana Point, Costa Mesa, Oceanside, Redondo Beach, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, Newport Beach, and Escondido, have much more in common with Hermosa Beach in average.) In addressing our current level of service, the LASD study purports to offer a "Cost of Duplicating Current Level -2- of Service as Provided by Hermosa Beach Police Department," at a represented cost savings of $1,010,928. ($4,422,364 to $3,411,436. or 23% reduction.) Our analysis found, assuming all LASD personnel worked full shifts, that the so-called "Duplicate Service" represented a 38% reduction in sworn -officer manhours (HBPD currently provides 72,529 hours vs. 44,928 LASD.) On page 14 of the LASD study, they present their "Re- commended Level of Service" proposal at a represented cost savings of $907,926 ($4,422,364 to $3,514,438. or 20.5% re- duction.) Our analysis found, again assuming all LASD personnel worked full shifts (based on 2,080 hour/year) that the "Recommended Level of Service" represented a 32% reduction in sworn -officer manhours (HBPD OF 72,529 hours vs. 49,482 LASD.) Our department, for all currently budgeted positions, provides a total of 107,033 work hours (sworn = 72,529 and non -sworn = 34,504) after deducting standard vacation, sick, compensatory, training, etc., hours. PLEASE KEEP THE ABOVE BUDGETED FIGURES IN MIND FOR REFERENCE LATER IN THIS REPORT... THE COST PER MINUTE; On page 4 of the LEMC analysis, Dr. McKee explains the "cost per minute" for comparing operating costs for over 400 police and 58 sheriffs departments. Every organization operating on a budget must establish the budget amount by estimating the costs of every operation within its jurisdiction. This operational cost must include the salaries and benefits of the people involved in every detail. It must also include all costs of equipment owned or rented, all supplies used, along with utilities, repairs, and/or any other expense needed to complete its purpose. This cost can best be determined by breaking it down to a cost per operating minute. This is done by allocating, to each employee, his or her share of the equipment and supply cost and a share of any other general cost affecting them. For example: A sergeant must carry the cost of his/her salary, benefits, any overtime, a share of supplies and equipment costs and determining that sergeant works a 40 hour week, this equates to 2,080 hours per year or 124,800 minutes during that year. 3 F L L To say that a sergeant costs the department his salary a year is only telling half the truth. For example, a sergeant making $50,000 must include fringe benefits of 60% of salary, bringing him up to $80,000 in compensation, followed by 15% of salary for operating expenses and 5% for fixed assets, now brings the cost to the department of $90,000. The $90,000 divided by 124,800 minutes equates to .72 cents per minute. This sergeant now has the benefit of dispatchers, clerks, other support services, etc., or an "overhead" rate of say, 80%. This, times the sergeants cost per minute, brings his cost to the department to $1.35 / minute. A typist, on the other hand, is making $20,000 a year plus fringe benefits of 40% (non -sworn) for a total compensation of $28,000. She uses more operating supplies than the sergeant, so she costs, say 26% more than that sergeant. Her total cost to the department (rounded off) is now $38,000, divided by 124,800, or .30 cents/minute. No overhead rate is applied to the typist, for she is the overhead. The cost per minute for each employee in the department can be determined in a like manner. When applying costs to the multiple tasks required of a police department, the department total cost per minute is applied. The operating cost per minute for the HBPD has been determined at .73 cents/minute by LEMC. The calculation is based on all direct and indirect costs, fixed assets, fringe benefits, etc., divided by total personnel X 124,800 min/yr. On pages 5 and 9 of the LEMC report, there is an explanation of determination of the LASD rate of $1.23 per minute operating cost. It is obvious, in evaluating their current charges per unit to contract cities, that an overhead rate was applied, which is included in the total. The figures they supplied on all contract cities indicate the rate is constant. WHY IS THE COST PER MINUTE FOR THE SHERIFF'S GREATER ? A police department has: A. A building B. Rolling stock (cars) and their maintenance C. A small jail, usually not more than 4 to 5 cells D. The usual office equipment, supplies, etc. E. Communications and dispatchers r F. G. Support services, records, training Miscellaneous charges for maintenance, repairs, rentals, limited contract services, etc. The sheriffs department has: All of A, B, D, E, F and G above; and in addition: H. County jail system I. Honor Farms J. Women's correctional institutes K. Contract cities L. A large administrative staff to oversee all of these activities This produces a large overhead out of necessity. The California Sheriff's are running 135% (State average). In dealing with contract cities, they minimize the overhead (LASD proposal, page 34 "Service Costs") by putting "on hold" services not provided until they are needed. For example, in their proposal they indicate that detective(s) costs are included in the total cost. They may charge for the services of a full time investigator, knowing that a police department may maintain 6. If the requirement becomes necessary, the sheriff simply makes use of the detective on hand until the need or emergency is over. Since the sheriff is paid by county taxes assessed against the same contract city paying for his services, he can furnish a stripped down version of a department, borrowing services from the county pool or a nearby contract city. APPLICATION TO LEMC ANALYSIS; On page .6 of the LEMC analysis is a conversion of data they supplied in their proposal. Although we have already questioned the validity of their comparison methods, the breakdown proves interesting, especially when comparing cost per minute conversations based on their data. To more graphically illustrate the comparison, the following 11 pages of graphs depict the data contained on page 6. _ -5 4 40,000/ 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 POPULATION DUARTE HERMOSA BEACH LOMITA 6 SOUTH EL WEST MONTE HOLLYWOOD I'M Mly k��rry«ten �g 0 J W W 2 0 cn Q � N. 0 —J �_1 J { a 2500 2000 1500 1000 HOURS PER WEEK DUARTE HERMOSA BEACH LOMITA SOUTH EL MONTE WEST HOLLYWOOD 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 MINUTES PER WEEK DUARTE HERMOSA BEACH LOMITA -9 SOUTH EL WEST MONTE HOLLYWOOD r 1 1 L L 7,000,000_7 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 YEARLY MINUTES ............... DUARTE HERMOSA BEACH LOMITA -10- SOUTH EL WEST MONTE HOLLYWOOD 60 50 40 30 20 10 L L EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEES DUARTE HERMOSA BEACH LOM ITA SOUTH EL MONTE WEST HOLLYWOOD 180-/ 160-1' I 140 120 100- 80 60 40 20 0 YEARLY MINUTES PER RESIDENT DUARTE HERMOSA BEACH LOMITA - 12 - SOUTH EL MONTE WEST HOLLYWOOD $1 .40 $1 .20 $1 .00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 $0.20 $0.00 COST PER MINUTE DUARTE HERMOSA BEACH LOMITA - 13 - SOUTH EL MONTE WEST HOLLYWOOD r E CALCULATED VS. GIVEN BUDGETS 8,000,000-1 7,000,000 6,000,000-" 5,000,000 4,000,000-Y1 3,000,000 2,000,000- 1 ,000,000 €' 0 A DUARTE HERMOSA BEACH LOMITA SOUTH EL WEST MONTE HOLLYWOOD 0 CALCULATED BUDGET CI GIVEN BUDGET(PAGE 26) - 14 - i 155,000 150,000 145,000 140,000 135,000 130,000 125,000 120,000 115,000 COST PER EMPLOYEE DUARTE HERMOSA BEACH LOMITA - 15 - SOUTH EL WEST. MONTE HOLLYWOOD 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% DIFFERENCE TO CALCULATED BUDGET - 16- Using the LASD figures (page 6 LEMC analysis) and their choice cities for comparison, note first the greatly reduced hours (thus minutes) of coverage provided for three of the cities, compared to Hermosa Beach current "sheriff's estimated coverage." Again, using their figures, note the yearly minutes of coverage per resident versus the service provided in the cities used by the Sheriff's Department. CALCULATED BUDGET: The bottom half of the chart on page 6 indicates the difference between "Calculated Budget" based on the sheriff's figures, and the "Given Budget" (page 26 of the LASD report). The "calculated budget" for Hermosa Beach, for example, using the sheriff's calculation of 781 hours service provided per week X 52 weeks X 60 minutes = 2,436,720 yearly minutes. That figure X .73 cents/minute would give the City a (calculated) budget of $1,778,805. Obviously, the total manpower calculation in hours per week was incorrect. However the calculated budget figures for the LASD were within range, using the $1.23/minute calculation. PERSONNEL SCHEDULING HOURS: On page 7 of the LEMC analysis is a breakdown of the scheduling hours used by LASD in determining the HBPD hours worked. Again, assuming the LASD figures are correct, the HBPD cost would be (April 1990 chart) $32,062. The comparable sheriff's cost for that same week would be $54,022, if they were to provide the same number of hours (minutes) service. In page 15 of the LASD proposal, they suggest 656 hours coverage/week (656 X 60 = 39,360 min/week or $48,413 / week) to be enhanced by 160 hours/week (160 X 60 = 9,600 min/week or $11,808 / week) additional for three and a half summer months. The charts on page 7 and 8 of the LEMC analysis show the real dollar differences for the sheriff's to provide the same level of service they estimate we are currently providing. We will offer further comment in our CONCLUSION to this report. - 17 - r i l L L L L INDICES: As we noted earlier, we take exception to the cities the LASD used for comparison. We have very little in common with West Hollywood, Duarte, South El Monte and Lomita. We also noted they did use Hawthorne and Redondo Beach in their analysis of the indices. The reader should note in the Sheriff's analysis (pages 20 through 24 LASD) that Hermosa Beach statistics exceed those of many of the cities used in comparison categories. In the 10 cities used in our analysis (page 10 LEMC report) we compared very favorably, exceeding most cities in effective enforcement. A graph of the 1990 Indexes is on the following page. It depicts our index in relation to the 10 cities average. There are so many variables, however, in establishing a true value of such indices that we, or any other agency for that matter, cannot prove or disprove traffic enforcement effectiveness using the index alone. We will further address this item at the public hearing. CRIME INDICES; F.B.I. UNIFORM CRIME REPORT: The Sheriff's did not offer comparative data on part one crimes in their proposal, only the Hermosa Beach stat- istics based on State reports. Generally, their averages in all crime categories are excellent, with the exception of West Hollywood where there are 8.8 crimes for every resident. The City of South El Monte at 14.1/resident was next, followed by La Puente at 16.2 and Duarte at 23. Pages 16 through 19 of the LEMC analysis compare data from all sheriff's contract cities; the ten beach cities used in our comparisons; and Hermosa Beach. The LASD contract city average is 21.2/resident and the ten beach cities average is 15.3. Hermosa Beach falls in the middle at 17. The remaining statistical data contained on these pages should be studied carefully and appropriate questions asked at the public hearing. Overall, Hermosa Beach is better than most, but not as good as we would like, in addressing part one crimes. LASD, considering the vast rural and urban areas they service does an outstanding job overall in dealing with part one crimes. t t t L 1990 INDFCS TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT INDEX DUI INDEX TRAFFIC COWSION INDEX HERMOSA BEACH 10 CITY AVERAGE - 19- r 1 3 L Every city and county in the State of California, and across the nation, is deeply concerned with the crime rates as reflected in the F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports. Crimes of violence are, obviously., of most concern. They need to be addressed through sustained, maximum law enforcement efforts, not reductions in existing levels. BALANCE OF THE LEMC ANALYSIS: The balance of the LEMC study deals with comparisons between 35 sheriff's departments and 300 California police departments; and cost per minute in various positions in 39 California sheriff's organizations. It should be noted that these averages generally fall well below those of LASD since many of the counties used in the study service large rural areas. CONCLUSION: As stated earlier in this report, the Hermosa Beach police department currently provides 107,033 hours of total staffing/year under our current budget at .73 cents/minute. As our analysis shows, if the Sheriff's department were to provide the same number of hours (minutes) at $1.23 per operating minute, the cost would be $7,899,035. (107,033 hours X 60 min/hour X $1.23). The "Recommended Level of Service" offered by the LASD represents a drastic reduction in the level of service currently being provided. DEPLOYMENT: The LASD is critical of our deployment in their report. While we agree that overall utilization of our existing personnel could be improved, our deployment and scheduling is based on years of experience in providing maximum personnel available to support the levels of service required by our residents (and directed by City Council in the budget process). In the summer months, we utilize reserve officers to augment our regular patrols. Generally, on weekend nights in particular, we field seven to nine regular units, traffic and special enforcement, and four to six reserve officers. All of our officers are highly trained, including our reserve officers, and are thoroughly familiar with the city and particular problem locations. They have a great tactical edge in addressing particular problems. - 20 - We deploy experienced field sergeants / watch - commanders to supervise and oversee officers and monitor their conduct. The sheriff's study indicates they will use a "team leader", which may or may not be a sergeant. Our officers are all trained in crime scene invest- igation and conduct thorough investigations at each scene, including latent print investigation. The LASD deputies, on the other hand, take a report and if they feel the crime scene warrants a latent fingerprint examination, a specialist "print deputy" is scheduled for a later time, generally several days later. DETECTIVES: In response to our questions regarding followup investigations (detectives), the LASD, in a letter dated September 27, and in a meeting with our representatives on October 1, said that "detectives are included in the total cost." They said that their investigators, under their proposal would probably "work out of the Lomita station" and that their current case load was "about four or five cases." The exact number of detectives working Hermosa cases would "be determined by the sheriff." We currently have four detectives and a detective Commander assigned full time and they average about 37 active cases at any given time. Their cost is included in our total operating budget and, in the event of an emer- gency, they may be utilized in uniformed patrol. The case load reported for LASD indicates to any experienced investigator that they are only working what we classify as "class 1" cases, or those that have a named suspect or immediate followup potential. Others, are in- activated without more than limited followup. Our detectives investigate all reported crimes and only inactivate those that become unworkable (no further leads) after 90 days. Although they are "inactivated", if new lead information developes, they are "activated" to conclusion. Our computerized method of tracking cases allows for easy retreval and identification by "method of operation", etc. Our detectives have experienced difficulty in locating an LASD report in the massive county -wide system when we identify a suspect for them. RESPONSE TIME: The LASD, in the same letter and subsequent meeting, told us that their "goal is four minutes but they are currently averaging six minutes" to what they term emergency - 21 - f responses. We have asked for radio logs from the various cities used in their survey and from Lawndale and Malibu. They could not provide documentation for their response times. Our current response for emergency calls is 2 minutes and 9 seconds (computerized report). The average in 72% of our "hot calls" is slightly under 2 minutes, at 1:54. COST INCREASES: Over the past five years, the cost of a 280 hour (around the clock) unit for LASD has increased by over 34% ($732,570 to $983,190). Although they indicate the cost in 1985-86 "reflects the inclusion of the Detective Service as a component of cost," we must use that increase in analysis of total cost, since Hermosa Beach costs also include detectives (and always have). LASD also tells us that under their proposal, they do not dispatch fire. If we are to contract with the sheriff, the cost of either maintaining our existing dispatch; or contracting with Regional Communications, etc., must be included in any cost of the program. Additionally, the LASD said they will provide a court liasion deputy, but will not provide a prosecutor. The alternatives for the city would be to either continue our current City Prosecutor or contract with the District Attorney's office. (Prior studies have indicated the latter is not desirable or cost effective.) Cost for the city prosecutor was calculated into our overhead. SUMMARY: We could continue with numerous other comparisons between current levels of service and those proposed by the LASD. Again, while we have the greatest respect for the service provided county -wide by the LASD, we have, and continue to provide the most cost effective service for the dollar. We shall look forward to answering questions at the public hearing scheduled for October 22, 1991. HBPOA BOARD OF DIRECTORS L t CITY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S PROPOSAL FOR A POLICE ♦ PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF • HERMOSA BEACH DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 1991 ♦ • • co • v I • AY • 1 • 'Si • C,i . 4,3"c .• . . [ P .•L. �j� e L ti s° L L L L ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ BY JOHN McKEE, Ph.D. DIRECTOR UW NFORCFJAE NT MANAGEMENT a MIR 3 A I t i L LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 328 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 F TITLEBUGET HERMOSAAS BEACHIPOLICEHE FOLIO 5691/1 SOURCE HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DATE 56911 INTRODUCTION ANALYSIS DIVISION When asked to institute a report such as this, I want to make it clear that no bias can enter this type of data. The numbers are not established by me. The rate of pay, the costs of operating supplies and those of fixed assets, again, are not mine. All of these numbers may be verified by studying the budget as published by the city or the county. The analysis of the budget is, again, a standard cost analysis of the same type as applied to the federal government agencies, private business ventures and non-profit organizations. Used by every industrial company around the world, the cost of doing business is determined by establishing the cost per minute. The number of minutes required to build an automobile times the company cost per minute plus the overhead rate determines the cost of the car. The product of law enforcement agencies is the number of called -for services handled during the year times the number of minutes per call times the cost per minute and overhead added where applicable. If a call is submitted regarding an abandoned vehicle, the total time involved multiplied by the cost per minute gives us the cost of that call. Now the question arises: Could that call have been handled in less time and thus reduce the cost? This system allows a logical comparison between departments, both police and sheriff. If Department A could handle a standard call for $50, why can't others? This system allows comparisons between agencies and invites inquiries from some on the methods of others where the cost is cheaper. In conclusion, no attempt is being made to prove one agency is more costly to the people than another. We simply let the facts speak for themselves and then we ask why. 1 John McKee, Ph.D., Director LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 BUDGET ANALYSIS OF THE TITLE HERMOSA BEACH POLICE FOLIO 5691/1 SOURCE HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DATE 56911 ANALYSIS DIVISION SOME IMPORTANT FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED Proprietary Too much cannot be said for the ownership of a police department by the city it polices; to have its officers and other personnel live and work in the city. This makes it possible for the officers to identify with the community, and because they are from the community they are keenly aware of its problems and try to solve them accordingly. Disciplinary actions take place within the city. The officers who commit infractions have to live with them in their own community. On the other hand, a sheriff's organization assigns their deputies to the same areas, but these deputies have no identification with the community. In fact, some are switched from one contract city to another as part of an ongoing training program, and their allegiance is to their department. Identification with the community and its problems is minimal. This creates a very unhappy situation, especially where the city is composed of. large minority groups. In fact, respect for the town or city leaders is minimal, to say the least. These people are not their bosses and so they respect only their own superiors. Evidence of this is abundant in studies of contract cities. In fact, more and more cities want to break. away but are faced with tremendous "start-up" costs making it impossible to do. 2 LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 328 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 TITLE BUDGET HERMOSAABEACH IPOLLICEHE FOLIO 5691/1 SOURCE HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DATE 56911 BORROWING ANALYSIS DIVISION We use the term, "borrowing" to identify the transfer of deputies from one city to another, especially if they are borderline when a problem needs more manpower than the city has available. First of all, the city contracts for a "law" car to police the area. They pay for EV this. All of a sudden their car is borrowed by another city to assist in an / emergency. The sheriff does not return the money spent by the beat car to \,' j`� the city when borrowed. i L L In effect, the city is paying for some other city's policing. There should be a rule that no car may be transferred from its regular beat to another city without paying the city for its absence. OVERHEAD Those police officers (deputy sheriffs) and their investigators are considered "direct" people, for they are directly responsible for apprehending the criminal population. All ranks are considered "supervision" from sergeant on up. All personnel assigned to assist these officers (deputies) are considered to be "indirect." These are not as highly paid and do not have the benefits that the sworn personnel have and do not face the hazards that the sworn do. The cost of these "non -policing" personnel is divided by the cost of the policing personnel to obtain the "overhead" percent. All factors are included covering related expenses. 3 LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 TITLE HERMOSAABEACHIPOLLICEHE FOLIO 5691/1 SOURCE HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DATE 56911 THE COST PER MINUTE ANALYSIS DIVISION Over the past 20 years, the "cost per minute" seems to be the most reliable method for comparing the operating costs of the over 400 police and 58 sheriffs departments. The total operating manpower hours times 60 minutes are divided into the total department budget for the year. The result is the cost per operating minute. In all cases it is assumed that all personnel work a 40 -hour week for 52 weeks resulting in 2,080 hours each per year. This in turn is multiplied by 60 minutes resulting in a figure of 124,800 minutes per employee per year. In cases where longer shifts are utilized, the total minutes for the department must be the addition of all standard minutes to those of the different shifts. Part-time employees are excluded in all cases. In cases where department personnel, such as a police officer, are assigned the duty of keeping the peace, say, at a football game or other, the department would not only charge the user the officer's cost per minute but will add the department overhead rate to it. Overhead may not be applied to the non -sworn, supervisory or administrative personnel, for they constitute the overhead rate. 4 LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 FINAL ANALYSIS OF THE TITLE SHERIFF'S PROPOSAL FOLIO 9191 SOURCE L.A. COUNTY SHERIFF DATE 9/6/91 ANALYSIS DIVISION FINAL ANALYSIS All sheriff agencies compose their budget along the guidelines of the Federal Manual, as do all police agencies. These guidelines are quite specific and they compose the budget as follows: Base Fringe Total Operating Capital Salaries Benefits Recompense Expenses Equipment Total Since certain operating expenses are not allowed as well as the use of capital equipment, it is important to know exactly what portion is being included. For example: Should a contract city have to pay a deputy's association dues? Or pay for magazine (technical) subscriptions? Or expenses incurred while undergoing training hours? Should the use of certain capital equipment used by the deputies other than law cars, helicopters, etc. be paid for by the city? And what about the fringe benefits? How much is paid by the county and what portion should be paid for by the contract city. Is the city paying for fringe benefits already paid for by the county? If they do, does the county use this for fringe benefits and not use their own, or are they collecting it and using it for something else? These questions need to be addressed. Taking a typical example submitted by the Sheriff on the City of Duarte. He shows a cost of $152,853 per man per year. Using our state averages for sheriffs, we break it down as follows: Distribution Cost State Average Fund Yearly 41% Base Salary $28,103 29% Fringe Benefits 19,877 11% Operating Expense 7,539 19% Capital Equipment 13,025 100% $68,544 Applying the standard state average overhead rate for cities of this size, of 222%, we have 222 x $68,544 = $152,853. The average deputy sheriff's salary = $39,625 (state average). IN SUMMARY In analyzing the data presented, the above analysis seems to stand up to the state average distribution. It is definite that an overhead rate was used. Also, there is no breakdown of costs as shown above; it would seem important to see one. The city should have control over operating and capital expenses at all times. 5 r— a C' • rum.* ,,. ` - - • - i`w+�,�.r �4wwrr tikt," LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 328 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER. CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7788 City Duarte Hermosa Beach Lomita South El Monte West Hollywood Note: *,- 01164448, AriM8441 TITLE ANALYSIS OF FIVE -CITY DATA USED BY SHERIFF IN PROPOSAL FOLIO 9191 SOURCE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S PROPOSAL DATE 9/5/91 ANALYSIS DIVISION INTRODUCTION The proposal submitted by the Los Angeles County Sheriff to the City of Hermosa Beach is analyzed using state averages and simple basic economics. On page 17 of the Sheriff's Police Service Proposal, 5 cities are listed with man hours per week, the types of cars, etc. What follows below is a composite using the information on page 17 as well as applying the analysis made on other pages, such as page 14, where their final proposal is made. Population 20,688 18,219 19,382 20,850 36,118 Square Miles 6.6 1.4 1.9 2.8 2.0 Hours/ Week 416 781 354 680 2,032 Minutes/ Week 249,60 46,860 21,240 40,800 121,920 Yearly Minutes 1,297,920 2,436,720 1,104,480 2,121,600 6,339,840 Equiv. Employees 10.4 19.5 8.9 17.0 50.8 Yearly Min./ Cost/ Resident Minute 62.5 $1.23 133.8 .73 56.9 1.23 101.0 1.23 175.5 1.23 The state average hours per employee is 40 per week. This times 52 weeks equals 2,080 hours per year which multiplied by 60 minutes equals 124,800 minutes per year. The total yearly minutes when divided by this figure gives us the equivalent employees, regardless of the shift worked. City Duarte Hermosa Beach Lomita South El Monte West Hollywood Calculated Budget $1,589,676 1,778,805 1,385,510 2,609,568 7,798,003 Cost/ Employee $152,853 127,971 152,641 153,504 137,288 Given Budget/ Pg. 26 $1,690,067 3,591,584 1,314,898 2,025,859 7,029,177 Difference to Calculated Budget +6% +101% -4% - 33% - 10% LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 r411444 eit44.6.11 tW4A40,4 1441AWA 04 1644 04 4 iA $444414:1 :1 144661 *41&1 0,64101 +w7wAu 1 h 411.1dit TITLE PERSONNEL SCHEDULING HOURS BY HERMOSA BEACH POLICE FOLIO 9191 SOURCE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S PROPOSAL TO THE CITY DATE 9/91 ANALYSIS DIVISION INTRODUCTION The scheduled work hours of the Hermosa Beach Police, as shown on page 5 of the Sheriff's report to the City on contract costs, have been priced out at the city police rate of 73v per minute. The Sheriff's comparable cost is $1.23. PERSONNEL SCHEDULING HOURS APRIL 1990 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Total Hours 82 104 100 144 110 100 92 732 Minutes 4,920 6,240 6,000 8,640 6,600 6,000 5,520 43,920 Cost $3,592 $4,550 $4,388 $6,307 $4,380 $4,417 $4,030 $32,062 Comparable sheriffs = 43,920 x $1.23, or $54,022 Note: 43,920 minutes _ 2,400 weekly minutes (40 x 60 min.) is the equivalent of 18.3 employees. JULY 1990 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Total Hours 92 92 92 112 134 134 136 792 Minutes 5,520 5,520 5,520 6,720 8,040 8,040 8,160 47,520 Cost $4,030 $4,030 $4,030 $4,906 $5,869 $5,884 $5,957 $34,690 Comparable sheriffs = 47,520 x $1.23, or $58,450 Note: 47,520 minutes _ 2,400 weekly minutes (40 x 60 min.) is the equivalent of 19.8 employees LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 r roiikl 4++:MWl"� yiaWYiIfi1W{ /miwowl TITLE PERSONNEL SCHEDULING HOURS BY HERMOSA BEACH POLICE (cont.) FOLIO 9191 SOURCE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S PROPOSAL TO THE CITY DATE 9/91 ANALYSIS DIVISION PERSONNEL SCHEDULING HOURS OCTOBER 1990 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Total Hours 70 100 104 146 144 158 124 816 Minutes 4,200 4,200 6,240 8,760 8,640 9,480 7,440 48,960 Cost $3,066 $3,066 $4,559 $6,395 $6,307 $6,920 $5,431 $35,740 Comparable sheriffs = 48,960 x $1.23, or $60,221 Note: 48,960 minutes _ 2,400 weekly minutes (40 x 60 min.) is the equivalent of 20.4 employees ALL COSTS CALCULATED AT DEPARTMENT COST OF .73¢ PER MINUTE i 4 L LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 CENTER ESTABLISHING THE COST PER TITLE MINUTE OF THE L.A.S.O. FOLIO 9191 SOURCE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF DATE CURRENT ANALYSIS DIVISION LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S COST OF DUPLICATING HERMOSA BEACH POLICE COVERAGE OF HERMOSA BEACH ANNUALLY Case 1: 1 officer in a 56 -hour law car; 9 officers involved. Cost per unit = $215,403 for a total of $1,938,627. Analysis 56 hours per week for 52 weeks = 2,912 hours. 2,912 hours x 60 minutes = 174,720 minutes per year. Dividing the cost per unit by the total minutes gives us $215,403 - 174,720 minutes = $1.23 per minute. Case 2: 1 officer 40 hours in a general law car; 3 officers total Cost per unit = $153,859. Analysis 40 hours x 52 weeks = 2,080 hours per year x 60 minutes gives us 124,800 minutes per year. Dividing the cost of the unit by the total minutes gives us $153,859 - 124,800 = $1.23 per minute. Case 3: 1 officer 40 hours per week in a traffic law car; 2 officers involved at a cost of $135,998 • Analysis Using the same calculations as Case 2 above, the cost of the unit, $135,998 ± 124,800 minutes = $1.09 per minute. Case 4: Dedicated detectives; 4 @ $115,089 per unit. Analysis Assuming that these detectives will work a 40 -hour week when on a case for the city, ,the unit cost of $115,089 124,800 = .920 per minute. Anything less than 40 hours a week will only drive the cost higher. Case 5: 2 officers in a 56 -hour law car for a cost of $211,854. Analysis Using the same calculations as Case 1 above, the cost of the unit, $211,854 _ 174,720 = $1.21. 9 r i LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 NOTE TITLE TRAFFIC INDICES FOLIO 9000 SOURCE CITIES LISTED BELOW DATE CURRENT ANALYSIS DIVISION INTRODUCTION Although traffic indices are normally part of the cost structure, it must be determined that a higher index ratio indicates increased costs. The following formula is applied to these three indices: 1. Traffic: Sum of hazardous citations and DUI arrests divided by the number of injury plus fatal collisions. 2. DUI Indices: Sum of DUI arrests divided by the sum of fatal plus injury collisions. 3. Traffic Collision Index: Sum of non -injury collisions divided by the sum of fatal plus injury collisions. 1990 INDICES The cities used in determining a beach city average include: Santa Barbara, Monterey, Santa Monica, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Escondido, Oceanside and Laguna. Traffic Enforcement Index: Hermosa Beach = 35.9 10 -city average = 32.1 DUI Index: Hermosa Beach = 12.8 10 -city average = 9.7 Traffic Collision Index: Hermosa Beach = .98 10 -city average = 1.5 COMMENTARY Using the Traffic Enforcement Index, it must be noted that greater emphasis would have to be placed on the issuing of hazardous citations and DUI arrests to raise the index by a few points. This concentrated effort would result in greater costs to the department, and although there is no question here of value to the public the availability of budget to accomplish this could be a serious impediment. The same budget philosophy applies to the other indices as well. 10 LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 INTRODUCTION CENTER TITLE DETERMINING OPERATING COSTS FOLIO 9191 SOURCE FEDERAL MANUAL; OTHER DATE CURRENT ANALYSIS DIVISION EQUATING COSTS WITH PERFORMANCE A budget is constructed of the costs of operation. It doesn't matter what is being done; it can be priced out in a sound basic formula. For example: The cost of creating a painting—truly an abstract cost but a real cost nevertheless. There is cost of materials, a prorated cost for rent, heat and light, and the rate per hour of the creative artist. The latter is always a matter of dispute, for any art lover will tell you that no price can be put on an artist's genius. Again, not true. When Gainesborough was at the height of his fame, anyone commissioning him to do a portrait knew that, based on his, current value in the art market, the portrait would be very expensive—perhaps as high as $5,000 per hour! The materials were pertinent but insignificant to the cost of the labor involved. At the other end of the spectrum, automobile repairs are listed as to the costs per part and the cost of a mechanic's labor hour. It doesn't matter what task is being performed, it can be costed to an acceptable fee. In dealing with law enforcement costs, the argument emerges, "How can a price be placed on the hours spent on a crime or its solution?" Repetition makes it possible. What follows will illustrate the point. THE CALLED -FOR SERVICE Law enforcement agencies, such as police and sheriff, measure their performance in four parts: visibility to the public; officer -initiated action; called -for services; reports and paperwork. Visibility inspires public confidence and undoubtedly prevents a contemplated crime from taking place just by law enforcement being seen. An officer while on his "rounds" spots a crime in motion or one about to take place and by being on the scene at the right time can "initiate" action on his own (without going through the dispatcher until later) to prevent the crime or apprehend the persons involved. But, no doubt, the single largest part of an officer's day are the calls that come in from the citizenry, the "calls for service." Most departments keep track of travel time to the scene, time on the scene, and time to return to patrol. In studying police or sheriff activities, it all comes down to the element of time. Everything, then, can be measured in minutes. Once the cost of such a minute is found, the application of this cost to the total minutes indicates the cost of the service. Year in and year out the time expended in called -for services averages out with great consistency. The overhead rate is applied and the sum total of all of these services should equal the budget for the year. This cost per minute is calculated through a set formula which is described in the next section. 11 t r r i i i L L LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 CENTER TITLE DETERMINING OPERATING COSTS FOLIO 9191 SOURCE 300ERAL POLICENUAL BUDGETSS DATE CURRENT ANALYSIS DIVISION THE COST PER MINUTE The cost per minute begins with the basic costs of operation involved. These are: 1. Basic Salaries 2. All Fringe Benefits 3. Supplies 4. Equipment 5. Contracted Services 6. Overtime Overtime, generally speaking, is considered redundant and is usually left out of the equation. However, in some cases it is unusually high and must be prorated. The addition of all six items above constitute the budget. Added to this is any part-time employee who is priced in the same manner as the 6 above and added to the budget. Then comes the time spent on the job. Normally, most employees work a 40 -hour work week which equates to 2,080 hours per year, and this in turn equates to 124,800 minutes per year. Part-time costs are calculated in the same manner, with the time adjusted. THE APPLICATION Given a budget of $3,307,200 for 53 total personnel, it breaks down as follows: 1. Salaries = $1,653,600 (50% of total budget) 2. Fringe Benefits = $826,800 (25%) 3. Supplies and operation expenses = $496,080 (15%) 4. Capital expense = $330,720 (10%) 5. Total budget = $3,307,200 (100%) Total personnel = 53 sworn and non -sworn. Using a 40 -hour work week, or 124,800 minutes per year, total minutes equate to 6,614,400 per year. Dividing the total budget by the total minutes gives us 500 per minute. This is the department cost per minute. Patrol costs per minute, clerical help, detectives, etc. may be costed out separately with quite a different set of costs. For example, here is the budget breakdown by function: 1. Administration = 12% of total budget, or $396,864 2. Patrol/Operations = $1,852,032 3. Investigations = $496,040 4. Support Services = $562,224 5. Total Budget = $3,307,200 (12) Personnel assigned: 1. Administration = 3 2. Patrol/Operations = 33 3. Investigations = 8 4. Support Services = 10 TITLE DETERMINING OPERATING COSTS FOLIO 9191 FEDERAL MANUAL AND SOURCE 300 POLICE BUDGETS DATE CURRENT LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 Applying the formula: ANALYSIS DIVISION THE APPLICATION (continued) 1. Administration Budget = $396,86.4- (12% of total budget) Total personnel = 3 Total minutes = 374,400 $396,864 - 374,400 = $1.06 per minute 2. Patrol/Operations Budget = $1,852,032 (56% of total budget) Total personnel = 33 Total minutes = 4,118,400 $1,852,032 - 4,118,400 = 440 per minute 3. Investigations Budget = $496,040 (15% of total budget) Personnel = 8 Total minutes = 998,400 $496,040 - 998,400 = 490 per minute 4. Support Services Budget = $562,224 (17% of total budget) Personnel = 10 Total minutes = 1,248,000 $562,224 _ 1,248,000 = 450 per minute 5. Total Department Budget = $3,307,200 (100%) Personnel = 53 Total minutes = 6,614,400 $3,307,200 _ 6,614,400 = 500 per minute Any time spent on administrative problems should be priced at $1.06 per minute. Called -for services or other patrol/traffic functions are costed at 440 per minute with overhead added. In the same manner, investigative cases are priced at 490 per minute, and all clerical, non -sworn or contract services are priced at 450 per minute. If a meeting were called by the Chief, 1 Captain, 4 Lieutenants and 6 Sergeants, the cost would be this, assuming a one-hour meeting: Chief = 60 minutes x $1.06 per minute = $63.60 2 Lieutenants from Patrol = 120 minutes x 440 - $52.80 2 Lieutenants from Investigations = 120 minutes x 490 = $58.80 4 Sergeants from Support Services x 60 minutes = 240 minutes x 450 = $108.00 2 Sergeants from Patrol = 120 minutes x 440 = $52.80 Total cost of the one-hour meeting would be $336.00 Using the department 500 per minute would equal 11 employees x 60 minutes, or 660 minutes x 500 per minute = $330. Only $6.00 difference from using the breakdown. (13) I I- i L LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 TITLE DETERMINING OPERATING COSTS FOLIO 9191 SOU RCE 300ERAL POLICENUAL BUDGAND ETS DATE CURRENT ANALYSIS DIVISION DETERMINING THE OVERHEAD RATE Labor has always been divided into two types, direct and indirect. A mechanic working alone tunes up an automobile and charges for parts and labor. As business progresses, he finds it necessary to hire a bookkeeper to keep track of his income, expenditures and taxes. This employee has nothing to do with tuning an automobile but is vital to the mechanic who finds that he cannot do it all. Therefore, he must prorate the "indirect" labor costs and add it to the tuneup bill. This is known as overhead. Fancy shops or hotels with all types of luxuries have a high overhead rate whereas simple motels have very low overhead. It then rests with the question of affordability. Law enforcement agencies may be analyzed in the same manner. The principle purpose of the law enforcement agency is to maintain order, prevent crime and apprehend criminals. The personnel involved in this are sworn officers. They carry arms and are authorized to arrest and, if necessary, employ their guns. These are "direct" labor. Those who supervise, sworn or not, and those who support these officers with clerical, dispatch, records, labs, and other such duties are considered to be "indirect" labor. The basic operating theory is to ensure that the "support" or "indirect" people simply do not exceed the direct personnel. It is the duty of the chief administrator to ensure such an imbalance does not occur. Many a CEO has lost his position because he let the overhead rate almost reach the direct level. Removing the sergeants, secretarial or clerical personnel assigned to patrol and investigations leaves us with a total direct budget of $1,848,112. Subtracting this from the total of $3,307,200 leaves $1,459,088. This sum divided by the direct sum = 78% overhead. This overhead rate applies only to costs incurred by patrol or investigations. For example, if an officer was assigned to maintain order at a high school football game, the department would charge the school district the officer's rate per hour plus a 78% overhead rate. No overhead rate may be charged to the rest of the department because they in effect are the overhead. Overhead Formula Indirect Dollars = Overhead Rate Direct Dollars Cost Per Minute Formula Total Dollars Personnel x 124,800 = Cost per minute (14) LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 PART ONE CRIME RATES PER TITLE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS FOLIO 9191 SOURCE F.B.I. REPORT UNIFORM CRIME DATE 1990 ANALYSIS DIVISION Part One Crimes/ Contract Cities 1. Agoura Hills 2. Artesia 3. Bellflower 4. Carson 5. Cerritos 6. Commerce 7. Cudahy 8. Diamond Bar 9. Duarte 10. Hawaiian Gardens 11. La Canada Flintridge 12. Lakewood 13. La Mirada 14. Lancaster 15. La Puente 16. Lawndale 17. Lomita 18. Lynwood 19. Norwalk 20. Palmdale 21. Paramount 22. Pico Rivera 23. Rancho Palos Verdes 24. Rosemead 25. San Dimas 26. Santa Clarita 27. Santa Fe Springs 28. South El Monte 29. Temple City 30. Walnut 31. West Hollywood Beach Cities 1. Costa Mesa 2. Dana Point 3. Huntington Beach 4. Monterey 5. Oceanside 6. Redondo Beach 7. Santa Barbara 8. Santa Monica 9. Newport Beach 10. Escondido # Residents 33.4 19.8 15.2 17.9 14.7 4.7 24.0 28.8 23.0 10.8 39.9 17.8 27.9 19.1 16.2 14.6 26.2 14.9 20.1 17.6 13.3 18.9 59.3 17.2 23.8 27.9 6.7 14.1 29.9 30.8 8.8 11.8 25.6 19.3 14.5 14.2 15.7 16.8 9.3 14.6 11.8 (15) Contract City Average: Beach City Average: Hermosa Beach: COMMENTARY 21.2 15.3 17.0 Beach cities are tourist attractions. During the summer or on any given holiday or very warm weather, their population swells to many times that of the resident population. It is a great tribute to the beach police departments that for 1990 they kept the Part One Crimes down to a level of 1 for every 15.3 residents. The contract cities indicate an average of 1 crime for every 21.2 people, a difference of only 38%. Hermosa Beach, at 17.0, is better than the 10 cities average. LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 PART ONE CRIMES PER RESIDENT TITLE IN EIGHT BIG CITIES FOLIO 9191 F.B.I. ORIFORM SOURCE CRIME REPORT DATE 1990 INTRODUCTION ANALYSIS DIVISION Here, by way of comparison, are eight of the highest crime -ridden cities in the United States. The rate per number of residents is shown. Total Part One Rate/ Cities Population* Crimes Resident 1. New York City 7,327,564 710,222 10.3 2. Miami 358,548 68,209 5.3 3. New Orleans 496,938 61,799 8.0 4. Dallas 576,259 156,267 6.6 5. Seattle 3,485,398 68,053 7.6 6. Los Angeles 616,243 321,536 10.8 7. Las Vegas 223,019 43,944 , . 14.0 8. Akron 17,496 12.2 *= 1990 Census COMMENTARY Dallas and Seattle seem to have the worst rates in the nation. Simply put, it means that Dallas has 1 Part One crime for every 7 (rounded off) people. No one really believes that it could ever get to a one on one basis, but sometimes these cities seem to be getting there! 16 i i LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 TITLE PARTONECRIES LOMRACT CITY FOLIO 9191 F.B.I.'s UNIFORM SOURCE CRIME REPORT FOR 1990 DATE CURRENT Contract. City ANALYSIS DIVISION INTRODUCTION In the report submitted by the Los Angeles County Sheriff to the City of Hermosa Beach, the contract cities listed do not compare to the City of Hermosa Beach in that they are not resort cities or face the problems of beach traffic and ocean recreational activity. Ten cities of approximately the same size have been depicted here while 10 beach cities follow. PART ONE CRIMES IN THE AREA COVERED BY THE L.A. COUNTY SHERIFF Artesia Commerce Hawaiian Gardens La Canada Flintridge Lomita San Dimas Temple City South El Monte Walnut Santa Fe Springs Hermosa Beach Cost/ Population Capita 15,464 $ 59 12,135 299 13,639 76 19,378 78 19,382 83 32,397 88 31,100 54 20,850 119 29,105 52 15,520 235 18,219 $289 17 Total Percent Part One Crimes Increase/ 1980 1990 decrease 908 782 (14%) 2,009 2,560 27% 930 1,259 35% 640 486 (24%) 1,027 739 (29%) 1,323 1,359 2.7% 1,158 1,039 (10%) 1,503 1,483 (1.4%) 0 946 100% 2,270 2,324 2.3% 1,092 1,067 (2.3%) LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 Beach Cities 1. Costa Mesa 2. Dana Point 3. Escondido 4. Huntington Bch 5. Monterey 6. Newport Bch 7. Oceanside 8. Redondo Bch 9. Santa Barbara 10. Santa Monica Note: ** r'--^r.ww.%�w�awwa xuruaur4 j� tibW4 �1wr8,li 1'YIr'i1Fi�"+ 144AW. f7LW:iJ 1 �6+G TITLE PART ONE CRIMES FOR TEN SELECTED BEACH CITIES FOLIO 9191 SOURCE F.B.I.'s UNIFORM CRIME REPORT FOR 1990 DATE 9/90 ANALYSIS DIVISION poropitii INTRODUCTION Part One Crimes represent an average of 11% of the total "calls for service" of a police department in California. PART ONE CRIMES Auto Population Murder Rape Robbery Assault Burglary Larceny Theft Total Rate** 96,357 31,896 108,638 181,519 31,954 66,643 128,398 60,167 85,571 86,905 6 32 170 572 1,497 9,452 1,007 8,736 11 4 7 30 124 337 658 87 1,247 26 4 44 246 644 1,845 8,980 1,441 9,204 12 5 57 197 538 1,902 5,386 1,130 9,216 20 1 17 36 131 422 1,506 82 2,198 15 2 25 64 207 1,137 2,644 408 4,538 15 11 95 363 993 1,889 4,238 1,457 9,046 14 2 18 149 217 848 2,020 587 3,841 16 5 26 130 468 1,087 3,080 348 5,091 17 6 21 614 577 1,482 5,078 1,541 9,389 9 A measure of law enforcement effectivity is to divide the population by the total Part One Crimes. This, in effect, states that one crime has been committed for "X" number of people. This varies from city to city and is influenced by the type of city and its environment. For example, Santa Monica, above, has 1 crime for every 9 residents. Dana Point has 1 crime for every 26 residents. Reason? Dana Point is a fairly new city. It has fewer people and the crime rate has not had much opportunity to grow. Of the 10 listed above, Santa Monica and Costa Mesa seem to have the worst rate. All of the others seem fairly consistent. LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 TITLE "CALLED -FOR SERVICES" FOLIO 9000 SOURCE REPORTs1990FOR�� CRIME DATE ANALYSIS DIVISION INTRODUCTION The omission of the Larceny category here is not understood. It is always the largest of the 7 categories. PART ONE CRIMES FOR HERMOSA BEACH Year Murder- Rape Robbery Assault Burglary Larceny 1990 0 2 20 71 341 497 1989 1 6 27 81 316 496 1980 0 16 39 84 374 446 Auto Theft Total 1990 127 1,067 1989 126 1,053 1980 133 1,092 COMMENTARY It is a remarkable feat to keep the Part One Crimes at the same level over 10 years, much less reducing the overall crime rate by 2.3%. Larceny, the least controllable of all Part One, Crimes, has risen by 11% in 10 years. It also is remarkable that this has not gone any higher. It is difficult to understand why this was not included in the tally submitted by the sheriff. TEN-YEAR REVIEW OF PART ONE CRIMES FOR L.A. COUNTY SHERIFF Auto Year Murder Rape Robbery Assault Burglary Larceny Theft Total 1990 215 400 4,664 12,125 10,394 13,908 8,871 50,577 1980 201 728 3,932 7,732 21,556 20,979 6,966 62,094 % Difference* 7% (45%) 19% 57% (52%) (34%) 27% (18.6%) * = Percent increase/decrease over 1980. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF MANPOWER EMPLOYMENT 1980/1990 Sworn Non -Sworn. Total 1990 5,053 1,600 6,653 1980 5,316 1,876 7,192 % Decrease from 1980 (5%) (14.5%) (7.5%) (19) LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 TITLE SHERIFF'S OPERATING AVERAGES FOLIO 100E SOURCE 35 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS DATE CURRENT ANALYSIS DIVISION INTRODUCTION This third quarter report excludes the five largest departments. These are the subject of a separate report. Also excluded are very small departments. BUDGET ANALYSIS TOTAL EMPLOYEES* A► B C D 1. Percent of the general fund 25% 24% 28% 35% 2. Cost per capita (population) $101 $78 $75 $97 3. Budget analyzed as follows (in % to total) A. Salaries percent 40% 40% 38% 41% B. Fringe benefits 35% 28% 38% 29% C. Operating expenses 11% 15% 12% 11% D. Fixed assets (capital equipment) 14% 17% 17% 19% 4. Department cost per minute 911 771 641 631 5. Department overhead 135% 131% 121% 122% 6. Average cost of a "called -for service" $58 $43 $41 $27 7. Cost of hiring an employee $1,600 $1,222 $1,459 $1,009 8. Cost of separating an employee $1,900 $1,702 $1,313 $1,119 9. Male prisoner cost per day $24 $22 $31 $21 10. Female prisoner cost per day $31 $29 $41 $27 ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS 11. Number of sworn per 1,000 (population) 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.5 12. Ratio of sworn to total personnel 40% 42% 44% 41% 13. Ratio of non -sworn to total personnel 60% 58% 56% 59% 14. Ratio of captains to total personnel 1.5% 1.3% 1.8% 02% 15. Ratio of lieutenants to total personnel 09% 10% 09% 10% 16. Ratio of sergeants to total personnel 12% 15% 13% 13% 17. Ratio of clerical to total personnel 32% 35% 37% 31% 18. Ratio of dispatch personnel to total clerical 05% 05% 04% 07% 19. Percent considered supervision 28% 27% 27% 31% 20. Ratio of jail personnel to total personnel 31% 31% 28% 34% 21. Percent of traffic personnel to total personnel 26% 19% 18% 24% FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS 22. Percent of patrol to total sworn personnel 41% 45% 45% 45% 23. Percent of investigative personnel to total 26% 22% 19% 15% 24. Percent of administrative personnel to total 25% 24% 17% 12% 25. Percent of support service personnel to total 17% 17% 20% 15% 26. Percent patrol visibility** 18% 17% 21% 19% 27. Called -for services per capita (population) .71 .66 .57 .51 28. Part One Crimes per 1,000 (population) 18 18 21 21 29. Percentage Part One Crimes to total called -for services 11% 10% 09% 08% NOTES **See the "Visibility" formula in the Law Enforcement Manager's Handbook. *EMPLOYEES/DEPT: A = 1,000 + B = 500 to 999 C = 150 to 499 D = 25 to 149 (20) r r LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 TITLE POLICE OPERATING AVERAGES FOLIO 111790 300 CALIFORNIA SOURCE POLICE DEPARTMENTS DATE CURRENT BUDGET ANALYSIS ANALYSIS DIVISION INTRODUCTION The budgets of 300 California police departments have been averaged excluding the largest (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Long Beach, San Diego). NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES* A B C D 1. The percent of the general fund 20% 22% 22% 28% 2. Cost per capita (population) $139 $125 $161 $138 3. Percent of salaries to total budget 38% 39% 36% 41% 4. Percent of fringe benefits to total budget 37% 38% 35% 40% 5. Percent of operating expenses to total budget 15% 18% 14% 15% 6. Percent of fixed assets to total budget 10% 05% 15% 04% 7. Department cost per minute 910 670 730 700 8. Department overhead rate 111% 1 10% 109% 108% 9. Average cost of a "called -for service" $35 $31 $28 $39 10. Average cost of hiring an employee $1,329 $1,404 $1,505 $1,232 11. Average cost of separating an employee $1,612 $1,398 $1,499 $1,432 ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS 12. Sworn rate per 1,000 population 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.2 13. Percent sworn to total personnel 49% 51% 50% 48% 14. Percent non -sworn to total personnel 51% 49% 50% 52% 15. Supervisory ratios (as a % of total personnel) A. Captains 1.5% 2.1% 2.2% 2.1% B. Lieutenants 05% 04% 04% 04% C. Sergeants 12% 10% 11% 10% D. Total supervision 28% 30% - 25% 18% 16. Functional distribution (as a % of total personnel) E. Communications 14% 14% 12% 12% F. Clerical 21% 20% 21% 24% G. Patrol (as a % of total sworn) 58% 54% 62% 61% H. Traffic (as a % of patrol) 18% 18% 20% 20% I. Investigation 10% 12% 12% 11% J. Administration 16% 16% 13% 12% K. Supportservices 25% 20% 31% 22% OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS 17. Called -for services per capita (population) .48 .49 .49 .42 18. Part One Crimes as a % of called -for services 09% 09% 08% 10% 19. Part One Crimes per 1,000 (population) 76 68 71 90 20. Patrol percent visibility** 15% 15% 18% 19% NOTES • **See standard visibility formula *COLUMN CODE: A = 1,000 + B = 500 to 999 C = 150 to 499 D = 25 to 149 (21) r-- r---- r--~� ►----• t-.�-w. r....... rw....�, r ' , ., LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER. CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 Positions 04244441 F+x► 1 WkilgeWa:awa� 0,411411 811411001 TITLE 39SCALON IFORNIASOF SHERIFF'SNNEL DEPARTMENTSD FROM FOLIO 46901 BUDGET AND SALARY ROSTERS OF 39 CALIFORNIA SHERIFFS; SOURCE COST PER MINUTE ASSUMES A 40 -HOUR WEEK DATE CURRENT ANALYSIS DIVISION INTRODUCTION The cost of maintaining a position is not confined to that of base salary only, but includes all other costs to maintain that position. 1. Account Clerk II 2. Account Clerk I 3. Administrative Manager 4. Assistant Sheriff 5. Audio Visual Specialist 6. Captain 7. Carpenter 8. Cashier 9. Chief Criminologist 10. Chief Deputy Coroner 11. Chief Forensic Toxicologist 12. Clerk I 13. Clerk II 14. Clerk III 15. Commitment Clerk Base Fringe Operating Fixed Cost/ Salary Benefits Expense Assets Minute $ 22,125 $ 30,975 $ 37,479 $ 43,476 .350 25,250 35,350 42,773 49,616 .40 65,500 91,700 110,957 128,710 1.03 113,125 158,375 191,633 222,295 1.78 34,500 48,300 58,443 67,794 .54 70,125 98,175 118,791 137,798 1.10 32,500 45,500 55,055 63,863 .57 22,125 30,975 37,479 43,476 .35 61,125 85,575 103,545 120,113 .96 70,125 98,175 118,791 137,798 1.10 61,125 85,575 103,545 120,113 .96 19,125 26,775 32,397 37,581 .30 20,875 29,225 35,362 41,020 .33 24,000 33,600 40,655 47,161 .38 23,375 32,725 39,597 45,933 .38 LAN ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER 8LV0. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 Positions POSITION COSTS OF PERSONNEL AVERAGED FROM TITLE 39 CALIFORNIA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS FOLIO 46901 BUDGET AND SALARY ROSTERS OF 39 CALIFORNIA SHERIFFS; SOURCE COST PER MINUTE ASSUMES A 40 -HOUR WEEK DATE CURRENT ANALYSIS DIVISION INTRODUCTION The cost of maintaining a position is not confined to that of base salary only, but includes all other costs to maintain that position. Base Fringe Operating Fixed Cost/ Salary Benefits Expense Assets Minute w 16. Correctional Farm Supervisor $ 27,125 $ 37,975 $ 45,949 $ 53,302 .43Q 17. Correctional Programs Supervisor 35,500 49,700 60,137 69,759 .56 18. Correctional Programs. Technician 32,000 44,800 54,208 62,881 .50 19. Deputy SheriffI 37,500 52,500 63,525 73,689 .59 20. Deputy Sheriff 39,625 54,475 65,915 76,461 .61 21. Director of Forensic Science Services 70,125 98,175 118,791 137,798 1.10 22. Dispatch Services Operator 22,000 30,804 37,273 43,236 .35 23. Education Services Coordinator 36,625 51,275 62,042 71,970 .58 24. Executive Secretary 31,250 43,750 52,938 61,404 .49 25. Fingerprint Technician II 31,500 44,100 53,36162,899 .50 26. Fingerprint Technician I 24,500 34,300 41,503 48,143 .39 27. Food Services Supervisor 50,125 70,175 84,912 98,498 .79 28. Forensic Assistant II 29,500 41,300 49,973 57,969 .46 29. Forensic Specialist 29,500 41,300 49,973 57,969 .46 30: Head Cook 26,625 37,275 45,102 52,319 .42 --- r --- r---- r----� �----� r r.. :", LAM ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 Positions POSITION COSTS OF PERSONNEL AVERAGED FROM TITLE 39 CALIFORNIA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS FOLIO 46901 BUDGET AND SALARY ROSTERS OF 39 CALIFORNIA SHERIFFS; SOURCE COST PER MINUTE ASSUMES A 40 -HOUR WEEK DATE CURRENT ANALYSIS DIVISION INTRODUCTION The cost of maintaining a position is not confined to that of base salary only, but includes all other costs to maintain that position. Base Fringe Operating Fixed Cost/ Salary Benefits Expense Assets Minute 31. Information Process Specialist I $ 22,125 $ 30,975 $ 37,479 $ 43,476 .35v 32. Information Process Specialist II 23,375 32,725 39,599 45,933 .38 33. Information Process Specialist III 24,625 34,475 41,715 48,389 .39 34. Investigative Aide/Sheriff 24,000 35. Investigator 46,625 65,276 78,982 91,619 .73 36. Laboratory Aide 17,875 25,025 30,280 35,125 .28 37. Lead Forensic Specialist 40,625 56,875 68,819 79,870 .64 38. Legal Property Technician 24,500 34,300 41,503 48,143 .39 39. Library Assistant 21,375 29,925 36,200 35,125 .28 40. Lieutenant 62,875 88,025 106,510 123,552 .99 41. Maintenance Supervisor/Harbor 39,625 55,475 67,125 77,865 .63 42. Marine Mechanic 32,000 44,800. 54,208 62,881 .50 43. Marine Utility Worker 20,250 28,350 34,305 39,792 .32 44. Medical Transcriber I 23,375 32,725 39,599 45,933 .38 45. Medical Transcriber II 24,625 34,475 41,715 48,389 .38 LAM ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 Positions POSITION COSTS OF PERSONNEL AVERAGED FROM TITLE. 39 CALIFORNIA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS FOLIO 46901 BUDGET AND SALARY ROSTERS OF 39 CALIFORNIA SHERIFFS; SOURCE COST PER MINUTE ASSUMES A 40 -HOUR WEEK DATE CURRENT ANALYSIS DIVISION INTRODUCTION The cost of maintaining a position is not confined to that of base salary only, but includes all other costs to maintain that position. Base Fringe Operating Fixed Cost/ Salary Benefits Expense Assets Minute Z 46. Medical/Coroner Investigator $ 61,000 $ 85,400 $103,334 $119,867 .96v 47. Micrographics Technician I 20,875 24,225 35,362 41,020 .33 48. Painter 31,875 44,625 53,996 62,636 .50 49. Radio Dispatcher 33,275 46,595 53,369 65,387 .52 50. Secretary I 22,750 31,858 38,539 44,705 .36 51. Secretary II 25,250 35,350 42,774 49,617 .40 52. Secretary III 26,875 37,625 45,525 52,810 .42 53. Senior Cashier/Sheriff 23,375 37,625 45,526 52,810 .42 54. Senior Criminologist 46,500 65,100 78,771 91,374 .73 55. Senior Deputy Coroner 37,500 52,500 63,515 73,689 .59 56. Senior Forensic Specialist 39,625 54,475 67,124 77,865 .62 57. Senior Forensic Toxicologist 46,500 65,100 78,771 91,374 .73 58. Senior Head Cook 30,250 42,350 51,24359,442 .48 59. Senior Institutional Cook 26,500 37,100 44,891 52,074 .42 60. Senior Laboratory Aide 19,750 27,650 33,456 38,809 .31 LAIN ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 326 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 Positions rawww Ararawa Pi444419 wWwilw Wwwww M POSITION COSTS OF PERSONNEL AVERAGED FROM TITLE 39 CALIFORNIA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS FOLIO 46901 BUDGET AND SALARY ROSTERS OF 39 CALIFORNIA SHERIFFS; SOURCE COST PER MINUTE ASSUMES A 40 -HOUR WEEK DATE CURRENT ANALYSIS DIVISION INTRODUCTION The cost of maintaining a position is not confined to that of base salary only, but includes all other costs to maintain that position. Base Fringe Operating Fixed Cost/ Salary Benefits Expense Assets Minute 61. Senior Systems Analyst $ 54,000 $ 76,650 $ 92,746 $107,596 .86v 62. Sergeant 49,125 68,775 83,213 96,532 .77 63. Senior Technician/Correctional Services 25,750 36,050 43,621 50,599 .41 64. Sheriff Facility Maintenance Specialist 31,875 44,625 53,796 62,636 .50 65. Sheriff's Records Analyst 27,750 38,850 47,008 54,529 .44 66. Sheriff's Special Officer I 25,875 36,225 43,832 50,845 .41 67. Sheriff's Special Officer II 30,250 42,350 51,243 59,442 .48 68. Sheriff's Special Officer III 33,625 47,075 56,961 66,074 .53 69. Sheriff/Coroner 121,750 170,450 206,245 239,244 1.91 70. Senior Account Auditor II 50,125 70,175 84,912 98,498 .79 71. Senior Correctional Farm Supervisor 31,875 44,625 53,796 62,636 .50 72. Senior Correctional Services Technician 28,625 40,075 48,491 56,249 .45 73. Senior Staff Analyst 55,500 77,700 94,017 109,059 .87 74. Staff Analyst III 50,125 70,175 84,912 98,498 .79 75. Stenographic Clerk I 22,750 31,850 38,539 44,705 .36 r- r- LAN ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 320 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER. CA 92683-8300 (714) 898-7700 Positions ll 11iuuw1 POSITION COSTS OF PERSONNEL AVERAGED FROM TITLE 39 CALIFORNIA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS FOLIO 46901 BUDGET AND SALARY ROSTERS OF 39 CALIFORNIA SHERIFFS; SOURCE COST PER MINUTE ASSUMES A 40 -HOUR WEEK DATE ANALYSIS DIVISION INTRODUCTION The cost of maintaining a position is not confined to that of base salary only, but includes all other costs to maintain that position. Base Fringe Operating Fixed Cost/ Salary Benefits Expense Assets Minute 76. Stenographic Clerk II 77. Stenographic Clerk III 78. Store Clerk 79. Supervising Account Clerk 80. Supervising Criminologist 81. Supervising Deputy Coroner 82. Supervisor Forensic Operations 83. Supervisory Clerk I 84. Supervisory Clerk II 85. Supervisory Clerk III 86. Supervisory Clerk IV 87. Supervising Forensic Specialist 88. Supervising Forensic Toxicologist 89. Systems Analyst I 90, Systems Analyst II $ 23,125 25,250 23,375 31,250 50,500 43,000 43,000 24,875 26,625 28,750 32,000 43,000 50,500 35,750 56,625 $ 32,375 35,350 32,725 43,750 70,700 60,200 60,200 34,825 37,275 40,250 44,800 60,700 70,700 50,050 79,275 $ 39,173 42,774 39,599 52,938 85,547 72,842 72,842 42,138 45,102 48,702 54,208 72,842 85,547 60,560 95,927 $ 45,442 .36v 49,617 .40 45,933 .38 61,408 .49 99,235 .80 84,497 .68 84,497 .68 48,880 .39 52,319 .42 56,495 .45 62,881 .50 84,497 .68 99,235 .80 70,250 .56 111,270 .89 LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER 8361 WESTMINSTER BLVD. SUITE 328 P.O. BOX 7 WESTMINSTER. CA 92683-8388 (714) 898-7700 Positions 464 Yr7i WONA\ A:d4$ii.J:f� W4K: .0 POSITION COSTS OF PERSONNEL AVERAGED FROM TITLE 39 CALIFORNIA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS FOLIO 46901 BUDGET AND SALARY ROSTERS OF 39 CALIFORNIA SHERIFFS; SOURCE COST PER MINUTE ASSUMES A 40 -HOUR WEEK DATE CURRENT ANALYSIS DIVISION INTRODUCTION The cost of maintaining a position is not confined to that of base salary only, but includes all other costs to maintain that position. Base Fringe Operating Fixed Cost/ Salary Benefits Expense Assets Minute 0 91. Systems Analyst III $ 42,000 $ 58,800 $ 71,148 $ 82,531 .66v 92. Systems Analyst IV 32,000 44,800 54,209 62,881 .50 93. Training Assistant/Sheriff 27,125 37,975 45,943 53,302 .43 94. Typist Clerk I 19,750 27,650 33,456 38,809 .31 95. Typist Clerk II 20,875 29,225 35,362 41,020 .33 96. Typist Clerk III 24,000 33,600 40,655 47,161 .38 97. Undersheriff 113,000 158,200 191,422 222,049 1.78 98. Utility Worker/Driver 20,750 29,050 35,150 40,775 .33 99. Vocational Instructor/Correctional Facilities 31,875 44,628 53,795 62,636 .50 100. Weapons Instructor/Sheriff 32,000 44,800 54,209 62,881 .51 THOMAS W. STOEVER WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES S. VOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO F. DIAZ JAMES DUFF MURPHY JANICE R. MIYAHIRA PAUL I. YOSHINAGA LAW OFFICES OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (2131 250-3043 MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach FROM: harles S. Vose, City Attorney Date: October 1, 1991 RE: Ordinance Modifying Terms of Office for Members of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission TELECOPIER (2131 482-5336 Attached to this memorandum is the proposed ordinance amending the terms of office for members of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission. This ordinance is consistent with the language recently adopted by the City Council as it relates to the Planning Commission. Considering the decision by the City Council to not restrict tenure to two consecutive terms, I recommend against adopting any changes to the Municipal Code as it relates to the Civil Service Commission at this time. One of the unique aspects of the Civil Service Commission is that a member of the Civil Service Board may be removed from office prior to the expiration of his or her term only by a 4/5 vote of the City Council. Therefore, rather than attempting to revise this language (which was voted upon by the people), I recommend that we merely keep the City Council advised as to the on-going absences of any member and that should the absences exceed the limits set forth in the terms of member section relating to the Planning Commission be exceeded, a report be submitted to the City Council which would then require a 4/5 vote in order to remove the specific member. While modifications can be made to the applicable statutes to the Civil Service Board, it seems unnecessary at this stage. When this matter is presented to the City Council, I can provide any additional information that may be necessary. CSV:ilf 5754 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 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO TERMS OF OFFICE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMISSION. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 2-64 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 2-64. Terms of Member; Vacancies. The members of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission shall be appointed for a term of four (4) years. If a vacancy shall occur otherwise than by expiration of term, it shall be filled by appointments by the city council for the unexpired portion of the term. Appointments shall be made pursuant to Government Code Section 54970 et seq. Members serve at the pleasure of the city council and may be removed, without cause, by a majority vote of the city council. Upon an expiration of term, vacancy, or resignation, said member of the commission may continue to serve until a successor is appointed and qualified. Where the city council votes to remove a member of the commission, the city council shall determine the effective date of said removal. 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 Two (2) absences from regularly scheduled meetings of any member within one (1) calendar quarter, and/or four (4) absences from regular meetings within one (1) calendar year creates an automatic vacancy. There shall be no distinction between excused or unexcused absences. When an automatic vacancy occurs, the staff liaison shall promptly notify the city council, the commission, and the member. The automatic vacancy shall not be effective until council receives notice and fails to waive application of this section. The city council may waive application of the automatic vacancy upon its own motion; otherwise, the vacancy so created shall be filled pursuant to the above sections." Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the / / / / 5310.02 2. 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 passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the city council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1991. President of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: , City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: crAeL4z_ Alf '-aL- , City Attorney 5310.02 3. October 1, 1991 City Council Meeting October 22, 1991 Mayor and Members of the City Council VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLANNING COMMISSION - UNEXPIRED TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 1995 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council appoint from among the seven applicants on file (applications attached) to fill the unexpired Planning Commission term ending June 30, 1995. Background: At its meeting of September 24, 1991, the City Council removed Michael Stifano from the Planning Commission, and directed that the vacancy be placed on the agenda for appointment after proper posting pursuant to the Maddy Act. In the event of an unscheduled vacancy, Government Code Section 54974 specifies that final appointment to the commission shall not be made by Council for at least 10 working days after the posting of the notice in the Clerk's office. A special notice of the unscheduled vacancy was posted in the Clerk's office (and in both display cases at City Hall) on September 26, 1991. There are currently seven applications on file for Planning Commission. Interviews of these applicants were conducted by Council on September 19, 1991. One of the applicants, George Brown, was out of town that evening and, therefore, unable to participate in the interview process. No new applications have been received. Applications are attached for the following: Con la L& Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager George G. Brown Kevin B. Epstein M.J. Lull Dale Nowicki A. Abbey Silverstone Steven A. Suard Jason K. Wallace Elaine Doerfling, It�2erk Y M • i• NAME THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH /N` ea\ •el t• Jit AUG 211991 =` APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMISSION CIyCte" c.1,//ci,i.:).)i-fmor He,mO!• oe� OF COMMISSION y i:2//1/ le, i-- 5 Name: 6£ ' Home Phone: �i�� v 3 yy. f ✓tt,7NbFt?��•.ur.'+.i::i:•..k.ar.. �%. , !.r! • . : �I, -‘-4-Address: 2/3G 4444 Occupation -or Profession: Name of Employer: 5e,� Address of Employer: /5-'2_7 REFERENCES: Local11, :" Bus. Phone:,-�iF-SFS: Professional: 44.6 . Other: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? 4../le` What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? 1 4 A. p1.. • . • • Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes x No (If yes, please list) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. 7 S ! 2 cLe • This Commission meets on /122'/3l-� at -7:oc; p.m. Do any schedulingyou foresee problems that might make you miss meetings? _ Yes c. ---No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? Comments: Signed: V 1,7 Date: 6/5/91 Name: THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACHAUG APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMM NAME OF COMMISSION -RA-4n.Unl<-r Od R. / ii4 1,1,4,1 4•;t�''4� 3J '► 4 22 1 IYNo/Her Cferk inose Beech tt V'% Home Phone: 43312- 7qD Address: (010 11 4- S`riggg '+ 44re 4nsq q v Occupation or Profession: 4T-� Name of Employer: kigu c Address of Employer: sfE' REFERENCES: Local: Bus. Phone: '113-3?5-7Z7'- E 4-14-44geD Professional: Other: 4o sir COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): INLXIE NA G 471.J of I1tUnmnsA t�Q.4t4- Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? T A vE bki -rte /-4-vvAnkEM T' op 17PE ELoPaJI" 1 --/- girt aCA- .Rs-4CIA What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? 1 Do you have any current obligations or responsibil.ties which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes (If yes, please list) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past -activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. This Commission meets on 42.93 — "-KlZs Y at 7tcQp.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes le -11-c7 How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? -f- ei7es Comments: Signed: Date: gt.- 2/meg, 2 6/5/91 Mr. Kevin B Epstein 1070 Tenth Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213)372-5790 Wednesday August 21, 1991 Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Room #203 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Ms Doerfling, I am applying to fill a vacancy of an unexpired term on the HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION I have filled out the application supplied by your office and found it appropriate to submit with the application the following attachment sheets. The attachment sheets are merely a more convenient way for me to give to you a clear and concise response to the questions asked of me. Also, I have included a somewhat recent Resume. This resume was current as of August 1, 199O,. which was about one year ago. However, It does include a comprehensive representation of my business, educational and other experience. I trust that it will be sufficient. During the past year, I have been a working for CONSTRUCTION TRADE NETWORK. CTN is engaged in the planning, development and construction of residential as well as commercial buildings. As of this date CTN, nor I, have any or planned involvement with any construction projects in The City of Hermosa Beach. Please submit the application and attachments to the appropriate civic body. Thank You Kevin B. Epstein Aoollcatlon Attachrnent for Planning Commission. Hermosa each California MR. KEVIN B. EPSTEIN August 21, 1991 Page 2 Of 2 LOCAL REFERENCES: Mr Charles Adamson 637 Cypress Street Hermosa Beach. CA 90254 (213)372-3000 Mr Haley Lanz 1524 Montery Street #6 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213)372-6905 PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES: Mr Donald J. Levick, Fire Inspector City Of Redondo Beach Fire Department 401 South Broadway Redondo Beach, CA 90277 (213)318-0663 Mr Abby Parsa, Civil Engineer Parsa & Associates 423 South Pacific Coast Highway Redondo Beach, CA 90277 (213)540-2675 Mr Jeffery Butsher, Real Estate Agent West Coast Land Company 620 Manhattan Avenue Suite #205 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (213)376-8921 Mr David Groverman, Senior Plan Checker City of Manhattan Beach, Building Department 1400 Hignland Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90265 (213)545-5621 Mr Fred Burch, Real Estate Broker Pe; Max Redondo Beach 1640 South Pacific Coast Highway Redondo Beach, CA 90277 (213)540-2255 Mr Moe Kahan, Private Developer 207 Soueh Redondo Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (213)374-7032 Mr and Mrs Gary Clark 1076 Tenth Street Hermosa Beach. CA 90254 (213)372-4518 Mr Mark Sabre, General Manager Learner Lumber 635 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213)374-3406 Mr Ebbe Videriksen, A.I.A. Ebbe Videriksen & Associates Architects 15438 Ventura Boulevard Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 (818)783-1354 Mr Paul Connolly, Chief of Planning City of Redondo Beach, Department of Community Development 415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach, CA 90277 (213)318-0637 Mr Aaron Jones, Associate Planner City of Redondo Beach, Department of Community D.eveloprnent 415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach, CA 90277 (213)318-0637 Mr. Tim Shea, Chief Building Inspector City of Redondo Beach, Department of Community Development 415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach, CA 90277 (213)318-0637 • Mr Michael Kerns, Private Developer 2910 Durand Drive Los Angeles, CA 90068 (213)962-9490 Mr. Kevin B. Epstein 1070 Tenth Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213)372-8790 1989 To ' sent Chief Operating Officer GDB Group, Incorporated s.a�f "-•990 er 1987 / 1989 a Hired on a contract basis and charged with the responsibility to restructure business opera- tions of this property consulting firm. My duties include directing all levels of the day to day staff activities as well as developing and implementing new business plans while modifying the existing management structure. The primary focus and application of my time to'date, has been to rearrange the corporation's financial equation and marketing mix. I have renegotiated several contracts, modified the basis by which direct costs of goods sold are incurred, authored a territorial sales expansion plan and put into effect several new product proposals. The current results which have been achieved through my direction and the efforts of the staff, can be recognized by a reduction of operating losses by sixty seven percent. Based upon this statistic and an incrrsasing sales trend, I forecast that GDB Group's primary business unit can be at an operating breakeven within the next six months. General Partner Metropolitan Ventures, a Limited Partnership In the last quarter of 1986 I recognized the potential for extraordinary property value appreci- ation in certain areas of Southern California. To take advantage of this opportunity, I collabo- rated with a Real Estate and Investment Broker to form this Limited Partnership which devel- oped four residential projects. As one of the two General Partners, my participation in that capacity included all aspects of construction management for this real estate development enterprise. The approach I took in my functions was to carefully scrutinize every design and construc- tion decision from the basis of economic value. This method proved to be an invaluable man- agerial strategy which has been realized financially by all equity participators. The Limited Partners have received annual profits in excess of fifty four percent. Due to my special background in the Commercial Architecture and _Construction Industry as well as my experience with the idiosyncrasies of civic government agencies, I was able to uti- lize my diversified talents where most developers would have to hire others. This experi- ence, along with a seasoned talent to operate cost efficiently, resulted in direct construction costs per square foot to be as much as thirty two percent less than that for comparable work as was originally estimated and budgeted. The fact that personal computer cost, accounting software for the construction industry was not available off the shelf gave me an opportunity to draw upon my experience developing software applications. I wrote a single user program with a relational database product which served to be another contribution I made to our financial success. The program keeps track of all construction section budget balances as costs are incurred, design changes are made and as estimates are modified. It was during this time in my career that I secured a General Contractors License from the State of California.. I have additional applications pending for specialty classifications in HVAC, Electrical, Plumbing and Concrete. Currently I do not take part in any business activities with Metropolitan Ventures as one property remains on the market for sale. I plan no additional involvement in new projects due to the lackluster Real Estate Market and my own personal objectives. Mr. Kevin B. Epstein 1070 Tenth Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213)372-8790 a 1987 / 1988 Proprietor Facilities Furniture Alliance ;- "t•T,;=-`iv,: I was asked by the President of ERG International to continue certain responsibilities I had, as an employee at that firm, on an outside consulting basis. Due to my intricate understanding of ERG and the Contract Office Furniture Industry, I determined that it would be in our mutual best interest to accept the offer. My involvement included the continuation of product development, communications pro- duction, and assistance with strategic planning. I also made recommendations to the execu- tive team regarding certain decisions when I was called upon for direction and support. During this time I pursued additional clients and was hired as a consultant for several differ- ent projects of the marketing discipline. The quantity of projects I secured required that I hire staff for assistance. I maintained a small group of people with specialized talents on my pay- roll. Together we produced many effective communications materials, advertising campaigns and artwork, products from development plans we supervised as well as sales management software. Director of Marketing and Sales ERG INTERNATIONAL (Formerly Ergonom Corporation) - Engaged to be responsible for the delicate rearrangement of the marketing mix of this office seating manufacturer. Additionally I was charged with the accountability of, and acted as, National Sales Manager. This included the responsibility to motivate and administrate a large group of independent and employee sales representatives. Conducted the product redevelopment and transformed the existing presentation of a vast product line to enhance the perception of it as true Contract Office Furniture. Made adjust- ments to the price policy and channels of distribution for the company during a sensitive transition from an offering of primarily commercial office products to a contract seating line. I produced a number of six color brochures along with a 136 page Price List/Specification Guide. Working with an outside vendor, together we integrated a new computerized order- ing system to be interactive with the specifying guidelines within the price list. This material and computerized integration has proven to be easier for the customer base such as speci- fiers, dealers and end users as well as cost efficient to the firm. Created and performed company wide sales training and information seminars. I functioned as the National and Government Account Manager as I wrote, negotiated and secured several large scale National Contracts which were serviced by Local Dealers. Together with the President I guided the ongoing business decisions and policy formulation as the senior veter- an member of the executive management team. 1986 Account Executive Associates Purchasing Corporation Responsibilities included sales and service of Knoll International business furniture as well as approximately 250 different contract office furniture products. Gathered and managed sales information for the sales organization. 1986 / 1987 1976 / 1986 Facility Planning Plan Tech Associates Consultant Steinmann, Grayson, Smylie Facility Sciences Corporation Accomplished space planning consultant with emphasis on the open office and industrial environment. Created and interpreted planning criteria including detailed surveys of client's operating conditions from a multitude of private industries as well as government agencies. Determined long range projections considering anticipated growth and resulting space requirements through the utilization of open office panel systems and Industrial Engineering. With the involvement in the prearchtectural planning and industrial engineering of over four million square feet of office and manufacturing space, this important adjunct to my career has broadened my awareness of the complexities and methods by which sophisticated corpora- tions and institutions make large capital plans and purchases. Mr. Kevin B. Epstein 1070 Tenth Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213)372-8790 1980 / 1985 President Cubulus Manufacturing Corporation Cultivated a subcontracting firm into a complete manufacturing enterprise with annual sales in excess of three million dollars. Polished a comprehensive understanding of the labor, material and equipment resources utilized in the course of casegoods and office furniture production. Directed staff subordinates in all areas of cost accounting, sales contract negotia- tions, labor management and production control. Developed computerized cost estimating procedures for custom cabinet production. Designed standard joinery methods including the jigs and assembly techniques which could be utilized for both institutional caseoods and contract office furniture products. Enforced high standards of product quality control and created the customer service techniques which resulted in repeat sales contracts from a vast array of industries from the health care to law firms. 1979 / 1980 1976 / 1978 Created and organization that delivered what was specified from a comprehensive selection of over 400 casegood products. Developed and assembled product ordering procedures for specifiers which was known to be one of the easiest guides at the time to an broad selection styles, configurations and finishes. General Manager The Cubulus Collection Manager of an independent casegoods subcontracting company with food and beverage, hospitality and health care clients. Formulated and put to use contracts administration sys- tems which became the primary sales tool and attraction for specifiers and end users to buy from this firm. Sales Coordinator GEE Enterprises, Incorporated Direct practice in all aspects of a contract furniture sales representation business. Learned the methods of day to day sales presentations with Architects, Interior Designers, Dealers and End Users from the private and public sector. Fine tuned my understanding of the selling technique and learned the strategics of addressing objections, generating product specifica- tions and managing a dealer network for different product categories. Responsible for bookkeeping, hiring and training of showroom personnel and the allocation of showroom space to manufacturers samples. 1973 / 1976 Showroom Assistant Epstein / Cowman Associates Became familiar with product cataloging style and design, price list formats and sampling through the study of the library. Observed product presentations to potential customers. Learned the proper procedures to carefully handle and ship fine office furniture and the legalities of freight transactions. .Mr. Kevin B. Epstein 1070 Tenth Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213)372-8790 Olt 0'tl enrI tformation ° Managerial Philosophy Throughout my career I have exersized a dynamic business philosophy founded on a premise that can best be described as a cautiously aggressive management style. Personal Achievements My general procedure is to carefully, yet efficiently, investigate and consider alternatives before I take action or make decisions. Normally, I seek out advise from the most trusted sources of consultation be they senior or subordinate staff, customers, vendors or members of the financial and legal communities. I am of the opinion that this procedure has been one reason why I have had relative success in many avenues throughout my career. Due to the number of years I have been in a professional environment, I have had an oppor- tunity to interface with countless customers, suppliers, staff members, consultants and stock- holders. I have developed a seasoned understanding of the positions from which most peo- ple communicate, negotiate and perform. This understanding, as well as my personal no- nonsense approach to all professional activities I engage, in has been an advantage to me that I apply in the capacitiesjserve. I would like to describe two of many personal achievements which could be a benefit to any firm in which I am involved. -- _ I have the fluent ability to set up and use of personal computer systems and local area networks. My knowledge of computers extends from simple hardware specifi- cation capabilities to the development of relational data bases applications. Although I am a proficient user of most off-the-shelf software packages, I have the experience to know when an application may require a programming engineer. My involvement dates back many years which has given me a keen sense of the costs involved in most computer related purchase decisions. I utilize a computer for most all of my day to day activities and have enjoyed helping my executive colleagues in areas where the technology out paced their training. My primary involvement with manufacturing companies reflects my satisfaction with the production of tangible property. I have had many opportunities to prose- cute United States mechanical and design patent applications. I have also been responsible for numerous copyright and trademark applications. My broad under- standing of United States Trade Law and experience obtaining protection of intellec- tual assets has served almost every firm in which I have been with in the past. Education CONTINUING TECHNICAL EDUCATION Mechanical Engineering Electrical Engineering UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Affiliations ASID American Society of Interior Designers AIA American Institute of Architects IBD Institute of Business Designers BIFMA Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association ASHI American Society of Home Inspectors BIA Building Industry Association 3 References Available upon request Meeting arrangement To arranging a personal meeting, please contact me by sending your communica- tion in writing to the above address. THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMI APU:21. '7991 1:.'':\ fl Cknr Nth, CH of erTese Beech iii NAME OF COMMISSION fo LAPINiNIG COMM I' 5(dN1 •p'- "7 - Name: fr7 . I: 1.14 L l.. Home Phone :213)372 -�243 214 o AQ•DM og2E AVE. , N J-Mos4 66.04e1l , CA • $9024 Occupation ''or Profession: 5u9Di'J 151ot4 Ei4ezielge.o.JEcr M&I1/41AGG Name of Employer: VTM IAJ Tt I t4 . Bus. Phone :670g94 -$2Co 1 Address of Employer: S.sel-O 8,4 BLVD tlORT}-ig.( -e CA q13�5 REFERENCES: D. ac,i4D 4N•tA n1. /;.14-) &lee.. Local: ALAhI C • Map ; IAJ,4 (.TE -(2. 5. (LLM 155'( SIIEL- Professional: p41Ji V A -r -r -A fn�Supr. Ardovio0ci j 6p1 E e(.(AS) fhir, Other: 1140u• al ks 4 Pit • Ms r - 0;1 ivici 1 ci-(,'c , Address: . COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): pg -WE D fb(AI'r Or ArTT DA 106(64-4'pc r) Atip ✓onA 6-. 6c-6A-icor/ oils' oF- 7w 12.6-A1)/.13 l'M App'LY Fog- 7H-16 A -P Pro -r 15 H -A 6 lortinlG Pur «I T"ths SrAce 1 ('V6 'Fou n1D .OME — 7N•l 1 FEEL ICAnkt t Mc. , A✓6 TI+e TIME Td bo. Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? ErJI+AA%CE M'( �Er25. AND PQo . &goW7 7-t A -1.1U . CS! VE 6 1 n% (MLI 71 A48) b -re) Eitt6 ComMU i What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? gelJD - A4 ofrnl tort 4 A -065,u Couiqu c, (d 1 Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes x No (If yes, please list) A •, • c1.os t, R Tr)Ar A calFuc c LO Atm A-PFucAili 15 caJoucr- Pani`. 1.4y My Fif4✓1- Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past 'activities"and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. Lop L46. mkg-No utJ r lUc . G J t t, et.ICTg- - gE 41043 V.P. /DIal/WI MUlz -- VThi w & s1 - o/.77 -Feel CAGE 1 CA - .0 bait 11o7/k Prl. 142r -fctr 07,J. -6( e/1 ascxx.. tA)/ -Firm -Pr SV2. 94,5. excelle t*- -fi'r kt d torki k-Acty%, OF -fre pkukkt process. R c -s, lir- a f l ieMOSA - 6+ zs - FA M t (.1( 12 -Es. Of so. elAcy (MAr.l &H. - 24-1- �S -- This Commission meets on � -t 5r-1" SUES at % p.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes X No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? 5-- t g5 _f1 s' Gjfi-5 ,wJ 4 - - TV US o,J 7 ST - bEcl Oe D Ta P14 aCI+AAa,L 1-bM G :±c,frlos ..LA -M . Comments: Signed: Date: 2 6/5/91 • • Name: THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT NAME OF COMMISSION TLANNN(,' i),LE 1oW ‘ CKt ru,,. pp;, - B LiL ,a.r�1 AUG191991 - �, Ctty Clerk..... ` TO MUNICIPAL COMMI �I ION TT of Hermosa Beach ' . ! Address: 4 t f -1 � No 22 r Home Phone: Sig -23g •. Occupation or Profession: L. A. SNcP-t%F Name of Employer: Los 4\3 et_ s Corr- Bus. Phone:(Z1S)g74•442 14It Au DEET Ji',, L is,/ q00 '1 Address of Employer: REFERENCES: Local: Tv, of LSL/+Yt; R, 41,C H&(zoNDO , N - 3. 318-3—(436 Professional: L AV(\A ArtLELL/-F , 4 t Bi:+Vc -ET 1 L-A., 04 qKS q7s- `3 Other: 1)01/43 C; SKIVE, 376-2o(6 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION / Q1'/- cv-C<IN/'tea 19.99 Coo,v-ri 19S1 -i_4_ c uvTy AND SERVICE (past and present): CorPvIlv,v/Ty "OVTTY SOCCc2 LEACOE Lr 17X-690 ,- i . /* /Fi= S SA -1 ruA)DRA, siN4" RUN on_c,A->vr-FEr� SifC2/ tic 3 S, %i% . AN i ?/N(j (emir M irr6c Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? TC APPLY i'( cC •/LfATtoN1 A'- ^te nt t Vc (Z o Nz 'T? ` -IH (" P_o u r ti caF i tl.: (:) n -k n f4 ( i7(20Fe&)oNrk(_ CcX' f tISC (- t'.EflVC1tTtoN) RDD'v‘I MST P. -1" o t'32 4T1c i•-5 What do you feel `` t Lt_ 6E Ark r 'Tp ThE of Tee cc,".nr" 551GNANBD 6o NIS CF I T`� . are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? 0v i iM 1-4/1-1— Nee() T, ;;c 7)00C (.MT SPFct Si c ou-vLt NIE THOSE 7111,06S N!1 Tft6 ("6T1tcA$ F,2 T)Oit4C\ iniem 1 ccOr" PLIS!+ T14E (xOP-LS QC *lie c tTY_ e6SE.AP_c44 wrc AA) I}D;/tSE CRY covl�Cjt. ON Ttb� 15°6:-5 D t V i-tY P -c e-trie i) '>a ?O r' \" (,, L A1s9 -u Sc , A rt 0 Co rvt i v N Ri P ROT cTS - 1 - Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes X No (If yes, please list) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past --activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. raft -4, I Q 1 1 -- `` l PcS -rE 2 S -1:)c tZeee IN PO c),LK_ rs.k s - V S, C. SPECT AtJ ?tro4 tN ft N /x-NG(De -nie PUBLIC SecToe. _ t � 6 I `?S 7 - A -ss -r. O$ At40 -7-12_6~C �� J2etVT'TALIor' Ig 0.- IQ% U_S . q-P_rt)' t ;sFPI-NrtZ_ QLATcor 4E -A-06:12_ i CoApirrf c..kPR. 2.6&90NStk Fo+'Z -n+6 P1.,4NN\NC,, / T$ itvimct I1, -NI so pc2tTastt`N) OE /ZLL_ SueorztN�Z-es AND 3voc,eTr+(Z1/4-( tesPoN'S1eiLt'Ttes - 6-S. tJ CR -1.1 tw/K. �TLAS71ce ; c);J/ V 0FTv[_Eoa ; 0 Ef. 1.6184 lgkt-041( Lam. Deaf `( 5t -5P- — Soe (zlftstriG r(Us1-01�4 0N This Commission meets on /574; 3"r 0CSD!`}7 at / p.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes X.No How longhaveBeach? / you lived in Hermosa �� Y617',.5 Comments : se -o - I oG; /# LIMITE=D M uV/Cf Pif-L EXP J AJc6 , / ge-L-(6V6 - Y 2E6EAir 42AOu,-TE- cOLC/4-i7v.•v 440 s5NSe cF C/V/c D tiTY M. e. /++E N / A f L- c.4.00)/4--7-6 FbP A- Po s /TTON c ?7i6 PLA -A NIA" Com -►mission) Signed) C. a72 -7-Z, - Date: Oc-/ 7- Q f 6/5/91 Name: THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMISSION NAME OF COMMISSION iLAArAr/ArC7 c 0 1-1 1-41 s s hio �. A3aE - SLL ERsTop� Address: HOS a ° 51- 14 o s_14- Occupation ,4 Home Phone: 37? - 3 /S-9 Occupation or Profession: $C,(5/AJ E5S SULTA/ J Name of Employer: Address of Employer: Bus. Phone: s • A •A REFERENCES: Local: &/ 5 /i9-/ TLS/ G T.- SQL- 8 P �) Yf3/ 5"7% Professional: VEIZI `f/s- 9174/_ 8367 2 908_9d'8-4Cp0 Other: %/c2$ GSPLAi.D5 59- neyI COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): 5 - � ✓i cam- tirD�liC= PeLai//3-n�1 7� 7771C- S d t> 77f g7C2 e>1-1- 'b7LC.-2, Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? 1 /2 3o-71 Y i ? S P/C)L/ AriAr le)27,7e// AJ - L -/A5 7-40 /17LeLp ,9- G� 4p;444 What do you feel are the duties and .65Z/ CS /9-7/-S /DV H6 L.4 TO /.c1 19- / ZDd�' Li responsibilities of GJ ) / -A 77 64 -..✓Ian ,y f9 Awo Commission member? T� .e6'--co".)e-it._‘ /76' 61' T r- CE5-1-/j-t_z,c. �v Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes x, No (If yes, please list) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities -and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. B. 5c. 1-4u5 7 ? 9 L Jif(,h' % Gl _, 2z/lull / .S 30 t 2i&/JctcB-tis 1A Scr-77/- IMAMS - -tf9 3- i . 7bitf Pb ' A S 6 ii.. AI( Si dxl S PLitit/A ? i4 4 -Aa 4'4r t l 77 A14 F,X?47�/S� o�.J / 4'-zo c; Fele_ 116-P/61)-( L,, cQPd>2 P9-7-7 64-70 S _89:Z.17c) Pig -Tien/ 77A ,fL 7 CMZ/ J 1/ /Is ei Cc7-1 H 177-777 F (2- ea/A-0 (--jj/ �-�c. f P, -i �J / -S /9- C V/L-A 4-,v " tic/ 7-7-/e Pu ,rf Ci-fl-1 / ss / / e&ss /.() This Commission meets on 77(eS7» -yam at 7 p.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes x No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? p;?0_,',-eS d Thirid-/ 2 Y61) E s / L tom" M 1 Comments: ..� / `TT,(J//7 -4 4- L‘77---- 76 Cl J 7 ) A. -(7 -0- /meati / 7 4-Ari)c- /A%? I.I /s 4- 1/(7-41-r-692/ 77/ ,,e)C SS • Signed: Date: 6/5/91 Name: THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMI NAME OF COMMISSION Steven a 7 \ f'I/RU5 1991as A-. Suard Address: 3443 (o Occupation or Home City clerk of Hermosa QeaeN �^ I i f Phone 376 - y682... 5faxtbd � /ermos,- ec�e% ! 9o2Ssz Profession: Name of Employer: tel-o,per?�y ,roti 4e.144 64n. "1- Sel* j oarhury 1'ro-per es ..Ihc Address of Employer: 250S W. 6 S7 L , Business Phone 30'SW3 REFERENCES: Local: �oG � w;//lams 42/3) 37c1 64/6, 376 -?99(: (,,) Professional: Zd �e r1, -a i Ac u.,; t +) 38s- co o.� Other: Sco rrleJrho h 3-6-10)6 6 S' S9 - COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE: "nlin irh e)e,d aA 1tL CusV Avc,5.6;7 re:(- Fu„/ b7ea '!') vi -11/7 Z-14 /0/4 :it; (6:re'-e (IV r%'hem ) +'a r Why do you wish to become P yrP.rTIS Ih C;e.S f rape ;iy dors 5; nj1t •11-c_w ,ilbrxH ws uN.�5 a.• rCcnik Of What do you feel are the duties�and �responsibilina in fain ti sry of af`Commission Member? a Commission Member? Skare, y e. .hZ.ricnze, caii a 1/ s«fors re ,rese>l7Lei . a hd a y/ Atei‘. /v�o acCO1-1h± Jn zDnioc G/ee/f/D/iS -4011‘. ah(.1 0.15 Luc_ are_ 2Ol71/1 CCft7et del ec% 1P, desires o' 917e.. (-env?)4el S/ c'e/(s/' 61 .,h,�eva.eca nt; e- • Glr/ ' Pruc/ica/ an eidleiimc'rh„ What are your, present civil, fraternal -or professional memberships and obligations)? /// ,So( ,�.%,,,eou-ne.r5,413-soc/a/ohL%cc' /reSi_eil C��� ;'ySi^"ry T ;rcy r= ic't . he Ccr �Ej-w N Sf�J i°l ) 8/-110- l � � /C'Gsn — CC��erit G r i� c r S 4h H'/i- !r+ Mom ,,j/ S � C'�eniv,q e✓e.r� • Cr�G?� Itlty»�er� h'tD�Ih 1 Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? 0 oh less proreHy cWhersi,?p vac �1es os a co14-FId. en'f ,,Please give a -=resume fo your education,"employment,* past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. WL/9U CS 8 `tjQShi t�h u. (m811�J hej,--/-. of ij1Tl,� c�„ah Seryces 9ropcf i 0 ice. Dc %• tam- _Tide•1:14( fro rani Ala (vsZ tit ii 4 )1 6( 111 a na livo rev/ eS (uk. I)14YIa ye:ine 6..hd i.�ves"l.kie01' e0ynp1i /es 4 J .�— // J1, �, .. J / / J u v e, D al e /1ao rei�lelife ' /h Ne!/Ma<l3 COh6 a. Gohio dhe-,. ( iwres« H� " k +v.- y ct i+.A kn(4.1ti ,...;-1'. Ci L( e,- iv'" ie�. C_On, 7eYCid This Commission meets on at P.M. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? A2/ ,,Xcep-f Dile-- A-1)44y tie-- A-1) ay eve. eery e r ,- How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? Se ve h Comments: yezt Signed: Date: igned: Date: /2cf/q/ Received: 4•'ia �> THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH UG E APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL CO i ISION c, 199 „Clty of Cle a Beeoh �/ Herman NAME OF COMMISSION 'n1A nNI leo\tk Name: 1Z• 1261\1,1A Home Phone: ait3'-3 -33oLf Address: 10(1 31 t f!/'RVG l Occupation or Profession: Name of Employer: SELF- Bus. Phone: 13.2_4.5,115:5a_ Address of Employer: 3340 6M 1 -r6 PPR.k xf), STE %SI / 5(11STT AVIMV1r REFERENCES: Local: 7,. R1t'M p rotAtO 1 37Y -nn Professional 1 . w sober, (?)3) 45a -SSS - 6RRN LenZ4.1Eq. J Other: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): J )FaRlfAVE p �o c�mr~1u�1 Int'; Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? 110 ?bV D'E n1L Ex,etycisEI What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? L .���► 51 A i1S11)S ND1 A in 1. 1 I. U ( 1111 . '4 * ti( ► II �► Do you have any current obligations or responsib'lities which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes No (If yes, please list) s. ,LPlease.give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. -an q2 f LA1OS, Vt Ti1 Gt= 0441 al - - INit soutcs l krriC tm 66. &1t) pot- Atl- PR,t'Sraq - (J1 war Cvme c4JPJTL tov) Um . tit (Lj -4!JW1 C Sai V iS* A1jp C.Otl n -v -r eVRW►Qe This Commission meets on at p.m. Do you oresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? AL1151 LOW Comments: - 2 - 6/5/91 October 16, 1991 Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of October 22, 1991 REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY CLERK TO ATTEND SEMINAR Recommendation: It is recommended that Council authorize the City Clerk to attend the annual League of California Cities, City Clerks Department: New Law and Election Seminar, for which funds were appropriated in the approved FY 91-92 budget, to be held Wednesday, December 11 through Friday, December 13, 1991, at the Monterey Conference Center, Monterey, California. Background: Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 2-3.1 (re travel expenses for elected officials, officers and employees), subsection (a)(1) states "Prior city council authorization is required for boards and commissions, city clerk and city treasurer." This seminar will address the many facets of the City Clerk's responsibilities, with emphasis on new laws and the interpretation of existing laws, and will offer the opportunity for information -gathering and discussions on topics including records management, legislative history indexing, and computer programs and peripherals, which will be beneficial in aiding the Clerk to become as informed as possible about recent programs and cost saving procedures for the City's new records management and computer programs. Elaine Doerfling,'Cit Clerk Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager Oh TO: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, Planning Directo74iC SUBJECT: Request for Planning Commissioner to Attend 2nd Annual Southwest Area Planning Council (SWAPC) Catalina Conference DATE: October 16, 1991 Ms. Christine Ketz, Chairperson of the Planning Commission, would like to attend 2nd Annual SWAPC Catalina Conference to be held on November 15-16, 1991 at Catalina, City of Avalon. Your approval will be necessary to register to the conference. Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manger p/memo5 NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: ()Liu Viki Copeland Finance Director Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT AUGUST ACTIVITY REPORT Parking Cites Issued Vehicles Impounded/Booted Calls Responded To Booting Revenue Dismissals processed Citations Issued Warnings Issued Complaints Responded To Total Number of Animals Picked -Up of which: Returned to Owner Taken to Shelter Injured, taken to Vet Deceased CONCUR: 74L Heq.ry L. Staten, Acting General Services Director Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager PARKING ENFORCEMENT September 9, 1991 City Council Meeting of September 24, 1991 Current This Month Fiscal Year Month Last Year To Date 7,062 24 176 $7,124 622 40 0 119 70 26 44 (2) (10) 9,202 53 181 $4,345 N/A ANIMAL CONTROL 65 0 101 68 26 18 5 19 14,026 72 271 $18,478 1,373 87 0 216 124 46 64 (5) (21) Last Fiscal Year To Date 18,513 144 339 $8,222 N/A 110 0 174 137 58 34 6 40 Respectfully submitted, Henry L. Staten, Acting General Services Director by . %�— Michele D. Tercero, Administrative Aide COMMENTS: IOD'S, Area 2 attrition, and positive enforcement of the Public Information Program, has reduced the number of citations issued. Extraordinarily dismal weather has also contributed to the reduced cite count. Dismissed cita- tions reflect all citations in the system, not August only. MultiVision October 21, 1991 Mayor Kathleen Midstokke and Members of the City Council CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mayor Midstokke: It has come to our attention that City staff has recommended that the City Council write a letter in support of legislation which would permit telephone companies to provide cable television service. We believe this action to be premature and respectfully ask that the Council give thorough consideration before it adopts a position regarding telco entry into cable. In your staffs own words, "Staff urges Council to proceed cautiously with their support of legislation which authorizes the telco entry into cable". Since deregulation of AT&T in the early 1980's, the telephone industry has mounded an aggressive lobbying effort to convince Congress, State and local governments to overturn the Federal restrictions which prevent local telephone companies (telco's) from entering competitive (information services) businesses, including the cable television programming business. American consumers have heard the cries of the local exchange telephone companies like GTE tell us of all the wonderful new conveniences that they could be providing if they were freed from the laws and regulations that keep them from entering these businesses. The telco's warn that if they are denied the regulatory incentives to build a fiber optic network they claim is necessary for the level of telecommunications infrastructure they envision, American people will not have access to (information age) services, such as at home banking and shopping, publication and transmission . of documents, home security systems, data transmission and energy management. And they warn that if they are denied, our country will fall hopelessly behind in the international marketplace. 1 MultiVision Cable TV 3041 Miraloma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 714 632-9222 What they won't tell you is that they can build fiber optic and coaxial cable systems today, capable of delivering video signals, under existing law. Neither will they tell you that nearly all the wondrous services cited by the phone companies can be provided, over existing phone lines - everything that is, accept television. Above all, they won't tell you that their goal is to build support for diversification so that the local telephone companies will be able to hold onto their excessive monopoly earnings and high rates. In June of 1990, a Rand study of residential broadband services proposed by telephone companies, concluded: Our analysis suggests that lifting the restrictions on telephone company entry would lead neither to increased competition in the television market, nor the emergence of new services....(P.U.). The outcome of abolishing all legal restrictions to the entry of the telephone company into the delivery of video signals would be to give it control over both a cable TV network and a (separate) narrowband network, with essentially the same services as those available today (Page 28). For ninety years, the Federal and State governments have fought to limit the monopoly power of telephone companies. After numerous antitrust actions dating back to 1913, the Justice Department finally succeeded in bringing competition to the communications market when AT&T agreed, in 1982, to divest its self of local exchange companies, through which it had exerted bottleneck control of the nations phone system. Now the bell operating companies and GTE want Congress to turn back the clock and create a new monopoly which would allow them to provide both content and conduit: they want to own not only_ the wire into every home, but also everything coming in over that wire. This is a vision of the past, not the future, and should be rejected. The Cable Act statutory ban on the provision of video programming by telephone companies has ensured that consumers around the country enjoy a wide range of entertainment and information from a diverse number of sources. If the cable/telco cross -ownership ban is eliminated, the result will be: 1) Less competition in television, not more; 2) Higher phone bills for consumers as telephone rate payers subsidize the telco's entry into television; 3) a dramatic and detrimental change in the nature of American entertainment and information services. The fundamental issue is not whether telephone companies can construct and lease facilities for the transmission of video programming. They can do that now as common carriers . In fact, the cable systems in Cleveland and Washington, D.C. were built or maintained by telco's. Similarly, telco's are building a variety of experimental fiber base systems in such communities as Cerritos, California and Perryopolis, Pennsylvania and are leasing them to locally franchised cable operators. 2 With the sole exception of full motion video (i.e.,television programming), every service that telco's claim they could provide if only the laws where changed is already available today, or could bb provided over the telco's existing copper wire telephone systems. For example, services such as bank at home, shop at home, remote database access, home security monitoring, at home work stations, educational and medical services already are available (if little used) over the copper wire based switch system the telco's have in place. The fact that these and other services aren't widely prevalent is more attributable to the lack of consumer demand for these services than the technological limitations of the existing telephone network. }Telephone companies are attempting to reverse the policies contained in the Cable Act by arguing that they would provide competition to cable systems. However, allowing telephone companies to become cable television programmers will reduce and ultimately eliminate competition in the video marketplace, not increase it. One of the biggest myths currently being promoted by the telephone companies like GTE is that they can end the "monopoly" that has existed in the cable industry. The fact is that cable television is a major player, but not a monopoly, in the fiercely competitive entertainment and information industry . Cable already faces competition from over -the -air television stations, home video equipment, theaters, newspapers and magazines, satellite master antenna television systems (SMATV), and direct broadcast satellites (DBS). In addition, (wireless) cable outlets, (multi -point microwave distribution systems MMDS), are a reality in many markets today. With this technology, a small receiver picks up many of the programs now seen on cable television. From a market penetration point of view, consider that cable penetration in Hermosa Beach currently stands at about 67%. That means that nearly 1/3 of Hermosa's homeowners have opted not to spend money on cable service. The fact is that there is no such thing as an exclusive franchise or (cable monopoly) as the telephone companies say. In urging Congress to repeal the cable/telco cross -ownership ban, and the policy of diversification that underlies it, the telephone companies like GTE are floating several myths that are extremely misleading: 1. Myth: Telco's need entry into television to bring the American public the fruits of the "information age". Some telephone companies argue that the Cable Act needs to be overturned so that they may bring consumers a broad range of services currently unavailable to the public. They sight the French Minitel system (an electronic publishing/database retrieval service), as evidence that the United States is loosing its leadership in technological innovation to foreign countries. 3 If congress would repeal the cable cross -ownership provisions of the Cable Act, telephone companies argue they would be able to provide at home banking, at home shopping, and environmental monitoring electronic publishing, and an array of other interactive services. This rational is misleading. The cross -ownership provisions of the Cable Act do not prevent telephone companies from offering Minitel type services. They can do so now if they wish. and do. What they won't tell is the cost of such a system, the large annual financial losses it sustained and that is a government-owned telephone company. It is also important to keep in mind that video programming is the only consumer service .that telephone companies are technologically incapable of delivering over their existing copper wire networks. All of the other services sighted by the telco's, that is all services other than video programming, can be provided over existing telephone plant. No change is required in the Cable Act for phone companies to lease their facilities to information providers to provide these services. In fact, a wide and growing range of companies, including Dow Jones, Dun & Bradstreet, a number of newspaper publishers, and Sears/IBM joint -venture, Prodigy, offers such information services today. The telco companies also argue that, even the though the Cable Act cross -ownership ban does not prevent them from building fiber optic transmission facilities and leasing them to unaffiliated video programmers, they would be able to deploy such facilities sooner if the bans were repealed. They declare that such an infrastructure - - provide by the telephone company, of course - - is critical to our international competitiveness. Such is not the case: - Telco entry into video programming has no bearing on U.S. trade relations overseas or our ability to compete in the international marketplace and by telco's own estimates would cost at least $500 billion. The telephone companies are ignoring two facts: 1. All of our trading partners and competitors are deploying highbred communication infrastructures, just like we have in the United States, and 2. These ' systems provide the most efficient, cost effective, and flexible telecommunications services. Current telephone technology, satellite, coaxial cable, fiber, broadcast and radio, can meet all of our nations commercial and military communications needs. It would be a mistake for the United States to adopt an industrial policy which selects one industry, telephone companies, as the sole architect of our nation communications infrastructure. 4 2. Myth: Telco entry into television will enhance competition, thus expanding consumer choice. Another myth is that telco entry into cable will benefit all sectors of the American public by providing cable companies with competition and consumers with increased choices. In fact, exactly the opposite is true: Using their billions of dollars in monopoly telephone revenues, the telco's have the incentive and the ability to subsidize their entry into television, and to drive out cable operators. Telephone companies have a long history of cross subsidization whereby they allocate costs ,,from their unregulated ventures (where they face competition from other service providers) to their regulated phone business, where they hold a legal monopoly and are guaranteed a return on their investment. Cross subsidization forces telephone rate payers, not telephone shareholders , to absorb the cost of the telco entry into new lines of business, with rate payers becoming "captive investors" and paying higher phone rates. The telephone companies would quickly put other video providers out of business through cross subsidization, predatory pricing, and leveraging their annual revenues in excess of $100 billion dollars . Rather than offer consumers alternatives, telco entry into television would decrease competition and limit consumer choice. Indeed, in February 1991, U.S. West admitted to four violations of the Modification of Final Judgement (MFJ) and agreed to pay $10 million dollars in fines. For these reasons and more, the National Association of Broadcasters, The National Newspaper Association, the American Newspaper Publishers Association, and the Association of Independent Television_ Studios all oppose telco entry into television. Of course, the telco's claim that they will not cross subsidize, but given their history, their promise is not very reassuring (please see the attached discussion paper). While some argue that the government can prevent cost shifting with stiff accounting rules, it is also true that the Federal General Accounting Offices (GAO) noted that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has enough auditors to review each major phone company only once every sixteen years. Cross subsidization means that the cost of building the cable network by the telephone companies would be passed on to telephone rate payers, even those who don't have cable . Furthermore, by shifting these costs back and forth through cross subsidization, telco's will underprice their cable TV competition and force them out of business, creating a real monopoly. Our concerns about what will happen to consumers if telephone companies enter the cable TV field are shared by many business, labor, and community based organizations who fear similar activities if the telco's enter other currently restricted markets. Organizations like the American Association of Retired Persons Federation of America, National Association of State Consumer Advocates and the National Association of Broadcasters have all expressed concern. 5 What this debate is really about at the Local, State, and Federal levels whether telephone companies should be allowed to force telephone rate payers to fund their speculative ventures into competitive telecommunication businesses. Allowing telco's into video would do more than increase the cost of television to consumers. As proposed by the telephone companies themselves, it would also decrease the power of local franchising authorities to set the terms and conditions for the provisions of cable service in their areas. Cities could loose their revenue stream from franchise fees currently provided by cable companies under the terms of the 1984 Cable Act. This loss of local control undermines one of the fundamental principals of the Communications Act - - alocalism - - and harms cities and consumers alike. Cable is working closely with Congress, the FCC, and broadcasters to balance public policy needs with the legitimate business needs of cable and the desire to best serve the consumer. The industry does not oppose competition - it only opposes unfair competition . Cable's concern is that the phone companies would finance their entry into cable by illegally using telephone rate payer money to underwrite the cost of telco TV, a limitless funding source, not available to the cable television industry, or any other business. Safeguards established to prevent this sort of abuse, have historically proven totally ineffective. Open entry for the telco's would result in telco run monopolies in the video distribution business. The telco plan will establish one wire into the home, their own, of course, with television,_ data, and cable services provided by the phone company. Any viable (competition) would be impossible under telco rules established to benefit themselves, not consumers. We urge the Council to thoroughly review the facts behind this proposal, before acting on legislation which authorizes the telco entry into cable. If I can answer any questions that you might have, please don't hesitate to call me personally at 714/632-9222. Sincerely yours, Donald R. Granger Regional Vice President DRG: sls /enclosure 6 The Never -Ending Story: Telephone Company Anticompetitive Behavior Since the Breakup of AT&T National Cable Television Association April 1991 The Never -Ending Story: Telephone Company Anticompetitive Behavior Since the Breakup of AT&T April 1991 National Cable Television Association 1724 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington DC 20036 202-775-3680 This paper documents the extensive record of anticompetitive and anticonsumer actions employed by the telephone industry since the divestiture of AT&T in 1984. In addition to the examples of these actions appearing throughout the text, a further catalog of telephone company anticompetitive and anticonsumer behavior appears on pages 27 through 44. INTRODUCTION Since divestiture in 1984, local telephone companies have used a broad array of tactics available to them by virtue of their monopoly over an essential service to stall competitors and would-be com- petitors. Wherever possible, the telephone companies have also forced upon telephone customers the costs of various ventures and activities that provide little or no benefit to those customers. These actions clearly demonstrate that so-called regulatory "safeguards" will not prevent anticompetitive behavior—and that lifting current restric- tions on local telephone companies would pose substantial risks for consumers and competitors alike. Despite this record, the telephone industry has launched a major campaign to repeal federal restrictions that prevent local telephone companies from entering a wide range of businesses, including television. Under current law, telephone companies can—and already do—build and operate facilities for transmitting television signals. The federal restrictions prohibit only local telephone company ownership and control of the actual programming that is transmitted. The local phone companies are prohibited, in other words, from acting as a local television station or cable system. Those "line of business restrictions" reflect a long and colorful history of anticompetitive behavior by the local telephone industry. In sum, this history makes it clear that phone companies have both the economic incentives and ability—through their control of "bottle- neck" facilities and use of their $100 billion annual revenue stream— to undermine competitors and to shift the costs of their diversification into other businesses onto telephone ratepayers (who, in effect, be- come "captive investors" in these businesses). 2 The cable television industry, as well as consumer groups, _ newspaper publishers, and broadcasters, have opposed the telcos' ambitions to diversify into television because of widespread concern that such anticompetitive behavior cannot be prevented by regulators. The recent behavior of local telephone companies provides ample evidence that these concerns are well founded. The telephone industry has a documented history of anticom- petitive behavior which has since 1949 twice prompted the federal government to file major antitrust cases against the former unified phone company known as the Bell System. Indeed, the current struc- ture of the nation's telecommunications system is based on the outcome of the government's second attempt to halt the former Bell System's monopolistic practices by forcing the company to divest itself of all local phone operations. But, as the following paper clearly shows, the root cause of this anticompetitive behavior still exists in the divested local phone mo- nopolies, the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), as well as the other large local telephone companies. The anticompetitive tac- tics employed by the telephone industry have included: • forcing competitors to pay more for access to essential facilities controlled by the phone companies; • denying competitors vital information only accessible through the phone companies; • cross -subsidizing failed competitive ventures with revenues from monopoly phone service; and • overcharging consumers for the phone service they receive. These tactics have been aimed at virtually all businesses the phone industry believes to be, now or in the future, competitors. These businesses, to name a few, are long distance companies, cellular companies, companies that provide enhanced phone services (such 3 as answering services), information providers, directory publishers, and equipment sales companies. Some in the telephone industry argue that the kind of abuses cataloged in this paper are aberrations, and that their disclosure is evidence that the current system of "safeguards" is adequate to uncover the occasional incidence of anticonsumer and anticompeti- tive practices. To the contrary, one of the most far-reaching cases of telephone company misconduct came to the attention of regulators only after an investigative newspaper story brought the abuses to light. Even where regulators have identified illegal practices, inves- tigating those practices and obtaining sanctions against a telephone company requires an extraordinary expenditure of time and money by govemment agencies with little of either to spare. As Pennsylvania Utilities, Commissioner David Rolka put it, My concern is that [state regulatory commission] staffs do not have adequate resources to police the RBOCs and the Bell Operating Companies. I have no reason to believe the BOCs will be any more forthcoming with information to the staff of our commissions that reveal wrongdoing or affiliate transactions abuses than they are when they are subjected to complaints alleging anticompetitive conduct.' One final point is worth considering: the wide array of anticon- sumer and anticompetitive tactics detailed below are occurring within a legal and regulatory context in which the RBOCs are barred from providing information and long distance services and from manufacturing telecommunications equipment. If those restrictions were lifted—as the RBOCs propose—the harm to consumers and competition and the difficulty of effectively preventing illegal conduct would dwarf the damage summarized in this paper. 1 Comments of Hon. David W. Rolka before the Executive Committee of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, February 27, 1991, at 6. 4 [The phone companies] "abused their position of dominance through a number of exclusionary and restrictive practices designed to preserve and extend their market power and monopoly positions throughout the markets for telecommunications service and telecommunications equipment." —Department of Justice The Telcos' History of Anticompetitive Behavior Telephone companies have a long history of anticom- petitive behavior, a history which led the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) to file an antitrust suit against AT&T in 1949. In charges against the telephone company, the Justice Department accused AT&T and Western Electric of conspir- ing to monopolize the telephone equipment market, exclude competing manufacturers from that business, and earn monopoly profits as a result.2 A 1956 consent decree settling the government's suit did not significantly alter the underlying circumstances that led to the suit, even though it did impose line of business restrictions barring the Bell System from all businesses except common carrier communications services and related manufacturing. In the 1960s and 1970s, MCI and other companies attempted to compete with the Bell System in long distance and other markets. These attempts resulted in literally scores of private antitrust suits charging the Bell Companies with stifling these competitive efforts. In 1974, the Department of Justice again sued the Bell System for violations of the antitrust laws. After a lengthy investigation, DoJ found in 1978 that the Bell Companies had "abused their position of dominance through a number of exclusionary and restrictive practices designed to preserve and extend their market power and monopoly positions throughout the markets for telecom- munications service and telecommunications equipment.i3 As part of its case, DoJ cited an AT&T document which made clear the telco need to control any and all transmission into the home, especially those facilities used to transmit broadband video services. The study stated, "We must own 2 See for example, After the Break -Up, Barry G. Cole Ed., 1991, p. 2. 3 Plaintiff's First Statement of Contentions and Proof at 206, United States vs. AT&T, Civil Action No. 74-1698 (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 1978). "When still part of the Bell System, (the RBOCs] participated widely in anticompetitive activities, (and] were they to be freed of the restrictions, they could be expected to resume anticompetitive practices in short order, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers." —Judge Harold Greene 5 that 'pipe' — not just own it, more importantly — control it."4 AT&T eventually entered into a settlement that ended the suit in 1982, a settlement that was known as the MFJ (Modification of Final Judgment, which technically modified the 1956 consent decree that settled the 1949 lawsuit). The upshot of this agreement was that AT&T had to divest itself of the local operating companies (the providers of local monopoly telephone service). These local monopolies were reconstituted as seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), and were banned from specific lines of business, including equipment manufactur- ing, long distance service, and information service. In each instance, these businesses were considered particularly vul- nerable to the kinds of local phone company anticompetitive behavior which had led to the antitrust suits in the first place. Significantly, however, even after the local phone companies were separated from AT&T and restricted from certain businesses, the telcos have continued to act in anticompetitive and anticonsumer ways. Five years after the antitrust suit was settled, District Court Judge Harold Greene, who presided over the breakup of AT&T, reviewed the conduct of the newly created RBOCs.5 In a 1987 opinion, Judge Greene maintained restrictions on telco diversification into lines of business including manufactur- ing, interstate long distance, and information services. Judge Greene concluded that "when still part of the Bell System, [the RBOCs] participated widely in anticompetitive activities, [and] were they to be freed of the restrictions, they could be expected to resume anticompetitive practices in short order, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.//6 4 Ibid, at 206. 5 As part of the MFJ settlement, DoJ promised the Court it would review conditions in the industry every three years and assess whether any changes in the competitive or regulatory environment necessitated any adjustments to the MFJ. 6 United States of America v. Westem Electric Co., 673 F.Supp 525 at 601 (D.D.C. 1987). 6 How Telcos Abuse Their Monopoly Power It has long been apparent to many regulatory and judi- cial authorities that the only effective means to prevent telco anticompetitive behavior in any given field is to ban totally phone company entry into that field, so called struc- tural or line of business restrictions. The telephone industry's ability to engage in anticompetitive behavior is inherent in the provision of regulated monopoly phone service. To illustrate how this happens, the following sec- tions describe the variety of ways in which telephone companies can and do act anticompetitively. 1. Cross -Subsidy: Shifting Costs to Subsidize Diversified Businesses Telephone companies receive virtually "guaranteed," or monopoly, revenues from customers who must purchase telephone service from the local monopoly telephone com- pany. Under regulations which have evolved over many years, the prices charged these "captive" ratepayers are a function of the underlying costs of providing service to them. Therefore, to the extent that they can do so without detection, telephone companies have a strong economic incentive to assign the costs of other services they might offer for which consumers do have a choice, such as tele- vision service, to their regulated telephone service, which ratepayers have no choice but to purchase from their local phone company. This cost shifting is the essence of "cross - subsidization," in which telcos use revenues from the monopoly phone business to subsidize their entry into other businesses. The RBOCs are able to improperly assign, or allocate, the costs of competitive unregulated services to their regu- lated telephone services in a variety of ways owing to their organizational complexity. Each RBOC is a holding com- pany composed of the regulated local telephone service "The operations and methods of Pacific Telesis bring to life the worst nightmares of regulators... It appears that Pacific Telesis is testing the waters to determine just how far it can go in sidestepping all regulatory rules and concerns." —NARUC analysis 7 provider (sometimes called the Bell Operating Company, or BOC), as well as a number of diversified businesses, some regulated and some not. Each of the diversified businesses is also a subsidiary of the holding company. In such an organization, costs incurred by the holding company (for example, executives' salaries) can be allocated dispropor- tionately to the regulated subsidiary, and recovered through the prices charged for that service. The resources of the holding company (for example, an executive's attention and expertise) that are devoted to an unregulated subsidiary are not adequately paid for by the unregulated subsidiary, which gives that subsidiary an advantage over competitors who must fully compensate for their executives. The regulated telephone customers then must pay higher bills without receiving either additional services or improved quality. tt An analysis performed by the National Associa- tion of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) in 1986 found that "[t]he operations and methods of Pacific Telesis bring to life the worst nightmares of regulators. There appears to be no advantage to the holding company structure except to the unregulated businesses of Pacific Telesis, which are cross -subsidized at every turn by Pacific Bell [the regulated telephone subsidiary of Pacific Telesis]."7 The unregulated businesses that benefited from cross -subsidy included real estate, business communications services, and the PacTel International subsidiary.8 The NARUC report also concluded, "[i]t appears that Pacific Telesis is testing the waters to determine just how far it can go in sidestepping all regulatory rules and concerns."9 Similarly, some of the direct costs of one of the unregu- lated businesses (such as major capital expenditures) may 7 National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Summary Report on the Regional Holding Company Investigations, September 18, 1986, p. 17. 8 California Public Utilities Commission, Audit Report on Pacific Telesis, July 11, 1986, p. 5. 9 Ibid, p. 17. 8 be misallocated to the regulated local telephone business, allowing the telco subsidiary to offer service more cheaply than competitors. Further, this allocation becomes more arbitrary and subject to manipulation if both regulated and unregulated services are provided over shared facilities. The evidence shows that this allocation process has not been a precise exercise and, indeed, has provided significant oppor- tunities for anticompetitive behavior. Simply put, cross -subsidy allows telcos to underprice efficient competitors, and to raise extra revenues from regulated phone service customers to make up the dif- ference. It occurs on an ongoing basis, as the examples here and in the accompanying catalog illustrate. tt Several RBOCs and GTE were found by the FCC in 1989 to be improperly allocating the costs of providing inside wire maintenance (a competitive business) to regulated activities.' ° As a result, the FCC disallowed over $158 million in costs from being included in local telephone rates. As one additional consequence of RBOC ability to shift costs, .ratepayers may end up paying for various political activities which do not benefit them. tt An audit conducted by Wisconsin PUC staff in 1990 found Ameritech to be improperly allocating over $33 million in lobbying and other costs to telephone ratepayers. The company was found to be using ratepayer money to fund lobbying efforts to overturn the MFJ line of business restrictions, although such a result would benefit the company shareholder rather than telephone customers." As Susan Stewart of the Illinois Citizen's Utility Board stated, "It's outrageous to bill consumers for Ameritech's wining and dining of legislators 10 Telecommunications Reports, March 27, 1989, p. 5. 11 Communications Daily, July 12, 1990, p. 2. Source: Veronis Suhler & Associates, United States Department of Commerce. "The court has concluded that the potential for use of the companies' monopoly power to impede competi- tion is enormous. This is not so much because the RBOCs have deep pockets, which they do, but because their pockets are bottomless." — Judge Harold Greene 9 when Ameritech's legislative objectives are so often in conflict with consumers' interests."12 These examples make clear that cross -subsidies are not simply the result of one company's management approach. In the persistent allocation of costs from unregulated businesses to the regulated phone services, all telephone companies reflect a strong, simple economic incentive: a telephone company, because of the nature of regulation, will at every opportunity allocate costs to the regulated phone service customer base, because it is guaranteed to receive full payment, plus a rate of return, for those costs. This occurs under traditional rate of return regulation as well as under price caps and other so-called "incentive regulation" plans. Price cap plans, such as that implemented by the FCC, require regulators to periodically review under- lying costs of providing phone service, thus preserving the incentive for misallocation of costs. The seven RBOCs possess enormous economic power. Their annual revenues of $77 billion far exceed those of every media industry and rival or exceed the GNPs of major countries (see sidebar). Given this power, the anticompeti- tive impact of leveraging their resources through cross -subsidies is overwhelming. The RBOCs' continual exploitation of their ability to cross -subsidize, as outlined in the catalog that accompanies this paper, has occurred in businesses ranging from equipment procurement to real estate to cellular, and the RBOCs have improperly charged to ratepayers everything from lobbying expenses to the costs of compiling yellow pages directories. Pacific Telesis, in its attempts to enter the cable television business in the United Kingdom, made clear its own awareness of the likelihood and ultimate outcome of cross -subsidy. A PacTel executive said, If BT [the British equivalent of the RBOCs] comes into the TV market, we would be in a very, very 12 "CUB Seeks ICC Probe of Ameritech Expenses, Consumers May Be Paying Millions in Improper Charges," Citizens Utility Board )Illinois), July 9, 1990. 10 U S West agreed to pay a record $10 million fine, the largest civil penalty the Justice Department's antitrust division has ever levied against one defendant. difficult situation. They would have to cross -sub- sidize [their video services with phone revenues], and if that happened, we would pack up and go home.' 3 2. Discrimination in Access to Facilities and Other Essential Factors Cross -subsidization harms not only phone customers but competitors and potential competitors to the telephone companies in the diversified businesses. Aside from such cross -subsidization, another phone industry tactic which harms competition and consumers is discrimination in ac- cess to phone company facilities. As Judge Greene has noted, "there does not exist any meaningful, large-scale alternative to the facilities -of the local exchange networks, and the information service providers remain as dependent upon those facilities, and those who control them, as they did in 1984 and as inter- exchange providers do at the present time."14 Indeed, it was the very nature of a regulated monopoly to deny or obstruct access to its facilities that weighed heavily in the break-up of the old Bell System in the first place. In an environment where the telephone company owns the wires and also owns the products (potentially including television programming) transmitted over those wires, in competition with the products of independent companies, the phone company can discriminate against independent competitors in favor of its own subsidiaries. The phone company can deny the independent competitor access to the wires, provide inferior access, or force the competitor to spend more time and money achieving equivalent access, thereby giving the phone company a competitive edge. There are numerous examples of discrimination that have occurred in the post -divestiture era. 13 "Cable TV Could Give U.S. Phone Firms U.K. Foothold," Reuters, September 24, 1990. 14 United States of America v. Western Electric Co. 673 F. Supp. 564 (D.D.C. 1987). "The rates for those services, and Ohio Bell's practices affecting or relating to those services, are unreasonable, unjust, discriminatory, and unjustly preferential in violation of state law." —1988 Ohio Supreme Court ruling 11 t U S West admitted in 1991 to discriminatory behavior in violation of the MFJ with regard to services being offered to the General Services Ad- ministration (GSA) of the United States. The company was offering to GSA access to the local telephone network at a lower price if GSA also purchased U S West switching services rather than buying AT&T switches. In other words, U S West charged its affiliated company less for access than it charged to AT&T. U S West was also offering free use of trunk lines if GSA pur- chased U S West switching services, but would require GSA to pay for trunks if AT&T supplied the switching. U S West agreed to pay a record $10 million fine, the largest civil penalty the Jus- tice Department's antitrust division has ever levied against one defendant.' S tt The Ohio Supreme Court in 1988 ruled that Allnet Communications Services was justified in its complaints that Ohio Bell charged "unjustly discriminatory" access rates while providing in- ferior access services compared to those provided to Ohio Bell's subsidiary. Allnet competes with Ohio Bell for intrastate long distance service, but must depend in part on access services from Ohio Bell. The Court said, "the rates for those services, and Ohio Bell's practices affecting or relating to those services, are unreasonable, unjust, dis- criminatory, and unjustly preferential in violation of state law.i16 Discriminatory behavior by phone companies occurs not only with facilities like wires and electronic equipment but also with other assets in the possession of the regulated telephone company, such as detailed and updated informa- tion about customers. This information is compiled as an 15 Memorandum of the United States in Support of Motion and Stipulation for Entry of an Enforcement Order. United States v. Western Electric Co. Enforcement Order, February 15, 1991. 16 Allnet Communications Services, Inc., vs. Pub. Util. Comm., 38 Ohio St. 3d 195; 527 N.E. 2d 840; (1988). 12' integral part of providing local telephone service, and so is paid for by telephone customers. If a telephone company affiliate in a competitive business, such as directory publish- ing, has exclusive access to information, or has quicker or cheaper access to information than does an independent com- petitor, then the telephone company affiliate possesses an unfair competitive advantage. A 1990 court decision found Southwestern Bell guilty of charging directory publishing compe- titors higher prices for listings of telephone customers than Southwestern Bell charged to its own subsidiaries, and awarded damages of over $15 million.17 Such listings are essential inputs for producing phone directories, but the listings are compiled by the regulated telephone company and the costs of compilation are allocated to telephone ratepayers. Another variety of discriminatory behavior was described by Judge Greene in his MFJ triennial review opinion: "... in any market where the Regional Companies are in competition with independent information service providers, their economic interest lies in manipulating the system toward use of their own services, rather than in encouraging maximum use of the network by their informa- tion service competitors.i18 tt Pacific Bell was found by a California PUC audit to have referred customer inquiries about where to purchase telephones directly to its own telephone equipment sales affiliate rather than making consumers aware of other available equip- ment providers.19 judge Greene also concluded that RBOCs would dis- criminate against competitors despite having a theoretical 17 Wall Street Journal, June 26, 1990, p. B-8. 18 United States of America v. Western Electric Co. 673 F. Supp. at 565-566 (D.D.C. 1987). 19 California P.U.C., op. cit. p. 12-9. Pole Attachment Rates Charged by Southwestern Bell If Poles Used for Normal Cable TV Service $2.25/year If Poles Used for Non - Video Services in Competition with Telco $120.00/year 13 incentive to encourage independent companies to use their network. The RBOCs would not want to encourage inde- pendent companies to maximize use of the network because "[o]nly ten to twenty percent of the total cost of an informa- tion service is accounted for by Regional Company usage costs [for transmission service], ... and a Regional Com- pany would therefore earn far more from a customer base through use of its own information service than it would through network usage by calls made by and to its informa- tion service competitors.i20 Phone Company Discrimination Against Cable Television Cable television companies have clear historical reasons to fear telco anticompetitive behavior, having been victims of just the type of discriminatory behavior described above. Cable "television transmission systems often must hang their wires from telephone poles, or lease space in telephone company underground conduits. It took an act of Congress, the Pole Attachments Act of 1978, to prevent the most egregious types of discrimination. Prior to the Act, telephone companies routinely charged exorbitant fees to cable operators, and indeed still attempt to pass through exorbitant increases. For example, Southwestern Bell in Missouri is charging pole attachment rates that are sixty times higher than normal cable pole attachment rates if the cable company wants to use those poles to provide competi- tive services such as alarm systems.21 As the cable industry evolves toward greater utilization of fiber optic capacity, the possibility for discriminatory RBOC control over fiber capacity could exacerbate the industry's problems. (The Pole Attachments Act allows for review of rates, but does not mandate access.) In a concrete example, District Cablevision in Washington D.C. con- tracted with C&P Telephone to utilize duct space owned by C&P in order to build the cable system. When District 20 United States of America v. Western Electric Co. 673 F.Supp. at 566 (D.D.C. 1987). 21 Letters from Dan Smoots, Southwestern Bell, to Dan Delaney, TCI Cablevision of Missouri, October 29, 1990, December 17, 1990. • :NYNEXjMisallocation; 'N'ismanagement and Misbehavior a fn the last trio yeafs, NYNEX=tias'illustrated a.multifarious range of antic petit ve:and anticonsumer behavior. NYNEX is; not unique in tl a types of'.riistietiavjorain .which it' has engaged, but -does represent pertiaps't ie widest range. of such activities. by one -company. ..Viplatiori of MFJ"- NYNEX was indicted for violating the: MFJ by engaging,in,the information services, business, a line business they agreed to stay outof as part ofthe'settiement of theAT&T antitrust;case• A Fedepal grand jury refused an indictment against NYNEX in,this'case in June 1990; and_the- Department of Justice is` seekirtg a $1` million fine against the, company A NYNEX official has admitted the/violations in :a. letter to the Justice Department: In a` related case, a former employee of-NYNEX has alleged :that he:wasfired by.NYNEX when he brought these; violations to their,.attentiorl, %!legal Gross -Subsidization - NYNEX cross-sub`sidzed a subsidiary -Materiel Enterprises Corripany (MECO)—with $118'milliori=in•ratepayer money:/MECO sold services toits sisterNYN.EXcompanies-at inflated' costs,. andthe telephone -subsidiaries--passed on'the inflated'costs'.to their'ratepayers• Under pres"sure from regulators; the company has agreed to refund $50: million in overcharges. to: its telephone sub- sidiaries.. The,FCC investigated the c' ase and fined NYNEX $1.4 million after'a n' audit, and also ordered;$68'million in -rate reductions:. Attorneydeneral RobeivAbra'rns of.New York has noted t that NYNEX officials have "resisted Us every inch of the way" as his office tried;to'gather informationabout the case The Attorney General, as well 'as the, New York State Consumer Protection' -Board, have arrguedsthat the FCC fine of $1 4 mil= fir{ ' lion was insufficient andthat new info orationcontinueyto t be uncovered, an'd,both have'called,fora special inquiry to. Ir vestigate the case: Competitor Allnet Communications called the ECC settlement aiid .fine. a`' "'secretly negotiated Cablevision requested that C&P allow it to install optical fiber in the duct space, C&P refused. According to an affidavit by District Cablevision plant manager William Scheffler, "[t]he reason given was that such fiber would give other companies, including District Cablevision, the ability to compete with C&P, particularly in the area of telephone users' access to long distance telephone carriers."22 The catalog which accompanies this paper further il- lustrates the variety of discriminatory actions by telephone companies. The phone companies have obstructed or refused access to essential components of their tightly con- trolled local network by answering service competitors, cellular competitors, and competing providers of network access services. The phone companies have also denied 22 Affidavit of William A. Scheffler, October 16, 1990, in Memorandum of the National Cable Television Association, Inc., Opposing Motions to Remove the Information Services Restriction, U.S. v. Western Electric, Civ. No. 82.0192 (HHG), p. 3. This memorandum was filed before the U.S. District Court in October 1990, as part of the Court's reconsideration of its decision to retain the line of business restrictions pursuant to the M17. In April 1990, the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals remanded back to the District Court the section of the District Court's opinion regarding the restriction on telco provision of information services. 15 agreement'that underscored the inadequacies. of the FCC's investigative abilities. The New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC) has respondedby authoriing a study of whether the NYNEX telephone operations.sliould be divested in'order to prevent further abuses: NYNEX; meanwhile, hai responded by rn rg. ing MECO intoanother subsidiary.- Perverti Convetjtiail- One well publicized situation at NYNEX involved a series of gatherings of NYNEX end its suppliers known as "Perverts Conventions." These were proper-, if not illegal, contacts between NYNEX officials and' about thirty supply companies, someofwhom-picked up the tab for festivities which apparently included "arranging for! women." At least one study has shown that suppliers who attended the conventions were significantly more likely to get increased business from NYNEX than those suppliers that did not attend. Rate' Case — In 1988, NYNEX soright and obtained the NYPSC's permission to be freed,of rate of..return regulation_ mireturn forfreezing rates;^,a so-called 'social contract." Only aiyear later, NYNEX' decided. that the.arrarigement•was not as'profitable as it had hoped,•and now it needed additional revenue from a $1 billion rate,increase which would have' doubled existing residentialphone'rates4 Essentially, the coml pang was•asking,to be allowed to' violate, the social contract. In.C►_ctobef 1990, a panel of Administrative Law)udges at the' NYPSC. rejected the rate increase request of $832;million and, instead reconirrie"nded an increase of only $25b'iniil on. 'Bribery Investigation — In the latest revelation, as part of. ongoing criminal and internal investigations of kickbacks, bribes, and other wrongdoing, New York Telephone recently disclosed that 28 employees -have resigned or been fired as a result of these investigations. The New York. Public Service Commission, the, New York Consumer Protection Board, the Connecticut Department of Public Utilities, and the New; York: Attorney General's office are all still 'investigating the range of-NYNEX's illegal and"urethical_actions. Sources See -main text. .ir access to customer information by directory publishing com- petitors and competing intrastate long distance companies, in some cases actually forcing those competitors out of business. The instances of discrimination summarized in the catalog demonstrate that discrimination is pervasive in the telephone industry, and persists in a variety of markets and under many different regulatory regimes. 3. Improper Activities and Anticonsumer Behavior As discussed earlier, the nature of telephone company regulation and the telephone companies' positions as sole providers of local telephone service leads to the two major types of anticompetitive behavior, cross -subsidy and dis- crimination, discussed above. Beyond these two areas, phone companies are also in a position to use their immense economic power, their complex organizational structure, and their primary contacts with customers to engage in a broader range of improper behavior. (See, for example, above.) 16 tt Bell of Pennsylvania was charged by Pennsylvania government officials to be engaging in deceptive sales practices. The company had misled cus- tomers by offering basic and optional services (such as inside wire maintenance) only as a single package, when the optional services were not part of regular phone service, and were available from competing companies. Most consumers did not have sufficient knowledge to protect themselves from the "deceptive techniques", 'and Bell of Pen- nsylvania eventually agreed to pay $42 million in refunds and other payments.23 The phone companies' size and power also enables them to engage in improper behavior in the regulatory arena. For example, the North Carolina Attorney Generalsin 1990 called for investigation of "an attempt to direct the submis- sion of fictitious letters in support of Caller*ID."24 This Southern Bell lobbying campaign urged employees to write letters encouraging new regulatory freedom, but urged them not to identify themselves as Southern Bell employees, in the hope of influencing the state regulatory commission. Other questionable behavior can occur on such a wide scale that detection is difficult and at best occurs after the fact. As noted in the catalog accompanying this paper, the phone companies have improperly disconnected customers, misled government agencies in bidding for contracts, engaged in unethical socializing with prospective vendors. This catalog of improper acts emphasizes the breadth of such problems, harming consumers and competitors alike. 4. Overcharging and Excess Earnings The captive telephone customer, in addition to provid- ing involuntary financing for unregulated diversification efforts, is also harmed by the ongoing attempts of regulated 23 Wall Street Journal, April 11, 1990, p. A-4. 24 Telecommunications Reports, February 26, 1990, p. 6; April 19, 1990, p. 19. The California PUC ordered that customers' rates be reduced by $144 million to compensate for Pacific Bell's "deficient and unacceptable decision making, ... inadequate levels of performance in its investment justifications," and "inability or failure to provide data required to justify such decisions." 17 telephone subsidiaries to evade state utility commission regulation of their regular telephone service. As noted ear- lier, since telephone companies are, under regulation, guaranteed the ability to earn a certain percentage return on their investments, they have powerful economic incentives to inflate the cost of doing business or add unjustified investments to their expenses. As one example, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) investigated in 1988 Pacific Bell's investments in plant modernization. The PUC ordered that customers' rates be reduced by $144 million to compensate for Pacific Bell's "deficient and unacceptable decision making, .. . inadequate levels of performance in its investment justifications," and "inability or failure to provide data "required to justify such decisions.i25 This means that Pacific Bell invested in technology at the expense of the ratepayer without sufficient justification that the investment benefited the ratepayer. Such investments are often used to offer new, diversified services, the profits from which do not accrue to ratepayers that made them possible. As regulated utilities, telephone companies have a ra- tional economic incentive to evade regulatory constraints on their prices and profits. Because their authorized earnings rise with an increase in investment in the "rate base" of plant and equipment used to provide basic telephone ser- vices, telephone companies have an incentive to pad their rate base to increase the dollar amount of their earnings.26 The more investments added to the rate base, the higher subscriber rates must be set to recover the allowed return on those investments. Likewise, unnecessary costs charged against the provision of local telephone service are passed through to consumers in the form of higher prices. A former FCC Common Carrier Bureau Chief admitted that 'the FCC 25 CPUC, Division of Ratepayer Advocates, Staff Report on Pacific Bell's Capital Decision -Making Process, August 5, 1988, pp. xiii-xv. 26 Harry Averch and Leland Johnson, "Behavior of the Firm Under Regulatory Constraint," 52 American Economic Review 1052 (1962). 18 staff had a hard time detecting these unnecessary costs. "There has to be some fairly clear evidence that costs are not fairly incurred.... Costs, like an extra vice president, we are probably never going to detect."27 In addition to this kind of padding and overcharging, many telephone companies benefit from the imprecision and delay inherent in utility regulation. With comparatively few resources, the regulatory bodies that are charged with reviewing phone company data are often dependent upon telephone company cost estimates and demand projections. When a telephone company overstates its costs and under- states estimated demand for a service, subscriber rates are often set higher than necessary to achieve a fair rate of return. At worst, these "excess earnings" represent a windfall paid by consumers to the telephone companies. Even where regulators eventually determine that rates were set too high and these excess earnings are finally refunded, overcharged consumers in effect end up loaning considerable sums of money to the phone companies in the interim with no payment of interest in return. tt The Missouri Public Utilities Commission has filed a complaint charging that Southwestern Bell's rates produced "excessive earnings" in 1987. The PUC recommended cutting telephone service rates by $200 million annually because Southwestern Bell was not passing through savings to customers resulting from lower interest rates and other improvements in the economy. tt The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission filed a complaint in 1989 that U S West might be generating as much as $70 mil- lion in excess profit in the state. The telco is authorized to earn a 10.5% rate of return, but may have been earning in excess of 12 percent.28 27 Wall Street Journal, June 25, 1987, p. 6. 28 Communications Week, March 13, 1989. The Commission eventually ordered a rate cut of $65 million. State Telephone Regulation Report, November 15, 1990, p. 7. "It is no surprise that just as regulators start realizing that consumers are paying $2 billion a year too much in phone rates, the phone companies propose less regula tion." —Consumer Federation of America 19 In numerous cases, outlined in the catalog below, telephone companies attempted to inflate their earnings by denying consumers benefits from tax cuts, improved economic conditions, and other factors that reduced their costs of providing services. In the early years after the announcement of divestiture, regulators granted record local rate increases on the basis of RBOC allegations that the break-up would undermine their financial viability. Those allegations proved to be unfounded, but the RBOCs enjoyed the windfall nonetheless. The magnitude of the telephone industry's ongoing effort to set rates above actual costs is illustrated by an FCC summary of state telephone rate cases. According to the FCC, state public utility commissions have since 1987 rejected rate hikes requested by telephone com- panies and instead have reduced rates by more than $3 billion.29 Various in-depth studies have concluded that the cap- tive telephone customer is generally bearing the brunt of overcharging and other anticonsumer behavior by the phone companies. The Consumer Federation of America has reviewed the financial and regulatory performance of the RBOCs, and has demonstrated that the RBOCs were granted special regulatory treatment resulting in $6 billion in "ex- cessive" charges to consumers between 1984 and 1987. The CFA also notes that, "[i]t is no surprise that just as regulators start realizing that consumers are paying $2 bil- lion a year too much in phone rates, the phone companies propose less regulation." Phone Company Use of Excess Earnings to Fund Speculative Investments Moreover, it appears evident that the telcos are seeking to avoid further rate reductions by using excess revenue to make large speculative investments in fiber optic plant and equipment. Current telephone service is transmitted over the phone companies' existing copper wires. Phone com- 29 Summary of State Telephone Rate Cases, February 11, 1991, p. 5. 20 panies have targeted video programming as a potential growth opportunity, but would not be able to transmit such programming over copper wires. The phone companies are attempting to replace copper with fiber, and have telephone customers pay for it, even though existing copper is com- pletely sufficient to provide telephone service today. The telcos have convinced regulators in several states to allow them to invest excess revenue in fiber rather than reducing telephone rates, although the Georgia Public Ser- vice Commission recently disallowed such an attempt, noting Southern Bell's "lack of objective evidence" of the need for such new plant. Commission staff found persuasive testimony stating that Southern Bell "was requesting today's ratepayers pay higher rates for undefined future benefits," and that ."today's ratepayers subsidize new services that [Southern Bell] may provide which are not related to basic telephone service."30 30 Georgia Public Service Commission, Docket No. 3905-1J, Staff Team Brief on the Merits of the Rule NISI Case, June 26, 1990, p. 34. 21 Proposed "Safeguards" Against Anticompetitive Behavior Are Inadequate Telephone companies argue that regulatory safeguards exist that will prevent any anticompetitive behavior. Regula- tion, say the phone companies, "indisputably has a constraining effect on anticompetitive behavior even if it isn't perfect.i31 They point to existing FCC requirements under which phone companies are allowed to participate in competitive businesses such as voice mail. These safeguards originally required telcos to offer such services through a separate subsidiary, but more recently were relaxed to in- clude accounting controls to address cross -subsidization, and so-called open network architecture (ONA) require- ments to address discrimination in access to local phone company facilities.32 The telephone companies also argue that the same safeguards will be sufficient to protect competitors from telco entry into long distance service, equipment manu- facturing, and information services, businesses they are currently prohibited from entering under the terms of the MFJ. If existing safeguards are not sufficient to allay con- cerns in existing or new businesses, then the phone companies argue that the safeguards simply need to be strengthened. As much of the preceding discussion has demonstrated, existing safeguards have not been adequate to prevent such behavior to date. Telephone companies have proven to be masters of manipulating accounting rules that are alleged by them to be safeguards against cross -subsidy, and the phone company approach to open network architecture has not proven to be open at all. Further, as noted in the catalog that accompanies this paper, the telephone companies on several 31 Reply Memorandum of the Bell Companies. in Support of Section VII Motions for Removal of the Section II(D)(1) Restriction on the Provision of Information Services, United States v. Westem Electric Co., Civ: No. 82-0192 (HHG) at 56-57. 32 Report and Order, Third Computer Inquiry, 104 F.C.C. 2d at 1013 (1986) rev'd sub. nom. Califomia v. F.C.C. No. 87-7230 (9th Cir. June 6, 1990). 22 "The FCC staff ... is able to audit each relevant telco account only once every sixteen years. ... The level of oversight [the] FCC is pre- pared to provide will not, in GAO's opinion, provide tele- phone ratepayers or com- petitors positive assurance that FCC cost allocation rules and procedures are properly controlling cross -subsidy." —General Accounting Office occasions have completely ignored the MFJ prohibitions on their involvement in some businesses, and improperly operated or invested in such businesses. u U S West admitted in 1991 to four separate MFJ violations between 1986 and 1989, and has been fined $10 million, the largest fine ever obtained by the Justice Department's Antitrust Division against any single defendant, and the maximum fine that can be imposed for antitrust violations. Violations included: 1) discrimination in the provision of ex- change access and other services to the General Services Administration; 2) violation of the MFJ manufacturing restriction by designing and develop- ing operator workstations; and 3) two violations of .the information services restriction by providing information services related to electronic funds transfer systems and so-called "reverse directory" services (in which a customer supplies a phone number and the phone company provides a name, address, and zip code). In return for U S West's admission of guilt, the Justice Department agreed not to press charges for antitrust violations in nine other cases. Part of the problem with regulatory safeguards is that most regulators do not have the resources and ability to enforce them. As the General Accounting Office has noted, the FCC staff is insufficient to properly audit the telcos, with the agency able to audit each relevant telco account only once every sixteen years.33 GAO concluded that "the FCC staff ... is able to audit each relevant telco account only once every sixteen years.... The level of oversight [the] FCC is prepared to provide will not, in GAO's opinion, provide telephone ratepayers or competitors positive assur- ance that FCC cost allocation rules and procedures are properly controlling cross-subsidy."34 33 General Accounting Office. Telephone Communications, Controlling Cross -Subsidy Between Regulated and Competitive Services, October 1987, p. 3. 34 Ibid, p. 11. "In my years of rate regulation, I've only seen maybe two states that could recognize a cross -subsidy if it was staring them in the face." —FCC Commissioner Andrew Barrett 23 zx Senate Communications Subcommittee Chair- man Inouye has expressed skepticism about the FCC's ability to police cross -subsidies. "The Commission's accounting standard for monitor- ing cross -subsidization is brand new," he told his colleagues, "and it is well recognized that the Commission does not have the resources to con- duct frequent audits."35 Moreover, regulators at the state and federal level have expressed doubts about the effectiveness of safeguards. FCC Commissioner Andrew Barrett, who was a state regulator for eight years, has said, "[i]n my years of rate regulation, I've only seen maybe two states that could recognize a cross -sub- sidy if it was staring them in the face."36 tt FCC Chairman Alfred Sikes said in 1990, "I don't believe that career Government people, or for that matter career non -Government people, can find out what the true cost of a service should be.„37 ix FCC Commissioner Ervin Duggan said in 1990 that he has a "nightmare” about a "sixty -story building in Gaithersburg [MD]" filled with FCC accountants that would be needed to monitor telco cross -subsidies if they were in the cable television business.38 The very foundation of the FCC's accounting rules and open network architecture rules was shaken by judicial review. A 1990 court decision found that the FCC was "arbitrary and capricious" when it decided in 1986 that separate subsidiary requirements were unnecessary and ac - 35 Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Executive Session of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to Consider S. 173, Legislation to Lift the Manufacturing Restriction in the Modified Final Judgment, March 19, 1991, at 2. Senator Inouye was likewise dubious about the ability of the FCC to enforce provisions of the proposed legislation designed to prevent "self-dealing" between an RBOC and its manufacturing affiliate: "There is no practical way for the Commission to monitor the many thousands, possibly millions, of transactions, to determine if the price, terms, and conditions are non-discriminatory." Ibid at 3. 36 Communications Daily, January 17, 1990, p. 4. 37 New York Times, September 20, 1990, p. D2. 38 Communications Daily, May 24, 1990, p. 1. 24 counting rules and open network architecture requirements were enough to prevent cross -subsidy and other abuses.39 The FCC has responded by re -instituting the ONA require- ments and by proposing to re -institute the accounting controls with only some incremental modification. This proceeding is currently ongoing.4o Existing safeguards have clearly not prevented anticom- petitive behavior. Moreover, economists who have studied regulation for many years have concluded that no safeguards can ever be truly effective. Former FCC economist John Kwoka has said "... regulatory agencies face tasks that are daunting under the best of circumstances. ... they are generally overmatched by the companies they are charged with monitoring, and ... the regulatory reforms of the past few years have not fundamentally altered this balance of power.i41 The absence of effective regulatory oversight means there is no "binding constraint" on phone company incentive and ability to harm competition. Telcos Seeking to Reduce Regulatory Scrutiny The telephone companies have been urging increased dependence on regulatory safeguards even as they are seek- ing at the state and federal level to be entirely free of regulation. Southwestern Bell, for example, has sought to weaken rules recently set in place by the FCC to prevent cross -subsidization. This effort was rejected by the Court of Appeals, which said the effort "borders on 'chutzpa."42 In 1986, the FCC proposed a set of accounting rules, known as "Joint Cost Rules," to guard against cross -sub- sidization. In 1989, Southwestern Bell and four other RBOCs sought to strike down key aspects of those rules even as they argued in other fora that the rules would guard against abusive behavior. 39 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Opinion, No. 87-7230. 40 CC Docket No. 90-368 and CC Docket No. 90-623. 41 Memorandum of National Cable Television Association in U.S. v. Western Electric Co., at 35. 42 Southwestern Bell Corp. v. FCC, 896 F2d 1378, 1381, n. 2 (D.C.Cir. 1990). "[Southern Bell] has not established a track record demonstrating its desire to be honest and open." —Georgia Public Utilities Commission Staff 25 Phone companies in many states have sought so-called "price cap" regulation which would largely eliminate regulatory scrutiny. Price caps would eliminate traditional regulatory rate reviews, which are designed to ensure that telephone rates accurately reflect the costs of providing service, in return for a promise to limit rate increases.43 Although telcos sometimes argue that price caps in theory will eliminate incentives for cross -subsidies, in prac- tice this is not the case. Price cap plans that have been implemented allow for considerable flexibility on the part of the phone companies, which would still allow for the misal- location of costs. FCC Commissioner Andrew Barrett has noted that "my support for this Order [the FCC Price Cap Order] is not based on the notion that price cap regulation prevents cross-subsidies."44 Further, the staff of the Geor- gia Public Utilities Commission has noted that "[a] key element in any incentive plan, which must be present if the plan is to work at all, is the belief on the part of the regulatory body that the utility subject to the plan will be honest and open with the regulatory body and hence the_ public. [Southern Bell] has not established a track record demonstrating its desire to be honest and open."45 However, the same companies that demand regulatory freedom also seek the benefits of regulatory protection when their competitive ambitions do not bear fruit. NYNEX, for example, had been substantially deregulated by the New York Public Service Commission in 1988 in exchange for freezing rates for residential phone service. After they failed to profit under this so-called "incentive" plan, NYNEX returned to the PSC and requested a $832 million rate increase, one that could have doubled the monthly bill of some residential customers. In October 1990, the PSC rejected the rate increase request and instead recommended an increase of only $250 million.46 43 The actual price cap would be set by a formula which theoretically accounts for inflation and some increase in productivity on the part of the phone company. 44 FCC Report and Order, CC Docket No. 87-313. Separate statement of Commissioner Barrett. 45 Combined Testimony of Smith, et al. on Behalf of the Staff Team, Georgia PUC, Docket No. 3905-U, May 1990, p. 23. 46 New York Public Service Commission, Case No. 90-C-0191. 26 Conclusion There is a kind of "manifest destiny" thinking that underlies the telephone industry's strategic plan for the balance of this decade. Telephone companies and their supporters appear to believe that the phone industry, and the phone industry alone, is best -suited to deliver all electronic information services to the public. GTE's "vision" for the "union of telecommunications and video services," for instance, contemplates the provision of all of these services "by a single company, ... a company that offered telephone, data and video transmission over the same network to your home with one bill to pay."47 Likewise, BellSouth's goal is to be "the first guy to the home with fiber [optic technology)" in order to become the sole source of entertainment and information programming as well as telephone service. To accomplish this, the company is prepared to force residential ratepayers as well as potential competitors like cable and broadcasters to subsidize the con- struction and operation of a fiber -based network.48 Given the telephone industry's stated goals, the con- tinued anticompetitive tactics by the telcos and the cross -subsidization of their unregulated ventures at the ex- pense of ratepayers and competitors are almost inevitable. In view of the potential revenues at stake and the telephone industry's long-standing natural economic incentives to evade regulation, the best efforts of conscientious regulators will not be enough to detect and prevent illegal acts by the telcos. If the existing rules that keep the RBOCs from using their monopoly control over the local exchange bottleneck to disad- vantage providers of information services are lifted—as the RBOCs propose—the harm to consumers and competition and the difficulty of effectively preventing illegal conduct would dwarf the damage summarized in this paper. 47 GTE and Video Services, cited in Testimony of Thomas F. Gillett before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, April 19, 1990, at 5-6 (boldface in original). 48 Prophitt, CATV Transport: "Catalyst" for B!SDN (undated). This paper was brought to light by Florida's Public Counsel during a depreciation proceeding before the Florida Public Service Commission in 1990. 27 A Catalog of Telephone Company Anticompetitive and Anticonsumer Behavior and Related Commentary 1984 — 1991 1. Cross -Subsidization and Other Cost Allocation Problems Ameritech Cross -Subsidy Through Equipment Procurement – A NARUC audit in 1986 investigating Ameritech found that cost allocation methods for the company's equipment procurement division didn't assign costs to the appropriate subsidiary of the company, leading to cross -subsidy. The audit noted pessimisti- cally that "the allocation methods may never be accurate.i49 Pacific Telesis Cross -Subsidy by Holding Company – A Califor- nia Public Utilities Commission audit of Pacific Telesis in 1986 noted that PacTel subsidiaries were "borrowing" Pacific Bell personnel to do work for subsidiaries such as PacTel Properties (real estate) and Pacific Telesis International. Since these person- nel are paid by the regulated company, and thus by the telephone customer, their uncompensated use by the subsidiary amounts to a cross -subsidy, which auditors estimated to amount to over $3 million.eo NYNEX Cross -Subsidy Through Purchasing Subsidiary – NYNEX cross -subsidized a subsidiary—Materiel Enterprises Company (MECO)—with $118 million in ratepayer money be- tween 1984 and 1988. MECO sold services to its sister NYNEX companies at inflated costs, and the telephone subsidiaries passed on the inflated costs to their ratepayers. Under pressure from state regulators, the company has agreed to refund $50 mil- lion in overcharges to its telephone subsidiaries.s` The FCC investigated the case and fined NYNEX $1.4 million after an audit, and also ordered $68 million in additional rate reductions.' 49 State of Ohio Public Utilities Commission, The Ameritech Bell Operating Company Relationship: A Regulatory Perspective, August 8, 1986, p. 49. 50 California Public Utilities Commission, Audit Report on Pacific Telesis, July 11, 1986, pp. 1-5. 51 Network World, February 27, 1989, p. 2. 52 FCC, Review of Affiliate Transactions Between NYNEX's LECs and Materiel Enterprises, December 29, 1989. 2S Attorney General Robert Abrams of New York has noted that NYNEX officials have "resisted us every inch of the way" as his office tried to gather information about the case.53 The Attorney General, and the New York State Consumer Protection Board have argued that the FCC fine of $1.4 million was insufficient and that new information continues to be uncovered, and both have called for a special inquiry to investigate the case.54 Com- petitor Allnet Communications called the FCC settlement and fine a "secretly negotiated agreement" that underscored the in- adequacies of the FCC's investigative abilities.es The New York Public Service Commission has responded by authorizing a study of whether the NYNEX telephone operations should be divested in order to prevent further abuses. NYNEX, meanwhile, has responded by merging MECO into another sub- sidiary, apparently to avoid further scrutiny. tt U S West Yellow Pages - A group of fourteen different state regulators petitioned Judge Greene in 1989 to halt the improper U S West diversion of Yellow Pages revenue away from ratepayers and to its stockholders.56 Yellow Pages directories are based on - information compiled in regulated telephone operations, and thus paid for by telephone ratepayers. tt BellSouth Cross -Subsidy of Various Businesses, 1985 - An audit of BellSouth conducted by a NARUC task force in 1985 found that the costs of new, competitive businesses were being largely shifted to the company's regulated telephone customers.57 These cross -subsidies were benefiting competitive businesses such as directory publishing and equipment sales, and the cross - subsidies began virtually from the first day of formation of new subsidiaries.58 53 Wall Street Journal, July 13, 1990, p. A4. 54 Wall Street journal, July 30, 1990, p. B2. Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York, and Richard Kessel, New York State Consumer Protection Board, Petition for Reconsideration in FCC 90-57, November 5, 1990. 55 Communications Week, October 22, 1990. 56 Telecommunications Reports, October 30, 1989, p. 18. 57 Special Accounting Task Force of the Southern Public Service Commissions, Report on the BellSouth Corporation, May 16, 1985, p. 11. 58 Ibid, Exhibit 21, p. 3. 29 tt BellSouth Cross -Subsidy of Various Businesses, 1990 - An audit of BellSouth conducted by a task force of regulators from the Southeast Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (SEARUC) found that the types of cost misallocation found by NARUC in 1985 were still occurring five years later. The SEARUC audit found problems with accounting procedures of BellSouth's directory publishing subsidiary, which received $240 million in revenues that should have been paid to the regulated phone companies. The audit also found that subsidiary BellSouth Products advertised for phone products in phone bills without compensating the phone companies, and that BellSouth improperly billed phone companies for lobbying expenses, cor- porate image advertising, and social organization memberships. Moreover, the audit task force noted that BellSouth "denied access to accounting data and other general business information essential to an investigation of the costs flowing into the BOCs from affiliates."59 - tx GTE/Contel Cross -Subsidy Through Purchasing Subsidiary - The FCC has proposed fining a GTE/Contel subsidiary after finding that the Contel purchasing subsidiary apparently over-_ charged its regulated phone companies. The phone companies appeared to have paid the purchasing subsidiary $1.4 million "above and beyond the fair cost of goods and services provided to them," and those charges were passed on to ratepayers.6o 0 Southwestern Bell Improper Allocation of Lobbying Costs - Southwestern Bell, in response to a 1990 complaint to the FCC, admitted improperly allocating lobbying costs to ratepayers.61 The lobbying expenses amounted to $1.4 million and included money spent to seek removal of MFJ restrictions, an action that would benefit shareholders, not ratepayers. An FCC investiga- tion is continuing. tt NYNEX Improper Allocation of Lobbying Costs - A Mas- sachusetts Department of Public Utilities found NYNEX had improperly included lobbying and public relations costs among 59 Report on BellSouth Corporation and Affiliates. Executive Summary. Prepared by SEARUC Southern Task Force, September, 1990, p. EX- 1 1. 60 Apparent Violations of the Commission's Rules and Policies Governing Transactions with Affiliates. FCC 91-91, March 21, 1991. 61 Telephony, April 30, 1990, p. 8. 30 its regulated expenses, leading to a disallowance of more than $12 million from rates in 1990.62 iz U S West Cross -Subsidy of Directory Publishing — The Oregon PUC accused U S West in 1989 of cross -subsidizing its directory publishing business, "seeking to divert revenue from regulated to unregulated businesses, while leaving substantial costs to be borne by basic [telephone] service customers.i63 The PUC sub- sequently ordered $29 million in directory publishing revenues to be returned to the regulated telephone rate base. The PUC said, "U S West formulated a corporate strategy in 1986 to divert directory profits from ratepayers to stockholders. The company acknowledged that the strategy would cause local rates to in- crease, but nevertheless concluded that it should pursue the goal of flowing as many dollars to the shareowners as possible."64 1x BellSouth Cross -Subsidy of Video Entry Strategy — The Con- sumer Federation of America has cited a 1988 memorandum, written by a BellSouth official, which came to light in a proceeding where Southern Bell requested permission to accelerate the write-off of Southern Bell's existing copper plant in order to replace it with fiber. The memorandum explains the advantage to BellSouth of covering the fixed costs of providing fiber to the home with the revenues from POTS (plain, old telephone service), all the while intending to use the fiber to provide cable services. As CFA con- cluded, "telephone ratepayers would end up paying far higher prices for telephone service solely because the BOCs wish to preempt facilities -based competition in a related competitive market."65 BellSouth Anticompetitive Strategy — The internal BellSouth memo mentioned above underscored the telco strategies to eliminate competition. The paper predicted that telephone ratepayers would "cover the fixed costs of providing fiber to the home," which would leave a "relative low incremental cost" for telco transmission of television programming. The paper stated, "The Guy Who Gets Fiber to the House First Owns the House," 62 Telephony, March 5, 1990, p.11. 63 Communications Daily, October 16, 1990, p. 7. 64 "PUC Orders U S West to Use Directory Profits For Customers," press release, December 29, 1989. 65 Memorandum Of Intervenor Consumer Federation Of America Opposing Removal Of Restrictions On The Provision Of Information Services By The Bell Operating Companies, p. 17-18. United States v. Western Electric Co. 31 indicating that telcos plan to quickly eliminate any competition in the television market.66 tt Pacific Bell Cross -Subsidy Complaint — The FCC has com- menced an audit of the Palo Alto cable system that was constructed by Pacific Bell to determine whether the phone company cross -subsidized the construction of the cable system with ratepayer money.67 tt Con tel Cross -Subsidy of Video Entry — A recent application filed by Contel illustrates the potential for telephone ratepayers to be footing the bill for video services. Contel proposes to build an integrated telephone and cable television transmission system in California, and has arbitrarily decided to assign the costs of construction equally between telephone and video customers. Because video applications require much more capacity than voice telephone service, it appears unlikely that 50 percent of the facility will provide telephone service. Thus, Contel's inclination appears to be to assign a much greater percentage of costs to telephone customers in order to finance their attempted entry into video services.68 2. Discriminatory Behavior And Unfair Competition tt Gilder Trumpets Telco Power — In a seminar sponsored by the Tennessee Public Service Commission and South Central Bell, economist George Gilder told the telcos, lilt seriously is true that you folks are going to kill television in the next twenty years. They won't know what hit them."69 tt BellSouth Denial of Access to Customer Information — Instead of outright denial of access, or offering inferior access, telephone companies can do great damage merely by bringing to bear delay- ing tactics. Dun and Bradstreet, an information service provider, noted in its comments in the triennial review of the MFJ that its 66 CATV Transport, "Catalyst" for B/SDN, BellSouth, June 14, 1988. 67 Communications Daily, January 25, 1991, p. 6. 68 FCC File No. W—P—C-6575. Contel is seeking a waiver of existing telephone company -cable television cross ownership rules in order to provide television service; this petition is currently under consideration. 69 The Tennessean, October 31, 1990. 32 court case concerning BellSouth's denial of access to phone company facilities necessary to provide information services had been pending for over two years as of late 1987. "The combina- tion of telephone company entrenchment and the unavailability of quick, inexpensive, reasonably sure remedies would be devas- tating to new competitors if MFJ restrictions were lifted.i70 Indeed, Dun and Bradstreet withdrew from the markets in 1988 rather than expend resources in further litigation. Telcos, if allowed to provide information services, would have every incen- tive to delay other potential competitors in the same way. rx U S West Denial of Access to Customer Information — U S West tried to withhold access to local telephone customer marketing information from its intraLATA long distance competitors, and in 1988 a Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission law judge had to order U S West to release the information.71 tt RBOC Refusal to Allow Open Access — The Coalition of Open Network Architecture Parties (CONAP) wrote to the FCC in November 1990 protesting that the RBOCs are not opening up the local network in a meaningful way that would prevent telcos _ from discriminating against potential competitors. This failure has occurred despite FCC rules requiring such "open" networks, thus disadvantaging coalition members in the enhanced services businesses such as voice mail.72 tt BellSouth Discrimination Against Answering Service Com- panies — The Florida Telemessaging Coalition (FTC) has charged that its members have been unable to buy unbundled network features and functions under ONA that are used by Southern Bell for its competing MemoryCall service. FTC further explains that competitive providers of answering services have been dis- criminated against because it is technically infeasible for them to use network features that have been made available due to the way they were deployed by BellSouth, while the BellSouth voice messaging subsidiaries are able to use the features with their own 70 Comments of Dun and Bradstreet Corporation on Department of Justice Recommendations, Civil Action No. 82-0192, p. 35-36. 71 Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Docket No. U -88-2052-P; and Pacific Northwest Bell v. W.U.T.C., Thurston City, No. 88-2-01931-0. Reported in Communications Daily, September 6, 1988, p. 9; also Telephony, October 3, 1988, p. 16. 72 Reported in Communications Daily, November 21, 1990, p. 8. 33 voice messaging service.73 The Florida PSC in October 1990 ordered Southern Bell to stop selling voice messaging services to its own telephone business customers because it was "unfair competition" for independent providers. After a hearing at the Florida Public Service Commission, Southern Bell agreed to a settlement with FTC, although the PUC staff said that the private agreement does not resolve ONA problems.74 Discrimination Against Potential Local Phone Service Com- petition - Metropolitan Fiber Systems (MFS) has complained for the past year to the FCC and state regulators about RBOC anticompetitive behavior in not allowing access to the local network.75 MFS is one of a number of "alternate access providers" that provide fiber optic -based access between long distance ser- vices and customers, in competition with the phone company but dependent on some interconnection to local telephone facilities. Not surprisingly, noted MFS, telephone companies have begun building competing fiber access facilities, funded by telephone ratepayers.76 tt Discrimination Against Cellular Competitors - Local telephone companies have attempted to deter competition in local exchange services by requiring operators of cellular telephone systems to use type 1 interconnection with the public telephone network rather than type 2 interconnection, which provides more effi- cient use of the telephone switch and better transmission quality, and allows for more efficient billing. Only after regulatory inter- vention did LECs offer type 2 interconnection to cellular operators .77 The Justice Department Report on Competition in the Telephone Industry in 1987 (also known as the Huber Report) highlighted a number of instances in which the RBOCs, including Ameritech, 73 Communications Daily, October 10, 1990, 74 Communications Daily, December 11, 1990, p. 4. 75 Communications Daily, December 28, 1990, p. 3. 76 Ex Parte Presentation Re: RM 7249, CC Docket No. 87-313, CC Docket No. 89-624, June 25, 1990. NYNEX recently agreed after years of refusal to allow MFS to install some equipment in NYNEX's central offices. Of course, NYNEX has since constructed its own competing facilities. 77 Affidavit of Dr. Carl Shapiro, Appendix Of Affidavits In Support Of Joint Opposition [of Commerce Clearing House, Inc., et al.] To Motions For Removal Of The Section 11(D)(1) Restriction On The Provision Of Information Services. United States v. Western Electric Co. 34 BellSouth, and U S West, have used their control over the local telephone network to thwart competition by other cellular com- panies.78 The phone companies refused competitors technically efficient interconnection, offered discriminatory financial terms for interconnection that were more expensive than those offered to their own subsidiaries, and offered interconnection contracts for competitors' acceptance "under threat of discontinued ser- vice."79 The report concluded that "direct competition between BOCs and non -wireline mobile carriers does raise serious ques- tions about discriminatory access.80 Pacific Bell Discrimination Against Long Distance Providers - Telesphere Communications alleges in its comments in the MFJ remand that Pacific Bell, which provides intraLATA "900" services in California, has discriminated against interexchange carriers (long distance providers), such as Telesphere, that provide interex- change service to "900" service providers. Pacific Bell has discriminated by charging competing carriers five times the amount it charges its own "900" service customers for billing and collection services. Further, Telesphere notes that Pacific Bell has threatened to withhold billing and collection services if Telesphere does not accede to Pacific Bell's discriminatory billing and collection prac- tices, and it alleges that Pacific Bell uses its control over the billing system in order to delay Telesphere's collection of charges for "900" service, thereby disrupting Telesphere's cash flow and business operation.81 rt BellSouth Discriminatory Pricing Toward Information Service Providers - In an affidavit on behalf of the Information Industry Association for the MFJ remand, Prodigy Services Company asserts that BellSouth's plan for Comparably Efficient Intercon- nection (CEI), which BellSouth was required to submit under the FCC's Computer Inquiry III rules, forced enhanced service providers (ESPs) take service under a separate tariff which was designed exclusively and disadvantageously for them. The tariff, based on two-way measured service, would have meant a major 78 The Geodesic Network, 1987 Report on Competition in the Telephone Industry, U.S. Department of Justice, January 1987, pp. 4.9-4.23. 79 Ibid at 4.17. 80 Ibid at 4.19. 81 Memorandum of Telesphere Communications, Inc. In Opposition To Motions For Removal Of The Information Services Restriction Of Section II(D)(1) Of The Consent Decree, pp. 3-4. United States v. Western Electric Co. 35 price increase for ESPs for a "plain, old telephone service," or POTS, business line. The Information Industry Association as- serts that such restrictions and pricing would have discriminated against ESPs and would have limited their flexibility in designing their networks. The FCC ultimately denied BellSouth's CEI plan.82 Refusal of Access to Customer Information — In his affidavit in the MFJ remand, Gerhard Mueller, Senior Vice President, Infor- mation Systems Management, for Dun & Bradstreet's Business Information Group, asserts that four of the seven RBOCs refuse to provide Dun & Bradstreet's Business Credit Services operation with updated subscriber information, just as the RBOCs are reluctant generally to provide the same information to potential competitors in the market for "yellow pages" directories.83 ix Potential Pacific' Bell Discrimination Against Enhanced Ser- vice Competitors — An administrative law judge for the California Public Utilities Commission recently published an opinion stating, "Pacific [Bell]'s exclusive access to certain sup- port services and marketing information, which are derived from its monopoly position in some markets, may bestow a marketing advantage on Pacific over ESPs [enhanced service providers] in some areas." Although the opinion did grant Pacific Bell some regulatory relief, the California PUC is still planning to conduct a proceeding to investigate Pacific Bell's potential marketing advantage over unaffiliated companies offering enhanced ser- vices.84 3. Improper Behavior and Anti -Consumer Behavior tt Improper Customer Disconnection by Bell Atlantic — The Pennsylvania PUC recommended in 1990 a $1.1 million fine for Bell of Pennsylvania for improperly disconnecting service to customers who had already paid past due bills or who had legitimate medical reasons for not paying their bills. The PUC 82 Affidavit of James H. Beall, Jr., Memorandum of the Information Industry Association, p. 20. 83 Affidavit of Gerhard O. Mueller, Appendix Of Affidavits In Support Of Joint Opposition [of Commerce Clearing House, Inc., et al.] To Motions For Removal Of The Section I1(D)(1) Restriction On The Provision Of Information Services. United States v. Western Electric Co. 84 Communications Daily, November 27, 1990, pp. 5-6. 36 had documented 367 violations of PUC rules in this complaint, although they noted that "Bell committed more than 3500 viola- tions of residential service rules in the three-year period, but that manpower limitations in the [PUC] allowed only a portion to be prepared for the complaint." 85 zx Southern Bell Falsified Maintenance Records — Current and former employees of Southern Bell in Florida have testified that they routinely falsified maintenance records at the direction of company management. Records were falsified in order to meet Public Service Commission service quality standards in areas such as the frequency of out -of -service reports, meeting repair appointments, and completing repairs on time.86 tt Southwestern Bell Obstructs Educational Telecommunica- tions — Southwestern Bell has tried to prevent a small rural telephone cooperative, Pioneer Telephone in Kansas, from con- necting an educational network linking several high schools, after the school system rejected Southwestern Bell's bid for the project as too expensive.87 NYNEX "Perverts Convention" — A well publicized example of bad behavior was a series of gatherings of NYNEX and its sup- pliers known as "Perverts Conventions." These were improper, if not illegal, contacts between NYNEX officials and about thirty supply companies between 1984 and 1988, some of whom picked up the tab for festivities which apparently included "arranging for women.i88 At least one study has shown that suppliers who attended the conventions were significantly more likely to get increased business from NYNEX than those suppliers that did not attend, and a study of these events by the General Counsel of the NYPSC agreed with this assessment.89 This report also said, "one of the most troubling aspects of our review of the .. . activities was the fact that top management at Materiel Enterprises, NYNEX, and New York Telephone knew about the 85 Telecommunications Reports, October 15, 1990, p. 13. 86 Communications Daily, April 2, 1991, p. 2. 87 Wall Street Journal, January 18, 1991. 88 Wall Street Journal, July 12, 1990, p. Al. 89 Wall Street Journal, July 25, 1990, p. A5; also NYPSC, Informal Investigation of the Business Practices of a Former Vice President of Purchasing of NYNEX etc., October 3, 1990, p. 50. 37 Pervert Conventions and supplier attendance but did nothing to terminate the activities."9° tt NYNEX Construction Improprieties - As part of ongoing criminal and internal investigations of kickbacks, bribes, and other wrongdoing in its building maintenance operations, New York Telephone recently disclosed that 28 employees have resigned or been fired as a result of these probes.91 The New York Public Service Commission, the New York Con- sumer Protection Board, the Connecticut Department of Public Utilities, and the New York Attorney General's office are all still investigating the range of NYNEX's illegal and unethical actions. tt Deceptive Marketing by Ameritech - The Wisconsin Attorney General forced Ameritech's Wisconsin Bell subsidiary to pay fines and refunds of more than $1.2 million for deceptively "packing" optional services onto consumers' telephone bills. The Attorney General characterized the violations as "widespread, frequent, and willful."92 tt Deceptive Marketing by Pacific Telesis - Pacific Telesis was forced to refund $35.6 million to consumers to settle a deceptive marketing practices lawsuit.93 ix Deceptive Marketing By U S West - An ongoing class action suit charges U S West with collecting $20 million annually from customers for voluntary inside wire maintenance contracts which they never ordered. Instead, customers were charged for the service unless they specifically asked not to be covered by the contract.94 ri Deceptive Marketing by Bell Atlantic - Consumer advocates have objected to a practice by the operating companies of Bell Atlantic, under which consumers were required to act affirm. 90 NYPSC, Informal Investigation ... p. 52. 91 Telephony, November 19, 1990, p. 3. 92 Wisconsin State Journal, August 20, 1989. 93 Wall Street Journal, April 11, 1990, p. A4. 94 Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1988, p. 16; November 28, 1989, p. B8. 38 atively in order to cancel wire maintenance services after such services were detariffed. Most consumers were not aware that inside wire was a separate service that they could have obtained from competing businesses and thus were unaware that they could cancel Bell Atlantic's service.95 17 Wiretapping, Privacy Law Concerns Arise in Bell of Pennsyl- vania Activities - Bell of Pennsylvania has been the subject of Pennsylvania PUC investigations of allegations of wiretapping PUC and Bell employee telephone lines, withholding information from the PUC, and covering up misconduct in attempts to iden- tify a whistleblower. Bell reached a confidential agreement with the PUC to pay $500,000 in charitable contributions to atone for their actions. In a later investigation, Bell employees were found to have improperly disclosed customers' private phone records to law enforcement officials and others without a court order. The company also eventually "disciplined" thirteen employees.96 4. Overcharges/Excess Earnings zz U S West in Oregon - The Oregon Public Utility Commission ordered a $24 million rate reduction in 1990 due to overearnings and due to the company's attempt to withhold profits from its directory advertising business.97 tt U S West in Arizona - The Arizona Corporation Commission ordered U S West to institute a rate cut of $66.8 million in 1989, in part because of lower taxes being paid by the company. The Commission said that ratepayers "deserve to get the benefit from those savings as promptly as possible.j98 tt Southwestern Bell in Texas - In Texas, the staff of the Texas Public Utility Commission recommended that Southwestern Bell reduce rates by $400 million in 1989 because it was earning more 95 Steitfeld, "C&P's Inside Story," Washington Post, March 29, 1989, p. C5. 96 Telecommunications Reports, January 9, 1989, p. 21; Wall Street Journal, September 15, 1989, p. A7. 97 Communications Daily, January 4, 1989, p. 5. 98 Communications Week, March 6, 1989, p. 12. 39 than its prescribed rate of return. The PUC ultimately ordered a refund of $87 million and a four-year freeze of basic rates.99 • Southwestern Bell in Oklahoma - Oklahoma regulators urged in 1989 that Southwestern Bell be ordered to flow back to customers $6.2 million of "excess deferred income tax" collected from consumers. The Commission also identified $25.5 million in overcharges.' °° Southwestern Bell in Kansas - Kansas Corporation Commission staff recommended that Southwestern Bell reduce customer rates by $21.3 million per year in 1989.10' lx South Central Bell in Tennessee - The Tennessee Public Service Commission found $157 million in excess earnings by South Central Bell in 1990.1" tt South Central Bell in Alabama - The Alabama Public Service Commission has ordered rate reductions totaling $87 million in the last four years. n Southern Bell in Georgia - The Georgia Public Service Commis- sion ordered in 1990 a rate reduction of $181 million, due to "egregious overearnings."03 rx GTE in Oregon - Oregon's Public Utility Commission staff recommended a $17 million rate reduction in 1987, as a result of federal tax reform, deregulation, and "substandard service and operational deficiencies.j104 zx Ameritech in Wisconsin - The Wisconsin Public Service Com- mission ordered Wisconsin Bell to refund $28 million to customers as a result of excess earnings.'" 99 Communications Week, December 18, 1989, p. 10; BOC Week, December 3, 1990, p. 11. 100 The Daily Oklahoman, June 7, 1989, p. 16. 101 Communications Week, November 6, 1989, p. 10. 102 The Commercial Appeal, [Tennessee], October 31, 1990. 103 State Telephone Regulation Report, November 15, 1990, p. 7. The PSC and Southern Bell later reached a settlement reducing rates by $149 million. See also Atlanta Journal and Constitution, June 28, 1990. 104 UPI Newswire, September 21, 1987. 105 Communications Week, March 19, 1990, p. 10. 40 5. Safeguards Don't Work zx Violation of Accounting Rules — An FCC audit has resulted in four RBOCs being assessed forfeitures of $1 million in 1990 for violations of the FCC's accounting rules regarding the Common Line pool of the National Exchange Carrier Association, which distributes revenue paid by interexchange carriers for use of local exchange facilities. The FCC said the conduct of the RBOCs "reflects a serious disregard for the integrity of the NECA report- ing process and for our accounting rules.""06 tt NYNEX Violation of MFJ — NYNEX was indicted for violating the MFJ by engaging in the information services business, a line of business they agreed to stay out of as part of the settlement of the AT&T antitrust case. A Federal grand jury returned an indictment against NYNEX in this case in June 1990, and the Department of Justice is seeking a $1 million fine against the company. A NYNEX official has admitted the violations in a letter to the Justice Department.107 In a related case, a former employee of NYNEX has alleged that he was fired by NYNEX when he brought these violations to their attention.' 08 1x U S West Attempts to Block Investigation — An order by judge Greene stated U S West "has been engaged in a systematic and calculated effort to frustrate the [Justice] Department's legi- timate demands for information" in an investigation of discrimination in the offering of competitive switching services in several states.109 U S West was being investigated for violating the MFJ by offering price breaks on part of its local telephone service in conjunction with the switching service, although the MFJ stipulates it should offer the same price break to a com- petitor offering the switching services. The investigation resulted in U S West paying the maximum fine obtainable under antitrust laws. (See page 22.) 106 BOC Week, November 19, 1990, p. 6; FCC Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Orders to Show Cause, (FCC 90-383-386), November 9, 1990. 107 Communications Daily, February 7, 1989, p.5 108 Wall Street foumal, February 17, 1989, p. B3. 109 Memorandum and Order in United States v. Western Electric Co., 673 F. Supp. (D.D.C. 1987) February 2, 1988, p. 4. • ti 41 tt Regulatory Failure to Discover Cross -Subsidy — The example of cross -subsidy engaged in by NYNEX and its subsidiary Material Enterprises between 1984 and 1988 (see page 27) only came to light after an investigative newspaper story was published by the Boston Globe.10 The FCC itself acknowledged "(i]n July of 1988 we became cognizant, through a newspaper article, of an internal investigation of alleged improprieties committed by senior level personnel of MECO."' tx District of Columbia PSC Criticizes FCC Cost Allocation Rules — The Washington D.C. Public Service Commission released a report in 1990 which criticized the FCC's accounting safeguards as not assigning true costs to non-regulated services, overallocating costs to regulated customers, and ignoring trans- fers of valuable information and resources from the holding company to the unregulated subsidiary.12 The latter, incidental- ly, is the same type of problem identified by NARUC audits five years earlier. • FCC Staff Doubts Safeguards — Former FCC Common Carrier Bureau Chief Gerald Brock said that FCC staff had a hard time detecting the padding of the rate base. "There has to be some fairly clear evidence that costs are not fairly incurred.... Costs, like an extra vice president, we are probably never going to detect.i13 • Washington State Regulator Doubts Sufficiency of Regulatory Resources — "The recent NYNEX scandal is a case in point. While some say the case stands as an example of how regulation works, I would say the extraordinary nature of the investigation demonstrates how policing such transactions more frequently would exhaust regulatory resources. "114 >x Massachusetts Attorney General Supports Line of Business Restrictions — Massachusetts Attorney General James Shannon, in a 1990 letter to House Telecommunications Subcommittee 110 Boston Globe, December 22, 1988, p. 1. 111 FCC Review of Affiliate Transactions Between NYNEX's LECs and Materiel Enterprises, December 29, 1989, p. 5. 112 Telecommunications Reports, June 25, 1990, p. 12. 113 Wall Street Journal, June 25, 1987. 114 Sharon Nelson, Chair, Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission, March 15, 1990. Remarks at Congressional Economic Leadership Institute. 42 Chairman Edward Markey (D -MA), said lifting the line of busi- ness restrictions will "invite the abuse of the [RBOCs'] regulated monopoly ratepayers by permitting cross -subsidies that cannot be prevented effectively."15 tt FCC Admits Inability to Prevent Anticompetitive Behavior - The FCC stated in 1988 that, due to limited resources, "our policies and programs can do no more than deter and attempt to detect such [anticompetitive] activities."116 tz Utah PSC Questions Efficacy of Regulation — The Utah Public Service Commission recently approved a rate reduction for U S West of $22 million, including disallowances for transac- tions between U S West and its affiliates. The PSC criticized U S West's failure to satisfactorily implement the recommenda- tions of an affiliate -transactions study conducted three years earlier by Price Waterhouse, and also criticized the adequacy of information provided by U S West. "As things now stand, we question whether it is possible to regulate these transactions adequately. ”117 • Illinois Commissioner on Telco Cross -Subsidies — Illinois Public Service Commissioner Ruth Kretschmer said, "[t]elcos are sophisticated, with the best possible legal and accounting talent. If cross -subsidies occur, it is because the telco is acting in its own best interest and not just a fortuitous accident."118 tt judge Greene Doubts Efficacy of FCC — Judge Harold Greene, who presided over the breakup of AT&T, recently noted that regulation had come "full circle" since the original antitrust suit. "The antitrust suit and the decree came about because regulation and regulators proved to be ineffective in preventing widespread anticompetitive practices in the telecommunications industry... . Yet ... the situation has, if anything deteriorated. In the 1960s and 1970s, at least the Commission was intent on regulating, while the agency now prides itself on its deregulatory philosophy. 115 Communications Week, July 9, 1990, p. 6. 116 Policy and Rules Concerning the Rates for Dominant Carriers. 3FCC Rcd. 3195, 3226 (1988). 117 Telecommunications Reports, October 30, 1989, p. 19. 118 Networking Management, April 1990. 43 It passes understanding on what reasonable basis one could conclude, in view of that circumstance, that regulation would be more effective now than it was then. This may be precisely the point—no regulation and, therefore, a return to the grand old days of monopoly control.j19 FCC Unhappy with Independent Audit Reports - Although the FCC is relying on accounting safeguards to prevent cross -sub- sidy, the chiefs of the FCC's Accounting and Audits Division of the Common Carrier Bureau recently determined that inde- pendent auditors required by the FCC rules were not performing adequately. "Basically, we are dissatisfied with the.level of attes- tation. Auditors are not looking at the numbers, just whether or not the carriers [telcos] are following the cost manuals.i12° tt Economist Explains Inability of Regulators to Prevent An- ticompetitive Behavior - According to economist Roger Noll of Stanford, "[a]t the core of the inability of regulators to prevent - anticompetitive, discriminatory practices is the complexity and rapid technological evolution of telecommunications technology. Regulators are not the innovators, the reactors to technical and economic decisions of regulated firms. They lack the resources and the practical experience to police decisions by the regulated firm where they are made.... detailed cost allocation procedures also do not provide any realistic hope of preventing dis- criminatory pricing. ... The root cause is the fundamental arbitrariness of any costing procedure."' 21 zx Economist Notes RBOC Control Over Information Needed by Regulators - Economist Robert Hall has noted that "[r]egulators command far fewer resources than the BOCs. The cost records of a BOC are so forbiddingly complex that the regulators are forced to depend on the BOCs to process cost information for setting rates. The opportunities for manipulation in this process are extensive."`22 119 New York Law School Law Review, Volume XXXW, Number 2, 1989, p. 256. 120 BOC Week, October 29, 1990, p. 7. 121 Affidavit of Roger Noll, p. 18, 21, submitted with Opposition of the American Newspaper Publishers Association, National Black Media Coalition, and the National Newspaper Association. 122 Affidavit of Robert Hall, p. 48, submitted with Exhibits in Support of MCI's Opposition to Motions for Removal of the Information Services Restriction in the Modification of Final Judgement in United States v. Western Electric Co., etc., October 17, 1990. VP 44 tt Economist Doubts Efficacy of Regulation — Economist Walter Bolter has observed, "[nudging by only those activities that have been uncovered recently, abusive telephone company behavior continues today despite divestiture, equal access, ONA, and a host of other governmental `solutions."'123 123 Affidavit of Walter Bolter, p. 52, submitted with Response of the National Association of Broadcasters Memoranda in Support of Section VII Motions for Removal of the Sections II)D)(1) Restrictions on the Provision of Information Services, United States v. Western Electric Co., etc., October 17, 1990.