The URL can be used to link to this page

04/22/2013 - SPCITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA • APRIL 22, 2013 Council Chambers Special Meeting 6:00 PM Grand Terrace Civic Center • 22795 Barton Road City of Grand Terrace Page 1 Updated 4/4/2013 11:29 AM The City of Grand Terrace complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk’s office at (909) 824-6621 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. If you desire to address the City Council during the meeting with regard to an item on the agenda, please complete a request to speak form available at the entrance and present it to the City Clerk. Speakers will be called upon by the Mayor during public comment. Any documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office at city hall located at 22795 Barton Road during normal business hours. In addition, such documents will be posted on the City’s website at www.cityofgrandterrace.org CALL TO ORDER Convene City Council Workshop Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz ¨¨¨ Mayor Pro Tem Bernardo Sandoval ¨¨¨ Council Member Darcy McNaboe ¨¨¨ Council Member Jackie Mitchell ¨¨¨ Council Member Sylvia Robles ¨¨¨ 1.ITEMS TO DELETE 2.PUBLIC COMMENT This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on items on the agenda only. At a special meeting of the City Council, pursuant to California law, the Council will only be taking public comment on items listed on the agenda. 3.NEW BUSINESS A.Five-Year Financial Analysis and Budget Stabilization Plan Agenda Grand Terrace City Council April 22, 2013 City of Grand Terrace Page 2 Updated 4/4/2013 11:29 AM 4.CLOSED SESSION ADJOURN The Next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 6:00 PM. Agenda item requests must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk’s office no later than 14 calendar days preceding the meeting. AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE:April 22, 2013 Council Item TITLE:Five-Year Financial Analysis and Budget Stabilization Plan PRESENTED BY:Steve Elam, Finance Department RECOMMENDATION:1) Receive and file report. 2) Provide staff with direction regarding action items identified in report. BACKGROUND: The impacts of state-wide redevelopment dissolution, which were enacted through ABx1 26 and AB 1484 and became effective February 1, 2012, are requiring many cities to reevaluate their financial structure, service delivery, and even long-term fiscal viability. Since the City’s incorporation in 1978, Grand Terrace has relied heavily on redevelopment funds to help support its general governmental operations, through direct payroll charges of staff working in the redevelopment area, overhead allocations, and borrowing from the former Redevelopment Agency. With redevelopment agencies now dissolved by state law, the General Fund must stand on its own to fund essential services for the community, including public safety, street and park maintenance, community development, code enforcement and general administration. As a result of this significant change in the City’s financial structure, it is prudent to prepare a five-year projection of the City’s General Fund revenues, expenditures and fund balance, rather than simply an annual budget for the upcoming fiscal year. By doing so, the City Council can better assess the fiscal horizon and take the appropriate actions to address the long-term financial viability of the City. Five-Year projections have also been prepared for the Child Care Fund and Waste Water Disposal Fund, due to the size of the funds, the need for them to be self-supporting, and the significance of these operations to the City. DISCUSSION: The budgetary information for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 presented in the Five-Year Projections will be further refined prior to submittal of the FY 2013-14 Proposed Budget to the City Council for its review on May 14th and subsequent adoption in June, although substantial revisions are not anticipated. At that time, all City funds will also be included. Council direction on policy issues will also be needed to enable staff to present a balanced budget that can be adopted. Therefore, the FY 2013-14 projections should not be considered as the FY 2013-14 Proposed Budget. 3.A Packet Pg. 3 The financial data and analyses presented in this report are intended to provide the City Council with information that is necessary to make critical policy decisions that will shape the City’s future. As a result of the loss of redevelopment funds, on which the City was heavily dependent, the City cannot continue to provide services as in the past without additional revenue sources. Options facing the City are: (1) curtailment of services to match the diminished revenues available to the City; (2) restructuring of service delivery to include consideration of City disincorporation and/or the formation of a Community Services District to provide certain services; and (3) consideration of a local revenue measure to provide additional funding so the City can remain fiscally viable and provide the desired services to the community. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impacts are presented in the attached Five-Year Financial Analysis and Budget Stabilization Plan. ATTACHMENTS: ·Five-Year Revenue, Expenditure & Fund Balance Projections_REV APPROVALS: Steve Elam Completed 04/18/2013 9:59 AM Finance Completed 04/18/2013 10:37 AM City Attorney Completed 04/18/2013 12:13 PM City Manager Completed 04/18/2013 12:46 PM City Council Pending 3.A Packet Pg. 4 City of Grand Terrace Five-Year Financial Analysis and Budget Stabilization Plan April 22, 2013 3.A.a Packet Pg. 5 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 6 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 7 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n City of Grand Terrace Five-Year Financial Analysis and Budget Stabilization Plan April 22, 2013 3.A.a Packet Pg. 8 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n City of Grand Terrace Five-Year Financial Analysis and Budget Stabilization Plan Table of Contents Section Page Overview ................................................................................................................................... 1 Economic Forecast and Inflationary Assumptions ..................................................................... 3 Five-Year Revenue, Expenditure and Fund Balance Projections: • Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7 • General Fund ..................................................................................................................... 8 • Child Care Fund ............................................................................................................... 10 • Waste Water Disposal Fund ............................................................................................. 12 Discussion Regarding Projected Budgetary Deficits ................................................................ 14 Additional Budgetary Considerations ...................................................................................... 16 Budget Stabilization Plan • Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 21 • Planning Assumption A – no new revenues; structural deficit addressed solely through expenditure reductions or restructuring of governmental unit .................... 22 - Scenario A-1: No reductions in public safety funding; all expenditure reductions made in non-safety departments ................................................................. 23 - Scenario A-2: Reductions in all service areas, including public safety .......................... 25 - Scenario A-3: To avoid service levels falling below acceptable levels, consideration of City disincorporation and formation of Community Services District ............................................................................................................ 28 • Planning Assumption B – Consideration of local revenue measures to address projected budgetary deficits ................................................................................ 30 - Funding Level 1: Minimum revenue needed to continue providing essential services, with essential risk mitigation ........................................................................... 30 - Funding Level 2: Moderate funding – adequate to offset true structural deficit, with full risk mitigation and maintenance of adequate reserves .......................... 31 - Funding Level 3: Full funding – adequate to offset true structural deficit, with full risk mitigation, maintenance of adequate reserves and service enhancements to the community ................................................................................. 31 3.A.a Packet Pg. 9 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Table of Contents (continued) - Revenue Measure Options: ⋅ Local Add-on Sales Tax ............................................................................................. 32 ⋅ Parcel Tax .................................................................................................................. 33 ⋅ Utility User Tax ........................................................................................................... 34 Summary and Action Plan ....................................................................................................... 36 Appendices • Appendix A: Mid-Year Budget Review • Appendix B: Information Regarding Local Revenue Measures in California • Appendix C: Information Regarding Local Add-on Sales Tax • Appendix D: Information Regarding Utility User Tax • Appendix E: Supplemental Budget Detail – General Fund 3.A.a Packet Pg. 10 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Overview 3.A.a Packet Pg. 11 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Overview Five-Year Planning vs. One-Year Budget The impacts of state-wide redevelopment dissolution, which were enacted through ABx1 26 and AB 1484 and became effective February 1, 2012, are requiring many cities to reevaluate their financial structure, service delivery, and even long-term fiscal viability. Since the City’s incorporation in 1978, Grand Terrace has relied heavily on redevelopment funds to help support its general governmental operations, through direct payroll charges of staff working in the redevelopment area, overhead allocations, and borrowing from the former Redevelopment Agency. With redevelopment agencies now dissolved by state law, the General Fund must stand on its own to fund essential services for the community, including public safety, street and park maintenance, community development, code enforcement and general administration. As a result of this significant change in the City’s financial structure, it is prudent to prepare a five- year projection of the City’s General Fund revenues, expenditures and fund balance, rather than simply an annual budget for the upcoming fiscal year. By doing so, the City Council can better assess the fiscal horizon and take the appropriate actions to address the long-term financial viability of the City. Five-Year projections have also been prepared for the Child Care Fund and Waste Water Disposal Fund, due to the size of the funds, the need for them to be self- supporting, and the significance of these operations to the City. The budgetary information for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 presented in the Five-Year Projections will be further refined prior to submittal of the FY 2013-14 Proposed Budget to the City Council for its review on May 14th and subsequent adoption in June, although substantial revisions are not anticipated. At that time, all City funds will also be included. Council direction on policy issues will also be needed to enable staff to present a balanced budget that can be adopted. Therefore, the FY 2013-14 projections should not be considered as the FY 2013-14 Proposed Budget. The financial data and analyses presented in this report are intended to provide the City Council with information that is necessary to make critical policy decisions that will shape the City’s future. As a result of the loss of redevelopment funds, on which the City was heavily dependent, the City cannot continue to provide services as in the past without additional revenue sources. Options facing the City are: (1) curtailment of services to match the diminished revenues available to the City; (2) restructuring of service delivery to include consideration of City disincorporation and/or the formation of a Community Services District to provide certain services; and (3) consideration of a local revenue measure to provide additional funding so the City can remain fiscally viable and provide the desired services to the community. FY 2012-13 Budget The General Fund budget for FY 2012-13 was adopted with an operating surplus (excess of revenues over expenditures) of $154,694. Beginning fund balance was estimated at $656,264 and ending fund balance was projected at $810,958. The Mid-Year Budget Review presented to the City Council on February 26, 2013, identified $610,424 in unbudgeted negative impacts to the City’s General Fund budget as a result of unexpected redevelopment dissolution decisions 1 3.A.a Packet Pg. 12 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n by the California Department of Finance (DOF). These impacts reduced the projected ending fund balance to $415,280, which included a $50,000 budget appropriation approved during the Mid-Year review. (As of April, the year-end estimate has been revised to $440,960.) In addition to the rapid depletion of the City’s General Fund balance resulting from the redevelopment dissolution impacts, there are additional risks to General Fund balance related to the DOF’s review of the Due Diligence Review (DDR) of Non-Housing Funds. Preliminary findings issued by the DOF on March 25, 2013, indicate that $13.6 million is owed by the Successor Agency (the City has chosen to serve as Successor Agency to the former RDA) to the County Auditor-Controller for disbursement to the various taxing entities. The City is one of the taxing entities, with a share of 19.97% of the former RDA property tax increment. Therefore, disbursement of the $13.6 million would result in the City receiving approximately $2.7 million in property tax funds on a one-time basis. However, of the $13.6 million identified by the DOF as due from the Successor Agency, approximately $3.2 million represents funds loaned by the former RDA to the City. Therefore, the City would be obligated to repay this amount. For this reason, the General Fund balance is very tenuous and could be needed in its entirety to satisfy redevelopment dissolution obligations that are shifted to the General Fund. Successor Agency staff requested a meet-and-confer discussion with the DOF to discuss the findings, further explain the Successor Agency’s position, provide additional documentation, and possibly to negotiate payment terms on amounts owed by the City. The meet-and-confer discussion is scheduled for April 16, 2013. Following this meeting, the DOF will issue a final determination regarding the DDR. Additional information regarding the RDA-dissolution impacts to the General Fund was provided to the City Council in the Mid-Year Budget Review on February 26, 2013. This report is included as Appendix A to provide additional background information and context for the FY 2013-14 budget and financial projections. 2 3.A.a Packet Pg. 13 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Economic Forecast and Inflationary Assumptions 3.A.a Packet Pg. 14 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Economic Forecast and Inflationary Assumptions Economic forecast information was used to determine an appropriate inflationary factor relative to the five-year revenue and expenditure projections, in cases where more precise or specific information was not available or applicable. Much of the economic information that follows was taken from a comprehensive economic report prepared by Beacon Economics in partnership with the University of California at Riverside School of Business Administration and released December 2012. Additional information is taken from recent reports from The HdL Companies, who provide sales tax and property tax consulting services to the City and Successor Agency, and various economic updates. It should be noted that the City’s major revenue sources such as property tax and sales tax are projected based on data and analyses specific to the City, utilizing outside consulting expertise, rather than applying generalized growth or inflationary factors. Likewise, key expenditure categories, such as personnel-related expenses and contractual services, are projected based on factors specific to the City. National Economy The U.S. economy is in the midst of a slow but steady three-year expansion characterized by rising economic output, rising wages, improving asset values, and falling unemployment. However, growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been slower than normal at 2.1% over the last two years, compared with 3% for the two decades prior to the recession. This slow rate of growth is primarily due to declines in the public sector that have offset fairly normal growth in the private sector. Typically, direct government spending contributes approximately 0.3% to the economy, while over the past two years it has contracted by 0.67%. As for the source of overall growth, consumer spending has been slightly below average, while offset by greater-than- normal growth in construction spending and business investments. Employment growth in the private sector has been approximately 1.8% over the past two years, compared with 1.5% for the two decades prior to the recession. Unemployment is still higher than normal, at 7.6%, but it has fallen 2.4% in the past two years, and just dropped from 7.9% to 7.7% in February; then to 7.6% in March, which is the lowest level since January 2009. However, actual job growth the past two months has been lower than expected and the falling unemployment rate, while seeming to be positive, is also indicative of discouraged workers giving up their job searches and no longer being counted in the unemployment figures. The broader U-6 unemployment rate, which includes workers no longer looking for employment, is close to 14%, while in stronger economic times it is closer to 10%. Some of the most positive recent news comes from the housing sector, where home prices and construction permits have trended upward into recovery territory. According to the major price measures, home values are now 5% to 6% above last year’s values. Housing starts have also continued to rise, reaching 900,000 in October. Much of the activity is in the multi-family sector, where investors are rushing to catch up with the tight market. Given that the large stock of bank-owned units continues to fall, alongside declines in the number of foreclosures, it is likely that the housing recovery will continue to accelerate. 3 3.A.a Packet Pg. 15 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n The relatively positive news above is tempered by the increase in taxes that took effect 1/1/13, combined with the expected decline in federal spending through the budget sequestration process. The overall impact on the economy is roughly $550 billion--$410 billion in tax increases and $140 billion in spending cuts over the course of the year. These impacts have the potential to shock the fragile recovery and trigger another recession, or at least slow the already slow rate of GDP growth. Overall inflation nationwide is running about 2%, as reflected in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), U.S. City Average. The annual average CPI-U was up 2.07% from 2011 to 2012 and 1.98% from February 2012 to February 2013. California Economy California is a driving force behind the national economic recovery, albeit it a weak and slow recovery. During 2012, California led the nation in job, income and consumer spending growth. However, despite these positive growth results, California’s labor markets have not sprung back to life in the wake of the recession. Although more than 725,000 jobs have been added since the trough of the recession, the statewide unemployment rate is the highest in the nation at 9.6%, tied with Nevada and Mississippi. Despite the continuing high employment rate, it has dropped from 10.1% in October 2012, and from a high of 12.4% at its peak in October 2010. Beacon Economics is forecasting employment growth to remain in the 2% range for 2013, before gaining momentum and growing between 2.5% and 3.0% per year beginning in 2014. Consumer spending statewide is showing steady growth. According to data released by the State Board of Equalization, taxable sales in California posted their 12th consecutive quarterly increase. To date, taxable sales in the state have rebounded by more than 25% since hitting bottom in the second quarter of 2009, and are just 2.4% below their pre-recession peak of $143 billion per quarter. Auto sales have contributed significantly to this growth, increasing by 15% from the same period a year ago. In addition to auto sales, there have been positive growth results in tourism and construction-related spending. Over the past few years, the real estate markets have been a drag on statewide economic growth. However, 2012 showed a reversal as real estate began to add to the economy rather than detract from it. Real estate tracking firm DataQuick has reported 14 consecutive months of year-over-year increases in home sales, reaching their highest level since December 2009, when the first-time homebuyer tax credits were drawing a significant number of new buyers into the market. Although the homebuyer tax credits have since expired, increased demand is being driven by improvement in the labor market and record low interest rates. The boost in demand for homes has also contributed to price appreciation in the state. Since hitting bottom in April 2009, the median price of a home is up 50%, from a low of $221,500 to $334,000. Helping this trend is the fact that distressed mortgages in the state continue to dwindle and represent a smaller share of the overall sales mix. In terms of new home construction, residential permitting is trending upward and construction employment has started to rebound as well. On the commercial side of the market, vacancy rates have begun to drop throughout the state for retail, office and industrial properties, while rents have begun to inch upward. 4 3.A.a Packet Pg. 16 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n The economic problems throughout Europe have caused concern for California exports. Export growth has slowed from the double-digit growth experienced in 2010 and 2011. Exports have continued to grow throughout 2012 but at a slower pace. Although the Euro zone continues to be in the midst of a financial ordeal, state exports to our largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico, have held up well. Beacon Economics is forecasting slow but steady growth in the state’s exports. Inland Region Economy The economic recovery in the Inland Region (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) has been slow but is steadily moving in the right direction. Progress is now being seen in most of the region’s key sectors including consumer spending, residential and commercial real estate, tourism and logistics. Taxable sales have grown three straight years; home sales are on the rise; hotel occupancy rates are growing; and property values are starting to rise after experiencing some of the most significant declines in the nation. On the employment front, the Inland Region has lagged behind the neighboring counties in job growth. Through October 2012, the region had added only 30,800 new jobs to its employment base since hitting bottom at the end of 2009. This represents a 2.8% increase, versus 3.1% growth in Los Angeles County, 4.0% in San Diego County and 4.1% in Orange County. Although the overall job growth is modest, private-sector job growth has outpaced the year- over-year job growth statewide, but has been offset with job losses in the public sector. The region’s unemployment rate is currently at 10.8%, versus its peak of 14.6% in April 2010, and compared to the statewide average of 9.6%. While employment is a lagging economic indicator, a number of the key leading indicators point to a regional economy that is poised for solid growth throughout 2013 and beyond. Consumer spending has risen more than 27% since hitting bottom in mid-2009. Taxable sales are still running 7% below their pre-recession peak, but they have made up a significant portion of that lost ground. The biggest surge has come from auto sales, where tax receipts from 2012 sales were up 9% from 2011. As long-term durable goods, automobile purchases indicate that consumers are feeling more optimistic about the economy and prospects for their own personal income. Other growth areas of consumer spending include building materials, groceries and general merchandise. Beacon Economics is forecasting that the Inland Region will rebound to its pre-recession peak level of taxable sales by the end of 2013, with annual growth rate between 6% and 8% thereafter. The housing resurgence statewide includes a strong showing in the Inland Region. Both Riverside and San Bernardino counties have enjoyed eight consecutive quarters of price appreciation through October 2012. Overall, housing prices in both counties are up approximately 23% from their troughs in May 2009. In fact, this is an area where the region is outpacing its neighbors in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties. The non-residential side of the market is also starting to improve. Industrial vacancies are down from a peak of more than 10% to just over 8%. As the overall economy improves and as payrolls begin to grow again, activity is also starting to increase in non-residential construction. Beacon Economics forecasts that non-residential building permit values will continue to rise and result in $700 million in construction value in 2013 and rise to $1.3 billion in value by the end of 2017. 5 3.A.a Packet Pg. 17 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Overall, the Inland Region has a long way to go before it returns to its pre-recession employment levels and overall economic vitality. However, virtually all leading economic indicators indicate that the region is poised for continued steady growth throughout 2013 and beyond. Overall inflation in the region is running just slightly ahead of the national average of 2%, as reflected in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), Los Angeles/Riverside/Orange County. This regional index was up 2.04% from 2011 to 2012 and 2.22% from February 2012 to February 2013. Economic Inflators Used in Five-Year Budget Projections The economic information presented above was useful in developing an inflationary/growth factor to apply to certain revenue and expenditure categories over the five-year period covered in this analysis. Based on the Beacon Economics forecast information, CPI and other sources utilized, a 2% annualized inflationary factor was applied to both revenue and expenditures line items for which more precise information was not available or appropriate to use. However, as previously indicated, the City’s major revenue sources such as property tax and sales tax were projected based on data and analyses specific to the City, utilizing outside consulting expertise, rather than applying generalized growth or inflationary factors. Other revenues were analyzed based on activity and factors specific to the City. In a similar manner, expenditure line items were analyzed based on their specific characteristics and a general inflationary factor was only utilized in those cases where more precise information was not available. In this regard, the largest expenditure category in the City’s budget is personnel-related expense. For the five- year projections, the following assumptions were used: • Continuation of the 4-day (36-hour) work week for City Hall staff and corresponding 10% salary reduction; • Continued suspension of merit increases; • No cost-of-living adjustment (COLA); and • Retirement contribution rates for FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 based on the latest valuation report provided by the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Rates used in the three subsequent years’ projections were based on recent information provided by CalPERS concerning changes in actuarial and economic assumptions to address the system-wide unfunded liabilities. Following are the retirement rates reflected in the projections: o FY 2013-14: 21.991% o FY 2014-15: 22.9% o FY 2015-16: 25.5% o FY 2016-17: 28.0% o FY 2017-18: 30.0% • Increase in health insurance premiums of 3% in FY 2013-14 and 6% annually thereafter based on expected premium increases related to the Affordable Care Act that takes effect 1/1/14. • Increase of 4% annually on Law Enforcement contract, per Sheriff’s Department. 6 3.A.a Packet Pg. 18 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Five-Year Revenue, Expenditure and Fund Balance Projections 3.A.a Packet Pg. 19 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Five-Year Revenue, Expenditure and Fund Balance Projections Introduction Five-year projections of revenues, expenditures and fund balance are presented in the following schedules for the City’s major funds, which include: • General Fund • Child Care Fund • Waste Water Disposal Fund In each fund, the projections assume no change in staffing levels, staff compensation, service levels or other policy decisions to be made by the City Council. As such, they reflect a continuation of current operations using the best estimates of revenues and expenditures over the upcoming five-year period. 7 3.A.a Packet Pg. 20 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 8 3.A.a Packet Pg. 21 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 9 3.A.a Packet Pg. 22 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 10 3.A.a Packet Pg. 23 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 11 3.A.a Packet Pg. 24 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 12 3.A.a Packet Pg. 25 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 13 3.A.a Packet Pg. 26 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Discussion Regarding Projected Budgetary Deficits As shown in the previous schedules, operating deficits are projected in all three of the City’s major funds: General Fund, Child Care Fund and Waste Water Disposal Fund. These projected deficits are briefly discussed below. General Fund (refer to pages 8-9) Significant operating deficits are projected in the General Fund each of the next five years, with the size of the deficits growing annually through FY 2016-17 before dropping slightly in FY 2017-18. Contributing factors in the growing deficits are: (1) increased retirement contribution rates; (2) increased health insurance rates; (3) annual escalation of 4% in law enforcement contract; and (4) redevelopment agency (RDA) dissolution impacts, which are summarized below: • Revenue loss related to Residual Receipts Agreement $300,000 • Additional Debt Service Payment (City Hall Facility) 255,000 • Loss of Cost Allocation to RDA 183,000 • Total RDA Dissolution Impacts $738,000 Additionally, sales tax revenue projections have been revised downward in FYs 2014-15 through FY 2016-17 to reflect impacts expected from the I-215/Barton Road interchange project, which may include business relocations and/or closures. Minor downward revisions have also been made in the Business License revenue projections for this same period as a result of the I- 215/Barton Road interchange project. The revenue projections do not reflect the sale of land owned by the former Community Redevelopment Agency (now the Successor Agency). After preparation of a Long-Range Property Management Plan, the Successor Agency will attempt to sell the properties under its control. The proceeds from any such sales will be distributed to the various taxing entities that are now entitled to receive property tax proceeds as a result of the redevelopment dissolution process. The City is one of these taxing entities and will receive approximately 20% of any sales proceeds. Given the uncertainty of the sales transactions (amount and timing), revenues from these transactions were not included in the revenue projections. In addition to the General Fund budgetary deficits reflected in the preceding projections, there are additional budgetary considerations that will further impact the General Fund budget. These additional budgetary considerations are discussed in the next section of the report, followed by a Budget Stabilization Plan that presents various options for addressing the projected deficits and balancing the General Fund budget. Child Care Fund (refer to pages 10-11) The projected operating deficits in the Child Care Fund reflect three factors: (1) increased retirement contribution rates; (2) increased health insurance rates; and (3) future maintenance items that will be required over the next few years, such as remediation of termite damage, interior painting and carpet replacement. Since it is the intent that the Child Care Fund be self- 14 3.A.a Packet Pg. 27 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n supporting and not require any General Fund subsidy, fee increases will need to be considered to ensure that revenues are sufficient to cover budgeted expenditures. Such fee increases have not been reflected in the Five-Year Projections, since these will be policy decisions to be made by the City Council. When each annual proposed operating budget is presented for the City Council’s consideration, it will include any recommended fee increases needed to maintain a balanced budget. For FY 2013-14, a fee increase of approximately 5% would be needed for revenues to cover projected expenditures, assuming full enrollment is maintained. The FY 2013-14 Proposed Budget will address the proposed Child Care fees for the upcoming fiscal year. Waste Water Disposal Fund (refer to pages 12-13) Operating deficits are projected for this fund over the next five years. However, there are a number of issues concerning waste water collection and treatment with the City of Colton that are currently being evaluated and that could alter the financial projections. Like any enterprise fund, it is the intent that this fund is self-supporting and that operating revenues will be sufficient to cover operating expenditures, in addition to generating fund balance needed for system replacements and upgrades. It is the City’s intent that negotiations with the City of Colton will result in resolution of the issues such that this fund will stabilized financially and achieve the goal of being self-supporting. 15 3.A.a Packet Pg. 28 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Additional Budgetary Considerations 3.A.a Packet Pg. 29 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Additional Budgetary Considerations In addition to the projected General Fund budgetary deficits shown in the previous section of the report, there are risks that could increase the size of the deficits if not addressed, as well as service enhancements in which the City Council has expressed an interest that would require additional funding. These additional budgetary considerations are discussed below. Loan Repayment to RDA Successor Agency On April 12, 2011, the City and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) entered into a Loan Agreement documenting previous loans made by the RDA to the City totaling $4,606,948 and reductions to the loan totaling $1,218,857 (representing RDA-related projects paid by the City that should have been paid by the RDA), leaving a remaining loan balance of $3,388,091. The Loan Agreement established repayment terms of $147,308.30 annually through 2034 (term of the RDA) with no interest accruing on the loan. The initial loan payment of $147,308.30 was made during FY 2012-13. With state-wide dissolution of redevelopment agencies that became effective February 1, 2012, repayment of the loan should now be made to the various taxing entities that were entitled to receive property tax increment funds, which includes the City at a rate of 19.97% of total property tax distribution. Deducting the City’s share of 19.97% leaves a remaining annual loan payment of $117,889.02, which should be included as an expenditure obligation in each annual budget. It should be noted that through the California Department of Finance (DOF) review of records related to the RDA dissolution process (Due Diligence Review), the entire loan balance may become due and payable. This would negate the need for the annual loan payment to be included in the City’s annual budget. Successor Agency staff will be addressing this issue with the DOF through the meet-and-confer process. If there is an unfavorable resolution, the City would attempt to negotiate payment terms with the DOF, as the City does not have the capacity to repay the entire balance due on the loan. Such a scenario could significantly impact the City’s future financial outlook. Asset Replacement Fund Assets purchased by the City, such as vehicles, equipment and computers, have an expected useful life, after which they must be replaced. Although governmental funds do not require the depreciation of assets, it is a sound financial practice is to charge depreciation over the useful life of each asset and transfer corresponding funds to an Asset Replacement Fund, such that funds are available when the asset must be replaced. This practice results in increased operating expense while assets are being depreciated but eliminates spikes in the budget when assets need to be replaced and have no funding source. Many of the City’s assets, including virtually all computer equipment, are well beyond their useful life and run the risk of failure or expensive repairs. To mitigate this risk, it is recommended that an Equipment Replacement Fund be established and initially funded at $50,000 with General Fund reserves. It is further recommended that any new or replacement assets purchased be depreciated over their projected useful lives and the depreciation charges used to further contribute to the Fund. This 16 3.A.a Packet Pg. 30 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n practice should also be established for the Child Care Fund and Waste Water Disposal Fund, although the initial funding level requires further analysis for both funds. In some cases, leasing of equipment, such as copiers, may be more cost-effective than purchasing and depreciating the equipment, but this option will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Funding for Retiree Medical Benefit The City provides medical plan coverage for retirees. This coverage is available for employees who satisfy the requirements for retirement under CalPERS, which is age 50 or older with at least five years of state or agency service. Medical plan benefits are provided through CalPERS, as permitted by the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital and Care Act (PEMHCA). The Annual Required Contribution (ARC) needed to fund this retiree benefit is approximately $160,000. The City has not been providing this funding, which has resulted in a growing actuarial liability that is now approximately $1.5 million. To prevent this growing liability, the City needs to start funding the ARC of $160,000 annually (subject to adjustment based on future actuarial valuations). Funding for Leave Cash-Outs When an employee separates from the City, they are paid for accumulated leave time. When this occurs, the department in which the employee worked incurs the expense of the leave cash-out, which can result in a budget overrun. To mitigate this situation, it is advisable to budget an allowance for leave cash-outs in the General Fund (Non-Departmental cost center). Based on recent experience, the annual amount that should be budgeted is $50,000. Special Election Should the decision be made to proceed with a special election in November 2013 related to a local revenue measure, the estimated cost of the election would be $25,000. In addition to the actual cost of the election (paid to the County), an election advisor will be required to oversee activities such as resident polling (to help determine the size and type of revenue measure that the community would support), public education effort, and preparation of the ballot arguments. The cost of such professional election advisory services is estimated at $75,000. Proceeding with a revenue measure without this type of specialized professional expertise would make its chances of success highly unlikely. Contingency Reserve One of the basic principles of sound public agency fiscal management is that an agency should maintain an adequate level of unrestricted and uncommitted General Fund balance as a general contingency reserve. Such reserve is for the purpose of mitigating current and future risks that could result from economic downturns or other unexpected events that result in a revenue shortfall or expenditure increase. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that government agencies establish a formal policy on the level of unrestricted and uncommitted fund balance that should be maintained in the General Fund. While a number of 17 3.A.a Packet Pg. 31 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n risk factors should be considered before establishing the reserve policy, GFOA recommends a minimum balance of two months of General Fund operating revenues or operating expenditures, whichever is considered to be the most predictable. In the case of Grand Terrace, the preliminary FY 2013-14 General Fund budget is not yet balanced. Without a revenue measure, expenditures must be significantly reduced to remain within the revenue projections. Therefore, at this time establishing a General Fund reserve target based on revenues is more predictable. With projected FY 2013-14 revenues of $3,309,047, a two-month reserve would represent $551,508. Projected General Fund balance at the beginning of FY 2013-14 is $440,960, representing a shortfall of $110,548 from the GFOA-recommended reserve requirement. While this entire shortfall would not need to be funded in one year, there should be a plan to fund the reserve in a specified time period. Any one-time revenues received by the City are recommended to be used to fund this reserve rather than used for operations. One-time payments would include the future sale of former RDA-owned properties (now owned by the Successor Agency) which would result in approximately 20% of the net proceeds being returned to the City. Later this year, staff will submit a formal Reserve Policy to the City Council for its review and adoption. The following table summarizes the additional funding considerations for the FY 2013-14 General Fund budget and future projections, in order to mitigate risk to the City and provide an adequate level of funding and reserves. Items for Additional Funding Consideration FY 2013-14 Recommended Funding Projected Ongoing Annual Funding Loan Repayment to Former RDA Taxing Entities $118,000 $118,000 Asset Replacement Fund $50,000 $10,000 Retiree Medical Benefit – Annual Required Contribution $160,000 $160,000 Funding for Leave Cash-outs $50,000 $50,000 Special Election – Local Revenue Measure (County Cost - $25k + Election Advisory Services - $75k) $100,000 $0 Funding for Contingency Reserve $111,000 Amount needed to maintain 2 months of revenue Total $589,000 At least $338,000 As shown above, in order to mitigate risk and avoid unfunded long-term liabilities, the City’s General Fund expenditure budget for FY 2013-14 should be increased by $589,000. If this was done, the projected operating deficit (shortfall of revenues versus expenditures) would increase from the current projection of $674,713 to $1,263,713. While revenues are not available to fund 18 3.A.a Packet Pg. 32 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n these additional considerations, it provides a more realistic picture of the true size of the City’s General Fund expenditure obligations, if properly funded, based on current service levels. Risks of Further RDA Dissolution-Related Impacts on Reserves While the City currently has an estimated 6/30/13 General Fund balance of $441,000, there is significant risk that a substantial portion of this reserve could be needed to fund Successor Agency obligations that are denied by the DOF through the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) process, or as a result of DOF determinations made in their review of the Non-Housing Funds DDR, as previously discussed. Therefore, the City’s entire General Fund balance is currently considered to be very tenuous and could be needed in its entirety simply to satisfy RDA dissolution obligations that are shifted to the General Fund. On February 23, 2013, the City Council held a workshop to discuss priorities in the FY 2013-14 budget, if funding should be available. The following table lists the items identified in the workshop and very preliminary cost estimates for each item. A number of factors and policy decisions would determine the actual cost of implementation; therefore, the cost estimates are provided as a general frame of reference. City Council Priorities for Funding Consideration FY 2013-14 Preliminary Funding Estimate Estimated Ongoing Annual Funding Requirement Web Streaming of City Council Meetings (including required upgrades to Council Chambers) $25,000 $5,000 Additional Patrol Deputy (without relief factor) $150,000 $150,000 Automatic License Plate Recognition System (ALPRS) $30,0001 $30,0001 Economic Development Program $50,000 $50,000 Volunteer Program/Coordinator $40,000 $40,000 Additional Support for Youth Sports Programs (lighting) $7,000 $7,000 Increased Level of Street Maintenance $200,000 $200,000 Total $502,000 $482,000 1 Various options for ALPRS are currently being evaluated by the Sheriff’s Department Including fixed installations at key intersections and mobile cameras installed on patrol vehicles. The cost of $30,000 is based on a total system cost of $150,000 spread over 5 years. As shown above, the additional items for funding consideration would add an estimated $502,000 to the FY 2013-14 General Fund budget and over $482,000 annually thereafter, 19 3.A.a Packet Pg. 33 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n based on very preliminary cost estimates. (Should Council decide to proceed with any of these items, more refined cost estimates will be required prior to adoption of the FY 2013-14 budget.) Not specifically identified as a Council priority but mentioned during the February 23rd workshop was the possibility of resuming a 40-hour work week for City Hall employees versus the current 36-hour reduced work week. If implemented, this action would increase General Fund expenditures by approximately $85,000. Other personnel-related costs provided for the City Council’s reference are resumption of merit increases (General Fund annual cost of approximately $28,000) and cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for staff (General Fund annual cost of approximately $8,000 for each 1% COLA). Another funding consideration would be contract services for a Grant Writer, estimated at $25,000 per year. The City currently has no staffing resources to research potential grant opportunities and prepare grant applications. Funding of $25,000 would allow the City to hire an individual or company that specializes in this work to pursue appropriate grant opportunities for the City. 20 3.A.a Packet Pg. 34 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Budget Stabilization Plan 3.A.a Packet Pg. 35 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Budget Stabilization Plan Introduction In addition to the baseline operating deficits shown in the five-year General Fund projections, the costs identified in the Additional Budgetary Considerations section of the report should also be taken into consideration in order to properly assess the City’s true General Fund structural deficit, as shown below. Budget Category 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Projected Baseline Operating Deficit (rounded to nearest $1,000) $675,000 $758,000 $910,000 $929,000 $884,000 Additional Funding Needed to Mitigate Risk and Stabilize Budget $589,000 $338,000 $338,000 $338,000 $338,000 Total Projected Structural Deficit $1,264,000 $1,096,000 $1,248,000 $1,267,000 $1,222,000 It should be noted that the annual structural deficit of approximately $1.25 million identified above does not include the return of City Hall operations to five days per week, restoration to normal staffing levels, or reinstatement of employee compensation reductions. Neither does the structural deficit address the City Council priorities for funding consideration, as summarized on page 19 of the report. The preliminary cost estimates for these items were $502,000 for FY 2013-14 and $482,000 annually in subsequent years. There are two basic approaches to addressing the projected General Fund structural budgetary deficit: expenditure reductions and revenue increases, although some combination of the two may also be considered. Recognizing that any significant revenue increases will require a tax measure that is subject to voter approval, and therefore uncertain, Scenario “A” of the Budget Stabilization Plan presents expenditure reduction options. Within this planning scenario, three separate options are presented. Scenario “B” of the Budget Stabilization Plan presents revenue enhancement options at three funding levels and three options for the type of tax that could be assessed. Although the Child Care Fund and Waste Water Disposal Fund have projected operating deficits, they are not addressed in the Budget Stabilization Plan due to their unique characteristics. The Child Care Fund can offset its projected deficits with fee increases, which will be presented for the City Council’s consideration concurrent with each annual operating budget. If approved by the City Council, such fee increases will enable the budget to be balanced and the fund to be self-supporting. Overcoming the projected structural deficit in the Waste Water Disposal Fund will require resolution of issues with the City of Colton, which the City of Grand Terrace is currently pursuing. Resolution of the issues will include a financial plan to ensure that the budget is balanced and the fund is self-supporting. 21 3.A.a Packet Pg. 36 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Budget Stabilization Plan Planning Assumption “A” No New Revenues; Budgetary Deficit Addressed Solely Through Expenditure Reductions or Restructuring of Governmental Unit The first planning assumption is that no new revenues will be available to the City and that the budget must be balanced solely by reducing expenditures to remain within projected revenues or restructuring of the governmental unit. This case would occur if a local revenue measure is not supported by the City Council or if it is supported and fails in the November election. The City must plan for this occurrence and three scenarios are presented for the City Council’s consideration, as follows: 1. There are no budgetary reductions in public safety; all expenditure reductions will be made in non-safety departments. 2. Expenditure reductions necessary to adopt a balanced budget are considered in all service areas, including public safety. 3. Due to the severe service level reductions that would be required to reduce expenditures within available revenues under either of the above two scenarios, likely falling below acceptable community standards, consideration is given to City disincorporation and possible formation of a Community Services District to deliver essential services to the community. As background information in evaluating these three scenarios, it is informative to consider actions already taken by the City over the past few years in response to the economic recession, in order to reduce expenditures and maintain a balanced General Fund budget. The most significant of these actions are summarized below: • Removed Traffic Deputy from law enforcement services agreement with the County. • Removed Sheriff’s Service Specialist from law enforcement services agreement with the County. • Eliminated Crossing Guard Program. • Outsourced Parks Maintenance and two-thirds (2/3) of Finance Department staffing. • Defunded 17.5 positions (outside of Child Care program), reducing City Hall employee workforce from 29 positions in FY 2009-10 to 12.5 positions in FY 2012-13; representing a 57% workforce reduction). • Suspended employee cost-of-living adjustments and merit increases (5 years); reduced City Hall employee work week from 40 hours to 36 hours (3 years, 10% wage reduction); and reduced employee cafeteria benefit by 10% (3 years, City Hall and Child Care employees). When evaluating the level of expenditure reductions that would be needed to balance the General Fund budget, the projected operating deficits shown in the Five-Year Revenue and 22 3.A.a Packet Pg. 37 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Expenditure Projections are considered to be the minimum level. However, the items identified for additional funding consideration should also be considered as part of the true structural deficit as they are needed to mitigate risk and truly stabilize the City’s General Fund budget. The scenarios that follow describe options for reducing General Fund expenditures so they remain within the City’s projected General Fund revenues. Scenario A-1: No reductions in public safety funding; all expenditure reductions will be in non- safety departments. Recognizing that public safety is always the highest priority in a community, this first scenario presents options for reducing expenditures to non-safety departments so that public safety funding is preserved. The following table identifies the expenditure reductions that would need to be achieved to adopt a balanced General Fund budget in FY 2013-14 without reducing law enforcement expenditures. Budget Category FY 2013-14 Future Years Baseline Projected Deficit (rounded to nearest $1,000) $675,000 Low: $758,000 High: $929,000 Items for Additional Funding Consideration (Risk Mitigation) $589,000 $338,000 Total Deficit (Baseline + Risk Mitigation Measures) $1,264,000 Low: $1,096,000 High: $1,267,000 General Fund Expenditure Budget without Law Enforcement $2,180,000 Low: $2,228,000 High: $2,350,000 Percentage Reduction Needed to Non-Safety Budget 58.0% Low: 49.2% High: 53.9% With a City Hall workforce reduction of 57% already implemented, and only 12.5 positions remaining, it is not possible to implement across-the-board expenditure reductions of nearly 60% in each department needed to balance the budget and still provide the minimum services that are required for cities. According to the Corteze-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Municipal Incorporation Guidelines, California cities are required to provide the following minimum services: • General legislative functions. • Land use planning and control over land use and development (may be provided by means of a contract with other entities such as the county or private firms). • Law enforcement (may be provided by means of a contract with other entities). • Animal control (may be provided by contract). • Maintenance of public roads and other public property owned by the city (may be provided by means of a contract with other entities such as the county or private firms). 23 3.A.a Packet Pg. 38 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n To try and achieve expenditure reductions to balance the FY 2013-14 budget--even at the baseline deficit of $675,000--while providing the minimum required services, the following options have been identified. Expenditure Reduction Options FY 2013-14 General Fund Savings 1 Ongoing Annual General Fund Savings Part-Time (PT) City Administration: Reduce City Hall hours to two days a week (18 hours); replace selected City Hall staff with PT contract staff; remaining City staff become PT employees (18 hours per week). - City Manager: replace with PT contract City Administrator $ 33,000 $ 67,900 - Community Development Director: replace with PT contract Public Works/Building & Safety services 11,200 34,200 - MIS Specialist: replace with PT contract services 14,000 27,600 - Building & Safety Technician: replace with PT contract services 3,600 10,500 - Sr. Code Enforcement Officer: replace with PT contract services (4,500) 13,100 - Maintenance Crew Leader: replace with PT contract services 1,300 8,000 - Maintenance Worker: replace with PT contract services 5,500 6,400 - Remaining City staff become PT employees (18 hours per week) 155,300 155,300 Reduce level of contract services: - Eliminate Project Manager from Willdan Financial Services contract 40,000 40,000 - Reduce contract City Attorney hours and retainer 12,000 12,000 Eliminate Senior Center Funding 27,000 27,000 Close Rollins & Pico Parks 120,000 120,000 Reduce EOC/CERT Committee Funding by 50% 5,700 5,700 Reduce Cultural & Historical Committee Funding by 50% 600 600 Council & Oversight Board meetings reduced from biweekly to monthly 500 500 Planning Commission eliminated; responsibilities assumed by City Council 2,200 2,200 Total Expenditure Savings $427,400 $531,000 1 Full-year savings; if actions not implemented until after November election (effective 12/1/13), savings would be reduced to approximately $205,600. Implementation of the above options would save an estimated $427,400 in General Fund expenditures in FY 2013-14 and nearly $531,000 annually thereafter. It should be noted that the estimated savings are very preliminary, as the cost of contact services would need to be determined through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process, identifying the precise work scope and skill sets needed. As indicated in the footnote above, the FY 2013-14 cost saving estimates are based on a 7/1/13 implementation so that a full year of savings would be achieved. If not implemented until after a November election, the savings for FY 2013-14 would be less than half at $205,600. This is because some of the savings would be reduced to a 7-month versus 12-month period, and savings related to outsourcing of staff positions would be net of leave cash-outs. Total savings related to staff outsourcing and work schedule reductions are greater 24 3.A.a Packet Pg. 39 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n than reflected in the above table; however, the above amounts represent only the General Fund portion of the savings. Closing parks, reducing City Hall services to two days a week and transitioning to part-time City Hall staff (18 hours per week) would be extreme expenditure reduction measures and would still not be sufficient to offset even the baseline operating deficits that are projected, and would be less than half the savings needed to offset the true General Fund structural deficit of $1.3 million annually. Not included in the above table but mentioned for Council’s consideration is the possibility of closing the Child Care Center and selling the facility. The Child Care Fund is self-supporting and does not rely on General Fund subsidy. Therefore, such action would not help to resolve the General Fund’s structural deficit but would provide one-time cash that could be used for General Fund operations or during a transition period of City government restructuring (Scenario A-3). An updated property appraisal would be required to determine the current market value of the facility. (The facility was last appraised in May 2012 at a market value of $1,062,000.) The likelihood of selling the facility at its appraised value is uncertain. Additionally, consideration should be given to selling the City Hall facility. The facility is encumbered with outstanding debt of $1.6 million and annual debt service of $255,000. If the facility could be sold and the debt retired, the few remaining City Hall employees could relocate to a new leased facility or possibly to the Building & Safety building located behind City Hall. A property appraisal is recommended to determine the current market value of the City Hall facility. Scenario A-2: In addition to savings identified in Scenario A-1, reductions in public safety funding are also considered. The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (SBCSD) was requested to evaluate the law enforcement services provided to the City and submit one or more scenarios for cost savings that could be considered along with the non-safety budget reduction options. The only option that SBCSD believed could be realistically implemented was to reduce the level of service by one deputy, which would reduce the level of service by 40 hours per week (from 248 hours to 208 hours). This scenario would also reduce the allocations of management and administrative support, as shown in the table below, and would result in a cost savings to the City of $257,500 in FY 2013-14. Position/ Function Current Level of Service Reduced Level of Service Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Allocation FY 2013-13 Cost Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Allocation FY 2013-14 Cost Lieutenant 0.25 $ 55,412 0.21 $ 47,128 Sergeant 1.06 204,110 0.90 173,591 Detective/Corporal 0.56 92,152 0.56 92,151 25 3.A.a Packet Pg. 40 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Position/ Function Current Level of Service Reduced Level of Service Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Allocation FY 2013-13 Cost Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Allocation FY 2013-14 Cost Deputy Sheriff 6.87 (240 hours/week) 1,037,024 5.76 (208 hours/week) 869,470 Office Specialist 1.49 97,804 1.26 83,183 Motor Pool Services Asst. 0.17 10,993 0.14 9,345 Marked Unit 3.00 35,961 3.00 35,961 Unmarked Unit 1.00 7,215 1.00 7,215 Citizen Patrol 1.00 1,425 1.00 1,425 Dispatch Services -- 94,020 -- 79,965 Insurances -- 32,501 -- 27,830 Administration/Other -- 123,342 -- 107,186 Total Cost -- $1,791,959 -- $1,534,450 Reducing the number of deputies assigned to the City would reduce response times and would likely have an overall negative impact on public safety. The following table depicts the City’s population and deputies per resident for the current level of service and reduced level of service. Current Level of Service Reduced Level of Service Grand Terrace Population (as of January 1, 2012 per California Department of Finance) 12,157 12,157 Sworn Officers Allocated to City (FTE) 8.74 7.43 Residents per Sworn Officer 1,391 1,636 As a point of reference, the table on the following page provides data from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Annual Report for 2012. This report shows 8 deputies versus the 8.74 FTE staffing shown above; however, the overall level of service comparison is valid and may be used to compare the level of service provided to Grand Terrace with the other entities served by the Sheriff’s Department. 26 3.A.a Packet Pg. 41 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Residents Per Deputy (Based on SB County Sheriff’s Department 2012 Annual Report) Entity Population Square Miles Deputies Residents Per Deputy City of Big Bear Lake 5,088 6 8 636 Colorado River Station 10,407 5,053 16 650 City of Needles 4,894 31 7 699 Barstow/Trona Station 23,239 9,219 21 1,107 Morongo Basin Station 23,138 2,729 19 1,218 City of Grand Terrace 12,157 4 8 1,520 Central Station 39,202 95 25 1,568 Big Bear Station 15,964 258 10 1,596 City of Rancho Cucamonga 169,498 44 105 1,614 Town of Yucca Valley 20,916 40 12 1,743 Yucaipa Station 8,891 225 5 1,778 Town of Apple Valley 70,033 73 37 1,893 Victor Valley Station 53,449 1,403 28 1,909 City of Adelanto 31,066 54 16 1,942 City of Victorville 119,059 74 61 1,952 Twin Peaks Station 33,242 135 17 1,955 City of Chino Hills 75,655 45 38 1,991 City of Loma Linda 23,389 8 11 2,126 City of Hesperia 91,033 73 40 2,276 City of Yucaipa 52,100 27 22 2,368 City of Highland 53,664 19 22 2,439 City of Twentynine Palms 25,713 55 10 2,571 Fontana Station 87,701 139 28 3,132 27 3.A.a Packet Pg. 42 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n The public safety cost-reduction option could be considered in place of some of the non-safety budget reductions options that have been identified, or in combination with them. If implemented in combination with the non-safety options, estimated General Fund savings are shown below: Budget Reduction Options FY 2013-14 Full-Year General Fund Savings (effective 7/1/13) FY 2013-14 7-month General Fund Savings (effective 12/1/13) Ongoing Annual General Fund Savings Non Public Safety Options $427,400 $205,600 $531,000 Public Safety Option $257,500 $150,200 $257,500 Total General Fund Savings $684,900 $355,800 $788,500 As shown in the above table, if the non-safety budget reduction options are implemented (Scenario A-1) along with the public safety option (Scenario A-2), the City would be able to offset the projected baseline budgetary deficits for the next two fiscal years, but then would fall short of the necessary savings needed to maintain a balanced budget. Further, the expenditure reductions would be insufficient to fund any of the risk mitigation measures that are identified as Additional Budgetary Considerations and part of the total structural deficit of $1.25 million. Scenario A-3: To avoid having service levels fall below acceptable standards, consideration of City disincorporation and possible formation of Community Services District. The budget reduction options identified in Scenarios A-1 and A-2 above would have significantly adverse impacts to the residents and businesses in Grand Terrace and would fall short of solving the General Fund’s structural budgetary deficit on an ongoing basis. As a result of these adverse impacts, disincorporation may be the best means of providing essential services to the community within the available financial resources. With disincorporation, a city ceases to exist as a municipal entity and reverts to county oversight and control. Similar to formation of a new city, disincorporation requires approval of that county’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). To obtain basic information and understand the factors to be considered in a potential disincorporation, staff met with the Executive Officer of the San Bernardino County LAFCO. The information that follows was obtained through these preliminary staff-level discussions. If a city can no longer provide the desired service levels to the community, it may consider disincorporation as a municipal corporation and becoming part of the unincorporated county service area. However, the city must have tax revenues to support minimum county standard service levels, or disincorporation is not allowed. In essence, a county will not accept the responsibility of providing services formerly provided by a city unless it will receive adequate revenues following disincorporation to support these service levels. In the case of Grand Terrace, if the City’s revenues are not adequate to fund the desired service levels, disincorporation would not be an automatic solution to the problem, as LAFCO would not approve the disincorporation without requiring a tax measure to fund the required service levels. 28 3.A.a Packet Pg. 43 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n LAFCO requires a comprehensive fiscal analysis of the city considering disincorporation, which typically takes 18-24 months and must be paid for by the city. Another option to disincorporation is formation of a Community Services District (CSD). Under this scenario, certain services may retain local control via the CSD (with an elected board and minimal administrative staff). The services typically administered by a CSD are parks, street lighting, water/sewer, and rubbish/recycling, with planning and public safety functions transferred to the county, and traffic control transferred to the state highway patrol. In the case of Grand Terrace, the Child Care facility would also be appropriate for inclusion in the CSD, should the facility continue to operate. The following chart depicts the current services provided by the City of Grand Terrace and the likely responsibility for these functions under a CSD option. Function County CHP CSD Land Use X Public Safety X Animal Control X Code Enforcement X Public Works X Traffic Control X Parks X Sewer X Street Lights X Rubbish/Recycling X Child Care X Formation of a CSD requires dedicated revenues to fund the services that it provides; typically through a parcel tax. As part of the fiscal analysis that LAFCO requires, a city’s outstanding liabilities (such as debt service and pension obligations) are also evaluated and must have adequate funding through the reorganization plan. Therefore, a CSD parcel tax would need to be adequate to cover any applicable debt service and long-term pension obligations, in addition to providing funding for current services. The preliminary discussions with LAFCO have been conceptual in nature. If the City Council wishes to further consider this option, detailed discussions should ensue expeditiously due to the long lead time needed for CSD formation, including enactment of a dedicated parcel tax. 29 3.A.a Packet Pg. 44 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Budget Stabilization Plan Planning Assumption “B” Consideration of Local Revenue Measures to Address Projected Budgetary Deficits Significant budgetary deficits are projected for the City’s General Fund, largely resulting from a loss of redevelopment funding enacted by state law effective February 1, 2012. In the previous section of the report, various expenditure reduction options were presented to address the projected ongoing budgetary deficits. Due to the significant budgetary reductions already implemented by the City over the past several years, including downsizing of City Hall staff by 57%, implementation of compensation reductions for the remaining staff, and reductions in law enforcement services (Traffic Deputy and Sheriff’s Service Specialist), any remaining expenditure reductions will have a significant service level impact on the community. Therefore, consideration is given in this section of the report to local revenue measures that could provide the necessary funding for the City to continue providing the desired level of services to the community. Before discussing the types of local revenue measures that may be considered, the level of funding that is required is first discussed. Funding Level 1: Minimum revenue needed to continue providing essential City services, with essential risk mitigation. The City’s General Fund projected operating deficits (shortfall of revenues versus expenditures) was shown in the Introduction section of the Budget Stabilization Plan (page 21) and is also shown below for ease of reference: Budget Category 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Projected Baseline Operating Deficit (rounded to nearest $1,000) $675,000 $758,000 $910,000 $929,000 $884,000 Additional Funding Needed to Mitigate Risk and Stabilize Budget $589,000 $338,000 $338,000 $338,000 $338,000 Total Projected Structural Deficit $1,264,000 $1,096,000 $1,248,000 $1,267,000 $1,222,000 These projected deficits do not assume any increases in service levels, but rather the provision of existing service levels (as reduced in recent years), along with the continuation of staff compensation reductions (reduced hours and pay, suspension of COLAs, and suspension of merit pay increases). The projected baseline deficits do not address significant budgetary risks that exist and that will increase the City’s future liability, such as loan repayment to the former Redevelopment Agency, funding for retiree medical benefit, or funding for asset replacement. A revenue measure that generates only enough incremental funding to offset the projected baseline deficits without some risk mitigation is deemed to be inadequate, as substantial risk of insolvency would continue to exist. Therefore, it is recommended that the minimum funding level to be considered for a local revenue measure would be $1.0 million annually, with built-in cost- of-living escalation. 30 3.A.a Packet Pg. 45 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Funding Level 2: Moderate funding - adequate to offset true structural deficit, with full risk mitigation and maintenance of adequate reserves. A Level 2 revenue measure would provide funding of $1.25 million annually, with built-in cost-of- living escalation, to fully offset the City’s true General Fund structural deficit. Increased annual revenues at this level would provide for long-term budget stability including repayment of loan to the former Redevelopment Agency, asset replacement fund, annual contribution to retiree medical fund, funding for leave cash-outs, and an adequate general contingency reserve. Funding Level 3: Full funding - adequate to offset true structural deficit, with full risk mitigation, maintenance of adequate reserves and service enhancements to the community. The Additional Budgetary Considerations section of the report identifies various City Council priorities for enhancing services to the community (see page 19). Preliminary cost estimates for these enhancements are approximately $500,000 annually. Including the entire $500,000 in a local revenue measure may result in a tax burden that would exceed the electorate’s willingness or capacity to pay. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council prioritize the list of potential enhancements such that the annual funding requirement would not exceed $250,000. Adding this incremental funding for service level enhancements to the revenue of $1.25 million needed to overcome the true structural deficit would result in an annual revenue requirement of $1.5 million. The following table provides a recap of the funding levels that are recommended for consideration in a local revenue measure. Funding Level Annual Revenue Requirement (with built-in cost-of- living adjustment) Impacts 1 $1.0 million Minimum revenue needed to continue providing essential City services with essential risk mitigation. 2 $1.25 million Moderate funding - adequate to overcome true structural deficit, with full risk mitigation and maintenance of adequate reserves. 3 $1.5 million Full funding - adequate to overcome true structural deficit, with full risk mitigation, maintenance of adequate reserves and some service enhancements to the community. The next section of the report identifies three common types of revenue (tax) measures that could be implemented to generate additional General Fund revenues at the levels shown above. 31 3.A.a Packet Pg. 46 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Revenue Measure Options Local Add-on Sales (Transactions and Use) Tax The current statewide sales tax rate is 7.5%, which is apportioned as follows: • 6.50% - State − 5.00% - State - General Fund − 0.25% - State - Fiscal Recovery Fund − 0.50% - State - Local Revenue Fund − 0.50% - State - Local Public Safety Fund − 0.25% - State - Education Protection Account (Prop 30) • 1.00% - Uniform Local Tax − 0.25% - Local County - Transportation funds − 0.75% - Local City/County - Operational funds In addition to the statewide rate, many counties have an additional transportation add-on, which is currently 0.50% in San Bernardino County. Therefore, the current sales tax rate for Grand Terrace and most cities in San Bernardino County is 8%. (The cities of San Bernardino and Montclair have additional local sales tax add-ons of 0.25% each). In 2003, SB566 was signed into law giving every county and city in California the ability to seek voter approval of a local sales (transactions and use) tax under the following conditions: • The tax may be imposed at a rate of 0.25% or a multiple thereof; • The ordinance proposing the tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of all members of the governing body; • If the tax is for general purposes, it must be approved by a majority of the voters in the jurisdiction; • If the tax is for specific purposes, it must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the voters in the jurisdiction; and • The maximum combined rate of transactions and use taxes in any location may not exceed 2%. Since San Bernardino County has a local transportation tax of 0.50%, the maximum local sales tax that could be approved in Grand Terrace is 1.50%. Estimates provided by the City’s sales tax consultant, The HdL Companies, is that a 1.00% local sales tax would generate additional gross revenues to the City of $947,000 and $730,000 net of applicable adjustments. A 1.25% local sales tax would generate an estimated $913,000 net revenue, and a 1.50% local tax would generate an estimated $1.1 million net revenue. Therefore, a 1.50% local sales tax would generate enough incremental revenue to meet the Level 1 funding requirement of $1.0 million, but would fall short of the Level 2 funding requirement of $1.25 million needed to offset the true structural deficit. Enactment of a local sales tax measure of 1.50% in Grand Terrace would preclude any additional County-wide tax measures absent action by the State legislature to increase the 2% cap for the County as a whole. Therefore, the City may expect opposition to a local sales tax measure at the maximum rate of 1.50%. 32 3.A.a Packet Pg. 47 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Parcel Tax A city may impose a parcel tax under the authority of Government Code Section 37100.5 and 50075. A parcel tax is a special non ad valorem tax on parcels of property, generally based on either a flat per-parcel rate or a variable rate depending on size, use and/or number of units on the parcel. Revenues from a parcel tax may be used for any purpose. If the tax is levied for a specific purpose (such as public safety), a two-thirds vote is required, and use of revenues is restricted to those services specified on the ballot measure. Ordinances adopting parcel taxes commonly provide that they are an excise tax based on the availability or use of municipal services or facilities. The taxpayer need not actually use the services but can be required to pay the tax based on the mere availability of the services. If services are used, however, a parcel tax must be proportional to such use by the taxpayer. The following table provides estimates of how a parcel tax could be applied to the City’s land use categories and equivalent benefit units (EBUs) at three different tax rates, along with the estimated revenue that would be generated at each tax rate. Parcel Land Use Parcels EBUs Tax Rate per Unit Est. Revenue Tax Rate per Unit Est. Revenue Tax Rate per Unit Est. Revenue Single Family Residential 3,346 3,346 $250 $836,500 $325 $1,087,450 $400 $1,338,400 Multi-family Residential 41 94 $200 $18,800 $250 $23,500 $300 $28,200 Commercial 112 560 $250 $140,000 $325 $182,000 $400 $224,000 Vacant 284 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other 10 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $995,300 $1,292,950 $1,590,600 Parcel taxes can vary widely both in amount and how they are applied among different land use categories. Therefore, a more detailed analysis of a parcel tax option would be needed prior to seeking voter approval for such a tax. However, the above estimates indicate that a Level 1 funding requirement of $1.0 million would essentially be met with a parcel tax of $250 per single family residence, $200 per multi-family residence and $250 per commercial EBU. The Level 2 funding requirement needed to offset the true structural deficit of $1.25 million would be met with a parcel tax of $325 per single family residence, $250 per multi-family residence and $325 per commercial EBU. Full funding al Level 3 to generate an additional $1.5 million in revenue would be achieved with a parcel tax of $400 per single family residence, $300 per multi-family residence and $400 per commercial EBU. Because a parcel tax is assessed as a fixed amount, it is important that it contain an inflation adjustment, typically based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or other common inflation index. Otherwise, the purchasing power of the revenue source is diminished over time or additional voter approval is required to increase the tax to keep pace with inflation. 33 3.A.a Packet Pg. 48 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Utility User Tax Government Code Section 37100.5 grants cities the authority to collect a utility user tax (UUT). A UUT may be imposed on any combination of utility services including (but not limited to) electricity, gas, water, sewer, telephone (including cell phone and long distance), sanitation and cable television. The rate of the tax and the use of its revenues are determined by the local agency. A UUT may be imposed as a special tax that is designated for a specific purpose, or a general tax to be used for a variety of municipal service needs at the discretion of the local agency. The tax is levied by the city, collected by the utility as part of its regular billing procedure, and then remitted to the city. The UUT is becoming an increasingly common and important source of revenues for municipalities in California. As of September 2008, 146 cities and 4 counties imposed UUTs, collecting over $2 billion annually. Since that date, approximately 50 jurisdictions in California have successfully enacted a new UUT or updated an existing UUT ordinance. The table below provides survey data from nearby cities obtained from the League of California Cities based on data reported to the State Controller’s Office in 2009. City UUT Rate # of Tax Categories Per Capita Revenue Beaumont 3% 10 $36 Desert Hot Springs 5% 16 $70 Indio 3% 12 $62 Moreno Valley 6% 14 $80 Palm Springs 5% 6 $135 Riverside 6.5% 10 $87 Colton 4-6% 20 $91 Fontana 5% 16 $23 Montclair 3.89% 12 $46 Rialto 8% 16 $117 San Bernardino 7.75% 14 $119 As shown above, nearby cities imposed UUTs ranging from 3% to 8%. In addition the number of utility categories covered by the UUT varies widely, ranging from 6 in the case of Palm Springs to 20 for Colton. Naturally, the more utility categories to which the UUT is applied, the lower the rate can be to achieve the desired revenue objective. Due to this variable, per capita revenue generated by the tax is perhaps the best way to compare UUT among jurisdictions, which in these same cities ranged from $23 to $135. A per capita revenue measure has also been used to estimate potential UUT revenue that could be generated in Grand Terrace in three incremental levels, as shown below. Grand Terrace Population Per Capita Revenue Annual UUT Revenue 12,157 $85 $1,033,345 12,157 $105 $1,276,485 12,157 $125 $1,519,625 34 3.A.a Packet Pg. 49 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Because UUT can be applied narrowly or broadly to a wide range of utility categories, drafting of the UUT ordinance is critical and requires specialized expertise to ensure that the desired revenue objective is achieved. Although using a per capita rate to estimate potential UUT revenue is helpful to get an overall sense of how the tax burden would be spread, it does not account for commercial utility consumption, which can be significant. For that reason, a thorough analysis of the expected mix between residential and commercial consumption would be required as part of the rate determination that would precede a ballot measure. There are several advantages of the UUT compared to the other tax options. First, it is relatively stable compared to sales tax, which can fluctuate significantly with the economy. Second, it is relatively secure because non-payment of the tax by users generally results in shut-off. Third, payment is made by utility providers directly to the city, rather than being remitted by the state (sales tax) or county (parcel tax). With many jurisdictions now involved in disputes with the Department of Finance (DOF) over Successor Agency (former redevelopment agency) issues, the DOF has threatened to withhold sales tax payments, or to direct counties to withhold property tax payments, if Successor Agency payments are not made as directed by the DOF. Therefore, having a local revenue source that is not dependent on state or county distribution would be of significant benefit to the City. As a recap to this section of the report, the following table presents the three funding levels that were identified for consideration in a local revenue measure and how they would be applied across the three types of taxes discussed, along with the estimated tax revenue from each option. Revenue Measure Funding Level 1 ($1.0 million) Funding Level 2 ($1.25 million) Funding Level 3 ($1.5 million) Sales Tax 1.25% ($913,000) 1.50% ($1.1 million) N/A (1.50% is highest allowed tax rate) Parcel Tax $250/SF Residential ($995,300) $325/SF Residential ($1.3 million) $400/SF Residential ($1.6 million) Utility User Tax $85 per capita ($1.0 million) $105 per capita ($1.3 million) $125 per capita ($1.5 million) Additional information regarding local tax revenue measures in California, local add-on sales tax and utility user tax is provided in the Appendices section of the report. 35 3.A.a Packet Pg. 50 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Summary and Action Plan 3.A.a Packet Pg. 51 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Summary and Action Plan Summary The City’s General Fund is facing significant fiscal challenges, largely as a result of the loss of redevelopment funds on which it was very dependent. A baseline General Fund operating deficit is projected at approximately $675,000 for FY 2013-14 and growing to over $900,000 by FY 2015-16. This baseline deficit does not include a number of areas in which the City is underfunded and therefore exposed to risk. Appropriating funds to mitigate these risk areas increases the General Fund operating deficit to approximately $1.25 million annually, which is considered to be the true structural deficit. Over the past several years, the City has implemented significant cost reduction measures in response to the economic downturn and loss of redevelopment funds in order to reduce expenditures and maintain a balanced General Fund budget. The most significant of these actions are summarized below: • Removed Traffic Deputy from law enforcement services agreement with the County. • Removed Sheriff’s Service Specialist from law enforcement services agreement with the County. • Eliminated Crossing Guard Program. • Outsourced Parks Maintenance and two-thirds (2/3) of Finance Department staffing. • Defunded 17.5 positions (outside of Child Care program), reducing City Hall employee workforce from 29 positions in FY 2009-10 to 12.5 positions in FY 2012-13; representing a 57% workforce reduction). • Suspended employee cost-of-living adjustments and merit increases (5 years); reduced City Hall employee work week from 40 hours to 36 hours (3 years, 10% wage reduction); and reduced employee cafeteria benefit by 10% (3 years, City Hall and Child Care employees). Given the significant budget cuts and organizational downsizing that have already occurred, implementing further expenditure reductions will prove to be challenging and will significantly impact the service levels that the City is able to provide to its residents and businesses. However, a variety of expenditure reduction options have been presented for the City Council’s consideration in the Budget Stabilization Plan, which begins on page 21. As shown in the table on page 28, the City cannot offset the projected deficits by implementing only non public safety reductions. Including the public safety expenditure reductions that have been identified, the total General Fund savings for FY 2013-14 is estimated at $684,900, assuming that these savings are implemented effective July 1, 2013. If they are not implemented until December 1, 2013 (following a November election), the savings are reduced to $355,800. Beginning FY 2014-15, ongoing annual savings are projected at $788,500. While these savings would offset the projected baseline budgetary deficit for two years, they would fall short in subsequent years and would not address any of the areas of underfunding and risk exposure which are included in the true structural deficit of $1.25 million. Additionally, implementing the identified expenditure reductions would significantly reduce service levels and quality of life in the community by 36 3.A.a Packet Pg. 52 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n closing parks, compromising public safety, and offering only minimal (part-time) City administration. For the reasons cited above, consideration should be given to a local revenue measure presented to the voters in a November 2013 special election. The funding levels and tax options for such a revenue measure are presented in the Budget Stabilization Plan beginning on page 30. Action Plan Revenue Measure In order to place a revenue measure before the voters in November 2013, the City Council will need to declare a fiscal emergency, which will require adoption of a resolution by unanimous vote of the City Council. Without declaration of a fiscal emergency, a revenue measure cannot be considered until the City’s next regularly scheduled election in November 2014. Three funding levels and three types of taxes have been identified for the Council’s consideration. In order to determine voter support for these options, preliminary polling must be conducted. Two companies that specialize in election advisory services for public agencies in California have been identified. Proposals should be obtained from these companies, interviews conducted, and a firm selected to begin community polling. If consideration is given to a parcel tax or utility user tax, specialized consulting will be needed to evaluate the variables associated with these taxes (e.g., residential vs. commercial burden, number of utility categories to be taxed, etc.) and determine the precise tax rates, as well as helping to draft the ballot language. The timeline for placing a tax measure on the November 5, 2013 ballot, as provided by the San Bernardino County Elections Office, is shown below: Event Date Election - Date Receive Resolution August 9 -88 Prepare Notice of Election August 12 -85 1st Day of Publication in Newspaper August 16 -81 Deadline for Arguments August 22 -75 Deadline for Rebuttals August 27 -70 End of 10-day Public Examination Period for Arguments September 1 -65 End of 10-day Public Examination Period for Rebuttals September 6 -60 Early Voting Begins October 7 -29 Voter Registration Deadline October 21 -15 Last Day to Apply for Mail Ballot October 29 -7 37 3.A.a Packet Pg. 53 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Should the City Council decide not to pursue a revenue measure in November 2013, expeditious action will be needed to implement the expenditure reduction options that have been identified in the Budget Stabilization Plan, or any other expenditure reductions the Council so directs, so they can be implemented effective July 1, 2013. Some of the items that would need immediate action include: • Issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for outsourcing the staff functions identified in budget balancing Scenario A-1 (page 23-24). • Obtaining updated appraisals for City Hall and the Child Care Center, for consideration of possible sale. • Notification to employees who would be laid off due to outsourcing or have work schedule reduced to 18 hours per week. • Preparation for closure of Rollins and Pico Parks. • Public notification of revised Council meeting schedule (from semi-monthly to monthly). • Preparation for elimination of Planning Commission and transition of responsibilities to City Council. • Detailed discussions with LAFCO regarding a possible disincorporation option and CSD formation. (Note: this option is expected to take 18-24 months to implement.) Even if the City Council decides to proceed with a revenue measure for a November 2013 special election, the outcome of the election is uncertain; therefore, a number of the above steps should proceed on a parallel track with the election, in the event that a ballot measure fails. As previously identified, if budget reduction measures are not implemented until after the November election (effective December 1st), the savings achieved for FY 2013-14 are significantly reduced. FY 2013-14 Budget Adoption Staff will be submitting a proposed FY 2013-14 budget for the City Council’s consideration on May 14th. Following deliberation and discussion, the budget will need to be adopted by the end of the fiscal year, June 30th. Direction is needed from the City Council on the various budget reduction options presented in this report so a balanced budget can be adopted. Timeline A number of critical decisions will need to be made expeditiously regarding budget reduction options and potential revenue measures, so that staff can implement Council’s direction. The following table identifies a number of potential actions that will need prompt consideration along with the required timeframe. 38 3.A.a Packet Pg. 54 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Potential Action Required Timeframe LAFCO briefing of City Council & Budget Advisory Committee regarding possible City disincorporation and CSD formation April Budget Advisory Committee review of Five-Year Financial Analysis and Budget Stabilization Plan; submit recommendations to City Council April – May Issue RFP for possible outsourcing of selected City positions May Obtain appraisals for City Hall and Child Care Center May Interview and select Election Advisor May Submit Proposed FY 2013-14 Budget to City Council May Conduct FY 2013-14 Budget deliberations May – June Declaration of Fiscal Emergency June Begin polling for potential revenue measure(s) June Consultant analysis of Parcel Tax and UUT rates June Review responses to RFP for outsourcing of selected City positions June Adopt FY 2013-14 Budget June Proceed with revenue measure(s) August – November (see timeline provided by County Elections Office) Continue discussions with LAFCO regarding possible disincorporation and CSD formation ongoing 39 3.A.a Packet Pg. 55 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Appendices 3.A.a Packet Pg. 56 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Appendix A Mid-Year Budget Review 3.A.a Packet Pg. 57 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 58 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 59 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 60 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 61 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 62 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 63 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 64 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 65 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Appendix B Information Regarding Local Revenue Measures in California 3.A.a Packet Pg. 66 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n CaliforniaCityFinance.Com Local Revenue Measures in California November 2012 Results The November 6, 2012 presidential election featured 368 local measures in California on questions including land use development, government organization, bond authorizations and tax increases. Among these were 240 measures seeking approval for taxes, bonds or fees, including three by initiative. Three other measures sought by initiative to reduce previously approved taxes. This volume of local measures is quite comparable to the number of local measures on each of the last two presidential election ballots in California. In November 2008, there were 233 revenue measures including 116 school bonds and taxes. In November 2004, there were 249 revenue measures including 86 school bonds or taxes. K-12 schools districts and community colleges requested total of $14.429 billion in 106 separate bond measure authorizations for school bonds to construct facilities, acquire equipment and make repairs and upgrades. There were 25 measures to increase or extend school parcel taxes. Among the 109 non-school local revenue measures were seven general obligation bond measures and 36 special taxes and parcel taxes requiring two-thirds voter approval. There were 35 proposals to extend or increase transactions and use taxes (so-called add-on sales taxes) and 24 proposals to increase or extend non-school parcel taxes. 2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616 Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952 © 2012 Michael Coleman City General Taxes 60 County General Taxes 6 City Special Tax or G.O.Bond 15 County Special Tax 12 SpecDistr 16 School ParcelTax 2/3Vote, 25 School Bond 106 Proposed Local Revenue Measures November 2012 Majority Vote 2/3 Vote Final February 6, 2013 © 2012 Michael Coleman *Vacaville's Measure M combined a business license tax, parcel tax and hotel tax. It is counted here as a "General Tax - other" UtilityUsers Tax MajVote, 8 HotelTax MajVote 17* SalesTax MajVote, 28 GeneralTax-Other4* PropTransf Tax MajVote 1 UUT 2/3vote1 SalesTax 2/3vote 7 ParcelTax 2/3vote 24* SpecialTax-Other 2/3vote, 4 G.O. Bond 2/3vote, 7 BusinessTax MajVote 7* Types of Non-School Local Tax Measures November 2012 3.A.a Packet Pg. 67 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 2 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Overall Passage Rates Following post-election night canvases and recounts, five additional 55% school bond measures and one additional two-thirds vote school parcel tax were declared passing. This brings the total number of passing measures to 178 of the 240 tax/revenue measures proposed. The rate of passage of school measures slightly exceeded historic passage rates. Final results indicate 90 of the 105 55% school bonds passed. The one two- thirds vote school bond passed as well as 16 of the 25 school parcel taxes. Local non-school majority vote tax measures did somewhat better this election than in prior years with 52 of 66 passing. Among the failing measures were three taxes proposed in San Diego County cities as a part of marijuana dispensary initiatives. These taxes on the sale of marijuana probably could not have been implemented had they passed. Among the 43 non-school special taxes, parcel taxes and bonds requiring two-thirds voter approval, 19 passed, a very similar passage rate compared to past elections. Local Revenue Measures November 2012 Total Pass Passing% City General Tax (Majority Vote) 60 48 80% County General Tax (Majority Vote) 6 4 67% City SpecialTax orG.O.bond (2/3 Vote) 15 5 33% County (Special Tax) 2/3 Vote 12 7 58% Special District (2/3) 16 7 44% School ParcelTax2/3 25 16 64% School Bond 2/3 1 1 100% School Bond 55% 105 90 86% Total 240 178 74% Redux by intitative 3 0 0% *One school bond required two-thirds aproval. It passed. 64% (17/26) 85% (90/105*) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2/3 VoteTax / bond 55% VoteBond Percent Passing School Tax & Bond Measures November 2012 Since 2001 81% Since 2001 60% 3.A.a Packet Pg. 68 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 3 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman General purpose tax measures fared especially well, especially add-on sales taxes (local transactions and use taxes). Parcel taxes and G.O. bonds had a much more difficult time, mostly, it appears, due to the two-thirds supermajority vote thresholds. Five of the 25 non-school parcel taxes failed to even garner 50% yes votes. Passing and Failing City / County / Special District Measures by Type November 2012 Local Add-On Sales Taxes (Transaction and Use Taxes) 44% (19/43) 79% (52/66) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Special Tax 2/3 Voter Measures General TaxMajority Vote Measures Percent Passing City / County / Special District Tax & Bond Measures November 2012 Since 2001 66% Since 2001 47% 3.A.a Packet Pg. 69 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 4 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Twenty five cities and three counties proposed general purpose majority vote add-on sales tax rates ranging from 1/8 percent in Santa Clara County to one percent in several cities. Voters approved all but three of these measures. There were seven add-on sales tax measures earmarked for specific purposes. Five of these were county- wide measures. All seven received over 60% yes votes, but four fell short of the two-thirds approval needed including transportation measures in Alameda and Los Angeles and two measures related to roads and water quality in Lake County. Transactions and Use Tax (Add-on Sales Tax) - General Tax - Majority Approval Agency Name County Rate Sunset YES%NO% Albany Alameda Measure F 1/2 cent 79.0%21.0%PASS Culver City Los Angeles Measure Y 1/2percent 10 yrs 76.6%23.4%PASS Lathrop San Joaquin Measure C 1cent 76.0%24.1%PASS Salinas Monterey Measure E 1/2cent extend 75.7%24.3%PASS Carmel Monterey Measure D 1cent 10yrs 75.4%24.6%PASS Nevada City Nevada Measure L 3/8cent 5yrs 74.2%25.8%PASS Sebastopol Sonoma Measure Y 1/2cent 8yrs 70.8%29.2%PASS Williams Colusa Measure G 1/2cent extend 70.5%29.5%PASS Rio Vista Solano Measure O 3/4cent 5yrs 70.2%29.8%PASS Moraga Contra Costa Measure K 1cent 20yrs 70.1%29.9%PASS Orinda Contra Costa Measure L 1/2cent 10yrs 69.1%30.9%PASS Vacaville Solano Measure M 1/4cent 5yrs 69.0%31.0%PASS Commerce Los Angeles Measure A A1/2percent 67.3%32.7%PASS Fairfield Solano Measure P 1cent 5yrs 66.5%33.6%PASS Grass Valley Nevada Measure N 1/2cent 10yrs 66.3%33.7%PASS La Mirada Los Angeles Measure I 1cent 5yrs 66.0%34.0%PASS County of San Mateo San Mateo Measure A 1/2cent 10years 64.6%35.5%PASS Sacramento Sacramento Measure U 1/2cent 6yrs 63.1%36.9%PASS Paso Robles San Luis ObisMeasure E 1/2cent 12yrs 59.0%41.0%PASS Measure F Advisory 71.3%28.7%PASS Hollister San Benito Measure E 1cent extend 5yrs 57.4%42.6%PASS County of Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure A 1/8cent 10yrs 56.3%43.7%PASS Trinidad Humboldt Measure G 3/4cent 4/1/2013 for 4yrs 55.4%44.6%PASS Healdsburg Sonoma Measure V 1/2cent 10yrs 55.4%44.6%PASS Half Moon Bay San Mateo Measure J 1/2 cent 3yrs 53.9%46.1%PASS Capitola Santa Cruz Measure O 1/4cent 50.8%49.2%PASS Yucca Valley San BernardinMeasure U 1cent 48.2%51.8%FAIL County of Plumas Plumas Measure D 1/4cent 4yrs 36.2%63.8%FAIL Maricopa (224 voters) Kern Measure R 1cent 10yrs 32.6%67.4%FAIL 3.A.a Packet Pg. 70 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 5 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Transient Occupancy (Hotel) Taxes There were eighteen measures to increase or expand Transient Occupancy (Hotel) Taxes. All but three passed. Plymouth voters also approved a companion advisory measure that expresses the preference that “the additional revenues be used primarily for the purpose of repairing and maintaining the city’s roadways.” Transactions and Use Tax (Add-on Sales Tax) - Special Tax - Two-Thirds Approval Agency Name County Rate Purpose Sunset YES%NO% County of Napa Napa Measure T 1/2cent streets (was flood) extend 25yrs after 2018 74.4%25.6%PASS County of Marin Marin Measure A 1/4cent openspace 73.6%26.4%PASS County fo Fresno Fresno Measure B 1/8cent Library extend 16yrs 71.8%28.3%PASS County of Alameda Alameda Measure B1 1/2c+1/2c=1cent transportation extends&incr 65.5%34.5%FAIL County of Los Angeles Los Angeles Measure J 1/2cent transportation extend 30yrs 64.7%35.3%FAIL County of Lake Lake Measure E 1/2cent water quality 62.2%37.8%FAIL Clearlake Lake Measure G 1cent streets/roads 61.1%38.9%FAIL Transient Occupancy Tax Tax Measures: All General Majority Vote Agency Name County Rate YES%NO% Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Measure Q +1%to11%82.1%17.9%PASS Vacaville Solano Measure L +2%TOT*80.1%19.9%PASS Carpinteria Santa Barbara Measure E +2%to12%77.6%22.4%PASS Menlo Park San Mateo Measure K +2%to12%73.6%26.4%PASS County of Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Measure N +1.5%to11%72.1%27.9%PASS Goleta Santa Barbara Measure H +2%to12%71.5%28.5%PASS Exeter Tulare Measure M +4%to8%66.2%33.8%PASS Garden Grove Orange Measure Y +1.5%to14.5%66.1%33.9%PASS County of Amador Amador Measure Q +4%to10%60.5%39.5%PASS Coronado San Diego Proposition F +2%to10%60.5%39.5%PASS Plymouth Amador Measure R +4%to10%57.5%42.5%PASS Measure S Advisory 65.0%35.0%PASS Solvang Santa Barbara Measure Z +2%to12%57.2%42.8%PASS Santee San Diego Proposition U +4%to10%56.6%43.4%PASS Buellton Santa Barbara Measure D +2%to12%54.8%45.2%PASS Willows Glenn Measure Q +2%to12%52.9%47.2%PASS Pomona Los Angeles Measure V +2%to12% 48.2%51.8%FAIL County of Plumas Plumas Measure C +2%to11% 41.1%58.9%FAIL Red Bluff Tehama Measure A 10% camping/RV 39.6%60.4%FAIL *measure is an "excise tax" also includes BLT, etc. 3.A.a Packet Pg. 71 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 6 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Utility User Taxes Voters in ten cities considered measures to increase or expand utility user taxes. Several of the proposals were to modernize existing taxes on telecommunications and among these, five proposed a reduction in the tax rate as a part of effectively expanding the tax base to wireless communications. Chico is one of very few cities to have rejected this approach at the polls. Among the ten measures, only Citrus Heights earmarked the tax for specific purposes. But voters rejected the proposed increase. Voters in Arcata approved a novel UUT, a 45% tax on excessive electricity use aimed at home grow houses. Business License Taxes There were eight business license tax measures, including two proposals to tax sugared beverages, a new idea among local measures in California. A proposal to increase local taxes on “businesses engaged in the manufacture, piping, refining, storage and wholesale distribution of petroleum products” failed in Rialto. The sugared beverage taxes were resoundingly rejected. Companion measures in both cities that expressed the preferred use of the funds for particular programs did not help. Six other measures passed easily. Utility User Taxes Agency Name County Rate %Needed YES%NO% Berkeley Alameda Measure Q same7.5% expand/reduce 50.0%84.5%15.5%PASS San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Measure D to4.8%from5% expand/reduce 50.0%83.5%16.5%PASS Downey Los Angeles Measure D 5%to4.8% expand/reduce 50.0%79.4%20.6%PASS Pinole Contra Costa Measure M 8% extend 50.0%78.7%21.3%PASS Los Alamitos Orange Measure DD 6%to5% expand/reduce 50.0%69.5%30.5%PASS Arcata Humboldt Measure I 45% on excessive electric use new 50.0%69.0%31.0%PASS Bellflower Los Angeles Measure P 2% increase 50.0%61.3%38.7%PASS Needles* San Bernardino Measure T +2.5%-2.5%fee=no change validate/extend 50.0%51.4%48.6%PASS Chico Butte Measure J 5%to4.5% expand/reduce 50.0% 46.9%53.2%FAIL Citrus Heights Sacramento Measure K +1.75%to4.25% increase 66.7% 44.2%55.8%FAIL Business License Tax Measures: Majority Vote General Agency Name County Rate YES%NO% Vacaville* Solano Measure L 80.1%19.9%PASS Rancho Cordova Sacramento Measure L cardrooms 79.3%20.7%PASS Needles San Bernardino Measure S tax on Marijuana 79.3%20.7%PASS Artesia Los Angeles Measure M general incr 78.0%22.0%PASS San Francisco San Francisco Proposition E gross rcpts 70.6%29.4%PASS Rialto San Bernardino Measure V on petrol busn 47.1%52.9%FAIL *measure is an "excise tax" also includes TOT, parcel tax Sugared Beverage Taxes Agency Name County YES%NO% Richmond Contra Costa Measure N 33.1%66.9%FAIL El Monte Los Angeles Measure H 23.2%76.8%FAIL 3.A.a Packet Pg. 72 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 7 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Property Transfer Tax A proposal to increase the property transfer tax in Pomona failed. Pomona pursued the ill-advised approach of placing multiple tax measures on the ballot at once: a hotel tax, a parcel tax (2/3 vote), and this property transfer tax. All failed. Parcel Taxes and Special Taxes (non-school) There were 25 parcel taxes including 13 in special districts, ten in cities, and two in counties. Under a state constitutional provision included in Proposition 13 (1978), parcel taxes require two-thirds supermajority approval. Ten of 25 measures passed. Among these ten, six extended – but did not increase – existing parcel taxes. An initiative measure to revise and reduce a fire parcel tax in Newcastle was rejected by voters in that community. The measure received 61% approval but required two-thirds approval. Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Taxes Property Transfer Taxes Agency Name County Measure Na Rate YES%NO% Pomona Los Angeles Measure W from $1.10 to $2.20 24.6%75.4%FAIL City, County and Special District Parcel Taxes (2/3 vote) Agency Name County Amount Purpose YES%NO% Vacaville* Solano Measure L $58/parcel general -extend 80.1%19.9%PASS Circle XX Community Services District Calaveras Measure D +$100to$400 roads 78.3%21.7%PASS Santa Monica Mountains Rec Consv Au Los Angeles Measure HH $24/parcel open space 76.2%23.8%PASS Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Measure B $56/parcel water -extend 72.7%27.4%PASS Ross Marin Measure D $950/parcel general -extend/red 72.3%27.7%PASS Groveland Community Services District Tuolumne Measure G $70/parcel EMS -extend 69.4%30.6%PASS Piedmont Alameda Measure Y varies general -extend 68.7%31.3%PASS Santa Monica Mountains Rec Consv Au Los Angeles Measure MM $19/Parcel open space 68.1%32.0%PASS Cayucos Fire Protection District San Luis Obispo Measure C $25/parcel Fire/EMS -extend 67.9%32.1%PASS Wildomar Riverside Measure Z $28/parcel parks/rec 66.8%33.2%PASS Mesa Parks Firehouse Community Park AMarin Measure E $49/parcel parks/rec 65.4%34.6%FAIL County of Alameda Alameda Measure A1 $12/parcel zoo 62.7%37.3%FAIL Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District Sonoma Measure Z +$60/parcel Fire/EMS 62.6%37.4%FAIL Petaluma Sonoma Measure X $52/parcel parks/rec 61.1%38.9%FAIL Pomona Los Angeles Measure X $37/parcel Library 60.2%39.8%FAIL Berkeley Alameda Measure O $0.00779/sqft pools 59.7%40.4%FAIL Guadalupe Santa Barbara Measure I $20/parcel libraries 56.5%43.5%FAIL McCloud Community Services District Siskiyou Measure Q $12/parcel Library 52.7%47.3%FAIL Contra Costa County Fire Protection DistContra Costa Measure Q $75/sfu Fire/EMS 52.5%47.6%FAIL Black Mountain Fire and Emergency RespSiskiyou Measure P $30/parcel Fire/EMS 50.0%50.0%FAIL Spalding Community Services District Lassen Measure V $70/parcel Fire/EMS 46.4%53.6%FAIL County of El Dorado El Dorado Measure L $17.58/parcel Library -extend 44.3%55.7%FAIL Laguna Beach Orange Measure CC $120/parcel open space 44.1%55.9%FAIL Lassen Community Library District Lassen Measure W $28/parcel Library 42.7%57.3%FAIL Indian Wells Riverside Measure R $171/parcel lighting/landscapin 26.8%73.2%FAIL 3.A.a Packet Pg. 73 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 8 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Four counties had measures to extend $1 per motor vehicle charges to fund abandoned vehicle abatement programs. These charges were once imposed by the County Boards of Supervisors as fees without a vote of the people. The passage of Proposition 26 in 2010 requires voter approval as taxes of any extension of these charges. All four measures passed. General Obligation Bonds There were seven local general obligation bond measures in three cities and three special districts. The three passing measures are all in the San Francisco Bay Area. Voters in Berkeley approved a bond for critical drainage and water quality improvements but turned failed to garner the two-thirds approval needed for a parks improvement bond. A hospital bond in Fremont and a parks and environmental clean-up bond in San Francisco also passed. County of Mendocino Measure G $1/veh 78.8%21.2%PASS extend County of Butte Measure H $1/veh 73.4%26.6%PASS extend County of Calaveras Measure B $1/veh 70.9%29.1%PASS extend County of Amador Measure U $1/veh 68.8%31.2%PASS extend Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Tax (Fees prior to Prop26 of 2010) - 2/3 voter approval required City, County and Special District Bond Measures (2/3 vote) Agency Name County Amount YES%NO% Berkeley Alameda Measure M $30 million drainage/waterqua 73.3%26.7%PASS Washington Township Health Care DistriAlameda Measure Z $186 million hospital 73.0%27.0%PASS San Francisco San Francisco Proposition B $195million park/rec/env-clean 72.0%28.0%PASS Berkeley Alameda Measure N $19.4million park/rec 62.1%37.9%FAIL El Medio Fire Protection District Butte Measure M $1million fire 56.5%43.5%FAIL Rio Dell Humboldt Measure J $2million streets 54.9%45.1%FAIL Truckee Donner Recreation and Park Dist Nevada/Placer Measure J $8.52million parks/rec 54.1%45.9%FAIL 3.A.a Packet Pg. 74 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 9 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman School Parcel Taxes School parcel taxes fared better than non-school parcel taxes. The ballot included 25 local school parcel taxes. Sixteen passed. San Leandro USD’s tax passed by 24 votes after training in the election night tally. Historically, around four out of five school parcel tax measures are approved. Fiscal Referenda Local voters in effect rejected three citizen advanced measures to overturn or alter existing taxes. The approval of Measure AA in Huntington Beach validates the city’s taxes extended to the annexed area of Sunset Beach. School Parcel Taxes (2/3 voter approval) Agency Name County Rate YES%NO% Berryessa Union School District Santa Clara Measure K $79/parcel 77.3%22.7%PASS Arcata Elementary School Distri Humboldt Measure E $49/parcel 77.3%22.7%PASS West Contra Costa Unified SchoContra Costa Measure G 7.2c/sf 74.7%25.4%PASS Little Lake City USD Los Angeles Measure TT $48/parcel 74.1%25.9%PASS San Francisco Community CollegSan Francisco Proposition A $79/parcel 72.5%27.5%PASS West Sonoma County Union HigSonoma Measure K $48/parcel 72.3%27.7%PASS Shoreline Unified School Distric Marin/Sonoma Measure C $185/parcel 71.5%28.5%PASS Sebastopol Union School DistricSonoma Measure O $76/parcel 71.4%28.6%PASS Mill Valley School District Marin Measure B $196/parcel 70.4%29.6%PASS Santa Barbara Elementary SD Santa Barbara Measure B $48/parcel 69.6%30.4%PASS Centinela Valley Union High SchLos Angeles Measure CL 2c/sf 69.5%30.5%PASS Davis Joint Unified School Distr Yolo/Solano Measure E $204/parcel 68.9%31.1%PASS Santa Barbara Unified SD Santa Barbara Measure A $45/parcel 68.6%31.4%PASS Martinez Unified School District Contra Costa Measure C $55/parcel 67.7%32.3%PASS Ventura Unified School District Ventura Measure Q $59/parcel 67.1%32.9%PASS San Leandro Unified School Dis Alameda Measure L $39/parcel 66.8%33.3%PASS Pacific Grove Unified School DisMonterey Measure A $65/parcel 66.4%33.6%FAIL Fort Ross School District Sonoma Measure L $48/parcel 65.4%34.6%FAIL Contra Costa Community Colleg Contra Costa Measure A $11/parcel 64.8%35.2%FAIL Three Rivers School District Tulare Measure I $60/parcel 61.6%38.4%FAIL Chabot-Las Positas Community Alameda/ContraMeasure I $28/parcel 62.5%37.5%FAIL San Bruno Park SD San Mateo Measure G $199/parcel 58.5%41.5%FAIL Westside Union SD Los Angeles Measure WP $96/parcel 53.6%46.4%FAIL Mohave Unified School District Kern Measure N $42/parcel 50.4%49.6%FAIL Pleasant Ridge Union School Di Nevada Measure K $92/parcel 36.7%63.3%FAIL Referenda concerning municipal fees or taxes Agency Name Rate YES%NO% Newcastle Fire Protection DMeasure K retain existing tax structure 61.5%38.5%FAIL Huntington Beach Measure Z retain PropProp13 Property Tax rate for employee retirement 49.6%50.4%FAIL Huntington Beach Measure AA retain taxes on annexed Sunset Beach area 84.0%16.0%PASS 3.A.a Packet Pg. 75 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 10 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman School Bonds There were 106 school bond measures on the ballot for a total of over $14.429 billion in bonds. All but one required 55% approval. Final tabulations show 91 of the measures passed for bonds totaling $13.279 billion, among these a $2.8 billion bond in San Diego. School Bond Measures Agency Name County Amount YES%NO% Inglewood USD Los Angeles Measure GG $90million 85.9%14.1%PASS Oakland Unified School District Alameda Measure J $475million 84.9%15.1%PASS Earlimart School District Tulare Measure H $3.6million 81.3%18.7%PASS Alum Rock Union School District Santa Clara Measure J $125million 78.8%21.2%PASS Pacific Elementary School District Santa Cruz Measure M $0.83million 78.0%22.0%PASS Ocean View School District Ventura Measure P $4.2million 77.4%22.6%PASS Jefferson Elementary SD San Mateo Measure I $67.5million 76.2%23.8%PASS Little Lake City USD Los Angeles Measure EE $18million 75.8%24.2%PASS Hueneme Elementary School District Ventura Measure T $19.6million 75.7%24.3%PASS McFarland Unified School District Kern Measure M $25million 75.2%24.8%PASS Arcata Elementary School District Humboldt Measure F $7million 74.8%25.2%PASS South Bay Union School District San Diego Proposition Y $26million 74.3%25.7%PASS Soledad Unified School District Monterey Measure C $40million 73.7%26.3%PASS Mt. Pleasant School District Santa Clara Measure L $25million 73.6%26.4%PASS Jefferson Union High SD San Mateo Measure E $41.9million 73.5%26.5%PASS Mendota Unified School District Fresno Measure M $19million 73.3%26.7%PASS Palmdale SD Los Angeles Measure DD $220million 72.8%27.2%PASS Washington Unified School District Fresno Measure W $22million 72.5%27.5%PASS Covine-Valley USD Los Angeles Measure CC $129million 72.4%27.6%PASS Stockton Unified School District San Joaquin Measure E $156million 72.1%28.0%PASS Whittier Elementary SD Los Angeles Measure Z $55million 71.9%28.1%PASS Bellflower USD Los Angeles Measure BB $79million 71.6%28.4%PASS Delhi Unified School District Merced Measure E $8million 70.8%29.2%PASS East Side Union High School District Santa Clara Measure I $120million 70.5%29.5%PASS San Jose Unified School District Santa Clara Measure H $290million 70.3%29.8%PASS Cerritos CCD Los Angeles Measure G $350million 69.9%30.1%PASS San Bernardino City Unified San Bernardino Measure N $250million 69.6%30.4%PASS Folsom Cordova Unified School District Sacramento Measure P $68million 69.4%30.6%PASS Rancho Santiago Community College DistOrange Measure Q $198million 69.3%30.7%PASS Standard School District Kern Measure Q $11.2million 69.2%30.8%PASS Lancaster USD Los Angeles Measure L $63million 68.8%31.2%PASS Sacramento City Unified School District Sacramento Measure Q $346million 68.8%31.3%PASS Roseland School District Sonoma Measure N $7million 68.2%31.8%PASS Sanger Unified School District Fresno Measure S $50million 68.1%31.9%PASS Hemet Unified School District Riverside Measure U $49million 68.0%32.0%PASS Santa Monica-Malibu USD Los Angeles Measure ES $385million 67.7%32.3%PASS El Camino CCD Los Angeles Measure E $350million 67.6%32.4%PASS Rowland USD Los Angeles/Or Measure R $158.8million 67.6%32.4%PASS Somis Union School District Ventura Measure S $9million 67.4%32.6%PASS Chula Vista Elementary School District San Diego Proposition E $90million 66.9%33.1%PASS 3.A.a Packet Pg. 76 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 11 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman School Bond Measures (continued) Agency Name County Amount YES%NO% Pajaro Valley Unified School Dis Santa Cruz / Mo Measure L $150million 66.7%33.3%PASS San Carlos SD San Mateo Measure H $72million 66.7%33.3%PASS Sacramento City Unified School Sacramento Measure R $68million 66.6%33.4%PASS Burlingame Elementary SD San Mateo Measure D $56million 66.4%33.6%PASS Visalia Unified School District Tulare Measure E $60.1million 66.1%33.9%PASS Oxnard School District Ventura Measure R $90million 65.6%34.4%PASS Brawley Elementary SD Imperial Measure S $7.5million 65.3%34.7%PASS Gravenstein Union School DistriSonoma Measure M $6million 65.1%34.9%PASS Coachella Valley Unified School Riverside/ImperiMeasure X $41million 64.6%35.4%PASS Castaic USD Los Angeles Measure QS $51million 64.5%35.5%PASS Caruthers Unified School DistricFresno Measure C $12million 64.3%35.7%PASS Morgan Hill Unified School Dist Santa Clara Measure G $198.25million 64.0%36.0%PASS Panama-Buena Vista Union SchoKern Measure P $147million 63.7%36.3%PASS West Contra Costa Unified SchoContra Costa Measure E $360million 63.5%36.5%PASS Redondo Beach USD Los Angeles Measure Q $63million 63.4%36.7%PASS Chico Unified School District Butte Measure E $78million 63.3%36.7%PASS Temple City USD Los Angeles Measure S $128.8million 63.1%36.9%PASS Temecula Valley Unified School Riverside Measure Y $165million 63.0%37.0%PASS Escalon Unified School District San Joaquin Measure B $19.5million 63.0%37.0%PASS Nuview Union School District Riverside Measure V $4million 63.0%37.0%PASS Chaffey Joint Union High SchooSan Bernardino Measure P $848million 62.9%37.1%PASS Solano Community College DistrYolo/Solano Measure Q $348million 62.3%37.7%PASS Wilmar Union School District Sonoma Measure P $4million 62.3%37.7%PASS Alvord Unified School District Riverside Measure W $79million 61.8%38.2%PASS Antioch Unified School District Contra Costa Measure B $56.5million 61.6%38.5%PASS Westside Union SD Los Angeles Measure WR $18.5million 61.4%38.6%PASS Kings Canyon Joint Unified Sch Fresno/Tulare Measure K $40million 60.8%39.2%PASS Wheatland Union High School DYuba Measure U $9million 60.8%39.2%PASS San Diego Unified School DistricSan Diego Proposition Z $2800million 60.3%39.8%PASS La Habra City School District Orange Measure O $31million 60.2%39.8%PASS Fortuna High School District Humboldt Measure D $10million 60.0%40.0%PASS Perris Union High School DistricRiverside Measure T $153.42million 59.5%40.5%PASS Spreckels Union School District Monterey Measure B $7million 59.0%41.0%PASS Tustin Unified School District Orange Measure S $135million 58.8%41.2%PASS San Juan Unified School DistrictSacramento Measure N $350million 58.3%41.7%PASS St. Helena Unified School DistricNapa Measure C $30million 57.6%42.4%PASS Templeton Unified School DistriSan Luis ObispoMeasure H $35million 57.3%42.7%PASS Lindsay Unified School District Tulare Measure L $16million 57.1%42.9%PASS West Hills Community College DFresno/Kings Measure L $12.655million 56.8%43.2%PASS Ripon Unified School District San Joaquin Measure G $25.2million 56.6%43.4%PASS Grossmont-Cuyamaca Communi San Diego Proposition V $398million 56.5%43.5%PASS Cajon Valley Union School DistrSan Diego Proposition C $88.4million 56.4%43.6%PASS Weaver Union School District Merced Measure G $9million 56.1%43.9%PASS Coast Community College Distri Orange Measure M $698million 56.0%44.1%PASS 3.A.a Packet Pg. 77 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 12 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman School Bond Measures (continued) Agency Name County Amount YES%NO% Anderson Union High School District Shasta Measure C $12.3million 55.9%44.1%PASS Lynwood USD Los Angeles Measure K $93million 55.7%44.3%PASS San Dieguito Union High School District San Diego Proposition AA $449million 55.5%44.5%PASS Sonora Union High School District Tuolumne Measure J $23million 55.3%44.8%PASS Dehesa School District San Diego Proposition D $3million 55.2%44.8%PASS San Ramon Valley Unified School District Contra Costa Measure D $260million 55.2%44.8%PASS Summerville Union High School District Tuolumne Measure H $8million 55.1%45.0%PASS MiraCosta Community College District San Diego Proposition EE $497million 54.8%45.2%FAIL Del Mar Union School District San Diego Proposition CC $76.8million 54.3%45.7%FAIL Ocean View School District Orange Measure P $198million 53.9%46.1%FAIL Willows Unified School District Glenn Measure P $14.7million 53.8%46.2%FAIL Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School Di Riverside/SanBeMeasure O $98million 50.6%49.4%FAIL Fountain Valley School District Orange Measure N $23.5million 49.8%50.2%FAIL Ramona Unified School District San Diego Proposition R $66million 49.5%50.5%FAIL Porterville Unified School District Tulare Measure J $90million 48.6%51.4%FAIL Butteville Union School District Siskiyou Measure R $3.5million 46.3%53.7%FAIL Santa Ynez Valley High SD Santa Barbara Measure L $19.84million 46.2%53.8%FAIL Knightsen Elementary School District Contra Costa Measure H $3million 45.1%54.9%FAIL College SD Santa Barbara Measure K $12million 44.1%55.9%FAIL Mountain Empire Unified School District San Diego Proposition G $30.8million 43.9%56.1%FAIL Elk Hills School District (114 voters) Kern Measure O $6.2million 43.0%57.0%FAIL Gridley Unified School District Butte Measure G $11million 36.7%63.3%FAIL 3.A.a Packet Pg. 78 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 13 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Other Measures of Interest re: Local Government Finance and Governance Appointed City Clerk, Treasurer, Administrator There were ten proposals to make clerk or treasurer/auditor offices to professional appointments of the agency elected governing board. Charter Cities Voters in three cities considered becoming charter cities. Local Ballot Box Reaction to Citizens United Five local measures were approved declaring that corporations are not persons. The Richmond measure reads: “Should Richmond’s congressional representatives be instructed to propose, and Richmond’s state legislators instructed to ratify, an amendment to the United States Constitution to provide that corporations are not entitled to the Constitutional rights of real people, and that there should be limits on all spending in political campaigns, including ballot measures and "independent" expenditures?” Appointed City Clerk / City Treasurer / etc. Agency Name YES%NO% County of Yolo Measure H Appt/Consolid Auditor/Control 65.8%34.2%PASS Chico Measure L appt clerk 64.4%35.6%PASS Sutter Creek Measure T appt clerk 61.4%38.6%PASS Exeter Measure N appt clerk 52.5%47.5%PASS Exeter Measure O appt treasurer 49.5%50.5%FAIL Lincoln Measure H appt treasurer 48.4%51.6%FAIL Concord Measure J appt treasurer 47.1%52.9%FAIL County of San Mateo Measure C appt controller 40.5%59.5%FAIL Taft Measure S appt clerk 30.3%69.7%FAIL County of Los Angeles Measure A Appt Assessor - Advisory 22.3%77.8%FAIL Charter City City YES%NO% Escondido Proposition P 47.1%52.9%FAIL Costa Mesa Measure V 40.7%59.3%FAIL Grover Beach Measure I 50.2%49.8%PASS Corporations are Not Persons Agency Name YES%NO% Chico Measure K 58.1%41.9%PASS Arcata Measure H 81.6%18.4%PASS Richmond Measure P 72.4%27.6%PASS San Francisco Proposition G 80.7%19.3%PASS County of Mendocino Measure F 73.3%26.7%PASS 3.A.a Packet Pg. 79 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Final Results of Local Revenue Measures November 2012 – 14 – Rev February 6, 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com © 2012 Michael Coleman Observations At the local government level, voters can usually connect the direct consequences of the passage or failure of a tax measure to specific public services or facilities – rather than just dollar values. This confidence and understanding in what the money will do is essential to passing a measure. By contrast, a source of the failure of many statewide tax measures has been voter uncertainty about what the funds will truly be used for, that the government has done reasonably the best it can with the revenues it already receives, and what the consequences are of passage or failure in terms of specific important public services and facilities. The success of most city majority vote general purpose tax proposals in this election demonstrates this. Most of the successful city or county measures were majority vote general purpose taxes in cities where a majority of the voters were apparently confident that the money is necessary and trusted their local elected leaders to use it well. They had seen enough of the city’s efforts to balance their budgets with existing resources and believed those efforts were sincere and that the additional tax revenue is necessary and worth paying. On the other hand, very few non-school super-majority taxes are passing these days except for extensions of existing taxes. But supermajority vote parcel taxes for schools continue to pass – about two out of three succeed – consistent with what we have seen historically. As for school bonds, 91 of 106 bond measures passed, slightly exceeding historic passage rates. ************ For more information: Michael Coleman 530-758-3952. coleman@muni1.com Source: County elections offices. mc 3.A.a Packet Pg. 80 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Appendix C Information Regarding Local Add-on Sales Tax 3.A.a Packet Pg. 81 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n CaliforniaCityFinance.com March 31, 2013 The California Local Government Finance Almanac The Rise of Local Add-On Sales (Transactions and Use) Taxes in California The Transactions and Use Tax Law was adopted in 1969 authorizing the adoption of local “transactions and use tax” add-ons to the combined state and local sales tax rate. Over the years the law was amended to provide specific authorizations for various particular cities, counties, special districts and countywide authorities. Prior to 2003, the most common transactions and use tax measures were those for a specific countywide need, most commonly transportation. But since a 2003 change in the law, add-on taxes by cities and some counties for general purposes have become more frequent. “Transactions and Use Tax” Versus “Sales and Use Tax” 1 Under California law, transactions and use taxes may be approved locally and added to the combined state and local sales and use tax rate. The base statewide sales and use tax, currently at 7.5%2, includes portions that go to the state general fund, to several specific state funds including some for local allocation and use, and to the cities and counties essentially based on the location of the purchase. 3 Transactions and Use Taxes generally apply to merchandise that is delivered in a jurisdiction which imposes such a tax. In practice the tax application and allocation for most retail sales will not differ from the sales and use tax. But there are some differences. Importantly, in the case of a sale or lease of a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, a transactions and use tax is charged and allocated base on the location in which the property will be registered. So if the city Jane lives in has a transactions and use tax, she will pay that tax if she purchases a car, even if she makes the purchase in a neighboring county that has no transactions and use tax. If Jane purchases a book in that neighboring county, she would not pay any transactions and use tax, but if she buys the book in her city she would pay her city’s tax. City and County Transactions and Use Taxes. In 2003, Governor Gray Davis signed SB566 (Scott)4 which gave every county and every city the ability to seek voter approval of a local transactions and use tax increase under the following conditions: à the transactions and use tax may be imposed at a rate of 0.25% or a multiple thereof, à the ordinance proposing the tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of all members of the governing body, à if for general purposes, the tax must be approved by a majority vote of the voters in the city or county, à if for specific purposes, the tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the voters in the city or county, and à the maximum combined rate of transactions and use taxes in any location may not exceed 2%.5 Prior to SB566, with the exception that counties could form special agencies to seek taxes for transportation improvements, a city or county had to seek special legislation in order to adopt a transactions and use tax measure. More than twenty local agencies had received such special authorization. Of the 99 cities that currently impose a transactions and use tax, only eight currently do so under special legislation from prior to 2003. Inyo County has a ½ percent general purpose sales tax rate adopted in 1988 under special legislation. It is currently the only county with a general purpose transactions and use tax rate. Altogether, there are currently 115 cities (not including San Francisco City/County) with voter approved transactions and use tax rates. Ten cities have two approved rates, so there are currently 125 approved city rates including 25 special taxes approved for a specified purpose. 2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616 • Tel: 530.758.3952 3.A.a Packet Pg. 82 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n – 2 – 31 March 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com In addition to the city rates, there are 39 county or special district rates in 27 counties. Inyo, Santa Clara and San Mateo have general purpose rates. All others are special taxes for specific purposes. Thirty of the county rates are for transportation or transit, six for libraries and two for hospitals. Napa County has a ½ percent rate for flood control, that voters approved to extend for streets and roads after June 2018. Sonoma and Marin County each have ¼ percent rates for open space and agricultural land preservation. Amador County has a ½ percent rate for fire protection and emergency medical services. San Francisco has a ¼ percent rate for school and community college facilities. Fresno County has a specially authorized 1/10 percent rate for its zoo. Taken together there are currently 164 approved transactions and use tax rates in 142 jurisdictions. Rate 0.25% 0.375% 0.50% 0.75% 1.00% General 14 1 59 6 20 Special 6 17 2 Special Tax Uses Police &/or Fire 4 9 2 Streets/Roads/Transit 5 Hospital/Medical 1 Parks/Recreation/OpenSpace 2 Libraries 1 Wastewater Treatement 1 Number of currently approved taxes; effective as of April 1, 2013 City Transactions and Use Taxes Some cities have two rates: Capitola, El Cajon, El Cerrito, Eureka, Ft Bragg, Nevada City, Placerville, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Woodland. Rate 0.10% 0.125% 0.25% 0.375% 0.50% 0.75% 1.00% General 1 15 1 61 6 20 Special 1 6 12 47 2 Special Tax Uses Police &/or Fire 4 10 2 Streets/Roads/Transit 1 3 31 Hospital/Medical 3 Parks/Recreation/OpenSpace 2 2 Libraries 5 2 Schools Flood Control 1 Wastewater Treatment 1 Zoo 1 Transactions and Use Taxes (City, County, District)Number of currently approved taxes; effective as of April 1, 2013 Table 1 Table 2 3.A.a Packet Pg. 83 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n – 3 – 31 March 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Election Success of Transactions and Use Taxes From 1995 through the March 2013, 347 proposals for local transactions and use taxes have been submitted to the voters. Special taxes (earmarked for a specific purpose and requiring two-thirds voter approval) have been more common than general taxes, but the proportion of general tax proposals has been higher in recent years. Since 2008, 81% (78 of 96) of proposals were general purpose majority vote. From 1995 through 2008, just 45% (112 of 251) were general purpose. Among the special taxes, the most common proposed specific use is countywide transportation, but measures targeting libraries, police/fire services and city streets/roads (less than countywide) have also been common. Other uses have included medical services, solid waste collection and disposal, zoo, flood control, jail/corrections, and parks and recreation. Prior to 2004, most proposals were for countywide programs, but since then city proposals are more common. Just 19 of the 70 proposals prior to 2004 were by cities. Since then, 74% (177 of 240) have been from cities. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (thruMar)Total General 1/1 1/1 0/5 0/2 2/5 0/1 2/3 13/31 8/10 14/21 2/7 18/25 2/8 18/25 5/8 33/36 0/1 119/190 Special 0/1 0/6 0/2 6/18 2/3 3/8 2/9 3/5 14/30 3/4 8/29 2/2 13/22 0/1 1/2 2/3 6/11 1/1 66/157 1/2 1/7 0/2 6/23 2/5 5/13 0/1 4/12 3/5 27/61 11/14 22/50 4/9 31/47 2/9 19/27 7/11 39/47 1/2 185/347 City 0/1 0/3 2/6 1/1 3/3 2/3 2/2 16/37 10/13 16/28 4/9 24/36 2/9 19/25 6/10 32/36 1/2 140/224 County/Special Distr 1/1 1/4 0/2 4/17 1/4 2/10 0/1 2/9 1/3 11/24 1/1 6/22 7/11 0/2 1/1 7/11 45/123 1/2 1/7 0/2 6/23 2/5 5/13 0/1 4/12 3/5 27/61 11/14 22/50 4/9 31/47 2/9 19/27 7/11 39/47 1/2 185/347 Special Tax Uses Police & Fire 0/1 1/3 1/1 3/10 2/2 1/6 2/2 4/7 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 1/1 15/37 Hospital/Medical 0/1 0/1 1/2 1/1 0/1 3/7 Streets/Roads 0/1 0/1 1/2 2/3 0/1 0/1 1/4 2/2 1/2 7/17 Transportation-Countywide 0/3 2/4 1/6 1/2 7/10 5/15 5/7 0/2 21/49 Libraries 0/2 3/7 1/2 0/1 1/1 1/4 0/1 1/2 2/2 3/3 12/25 Other 0/2 0/1 1/2 0/2 0/2 2/3 1/3 1/3 1/1 2/3 8/22 0/1 0/6 0/2 6/18 2/3 3/8 0/0 2/9 3/5 14/30 3/4 8/29 2/2 13/22 0/1 1/2 2/3 6/11 1/1 66/157 San Francisco is counted as a county. Transactions & Use Tax Measures Approved/Proposed 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Failing General Tax Passing General Tax Local Transactions and Use Tax Measures Failing SpecialTax Passing SpecialTax Table 3 Chart 4 3.A.a Packet Pg. 84 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n – 4 – 31 March 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Until the passage of SB566, most transactions and use tax measures were special taxes requiring two-thirds voter approval. With few exceptions, until 2003, most legislation authorized only two-thirds vote special taxes. But general tax proposals are now more common. Prior to 2003, there were just six general purpose majority vote city measures. Since then, there have been 163. Generally, city majority vote general purpose transactions and use taxes have shown a greater rate of success than countywide measures or city 2/3 vote special transactions and use taxes. Sixty-eight percent (115/169) of the proposed city general measures passed. Counties have a much tougher time of it though. Majority-vote general purpose measures by counties show just a five out of 23 passing record since 1995. Three of those have since sunset. San Mateo County (1/4 cent) and Santa Clara County (1/8 cent) each passed general purpose measures in November 2012. Inyo County’s ½ cent general tax passed after special authorizing legislation in 1988 is also still in effect.. The success record of special taxes is not as successful for cities. Half (27) of the 55 special purpose two- thirds vote sales tax proposals by cities have been successful. This stronger result for general taxes can be seen among other types of local tax measures as well (hotel taxes, utility user taxes, etc.). Since the passage SB566 in 2003, the transactions and use tax, particularly when structured as a majority vote tax for general purposes, has become popular and successful revenue raising tool for cities. In just the last few years, the number of approved city transactions and use taxes has more than tripled. mjgc 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (thruMar)Total General 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/1 0/0 2/2 0/0 2/3 0/0 13/26 7/10 14/19 2/7 19/27 2/8 18/24 5/8 31/33 0/1 115/169 Special 0/1 0/3 0/0 2/5 1/1 1/1 0/0 0/0 2/2 6/11 2/3 2/9 2/2 5/9 0/1 1/1 1/2 1/3 1/1 27/55 0/1 0/3 0/0 2/6 1/1 3/3 0/0 2/3 2/2 19/37 9/13 16/28 4/9 24/36 2/9 19/25 6/10 32/36 1/2 142/224 Special Tax Uses Police & Fire 1/3 1/1 5/9 2/2 1/3 2/2 3/5 0/1 0/1 0/1 1/1 16/29 Hospital/Medical 0/1 1/1 0/1 1/3 Streets/Roads 0/1 0/1 1/2 2/2 1/1 0/1 1/4 1/2 0/1 6/15 Libraries 0/1 1/1 1/2 Other 0/10/21/11/11/1 3/6 0/1 0/3 0/0 2/5 1/1 1/1 2/2 6/11 2/3 2/9 2/2 5/9 0/1 1/1 1/2 1/3 1/1 27/55 San Francisco is counted as a county. City Transactions & Use Tax Measures Approved/Proposed Table 5 3.A.a Packet Pg. 85 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n – 5 – 31 March 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com City T r a n s a c t i o n s a n d U s e T a x M e a s u r e s - G e n e r a l P u r p o s e Galt1/4¢11/04 Manteca1/4¢11/04 Coachella1/2¢11/11 Lindsay3/4¢6/08 Woodland1/2¢3/02 Clovis1¢3/09 Chula Vista1¢5/09 Maricopa1¢11/12 Cathedral City 3/4¢11/06 Richmond1/2¢11/05 Coalinga3/4¢3/04 Daly City1/4¢11/04 Ridgecrest 3/4¢11/04 Fillmore3/4¢11/11 Watsonville1/4¢11/04 Marysville1/2¢11/08 San Diego1/2¢11/10 Clearlake1/2¢11/06 Pacifica1¢5/09 Salinas 1¢11/09 Saint Helena1/2¢11/10 Sanger1/2¢11/04 Carson1¢11/10 Colusa1/4¢11/08 National City1¢11/05 Richmond1/2¢6/11 Calexico1/4¢11/07 Mammoth Lakes1/2¢6/06 SanBuenaventura1/2¢11/09 Woodland1/2¢6/98 Atwater1¢11/04 San Carlos1/2¢11/09 LosAngeles1/2¢11/12 Fairfield1/2¢11/05 Redlands1/2¢11/10 Delano1/2¢11/04 Brawley1/2 ¢11/07 Madera1/4¢11/04 Half Moon Bay1¢11/10 Pacific Grove1/2¢11/07 Maywood2¢11/08 Hollister1¢11/06 Salinas1/2¢11/04 Antioch1/2¢11/10 SanJBautista1/2¢11/07 YuccaVly1¢11/12 Pismo Beach1/2¢11/06 Gustine3/4¢11/08 Trinidad1¢4/08 San Bruno1/2¢11/07 Monterey1/4¢11/04 Turlock1/2¢11/04 SanJBautista1/2¢6/08 ArroyoGrande1/2¢11/06 Sebastopol1/8¢11/00 Vallejo1¢11/11 Capitola1/4¢11/12 El Cajon1/2¢11/08 Inglewood 1/2¢11/06 Waterford1/2¢11/05 Trinidad3/4¢11/08 Gustine1/2¢11/09 SanJBautista3/4¢11/04 Delano1¢11/07 Wheatland1/2¢11/10 HalfMnBay1/2¢11/12 Vista1/2¢11/06 La Habra1/2¢11/08 Wiliams1/2¢11/06 Eureka1/2¢11/10 Concord1/2¢11/10 Rohnert Park 1/2¢6/10 Woodland1/4¢6/10 Healdsburg3/4¢11/12 Trinidad3/4¢11/12 La Mesa3/4¢11/08 Grover Beach1/2¢11/06 Pismo Beach1/2¢6/08 Ridgecrest3/4¢6/12 LagunaBch1/2¢12/05 Cathedral City 3¢6/10 Oakdale1/2¢11/11 Sand City1/2¢11/04 Eureka1/4¢11/08 Del Rey Oaks1¢11/06 Santa Rosa1/4¢11/10 SoLakeTahoe1/2¢11/04 Novato1/2¢11/10 Tracy1/2¢11/10 Hollister1¢11/12 WestSacr1/2¢11/08 Palm Springs4¢11/11 Santa Cruz 1/4¢11/06 National City1¢6/06 Woodlake1/2¢11/04 PasoRobles1/2¢11/12 El Cerrito1/2¢11/10 Seaside1¢2/08 Richmond1/2¢11/04 Lakeport1/2¢11/04 Pinole 1/2¢11/06 Capitola 1/4¢11/04 Cotati1/2¢4/10 Watsonville1/4¢11/06 Calexico1/2 ¢6/10 Union City1/2¢11/10 San Mateo1/4¢11/09 Santa Monica1/2¢11/10 San Leandro1/4¢11/10 Salinas1/2¢11/05 South El Monte1/2¢11/10 Marina1¢11/10 Sacramento1/2¢11/12 Woodland1/2¢6/06 Montclair1/4¢11/04 Greenfield1/2¢6/12 Arcata3/4¢11/08 Santa Maria1/4¢6/12 Merced1/2¢11/05 Farmersville1/2¢11/04 WestSacr1/2¢11/02 Fairfax1/2¢11/11 SanLObispo1/2¢11/06 Morro Bay1/2¢11/06 Woodland1/2¢3/00 Oxnard1/2¢11/08 Hollister1¢11/07 LaMirada1¢11/12 Pacific Grove1¢6/08 Capitola1/4¢11/08 GrassVly1/2¢11/12 Fairfield1¢11/12 Sonoma1/2¢6/12 Sebastopol1/8¢11/02 San Bernardino1/4¢11/06 Commerce1/2¢11/12 Sebastopol 1/8¢11/04 Pico Rivera1¢11/08 Davis1/2¢3/04 Vacaville1/4¢11/12 Del Rey Oaks1¢11/11 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90% Pass i n g 115 / 1 6 9 percent voting "Yes" Chart 6 3.A.a Packet Pg. 86 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n – 6 – 31 March 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Chart 7 Lo d i 1 1 / 0 6 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 4 ¢ Fo r t B r a g g 1 1 / 9 6 R o a d s 1 / 2 ¢ Sa n F r a n c i s c o 1 1 / 1 1 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ Su s a n v i l l e 1 1 / 0 4 R e c r e a t i o n 1 / 2 ¢ Ca l e x i c o 5 / 0 9 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ Alt u r a s 1 1 / 0 8 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ Ala m e d a 6 / 1 2 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ Ala m e d a 1 1 / 1 2 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ De l a n o 1 1 / 0 6 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ De l a n o 1 1 / 0 5 R o a d s 1 / 2 ¢ Sa n D i e g o 1 1 / 9 6 L i b r a r i e s 1 / 4 ¢ La k e p o r t 1 1 / 9 5 R o a d s 1 ¢ Lo m p o c 2 / 0 8 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ Ba r s t o w 1 1 / 0 8 P o l i c e / F i r e 3 / 4 ¢ Ri d g e c r e s t 1 1 / 0 8 R o a d s 3 / 4 ¢ Cl e a r l a k e 6 / 0 6 R o a d s 1 / 2 ¢ Gr a s s V a l l e y 1 1 / 0 6 R o a d s 1 / 2 ¢ Ne e d l e s 1 1 / 0 6 F a c i l i t i e s 1 / 4 ¢ Bi g B e a r L a k e 6 / 0 6 R o a d s 1 / 2 ¢ La k e p o r t 1 1 / 9 8 R o a d s 3 / 4 ¢ Ne e d l e s 6 / 0 8 H o s p i t a l 1 / 2 ¢ Cl e a r L a k e 1 1 / 1 2 R o a d s 1 ¢ Me r c e d 1 1 / 0 4 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ Ve n t u r a 1 1 / 0 6 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 4 ¢ SJ B a u t i s t a 3 / 0 4 P o l i c e / F i r e 3 / 4 ¢ Uk i a h 3 / 0 4 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ Ma d e r a 1 1 / 9 8 P o l i c e 1 / 4 ¢ Ma d e r a 6 / 9 8 P o l i c e 1 / 4 ¢ Uk i a h 1 1 / 0 4 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ Vis a l i a 3 / 0 4 P o l i c e , F i r e 1 / 4 ¢ Atw a t e r 3 / 1 3 p o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ Ga l t 1 1 / 0 8 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ Cl o v i s 1 1 / 9 9 P o l i c e / F i r e 3 / 1 0 ¢ El C a j o n 1 1 / 0 4 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ Po i n t A r e n a 1 1 / 0 3 R o a d s 1 / 2 ¢ Or a n g e C o u n t y 1 1 / 0 6 T r a n s p 1 / 2 ¢ Ma n t e c a 1 1 / 0 6 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ Sa n t a R o s a 1 1 / 0 4 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 4 ¢ Sa n g e r 2 / 0 8 P o l i c e / F i r e 3 / 4 ¢ Po r t e r v i l l e 1 1 / 0 5 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ El C e r r i t o 2 / 0 8 R o a d s 1 / 2 ¢ Pl a c e r v i l l e 1 1 / 9 8 P o l i c e 1 / 4 ¢ Ma m m o t h L k s 6 / 0 8 P a r k s / R e c r 1 / 2 ¢ Fo r t B r a g g 8 / 0 4 R o a d s 1 / 2 ¢ St o c k t o n 1 1 / 0 4 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ Di n u b a 1 1 / 0 5 P o l i c e / F i r e 3 / 4 ¢ Re e d l e y 2 / 0 8 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ Ce r e s 1 1 / 0 7 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ Pl a c e r v i l l e 1 1 / 1 0 o t h e r 1 / 4 ¢ Wi l l i t s 6 / 0 3 R o a d s 1 / 2 ¢ Fo r t B r a g g 3 / 1 2 P a r k s / R e c r 1 / 2 ¢ Ft B r a g g 1 1 / 1 2 C o m m u n i t y C t r 1 / 2 ¢ Mt. S h a s t a 6 / 1 1 L i b r a r y 1 / 4 ¢ Av a l o n 4 / 0 0 H o s p i t a l 1 / 2 ¢ Se l m a 1 1 / 0 7 P o l i c e / F i r e 1 / 2 ¢ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%City Transactions and Use Tax Measures - Specific Purpose Passing27 / 55 pe r c e n t v o t i n g " Y e s " 3.A.a Packet Pg. 87 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n – 7 – 31 March 2013 CaliforniaCityFinance.com For More Information: à On the Sales & Use Tax in California: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/#SALESTAX à On local tax measures and election results: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/#VOTES à Current tax rates for cities and counties. California State Board of Equalization. http://www.boe.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rates.cgi à Transactions and Use Tax rates and effective dates. Calif. BOE. http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/pdf/districtratelist.pdf 1 For more detail on rules for the collection and allocation of transactions and use taxes see California State Board of Equalization Publication #44, “Tax Tips for District Taxes” at http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub44.pdf and Publication #105 “District Taxes and Delivered Sales” at http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub105.pdf 2 Including a 0.25% rate adopted by voters with the November 2011 approval of Proposition 30. The 0.25% rate went into effect on January 1, 2013 and will end December 31, 2016. 3 The components of the statewide sales and use tax and their allocation are discussed in some detail in the Board of Equalization’s Publication #28: “Tax Information for City and County Officials” http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub28.pdf and other resources at http://www.californiacityfinance.com/#SALESTAX. 4 Chapter 709, Statutes of 2003. 5 For example, a countywide transportation tax of 1%, together with a 1% tax of a city in that county total 2%. 3.A.a Packet Pg. 88 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Page 1 of 4 California City and County Sales and Use Tax Rates ■ April 2013 DISTRICT TAXES, RATES, AND EFFECTIVE/END DATES (City): Indicates district tax applies within the city limits and is in addition to other applicable state, local, and transit district taxes. Eff 4/1/2013 Add-on Effective End Tax Area code District Name and Initials Rate Date DateAlameda County 020 Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)0.50%04/01/70 NONE079Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTI) 0.50%04/01/02 03/31/22086Alameda County Essential Health Care Services Transactions & Use Tax (ACHC)0.50%07/01/04 06/30/19(San Leandro city only)237 City of San Leandro Transactions and Use Tax (SLGF)0.25%04/01/11 03/31/18 (Union City city only)239 City of Union City Transactions and Use Tax (UCGF)0.50%04/01/11 03/31/15 (Albany city only)298 City of Albany Transactions and Use Tax (ALBG)0.50%04/01/13 03/31/21 010 Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA) EXPIRED 0.50%04/01/87 03/31/02 Amador County 194 Amador County Fire Protection & Emergency Medical Services Transactions & Use Tax (AMCG)0.50%04/01/09 NONE Colusa County(Williams City only)139 City of Williams Transactions and Use Tax (WLMS)0.50%04/01/07 NONEContra Costa County 021 Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)0.50%04/01/70 NONE 024 Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) 0.50%04/01/89 03/31/34 (Richmond city only)095 City of Richmond Transactions and Use Tax (RMGT)0.50%04/01/05 NONE (Pinole city only)140 City of Pinole Transactions and Use Tax (PNLE)0.50%04/01/07 NONE (El Cerrito city only)174 City of El Cerrito Street Improvements Transactions and Use Tax (ECSI)0.50%07/01/08 NONE (Concord city only)241 City of Concord Transactions and Use Tax (CNCD)0.50%04/01/11 03/31/16(El Cerrito city only)243 City of El Cerrito Transactions and Use Tax (ELCT)0.50%04/01/11 03/31/18(Hercules city only)285 City of Hercules Temporary Transactions & Use Tax (HTGT)0.50%10/01/12 09/30/16 (Pittsburg city only)287 City of Pittsburg Preservation of Citywide Ser. Temp Transactions & Use Tax (PPTG)0.50%b 10/01/12 09/30/17 (San Pablo city only)289 City of San Pablo Transactions & Use Tax (SPGT)0.50%b 10/01/12 09/30/17(Moraga city only)300 City of Moraga Transactions & Use Tax (MGAG)1.00%04/01/13 03/31/33 (Orinda city only)302 City of Orinda Transactions & Use Tax (ORGT)0.50%04/01/13 03/31/23 Del Norte County 047 Del Norte County District (DNCD) EXPIRED 0.50%07/01/93 06/30/98 El Dorado County (Placerville city only)070 City of Placerville Public Safety Transactions and Use Tax (PLPS)0.25%04/01/99 NONE(South Lake Tahoe only)097 City of South Lake Tahoe Transactions and Use Tax (SLTG)0.50%04/01/05 NONE(Placerville city only)245 City of Placerville Special Transactions & Use Tax (PLST)0.25%04/01/11 03/31/41Fresno County 012 Fresno County Transportation Authority (FCTA)0.50%07/01/87 06/30/27 071 Fresno County Public Library Transactions and Use Tax (FCPL)0.125%04/01/99 03/31/29 098 Fresno County Zoo Authority (FCZA)0.10%04/01/05 03/31/15 (Selma city only)168 City of Selma Transactions and Use Tax (SLMA)0.50%04/01/08 NONE (Reedley city only)176 City of Reedley Public Safety Transactions and Use Tax (RDPS)0.50%07/01/08 NONE (Sanger city only)178 City of Sanger Public Safety Transactions and Use Tax (SGPS)0.75%07/01/08 06/30/18(County + City)048 Fresno Metropolitan Projects Authority (FMPA) ENDED (COURT RULING)0.10%07/01/93 03/20/96(Clovis city only)073 City of Clovis Public Safety Transactions and Use Tax (CCPS) EXPIRED 0.30%04/01/00 09/30/08Humboldt County (Arcata city only)195 City of Arcata Transactions and Use Tax (ARGF)0.75%04/01/09 03/31/29 (Trinidad city only)196 City of Trinidad Transactions and Use Tax (TRGF)0.75%04/01/09 03/31/17 (Eureka city only)197 City of Eureka Transactions and Use Tax (ERKA)0.25%04/01/09 NONE (Eureka city only)247 City of Eureka Supplemental Transactions and Use Tax (ERST)0.50%04/01/11 06/30/16 (Trinidad city only)092 City of Trinidad General Revenue Transactions and Use Tax (TDGF) EXPIRED 1.00%10/01/04 12/31/08Imperial County 029 Imperial County Local Transportation Authority (IMTA) 0.50%04/01/90 03/31/50(Calexico city only)229 Calexico General Fund Transactions and Use Tax (CXGF)0.50%10/01/10 09/30/30(Calexico city only)045 Calexico Heffernan Memorial Hospital District (CXHD) EXPIRED 0.50%10/01/92 03/31/06Inyo County 014 Inyo County Rural Counties Transactions Tax (INRC)0.50%10/01/88 NONE Kern County (Delano city only)170 City of Delano Transactions and Use Tax (DLNO)1.00%04/01/08 03/31/18 (Arvin city only)198 City of Arvin Transactions and Use Tax (ARVN)1.00%04/01/09 NONE (Ridgecrest City only)291 City of Ridgecrest Temporary Transactions and Use Tax (RTGT)0.75%10/01/12 09/30/17Lake County(Clearlake city only)058 City of Clearlake Public Safety Transactions and Use Tax (CLPS)0.50%07/01/95 NONE(Lakeport city only)101 City of Lakeport Transactions and Use Tax (LPGT) 0.50%04/01/05 NONE Los Angeles County 005 Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACT)0.50%07/01/82 NONE 035 Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LATC)0.50%04/01/91 NONE 217 Los Angeles County Metro Transportation Authority (LAMT)0.50%07/01/09 06/30/39 (Avalon city only)077 City of Avalon Municipal Hospital and Clinic Tax (AMHC)0.50%10/01/00 NONE (Inglewood city only)142 City of Inglewood Vital City Services Transactions and Use Tax (IGWD)0.50%04/01/07 NONE(South Gate city only)181 Ctiy of South Gate Transaction and Use Tax (SGTE)1.00%10/01/08 NONE(El Monte city only)199 City of El Monte Transactions and Use Tax (EMGF)0.50%04/01/09 03/31/14(Pico Rivera city only)201 City of Pico Rivera Transactions and Use Tax (PCRV)1.00%04/01/09 NONE (Santa Monica city only)249 City of Santa Monica Transactions and Use Tax (STMA)0.50%04/01/11 NONE (So El Monte city only)251 City of South El Monte Vital City Services Protection Transactions and Use Tax (SEMT)0.50%04/01/11 NONE (Culver City city only)304 City of Culver City Essential City Services Transactions and Use Tax (CLEG)0.50%04/01/13 03/31/23 (Commerce city only)306 City of Commerce Transactions and Use Tax (CMMG)0.50%04/01/13 NONE (La Mirada city only)308 City of La Mirada Transactions and Use Tax (LMGT)1.00%04/01/13 03/31/18 3.A.a Packet Pg. 89 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Page 2 of 4 California City and County Sales and Use Tax Rates ■ April 2013 DISTRICT TAXES, RATES, AND EFFECTIVE/END DATES (City): Indicates district tax applies within the city limits and is in addition to other applicable state, local, and transit district taxes. Eff 4/1/2013 Add-on Effective End Tax Area code District Name and Initials Rate Date Date Madera County 144 Madera County 2006 Transportation Authority (MCTC)0.50%04/01/07 03/31/27 034 Madera County Transportation Authority (MCTA) EXPIRED 0.50%10/01/90 09/30/05Marin County 102 Transportation Authority of Marin County (TAMC)0.50%04/01/05 03/31/25190Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transporation Authority (SMRT)0.25%04/01/09 03/31/29310Marin Parks/Open Space/Farmland Preservation Trans & Use Tax (MPSF)0.25%04/01/13 03/31/22(San Rafael City only)125 City of San Rafael Transactions and Use Tax (RFEL)0.50%04/01/06 03/31/16 (Novato city only)253 City of Novato Transactions and Use Tax (NOVT)0.50%04/01/11 03/31/16 (Fairfax city only)267 City of Fairfax Transactions and Use Tax (FFGT)0.50%04/01/12 03/31/17 Mariposa County 103 Mariposa County Healthcare Transactions and Use Tax (MCHC) 0.50%04/01/05 03/31/25 076 Mariposa County Healthcare Authority (MCHA) EXPIRED 0.50%07/01/00 06/30/04Mendocino County 269 Mendocino Cnty Library Special Transactions and Use Tax (MLST)0.125%04/01/12 03/31/28(Willits city only)084 City of Willits Transactions and Use Tax (WCRS)0.50%10/01/03 NONE(Point Arena city only)085 City of Point Arena Transactions and Use Tax (PARS)0.50%04/01/04 NONE(Fort Bragg city only)094 City of Fort Bragg Maintain City Streets Transactions and Use Tax (FBCS)0.50%01/01/05 12/31/14 (Ukiah city only)122 City of Ukiah Transactions and Use Tax (UKGT)0.50%10/01/05 09/30/15 (Fort Bragg city only)283 City of Fort Bragg CV Starr Center Trans & Use Tax (FBSS)0.50%07/01/12 NONE Merced County (Los Banos city only)104 City of Los Banos Public Safety Transactions and Use Tax (LBPS)0.50%04/01/05 NONE (Merced city only)127 City of Merced Transactions and Use Tax (MRCD)0.50%04/01/06 03/31/26(Gustine city only)224 City of Gustine Community Enhancement to Services Transactions and Use Tax (GSTG)0.50%04/01/10 NONEMono County (Mammoth Lakes city only )183 City of Mammoth Lakes Parks, Recreation & Trails Transactions & Use Tax (MLPR)0.50%10/01/08 NONE Monterey County (Sand City only)105 City of Sand City General Purpose Transactions and Use Tax (SAND)0.50%04/01/05 NONE (Salinas city only)128 City of Salinas Temporary Transactions and Use Tax (SLNS)0.50%04/01/06 NONE (Del Rey Oaks city only)145 City of Del Rey Oaks Transactions and Use Tax (DLRY)1.00%04/01/07 03/31/17 (Seaside city only)180 City of Seaside Transactions and Use Tax (SEAS)1.00%07/01/08 NONE (Pacific Grove city only)184 City of Pacific Grove Transactions and Use Tax (PGRV)1.00%10/01/08 NONE(Marina city only)255 City of Marina Transactions and Use Tax (MRNA)1.00%04/01/11 03/31/16(Soledad city only)292 City of Soledad Temporary Emergency Transactions and Use Tax (STEG)1.00%10/01/12 09/30/17(Greenfield city only)293 City of Greenfield Transactions and Use Tax (GFGT)1.00%10/01/12 09/30/17 (Carmel city only)315 City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Transactions and Use Tax (CBSG)1.00%04/01/13 03/31/23 032 Monterey County Public Repair and Improvement Authority (MPRI) ENDED (COURT RULING)0.50%04/01/90 09/30/92 Napa County 065 Napa County Flood Protection Authority Tax (NCFP)0.50%07/01/98 06/30/18 Nevada County 067 Nevada County Public Library Transactions and Use Tax (NVPL)0.125%10/01/98 09/30/18 (Truckee city only)068 Town of Truckee Road Maintenance Transactions and Use Tax (TRSR)0.50%10/01/98 12/31/28 (Nevada city only)146 City of Nevada City Street Improvements Transactions and Use Tax (NVSI)0.50%04/01/07 03/31/23(Grass Valley city only)317 City of Grass Valley Transactions and Use Tax (GVGT)0.50%04/01/13 03/31/23 (Nevada city only)319 City of Nevada City Transactions and Use Tax (NVGT)0.375%04/01/13 03/31/18 Orange County 037 Orange County Local Transportation Authority (OCTA)0.50%04/01/91 03/31/41 (La Habra city only)203 City of La Habra Transactions and Use Tax (LHBR)0.50%04/01/09 12/31/28 (Laguna Beach city only)134 City of Laguna Beach Temp Transactions and Use Tax (LGBH) EXPIRED 0.50%07/01/06 06/30/09Riverside County 026 Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)0.50%07/01/89 06/30/39(Cathedral city only)231 City of Cathedral City Transactions & Use Tax (CCGT)1.00%10/01/10 09/30/15(Palm Springs city only)274 City of Palm Springs Transactions & Use Tax (PSGT)1.00%04/01/12 NONESacramento County 023 Sacramento Transportation Authority (STAT)0.50%04/01/89 03/31/39 (Galt city only)205 City of Galt Public Safety Transactions and Use Tax (GLTS)0.50%04/01/09 NONE (Sacramento city only)321 City of Sacramento Transactions and Use Tax (SACG)0.50%04/01/13 03/31/19 San Benito County (San Juan Bautista only)106 City of San Juan Bautista Transactions and Use Tax (SJBG)0.75%04/01/05 NONE (Hollister city only)171 City of Hollister Transactions and Use Tax (HLST)1.00%04/01/08 03/31/18 015 San Benito County Council of Governments (SBCG) EXPIRED 0.50%01/01/89 12/31/98053San Benito County General Fund Augmentation (SBTU) EXPIRED 0.50%01/01/94 12/31/97San Bernardino County 031 San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBER)0.50%04/01/90 03/31/40(Montclair city only)107 City of Montclair Transactions and Use Tax (MTGR) 0.25%04/01/05 NONE (San Bernardino city only)148 City of San Bernardino Transactions and Use Tax (SBRN)0.25%04/01/07 03/31/22 San Diego County 013 San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission (SDTC)0.50%04/01/88 03/31/48 (El Cajon city only)109 City of El Cajon Public Safety Facilities Transactions and Use Tax (ECPS)0.50%04/01/05 03/31/15 (National City only)136 City of National City Transactions & Use Tax (NCGT)1.00%10/01/06 09/30/16 (Vista City only)150 City of Vista Transactions & Use Tax (VSTA)0.50%04/01/07 03/31/37(El Cajon city only)207 City of El Cajon Service Preservation Transactions and Use Tax (ECGF)0.50%04/01/09 03/31/29(La Mesa city only)209 City of La Mesa Transactions and Use Tax (LMSA)0.75%04/01/09 03/31/29016San Diego County Regional Justice Facility (SDJF) ENDED (COURT RULING)0.50%01/01/89 02/14/92 San Francisco City 022 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)0.50%04/01/70 NONE and County 027 San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFTA)0.50%04/01/90 NONE 051 San Francisco County Public Finance Authority (SFPF)0.25%10/01/93 NONE 043 San Francisco Educational Finance Authority (SFEA) EXPIRED 0.25%02/01/92 06/30/93San Joaquin County 038 San Joaquin Transportation Authority (SJTA)0.50%04/01/91 03/31/41(Stockton city only)111 City of Stockton Public Safety Transactions and Use Tax (SPFG)0.25%04/01/05 NONE(Manteca city only)152 City of Manteca Public Safety Transactions and Use Tax (MTPS)0.50%04/01/07 NONE(Tracy city only)256 City of Tracy Transactions & Use Tax (TRCY)0.50%04/01/11 03/31/16 (Lathrop city only)323 City of Lathrop Public Safety/Essential City Services Transactions & Use Tax (LTHG)1.00%04/01/13 None 3.A.a Packet Pg. 90 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Page 3 of 4 California City and County Sales and Use Tax Rates ■ April 2013 DISTRICT TAXES, RATES, AND EFFECTIVE/END DATES (City): Indicates district tax applies within the city limits and is in addition to other applicable state, local, and transit district taxes. Eff 4/1/2013 Add-on Effective End Tax Area code District Name and Initials Rate Date Date San Luis Obispo County (Arroyo Grande city only)154 City of Arroyo Grande Transactions and Use Tax (ARGD)0.50%04/01/07 NONE (Grover Beach city only)155 City of Grover Beach Transactions and Use Tax (GRBH)0.50%04/01/07 NONE(Morro Bay city only)156 City of Morro Bay Transactions and Use Tax (MRBY)0.50%04/01/07 NONE(San Luis Obispo city only)157 City of San Luis Obispo Essential Services Transactions and Use Tax (SLOG)0.50%04/01/07 03/31/15(Pismo Beach city only)185 City of Pismo Beach Transactions and Use Tax (PSMO)0.50%10/01/08 03/31/14 (Paso Robles city only)325 City of Paso Robles Transactions and Use Tax (PRBG)0.50%04/01/13 03/31/25 San Mateo County 002 San Mateo County Transit District (SMCT)0.50%07/01/82 NONE 018 San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMTA)0.50%01/01/89 12/31/33 326 San Mateo County Retail Transactions & Use Tax (SMGT)0.50%04/01/13 03/31/23 (San Mateo city only)225 City of San Mateo Transactions and Use Tax (SMTG)0.25%04/01/10 03/31/18(Half Moon Bay city only)329 City of Half Moon Bay Transactions and Use Tax (HMBG)0.50%04/01/13 03/31/16Santa Barbara County 030 Santa Barbara County Local Transportation Authority (SBAB)0.50%04/01/90 03/31/40(Santa Maria city only)294 City of Santa Maria Transactions and Use Tax (SMAG)0.25%10/01/12 09/30/21 Santa Clara County 003 Santa Clara County Transit District (SCCT)0.50%10/01/76 NONE 123 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVT)0.50%04/01/06 03/31/36 280 Santa Clara VTA BART Operating&Maintenance T&U Tax (SVTB)0.125%07/01/12 06/30/42 331 Santa Clara County Retail Transactions and Use Tax (SCCR)0.125%04/01/13 03/31/23 (Campbell city only)211 City of Campbell Vital City Services, Maintenance & Protection Transactions and Use Tax (CMPL)0.25%04/01/09 NONE063Santa Clara County Transactions and Use Tax (SCGF) EXPIRED 0.50%04/01/97 03/31/06006Santa Clara County Traffic Authority (SCTA) EXPIRED 0.50%04/01/85 03/31/95Santa Cruz County 004 Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (SCMT)0.50%01/01/79 NONE 061 Santa Cruz County Public Library Transactions and Use Tax (SZPL)0.25%04/01/97 NONE (Capitola city only)334 City of Capitola Transactions and Use Tax (CPGT)0.25%04/01/05 12/31/17 (Santa Cruz city only)158 City of Santa Cruz Replacement Transactions and Use Tax (STCZ)0.50%04/01/07 NONE (Watsonville City only)160 City of Watsonville Transactions and Use Tax (WTVL)0.25%04/01/07 NONE (Capitola city only)334 City of Capitola Perm Retail Trans and Use Tax (CPRG)0.25%04/01/13 NONE 089 City of Santa Cruz Transactions and Use Tax (SZGT) EXPIRED 0.25%07/01/04 03/31/07040Santa Cruz County Earthquake Recovery Bond (SCER) EXPIRED 0.50%04/01/91 03/31/97(Scotts Valley city only)129 City of Scotts Valley Transactions and Use Tax (SVGT) EXPIRED 0.50%04/01/06 03/31/09(Scotts Valley city only)215 City of Scotts Valley Transactions and Use Tax (SVGF) EXPIRED 0.25%04/01/09 03/31/11 Siskiyou County (Mt. Shasta city only)266 City of Mt. Shasta Libraries Transactions & Use Tax (MTSH)0.25%10/01/11 NONE Solano County 066 Solano County Public Library Transactions and Use Tax (SLPL)0.125%10/01/98 09/30/30 (Vallejo city only)276 City of Vallejo Transactions and Use Tax (VJGT)1.00%4/1/2012 03/31/22 (Fairfield city only)336 City of Fairfield Transactions and Use Tax (FLDG)1.00%4/1/2013 3/31/2018(Rio Vista city only)338 City of Rio Vista General Transactions and Use Tax (RVGG)0.75%4/1/2013 3/31/2018(Vacaville city only)340 City of Vacaville Transactions and Use Tax (VACG)0.25%4/1/2013 3/31/2018Sonoma County 115 Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SNTA)0.25%04/01/05 03/31/25 186 Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transporation Authority (SMRT)0.25%04/01/09 03/31/29 258 Sonoma Cty Agricultural Preservation & Open Space District (SAPD)0.25%04/01/11 03/31/31 (Sebastopol city only)117 City of Sebastopol Community Transactions and Use Tax (SEBG)0.25%04/01/05 NONE (Santa Rosa city only)119 City of Santa Rosa Public Safety Transactions and Use Tax (SRPS)0.25%04/01/05 03/31/25 (Cotati city only)227 City of Cotati Transactions and Use Tax (CTGF)0.50%10/01/10 09/30/15(Rohnert Park city only)233 City of Rohnert Park Transactions and Use Tax (RPGF)0.50%10/01/10 09/30/15(Santa Rosa city only)263 City of Santa Rosa 2010 Transactions & Use Tax (SRGF)0.25%04/01/11 03/31/19(Sonoma city only)296 City of Sonoma Transactions and Use Tax (SOGT)0.50%10/01/12 09/30/17 (Healdsburg city only)342 City of Healdsburg Transactions and Use Tax (HDBG)0.50%04/01/13 03/31/23 (Sebastopol city only)344 City of Sebastopol Increase in Community Trans and Use Tax (SBCGS)0.50%04/01/13 03/31/21 039 Sonoma County Open Space Authority (SCOS) EXPIRED 0.25%04/01/91 03/31/11 (Sebastopol city only)082 City of Sebastopol Transactions and Use Tax (SEGR) EXPIRED 0.125%04/01/03 03/31/05Stanislaus County 059 Stanislaus County Library Transactions and Use Tax (STCL)0.125%07/01/95 06/30/18 (Ceres city only)172 City of Ceres Public Safety Transactions and Use Tax (CRPS)0.50%04/01/08 NONE(Oakdale city only)278 City of Oakdale Transactions & Use Tax (ODGT)0.50%04/01/12 03/31/15Tulare County 162 Tulare County Transportation Authority (TCTA)0.50%04/01/07 03/31/37(Visalia city only)091 City of Visalia Public Safety Transactions and Use Tax (VPST)0.25%07/01/04 NONE (Farmersville city only)121 City of Farmersville Transactions and Use Tax (FMGT)0.50%04/01/05 NONE (Dinuba city only)131 City of Dinuba Policy and Fire Protection T & U Tax (DNBA)0.75%04/01/06 NONE (Porterville city only)132 City of Porterville Public Safety, Police & Fire Protection T & U Tax (PTVL)0.50%04/01/06 NONE (Tulare city only)133 City of Tulare Transactions and Use Tax (TLRE)0.50%04/01/06 NONE 060 Tulare County Transactions and Use Tax (TCTU) EXPIRED 0.50%10/01/95 12/31/97Tuolumne County(Sonora city only)093 City of Sonora Transactions and Use Tax (SPFW)0.50%01/01/05 NONEVentura County (Oxnard city only)213 City of Oxnard Vital Services Transactions & Use Tax (OXND)0.50%04/01/09 03/31/29 (Port Hueneme city only)214 City of Port Hueneme Transactions & Use Tax (PTHN)0.50%04/01/09 NONE Yolo County (West Sacto city only)081 City of West Sacramento Transactions and Use Tax (WSTU)0.50%a 04/01/03 03/31/33 (Davis city only)088 City of Davis General Revenue Transactions & Use Tax (DAGT)0.50%07/01/04 12/31/16 (Woodland city only)138 City of Woodland Transactions & Use Tax (WDLD)0.50%10/01/06 09/30/18(Woodland city only)235 City of Woodland Supplemental Trans and Use Tax (WOSF)0.25%10/01/10 09/30/14(Woodland city only)075 City of Woodland General Revenue Transactions and Use Tax (WOGT) EXPIRED 0.50%07/01/00 06/30/06 3.A.a Packet Pg. 91 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Page 4 of 4 California City and County Sales and Use Tax Rates ■ April 2013 DISTRICT TAXES, RATES, AND EFFECTIVE/END DATES (City): Indicates district tax applies within the city limits and is in addition to other applicable state, local, and transit district taxes. Eff 4/1/2013 Add-on Effective End Tax Area code District Name and Initials Rate Date Date Yuba County (Wheatland city only)265 City of Wheatland Transactions and Use Tax (WTLD)0.50%04/01/11 03/31/21 a - Pursuant to the district tax ordinance, the WSTU tax rate will be reduced to 0.25% effective April 1, 2033, with no expiration date thereafter. New code will be assigned b - Effective 10/01/17 PPTG and SPGT rate will be 0.25% with an end date 09/30/22. New Codes will be assigned for each Juris District has Expired or Ended due to Court Ruling 3.A.a Packet Pg. 92 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Appendix D Information Regarding Utility User Tax 3.A.a Packet Pg. 93 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n CaliforniaCityFinance.Com rev. Sept 2008 Utility User Tax Facts The Utility User Tax (UUT) may be imposed by a city on the consumption of utility services, including (but not limited to) electricity, gas, water, sewer, telephone (including cell phone and long distance), sanitation and cable television.1 The rate of the tax and the use of its revenues are determined by the local agency. A UUT may be imposed as a special tax, earmarked for a specific purpose, or a general tax to be used for a variety of municipal service needs at the discretion of the city council. The tax is levied by the city, collected by the utility as a part of its regular billing procedure, and then remitted to the city. Statewide, city and county utility user taxes generate about $2 billion per year. Voter Approval is Now Required to Levy a New or Increased UUT Most of the 146 cities and 4 counties2 with UUTs adopted the taxes by vote of the city council (or in the case of a county UUT, the County Board of Supervisors) prior to 1986. Generally, taxes imposed since then require voter approval. The Constitution (Article XIIIC) requires 2/3 voter approval for any new or increased special tax. A special tax is dedicated to a specific purpose. A new or increased general tax requires majority voter approval. In June 2003, voters in the City of Desert Hot Springs approved a UUT which dedicates 50% of the proceeds to resolving the city’s bankruptcy related debt. All other UUTs are general taxes.345 1 Authority: General law cities: Government Code § 37100.5; Calif Constitution Article XI § 5 (“municipal affairs”) 2 The City/County of San Francisco is counted here as a county, not a city. 3 No UUT on telecom in Azusa, Buena Park, Pacifica, Scotts Valley. 4 Irvine charges commercial only. 5 Irvine, Alhambra commercial only. 2217 ISLE ROYALE LANE • DAVIS, CA • 95616-6616 530.758.3952 • coleman@cal.net • Web: californiacityfinance.com Telephone Wireless 20% 118 cities, 3 counties Telephone Landline 21% 142 cities, 4 counties CATV 3% 83 cities 1 county Gas, Electric, Water, etc. 56% 145 cities, 4 counties Cities2 Counties2 Total State Population covered Number with UUT 146 4 150 46% Telephone UUTs 142 4 146 45% 3 Intrastate 142 4 146 45% 4 Interstate 89 4 93 35% International 82 4 86 34% Wireless 118 3 121 40% Electricity 145 4 149 45% 5 Gas 145 4 149 45% Cable TV 83 1 84 19% Water 82 1 83 18% 4 Sewer 10 1 11 3% Garbage 8 0 8 1% Other 2 0 2 3% Cities and Counties With UUTs 3.A.a Packet Pg. 94 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n UUT Facts – 2 – rev Sept 2008 CaliforniaCityFinance.Com The UUT is Vital to Funding Essential Municipal Services City Utility User Tax rates range from 1% to 11%. The particular utilities to which the tax is applied varies. In some cities different rates apply to residential versus commercial users. The most common rate (the mode) is 5%, applied broadly among many types of utilities. The average rate (mean) is 5.5% with a standard deviation of 2.1%. Because most large cities have UUTs, roughly half of California residents and businesses pay a utility user tax. The UUT is a vital element in the funding of critical city services. On average, the UUT provides 15% of general purpose (i.e. non-earmarked) revenue in cities that levy it. In some cities, the UUT provides as much as 1/3 of the general fund (Holtville, Compton, Richmond). UUT revenues most commonly fund police, fire, parks, library, and long-range land use planning services – and related support services (e.g. accounting, payroll, personnel, information systems, etc.). Counties Also Levy UUTs A county may levy a UUT on the consumption of electricity, gas, water, sewer, telephone, telegraph and cable television services in the unincorporated area.6 Four (4) of the 58 counties levy a UUT (Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco). California UUT Rates (9/2008) 2 5 19 14 43 27 15 13 3 7 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 3035 40 45 50 >0 to 1% >1% to 2% >2% to 3% >3% to 4% >4% to 5% >5% to 6% >6% to 7% >7% to 8% >8% to 9% >9% to 10% >10% to 11%Rate # o f C i t i e s & C o u n t i e s Mean = 5.5%, Std Dev 2.1% Population Weighted Mean = 6.7% Total = 150 Some UUTs Result From State Cuts to City Funds Many city UUT levies and increases have resulted from cuts to city revenues by the state. In 1992, facing massive deficits in the state budget, the Legislature and Governor began the annual transfer of billions of dollars of property tax revenue from cities, counties and special districts to K-14 schools, allowing the state to reduce its general fund spending on education. Cities and counties, who depend substantially on sales tax and property tax revenues for discretionary income, were already experiencing the same recessionary effects as the state. These property tax shifts, using a mechanism called the “Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund” (ERAF), 6 Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7284.2 et seq. 3.A.a Packet Pg. 95 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n UUT Facts – 3 – rev Sept 2008 CaliforniaCityFinance.Com continue today. In FY 2008-09 the annual property tax shift totals $7.5 billion including over $1.2 billion from cities.7 City property tax revenue, a top source of general purpose revenue for most, was cut from at least 9% and 24% on average. Cities responded by cutting services, deferring infrastructure maintenance, relying more heavily on debt financing, paring down reserves, more aggressively pursuing sales tax generators, and raising taxes and assessments. Within a few years of the beginning of the ERAF property tax shifts, more than fifty (50+) cities increased an existing or levied a new UUT. Discretionary Revenues and Spending Typical Full Service City UUTs on Telecommunications The application of utility user taxes to certain telephone services has been a topic of substantial legal and legislative turmoil due to changes in technology and federal law. UUTs and the FET Many Utility User Taxes in California include reference to the Federal Excise Tax (“FET”)8 commonly limiting the application of the utility user taxes to charges that are “subject to” the FET. Telephone calls which are not charged based on both time and distance — such as those paid by coin in phone booths — are exempt from the FET. By reference, these types of calls are also exempt from some local UUT ordinances. Many cell phone bills 7 For more information on ERAF, see http://www.californiacityfinance.com/#ERAF 8 42 U.S.C. §§ 4251 et seq. SOURCE: Coleman Advisory Service computatations from State Controller data as reported by cities. Other Hotel Tax Busn Lic Tax Utility User Tax Franchises Sales & Use Tax Property Tax Other Planning Streets Library Parks&Rec Police Fire 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 12Revenues Expenditures OvePolic 3.A.a Packet Pg. 96 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n UUT Facts – 4 – rev Sept 2008 CaliforniaCityFinance.Com are based upon a package which provides a mix of local and long-distance calling for a flat rate. In 2007, several federal courts and the IRS ruled that telephone service packages which provide a mix of local and long-distance calling for a flat rate or a fixed fee are based on neither time nor distance and are therefore not subject to the FET.9 The IRS subsequently adopted a regulation incorporating these rulings.10 That meant that if a city wished to continue to impose its UUT on cell phone or other telephone calls which are not charged on both time and distance, it must amend its ordinance to remove the reference to this exemption to the FET. A number of cities have amended their UUT ordinances to clarify that they did not wish to adopt the IRS’ new practice, but rather wished to continue to impose their UUTs as they had historically been imposed (i.e. on charges based on time or distance). At the time of this writing, several localities are challenging the right of local taxing authorities to amend their ordinances without voter approval, or to continue to collect this revenue without amendment. The lawsuits argue that an amendment to an ordinance to bring it into conformity with the FET ruling is an “increase” subject to voter approval under Proposition 218. UUTs and the MTSA Prior to the adoption of the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act of 2000 (MTSA)11 by Congress, cellular carriers had argued that the federal Constitution forbade the application of a utility user tax to telephone calls which neither originated nor terminated within the taxing agency. The MTSA expanded the permissible nexus for taxation to all cellular telephone charges for accounts with a primary place of use in the jurisdiction. However, carriers have argued in the courts that the California State Constitution Article XIIIC prohibits cities and counties from applying the MTSA nexus rules without voter approval.12 As a result of these events, doubt has been cast over the application of some outdated local UUT ordinances to certain types of telephone service. Proposition 218 requires voter approval of any change in the “methodology” by which a tax is administered if the change increases the amount of the tax paid by the taxpayer.13 Many agencies that rely on UUTs on telephony have successfully sought voter approval of an updated ordinance that reflects the realities of the modern telecommunications industry. Recent Voter Approval Record From June 2002 through June 2008 there were 83 utility user tax measures placed before voters by cities and counties. Just two of these were county measures; 81 for cities. Proposals for new or increased UUTs did not fare well: Just six of 30 proposals passed. Four of these 9 IRS Notice 2006-50 10 Revenue Bulletin 2007-5 Section 10 11 4 U.S.C. §§ 116 et seq. 12 Verizon Wireless v. Los Angeles, No. B185373, AB Cellular LA, LLC dba AT&T Wireless v. City of Los Angeles, 150 Cal.App.4th 747 (2007) 13 Gov. Code § 53750(h) 3.A.a Packet Pg. 97 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n UUT Facts – 5 – rev Sept 2008 CaliforniaCityFinance.Com new/increase proposals were framed as two-thirds vote special taxes dedicated to police/fire (3) or streets (1); just one passed (Desert Hot Springs, June 2003). Seven attempted an “a/b” advisory vote strategy, proposing a majority-vote general tax with a second companion “advisory measure” regarding the specific use of the funds; three of the seven passed. Of the 19 majority vote UUT general tax increase measures, just two passed (Rialto in June 2003, Menlo Park in November 2006). But voters were more accepting of UUTs already in place. Among the 19 measures to continue existing UUTs beyond a sunset date, 16 passed. All 11 measures which asked voters to ratify existing taxes following the 1991 La Habra decision upholding the validity of Proposition 62’s majority vote requirement on general law cities passed. Over the last couple of years, an increasing number of cities with UUTs have gone to their voters to modernize their ordinances to assure applicability to new technologies (e.g wireless, internet-based, etc.) and billing methods (e.g. flat rate, etc.). In some cases, the measures have proposed small reductions in the UUT rate. All but one of the 23 measures has passed, including seven of the eight which offered no rate reduction. During this period there were also 14 referenda placed on the ballot by citizens concerning UUTs. All seven measures to repeal a local UUT failed and four out of the five measures to reduce local UUTs failed. Voters in Greenfield (Monterey County) voted to reduce their UUT from 6% to 3% in November 2002. A referendum to restrict the use of UUT revenues to law enforcement services passed in Seaside (Monterey County) in November 2002, but a similar measure failed in Stockton in March 2003. Pass, 2 Pass, 3 Pass, 1 Pass, 16 Pass, 11 Pass, 7 Pass, 15 Fail, 17 Fail, 4 Fail, 3 Fail, 3 Fail, 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% General Tax New/Incr. General Tax w/Advisory Special Tax (2/3) Continuation Ratification (La Habra) Modernize/SameRate Modernize/Reduce Utility User Tax Measures: June2002-June2008 Cities and Counties mc 3.A.a Packet Pg. 98 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n Appendix E Supplemental Budget Detail - General Fund 3.A.a Packet Pg. 99 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 100 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 101 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 102 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 103 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 104 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 105 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 106 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 107 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 108 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 109 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 110 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n 3.A.a Packet Pg. 111 At t a c h m e n t : F i v e - Y e a r R e v e n u e , E x p e n d i t u r e & F u n d B a l a n c e P r o j e c t i o n s _ R E V ( 1 2 5 4 : F i v e - Y e a r F i n a n c i a l A n a l y s i s a n d B u d g e t S t a b i l i z a t i o n