CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA
ADOPTED
BUDGET AMENDMENTS
FY 2005/ 06
CITY COUNCIL
Jeff Ira, Mayor
Barbara Pierce, Vice Mayor
Alicia Aguirre, Council Member
Ian Bain, Council Member
Rosanne Foust, Council Member
Jim Hartnett, Council Member
Diane Howard, Council Member
CITY MANAGER
Edward P. Everett
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE and FINANCIAL PLANNING
Brian J. Ponty
COMPILED BY
Alison Freeman, Financial Services Manager
Irv Weinstock and Kyi Khin, Senior Accountants
Rajesh Sewak, Accountant
Sandy Jennings, Administrative Assistant
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS
City Manager.................................................................. Edward Everett
City Attorney................................................................... Stan Yamamoto
City Clerk........................................................................ Patricia Howe
Community Development Services ................................ Joel Patterson
Finance and Financial Planning ..................................... Brian Ponty
Fire................................................................................. Gerry Kohlmann
Human Resources ......................................................... Magda Gonzalez ( Interim)
Library ............................................................................ David Genesy
Parks, Recreation and Community Services.................. Corinne Centeno
Police ............................................................................ Carlos Bolanos
Public Works Services.................................................... Peter Ingram
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADOPTED BUDGET AMENDMENTS
FY 2005/ 06
Introduction Page
Preface........................................................................................................................ ..................... i
Budget Staff Report......................................................................................................................... ii
Budget Message .............................................................................................................................. v
Five Year Financial Projections – Specific Assumptions ................................................................ xi
General Fund – Five Year Projection 2004/ 05 through 2008/ 09 .................................................... xii
City Council Priorities..................................................................................................................... ........ 1
Budget Summary
City Manager’s Budget Recommendations, Possible New Revenues, and
Budget Options for City Council ....................................................................................................... 7
Adopted Changes to FY 2005/ 06 Operating Budget ..................................................................... 14
FY 2005/ 06 Analysis of Budget by Fund........................................................................................ 20
FY 2005/ 06 Revenue Estimates ................................................................................................... 22
Performance Measures
City Clerk.......................................................................................................................... ............. 30
City Manager ............................................................................................................................... .. 34
Community Development Services ................................................................................................ 39
Finance ............................................................................................................................... ........... 44
Fire ............................................................................................................................... ................. 50
Human Resources...................................................................................................................... ... 55
Library ............................................................................................................................... ........... 61
Parks, Recreation and Community Services.................................................................................. 66
Police ............................................................................................................................... ........... 69
Public Works Services.................................................................................................................... 74
Capital Improvements Projects............................................................................................................. 79
Schedule of Interfund Transfers ........................................................................................................... 85
Recommended Reductions
City Manager ............................................................................................................................... .. 87
Community Development Services ................................................................................................ 88
Finance........................................................................................................................ .................. 89
Human Resources...................................................................................................................... ... 91
Library........................................................................................................................ .................... 93
Parks, Recreation and Community Services.................................................................................. 94
Police......................................................................................................................... .................... 96
Public Works Services.................................................................................................................... 97
Recommended New Revenues ................................................................................................... 101
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADOPTED BUDGET AMENDMENTS
FY 2005/ 06
Recommended Options
Community Development Services .............................................................................................. 103
Finance........................................................................................................................ ................ 104
Human Resources...................................................................................................................... . 105
Library........................................................................................................................ .................. 106
Parks, Recreation and Community Services................................................................................ 107
Police......................................................................................................................... .................. 108
Public Works Services.................................................................................................................. 109
Previous Year’s Reductions
City Attorney....................................................................................................................... ......... 111
City Clerk.......................................................................................................................... ........... 114
City Manager ............................................................................................................................... 116
Community Development Services .............................................................................................. 118
Finance........................................................................................................................ ................ 120
Fire ............................................................................................................................... ............... 121
Human Resources...................................................................................................................... . 123
Library........................................................................................................................ .................. 124
Parks, Recreation and Community Services................................................................................ 126
Police......................................................................................................................... .................. 127
Public Works Services.................................................................................................................. 129
i
PREFACE
The staff report that follows was submitted to Council on July 11,
2005 with the ordinance that, upon approval by the City Council,
adopted the FY 2005/ 06 budget. This staff report provides the
changes the Council made to the budget after the recommended
budget was submitted to the Council by the City Manager on June
2, 2005. All of the supporting schedules have been revised to
reflect the budget as adopted by the City Council.
ii
July 11, 2005
Subject
Fiscal Year 2005/ 06 Budget
Recommendation
It is recommended that the ordinance adopting the FY 2005/ 06 budget be introduced.
Background
On June 20 and 27, the City Council held budget study sessions at which the Council
reviewed and conceptually approved the Recommended FY2005/ 06 Budget as submitted
by the City Manager with the following changes:
􀁹 Increase the appropriation in Community Development Services, Engineering and
Construction Division, to fund a part- time traffic engineer position - $ 50,000
􀁹 Decrease the appropriation in Human Resources for employee development -
$ 14,674
􀁹 Decrease the appropriation in Community Development Services, Administration, for
professional services - $ 30,000
􀁹 The balance ($ 5,326) is expected to be provided from fee increases that will be
submitted to the City Council for approval later this fiscal year.
Corrections
When publishing the FY 2005/ 06 document, staff overlooked updating the estimated FY
2005/ 06 interest income in the water fund. The amount contained in the budget document
($ 24,024) is the amount estimated as of June 2004. The amount estimated as of June
2005 is $ 597,100. Although this is a sizable difference, this will have no impact on the
rates charged for water service and will be taken into consideration when calculating the
size of the next bond issue to finance the recycled water project.
After the budget was submitted to Council, staff from the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department discovered that staff had miscalculated the amount of funds available
and required to finance the Human Services Financial Assistance ( HSFA) program. This
miscalculation arose in part from a misunderstanding of the level of funding required for
Shelter Network and the amount of this funding that would be provided through the City’s
Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG) program. As a result an additional $ 55,000
is needed to fund the HFSA program at the level approved on June 20.
REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council
From the City Manager
ii i
To remedy this situation, staff recommends using funds from the following sources:
􀁹 Reduce building maintenance expenditures and internal service charges to the
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department - $ 30,000
􀁹 Utilize funds available in the Fair Oaks Community Center copier reimbursement
special deposit account ( increase revenues to the general fund) - $ 10,000
􀁹 Reduce expenditures in the Administration Division of the Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Department - $ 15,000
A copy of the Recommended Budget is on file with the City Clerk for public review.
iv
This page left blank intentionally
v
Office of the City Manager 1017 Middlefield Road
Edward P. Everett P. O. Box 391
City Manager Redwood City, CA 94064
www. redwoodcity. org
Phone ( 650) 780- 7300
TDD ( 650) 780- 7208
Fax ( 650) 780- 7225
June 2, 2005
Honorable Mayor Ira and Members of the City Council:
INTRODUCTION AND ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
A modest upturn in the local economy that is generating improved local tax revenues is giving us
some hope that the worst may be behind us.
Are the City’s financial problems over? No. General fund expenditures are still projected to exceed
revenues in FY 2005/ 06 although the gap between the two is narrowing. Still, some possible risks
and challenges are on the horizon.
Better than anticipated growth in property taxes and sales taxes along with a state government that
appears to have understood the message delivered by the voters with the passage of proposition 1A
have allowed us to present a smaller package of recommended reductions for FY 2005/ 06 than the
previous year. Also, stronger revenue growth in FY 2004/ 05, particularly from the return of excess
ERAF property taxes collected in past years, will likely result in revenues exceeding expenditures
( after the $ 5 million in cuts) in FY 2004/ 05.
Some problems do remain. Health insurance costs for employees and retirees will continue to
increase at rates faster than the rates at which our revenues will increase. An as of yet to be
quantified cost confronting the City will be the requirement from the Government Accounting
Standards Board, the primary source of the City’s financial reporting regulations, that government
agencies eliminate the “ pay- as- you- go” approach to financing retiree health insurance benefits and
beginning in FY 2007/ 08 start setting aside funds now ( over and above the present year cost) so that
this benefit will be fully funded when current employees retire.
The continued receipt of excess ERAF rebates that we have received these past few years is
somewhat speculative and will be discussed in more detail at the budget study session.
We are beginning to see modest improvement in the local economy, but nowhere near the explosive
growth we experienced in the late ‘ 90’ s. San Mateo County employment reached a high point in
November 2000 at 401,600 jobs. As of April 2005, the most recent data available showed an
estimated 347,700 jobs in the County. Santa Clara County, an area to which our economic fortunes
are closely linked, reached its peak of 1,006,500 jobs in December 2000. As of April 2005, 772,300
jobs were reported in Santa Clara County.
Earlier this year the Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG) reported that between 2001 and
2004, the nine- county bay area region lost over 308,100 jobs. ABAG forecasts moderate job growth
of 40,000 jobs (+ 1.25%) in 2005 and 61,000 jobs (+ 1.90%) in 2006.
According to a report released by BT Commercial Real Estate for the 1st quarter of 2005, the
Redwood City and Redwood Shores commercial office real estate markets had 2.8 million square
feet of vacant office space with a vacancy factor of 28%. This is an improvement over the 31.5%
vacancy factor from the 1st quarter of 2004.
The budget submitted to Council is for FY 2005/ 06 which is the second year of the two- year 2004-
2006 budget cycle. When Council adopted the FY 2004/ 05 budget in July 2004, the Council also
gave conceptual approval to the FY 2005/ 06 budget.
Pages 14- 19 summarize the recommended changes to the FY 2005/ 06 budget that was conceptually
approved. The recommended FY 2005/ 06 budget is presented in a format that allows the reader to
identify those changes that are due to changes in salaries and benefits ( non- programmatic) and
Build a Great
Community
Together
vi
those changes that involve deliberate recommendations to change funding levels.
GENERAL FUND
Revenues
General fund revenues ( including transfers into the general fund) are expected to decrease slightly to
$ 67.4 million ( or 0.6%) in FY 2005/ 06 from $ 67.8 million in FY 2004/ 05. This decrease is occurring
even with an increase in sales tax revenue and property tax revenue. This decrease is primarily the
result of several factors:
• In FY 2004/ 05 we received excess ERAF payments attributable to two years - $ 2.5 million
versus $ 1 million that we are estimating for FY 2005/ 06.
• Building permits and certain other development- related revenues are expected to decline in
FY 2005/ 06 - $ 355,000.
• We received about $ 559,000 in one- time- only revenues in FY 2004/ 05 due to the receipt of
reimbursement of booking fees from the state and from the business license audit.
The major assumptions behind the FY 2005/ 06 revenue estimates are:
• No additional cuts from the state other than the $ 1.5 million that is programmed into the FY
2005/ 06 budget. This represents the second and final year of a reduction in property taxes
that was an outcome of the negotiations between the League of California Cities and the
Governor in return for the Governor’s support of proposition 1A that will limit the state’s ability
to steal revenues from local governments.
• Sales tax will increase at a healthy pace ( 3.6% increase in FY 2005/ 06) and that there is no
further erosion in our business- to- business sales tax revenues.
• Secured property tax revenues will increase about 5.5% in FY 2005/ 06 as the result of
continued strength in the residential real estate market and an improving commercial real
estate market.
We are also experiencing a rebound in the local hotel industry which is causing us to forecast a 5%
increase in transient occupancy tax ( TOT) or hotel tax revenues in FY 2005/ 06. If our projections
are on the mark, our TOT revenue should increase about $ 109,000 to $ 2.3 million in FY 2005/ 06.
Sales tax revenue is showing some signs of life after several years of slow growth. Improved
performance from existing businesses along with anticipated contributions from new businesses such
as the Jewelry Exchange, the Ferrari dealership, and the retail component of the On Broadway
project should push our sales tax revenues up to $ 17.3 million in FY 2005/ 06. This amount would be
higher were it not for the expected temporary closure of the Costco store for the latter part of 2006 for
reconstruction. Although this closure will reduce revenues in the short run, we expect that these
losses will be fully recovered, and then some, when the new and larger Costco reopens in mid 2006.
The following graph illustrates the performance of locally- generated sales tax revenues ( which
accounts for about 95% of our total sales tax revenues) for the past 16 quarters. The key story here
is the decline of “ business- to- business” sales tax revenues. While a portion of this decline is due to
the recession in the local economy, a substantial component of this decline is the electronic delivery
of software and other businesses leaving the area or going out of business.
Excellence:
Passion
to do our
Best in Each
Moment
vii
City of Redwood City
Sales Tax by Economic Category
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1Q01 2Q01 3Q01 4Q01 1Q02 2Q02 3Q02 4Q02 1Q03 2Q03 3Q03 4Q03 1Q04 2Q04 3Q04 4Q04
Business- to- Business Transportation General Retail Food Products Construction Miscellaneous
Risks and Unknowns
The two biggest unknowns and risks confronting the City’s financial outlook are sales tax revenues
and the continuation of excess ERAF rebates. With regard to the former, we continue to receive a
substantial amount of sales tax revenue that we believe is generated by the sale of software. All or a
portion of this will likely go away as the electronic delivery of software becomes more widespread.
How soon this occurs is the unknown. This downturn might be at least partially offset by new
businesses moving into Redwood City or by increased sales by local businesses due to better
economic conditions or by acquiring other businesses.
In recent years, the general fund has been the beneficiary of large and unexpected excess ERAF
payment rebates from the county. As will be discussed in more detail at the budget study session,
these rebates depend on the complex formula used to determine school funding. Estimating these
rebates with any degree of accuracy is exceedingly difficult. More importantly, there is substantial
risk that the state could amend the laws governing these formulas to shift these funds back to the
state.
Expenditures
Despite $ 635,000 in programmatic reductions, general fund expenditures will increase by about 2.9%
or $ 1.9 million from FY 2004/ 05 to FY 2005/ 06. This is due to higher employee costs particularly
retirement contributions and health insurance premiums. These two items account for $ 1.6 million or
84% of this increase.
Transfers
Included are the " normal" transfers from the general fund to the traffic safety fund ($ 914,000), and
the water fund ($ 136,000) in FY 2005/ 06.
General Fund Reserves
Due to the large and unanticipated excess ERAF rebates received in FY 2004/ 05, we expect
reserves to increase from $ 16.9 million as of June 30, 2004 to $ 17.7 million as of June 30, 2005.
With an expected operating deficit ( expenditures exceeding revenues) of $ 1.6 million, we forecast
reserves of $ 16.1 million as of June 30, 2006. This will be $ 2.9 million in excess of the Council’s
guideline of reserves of 15% to 20%.
Future Years
As you will see from the Five Year Projection, based on the best information currently available we
foresee deficits in FY 2006/ 07 through FY 2008/ 09. These deficits are seen as very manageable as
they range between $ 1.0 million and $ 1.7 million, or 1.4% or 2.3% of the revenues. These deficit
projections are based on no further action by the Council as Council has not addressed the FY
2006/ 07 through FY 2008/ 09 budgets.
CAPITAL PROJECTS
Five ( 5) multi- million dollar projects and programs are already in progress and will take multi- year
efforts for design and construction. They directly relate to Council priorities and are as follows and the
Integrity:
Do the Right
Thing, Not
the Easy
Thing
viii
expenditures track Council priorities:
1. Recycled Water Program
2. Downtown Courthouse Plaza
3. Ralston Avenue/ Route 101 Interchange
4. Redwood Shores Library
5. Water Conservation Program
In summary, with the continuation of all existing on- going programs, the focus of the next fiscal year
Capital Improvement Program will be on the following:
1. Redwood Shores Lagoon Dredging
2. Playfields Replacement
3. Fleishman Park Renovation
4. Storm Drainage Collection System Upgrade
5. Sidewalk Replacement Program
6. Roadway Management Program
7. Water/ Sewer Main Replacement Program
8. Main Library Renovation
9. Veterans Building Renovation
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
The annual special property tax levies for the Seaport Boulevard Landscape Maintenance District
and the Seaport Centre Maintenance District will expire on June 30, 2005. The proceeds of these
levies provide funding for the maintenance and operation of the utilities infrastructure in the Seaport
Centre area and for maintenance of the landscaping along Seaport Blvd. Additionally, funding is
provided for the capital projects that are required in these areas.
Staff is working with representatives of the property owners in these areas to develop a five year
operating and capital budget so that a property owner election may be held for the purpose of
extending these annual special property taxes for another five years.
It is expected that the property owner election will be held in sufficient time to have these taxes
placed on the FY 2005/ 06 property tax bills.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
The dramatic revitalization of Downtown continues with the construction of the new public parking
facility and the retail/ cinema project well underway and expected to be completed by the end of the
year. Concurrent with the opening of the garage and the retail/ cinema project will be the completion
of Theater Way improvements and the streetscape improvement around the cinema site and on
Broadway between Middlefield and Hamilton.
The public process for the conceptual design of the Courthouse Plaza was completed and a contract
awarded for the construction drawings. The courthouse façade restoration is also moving ahead, as
is the demolition of the Broadway Annex, scheduled to occur in June. These actions were enabled by
the execution of an agreement between the county and the City that allows the City to proceed with
the plaza and façade improvements.
In addition, staff has been working with the downtown community on the development of a downtown
parking management plan. The Planning Commission and Council will begin consideration of the
recommendations contained in that plan in June. Consideration of the Downtown Precise Plan by
the Council and Planning Commission will also begin in June. Staff is also moving ahead on other
improvements related to the retail/ cinema and courthouse block improvements, including gateway
improvements and a directional signage program, development of pedestrian paseo between the
post office and Tarboosh restaurant on Jefferson Avenue, and new traffic signals at the
Jefferson/ Broadway and Veteran’s/ Middlefield intersections. Completion of these projects as well as
the new garage, retail/ cinema project, and the Courthouse plaza and façade improvements is the
focus of the proposed FY 2005/ 06 budget.
Service:
We Care and
It Makes a
Difference
ix
The budget reflects the necessary funding approved by the Agency Board for the parking garage
land assembly ($ 3.4 million) and construction costs ($ 1.4 million), the reduction in funding of almost
$ 1.3 million for the Block 2 Land Assembly, funding for the environmental impact analysis that will be
required for the Downtown Precise Plan ($ 200,000), and $ 300,000 in additional funding for
contingency needs.
The proposed redevelopment housing budget for FY 2005/ 06 continues support for the Vera
Street/ El Camino project ( a 58- unit rental project to be developed by First Community Housing and
eight ownership town homes to be developed by Peninsula Habitat for Humanity). The proposed
budget also provides additional funding for the Bradford Street site for the development of senior
housing and, if possible, a child care facility. Staff is also pursuing grant funding to support these
projects and has been successful in obtaining both City and County of San Mateo ( Community
Development Block Grant) monies for the projects.
The operational budget for Housing remains basically the same as FY 2004/ 05, while the operational
budget for the Redevelopment Agency general fund reflects a slight increase in staff costs due to
additional funding for departmental administrative support services. The Redevelopment Agency
plate is full with the funding and completion of all the important projects mentioned above.
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water Fund
The water enterprise fund is in sound fiscal condition, with a $ 2 million emergency reserve. On
January 24, 2005 the City Council:
1. Approved the Redwood City Water Financing Plan – 2004 Update, prepared by Bartle Wells
Associates, independent public finance advisors for the purpose of financing the recycled water
project - Alternative ‘ TF’, as recommended by the Community Task Force on Recycled Water;
2. Conceptually approved a 12% water rate increase, and asked the City Council Utilities
Committee to work with staff to recommend how rate increases could be implemented on July 1,
2005;
3. Gave direction to the Utilities Committee and staff on criteria for adjustments to water connection
and facilities fees for new development and requested that recommendations come back to
Council;
4. Acting as the City of Redwood City Public Financing Authority Board of Directors, the Council
approved bond financing documents in connection with the issuance of $ 36 million in City of
Redwood City Public Financing Authority water revenue bonds.
In June 2005 the City Council will consider a rate increase recommendation from the Council’s
Utilities Committee and the staff.
Sewer Fund
The sewer enterprise fund remains in sound fiscal condition, with a $ 1 million emergency reserve.
On July 26, 2004, the City Council approved an increase in the sewer service charge from $ 21.45 to
$ 23.92. The increase was driven primarily by increases in City salaries and benefits and a projected
increase of 6% for sewage treatment services provided by South Bayside System Authority.
Proposition 42 Transportation Funds
The Governor’s budget proposal released in May contains a recommendation to allow the transfer of
gasoline sales tax revenue from the state general fund to transportation purposes per proposition 42.
This transfer is estimated to total $ 1.3 billion. Of this amount, $ 2.9 million would be distributed to
cities in San Mateo County. Redwood City’s share of this amount is $ 340,000. These funds may
only be used for transportation system purposes.
Since the Governor’s proposal is just that - a proposal - we have not included these estimated
revenues in the FY 2005/ 06 budget. Should this provision be incorporated into the adopted state
budget, we will recommend that council appropriate the funds by way of a FY 2005/ 06 mid- year
budget amendment.
Creativity:
Freedom to
Imagine and
courage to
Act
x
APPROPRIATIONS LIMITS
Article XIIIB of the California Constitution defines and establishes the City’s appropriations limit. No
city in California may spend from its “ proceeds of taxes” more than the amount of its “ appropriations
limit." The appropriations limit is determined by a formula contained within Article XIIIB of the State
Constitution. Redwood City’s appropriations limit for FY 2005/ 06 is estimated to be $ 251,881,411.
The FY 2005/ 06 appropriations subject to limitations are $ 51,330,492. We are well within our legal
limit.
BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS
One of the strengths of this organization is its responsiveness to change. An excellent example of
this is how the departments crafted the budget review process used for preparing this budget.
Believing a better approach was needed as an alternative to the traditional reviews in which each
department head meets separately with the budget review team, the department head team
suggested a collective review process.
Under this process the department heads met and collectively agreed upon the recommended
programmatic budget reductions. There were several advantages to the process:
• Doing so required the department head team to rely upon and retain a broader focus during
this process rather than focusing on the impact upon their department.
• The recommendation presented to you is a recommendation from the entire department team
not merely from the City Manager and the budget review team.
• A better understanding was developed about how other departments operate and how each
is managing with fewer resources.
I believe that in addition to a more sound set of recommendations being made to the City Council that
a greater awareness and understanding of the general fund’s financial condition has also emerged.
SUMMARY
As the economy begins to improve, Council will be focusing on getting our expenditures in line with
our revenues. The delicate balance will be how much to cut expenditures versus how long to use
reserves while allowing for revenues to grow up to our expenditures. Staff does not believe we need
to close the gap with only expenditure cuts; however, we also do not believe that you can merely use
reserves and await revenues to increase to close the gap. The “ art” and policy of budgeting is to
determine the balance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document is the result of tireless efforts of many throughout the organization, especially the
department head team. I want to thank Magda Gonzalez, Assistant City Manager; Corinne Centeno,
Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services; and Brian Ponty, Finance Director, for their
support throughout this process. Laura Snidemen is to be commended for her efforts in organizing
and managing the performance measurement and benchmarking elements of this process. We have
made numerous changes and great strides in this area thanks to Laura.
My sincere appreciation and thanks to the very talented and capable Finance Department team:
Alison Freeman, Financial Services Manager; Senior Accountants, Irv Weinstock, Gloria del Rosario,
and Kyi Khin; Rajesh Sewak, Accountant; Senior Information Technology Analyst Debbie Matsuura;
and Supervisor of Software Development Services Faith Marte- Kroeger. Their relentless " number
crunching," analysis, and attention to details has made this budget document possible. My
compliments to Sandy Jennings, Administrative Assistant to the Finance Director, who as always,
has put forth the time and energy to publish an extremely well done budget document.
Sincerely and on behalf of the department heads,
Ed Everett
City Manager
Build a Great
Community
Together
Five- Year Financial Projections FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
xi
SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS
• Property taxes increase 5% per year for FY 2006/ 07 through FY 2008/ 09.
• Sales taxes increase 4% per year for FY 2006/ 07 through FY 2007/ 08.
• A continued gradual recovery from the recent recession.
• Includes development fees for all possible future projects.
• No general fund support for capital projects other than transfers of utility users’ taxes.
• Excess ERAF rebates will continue $ 1 million per year through FY 2008/ 09 ( to be further
discussed during the budget review).
• Each bargaining unit will have given up at least one year without a salary increase.
• No further declines in sales tax due to electronically delivered software.
• No increases in staffing levels except for those associated with the opening of the Redwood
Shores Community Library.
• Proposed increases to building permit fees and plan checking fees are included.
General Fund – Five Year Projection 2004- 05 Through 2008- 09 ( In $ 000s)
xii
1999- 2000 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL
REVENUES
Property Taxes 13,947 15,404 18,674 18,975 20,436
Sales Tax 18,254 20,842 14,938 15,090 15,745
Other Taxes 5,076 5,221 4,272 4,322 4,923
Licenses and Permits 1,659 2,546 1,107 871 960
Fines and Forfeitures 244 320 441 591 582
Interest Earnings/ Rentals 2,231 2,958 2,860 2,021 1,466
Revenue from Other Agencies 6,277 7,625 7,394 7,329 6,406
Charges for Services 3,960 4,466 4,044 4,168 3,930
Other Revenues 4,670 4,696 4,722 5,461 5,588
Library 1,048 1,004 1,049 1,097 809
Recreation Revenues 1,128 1,119 1,185 1,373 1,583
Total Revenues 58,494 66,201 60,686 61,298 62,428
Transfers- In:
Others 545 670 731 936 652
Sandpiper Community Center 138 148 156 163 173
GID 1- 64 Maintenance District 200 70 150 64 140
Total revenues and transfers- in 59,377 67,089 61,723 62,461 63,393
EXPENDITURES
City Council 160 176 192 215 208
City Manager 790 837 945 960 975
City Attorney 397 400 504 654 626
City Clerk 353 380 428 465 477
Human Resources 1,010 1,071 1,289 1,330 1,344
Finance 2,040 2,406 1,841 2,789 2,830
Police 15,206 16,681 17,260 19,187 20,567
Fire 9,420 9,821 10,319 11,808 12,420
Community Development Services 3,994 4,732 4,818 5,210 4,580
Parks & Recreation 8,096 9,094 10,333 11,240 10,743
Library 4,920 5,293 5,681 6,179 5,949
Public Works Services 766 1,247 1,206 1,228 1,178
Budget Adjustments
Total Expenditures 47,152 52,138 54,816 61,265 61,897
Transfers- Out 5,924 6,108 14,678 2,069 1,166
Total expenditures and transfers- out 53,076 58,246 69,494 63,334 63,063
Net surplus ( deficit) 6,301 8,843 - 7,771 - 873 330
Net surplus ( deficit) as a percentage of
general fund revenues and transfers- in: 10.61% 13.18% - 12.59% - 1.40% 0.52%
Detail of transfers- out:
gas tax operations 40 4
gas tax contruction 1,133 368 982 21
traffic safety 770 778 1,045 1,087 1,010
capital projects 3,415 4,300 10,775 851
others 566 658 1,876 131 135
TOTAL 5,924 6,108 14,678 2,069 1,166
FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
xiii
2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07 2007- 08 2008- 09
ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE
21,054 24,479 26,905 28,250 29,662
16,693 17,307 19,024 19,785 20,577
5,496 5,402 5,575 5,798 6,030
1,457 1,199 904 904 1,204
653 653 653 653 653
1,276 1,106 1,103 1,170 1,170
7,470 3,275 3,079 3,187 3,298
4,027 4,140 3,992 4,131 4,276
6,432 6,512 6,804 7,043 7,289
724 725 675 699 723
1,734 1,751 1,751 1,812 1,876
67,017 66,549 70,465 73,431 76,758
474 411 304 213 213
182 193 204 215 228
150 250 250 250 250
67,823 67,403 71,223 74,109 77,449
202 222 247 251 255
934 994 1,063 1,101 1,141
613 646 699 724 751
475 555 558 578 599
1,225 1,245 1,327 1,373 1,421
3,039 3,468 3,849 3,951 4,056
23,470 24,176 25,366 26,308 27,286
13,814 14,417 14,938 15,506 16,096
4,678 4,779 5,118 5,296 5,480
10,387 10,861 11,547 11,944 12,355
5,147 5,415 5,834 6,394 6,625
1,136 1,162 1,215 1,252 1,290
867
65,987 67,940 71,761 74,678 77,354
1,035 1,051 1,103 1,148 1,196
67,022 68,991 72,864 75,826 78,550
801 - 1,588 - 1,641 - 1,717 - 1,101
1.18% - 2.36% - 2.30% - 2.32% - 1.42%
905 914 961 1,001 1,043
130 136 142 148 153
1,035 1,051 1,103 1,148 1,196
xiv
This page left blank intentionally
City Council Priorities FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
1
The Redwood City City Council sets annual City Council Priorities and most recently updated those priorities in
February 2005. The City Council has five “ Overarching Priorities,” which are the guiding force in considering each
specific project or program. These five Overarching Priorities are as follows:
I. Community Building
II. Communication
III. Creating Pedestrian Friendly Public Places
IV. Quality of Life
V. Aesthetics
In addition, the City Council has identified eight “ Priorities” which guide the work programs for all of the City
Departments. Below are the Specific Priorities and the progress to date on many of the current projects.
I. Infrastructure
a. Flood Control – There has been no infrastructure or private property damage as a result of
flooding in Redwood City since 1999. Engineering and Construction staff has completed Phase II
of the Friendly Acres Storm Drain Improvements Project. Phase III ( pump station) design is 95%
complete. Public Works Services staff focus continues to be wet- weather monitoring and a long-term
maintenance strategy for the Industrial Way culverts. A volunteer group known as the
“ Friends of Cordilleras Creek” was formed several years ago, and has been working
independently on creek stewardship initiatives.
b. Sidewalk Repair – Repair work is measured in “ repair units”, which includes the total square
footage of sidewalk replaced, plus lineal footage of curbs and gutters replaced, and square
footage of driveways replaced.
i. In FY 2000/ 01, the project appropriation was $ 750,000, and a total of 95,247 repair units
were completed.
ii. In FY 2001/ 02, the City Council increased the appropriation to $ 950,000, and 83,987
repair units were completed.
iii. In FY 2002/ 03 the annual contract was terminated before 100% completion, with 59,173
repair units confirmed as completed.
iv. In FY 2003/ 04 the funding allocation was reduced to $ 450,000 ($ 500,000 was shifted to
Downtown hardscape improvements) and the award of contract was delayed resulting in
18,927 repair units completed by 6/ 30/ 2004.
c. Additional Sports Fields – Artificial turf was installed in FY 2004/ 05 in the Fair Oaks school
playing field, adding 1.81 acres of usable playing fields to the inventory. Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Staff recently reached agreement with the Sequoia High School District to
schedule outside use of Sequoia High School Fields.
d. Park Development Fee – Per the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Strategic Plan, staff
is working to bring a Park Development Fee to support inclusion of park space or in lieu fees for
future development forward for consideration by the Park and Recreation Commission, Planning
Commission and City Council.
e. Additional Park Acreage – Comparisons of available park acreage of other Peninsula cities
indicate a need to expand total developed park acreage in Redwood City. Staff is currently
developing a process for assessing the total amount and type of future park space needed.
f. Fleishman Park – Staff is working to engage the community in planning a complete renovation of
Fleishman Park.
g. Redwood Shores Library Branch – Design meetings are underway and regular meetings with the
Redwood Shores community continue. Fund raising for the collection by the Library Foundation
and the community is well underway. Overall, the project is on time for opening in 2007.
City Council Priorities FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
2
II. Downtown
a. Downtown Funding Plan Implementation – The “ On Broadway” theater project and public parking
garage are scheduled to be completed this calendar year. The Theatre Way improvements will
also be completed at that time. Coordination of street improvements, parking controls and
management, and directional signs are expected to be in place by the end of 2005. The
“ Downtown Precise Plan” will also be going through the public hearing process in the spring and
summer of 2005.
b. Courthouse and Plaza Improvements – The design for Courthouse Square has been approved by
City Council and we will soon start on construction drawings. The bidding for the demolition of
the annex has started, the bidding for the exterior improvements has also started, and the
Construction Manager for the project has been hired. Demolition started in May with construction
to follow in June for the building improvements. The design for the plaza has been approved by
the City Council and construction drawings will be completed by the end of the year.
c. Friday Night Live – City Hall Plaza will be the site this summer for live music.
d. The Library as a Downtown Draw – As an active and responsive part of the community, the
library creates a vibrant downtown destination for the community by increasing the number and
diversity of programs, and by creating a vibrant, welcoming physical space. It successfully
integrates elements that foster a feeling of community, creating a gathering place where people
from diverse backgrounds come together. We see the library plaza as a first impression of the
library, an activated space full of people. Our first step towards this was to purchase tables and
chairs and place them directly in front of the library creating a “ spilling out” effect from the library.
Our vision is to have a café, entertainment and reading materials incorporated into the space,
anchoring the north Downtown area. The Library seeks to become “ a happening place” for the
entire community, a “ third place” that is neither home nor work for all to feel comfortable in and
use.
III. Youth and education
a. Permanent Police Activities League ( PAL) Facility – A 40- year land lease was signed between
the Redwood City PAL and the Redwood City School District for the land at Taft School where
the PAL Community Center is now located. Construction of the PAL facility began in October of
2002 and ended in June of 2004. The PAL facility was officially opened in September of 2004 and
currently has 36 youths in the after- school program. The after- school drop- in center will begin to
accommodate hundreds of children beginning in April 2005. Also offered nightly at the facility are
karate and boxing programs coordinated by volunteer instructors.
b. Unduplicated Police Contacts with Youth Utilizing PAL and DARE Programs – The Police
Department achieved 2,471 unduplicated contacts with youth during fiscal year 2001/ 2002 and
2,475 unduplicated contacts with youth during fiscal year 2002/ 2003. The numbers have been
consistent with 2,468 unduplicated contacts with youth during 2003/ 2004. With the opening of the
new PAL Community Center last year, the current projected number of unduplicated contacts with
youth for 2004/ 2005 is 3,050.
c. Fire Cadet Program – A Fire Cadet Program has been successfully operated since 2003. Each
year, three young people receive training, equipment and exposure to the fire service. The intent
of this activity is to introduce and attract young members of our diverse community to the fire
service. In 2004, we were able to reallocate existing resources to ensure that our cadets
received the standard allocation of personal protective equipment and training materials.
d. Youth Participants in PACT – Sponsored by the City Manager’s office, the City offers a
Partnership Academy for Community Teamwork ( PACT) program twice a year. The department
has reserved the 2006 Spring PACT program for Redwood City youth. To make this happen, the
Department has collaborated with PACT graduates and the two school districts in Redwood City.
e. Additional Childcare Facility – The PRCS department identified a need for an additional childcare
site and explored possibilities. Redevelopment staff is now considering a site in City- owned
property on Bradford Street as part of a mixed- use development.
City Council Priorities FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
3
f. After School Programming – The PRCS department is looking to increase the number of
participants in after- school programming at school sites from approximately 800 to 900. An even
larger target is desired, however, securing enough space to accommodate an even larger
increase is proving difficult.
g. School Readiness – The Library offers instructions for parents and daycare providers in helping
children 0- 5 become “ school ready” by modeling and teaching read- aloud techniques and school
readiness activities. The School Readiness Outreach program, Traveling Storytime, currently has
42 volunteers, on pace to reach a goal of 50 volunteers by June 2005. These volunteers are
reading to nearly 500 preschool children every week. The Library has also been the recipient of
two grants last year to help support the Traveling Storytime program. The Library also
offers Tiny Tales ( 0- 1), Toddler ( 1- 3) and Preschool ( 3- 5) storytime programs at the Main Library
where parents and kids can have read- aloud techniques modeled for them, get tips from the
librarians, etc.
h. Homework Centers and Other Library Resources – The number of homework centers at
Redwood City Libraries has decreased this last year with the closure of the Schaberg branch for
remodeling. Despite this closure, during the school year from August- June, the Library is
providing 42 hours per week of homework help, and with the reopening of the Schaberg Library
this will increase to 54 hours per week. The Teen Homework Center at the Downtown Library has
extended its hours to 15 hours per week Monday through Thursday, and is extremely well used.
The Library has collaborated with the Redwood City Elementary School District to split the costs
of a Librarian to oversee the recently remodeled libraries in the district's schools.
IV. Transportation and Traffic
a. Shuttle System – The Engineering division has been tasked with studying the feasibility of a city
shuttle system, especially one to assist youth and seniors. The success of a shuttle depends on
two things: money for operation, and an understanding of what citizens/ riders want. Currently,
there is no budget established for the operation of a shuttle service. The funding that is being set
aside from Traffic Mitigation Fees is not adequate for continued operation of a shuttle service, but
could be used to prepare the plan for service.
V. Housing
a. Housing Programs for Teachers and Seniors – The First- Time Homebuyers Program and leasing
of City- owned housing have not attracted teachers to housing as anticipated. The City Council
has approved the agreement for an affordable housing project on El Camino Real and Vera
Street that teachers could qualify to rent. The agency has also acquired a property on Bradford
Street which is intended for senior housing and a child care facility. The Downtown Precise Plan
is also looking into creating El Camino Real as a high density residential corridor with both rental
and for sale housing.
VI. Water Supply
a. Water Supply Assurance – Redwood City purchases 100% of its drinking water supply from the
Hetch Hetchy regional water system, owned and operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission. The current contract ( Master Sales Agreement between San Francisco and
suburban purchasers, which expires in 2010) provides Redwood City with a “ supply assurance” of
12,243 acre feet ( AF)/ year of water. Since FY 1999/ 2000, annual consumption has averaged
13,185 AF/ yr, or nearly 1,000 AF/ yr beyond the contract amount. The City Council has affirmed
their commitment to a comprehensive “ active” water conservation program, as well as
construction of the Recycled Water Project, as recommended by the Community Task Force on
Recycled Water in Alternative TF. The goal of reducing demand for Hetch Hetchy drinking water
to be within contract limits by 2010 can be achieved only by aggressively implementing these two
programs together. Construction of disinfection, storage and pumping facilities at the South
Bayside System Authority wastewater treatment plant begins in April 2005, to be followed by
installation of the first pipelines in the winter of 2006. First deliveries of recycled water to
commercial landscape customers are set for October 2006.
City Council Priorities FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
4
b. Recycled Water Project – In January 2005, the City Council approved the 10- year Water
Financing Plan and authorized the first of up to five water revenue bond issues to fund
construction of the project. The goals of the project are to 1) Implement the project in a way that
is consistent with - and respectful of - the recommendations of the Community Task Force on
Recycled Water; 2) Begin delivery of recycled water to customer sites in 2006; 3) Erase the City’s
drinking water deficit by 2010 ( in concert with “ active” conservation).
c. Regional Water Supply – Fix the System – Redwood City’s Council actively pursued the goal of
fixing the Hetch Hetchy regional water system, to ensure a high- quality, reliable water supply for
residents and businesses who depend on this vital resource. However, as of April 2005, it
remains uncertain whether San Francisco will effectively rebuild the system on schedule and
within a reasonable cost. Redwood City staff – via the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency ( BAWSCA) Technical Advisory Committee - and the City’s new Board representative,
Richard Claire, will continue to support BAWSCA’s efforts to ensure that San Francisco
accurately identifies the problems with the regional water system and determines how to solve
those problems.
d. Turf Replacements – The first artificial turf sports field has been designed and installed, and turf
from Woodside Road medians will be replaced with attractive lower water consumption materials.
Both of these measures will reduce water consumption.
VII. Doing Business Efficiently/ Effectively
a. Codes and Development Permitting Procedures – Ongoing coordination between the Building
and Inspection divisions and departments is improving. The goal is to have City Hall be the
single location for all permit activity and plan review. New water service is now entirely handled
in City Hall, not at the Corporation Yard. The computer permit system was implemented. The
web- based system ( permitting, inspection scheduling, and access to information) is being tested
and should be operational by summer. The interactive voice response system will be
implemented in August 2005 ( the calling sequences and coding are being implemented), to allow
callers to schedule inspections and access inspection results via voice command.
b. General Plan Update and Code and Development Procedures Streamlining – One staff position
was eliminated last year and one key staff person was out for much of the year causing delays in
the preparation of the General Plan. It is now progressing towards completion and joint meetings
with the City Council and Planning Commission will be held this spring. The draft plan will be
completed by fall of 2005 and then the EIR will be prepared. Adoption is expected by Spring
2006 at which point this objective will be completed. The Downtown Precise Plan is following
nearly the same schedule, and both documents are being coordinated so that they are consistent
with each other.
c. City Clerk Efficiencies Through the Use of Technology – The primary responsibilities of the City
Clerk department are City Council support services, Records Management, and Election
Services. Many functions now better use technology. This includes:
i. The Council Agenda Packet and Minutes are web- posted for the convenience of the
public; in addition, the subscription list is sent via e- mail, which saves paper, postage,
and labor to the organization. A new service in 2004 was the web- posting of the City
Roster, which resulted in a significant cost savings for Fiscal Year 04- 05.
ii. The City Clerk department serves as the filing official for the mandatory Fair Political
Practices Commission ( FPPC) statements of economic interest/ conflict of interest. In
2004, the City Clerk department took the mass mailing of FPPC Form 700 Statement of
Economic Interests electronic, which resulted in overwhelmingly positive feedback from
filers as to the convenience and speed with which they were able to complete their
mandated filings.
iii. The City Clerk Department is entrusted with the preservation of the legislative history of
the City and the task of providing the City Council, staff, and the public with information
pertaining to official City business. Ongoing efforts include utilizing e- mail, web pages,
and cable TV broadcast prior to and during Council meetings to reach the community.
City Council Priorities FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
5
iv. A significant accomplishment in 2004 has been the continuing progress in launching an
electronic archive of the legislative history. As of our last budget update, the past six
years of data had been scanned and archived; in 2004, we expanded the archive to
include City Council minutes back through 1983 and resolutions through 1994. This
project has cut staff time spent researching and providing needed data by 50% and has
proven to be a popular service with citizens and City staff alike.
d. Employee Self- Service Options – The Human Resources department implemented two new
employee self- service options in FY 04- 05. Employees now have the ability to update their
personal information such as address, emergency contact and phone on- line via the City’s
intranet site. The Human Resources Department in collaboration with the Information
Technology Division of the Finance Department deployed a new application that allows
employees to contribute to various charitable organizations via payroll deductions
e. Mobile Computers in Fire Apparatus – Mobile computers allow fire personnel to communicate
directly with the computer- aided dispatching system to obtain and verify critical information. The
installation of mobile computers in all front- line and reserve fire apparatus will be completed by
May 2005. Installation was delayed due to a combination of the heavy operational load this year,
staffing the apparatus within our means, attending the mandatory training scheduled and the
increased number of responses to emergency incidents.
f. Planned Fire Equipment Replacement Program – A new Fire Equipment Replacement Program
was designed based on planned obsolescence of capital equipment so that they could be
predictably budgeted for and replaced at the end of their service life rather than risking failure.
g. Cost Recovery Study – The PRCS department will be conducting a full cost recover study for all
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department activities and will make
recommendations for possible revenue enhancements in FY 2005/ 06.
h. Library Efficiencies – During the last three fiscal years, through direct budget reductions and
inflation, the Library budget has been effectively reduced by 17%. To continue delivering superior
customer service, the following measures have been implemented:
i. The videos, DVD’s and musical CD's were moved from upstairs to downstairs and are
now re- shelved as they are returned. This reduced the number of times staff handles
these extremely high- use items and increases the availability of the material for patron
use.
ii. The Lobby area was redesigned to make it a welcoming and friendly atmosphere
providing lots of open space and changing the display of our materials to be similar to
displays in bookstores.
iii. Self- service checkout machines were introduced with the installation of 4 self- check out
machines in the Downtown library and one at each of the branches. This allowed the
redeploying of staff to welcome customers, facilitate finding materials, and address more
complex customer account problems. Check- in operations were streamlined by merging
them into one location next to the lobby, letting us eliminate a sorting step and enabling
“ cart- ready” re- shelving that gets our materials back into our customers’ hands faster.
iv. Most library materials are now pre- processed. In addition, the Library is in negotiations
with two major vendors to do pre- cataloging as well. Both efforts enable us to redeploy
staff for public services.
v. Library patrons can now self- sign up for the public access computers and do self- time
management for their use of the computers. The library is also now able to recover the
cost of customers’ printing.
VIII. Cultural
a. Cultural Commission Strategic Plan – The PRCS department is implementing the Cultural
Commission Strategic Plan, which emphasizes support to Downtown, arts and music education in
the schools, and support of community building activities.
City Council Priorities FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
6
b. Library Cultural Programs – The Library strives to be the cultural center of the community by
offering a plentiful variety of programs for all ages. The Downtown library has increased the
number of programs for all ages, from " toddlers to teens to tea- totalers." This includes the
number of Saturday programs for fathers and their children and which have included storytelling,
magicians, puppeteers, musicians, nature programs and authors. The Library has partnered with
Villa Montalvo, the Fox Theater and the Redwood City School District for the First Annual Youth
Poetry Contest. In an effort to help people understand other cultures in our community, the
Library helped sponsored an exhibit in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr., The Long Walk to
Freedom: 1900- Now; celebrated the Latino influence with “ Day of the Dead”, a Mexican
celebration; and hosted a presentation by nationally known local author, Francisco Jimenez.
7
June 3, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Ed Everett, City Manager
Cc: Department Heads
Re: City Manager’s Budget Recommendations, Possible New Revenues, and Budget Options for City Council
Consideration
Cautiously optimistic ~ is the state of mind of the organization as we look toward the future. In my memo to you in
last year’s budget ( FY 2004/ 05), I said that our expenditures were clearly exceeding our revenues. While this is still
the case going into FY 2005/ 06, thanks to the foresight of this Council, we have been able to maintain a healthy
reserve during these difficult budgetary times, which has allowed us to use those reserves along with budget
reductions to close the gap between expenditures and revenues.
While this year’s budget cuts are small, in terms of a percentage, it is important to remember that this is the fourth
straight year we have reduced the City’s budget. In FY 2002/ 03 non- public safety departments cut approximately
2%, 7.5% in FY 2003/ 04, and 15% in FY 2004/ 05. Public safety departments cut approximately 2%, 4%, and 3%
respectively.
In preparation for this year’s budget, the department head team used a different process than in years past. They
clearly understood the need to make reductions that were not across the board ( all departments equally) and
decided to look at the organization as a whole and develop a recommendation collectively. The recommended
budget cuts this fiscal year were developed and agreed to by all the department heads. I am extremely proud of
the department head team as this was a difficult process, where each had to first consider what was best for the
entire organization and community, while still being concerned about their departments.
The department head team was charged with identifying $ 830,000 in budget reductions and/ or new revenues,
which was 25% of the FY 2005/ 06 projected deficit, based on February 2005 estimates. The department heads’
work yielded a total of $ 968,000 of which $ 635,000 is in budget reductions, $ 333,000 in possible new revenues,
and an additional $ 310,000 in options for Council’s consideration. The team’s work was strategic, thoughtful, and
intelligent, while keeping in mind the impacts these reductions would have on the community.
The department head team developed cuts representing 25% of the February projected deficit. New budget
projections within the last month indicate that we could have cut less than $ 830,000 and reach the 25% in
reductions per Council’s guideline. The department head team felt we ought to stay with the original amount as
that would help close the revenue and expenditure gaps sooner, which all believed was important. The Council
may want to discuss this part of the recommendation.
Attachment I ~ Recommended Reductions - is a summary of all the recommended reductions organized by
department. The reductions have been made to the general fund or other related funds. The chart describes the
amount of general fund for that department, the dollar amount associated with the reduction for each department,
and describes the reduction and impact caused by the reduction.
Attachment II ~ Recommended New or Increased Revenues - is a list of possible new revenues. The list is divided
into two sections to identify those that require Council action in order to implement. Council’s revenue
subcommittee has seen these new revenues, but took no formal action prior to Council’s deliberations.
8
Attachment III ~ Options/ Alternative Recommended Reductions - is a list that can be used as alternative possible
reductions. This list can be used if there is a reduction the Council would like to remove from the current
recommended reductions list and replace with an item on this list or if the Council would like to add to the
recommended list.
In developing the reductions/ revenues described in each of the attachments, the department head team kept the
following Council criteria in mind:
1. Use 75% of reserves to make up for the FY 2005/ 06 deficit
2. Go to the Revenue Committee for discussion of possible new revenues
3. Expenditures and revenues must be in balance by the end of fiscal year FY 2007/ 08
4. Develop a recommended budget with options
5. Do not want same across the board cuts for all departments
This year, the recommended budget reductions do not cause any layoffs, however we should be reminded that our
organization has been reduced significantly. Since FY 2002/ 03 we have:
• Reduced budgeted expenditures by $ 10M
• Eliminated 52 full time equivalent positions
• Eliminated 23,777 casual hours = 11.4 full time equivalent positions
At the end of the budget document, you will find a “ Recommended Reductions” tab which contains the reduction
forms by department that provide more detail on each of the recommended reductions described on Attachment I.
At the end of the “ Recommended Reductions” section, you will also find a memo providing more information on the
recommended new revenues described in Attachment II. Similarly, you will find a “ Recommended Options” tab that
contains the forms that describe the options summarized in Attachment III.
Finally, under the tab named “ Previous Year’s Reductions,” you will find a memorandum from each department
head describing the reductions they made in previous years and the impacts caused by those reductions as
requested by Council.
The department heads have tried their best to provide reasonable recommendations and options based on
Council’s criteria, priorities, and overarching guidelines. Staff stands ready to help in any way possible as the
Council decides its budget policy for FY 2005/ 06.
9
Attachment I
Recommended Reductions
City Attorney
General Fund Budget: $ 646,416
Recommended Reduction: $ 0
City Clerk
General Fund Budget: $ 555,233
Recommended Reduction: $ 0
City Council
General Fund Budget: $ 221,867
Recommended Reduction: $ 0
City Manager
General Fund Budget: $ 1,018,417
Recommended Reduction: $ 23,594
• Elimination of .30 FTE management analyst causing a severe limitation to the City’s performance
measurement program
• Add funding to professional services budget to contract some analytical services
Community Development Services
General Fund Budget: $ 4,941,966
Recommended Reduction: $ 182,238
• Reductions in engineering services relating to traffic programs which means less time will be devoted to
neighborhood traffic complaints
• Transfer of several staff members’ time to non- general fund accounts to reflect appropriate project support
• Reduction in overtime
Finance
General Fund Budget: $ 994,426
Recommended Reduction: $ 20,813
• Reduce voice charges by reducing the number of telephone lines required and a new negotiated contract
for long distance service
• Shift 4% of Finance Director to Parking Fund
Fire
General Fund Budget: $ 14,416,514
Recommended Reduction: $ 0
10
Attachment I
Recommended Reductions
Human Resources
General Fund Budget: $ 1,291,012
Recommended Reduction: $ 30,632
• Reduction in recruitment advertising will impact the City’s ability to conduct effective outreach efforts and
could affect our ability to attract star performers
• Elimination of the City’s annual employee holiday dinner dance
• Elimination of human resources casual hours causing slower response times in employee requests for
information, supervisors covering front desk, and heavier burden on staff to perform routine but critical
human resources administrative functions that are legally required to be in compliance
Library
General Fund Budget: $ 5,477,293
Recommended Reduction $ 62,676
• Reduction of librarian staff hours will mean longer time to process new material, fewer programs, longer
lines at the public services desks; it will be harder to implement strategies for operational efficiencies; and
managers will have to cover responsibilities of line staff leaving them with less time to supervise
Parks, Recreation and Community Services
General Fund Budget: $ 10,911,189
Recommended Reduction $ 98,824
• Reduction in plant materials and other landscaping operating expenditures will decrease overall aesthetics
in the City. With fewer people from last year’s cuts, the department cannot plant as much new material
hence this budget
• Reductions in building maintenance supplies will cause delays in completing some projects, as they will
have to be added to the capital improvement project list
• Shift a portion of the City’s contribution to Shelter Network’s Redwood Family House from general fund
( HSFA) to Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG), which is non general fund
• Complete close out of Kids Klub After School Day Care Program
• Shift maintenance and replacement of certain small equipment from the vehicle maintenance shop to a
departmental responsibility
• Cut carpet steaming cleaning contract for all five child care facilities in City buildings by half from once per
month to every other month. If this proves to be an unacceptable level of service city staff will take on the
task in- house
11
Attachment I
Recommended Reductions
Police
General Fund Budget: $ 24,326,556
Recommended Reduction $ 150,069
• Reduction in patrol overtime will mean officers will do all their report writing during their patrol shifts and not
on overtime
• Reduction of police patrol holiday overtime resulting in minimal crews on certain holidays ( The Fourth of
July holiday will not be affected)
• Cost of jail booking fees are reduced resulting in a saving. This was allowed by State Legislation which
reduces the amount counties can charge cities for “ booking fees”
Public Works Services
General Fund Budget: $ 1,177,389
Recommended Reduction: $ 66,626
• Reduction in consultant budget which will reduce support for the department’s worker’s compensation
program and website maintenance
• 50% reduction in contract for tree inspections performed on privately- owned trees. Staff will now perform
this function along with inspection of City- owned trees, causing delays in inspections of private and City-owned
trees
• Transfer a small percentage of two position’s time to a non- general fund program to reflect appropriate
project support
• Add $ 20,000 for maintenance of the new bicycle path adjacent to Highway 101
12
Attachment II
Recommended New or Increased Revenues
Requiring Council Approval
• Fire, Planning, Engineering Plan Review
This increase will cover the costs of plan reviews done by Fire, Planning, and
Engineering. We presently only charge for the cost of building inspection to review
plans.
$ 130,000
• Storm water protection inspections
The City’s costs have increased as they are related to new National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System ( NPDES) requirements. This increase will have developers/
contractors pay for these increased costs and not have the general fund subsidize the
new costs.
$ 45,000
• Adjustments to current fee table
A series of very small fees we charge which have not been increased for many years.
Examples include: increase minimum building permit and sign permit from $ 40 to $ 75;
increase minimum plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permit fee from $ 35 to $ 50, and
adjust hourly charges from $ 48 to $ 100 based on actual costs.
$ 20,000
Total Requiring Council Approval $ 195,000
Not Requiring Council Approval
• Increased revenues from Hoover field rentals
$ 50,000
• Increase Sandpiper child care rental fee $ 2,100
• Grant from the Almanac Holiday Fund to support staff salaries at the Fair Oaks
Community Center
$ 16,000
• Yahoo! grant to finance teen homework center $ 20,000
• Peninsula Community Foundation grant to support the traveling story time program for
preschoolers
$ 50,000
Total Not Requiring Council Approval $ 138,100
Total Recommended New or Increased Revenues $ 333,100
13
Attachment III
Options/ Alternative Recommended Reductions
Community Development Services - $ 60,000
• Reduction of professional services budget resulting in the elimination of training or special studies, such as
the training session with Dan Burden and the Core Fellow development fee study.
Finance - $ 14,075
• Reduction of overtime and 10% of an account clerk causing delays in internal customers’ requests, as
mandated activities must take precedence.
Human Resources - $ 14,674
• Further reduction in employee development, which will impact the City’s ability to develop and maintain
employees’ knowledge, skill, and abilities and as a result will impact service delivery.
Library - $ 46,522
• Eliminate 0.5 FTE library school media specialist resulting in less partnership between the Redwood City
Elementary School District and the library and reduced usage of the library media centers in the schools.
We believe the school district will continue to fund half of this position.
Parks, Recreation and Community Services - $ 73,344
• Eliminate general fund support ( 0.5 FTE) for child care coordinator, leaving .50 FTE of the position funded
by grants.
• Further reduce building maintenance supplies and services budget, resulting in longer waits for longer
repairs or additional requests to the capital budget.
Police - $ 40,023
• Additional reduction of police patrol holiday overtime causing minimum crews on holidays.
• Reduction in investigations furniture and equipment budget resulting in less replacement of radios and
other equipment, and causing Patrol and Investigation division to seek grants.
Public Works - $ 62,000
• Reduction in temporary labor for paving maintenance and repair projects causing a direct affect in the
condition of the City’s street infrastructure.
Adopted Changes to FY 2005/ 06 Operating Budget
Original Updated 1 Programmatic Revised % of
GENERAL FUNDS 05/ 06 Budget 05/ 06 Budget Changes 05/ 06 Budget Change
Refer to 2004- 2006 Adopted Budget as noted
CITY COUNCIL
City Council ( 61110) - p. City Council- 2 218,977 221,867 221,867
Total 218,977 221,867 221,867
CITY MANAGER
Management/ Policy Execution ( 61210) - p. City Manager- 5 725,068 768,074 ( 23,594) 744,480 - 3.07%
Community Promotion ( 61220- 222) - p. City Manager- 6 246,227 250,343 250,343
Total 971,295 1,018,417 ( 23,594) 994,823 - 2.32%
CITY ATTORNEY
Legal Services ( 61510) - p. City Attorney- 2 639,706 646,416 646,416
Total 639,706 646,416 646,416
CITY CLERK
Legisl. Svcs./ Records Mgmt. ( 61310) - p. City Clerk- 7 452,271 461,510 461,510
Elections ( 61320) - p. City Clerk- 8 84,515 85,738 85,738
Council Support ( 61330) - p. City Clerk- 9 8,985 7,985 7,985
Total 545,771 555,233 555,233
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Administration ( 63010) - p. CDS- 13 238,097 246,470 ( 54,591) 191,879 - 22.15%
Building Regulations ( 63110) - p. CDS- 15 1,474,004 1,493,967 1,493,967
Code Enforcement ( 63310) - p. CDS- 16 659,354 667,530 667,530
General Engineering ( 65121) - p. CDS- 18 1,055,326 1,067,980 ( 107,647) 960,333 - 10.08%
Subdivision Engineering ( 65122) - p. CDS- 19 225,599 227,481 227,481
Planning ( 63210) - p. CDS- 23 811,329 1,038,462 1,038,462
Strategic Planning ( 63220) - p. CDS- 24 193,586 200,076 200,076
Redevelopment Agency - Housing Fund ( 66410) - p. CDS- 28 1,385,099 1,401,763 1,401,763
Redevelopment Agency - General Fund ( 66410) - p. CDS- 29 1,597,416 1,677,341 1,677,341
Total 7,639,810 8,021,070 ( 162,238) 7,858,832 - 2.02%
FINANCE
Financial Services ( 61430) - p. Finance- 9 967,656 994,426 ( 8,640) 985,786 - 0.87%
Admin. Supp. Svcs. ( 61710) - p. Finance- 10 2,459,839 2,332,537 149,512 2,482,049 6.41%
Public Financing Authority Lease Payments ( 61710) - 2,324,671 2,324,991 2,324,991
p. Finance- 19
Total 5,752,166 5,651,954 140,872 5,792,826 2.49%
FIRE
Administration ( 62210) - p. Fire- 10 1,107,728 1,090,272 1,090,272
Operations ( 62220) - p. Fire- 11 12,298,615 12,138,737 12,138,737
Prevention ( 62230) - p. Fire- 12 660,881 632,615 632,615
Training ( 62240) - p. Fire- 13 277,468 284,103 284,103
Emergency Medical Services ( 62245) - p. Fire- 14 270,892 266,887 266,887
Emergency Operations ( 62260) - p. Fire- 15 3,900 3,900 3,900
Total 14,619,484 14,416,514 14,416,514
HUMAN RESOURCES
Human Resources ( 61610) - p. Human Resources- 9 1,260,739 1,291,012 ( 45,306) 1,245,706 - 3.51%
Total 1,260,739 1,291,012 ( 45,306) 1,245,706 - 3.51%
1 - The Updated 05/ 06 Budget reflects current salary and benefit costs along with corrections made to the Original 05/ 06 Budget.
14
Adopted Changes to FY 2005/ 06 Operating Budget
Original Updated 1 Programmatic Revised % of
GENERAL FUNDS ( Cont'd) 05/ 06 Budget 05/ 06 Budget Changes 05/ 06 Budget Change
Refer to 2004- 2006 Adopted Budget as noted
LIBRARY
Administrative Svcs. Unit ( 66251) - p. Library- 10 696,253 703,663 703,663
Resource Development Unit ( 66252) - p. Library- 11 210,163 221,373 221,373
Collection Development Unit ( 66261) - p. Library- 12 1,182,607 1,197,489 ( 4,952) 1,192,537 - 0.41%
Collection Maintenance Unit ( 66262) - p. Library- 13 756,550 777,809 777,809
Electronic Resources Unit ( 66271) - p. Library- 15 407,368 423,472 423,472
Information Services Unit ( 66272) - p. Library- 16 575,017 586,243 586,243
Literacy Services Unit ( 66281) - p. Library- 17 488,843 489,957 489,957
Youth Services Unit ( 66282) - p. Library- 18 593,777 616,415 ( 57,724) 558,691 - 9.36%
Community Libraries Unit ( 66290) - p. Library- 19 443,240 460,872 460,872
Total 5,353,818 5,477,293 ( 62,676) 5,414,617 - 1.14%
PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
Human Services Programs ( 64211) - p. PRCS- 25 752,410 753,167 ( 10,000) 743,167 - 1.33%
Information/ Referral ( 64212) - p. PRCS- 25 209,159 213,290 213,290
Human Svcs. Assistance ( 64213) - p. PRCS- 13 228,200 223,200 15,000 238,200 6.72%
Administration ( 66110) - p. PRCS- 11 695,897 723,885 ( 15,000) 708,885 - 2.07%
Civic Cultural Commission ( 66111) - p. PRCS- 12 64,455 64,455 64,455
Landscape Maintenance- City ( 66121) - p. PRCS- 17 2,238,094 2,268,221 ( 6,800) 2,261,421 - 0.30%
Landscape Mtc.- Redwood Shores ( 66122) - p. PRCS- 17 1,111,379 1,128,363 ( 3,545) 1,124,818 - 0.31%
Youth and Teen Services ( 66131) - p. PRCS- 27 275,146 337,283 337,283
Elementary Activities ( 66133) - p. PRCS- 27 253,296 260,051 260,051
Kids Club Program ( 66134) - p. PRCS- 27 2,664 9,600 ( 9,600) - 100.00%
Teen Activities ( 66135) - p. PRCS- 27 203,304 210,121 210,121
After School Program Grant ( 66137) - p. PRCS- 27 691,131 685,786 685,786
After School Program Grant- 21st Cent. ( 66138) - p. PRCS- 27 284,861 286,268 286,268
Red Morton Community Center ( 66142) - p. PRCS- 28 947,324 975,876 ( 10,000) 965,876 - 1.02%
Aquatics Program ( 66145) - p. PRCS- 28 189,533 189,584 189,584
Adult Sports ( 66147) - p. PRCS- 28 109,144 109,124 109,124
Middle School Sports ( 66148) - p. PRCS- 28 127,940 128,975 128,975
Special Interest Classes ( 66161) - p. PRCS- 29 730,747 737,120 737,120
Sandpiper Community Center ( 66162) - p. PRCS- 29 326,438 331,258 331,258
Sandpiper Youth Club ( 66163) - p. PRCS- 29 56,806 56,739 56,739
Senior Services ( 66171) - p. PRCS- 31 12,700 12,700 12,700
Community Services ( 66172) p. PRCS- 31 905,248 921,881 ( 10,000) 911,881 - 1.08%
Senior Nutrition ( 66173) - p. PRCS- 31 292,320 284,242 284,242
Total 10,708,196 10,911,189 ( 49,945) 10,861,244 - 0.46%
POLICE
Administration ( 62111) - p. Police- 11 4,732,348 4,811,819 ( 100,000) 4,711,819 - 2.08%
Records ( 62112) - p. Police- 12 1,017,050 1,042,286 1,042,286
Training ( 62113) - p. Police- 13 449,412 445,399 445,399
Property/ Evidence ( 62114) - p. Police- 14 232,092 238,435 238,435
Patrol Services ( 62131) - p. Police- 15 14,342,149 14,128,513 ( 50,069) 14,078,444 - 0.35%
Criminal Investigation ( 62134) - p. Police- 16 3,693,362 3,660,104 3,660,104
Total 24,466,413 24,326,556 ( 150,069) 24,176,487 - 0.62%
PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES
Street System Maintenance ( 65132) - p. PWS- 14 140,132 140,132 140,132
Street Cleaning ( 65133) - p. PWS- 21 94,079 94,079 94,079
Sidewalk Maintenance/ Replacement ( 65134) - p. PWS- 15 11,498 11,498 11,498
Street Tree Maintenance ( 65135) - p. PWS- 16 736,708 751,565 ( 15,000) 736,565 - 2.00%
Downtown/ Entry Feature Maintenance ( 65136) - p. PWS- 17 61,273 61,273 61,273
Storm Water Collection/ Disposal ( 65161) - p. PWS- 25 118,842 118,842 118,842
Total 1,162,532 1,177,389 ( 15,000) 1,162,389 - 1.27%
TOTAL GENERAL FUNDS 73,338,907 73,714,910 ( 367,956) 73,346,954 - 0.50%
15
Adopted Changes to FY 2005/ 06 Operating Budget
Original Updated 1 Programmatic Revised % of
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 05/ 06 Budget 05/ 06 Budget Changes 05/ 06 Budget Change
Refer to 2004- 2006 Adopted Budget as noted
TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
Public Works
Traffic Control Maint. ( 65131) - p. PWS- 13 948,525 959,081 50,000 1,009,081 5.21%
Paint and Sign Maint. ( 65137) - p. PWS- 18 306,482 304,953 ( 71,822) 233,131 - 23.55%
Fund Total 1,255,007 1,264,034 ( 21,822) 1,242,212 - 1.73%
SPECIAL GAS TAX STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND
Public Works
Street System Maint. ( 65132) - p. PWS- 14 884,703 903,732 46,822 950,554 5.18%
Street Cleaning ( 65133) - p. PWS- 21 154,934 161,947 ( 19,670) 142,277 - 12.15%
Sidewalk Maint. & Replacement ( 65134) - p. PWS- 15 129,704 133,701 133,701
Storm Water Coll. & Disposal ( 65161) - p. PWS- 25 323,296 326,298 ( 6,955) 319,343 - 2.13%
Fund Total 1,492,637 1,525,678 20,197 1,545,875 1.32%
GID 1- 64 MAINTENANCE & OPERATION
Public Works
Storm Water Coll. & Disposal ( 65161) - p. PWS- 25 432,658 435,805 435,805
Fund Total 432,658 435,805 435,805
SEAPORT CENTRE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
Community Development Services
General Engineering ( 65121) 10,954 10,954
Public Works
Water Supply & Distr. ( 65144) 6,900 6,900 ( 690) 6,210 - 10.00%
Sewer System Maint. ( 65152) 23,727 23,727 1,868 25,595 7.87%
Storm Water Coll. & Disposal ( 65161) 34,115 34,512 ( 2,675) 31,837 - 7.75%
Fund Total 64,742 65,139 9,457 74,596 14.52%
SEAPORT LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
Community Development Services
General Engineering ( 65121) 10,954 10,954
Parks/ Recreation
Seaport Blvd. Landscape Maint. ( 65184) 135,169 137,130 137,130
Public Works
Storm Water Collection and Disposal ( 65161) 14,479 14,479 502 14,981 3.47%
Fund Total 149,648 151,609 11,456 163,065 7.56%
REDWOOD SHORES LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
Parks/ Recreation
Lido Landscape Maint. ( 66123) 238,487 242,955 242,955
Fund Total 238,487 242,955 242,955
CATEGORICAL GRANTS FUND
Federal Grants Program
Community Development
Admin - Housing Employees ( 66310) 800,000 738,386 738,386
Housing Rehabilitation ( 66320) 50,000 95,667 95,667
HOME Administration ( 66354) 450,000 444,286 444,286
1,300,000 1,278,339 1,278,339
Rental Income Program
Rental Rehabilitation Administration ( 66380) 300,000 300,000 300,000
Categorical Grants Total 1,600,000 1,578,339 1,578,339
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Housing Fund
Administration ( 66410) 1,385,099 1,401,763 1,401,763
Rehabilitation ( 66471) 300,000 300,000 300,000
1,685,099 1,701,763 1,701,763
16
Adopted Changes to FY 2005/ 06 Operating Budget
Original Updated 1 Programmatic Revised % of
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ( Cont'd) 05/ 06 Budget 05/ 06 Budget Changes 05/ 06 Budget Change
Refer to 2004- 2006 Adopted Budget as noted
General Fund
Administration ( 66410) 1,597,416 1,677,341 1,677,341
Tax Revenue Apportionment ( 66411) 914,931 914,931 914,931
San Mateo County - State Hit ( 66415) 450,000 450,000 269,490 719,490 59.89%
RWC Sch. Dist. Prop. Exch. Loan ( 66418) 42,321 42,321 42,321
Economic Development Plan ( 66429) 211,706 211,304 211,304
Sequoia Station ( 66454) 300,000 300,000 300,000
Store Front Improvements ( 66464) 60,000 60,000 60,000
3,576,374 3,655,897 269,490 3,925,387 7.37%
Redevelopment Agency Total 5,261,473 5,357,660 269,490 5,627,150 5.03%
TRANSPORTATION FUND
Finance
Admin. Supp. Svcs. ( 61710) 200,117 200,117 200,117
Engineering ( 65121) 106,311 43,133 78,233 121,366 181.38%
Fund Total 306,428 243,250 78,233 321,483 32.16%
LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS
Police
Citizens' Option for Public Safety ( COPS) ( 62131) 104,471 102,673 102,673
Fund Total 104,471 102,673 102,673
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 10,905,551 10,967,142 367,011 11,334,153 3.35%
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
GID 1- 64 RECLAMATION & FACILITIES BOND DEBT SERVICES FUND
Finance
Reclamation - Debt Service ( 61422- 423) 650,388 651,014 651,014
Facilities - Debt Service ( 61422- 423) 1,344,150 1,344,776 1,344,776
Fund Total 1,994,538 1,995,790 1,995,790
ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
Finance
Seaport Consolidated Assessment District
Debt Service Fund ( 61423) 1,258,813 1,258,813 1,258,813
Redwood Shores Traffic Improvement District Bonds
Administrative Expense Fund ( 61421) 10,960 27,602 27,602
Redwood Shores Traffic Improvement District Bonds
Debt Service Fund ( 61423) 901,769 885,217 885,217
Pacific Shores Bonds Debt Service Fund ( 61423) 2,068,622 2,052,517 2,052,517
Pacific Shores Bonds Administrative Expense Fund ( 61421) 8,895 25,000 25,000
Assessment Districts Total 4,249,059 4,249,149 4,249,149
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
Finance
1998 PFA Lease Revenue Bonds ( 61423) 1,217,588 1,217,588 1,217,588
2003 PFA Refunding Bonds ( 61423) 1,074,344 1,074,344 1,074,344
Fund Total 2,291,932 2,291,932 2,291,932
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1997 RDA Tax Allocation Bonds ( 61423) 1,524,726 1,524,726 1,524,726
2003 RDA Tax Allocation Bonds ( 61423) 658,475 658,475 658,475
Fund Total 2,183,201 2,183,201 2,183,201
CITY HALL BONDS DEBT SERVICE FUND
Debt Service ( 61423) 824,725 824,725 824,725
Fund Total 824,725 824,725 824,725
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 11,543,455 11,544,797 11,544,797
17
Adopted Changes to FY 2005/ 06 Operating Budget
Original Updated 1 Programmatic Revised
ENTERPRISE FUNDS 05/ 06 Budget 05/ 06 Budget Changes 05/ 06 Budget
PARKING DISTRICT FUND
Finance
Revenue Services ( 61410) 39,711 40,681 8,640 49,321 21.24%
Debt Service ( 61423) 32,500 32,500 7,500 40,000 23.08%
Admin. Support Svcs. ( 61710) 2,015 1,920 1,920
74,226 75,101 16,140 91,241 21.49%
Public Works
Street System Maint. ( 65132) 378,530 384,551 4,205 388,756 1.09%
Fund Total 452,756 459,652 20,345 479,997 4.43%
WATER FUND
Finance
Revenue Services ( 61410) 1,205,058 1,224,965 1,224,965
Admin. Support Svcs. ( 61710) 133,120 142,964 1,450 144,414 1.01%
1,338,178 1,367,929 1,450 1,369,379 0.11%
Public Works
Water Customer Services ( 65142) 1,596,316 1,617,093 1,617,093
Water Supply & Distribution ( 65144) 5,135,822 5,182,596 171,710 5,354,306 3.31%
SFWD Water Purchases ( 65145) 7,500,547 7,500,547 ( 1,234,106) 6,266,441 - 16.45%
Water Resources Management ( 65146) 813,205 865,406 865,406
Recycled Water ( 65147) 2,261,401 2,261,401
15,045,890 15,165,642 1,199,005 16,364,647 7.91%
Fund Total 16,384,068 16,533,571 1,200,455 17,734,026 7.26%
SEWER FUND
Finance
Admin. Support Svcs. ( 61710) 62,369 61,115 550 61,665 0.90%
Public Works
Sewer System Maint. ( 65152) 4,131,189 4,175,037 5,170 4,180,207 0.12%
Waste Water Treat. & Disposal ( 65154) 6,213,661 6,213,661 110,750 6,324,411 1.78%
Storm Water Coll. & Disposal ( 65161) 652,127 659,868 19,670 679,538 2.98%
10,996,977 11,048,566 135,590 11,184,156 1.23%
Fund Total 11,059,346 11,109,681 136,140 11,245,821 1.23%
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 27,896,170 28,102,904 1,356,940 29,459,844 4.83%
18
Adopted Changes to FY 2005/ 06 Operating Budget
Original Updated 1 Programmatic Revised
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 05/ 06 Budget 05/ 06 Budget Changes 05/ 06 Budget
EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND
Public Works
Equipment Services ( 67230) 3,016,787 3,052,072 3,052,072
Fund Total 3,016,787 3,052,072 3,052,072
INTERNAL SERVICES FUND
Finance
Information Technology ( 67110) 1,783,559 1,844,317 1,844,317
Telephone Services ( 67211) 379,546 390,542 ( 17,391) 373,151 - 4.46%
Total 2,163,105 2,234,859 ( 17,391) 2,217,468 - 0.76%
Fire
Fire Operations ( 62220) 88,771 88,771 88,771
Police
Central Dispatching Svcs. ( 67310) 2,086,947 2,119,066 ( 16,848) 2,102,218 - 0.80%
Parks/ Recreation
Custodial Services ( 67241) 1,288,729 1,317,604 ( 10,000) 1,307,604 - 0.76%
Bldg. Maint. & Repair Svcs. ( 67242) 1,237,722 1,272,057 ( 75,542) 1,196,515 - 5.92%
Total 2,526,451 2,589,661 ( 85,542) 2,504,119 - 3.30%
Public Works Services
Warehouse Services ( 67222) 204,111 206,378 206,378
Fund Total 7,069,385 7,238,735 ( 119,781) 7,118,954 - 1.64%
WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND
Human Resources
Risk Mgmt. - Workers' Comp ( 67713) 2,558,677 2,429,563 2,429,563
Fund Total 2,558,677 2,429,563 2,429,563
GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE FUND
Finance
Risk Management ( 67711- 715) 1,325,723 1,331,154 1,331,154
Fund Total 1,325,723 1,331,154 1,331,154
TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 13,970,572 14,051,524 ( 119,781) 13,931,743 - 0.85%
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 137,654,655 138,381,277 1,236,214 139,617,491 0.89%
19
FY 2005/ 06 Analysis of Budget By Fund
BEGINNING ESTIMATED TRANSFER TOTAL
BALANCE REVENUES IN/( OUT) AVAILABLE
GENERAL OPERATING FUNDS
General Fund 17,746,307 64,072,883 ( 4,546,225) 77,272,965
Library Fund 725,077 4,689,540 5,414,617
Recreation Program Fund 1,750,900 ( 533,315) 1,217,585
Sandpiper Park Reserve
Subtotal 17,746,307 66,548,860 ( 390,000) 83,905,167
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Traffic Safety Fund 6,779 327,900 914,312 1,248,991
Special Gas Tax Fund 99,536 1,541,010 1,640,546
GID- 64 Maintenance District 735,385 575,519 ( 250,000) 1,060,904
Seaport Centre Maintenance 527,668 187,000 714,668
Seaport Blvd. Landscape Maintenance 88,107 219,000 307,107
Lido Maintenance District 300,134 175,281 475,415
Categorical Grants 1,578,339 1,578,339
Redevelopment Agency 2,662,425 9,190,326 ( 2,088,201) 9,764,550
S. L. E. S. F. Grant 10,434 102,763 113,197
Subtotal 4,430,468 13,897,138 ( 1,423,889) 16,903,717
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
Utility Users Tax 7,650,000 ( 5,325,009) 2,324,991
Gas Tax Construction 206,450 506,415 712,865
Transportation Fund 455,617 1,157,610 1,613,227
Capital Projects Fund 4,214,188 375,695 4,442,899 9,032,782
GID Facilities Fees Fund 3,908,383 259,000 4,167,383
Water Capital Projects Fund 2,900,000 2,900,000
Sewer Capital Projects Fund 1,035,000 1,035,000
Grants & Assessment Districts 454,700 454,700
Traffic Impact Fees 1,240,691 442,000 1,682,691
Traffic Mitigation Funds 2,440,972 130,000 2,570,972
Subtotal 12,466,301 10,469,005 3,559,305 26,494,611
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
General Improvement District 1- 64 1,419,636 1,995,790 3,415,426
Assessment Districts 12,347,868 4,457,965 16,805,833
City Hall Certificates of Participation 10,889,628 349,775 11,239,403
Public Financing Authority 4,847,679 2,465,182 2,088,201 9,401,062
Subtotal 29,504,811 9,268,712 2,088,201 40,861,724
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Parking Fund 892,406 507,091 1,399,497
Water Fund 11,599,338 19,921,100 ( 2,356,043) 29,164,394
Sewer Fund 1,168,736 12,512,502 ( 1,442,573) 12,238,665
Subtotal 13,660,480 32,940,693 ( 3,798,617) 42,802,556
TOTAL ALL FUNDS ( excluding Internal Service) 77,808,367 133,124,408 35,000 210,967,775
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Equipment Services Fund 5,941,294 2,718,266 8,659,560
Internal Services Fund 267,056 7,076,087 ( 35,000) 7,308,143
Workers' Comp. Emp. & Liab. Ins. Fund 120,355 2,499,223 2,619,578
General Liability Insurance Fund 97,561 1,333,304 1,430,865
Subtotal 6,426,266 13,626,880 ( 35,000) 20,018,146
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 84,234,633 146,751,288 0 230,985,921
( 1) General expenditures are shown net of expenditures that are reimbursed by the Redevelopment Agency.
( 2) Despite the projected negative fund balance as of June 30, 2006, the Agency will have sufficient cash available
to finance its activities in FY2005/ 06 due to a long term loan from the City. Additionally, staff currently projects
that the Agency's fund balance will be positive as of June 30, 2007.
20
OPERATIONS CAPITAL TOTAL ENDING
DEBT SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS EXPENDITURE BALANCE
61,310,657 ( 1) 61,310,656 15,962,309
5,414,617 5,414,617
1,217,585 1,217,585
192,757
67,942,859 67,942,859 16,155,066
1,242,212 1,242,212 6,779
1,545,875 1,545,875 94,671
435,805 435,805 625,099
74,596 103,000 177,596 537,072
163,065 44,000 207,065 100,042
242,955 242,955 232,460
1,578,339 1,578,339
5,627,150 4,608,671 10,235,821 ( 471,271) ( 2)
102,763 102,763 10,434
11,012,760 4,755,671 15,768,431 1,135,286
2,324,991 2,324,991
473,000 473,000 239,865
321,483 1,000,000 1,321,483 291,744
7,944,200 7,944,200 1,088,582
1,038,413 1,038,413 3,128,970
2,900,000 2,900,000
1,035,000 1,035,000
454,700 454,700
290,000 290,000 1,392,691
2,570,972
2,646,474 15,135,313 17,781,787 8,712,824
1,995,790 1,995,790 1,419,636
4,249,059 4,249,059 12,556,774
824,725 824,725 10,414,678
4,475,133 4,475,133 4,925,929
11,544,707 11,544,707 29,317,017
479,997 479,997 919,500
17,734,026 17,734,026 11,430,368
11,245,821 11,245,821 992,844
29,459,844 29,459,844 13,342,712
122,606,644 19,890,984 142,497,628 68,662,905
3,052,072 3,052,072 5,607,488
7,118,954 7,118,954 189,189
2,429,563 2,429,563 190,015
1,331,154 1,331,154 99,711
13,931,743 13,931,743 6,086,403
136,538,387 19,890,984 156,429,371 74,749,308
21
FY 2005/ 06 Revenue Estimates
2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET
GENERAL FUND
A PROPERTY TAXES
1 Current Year Secured Tax 17,178,975 17,612,648 18,027,587 18,610,154 19,575,099
2 Current Year Unsecured 1,730,202 1,642,891 1,615,000 1,355,458 1,350,352
3 Prior Year Taxes 65,836 13,434 25,000 5,000 5,000
4 Penalties and Interest
5 Teeter Plan/ ERAF Return from County 1,167,205 450,000 2,534,916 1,000,000
6 Property Tax In- Lieu of VLF 4,000,000
7 State Take- Aways ( 1,500,000) ( 1,451,374) ( 1,451,374)
Total Property Taxes 18,975,013 20,436,178 18,617,587 21,054,154 24,479,077
B OTHER TAXES & FEES
1 Sales and Use Tax 15,090,100 15,745,034 15,674,559 16,692,690 17,306,772
2 Franchises Fees 1,094,168 1,200,381 1,197,600 1,181,358 1,217,412
3 Transient Occupancy Tax 1,554,934 1,838,796 2,038,400 2,187,992 2,297,391
4 Property Transfer Tax 518,016 662,961 550,000 640,000 675,000
5 Business Licenses 1,154,487 1,221,568 1,212,000 1,487,000 1,212,000
Total Other Taxes 19,411,705 20,668,740 20,672,559 22,189,040 22,708,575
C LICENSES AND PERMITS
1 Building Permits 729,748 824,865 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,065,000
2 Other Licenses and Permits 12,020 18,400 12,000 12,010 12,010
3 Parking Permits 21,150 25,000 40,370 22,000
4 Fire Permits 128,854 95,157 105,000 105,000 100,000
Total Licenses and Permits 870,622 959,572 1,442,000 1,457,380 1,199,010
D FINES AND FORFEITURES
1 Parking Fines 575,393 550,054 684,000 650,000 650,000
2 Administrative Citation Fines 15,548 31,903 22,000 3,000 3,000
Total Fines and Forfeitures 590,941 581,957 706,000 653,000 653,000
E USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY
1 Interest Income 1,661,765 1,085,701 857,000 869,000 693,780
2 Rents and Concessions 360,097 380,004 431,000 407,000 412,000
Total Uses of Money & Property 2,021,862 1,465,705 1,288,000 1,276,000 1,105,780
F REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES
1.1 Motor Vehicle In- Lieu Fee 4,350,686 3,435,771 4,447,129 4,500,000 500,000
1.2 Motor Vehicle Round About
1.3 Enhanced MV Collections 68,350 68,350 68,000 68,000 68,000
2 Proposition 172 Sales Tax 604,703 585,168 592,250 581,645 593,278
3 Police Officer Training 52,908 9,546 10,000 10,000
4 Police Athletic League 86,319 72,103 64,000 50,000
5 Cigarette Tax
6 Homeowner Property Tax Relief 204,032 203,804 208,000 193,062 195,000
7 Trailer Coach In- Lieu Fee
8 Off Highway License Fee 2,027 2,230 2,200 2,600 2,600
9 State- Mandated Prog. Reimbursement 442 42 88,451 88,000
10 Recreation Program Grants 770,183 783,571 525,000 543,000 541,000
11 State Booking Fee Reimbursements 284,417 284,417 284,412
12 State " ERAF" Return
13 Contribution for Streets 31,831 27,831 31,000 31,000 29,830
14 Fair Oaks Information and Referral 60,688 73,408 58,726 58,726 58,726
15 Fair Oaks Center Contribution/ Grants 321,712 302,847 270,881 270,881 270,881
16 Paramedic Program Contribution 200,996 202,185 200,996 200,996 241,000
17 Port of Redwood City Contribution 290,088 354,732 573,520 573,520 627,000
Total Rev. from Other Agencies 7,329,382 6,406,005 6,977,702 7,470,293 3,275,315
22
FY 2005/ 06 Revenue Estimates
2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET
G CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES
1 Zoning Fees 62,670 76,395 100,000 80,000 100,000
2 Sale of Maps and Publications 1,335 5,423 500 9,400 9,400
3 Fire Services 303,275 274,335 297,100 297,100 263,300
4 Fire Inspection Fees 1,289 2,164 2,000 2,500 2,500
5 Police Services 351,109 270,297 238,000 260,000 260,000
6 Plan Checking Fees 308,451 334,048 432,500 400,000 460,000
7 Weed Abatement Charges
8 Garbage Collection Franchise Fees 1,501,001 1,531,001 1,541,000 1,541,000 1,579,525
9 Engineering and Subdivision Fees 300,819 319,739 310,000 285,000 240,000
10 Accounting Services 58,668 82,475 74,000 74,000 74,000
11 Miscellaneous Fees and Charges 28,504 35,988 20,500 7,000 28,000
12 Senior Advisory Council Reimbursement 237,954 224,879 232,000 273,000 273,000
13 Reimbursable Planning Contracts 822,146 447,066 450,000 400,000 325,000
14 SBSA Landscape Maintenance Services 70,353 71,880 85,309 83,178 90,384
15 Shopping Cart Collection Fees 121,333 79,084 85,000 85,000 85,000
16 Planning Cost Recovery 175,483 230,000 350,000
Total Charges for Current Svcs. 4,168,907 3,930,257 3,867,909 4,027,178 4,140,109
H OTHER REVENUE
1 Sale of Property 4,700 25,000
Right of Way Compensation
2 Water Fund 1,265,062 1,264,292 1,570,950 1,570,950 1,739,160
3 Sewer Fund 898,187 920,833 1,054,457 1,054,457 1,122,008
4 Parking Fund 43,846 42,703 36,527 36,527 40,732
5 Interdepartmental Operating Transfers 1,925,922 1,860,019 2,198,520 2,198,520 2,288,117
6 Other Revenues 1,328,527 1,495,135 1,137,642 1,546,686 1,322,000
Total Other Revenue 5,461,544 5,587,682 5,998,096 6,432,140 6,512,017
I LIBRARY REVENUE
1 Library Grants 771,460 444,701 200,000 371,719 364,077
2 Fair Oaks Library Contribution 167,402 165,446 170,000 170,000 201,000
3 Library Services 157,797 198,712 181,100 181,850 160,000
Total Library Revenue 1,096,659 808,859 551,100 723,569 725,077
J RECREATION REVENUES
1 Recreation Program Fees 1,373,103 1,582,784 1,557,913 1,733,825 1,750,900
Total General Fund Revenues 61,299,738 62,427,739 61,678,866 67,016,579 66,548,860
23
FY 2005/ 06 Revenue Estimates
2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
A TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
1 Total Traffic Fines 306,318 282,481 270,500 327,907 327,900
B GAS TAX OPERATING FUNDS
1 Gas Tax Section 2107 and 2017.5 638,626 641,482 626,690 649,669 656,170
2 Gas Tax Section 2105 475,851 475,617 471,880 484,503 489,350
3 Gas Tax Section 2106 363,648 357,474 354,620 361,868 365,490
4 Gas Tax Interest Income 4,096 ( 4,774) 1,500
5 Hauling Fees and Miscellaneous 14,678 123,607 15,000 17,493 30,000
Total Gas Tax Funds 1,496,899 1,593,406 1,468,190 1,515,033 1,541,010
C MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
1 GID 1- 64 562,402 563,621 553,860 578,884 575,519
2 Seaport Centre 317,940 290,702 281,656 283,000 187,000
3 Seaport Boulevard 153,587 159,788 164,491 165,000 219,000
4 Lido Area 172,109 172,734 180,623 170,840 175,281
Total Maintenance District Funds 1,206,038 1,186,845 1,180,630 1,197,724 1,156,800
D FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS
1 Federal Law Enforcement Grants 149,268 44,937 19,147
2 Interest Income 6,679 2,142 981
Total Federal Law Enforce. Grants 155,947 47,079 20,128
E CATEGORICAL GRANTS
1 Community Development Block Grant 1,399,000 1,347,282 1,347,282 1,278,339
2 Program Income 77,044 300,000 118,855 300,000
3 Other Grants 208,037 3,755
Total Grants 1,684,081 3,755 1,647,282 1,466,137 1,578,339
F REDEVELOPMENT HOUSING FUND
1 Property Tax Increment 2,529,494 1,808,380 1,656,800 1,646,859 1,719,097
2 Interest Income 118,059 137,270 76,458 77,382 29,373
3 Miscellaneous Revenue 27,975 124,632 803,582
Total Redevelopment Housing Fund 2,675,528 2,070,282 1,733,258 2,527,823 1,748,470
G REDEVELOPMENT GENERAL FUND
1 Property Tax Increment 5,148,365 6,195,168 6,052,026 6,696,586 6,876,389
2 Interest Income 517,554 615,873 426,106 645,029 565,467
3 Other Revenues 34,973,967 8,522,914
Total Redevelopment General Fund 5,665,919 41,785,008 6,478,132 15,864,529 7,441,856
Subtotal All Redev. Agency Funds 8,341,447 43,855,290 8,211,390 18,392,352 9,190,326
H S. L. E. S. F. GRANT
1 S. L. E. S. F. Grant 151,555 113,212 100,000 110,267 102,763
2 Interest Income 1,484 745 897
Total S. L. E. S. F Grant 153,039 113,957 100,000 111,164 102,763
Total Special Revenue Funds 13,343,769 47,082,813 12,877,992 23,030,445 13,897,138
24
FY 2005/ 06 Revenue Estimates
2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
1 Utility Users Tax 7,009,817 7,497,057 7,140,700 7,500,000 7,650,000
2 Other Revenues 1,991,154 14,166,076
3 Interest Income 839,854 429,094 233,625 441,584 375,695
Total Capital Projects Fund 9,840,825 22,092,227 7,374,325 7,941,584 8,025,695
B TRANSPORTATION FUND
1 Measure ' A' Funds 1,047,081 1,051,894 1,074,600 1,118,244 1,140,610
2 C/ CAG Reimbursement 223,700
3 Interest Income 58,231 48,840 30,231 30,231 17,000
Total Measure ' A' Funds 1,105,312 1,100,734 1,104,831 1,372,175 1,157,610
C PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTION FUND
1 Series - B- Interest Income 2,132 1,394
D GID 1- 64 FACILITIES FEES FUND
1 Interest Income 599,782 316,742 150,000 256,000 259,000
2 Other Revenues 90,000
Total GID- 64 Facilities Fees Fund 689,782 316,742 150,000 256,000 259,000
E CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FUND
1 Gas Tax - FAU and C/ CAG Grants 1,955,329
2 Transportation Grants 1,391,898 1,045,459 454,700
3 Other Grants 39,166
Total Transportation Construction Grants Fund 1,431,064 3,000,788 454,700
F TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEES FUND
1 Interest Income 155,177 128,390 97,400 113,594 130,000
G TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES FUND
1 Traffic Impact Fees 13,514 188,126 792,000 116,092 340,000
2 Interest Income 255,288 102,157 140,300 105,000 102,000
Total Traffic Impact Fees Fund 268,802 290,283 932,300 221,092 442,000
H ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOND PROCEEDS AND INTEREST INCOME
1 Redwood Shores Traffic Improvement 152,355 433,662
2 Pacific Shores Traffic Improvement 24,787 6,695
Total Assessment District Fund 177,142 440,357
I TAX ALLOCATION BONDS FUND
1 RDA Tax Allocation Issuance 46
Total Capital Project Funds 13,670,236 27,370,961 9,658,856 9,904,445 10,469,005
25
FY 2005/ 06 Revenue Estimates
2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
A GID 1- 64 FACILITIES BONDS
1 Assessments 1,394,704 1,348,692 1,354,927 1,354,927 1,344,776
2 Interest Income 8,273 6,466
Total GID 1- 64 Facilities Fund 1,402,977 1,355,158 1,354,927 1,354,927 1,344,776
B GID 1- 64 RECLAMATION BONDS
1 Assessments 675,618 647,379 644,815 644,815 641,014
2 Interest Income 13,124 10,407 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total GID 1- 64 Reclamation Fund 688,742 657,786 654,815 654,815 651,014
C PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
1 Rental Income 2,169,534 1,947,203 2,292,151 2,292,151 2,290,182
2 Interest Income 149,887 146,351 80,000 80,000 80,000
Total Public Finance Authority 2,319,421 2,093,554 2,372,151 2,372,151 2,370,182
D 1997 TAX ALLOCATION BONDS
1 Interest Income 95,667 95,525 95,000 95,000 95,000
E CITY HALL C. O. P. S.
1 Interest Income 256,640 215,050 338,250 338,250 349,775
F SEAPORT CONSOLIDATED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
1 Assessments 1,339,321 1,307,481 1,297,848 1,297,848 1,297,848
2 Interest Income 53,729 22,214 16,000 16,000 16,000
Total Sprt. Cons. Assess. Distr. Fund 1,393,050 1,329,695 1,313,848 1,313,848 1,313,848
G PACIFIC SHORES ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
1 Assessments 2,046,502 2,083,383 2,101,222 2,101,222 2,101,222
2 Interest Income 64,945 35,414 25,000 25,000 25,000
Total Pac. Shor. Assess. Distr. Fund 2,111,447 2,118,797 2,126,222 2,126,222 2,126,222
H REDWOOD SHORES TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
1 Assessments 406,585 1,006,169 1,005,895 1,005,895 1,005,895
2 Interest Income 10,561 16,962 12,000 12,000 12,000
Total RWS Assess. Distr. Fund 417,146 1,023,131 1,017,895 1,017,895 1,017,895
Total Debt Service Funds 8,685,090 8,888,696 9,273,108 9,273,108 9,268,712
26
FY 2005/ 06 Revenue Estimates
2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
A PARKING
1 Property Tax 25,980 26,095 23,200 24,509 25,000
2 Parking Fees 457,536 412,520 405,851 452,579 452,579
3 Interest Income 24,647 23,714 17,931 24,151 29,512
Total Parking Fund 508,163 462,329 446,982 501,239 507,091
B WATER UTILITY
1 Interest Income 612,293 385,887 55,340 422,646 597,100
2 Facility Fees 239,378 345,894 250,000 281,021 250,000
3 Connection Fees 48,826 124,497 90,000 77,235 120,000
4 Basic Service Charges 4,870,719 5,249,445 5,200,000 5,441,506 5,837,000
5 Water Sales 8,631,103 10,509,202 11,850,000 11,667,016 13,072,000
6 Miscellaneous Revenues 79,551 123,837 65,000 81,114 45,000
Total Water Utility Fund 14,481,870 16,738,762 17,510,340 17,970,538 19,921,100
C SEWER UTILITY
1 Interest Income 151,955 111,292 51,173 51,173 45,748
2 Facility Fees 20,459 38,594 50,000 152,500 75,000
3 Sewer Connection Fees 10,200 14,550 30,000 21,150 45,000
4 Sewer Service Charges 9,086,598 8,305,910 9,849,719 9,005,574 10,447,055
5 Fair Oaks District 9,309 1,721,261 1,492,565 1,816,058 1,583,082
6 Emerald Lakes Area 161,460 348,290 218,160 450,000 230,813
7 Oak Knoll Area 21,840 47,611 29,808 55,000 31,537
8 Woodside Sewer Service 20,013 20,224 22,937 20,500 24,267
9 Miscellaneous Revenues 11,743 71,771 23,000 53,571 30,000
Total Sewer Utility Fund 9,493,577 10,679,503 11,767,362 11,625,526 12,512,502
Total Enterprise Funds 24,483,610 27,880,594 29,724,684 30,097,303 32,940,693
27
FY 2005/ 06 Revenue Estimates
2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2004- 05 2005- 06
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
A EQUIPMENT SEVICES FUND
1 Internal Service Charges 2,865,879 2,491,414 2,430,928 2,430,928 2,465,099
2 Interest Income 225,563 181,712 130,478 144,212 133,966
3 Miscellaneous 33,773 106,622 38,160 119,201 119,201
Total Equipment Services Fund 3,125,215 2,779,748 2,599,566 2,694,341 2,718,266
B INTERNAL SERVICES FUND
1 Facility Maintenance Services 1,411,841 1,400,266 1,219,528 1,219,528 1,213,655
2 Facility Custodial Services 1,180,459 1,161,064 1,132,568 1,132,568 1,310,562
3 Central Services 260,048 179,984 120,483 120,483 126,504
4 Information Technology ( IT) Services 1,073,100 1,088,271 1,089,020 1,089,020 1,189,425
5 IT Services - Other Agencies 477,861 527,529 589,633 589,633 620,374
6 Telephone Services 414,411 396,775 370,657 370,657 372,730
7 Communication Services 1,726,612 1,858,593 2,032,084 2,032,084 2,119,066
8 Fire Equipment Replacement 88,771 88,771 88,771 88,771 88,771
9 Miscellaneous ( 1,117) ( 29,883)
10 Interest Income 89,362 59,626 10,500 32,500 35,000
Total Internal Services Fund 6,721,348 6,730,996 6,653,244 6,675,244 7,076,087
C WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND
1 Workers' Comp. Insurance Charges 972,669 1,021,995 2,216,991 2,216,991 2,368,438
2 Charges to Port 16,684 18,401 34,845 34,845 37,283
3 Interest Income 155,430 125,045 93,502 93,502 93,502
Total Worker's Comp. Ins. Fund 1,144,783 1,165,441 2,345,338 2,345,338 2,499,223
D GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE FUND
1 General Liability Insurance Charges 1,003,835 915,296 1,260,020 1,260,020 1,274,507
2 Insurance Pool Dividends 990 5,310
3 Interest Income 130,625 55,506 58,797 58,797 58,797
Total General Liability Insurance Fund 1,135,450 976,112 1,318,817 1,318,817 1,333,304
Total Internal Service Funds 12,126,796 11,652,297 12,916,965 13,033,740 13,626,880
TOTAL REVENUES ALL FUNDS 133,609,239 185,303,100 136,130,471 152,355,620 146,751,288
( 1) One time only Revenues
28
City Clerk Department
Performance Measures FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
29
Performance Measures
As a City Manager who actively supports performance measurement efforts, I am often asked what performance
measurement is and why expend resources on it. In response to the former, one of the best definitions I have
come across is one developed by the International City/ County Manager Association’s Center for Performance
Measurement. It defines performance measurement as:
A process of systematically collecting data about an organization’s efficiency and
effectiveness in delivering a program or service
As to why this is an important effort, I strongly believe in determining whether we are serving the public well by
doing a “ great job.” Performance measures can help us define “ great job” and tell us whether or not we are
performing well. Even more importantly, it can help us know if we are improving, another goal I constantly strive
for. In addition, I subscribe to the theory that “ what gets measured gets done” and believe that if you don’t
measure, you cannot see and therefore reward success. If you are not rewarding success, you might even be
rewarding failure, and you certainly are not learning from and correcting those failures.
Performance measures are also an important management and communication tool. They become an instrument
for planning and decision- making, a method to define and identify success and needed improvements, and a
system to serve as an indicator of items for additional study. Some of the benefits include:
• Meeting demands for external accountability
• Instilling public confidence
• Demonstrating success
• Providing early detection of possible problems
• Helping prioritize and direct resources
In addition, we believe that this program demonstrates that Redwood City is:
• Promoting continuous improvement and innovation
• Open to a review of our methods
• Willing to share with others
• Seeking best practices
While performance measures can help us evaluate our programs and services, it cannot tell us why something is
or is not working well. Therefore, it is not a substitute for good management and analysis. The analytical abilities
of our employees remain important and I greatly value the high caliber of the professionals involved in this
process in Redwood City.
In summary, using performance measures can help us set goals, evaluate programs, make better budget
decisions, respond better to citizen inquiries, and help us revise goals as necessary. It is an on- going, iterative
process. For these reasons, every department except one has joined in this effort and included performance
measures. Many of the measures are updated measures used previously, but most departments have also
added new measures to help them evaluate their most current work efforts. What is even more exciting is that
many departments have even more ideas about measures they would like to use in the future and they are
currently exploring ways to make those measures meaningful.
City Clerk Department
Performance Measures FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
30
Definition
The total number of hours spent in Council meetings and the resulting number of actions taken by the Council by
quarter. Actions include approval of ordinances, resolutions, minute orders, and Council- approved agreements.
Analysis
In 2004, the City Council met for a total of 90.75 hours, with an average regular meeting length of 3.025 hours.
This is compared with 2003, when City Council met for a total of 118.75 hours, with an average meeting length of
3.4 hours.
The number of Council- approved actions had a corresponding decrease from 458 actions in 2003 to 333 in 2004,
a 27% drop. The reduced number of Council- approved actions is, in part, a result of improved processing
procedures for certain professional services agreements. The City Council now allows administrative approval of
professional services agreements under $ 60,000. In 2003 the City Clerk’s office processed 43 City Manager-approved
agreements, and in 2004 a total of 61.
The City Clerk department averaged 23.4 hours supporting each meeting including preparing and disseminating
Agendas, preparing Official Minutes, and staffing meetings. This corresponds to an average cost of $ 1,099 per
meeting, which has been reduced from $ 1,463 per meeting the preceding year.
Next Steps
Continue to serve the City Council in a timely and effective manner in processing both Council actions and
administratively approved professional services agreements.
0
50
100
150
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
20032003 2003 20032004 2004 20042004
2003- 2004 Council Meeting Hours and Resulting
Actions by Quarter
# of Hours Met Resulting # of Actions
City Clerk Department
Performance Measures FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
31
Definition
Number of staff members in the City Clerk department per 100,000 population. In 2004, the Redwood City
Clerk’s Department proactively began conducting a survey targeting jurisdictions with populations between
70,000 and 100,000 people. Each year approximately 30 communities have responded to the survey, providing
enough data to begin tracking this performance measure.
Analysis
With 3.5 FTE’s in the 05/ 06 budget, Redwood City is currently staffed at 4.61 per 100,000 population, below the
median of 4.89. This is comparable with the 04/ 05 budget, when the City Clerk department’s 3.5 FTE’s charted
at 4.61 per 100,000 population, below the median of 4.71.
City Clerk departments vary widely in the structure of the department. Quite an array of titles, services, and
staffing arrangements are apparent. However, one common theme seems to be a frequent use of part- time or
shared positions.
Next Steps
Continue to evaluate staffing arrangements based on service level and maintain a staffing level below the
median of surveyed cities while continuing to provide existing services levels to the City Council and Citizens.
Staffing per 100,000 Population
5.36
4.87
5.58
4.61
3.244
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Burlingame
Menlo Park
Mountain View
Redwood City
San Mateo
Median staffing per
100,000 population
for 05/ 06 was 4.89
City Clerk Department
Performance Measures FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
32
Definition
The ratio of the number of Boards, Committees, and Commissions applications received compared to available
seats on a calendar- year basis.
Analysis
Odd- numbered years have fewer available seats than even- numbered years. In 2001, 16 applications were
received for 4 available seats and in 2003, 42 applications were received for 10 open seats.
In 2000, the recruitment resulted in 64 applications for 30 available seats. In 2002, 136 applications were
received for 34 seats, representing an almost 100% increase when adjusted for the number of available seats; in
2004, 58 applications were received for 27 open seats.
Significant attention has been given to raising the number of applications for City Boards, Committees, and
Commissions over the past few years. We attribute the increase in applications to several factors including
residential utility bill ad inserts ( began in 2002), the judicious use of newspaper advertising, City Clerk staff
availability to answer questions/ provide support to applicants, programs such as PACT and Community Builders,
and press releases, direct mailings, targeted emails, and electronic newsletter articles from the Public
Communications Manager.
Service- level improvements continued in 2004, when we successfully collaborated with the I. T. Department and
the Public Communications Manager to develop a web- based fill- in form. We have successfully provided an
electronic form for several years, a pdf- format form for the past two years, and are pleased to report strong
positive feedback from the applicants who have used the new web- based fill- in form.
In 2004, we worked closely with Council to revise the overall recruitment process ( revise applications, set a
recruitment timeline, and review interview specifications), and are pleased to report that we have just concluded
the 2005 recruitment period in record time with all appointments set to be completed prior to those terms expiring.
A survey conducted of the 2005 applicant pool ( 24 respondents) showed that one- third, or 8 people, learned
about the recruitment by seeing the utility bill ad, 6 saw the posting on the City website, 9 listed “ other” sources
( such as: heard from a friend, picked up an application at public counters, neighborhood newsletter), and 3 had
no response.
Next Steps
Continue increased notice through electronic means such as web- posting and mass email ( to lists of established
interest only) but investigate possible reasons for the recent decrease in the ratio of applications to available
seats.
2.13
4.00 4.00 4.20
2.15
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Ratio of Applications to Available Seats
City Clerk Department
Performance Measures FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
33
Definition
Number of honorary proclamations produced in response to City Council needs on an annual basis.
Analysis
We have fulfilled an increase in the number of ceremonial proclamations produced at the request of City Council
and presented to citizens and groups that have brought benefit to the quality of life in Redwood City. As shown
on the chart:
• 88 proclamations were prepared in 2002
• 97 proclamations were prepared in 2003
• 117 proclamations were prepared in 2004
Honorary proclamations are an important goodwill effort on behalf of Council, recognizing those individual citizens
and groups who have contributed to the improvement of quality of life in Redwood City. Work involved in
processing the request includes generating research material on the honoree, writing the proclamation, and
producing the ceremonial presentation copy.
Next Steps
Continue to increase this number in response to Council needs.
Number of Proclamations Processed Per Year
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2002 2003 2004
City Manager Department
Performance Measures FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
34
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Sense of Community 2003
Somewhat Strong 48.4 40.2 39.3 54.2 42.2 57.4
Very Strong 22.6 18.9 24.8 5.0 17.7 13.8
1 2 3 4 5 6
Neighborhoods
1 Redwood Village and Friendly Acres Neighborhood Associations
2 Stambaugh- Heller and Centennial Neighborhood Associations
3 Roosevelt Neighborhood Association South of Jefferson and
Woodside Plaza, Palm Park and Redwood Oaks Neighborhood
Associations
4 Oak Knoll/ Edgewood Park Neighborhood Association East of
Alameda de las Pulgas and Roosevelt Neighborhood Association
North of Jefferson
5 Oak Knoll/ Edgewood Park Neighborhood Association West of
Alameda de las Pulgas and Farm Hill Neighborhood Association
6 Redwood Shores Neighborhood Associations
Definition
Redwood City conducts a biennial public opinion research telephone survey regarding City services. The
Neighborhood Services Survey was last conducted in 2003 and there were 600 respondents. One of the
questions asked in the survey was “ Would you say that you feel a very strong, somewhat strong, somewhat weak,
very weak, or no sense of community at all?” In 2003, the survey collection was done by neighborhoods in
Redwood City.
Analysis
For the first time in the Neighborhood Services Survey, residents were asked to indicate their feelings regarding
the sense of community in Redwood City. This new question in the survey will help us track a sense of
community and determine if the City’s community- building efforts are having an impact in the community. We will
also expand on this area of questioning to learn more in the future. Overall, 62% of the respondents felt there is a
“ Very” or “ Somewhat” strong sense of community. However, you can see a few significant differences between
responses from different neighborhoods. Recently, Council identified Community Building as being an
overarching priority. Community Building is one of the primary objectives of the City Manager’s Department, and
programs such as Community Builders and Partnership Academy for Community Teamwork ( PACT) seek to
increase these percentages, which will be tracked over time.
Neighborhoods
City Manager Department
Performance Measures FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
35
Next Steps
Increase the percentage of the respondents who feel a “ Very” or “ Somewhat” strong sense of community by 3%
to 65% from the 2003 percentage of 62%. The City Manager’s Department will continue community- building
activities such as budget input meetings, Council priority input meetings, and PACT, and we expect to see an
increase in the ratings. The biennial survey was expected in FY 2004/ 2005, but due to budget constraints, the
survey was not completed. We believe that it is important enough to continue, and expect to conduct a new
survey in FY 2006/ 07.
City Manager Department
Performance Measures FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
36
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
City Manager's Office
Customer Service Survey 1998- 2004
Good
Excellent
Definition
Customer Service Survey for the City Manager’s office for the period of 1998 through 2004. The survey is sent
annually to employees that our office works with most frequently. The rating system in the survey was slightly
improved in 2000; therefore, the excellent/ good ratings are combined in 1998 and 1999, as a more specific
breakdown is not available.
Analysis
In 2004, the survey was sent to 78 employees and 29 were returned, which is a 37% return rate. Respondents
gave the department 99.2% “ excellent” or “ good” ratings, the Department’s highest rating ever. Over the last five
years, the City Manager’s office has significantly improved in providing excellent customer service to all
departments. It is apparent that in 1998 and 1999 there were some customer services issues. However, in the
year 2000, we hired new staff, implemented customer service standards, and changes were made to the office
configuration that made it friendlier and more welcoming. During 2002, we also used technology to make the
front desk more efficient and able to produce more, which is another factor why the overall “ excellent/ good”
ratings have increased.
Next Steps
The City Manager’s office feels that the current overall rating of 99.2% “ excellent/ good” is an admirable rating.
The office is committed to providing superior customer service and will focus on maintaining a rating of 95% or
above in the coming year. Staff will continue to ask for feedback and welcomes comments from City employees.
City Manager Department
Performance Measures FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
37
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fall 2002 Spring 2003 Fall 2003 Spring 2004 Fall 2004
PACT Overall Ratings 2002- 2004
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Definition
The overall ratings for the Partnership Academy for Community Teamwork ( PACT) program from inception in
2002. The above shows the percentages of participants who rated the PACT program as excellent or good. The
PACT program has been offered in both the spring and fall since fall of 2002. Participants visit each department
during the nine week program and are asked to fill out an evaluation form to rate the overall program at the final
session.
Analysis
By the end of FY 2004/ 05, 214 community members are expected to have graduated from PACT. At the end of
each nine- week program, participants are asked to evaluate the overall program. Of the first PACT graduates,
100% of participants rated the program as ‘ excellent.’ In the spring 2003 session the rating took a small dip with
83% indicating that the program was ‘ excellent,’ 13% rating it ‘ good,’ and 4% indicating that the program was
‘ fair.’ The evaluations went back up in the fall of 2003 and 100% of the graduates rated the program as
‘ excellent.’ Here are a few comments from various evaluations:
" I didn't realize what it takes to run the City's services – and how enthusiastic the employees are."
" I'm amazed at how much I took for granted, in what the City does."
" It made me proud to live here – I feel like it's not just a city, it's MY city."
Next Steps
Depending on funding levels, the City Manager’s office will continue to staff this program to provide this service to
similar numbers of participants. With PACT’s success, we are committed to continuing the program and
continually improving it each time. We will strive to receive a 94% ( Excellent) or above rating from the
participants and hope to offer a “ PACT” program dedicated only to youth in spring 2006.
City Manager Department
Performance Measures FY 2005/ 06 Budget Amendments
38
Community Building
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
FY 01- 02 FY 02- 03 FY 03- 04 FY 04- 05
0
20
40
60
80
100
Total Attendance Total Meetings
Definition
This indicator tracks the total number of community- building meetings sponsored by the City Manager’s office
each fiscal year and the total attendance at those meetings. Total attendance accounts for those who attend
each meeting, which means that they are necessarily unique contacts.
Analysis
The City Manager’s Office is dedicated to building community and has sponsored community- building events
that offer a dialogue forma