CITY OF REDWOOD CITY

REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA

ADOPTED BUDGET

2002- 2004

CITY COUNCIL

Richard S. Claire, Mayor

Jeff Ira, Vice Mayor

Jim Hartnett, Council Member

Diane Howard, Council Member

Colleen Jordan, Council Member

Barbara Pierce, Council Member

Ira Ruskin, 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, Gloria del Rosario, Kyi Khin, Senior Accountants

Jill Greenhorn, Accountant

Sandy Jennings, Administrative Assistant

This page left blank intentionally

CITY OF REDWOOD CITY

DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS

City Manager................................................................................... Edward Everett

City Attorney................................................................................... Stan Yamamoto

City Clerk ........................................................................................ Patricia Howe

Community Development Services ................................................ Bruce Liedstrand

Finance and Financial Planning ...................................................... Brian Ponty

Fire .................................................................................................. Carlos Bolanos ( Acting Fire Chief)

Human Resources ........................................................................... Maria Rivera- Peña

Library............................................................................................. Yvonne Chen

Parks, Recreation and Community Services ................................... Corinne Centeno

Police .............................................................................................. Carlos Bolanos

Public Works Services .................................................................... Peter Ingram

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ADOPTED BUDGET – 2002- 2004

Introduction Page

Budget Message .................................................................................................................... i

Five Year Financial Projections .......................................................................................... vii

General Fund Five Year Projection - 2003/ 04 through 2006/ 07 ....................................... viii

Overview

Budget Summary:

Operating Budget Summary by Department ....................................... Budget Summary - 1

Analysis of Budget by Fund ................................................................ Budget Summary - 2

Budget Summary by Department by Fund .......................................... Budget Summary - 6

General Fund Graphs .......................................................................... Budget Summary - 10

Revenue Estimates 2002/ 03 and 2003/ 04 ........................................... Budget Summary - 17

Property Tax ....................................................................................... Budget Summary - 22

Utility Users’ Tax ............................................................................... Budget Summary - 23

Sales Tax............................................................................................. Budget Summary - 24

Appropriation Limit ............................................................................ Budget Summary - 25

Personnel Allocation by Department .................................................. Budget Summary - 26

City Council Priorities ........................................................................ City Council Priorities - 1

Neighborhood Services Survey ............................................... Neighborhood Services Survey - 1

Performance Measures........................................................................ Performance Measures - 1

Operating Programs - Budget by Departments

City Council

Department Overview................................................................................. City Council - 2

Objectives ................................................................................................... City Council - 3

Sub- Programs ............................................................................................. City Council - 4

City Manager

Department Summary............................................................................... City Manager - 2

Department Overview............................................................................... City Manager - 3

Objectives ................................................................................................. City Manager - 4

Sub- Programs ........................................................................................... City Manager - 5

City Attorney

Department Overview............................................................................... City Attorney - 2

Objectives ................................................................................................. City Attorney - 3

Sub- Programs ........................................................................................... City Attorney - 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ADOPTED BUDGET – 2002- 2004

Operating Programs - Budget by Departments ( Continued)

City Clerk

Department Summary.................................................................................... City Clerk - 2

Department Overview.................................................................................... City Clerk - 3

Objectives ...................................................................................................... City Clerk - 4

Sub- Programs ................................................................................................ City Clerk - 5

Community Development Services

Department Summary........................................................................................... CDS - 2

Department Overview........................................................................................... CDS - 3

Objectives ............................................................................................................. CDS - 4

Performance Measures.......................................................................................... CDS - 6

Sub- Programs ...................................................................................................... CDS - 12

Finance

Department Summary....................................................................................... Finance - 2

Department Overview....................................................................................... Finance - 3

Objectives ......................................................................................................... Finance - 4

Performance Measures...................................................................................... Finance - 5

Sub- Programs ................................................................................................... Finance - 8

Fire

Department Summary............................................................................................ Fire - 2

Department Overview............................................................................................ Fire - 3

Objectives .............................................................................................................. Fire - 4

Performance Measures........................................................................................... Fire - 5

Sub- Programs ........................................................................................................ Fire - 9

Human Resources

Department Summary......................................................................... Human Resources - 2

Department Overview......................................................................... Human Resources - 3

Objectives ........................................................................................... Human Resources - 4

Performance Measures........................................................................ Human Resources - 5

Sub- Programs ..................................................................................... Human Resources - 9

Library

Department Summary........................................................................................ Library - 2

Department Overview........................................................................................ Library - 3

Objectives .......................................................................................................... Library - 4

Performance Measures....................................................................................... Library - 6

Sub- Programs .................................................................................................. Library - 12

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ADOPTED BUDGET – 2002- 2004

Operating Programs - Budget by Departments ( Continued)

Parks, Recreation and Community Services

Department Summary.......................................................................................... PRCS - 2

Department Overview.......................................................................................... PRCS - 3

Objectives ............................................................................................................ PRCS - 4

Performance Measures......................................................................................... PRCS - 6

Sub- Programs .................................................................................................... PRCS - 10

Police

Department Summary......................................................................................... Police - 2

Department Overview......................................................................................... Police - 3

Objectives ........................................................................................................... Police - 4

Performance Measures........................................................................................ Police - 6

Sub- Programs .................................................................................................... Police - 11

Public Works Services

Department Summary........................................................................................... PWS - 2

Department Overview........................................................................................... PWS - 3

Objectives ............................................................................................................. PWS - 5

Performance Measures.......................................................................................... PWS - 7

Sub- Programs ..................................................................................................... PWS - 10

General Budget Information

Explanation of Budget Process .............................................. General Budget Information - 2

Fund Descriptions .................................................................. General Budget Information - 2

Fixed Assets Detail by Department ....................................... General Budget Information - 6

Schedule of Interfund Transfers ............................................ General Budget Information - 8

Capital Improvement Projects

Capital Improvements by Funding Source ............................................................ CIP - 2

This page left blank intentionally

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

i

City of

Redwood City’s

values

June 20, 2002

Honorable Mayor Claire and Members of the City Council:

ECONOMIC OVERVIEW

No clever lead- in this year nor humorous metaphors to describe the economy. We are now dealing with the

most challenging set of financial circumstances in almost a decade and, depending upon what the state

government does, our situation could worsen. Last year at this time staff cautioned Council that the economic

expansion appeared to be waning and that the leaner times were on the horizon. While staff underestimated the

magnitude of the decline, the slowdown we anticipated did materialize. The nationwide recession was felt

particularly hard in the technology sector of our economy. Given our location and dependence on revenues that

are generated by business activity ( sales taxes and transient occupancy taxes), we are experiencing first- hand

the effects of this slowdown. Council is to be commended for the forbearance you exercised and for planning

for the proverbial “ rainy day.” Although we are experiencing significant erosion in several major revenues, we

are nonetheless well positioned with our reserves to “ ride out the storm.” Unlike the policy makers in

Sacramento, our Council had the good sense not to expand on- going commitments during a very robust period

of economic expansion.

Caution, however, must still be exercised in making new, long- term financial commitments until we have seen

an unmistakable revival in our key revenues. Although the governor’s proposed budget does not appear to

have a draconian impact on cities at this point, we anticipate a long, hot summer of budget deficits in

Sacramento. The final outcome of the State financial disaster will likely not be known until July or August.

Also, the prevailing opinion is that the State will take more drastic actions after the November gubernatorial

election and that these actions will more severely impact local government.

Overall, I am very proud of the efforts put forth by staff to present you with a spending plan that provides for

the continuation of existing services and even provides for a small expansion to respond to Council’s priorities.

Included in each department’s budget section is an update of that department’s performance measures and

benchmarking. Please read these sections carefully and ask staff questions as you see fit. We continue to

believe that performance measurements and benchmarking are reliable tools for analyzing the efficiency and

effectiveness with which we deliver our services. They also provide the Council with yet another tool for

oversight. Please see the section “ Performance Measures” for further information.

GENERAL FUND

Revenues

General fund revenues are expected to increase modestly to $ 62.7 million ( or 2.1%) in FY 2002/ 03 from $ 61.4

million in FY 2001/ 02. In FY 2003/ 04 revenues are expected to increase 5.9% to $ 66.4 million.

The major assumptions behind these revenue estimates are:

§ No additional cuts from the State other than the $ 335,000 that is included in the governor’s May

revised proposed budget.

§ The Council will approve an increase in parking citations from $ 15 to $ 20 in FY 2002/ 03.

§ Sales tax will recover and that there is no further erosion in our business- to- business sales tax

revenues.

" Our purpose

is to serve the

people who

live, work in,

and visit

Redwood

City."

" Wander

where there is

no path."

“ We take our

work seriously

but ourselves

lightly.”

ii

§ Property tax revenues will increase slightly as the result of several offsetting factors.

In FY 2003/ 04 we have increased our transient occupancy tax revenues by $ 460,000 based on the assumption

that the Council will support and the voters will approve an initiative that increases the transient occupancy tax

rate from 8% to 10%. Should this increase not materialize, the projected deficit in FY 2003/ 04 will increase

by $ 460,000.

City of Redwood City

Sales Tax by Economic Category

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

4Q99 1Q00 2Q00 3Q00 4Q00 1Q01 2Q01 3Q01 4Q01

Business- to- Business

Transportation

General Retail

Food Products

Construction

Miscellaneous

Expenditures

Department heads were directed to not submit requests for additional staff nor to expand programs in each of

the next two years unless completely supported by additional revenues or grants. The only exception to this

directive has been the addition of one Planner in the general fund to respond to the Council’s priority for an

expansion of “ advance planning.” All other increases in employee costs are due to honoring existing

commitments to employee groups through various memorandums of understanding.

We have also relied upon $ 420,000 in “ vacancy factors” in Police, Library, and Parks and Recreation in FY

2002/ 03. The vacancy factor was initiated in the early 1990s as a way to reduce budgets without actually

reducing positions. It is merely an estimate of the savings departments normally realize due to on- going

turnover that they experience. Departments have not been directed to delay hiring, which would impair service

levels.

With respect to supplies and services, departments were advised not to increase these budgets unless required to

do so because of contractual arrangements or charges imposed by other agencies. Examples of significant

increases in supplies and services are retiree health premiums (+ $ 206,000 or 41%) and the animal control

contract with the County of San Mateo (+ $ 90,000 or 23%).

There are no planned reductions in services. Since we have not increased staff and not increased supplies and

services ( except where legally required or absolutely necessary), the organization will have to confront the

challenge of meeting an ever increasing demand for services without additional resources.

Overall, expenditures in FY 2002/ 03 are $ 60.7 million and have increased 7.7% from FY 2001/ 02. In FY

2003/ 04 expenditures are anticipated to increase 7.9% to $ 65.5 million. The vast majority of these increases is

driven by increased employee costs and increased costs like those mentioned in the previous paragraph.

The only substantive programmatic recommended increase is:

$ 89,255 One Associate Planner is included in the general fund budget to provide part of the staff support

necessary to begin to do Advance Planning ( an additional Senior Planner to further assist the

Advance Planning effort is also included in the FY 2002/ 03 Redevelopment Agency budget).

City of

Redwood City's

values

" We are

directly

responsible for

our individual

behaviors and

accountable for

being fully

committed to

the success of

the teams in

which we

participate."

" Redwood City

is committed to

continuous

improvement

and constant

learning."

iii

Transfers

Included are the " normal" transfers from the general fund to the gas tax operations fund ($ 198,000), the traffic

safety fund ($ 1,046,000), and the water fund ($ 118,000) in FY 2002/ 03 with similar amounts in FY 2003/ 04.

In past years funds realized from our lower retirement system costs have been transferred from the general fund

to the capital improvement program to provide additional resources for park renovations, playing fields, and

storm drain system improvements. Due to the decline in general fund revenues , we are no longer in a position

to recommend a full continuation of this transfer. Eliminating this transfer is one of several actions that staff

initiated to provide you with a balanced budget.

Future Years

As you will see from the Five Year Projection, based on the best information currently available we foresee

deficits in FY 2004/ 05 through FY 2006/ 07. This information tells us that we need to be diligent in managing

our financial commitments in the coming years. In practice this will require that we be cautious in terms of

adding costs to the organization and that we be more aggressive in working to retain and expand revenue

sources. Among the efforts that we will be focusing our attention on will be expanding our automobile

dealerships and the downtown cinema project to increase our sales tax revenues. Projects such as Abbott

Laboratories also offer the potential to generate additional revenues. Moreover, as the current three million

plus square feet of vacant office space becomes occupied we anticipate a moderate rebound in business- to-business

sales tax.

CAPITAL PROJECTS

With the economic downturn and the decline in general fund revenues, the proposed Capital Improvement

Program ( CIP) for the next two years has been trimmed. The CIP continues an emphasis on the upgrade of

essential infrastructure such as roofs, HVAC, carpet, painting, IT servers, sidewalk, street pavement, storm

drainage, and lagoon dredging.

In the category of City Council priorities, the next two- year CIP includes funding for projects in the area of:

Water Supply

§ Recycled Water System Development ( Water Enterprise)

§ Water Conservation Rebate Program ( Water Enterprise)

Youth And Education

§ Andrew Spinas Park Renovation

§ Schaberg Library Renovation and ADA Improvements

§ Childcare Site Acquisition ( Redevelopment)

§ Redwood Shores Library ( GID 1- 64)

Transportation and Traffic

§ Pedestrian Crosswalk Warning Lights

§ Neighborhood Traffic Calming

The Downtown Improvements

§ Tentative Downtown Parking Structure ( Redevelopment)

§ City Hall Plaza ( Redevelopment)

Housing

§ El Camino Housing ( Redevelopment)

Effectiveness and Efficiency

§ Police Department Voice Radio System

§ IT Voice Over Internet

§ IT Electronic Record System ( FY 2003/ 04)

City of

Redwood City

values

" Rules will not

override our

values of

flexibility,

accountability

and

innovation."

" We depend on

each other to

achieve

excellence.

We work as a

team."

iv

The first two phases of the Fifth Avenue/ Bay Front Flood Control Program have been completed. The 66 inch

diameter flood relief transmission main has been installed from Hoover/ 5th Avenue under Highway 101 and

capped in front of the pump station located at Harbor Village Mobile Home Park. The pump station

replacement project ( Phase III) will connect the transmission main to the new pump station which is under

design and scheduled for construction in summer 2003. With regard to the levee protection and additional

storage project ( Phase IV) , staff is in the process of interviewing consultants and exploring different

alternatives.

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

The Agency is in sound fiscal condition with cash balances for the Agency general fund and housing fund in

excess of $ 3,900,000 and $ 2,400,000, respectively for FY 2002/ 03 and 2003/ 04.

The only additions to the budget for FY 2002/ 03 in terms of projects are $ 500,000 for acquisition of land in

connection with a new site for a child care center in the downtown; $ 200,000 to install the fountain in the City

Hall Plaza; and $ 2,000,000 towards the development of parking in the downtown.

The Redevelopment Agency has the ability to generate significant funds for important future projects through

the issuance of bonds.

ENTERPRISE FUNDS

Water Fund

The water enterprise fund is in sound fiscal condition, with a $ 2 million emergency reserve. Use of

unappropriated fund balance for additional future water supply ( including implementation of the Recycled

Water Project), regulatory and demand management initiatives is proposed in the fiscal years FY 2002/ 03 and

FY 2003/ 04 water fund capital improvement program.

On July 9, 2001, the City Council approved a resolution increasing the " lifeline" water rate from $ 0.86 to $ 0.88

per unit, continuing the established practice of setting the Redwood City " lifeline" rate at the San Francisco

Public Utilities Commission ( SFPUC) wholesale rate. The Council also approved a 3.5% increase from $ 10.09

to $ 10.44, driven primarily by increases in salaries and benefits to the monthly basic service charge that

provides the financial support for the operations and maintenance of the City's water system.

The City Council approved delaying the implementation of the basic service charge and lifeline rates increases

to January 1, 2002, to mitigate the impact to Redwood City households and businesses of excessive increases in

electricity bills.

Sewer Fund

The sewer enterprise fund remains in sound fiscal condition, with a $ 1 million emergency reserve. Beginning

in FY 2000/ 01, the City has budgeted for the preparation of a Sanitary Sewer Overflow ( SSO) Plan in

anticipation of new regulations from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). Within the next two-year

budget cycle, staff expects that EPA will issue new regulations for preparation and implementation of the

SSO Plan.

On July 23, 2001, the City Council approved an increase in the sewer service charge from $ 18.97 to $ 19.57 that

became effective January 1, 2002. The 3.2% increase was driven primarily by increases in salaries and benefits

and projected increases of 5.18% in FY 2002/ 03 and 5.10% in FY 2003/ 04 for sewage treatment services

provided by South Bayside Systems Authority.

APPROPRIATIONS LIMITS

Article XIIIB of the California Constitution defines and establishes the City’s appropriation limit. No city in

California may spend from its “ proceeds of taxes” more than the amount of its “ appropriation limit." The

appropriations limit is determined by a formula contained within Article XIIIB. Redwood City’s appropriation

limit for FY 2002/ 03 is estimated to be $ 92,979,808. The FY 2002/ 03 appropriations subject to limitations are

$ 52,318,883. We are well within our legal limit.

City of

Redwood City's

values

" Just do it."

" Authority to

act is vested in

those closest to

the service

delivered. We

are committed

to delivering

quality service

and quality

products to

customers."

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This document reflects the toils and deliberations of many throughout the organization, especially the executive

team. I want to thank Magda Gonzalez, Peter Ingram, and Brian Ponty for their thorough reviews of the

departmental budget requests. Denise Connich is to be commended for her efforts in organizing and managing

the performance measurement and benchmarking elements of this process. Thank you to the Finance

Department team: Alison Freeman, Financial Services Manager; Senior Accountants, Irv Weinstock, Gloria

del Rosario, and Kyi Khin; Jill Greenhorn, Accountant; and Senior I. T. Analyst, Debbie Matsuura. 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, for her patience, talents, and

long hours to publish the document you have before you.

This City is very fortunate to have Brian Ponty as our Finance Director. He brings his incredible financial

skills to bear in overseeing the development of this budget. He nicely mixes his technical skills as an

accountant with his professional skills and understanding of accurately projecting revenue and anticipating the

state economy.

This budget has been an incredible team effort during a tough economic time. Thanks to all involved.

Sincerely,

Ed Everett

City Manager

“ We take our

work seriously

but ourselves

lightly.”

vi

This page left blank intentionally

FIVE- YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS

SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS

vii

¡ Salary and benefit increases are based on current memorandums of understanding and

anticipated costs.

¡ Property taxes increase 5.50% per year for FY 2004/ 05 through FY 2006/ 07.

¡ Sales taxes increase 4.0% per year for FY 2004/ 05 through FY 2006/ 07 and are adjusted for

expected changes in the composition of our sales tax base.

¡ The general fund commitment to gas tax capital improvements remains at $ 700,000 per year

for FY 2004/ 05 through FY 2006/ 07.

¡ A slow recovery from the recent recession.

¡ No additional impacts from the State of California beyond those revenue reductions that are

contained in the Governor’s proposed budget.

¡ Development fees for all known future projects.

¡ Almost no general fund support for capital projects other tha n transfers of utility users’ taxes.

¡ A Redwood Shores branch library opens in FY 2004/ 05.

¡ The electorate approves an increase in the transient occupancy tax rate from 8% to 10% in FY

2003/ 04.

¡ One additional financial system programmer is added in FY 2004/ 05 in lieu of implementing a

new financial software package.

¡ The City Council approves an increase of $ 5.00 per citation for parking violations.

¡ Resources made available from lower retirement system costs are no longer being transferred

to the Capital Improvement Program.

GENERAL FUND - FIVE YEAR PROJECTION 2002/ 03 THROUGH 2006/ 07 ( in 000' s)

1997- 98 1998- 99 1999- 2000 2000- 01 2001- 02

ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE

REVENUES

Property Taxes 11,169 12,423 13,947 15,404 18,222

Sales Tax 13,531 15,333 18,254 20,842 16,410

Other Taxes 4,030 4,502 5,076 5,221 4,297

Licenses and Permits 2,076 1,669 1,659 2,546 1,246

Fines and Forfeitures 191 266 244 320 502

Interest Earnings/ Rentals 1,542 1,625 2,231 2,958 2,911

Revenue from Other Agencies 4,215 5,051 6,277 7,625 7,526

Charges for Services 3,099 3,351 3,960 4,466 3,819

Other Revenues 4,058 6,868 4,670 4,696 4,550

Library 769 918 1,048 1,004 839

Recreation Revenues 927 791 1,128 1,119 1,041

Total Revenues 45,607 52,797 58,494 66,201 61,363

Transfers- In:

Others 377 345 545 670 625

Sandpiper Community Center 131 138 148 156

GID 1- 64 Maintenance District 150 200 200 70 150

Total revenues and transfers- in 46,134 53,473 59,377 67,089 62,294

EXPENDITURES

City Council 172 149 160 176 213

City Manager 583 709 790 837 965

City Attorney 400 398 397 400 552

City Clerk 319 313 353 380 493

Human Resources 963 1,027 1,010 1,071 1,288

Finance 1,796 2,170 2,040 2,406 2,703

Police 12,945 14,665 15,206 16,681 16,917

Fire 8,532 9,423 9,420 9,821 10,337

Community Development Services 3,193 3,574 3,994 4,732 4,713

Parks & Recreation 6,722 7,173 8,096 9,094 10,318

Library 4,513 4,685 4,920 5,293 5,562

Public Works Services 508 634 766 1,247 1,230

Budget Adjustments

Total Expenditures 40,646 44,920 47,152 52,138 55,291

Transfers- Out 2,435 8,288 5,924 6,108 16,602

Total expenditures and transfers- out 43,081 53,208 53,076 58,246 71,893

Net surplus ( deficit) 3,053 265 6,301 8,843 - 9,599

Net surplus ( deficit) as a percentage of

general fund revenues and transfers- in: 6.62% 0.50% 10.61% 13.18% - 15.41%

Detail of transfers- out:

gas tax operations 472 237 40 4 113

gas tax contruction 686 245 1,133 368 2,597

traffic safety 1,007 830 770 778 937

capital projects 176 3,582 3,415 4,300 10,772

others 94 3,394 566 658 2,183

TOTAL 2,435 8,288 5,924 6,108 16,602

viii

2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 2005- 06 2006- 07

ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE

18,440 19,309 20,371 21,491 22,673

17,589 18,516 19,257 20,027 20,828

4,433 5,035 5,236 5,446 5,663

820 1,270 1,770 1,570 1,800

622 622 622 622 622

2,968 2,792 3,090 3,090 3,090

7,462 7,713 7,983 8,262 8,552

3,694 4,266 4,765 4,868 5,080

4,800 4,948 5,121 5,300 5,486

534 534 553 572 592

1,307 1,346 1,393 1,442 1,492

62,669 66,351 70,161 72,690 75,878

625 625 625 625 625

165 174 183 183 183

64 90 150 150 150

63,523 67,239 71,119 73,648 76,836

226 234 248 264 280

1,051 1,082 1,150 1,223 1,300

768 772 821 873 928

499 559 594 631 670

1,365 1,448 1,538 1,635 1,737

3,031 3,278 3,585 3,790 4,006

19,243 20,546 21,887 23,317 24,843

11,178 13,056 13,930 14,863 15,859

4,923 5,205 5,543 5,903 6,287

11,402 11,890 12,628 13,413 14,248

5,806 6,136 6,731 7,166 7,630

1,272 1,304 1,375 1,451 1,530

60,764 65,509 70,030 74,529 79,318

2,785 2,011 2,879 3,060 3,257

63,549 67,520 72,909 77,589 82,575

- 26 - 281 - 1,790 - 3,941 - 5,739

0.00% - 0.42% - 2.52% - 5.35% - 7.47%

198 231 302 380 466

700 700 700

1,046 1,086 1,174 1,268 1,369

850

689 694 703 712 722

2,783 2,011 2,879 3,060 3,257

ix

x

This page left blank intentionally

Budget Summary OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT 1

Budget Summary - 1

DEPARTMENT

CITY COUNCIL

ADOPTED

2002/ 03 ($) 2003/ 04 ($)

CITY COUNCIL …………………………………………………

.

225,566 233,775

CITY MANAGER ………………………………………………

1,050,507 1,081,991

CITY ATTORNEY …………………………………………….…

768,081 772,603

CITY CLERK ……………………………………………………

500,579 559,771

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ………………….

5,011,945 5,301,527

FINANCE …………………………………………………………

6,771,752 7,105,916

FIRE ………………………………………………………………

11,176,447 13,056,211

HUMAN RESOURCES …………………………………………

1,365,268 1,448,023

LIBRARY ……………………………………………………….

5,806,009 6,134,776

PARKS, RECREATION and COMMUNITY SERVICES …….

11,720,577 12,216,883

POLICE …………………………………………………………

19,395,548 20,698,156

PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES……………………………………. 25,619,364 26,689,886

TOTAL 89,411,643 95,299,518

__________________________

( 1) Excludes Debt Service, Capital Projects, Redevelopment Agency, Housing, and Internal Service Funds

Budget Summary ANALYSIS OF BUDGET BY FUND - 2002/ 03

BEGINNING ESTIMATED TRANSFER TOTAL

BALANCE REVENUES IN/( OUT) AVAILABLE

GENERAL OPERATING FUNDS

General Fund 16,783,662 60,828,738 ( 7,468,636) 70,143,764

Library Fund 534,248 5,271,761 5,806,009

Recreation Program Fund 1,307,400 101,922 1,409,322

Sandiper Park Reserve

Subtotal 16,783,662 62,670,386 ( 2,094,953) 77,359,095

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS

Traffic Safety Fund 340,000 1,046,235 1,386,235

Special Gas Tax Fund 1,529,272 198,403 1,727,675

GID- 64 Maintenance District 459,118 517,700 ( 64,000) 912,818

Seaport Centre Maintenance 162,094 302,899 464,993

Seaport Blvd. Landscape Maintenance 53,701 151,184 204,885

Lido Maintenance District 392,265 156,986 549,251

Categorical Grants 1,476,044 1,476,044

Redevelopment Agency 3,656,985 7,200,913 ( 1,525,020) 9,332,878

S. L. E. S. F. Grant 37,403 153,000 190,403

Subtotal 4,761,566 11,827,998 ( 344,382) 16,245,182

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS

Utility Users Tax 7,725,000 ( 5,322,245) 2,402,755

Gas Tax Construction 494,500 494,500

Transportation Fund 688,254 1,244,000 1,932,254

Capital Projects Fund 5,689,348 5,178,247 10,867,595

GID Facilities Fees Fund 7,865,660 200,000 8,065,660

Water Fund Capital Projects 7,950,000 7,950,000

Sewer Fund Capital Projects 1,000,000 1,000,000

Grants 640,000 640,000

Traffic Impact Fees 8,925,408 933,000 9,858,408

Traffic Mitigation Funds 2,247,073 160,000 2,407,073

Subtotal 25,415,743 10,902,000 9,300,502 45,618,245

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS

General Improvment District 1 - 64 1,653,754 2,084,044 3,737,798

Assessment Districts 2,108,330 3,686,762 5,795,092

City Hall Certificates of Participation 319,131 33,500 571,000 923,631

Public Financing Authority 2,547,567 1,525,020 4,072,587

Subtotal 4,081,215 8,351,873 2,096,020 14,529,108

ENTERPRISE FUNDS

Parking Fund 579,563 540,448 1,120,012

Water Fund 11,301,486 19,659,093 ( 7,480,109) 23,480,470

Sewer Fund 2,111,299 10,134,196 ( 1,352,078) 10,893,417

Subtotal 13,992,348 30,333,738 ( 8,832,187) 35,493,899

TOTAL ALL FUNDS 65,034,535 124,085,995 125,000 189,245,530

( excluding Internal Service)

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS

Equipment Services Fund 6,109,749 2,801,274 8,911,022

Internal Services Fund 1,885,452 6,745,149 ( 125,000) 8,505,601

Workers' Comp. Emp. Liab. Ins. Fund 1,802,504 1,178,919 2,981,423

General Liability Insurance Fund 576,968 1,086,959 1,663,927

Subtotal 10,374,673 11,812,301 ( 125,000) 22,061,973

TOTAL ALL FUNDS 75,409,207 135,898,295 211,307,503

Budget Summary ANALYSIS OF BUDGET BY FUND - 2002/ 03

OPERATIONS CAPITAL TOTAL ENDING

DEBT SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS EXPENDITURE BALANCE

53,548,804 53,548,804 16,594,960

5,806,009 5,806,009

1,409,322 1,409,322

164,702

60,764,135 60,764,135 16,759,662

1,386,235 1,386,235

1,727,675 1,727,675

419,474 419,474 493,344

99,178 328,601 427,779 37,214

126,142 42,160 168,302 36,583

206,326 206,326 342,925

1,476,044 1,476,044

5,134,549 3,475,000 8,609,549 723,329

153,304 153,304 37,099

10,728,927 3,845,761 14,574,688 1,670,494

2,402,755 2,402,755

494,500 494,500

288,052 1,200,000 1,488,052 444,202

4,738,500 4,738,500 6,129,095

4,588,000 4,588,000 3,477,660

7,950,000 7,950,000

1,000,000 1,000,000

640,000 640,000

305,000 305,000 9,553,408

2,407,073

2,690,807 20,916,000 23,606,807 22,011,438

2,089,729 2,089,729 1,648,069

2,689,387 2,689,387 3,105,705

923,631 923,631

3,892,587 3,892,587 180,000

9,595,334 9,595,334 4,933,774

449,955 449,955 670,057

12,494,969 12,494,969 10,985,501

8,967,544 8,967,544 1,925,873

21,912,468 21,912,468 13,581,431

105,691,671 24,761,761 130,453,432 58,956,799

3,244,588 3,244,588 5,666,434

6,579,606 6,579,606 1,925,995

1,255,353 1,255,353 1,726,070

1,082,593 1,082,593 581,334

12,162,140 12,162,140 9,899,833

117,853,811 24,761,761 142,615,572 68,856,633

Budget Summary ANALYSIS OF BUDGET BY FUND - 2003/ 04

BEGINNING ESTIMATED TRANSFER TOTAL

BALANCE REVENUES IN/( OUT) AVAILABLE

GENERAL OPERATING FUNDS

General Fund 16,759,662 64,470,141 ( 6,995,063) 74,234,739

Library Fund 534,248 5,600,528 6,134,776

Recreation Program Fund 1,345,900 98,625 1,444,525

Sandiper Park Reserve

Subtotal 16,759,662 66,350,289 ( 1,295,910) 81,814,040

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS

Traffic Safety Fund 340,000 1,085,622 1,425,622

Special Gas Tax Fund 1,573,537 230,585 1,804,122

GID- 64 Maintenance District 493,344 535,588 ( 90,000) 938,932

Seaport Centre Maintenance 37,214 271,034 308,248

Seaport Blvd. Landscape Maintenance 36,583 157,682 194,265

Lido Maintenance District 342,925 162,480 505,405

Categorical Grants 1,607,875 1,607,875

Redevelopment Agency 823,329 7,448,905 ( 1,421,450) 6,850,784

S. L. E. S. F. Grant 37,099 153,000 190,099

Subtotal 1,770,494 12,250,102 ( 195,243) 13,825,352

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS

Utility Users Tax 7,956,750 ( 5,557,708) 2,399,042

Gas Tax Construction 682,000 682,000

Transportation Fund 444,202 1,289,760 1,733,962

Capital Projects Fund 6,129,095 4,375,708 10,504,803

GID Facilities Fees Fund 3,477,660 100,000 3,577,660

Water Fund Capital Projects 24,150,000 24,150,000

Sewer Fund Capital Projects 1,000,000 1,000,000

Grants

Traffic Impact Fees 9,553,408 849,000 10,402,408

Traffic Mitigation Funds 2,407,073 160,000 2,567,073

Subtotal 22,011,438 10,355,510 24,650,000 57,016,948

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS

General Improvment District 1 - 64 1,648,069 2,070,885 3,718,954

Assessment Districts 3,105,705 3,821,896 6,927,601

City Hall Certificates of Participation 316,222 33,500 571,000 920,722

Public Financing Authority 80,000 2,542,902 1,421,450 4,044,352

Subtotal 5,149,996 8,469,183 1,992,450 15,611,629

ENTERPRISE FUNDS

Parking Fund 670,057 555,752 1,225,809

Water Fund 10,985,501 36,834,792 ( 23,656,615) 24,163,678

Sewer Fund 1,925,873 10,502,766 ( 1,369,681) 11,058,958

Subtotal 13,581,431 47,893,310 ( 25,026,296) 36,448,445

TOTAL ALL FUNDS 59,273,021 145,318,393 125,000 204,716,414

( excluding Internal Service)

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS

Equipment Services Fund 5,666,434 2,846,706 8,513,141

Internal Services Fund 1,925,995 7,073,949 ( 125,000) 8,874,944

Workers' Comp. Emp. Liab. Ins. Fund 1,726,070 1,196,245 2,922,315

General Liability Insurance Fund 581,334 1,096,436 1,677,770

Subtotal 9,899,833 12,213,336 ( 125,000) 21,988,170

TOTAL ALL FUNDS 69,172,854 157,531,729 226,704,584

Budget Summary ANALYSIS OF BUDGET BY FUND - 2003/ 04

OPERATIONS CAPITAL TOTAL ENDING

DEBT SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS EXPENDITURE BALANCE

57,930,001 57,930,001 16,304,738

6,134,776 6,134,776

1,444,525 1,444,525

173,760

65,509,302 65,509,302 16,478,499

1,425,622 1,425,622

1,804,122 1,804,122

394,363 394,363 544,569

59,994 192,681 252,675 55,573

132,473 15,424 147,897 46,368

208,992 208,992 296,413

1,607,875 1,607,875

5,081,867 5,081,867 1,768,917

153,127 153,127 36,972

10,868,435 208,105 11,076,540 2,748,812

2,399,042 2,399,042

682,000 682,000

295,718 1,200,000 1,495,718 238,244

4,535,500 4,535,500 5,969,303

70,000 70,000 3,507,660

24,150,000 24,150,000

1,000,000 1,000,000

3,823,500 3,823,500 6,578,908

2,567,073

2,694,760 35,461,000 38,155,760 18,861,188

2,077,105 2,077,105 1,641,849

3,750,261 3,750,261 3,177,340

920,722 920,722

3,883,542 3,883,542 160,810

10,631,630 10,631,630 4,979,999

463,728 463,728 762,081

13,125,636 13,125,636 11,038,042

9,401,499 9,401,499 1,657,459

22,990,863 22,990,863 13,457,582

112,694,990 35,669,105 148,364,095 56,526,079

3,394,570 3,394,570 5,118,571

6,964,930 6,964,930 1,910,014

1,267,237 1,267,237 1,655,078

1,090,261 1,090,261 587,509

12,716,998 12,716,998 9,271,172

125,411,988 35,669,105 161,081,093 65,797,251

Budget Summary BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BY FUND - 2002/ 03

General Water Sewer Gas Tax Traffic Safety

Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund

City Council 225,566

City Manager

Management/ Policy Execution 676,091

Community Promotion 374,416

Total 1,050,507

City Attorney 768,081

City Clerk 500,579

Community Development Services

Administration 181,061

Building and Inspection 2,250,202

Engineering and Construction 1,570,008

Housing

Planning and Redevelopment 922,207

Total 4,923,478

Finance

Revenue Services 965,588

Financial Services/ Debt Svc. 1,181,401

Administrative Support 1,850,145 90,066 47,266

Risk Management

Info. Tech./ Telephone Services

Total 3,031,546 1,055,654 47,266

Fire

Fire Safety 11,176,447

Human Resources

Human Resources 1,365,268

Workers' Compensation

Employment Liability

Total 1,365,268

Library Services 5,806,009

Parks, Recreation & Comm. Svcs.

Human Services 1,261,502

Parks/ Recreation 10,139,787

Building Services

Total 11,401,289

Police

Law Enforcement 19,242,244

Public Works Services

Fleet and MSC Management

Right- of- Way Maintenance 1,151,095 1,410,150 1,386,235

Wastewater Mgmt. Services 122,026 8,920,277 317,525

Water Utility Services 11,439,315

Total 1,273,121 11,439,315 8,920,277 1,727,675 1,386,235

GRAND TOTAL 60,764,135 12,494,969 8,967,543 1,727,675 1,386,235

Budget Summary BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BY FUND - 2002/ 03

Utility Users Other Total Internal

Tax Fund Funds All Funds Service

225,566 City Council

City Manager

676,091 Management/ Policy Execution

374,416 Community Promotion

1,050,507 Total

768,081 City Attorney

500,579 City Clerk

Community Development Services

181,061 Administration

2,250,202 Building and Inspection

88,467 1,658,475 Engineering and Construction

1,476,044 1,476,044 Housing

5,134,549 6,056,756 Planning and Redevelopment

6,699,060 11,622,538 Total

Finance

32,552 998,140 Revenue Services

9,669,434 10,850,835 Financial Services/ Debt Svc.

2,402,755 201,979 4,592,211 Administrative Support

1,082,593 Risk Management

1,961,907 Info. Tech./ Telephone Services

2,402,755 9,903,965 16,441,186 3,044,500 Total

Fire

11,176,447 Fire Safety

Human Resources

1,365,268 Human Resources

1,107,653 Workers' Compensation

147,700 Employment Liability

1,365,268 1,255,353 Total

5,806,009 Library Services

Parks, Recreation & Comm. Svcs.

1,261,502 Human Services

319,288 10,459,075 Parks/ Recreation

2,560,222 Building Services

319,288 11,720,577 2,560,222 Total

Police

153,304 19,395,548 1,768,842 Law Enforcement

Public Works Services

3,533,223 Fleet and MSC Management

340,909 4,288,389 Right- of- Way Maintenance

525,242 9,885,070 Wastewater Mgmt. Services

6,590 11,445,905 Water Utility Services

872,741 25,619,364 3,533,223 Total

2,402,755 17,948,358 105,691,670 12,162,140 GRAND TOTAL

Budget Summary BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BY FUND - 2003/ 04

General Water Sewer Gas Tax Traffic Safety

Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund

City Council 233,775

City Manager

Management/ Policy Execution 721,403

Community Promotion 360,588

Total 1,081,991

City Attorney 772,603

City Clerk 559,771

Community Development Services

Administration 185,449

Building and Inspection 2,385,927

Engineering and Construction 1,663,471

Housing

Planning and Redevelopment 971,079

Total 5,205,926

Finance

Revenue Services 1,041,486

Financial Services/ Debt Svc. 1,262,600

Administrative Support 2,015,503 98,582 51,502

Risk Management

Info. Tech./ Telephone Services

Total 3,278,103 1,140,068 51,502

Fire

Fire Safety 13,056,211

Human Resources

Human Resources 1,448,023

Workers' Compensation

Employment Liability

Total 1,448,023

Library Services 6,134,776

Parks, Recreation & Comm. Svcs.

Human Services 1,290,267

Parks/ Recreation 10,598,963

Building Services

Total 11,889,230

Police

Law Enforcement 20,545,029

Public Works Services

Fleet and MSC Management

Right- of- Way Maintenance 1,179,083 1,467,223 1,425,622

Wastewater Mgmt. Services 124,781 9,349,997 336,899

Water Utility Services 11,985,568

Total 1,303,864 11,985,568 9,349,997 1,804,122 1,425,622

GRAND TOTAL 65,509,302 13,125,636 9,401,499 1,804,122 1,425,622

Budget Summary BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT BY FUND - 2003/ 04

Utility Users Other Total Internal

Tax Fund Funds All Funds Service

233,775 City Council

City Manager

721,403 Management/ Policy Execution

360,588 Community Promotion

1,081,991 Total

772,603 City Attorney

559,771 City Clerk

Community Development Services

185,449 Administration

2,385,927 Bldg. Insp./ Code Enforcement

95,601 1,759,072 Engineering and Construction

1,607,875 1,607,875 Housing

5,081,867 6,052,946 Planning and Redevelopment

6,689,742 11,991,269 Total

Finance

34,570 1,076,056 Revenue Services

10,705,730 11,968,330 Financial Services/ Debt Svc.

2,399,042 202,631 4,767,260 Administrative Support

1,090,261 Risk Management

2,086,299 Info. Tech./ Telephone Services

2,399,042 10,942,931 17,811,646 3,176,560 Total

Fire

13,056,211 Fire Safety

Human Resources

1,448,023 Human Resources

1,119,537 Workers' Compensation

147,700 Employment Liability

1,448,023 1,267,237 Total

6,134,776 Library Services

Parks, Recreation & Comm. Svcs.

1,290,267 Human Services

327,653 10,926,616 Parks/ Recreation

2,688,169 Building Services

327,653 12,216,883 2,688,169 Total

Police

153,127 20,698,156 1,886,690 Law Enforcement

Public Works Services

3,698,342 Fleet and MSC Management

352,544 4,424,472 Right- of- Way Maintenance

461,263 10,272,940 Wastewater Mgmt. Services

6,906 11,992,474 Water Utility Services

820,713 26,689,886 3,698,342 Total

2,399,042 18,934,166 112,694,990 12,716,998 GRAND TOTAL

Budget Summary GRAPHS

Budget Summary - 10

Transfers- in

1.34%

Sales Tax

27.69%

Interest & Rents

4.67%

Licenses &

Permits

1.29%

From Other

Agencies

11.75%

Charges for

Services

5.82%

Other Revenue

7.56%

Fines &

Forfeitures

0.98%

Other Taxes

9.88%

Prop. Tax

29.03%

General Fund Revenues 2002/ 03

$ 63.524 million

Budget Summary GRAPHS

Budget Summary - 11

General Fund Expenditures 2002/ 03

$ 63.525 million

Others

10.9%

Transfers- out

4.4%

Police

30.3%

Fire

17.6%

Com. Dev.

7.7%

Public Works

2.0%

Parks & Rec.

17.9%

Library

9.1%

Budget Summary GRAPHS

Budget Summary - 12

General Fund Revenues 2003/ 04

$ 67.239 million

Transfers- in

Other Revenue 1.3%

10.2%

Prop. Tax

28.7%

Sales Tax

27.5%

Charges for

Services

6.3%

From Other

Agencies

11.5%

Interest & Rents

4.2%

Fines & Foreitures

0.9%

Licenses & Permits

2.1% Other Taxes

7.5%

Budget Summary GRAPHS

Budget Summary - 13

Others

10.9%

Transfers- out

3.0%

Com. Devel.

7.7%

Public Works

1.9%

Parks & Rec.

17.6%

Library

9.1%

Police

30.4%

Fire

19.3%

General Fund Expenditures 2003/ 04

$ 67.520 million

Budget Summary GRAPHS

Budget Summary - 14

Fixed Assets

0.6%

Employee Costs

69.2%

Supplies & Services

16.5%

Internal Services

13.7%

General Fund 2002/ 03

Where $ Spent

Budget Summary GRAPHS

Budget Summary - 15

General Fund 2003/ 04

Where $ Spent

Fixed Assets

0.5%

Employee Costs

70.6%

Internal Services

13.2%

Supplies & Services

15.7%

Budget Summary GRAPHS

Budget Summary - 16

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

98/ 99 99/ 00 00/ 01 01/ 02 02/ 03 03/ 04

Property Tax Growth

Increases in Assessed Valuation

Budget Summary REVENUE ESTIMATES 2002/ 03 AND 2003/ 04

1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04

ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET

GENERAL FUND

A PROPERTY TAXES

1 Current Year Secured Tax 12,607,993 13,925,263 15,319,187 16,453,974 16,836,076 17,672,880

2 Current Year Unsecured 1,330,082 1,471,019 1,504,500 1,742,594 1,579,313 1,610,899

3 Prior Year Taxes 8,848 7,381 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

Total Property Taxes 13,946,923 15,403,663 16,848,687 18,221,568 18,440,389 19,308,779

B OTHER TAXES

1 Sales and Use Tax 18,851,291 20,842,721 20,106,369 16,409,784 17,588,864 18,516,251

2 Franchises 901,940 1,034,270 1,012,840 1,097,000 1,145,280 1,195,291

3 Transient Occupancy Tax 2,464,881 2,603,350 3,360,000 1,700,000 1,768,000 2,298,400

4 Property Transfer Tax 693,887 541,649 500,000 400,000 420,000 441,000

5 Business Licenses 1,015,154 1,041,410 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000

Total Other Taxes 23,927,153 26,063,400 26,079,209 20,706,784 22,022,144 23,550,942

C LICENSES AND PERMITS

1 Building Permits 1,587,252 2,476,417 1,485,000 1,188,000 750,000 1,200,000

2 Other Licenses and Permits 6,684 8,299 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

3 Parking Permits 15

4 Fire Permits 64,891 62,071 70,000 53,000 65,000 65,000

Total Licenses and Permits 1,658,842 2,546,787 1,560,000 1,246,000 820,000 1,270,000

D FINES AND FORFEITURES

1 Parking Fines 236,320 299,612 278,000 480,000 600,000 600,000

2 Administrative Citation Fines 7,730 19,938 30,000 22,000 22,000 22,000

Total Fines and Forfeitures 244,050 319,550 308,000 502,000 622,000 622,000

E USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY

1 Interest Income 2,045,939 2,753,712 2,071,000 2,651,000 2,704,880 2,528,080

2 Rents and Concessions 185,117 204,733 149,000 260,000 263,500 263,500

Total Uses of Money and Property 2,231,056 2,958,445 2,220,000 2,911,000 2,968,380 2,791,580

F REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES

1.1 Motor Vehicle in- Lieu Fee 3,668,410 4,040,090 4,192,891 4,238,299 4,407,831 4,584,144

1.2 Enhanced MV Collections 68,350 68,350 68,000 68,000 68,000 68,000

2 Proposition 172 Sales Tax 588,784 640,242 607,966 640,000 662,400 685,584

3 Police Officer Training 42,035 50,152 35,000 35,000 50,000 50,000

4 Police Athletic League 211,111 362,574

5 Homeowner Property Tax Relief 199,198 202,528 198,000 203,000 205,000 207,000

6 Off Highway license Fee 1,372 1,525 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400

7 State- Mandated Prog. Reimbursement 190,256 405,920 32,000 73,000

8 Recreation Program Grants 11,914 269,060 1,123,555 1,123,555 1,137,466 1,175,752

9 State Booking Fee Reimbursements 210,714 358,120 210,000 284,417

10 State " ERAF" Return 170,098 356,352

11 Contribution for Streets 11,500 7,500 23,000 31,900 31,900

12 Fair Oaks Information and Referral 52,177 55,943 54,000 54,000 60,600 61,000

13 Fair Oaks Center Contribution/ Grants 303,122 263,210 327,014 327,014 297,000 300,000

14 Paramedic Program Contribution 195,377 191,640 195,000 195,000 220,498 228,215

15 Port of Redwood City Contribution 352,788 359,055 374,000 260,000 320,000 320,000

Total Revenue from Other Agencies 6,277,206 7,624,761 7,426,326 7,525,685 7,462,095 7,712,995

G CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES

1 Zoning Fees 117,564 103,799 100,000 100,000 70,000 70,000

2 Sale of Maps and Publications 4,408 5,720 6,000 2,000 5,000 5,000

3 Fire Services 205,877 224,342 308,532 308,532 333,000 337,000

4 Fire Inspection Fees 88 3,000 3,000 5,000 5,000

5 Police Services 516,235 420,507 396,500 391,500 375,000 375,000

6 Plan Checking Fees 786,254 734,040 525,000 420,000 250,000 400,000

7 Garbage Collection Franchise Fees 1,271,002 1,511,789 1,478,069 1,458,224 1,644,706 1,676,780

8 Engineering and Subdivision Fees 690,549 983,916 815,000 652,000 315,000 610,000

9 SBSA Financial Services 67,520 54,474 56,816 57,633 59,361 61,736

10 Miscellaneous Revenue- Center copier 8,826 8,663 1,000 2,300 1,000 1,000

11 Sr. Advisory Council Reimbursement 125,605 127,632 211,067 211,067 295,822 312,350

12 E. I. R. Fees 86,341 138,807 65,000 65,000 180,000 250,000

13 SBSA Landscape Maintenance Services 61,580 62,821 62,821 62,821 70,125 72,229

14 Shopping Cart Collection Fees 18,341 89,869 85,000 85,000 90,000 90,000

Total Charges for Current Services 3,960,190 4,466,379 4,113,805 3,819,077 3,694,014 4,266,095

Budget Summary - 17

Budget Summary REVENUE ESTIMATES 2002/ 03 AND 2003/ 04

1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04

ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET

H OTHER REVENUE

1 Sale of Property 23,374 2,270

Right of Way Compensation

2 Water Fund 1,083,903 1,154,670 1,209,352 1,209,352 1,265,062 1,274,192

3 Sewer Fund 784,679 835,696 852,671 852,671 898,187 931,574

4 Parking Fund 37,890 43,582 44,454 44,454 43,846 44,723

5 Interdepartmental Operating Transfers 1,429,316 1,620,834 1,680,129 1,680,129 1,925,922 2,011,843

6 Other Revenues 1,311,021 1,039,011 626,616 763,535 666,699 685,417

Total Other Revenue 4,670,183 4,696,063 4,413,222 4,550,141 4,799,716 4,947,749

I LIBRARY REVENUE

1 Library Grants 790,193 715,432 273,809 542,153 241,796 241,796

2 Fair Oaks Library Contribution 116,444 127,503 127,503 142,456 156,702 156,702

3 Library Services 141,059 161,121 154,100 154,100 135,750 135,750

Total Library Revenue 1,047,696 1,004,056 555,412 838,709 534,248 534,248

J RECREATION REVENUES

1 Recreation Program Fees 1,127,911 1,119,015 1,041,261 1,041,261 1,307,400 1,345,900

Total General Fund Revenues 59,091,210 66,202,119 64,565,922 61,362,225 62,670,386 66,350,289

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS

A TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND

1 Total Traffic Fines 352,737 387,303 338,500 338,500 340,000 340,000

B GAS TAX OPERATING FUNDS

1 Gas Tax Section 2107 and 2017.5 616,072 637,476 636,797 576,100 587,622 599,374

2 Gas Tax Section 2105 470,279 476,925 497,709 476,000 485,520 495,230

3 Gas Tax Section 2106 388,712 407,354 426,216 431,500 440,130 448,933

4 Gas Tax Interest Income ( 21,942) 3,524

5 Hauling Fees and Miscellaneous 7,466 11,745 25,000 25,000 16,000 30,000

6 Canyon Road Owners Contributions 6,540

7 Capital Contributions ( 29,545) 482,346

Total Gas Tax Funds 1,437,582 2,019,370 1,585,722 1,508,600 1,529,272 1,573,537

C MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS

1 GID - 64 432,463 484,053 489,316 505,500 517,700 535,588

2 Seaport Centre 68,943 66,797 268,228 268,228 302,899 271,034

3 Seaport Boulevard 79,844 80,154 139,984 139,984 151,184 157,682

4 Lido Area 159,222 172,411 172,355 151,677 156,986 162,480

Total Maintenance District Funds 740,472 803,415 1,069,883 1,065,389 1,128,769 1,126,784

D FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS

1 Federal Law Enforcement Grants 1,132,614 86,696 84,300

2 Interest Income 6,009 5,507 7,300

Total Federal Law Enforcement Grants 1,138,623 92,203 91,600

E CATEGORICAL GRANTS

1 Community Development Block Grant 1,343,000 1,345,000 1,422,000 1,422,000 1,399,000 1,526,035

2 Program Income 158,237 62,670 78,709 78,709 77,044 81,840

3 Other Grants 80,190 581,976 131,000

Total Grants 1,581,427 1,989,646 1,500,709 1,631,709 1,476,044 1,607,875

F REDEVELOPMENT HOUSING FUND

1 Property Tax Increment 1,504,842 1,720,737 1,831,599 2,458,581 2,172,709 2,259,617

2 Interest Income 159,422 201,898 79,084 117,254 117,763 105,576

3 Miscellaneous Revenue 43,124

Total Redevelopment Housing Fund 1,664,264 1,965,759 1,910,683 2,575,835 2,290,472 2,365,193

G REDEVELOPMENT GENERAL FUND

1 Property Tax Increment 3,352,833 3,781,485 4,064,563 5,105,695 4,756,259 4,946,509

2 Interest Income 153,864 180,483 51,213 160,589 154,182 137,203

Total Redevelopment General Fund 3,506,697 3,961,968 4,115,776 5,266,284 4,910,441 5,083,712

Subtotal All Redevelopment Agency Funds 5,170,961 5,927,727 6,026,459 7,842,118 7,200,913 7,448,905

H S. L. E. S. F. GRANT

1 S. L. E. S. F. Grant 168,724 169,234 168,500 153,000 153,000 153,000

2 Interest Income 29,104 37,001 10,000 10,000

Total S. L. E. S. F Grant 197,828 206,235 178,500 163,000 153,000 153,000

Total Special Revenue Funds 10,619,630 11,425,899 10,699,773 12,640,916 11,827,998 12,250,102

Budget Summary - 18

Budget Summary REVENUE ESTIMATES 2002/ 03 AND 2003/ 04

1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04

ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET

CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS

A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND

1 Utility Users Tax 5,608,190 7,368,062 6,600,000 7,500,000 7,725,000 7,956,750

2 Other Revenues 37,595 800,000 800,000

Total Capital Projects Fund 5,645,785 7,368,062 7,400,000 8,300,000 7,725,000 7,956,750

B TRANSPORTATION FUND

1 Measure ' A' Funds 1,187,953 1,348,191 1,309,718 1,100,000 1,144,000 1,189,760

2 Interest Income 111,574 144,799 20,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

Total Measure ' A' Funds 1,299,527 1,492,990 1,329,718 1,200,000 1,244,000 1,289,760

C PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTION FUND

1 Series - B- Interest Income 7,631 8,234

Total PFA Construction Fund 7,631 8,234

D GID 1- 64 FACILITIES FEES FUND

1 Facility Fees 281,846 3,122,415 2,625,499

2 Interest Income 507,766 677,146 300,000 300,000 200,000 100,000

Total GID- 64 Facilities Fees Fund 789,612 3,799,561 300,000 2,925,499 200,000 100,000

E CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FUND

1 Transportation Grants 1,860,866 696,972 ( 4,154)

2 Other Grants 726,969 345,800 571,800 640,000

3 Interest Income 14,132

Total Trans. Construction Grants Fund 1,874,998 1,423,941 345,800 567,646 640,000

F TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEES FUND

1 Developer Contributions 1,626,080

2 Interest Income 161,641 220,729 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000

Total Traffic Mitigation Fees Fund 1,787,721 220,729 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000

G TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES FUND

1 Traffic Impact Fees 221,481 5,970,056 3,117,667 3,117,667 645,000 545,000

2 Interest Income 527 275,663 200,000 200,000 288,000 304,000

Total Traffic Mitigation Fees Fund 222,008 6,245,719 3,317,667 3,317,667 933,000 849,000

H ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOND PROCEEDS

1 Redwood Shores Traffic Improvement 8,592,127

2 Pacific Shores Traffic Improvement 21,000,000

Total Assess. District Bond Proceeds 29,592,127

Total Capital Project Funds 11,627,282 50,151,363 12,853,185 16,470,812 10,902,000 10,355,510

BOND INTEREST AND REDEMPTION FUNDS

A GID 1- 64 FACILITIES BONDS

1 Assessments 1,359,746 1,367,210 1,395,641 1,395,641 1,397,834 1,390,775

2 Interest Income 13,405 16,983 7,500

Total GID 1- 64 Facilities Fund 1,373,151 1,384,193 1,403,141 1,395,641 1,397,834 1,390,775

B GID 1- 64 RECLAMATION BONDS

1 Assessments 669,266 660,802 688,498 688,498 676,210 670,110

2 Interest Income 18,339 22,757 12,000 12,000 10,000 10,000

Total GID 1- 64 Reclamation Fund 687,605 683,559 700,498 700,498 686,210 680,110

C SEAPORT BLVD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT

1 Interest Income 2,451

Total Seaport Blvd. Assessment Fund 2,451

D SEAPORT CENTRE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT

1 Interest Income 4,387

Total Seaport Centre Assessment Fund 4,387

E PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY

1 Rental Income 2,292,151 2,311,299 2,283,885 1,733,801 2,367,567 2,362,902

2 Interest Income 61,712 204,379 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000

Total Public Finance Authority 2,353,863 2,515,678 2,363,885 1,813,801 2,447,567 2,442,902

Budget Summary - 19

Budget Summary REVENUE ESTIMATES 2002/ 03 AND 2003/ 04

1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04

ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET

F 1997 TAX ALLOCATION BONDS

1 Interest Income 97,784 96,183 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

G CITY HALL C. O. P. S.

1 Interest Income 23,026 63,303 33,500 33,500 33,500 33,500

H SEAPORT CONSOLIDATED ASSESMENT DISTRICT

1 Assessments 1,338,251 1,334,073 1,328,543 1,328,543 1,333,800 1,332,523

2 Interest Income 121,646 112,309 20,000 20,000 20,000

Total Seaport Cons. Assess. Distr. Fund 1,459,897 1,446,382 1,328,543 1,348,543 1,353,800 1,352,523

I PACIFIC SHORES ASSESSMENT DISTRICT

1 Assessments 2,082,521 2,082,631

2 Interest Income 570 2,244

Total Pac. Shores Assess. Distr. Fund 570 2,244 2,082,521 2,082,631

J REDWOOD SHORES TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT

1 Assessments 250,441 386,742

Total RWS Assess. Distr. Fund 250,441 386,742

Total Debt Service Funds 6,002,734 6,191,542 5,929,567 5,391,983 8,351,873 8,469,183

ENTERPRISE FUNDS

A PARKING

1 Property Tax 25,566 25,818 25,064 24,595 25,087 25,589

2 Parking Fees 474,564 507,082 493,930 493,930 487,182 496,926

3 Interest Income 18,434 25,686 21,617 22,081 28,179 33,237

Total Parking Fund 518,564 558,586 540,611 540,606 540,448 555,752

B WATER UTILITY

1 Interest Income 723,190 913,683 772,654 627,108 602,851 627,108

2 Facility Fees 452,762 475,699 317,840 317,840 300,000 300,000

3 Connection fees 188,220 206,528 200,000 200,000 120,000 120,000

4 Basic Service Charges 4,296,591 4,478,267 4,450,467 4,450,467 4,823,054 4,850,946

5 Water Sales 8,634,371 8,940,994 8,768,188 8,768,188 8,768,188 8,841,738

6 Miscellaneous Revenues 57,764 85,656 35,000 35,000 45,000 45,000

7 Capital grants/ loans 5,000,000 22,050,000

Total Water Utility Fund 14,352,898 15,100,827 14,544,149 14,398,603 19,659,093 36,834,792

C SEWER UTILITY

1 Interest Income 174,005 217,527 176,933 176,933 154,341 151,941

2 Facility Fees 481,708 155,301 245,091 245,091 50,000 75,000

3 Sewer Connection Fees 23,510 23,800 24,000 24,000 45,000 45,000

4 Sewer Service Charges 7,158,268 8,727,331 7,917,369 7,917,369 8,255,825 8,544,779

5 Fair Oaks District 1,324,553 450,059 1,236,361 1,236,361 1,335,270 1,382,004

6 Emerald Lakes Area 908,924 3,050 202,000 202,000 218,160 225,796

7 Oak Knoll Area 161,538 62,797 36,000 36,000 38,880 40,241

8 Woodside Sewer Service 18,289 23,500 19,000 19,000 20,520 21,238

9 Miscellaneous Revenues 23,877 34,538 15,000 15,000 16,200 16,767

Total Sewer Utility Fund 10,274,672 9,697,903 9,871,754 9,871,754 10,134,196 10,502,766

Total Enterprise Funds 25,146,134 25,357,316 24,956,514 24,810,963 30,333,738 47,893,310

Budget Summary - 20

Budget Summary REVENUE ESTIMATES 2002/ 03 AND 2003/ 04

1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04

ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS

A EQUIPMENT SEVICES FUND

1 Internal Service Charges 2,223,633 2,358,654 2,297,533 2,297,533 2,491,978 2,547,109

2 Interest Income 258,579 343,199 225,000 232,873 245,017 235,318

3 Miscellaneous 22,238 98,710 50,000 50,000 64,279 64,279

Total Equipment Services Fund 2,504,450 2,800,563 2,572,533 2,580,406 2,801,274 2,846,706

B INTERNAL SERVICES FUND

1 Facility Maintenance Services 965,661 1,119,945 1,143,451 1,143,451 1,411,841 1,453,862

2 Facility Custodial Services 1,014,675 1,050,745 1,089,800 1,089,800 1,179,959 1,237,259

3 Central Services 233,937 240,171 249,770 249,770 260,048 270,447

4 Information Technology ( IT) Services 686,457 950,951 947,946 947,946 1,076,260 1,151,599

5 IT Services - Other Agencies 425,410 451,221 453,223 453,223 414,630 447,184

6 Telephone Services 366,628 390,169 401,873 401,873 428,380 441,234

7 Communication Services 1,241,983 1,450,185 1,530,121 1,530,121 1,760,260 1,858,593

8 Miscellaneous revenues 3,962 73,883 88,771 88,771 88,771 88,771

9 Gain ( loss) on sale of equipment ( 28,346)

10 Interest Income 150,866 125,000 125,000

Total Internal Services Fund 4,938,713 5,849,790 5,904,955 5,904,955 6,745,149 7,073,949

C WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

1 Workers' Comp. Insurance Charges 561,785 785,256 793,407 793,407 972,669 977,995

2 Charges to Port 15,571 14,249 10,000 10,000 15,000 15,000

3 Interest Income 196,310 225,231 207,160 217,160 191,250 203,250

Total Worker's Comp. Ins. Fund 773,666 1,024,736 1,010,567 1,020,567 1,178,919 1,196,245

D GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE FUND

1 General Liability Insurance Charges 781,460 1,002,147 1,003,673 1,003,673 957,790 958,656

2 Insurance Pool Dividends 158,470 199,335 214,099

3 Interest Income 128,321 182,084 142,052 142,052 129,169 137,780

Total General Liability Ins. Fund 1,068,251 1,383,566 1,145,725 1,359,824 1,086,959 1,096,436

Total Internal Service Funds 9,285,080 11,058,655 10,633,780 10,865,752 11,812,301 12,213,336

TOTAL REVENUES ALL FUNDS 121,772,070 170,386,894 129,638,741 131,542,651 135,898,295 157,531,729

Budget Summary - 21

Budget Summary PROPERTY TAX

Budget Summary - 22

In 1978 Proposition 13 was approved by the voters in California to amend the State Constitution limiting the property tax to

1% of the market value of property as of July 1, 1975. The value was allowed to increase with inflation but not more than 2%

a year. Properties resold after July 1, 1975 are assessed at the price paid by buyer. New construction was to be assessed at

the cost of construction ( if self occupied) or market sale value if sold.

The tax is collected the by County Tax Collector and apportioned to the various agencies including cities, school districts,

college districts, hospital districts, etc., on a formula basis adopted by the State legislature under Assembly Bill 8. This is

contained in the California Government Code Section 26912.

Secured taxes are due and payable to the County in two equal installments each fiscal year by December 10th and April 10th.

The secured roll consists of taxes that become a lien against the property. The unsecured roll consists of property that is of a

moveable nature such as personal property or stock in trade where a lien cannot be secured.

In 1993 and in 1994 the state Legislature changed the basis in which property taxes are allocated between local agencies and

school districts. The cumulative effect of these changes is a 20% reduction in property taxes received by local agencies.

The County remits the property tax to the cities on a regular basis as they have been collected. Redwood City's share of the

general fund property taxes for the last six years and the two budgeted years is as follows:

Year

$ Amount

% Increase/

Decrease

Per

Capita

1996- 97 10,686,370 5.29 145.16

1997- 98 11,169,435 4.32 148.23

1998- 99 12,422,907 10.09 162.28

1999- 00 13,946,925 10.93 182.79

2000- 01 15,403,664 9.46 200.83

2001- 02 18,221,568 15.47 237.57

2002- 03 18,440,389 1.19 240.42

2003- 04 19,308,779 4.50 251.74

$ 0

$ 2,000,000

$ 4,000,000

$ 6,000,000

$ 8,000,000

$ 10,000,000

$ 12,000,000

$ 14,000,000

$ 16,000,000

$ 18,000,000

$ 20,000,000

1996- 97 1997- 98 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04

Budget Summary UTILITY USERS’ TAX

Budget Summary - 23

A Utility Users’ Tax was imposed by Redwood City in 1984 to be collected on telephone charges, gas and electric charges,

and cable TV charges. The rate is currently set at 5% of these billings.

Utility Users’ Tax is a general tax and can be used for any governmental purpose. It is the policy of the current City Council

to use the revenues generated from this source for capital improvements. During FY 1991/ 92 bonds were issued for the

construction of a new police facility and for refinancing of the bonds issued for the construction of the new library and main

fire station. A portion of these bonds were refunded in 1998. The debt service for both the remaining 1991 bonds and the

new 1998 is being paid from this source.

Year

$ Amount

% Increase/

Decrease

Per

Capita

1996- 97 4,314,569 6.16 58.61

1997- 98 4,699,719 8.20 62.36

1998- 99 5,034,026 6.64 65.76

1999- 00 5,608,189 10.24 73.50

2000- 01 7,368,064 23.89 96.06

2001- 02 7,500,000 1.76 97.78

2002- 03 7,725,000 2.91 100.72

2003- 04 7,956,750 2.91 103.74

$ 0

$ 1,000,000

$ 2,000,000

$ 3,000,000

$ 4,000,000

$ 5,000,000

$ 6,000,000

$ 7,000,000

$ 8,000,000

1996- 97 1997- 98 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04

Budget Summary SALES TAX

Budget Summary - 24

The City imposes a 1% tax on all sales originating within the city limits of Redwood City. This tax is collected by the

businesses along with the county and state sales tax. The total amount collected is remitted by the retailers to the State Board

of Equalization. The total sales tax rate in the county ( including state, county and city) is 8.25%. Under an agreement with

San Mateo County, Redwood City contributes 5% of its collection to the county. Thus, Redwood City's portion of the total

sales tax collected within the city limits is 0.95%.

Funds are received from the state on a monthly basis. Each month an advance is made based on estimates. An adjustment is

made each quarter to reflect the actual taxable sales activity. The funds may be used for any governmental purpose.

Redwood City's share of the sales tax during the last six years and the two budgeted years is as follows:

Year

$ Amount

% Increase/

Decrease

Per

Capita

1996- 97 12,872,182 9.22 174.86

1997- 98 13,531,145 4.87 179.58

1998- 99 15,333,112 11.80 200.29

1999- 00 18,851,291 18.66 247.07

2000- 01 20,842,720 9.56 271.74

2001- 02 16,409,784 ( 27.01) 213.95

2002- 03 17,588,864 6.70 229.32

2003- 04 18,516,251 5.01 241.41

$ 0

$ 2,000,000

$ 4,000,000

$ 6,000,000

$ 8,000,000

$ 10,000,000

$ 12,000,000

$ 14,000,000

$ 16,000,000

$ 18,000,000

$ 20,000,000

$ 22,000,000

1996- 97 1997- 98 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04

Budget Summary APPROPRIATION LIMIT

Budget Summary - 25

Article XIIIB of the California State Constitution, which became effective in the 1979/ 80 fiscal year, and which was modified

( by Proposition 111) in November, 1989, sets an appropriation limit for governmental agencies. Using the appropriations of

fiscal year 1978/ 79 as the base year, the limit is modified by the change in the composite consumer price index, population,

and the value of commercial property development within the City limits during each fiscal year. Article XIIIB also sets the

guidelines as to what can be included in the appropriation limits.

The estimated appropriation limit for Redwood City is $ 92,979,808 for fiscal year 2002/ 03 and $ 96,699,000 for 2003/ 04,

while the actual appropriations subject to the limit amount to $ 52,318,883 in 2002/ 03 and $ 55,099,308 in 2003/ 04. The

following indicates the trend in appropriations subject to limitation:

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

90,000,000

100,000,000

FY 2000- 01 FY 2001- 02 FY 2002- 03 FY 2003- 04

APPROPRIATION LIMIT

All Funds Subject to Appropriation

Limit Sub. to Limit

Excluding General Improvement and Proprietary Funds

Budget Summary PERSONNEL ALLOCATIONS BY DEPARTMENT

Monthly Budgeted Approved Approved

Department/ Title Salary Ranges ($) 2001/ 02 2002/ 03 2003/ 04

City Council

Mayor 750 - 750 1.00 1.00 1.00

Vice Mayor 750 - 750 1.00 1.00 1.00

Council Members 750 - 750 5.00 5.00 5.00

Total 7.00 7.00 7.00

City Manager

Administrative Clerk III 3,091 - 3,757 2.00 2.00 2.00

Assistant City Manager 9,611 - 13,490 0.25 0.25 0.25

Assistant to City Manager 6,134 - 8,195 1.00 1.00 1.00

City Manager 12,062 - 12,062 1.00 1.00 1.00

Community Communications Specialist 5,535 - 6,642 1.00 1.00 1.00

Executive Assistant 4,366 - 5,241 1.00 1.00 1.00

Management Analyst 5,491 - 6,588 0.50 0.50 0.50

Total 6.75 6.75 6.75

City Attorney

Administrative Assistant 4,158 - 4,992 1.00 1.00 1.00

Assistant City Attorney 8,048 - 9,248 1.00 1.00 1.00

City Attorney 10,878 - 12,684 1.00 1.00 1.00

Legal Secretary 3,734 - 4,481 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total 4.00 4.00 4.00

City Clerk

Administrative Clerk III 3,091 - 3,757 0.50 0.50 0.50

Administrative Secretary 3,804 - 4,565 1.00 1.00 1.00

City Clerk 7,483 - 7,483 1.00 1.00 1.00

Senior Deputy Clerk 4,158 - 4,992 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total 3.50 3.50 3.50

Community Development Services

Administrative Clerk II 2,812 - 3,416 1.00 1.00 1.00

Administrative Clerk III 3,091 - 3,757 1.00 1.00 1.00

Administrative Secretary 3,804 - 4,565 1.00 1.00 1.00

Assistant Engineer II 4,958 - 6,026 8.00 8.00 8.00

Assistant Plan Checker 4,584 - 5,572 0.00 1.00 1.00

Assistant Planner 4,455 - 5,416 1.00 1.00 1.00

Associate Engineer 5,454 - 6,631 3.00 3.00 3.00

Associate Planner 4,901 - 5,958 2.00 3.75 3.00

Building Inspector 4,585 - 5,572 9.00 8.00 8.00

Community Development Services Director 9,611 - 12,525 1.00 0.00 0.00

Community Development Svcs. Manager 7,892 - 9,470 3.00 3.00 3.00

Community Development Svcs. Supervisor 6,447 - 7,737 4.00 5.00 5.00

Community Service Officer 3,467 - 4,215 2.00 2.00 2.00

Contract Construction Manager 5,854 - 7,164 1.00 0.00 0.00

Contract Planning/ Redevelopment Spec. 3,353 - 4,105 1.00 1.00 1.00

Contractual Employee 1,170 - 13,867 0.56 0.40 0.40

Engineering Technician II 3,680 - 4,474 1.00 1.00 1.00

Housing and Economic Dev. Spec. I 4,169 - 5,066 1.00 0.00 0.00

Housing and Economic Dev. Spec. II 4,585 - 5,572 3.00 3.00 3.00

Management Analyst 5,491 - 6,588 0.00 1.00 1.00

Budget Summary - 26

Budget Summary PERSONNEL ALLOCATIONS BY DEPARTMENT

Monthly Budgeted Approved Approved

Department/ Title Salary Ranges ($) 2001/ 02 2002/ 03 2003/ 04

Community Development Services ( Continued)

Paraprofessional 2,600 - 5,200 0.00 1.00 1.00

Permits Technician 3,817 - 4,640 2.00 3.00 3.00

Plan Check Engineer 6,447 - 7,737 1.00 1.00 1.00

Secretary 3,414 - 4,150 5.00 5.00 5.00

Senior Building Coordinator 5,043 - 6,131 1.00 1.00 1.00

Senior Building Inspector 5,488 - 6,672 4.00 4.00 4.00

Senior Civil Engineer 6,833 - 8,199 5.00 5.00 5.00

Senior Engineering Technician 4,585 - 5,572 2.00 2.00 2.00

Senior Planner 5,862 - 7,033 1.00 2.00 2.00

Supervising Civil Engineer 7,176 - 8,609 2.00 2.00 2.00

Total 66.56 70.15 69.40

Finance

Account Clerk II 3,069 - 3,731 7.00 7.00 7.00

Accountant 4,540 - 5,448 1.00 1.00 1.00

Accounting Technician II 3,529 - 4,289 4.00 4.00 4.00

Administrative Assistant 4,158 - 4,992 1.00 1.00 1.00

Director of Finance and Financial Planning 9,611 - 12,525 1.00 1.00 1.00

Financial Services Manager 6,747 - 8,097 1.00 1.00 1.00

Funded C/ CAG Executive Director 11,641 - 11,641 1.00 1.00 1.00

Funded C/ CAG Secretary 3,467 - 6,065 1.00 1.00 1.00

Information Technology Manager 7,939 - 9,528 1.00 1.00 1.00

Information Technology Analyst II 5,318 - 6,382 4.00 3.00 3.00

Parking Meter Collector 2,653 - 3,226 0.75 0.75 0.75

Senior Accountant 5,476 - 6,570 3.00 3.00 3.00

Senior Information Technology Analyst 5,849 - 7,019 4.00 5.00 5.00

Supervising Information Tech Analyst 6,830 - 8,196 2.00 2.00 2.00

Webmaster 5,849 - 7,019 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total 32.75 32.75 32.75

Fire

Administrative Chief/ Fire Marshal 7,554 - 9,181 1.00 1.00 1.00

Administrative Clerk II 2,812 - 3,416 1.00 1.00 1.00

Administrative Secretary 3,804 - 4,565 1.00 1.00 1.00

Battalion Chief 7,554 - 9,181 4.00 4.00 4.00

Contract Administrative Assistant 4,158 - 4,992 1.00 1.00 1.00

Contract Fire Plan Checker 5,547 - 5,547 0.50 0.50 0.50

Fire Captain 5,320 - 6,466 18.00 18.00 18.00

Fire Chief 10,387 - 12,860 1.00 1.00 1.00

Fire Fighter 4,374 - 5,317 42.00 42.00 42.00

Fire Prevention Officer 5,174 - 6,291 3.00 3.00 3.00

Secretary 3,414 - 4,150 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total 73.50 73.50 73.50

Budget Summary - 27

Budget Summary PERSONNEL ALLOCATIONS BY DEPARTMENT

Monthly Budgeted Approved Approved

Department/ Title Salary Ranges ($) 2001/ 02 2002/ 03 2003/ 04

Human Resources

Administrative Assistant 4,158 - 4,992 1.00 1.00 1.00

Administrative Clerk II 2,812 - 3,416 1.00 1.00 1.00

Employee Benefits Coordinator 4,158 - 4,992 1.00 1.00 1.00

Employee Development Manager 5,448 - 6,535 1.00 1.00 1.00

Human Resources Director 9,091 - 11,229 1.00 1.00 1.00

Human Resources Representative 4,558 - 5,472 2.00 2.00 2.00

Human Resources Technician 3,546 - 4,254 2.00 2.00 2.00

Senior Human Resources Representative 5,448 - 6,535 2.00 2.00 2.00

Total 11.00 11.00 11.00

Library

Administrative Clerk II 2,812 - 3,416 1.13 1.13 1.13

Administrative Clerk III 3,091 - 3,757 1.00 1.00 1.00

Administrative Secretary 3,804 - 4,565 1.00 1.00 1.00

Facility Aide 2,558 - 3,108 1.00 1.00 1.00

Librarian II 3,948 - 4,800 8.66 8.66 8.66

Library Assistant II 2,974 - 3,614 9.95 7.95 7.95

Library Director 9,091 - 11,139 1.00 1.00 1.00

Library Division Manager 5,933 - 7,118 2.00 2.00 2.00

Library Outreach Specialist 2,974 - 3,614 1.00 1.00 1.00

Library Services Supervisor 5,241 - 6,287 6.00 6.00 6.00

Literacy Tutor - Student Coordinator 3,948 - 4,800 3.00 3.00 3.00

Local History Specialist II 3,948 - 4,800 0.53 0.53 0.53

Senior Information Technology Analyst 5,849 - 7,019 1.00 1.00 1.00

Senior Library Assistant 3,270 - 3,974 5.32 7.32 7.32

Senior Library Outreach Specialist 3,590 - 4,364 1.50 2.00 2.00

Specialist Librarian 4,146 - 5,040 1.85 1.85 1.85

Total 45.94 46.44 46.44

Parks, Recreation and Community Services

Administrative Assistant 4,158 - 4,992 1.00 1.00 1.00

Administrative Clerk I 2,555 - 3,106 0.75 0.75 0.75

Administrative Clerk II 2,812 - 3,416 1.60 2.00 2.00

Administrative Clerk III 3,091 - 3,757 4.00 3.00 3.00

Assistant Rec. Center Supervisor 4,099 - 4,918 2.00 0.00 0.00

Building Maintenance Worker 3,709 - 4,510 5.00 5.00 5.00

Child Care Assistant Director 3,092 - 3,758 2.00 2.00 2.00

Child Care Director 3,801 - 4,621 1.00 0.00 0.00

Child Care Leader 2,555 - 3,106 2.00 2.00 2.00

Facility Aide 2,558 - 3,108 4.90 4.90 4.90

Facility Leader 2,952 - 3,587 3.70 3.70 3.70

Food Service Assistant 1,386 - 2,600 1.22 1.00 1.00

Head Chef 2,600 - 4,853 1.00 1.00 1.00

Human Services Specialist II 2,810 - 3,416 1.88 1.88 1.88

Human Services Specialist III 3,091 - 3,757 1.00 1.00 1.00

Landscape Equipment Operator 3,672 - 4,463 1.00 1.00 1.00

Landscape Gardener 3,376 - 4,101 25.00 25.00 25.00

Budget Summary - 28

Budget Summary PERSONNEL ALLOCATIONS BY DEPARTMENT

Monthly Budgeted Approved Approved

Department/ Title Salary Ranges ($) 2001/ 02 2002/ 03 2003/ 04

Parks, Recreation, and Community Services ( Continued)

Lead Landscape Gardener 3,709 - 4,510 5.00 5.00 5.00

Lead Maintenance Custodian 3,092 - 3,758 4.00 4.00 4.00

Maintenance Custodian 2,813 - 3,417 10.00 10.00 10.00

Office Clerical 1,083 - 3,467 2.00 3.00 3.00

Paraprofessional 2,600 - 5,200 0.00 7.10 7.10

Parks, Rec. and Comm. Svcs. Director 9,091 - 12,525 1.00 1.00 1.00

Parks, Rec. and Comm. Svcs. Manager 5,590 - 6,706 9.00 9.00 9.00

Parks, Rec. and Comm. Svcs. Supt. 6,706 - 8,049 2.00 2.00 2.00

Recreation & Comm. Svcs. Prog. Coord. I 3,591 - 4,365 7.00 1.00 1.00

Recreation & Comm. Svcs. Prog. Coord. II 3,950 - 4,801 1.50 1.50 1.50

Recreation Supervisor 4,846 - 5,815 0.00 4.00 4.00

Recreation Center Supervisor 4,713 - 5,656 2.00 0.00 0.00

Recreation Instructor - Funded 1,560 - 2,080 0.75 0.75 0.75

Secretary 3,414 - 4,150 2.00 2.00 2.00

Senior Building Maintenance Worker 4,081 - 4,961 3.00 3.00 3.00

Senior Crafts Specialist 3,709 - 4,510 2.00 2.00 2.00

Service Maintenance 1,083 - 3,467 1.22 2.65 2.65

Skilled Craft 3,467 - 6,067 0.00 0.96 0.96

Total 111.52 114.19 114.19

Police

Administrative Secretary 3,804 - 4,565 2.00 2.00 2.00

Administrative Services Manager 6,453 - 7,743 1.00 1.00 1.00

Communications Dispatcher 4,436 - 5,393 12.00 12.00 12.00

Communications Supervisor 4,547 - 5,457 1.00 0.00 0.00

Community Service Officer 3,467 - 4,215 11.00 11.00 11.00

Information Technology Analyst I 4,833 - 5,800 1.00 1.00 1.00

Information Technology Analyst II 5,318 - 6,382 1.00 0.00 0.00

Juvenile Specialist 3,887 - 4,664 1.00 1.00 1.00

Lead Police Clerk 3,486 - 4,237 2.00 2.00 2.00

Lead Public Safety Dispatcher 4,880 - 5,931 0.00 1.00 1.00

Police Captain 8,493 - 10,191 3.00 3.00 3.00

Police Chief 10,536 - 13,490 1.00 1.00 1.00

Police Clerk 3,171 - 3,852 8.00 9.00 9.00

Police Evidence/ Ident. Technician 3,557 - 4,324 1.00 0.00 0.00

Police Officer 5,279 - 6,417 77.00 77.00 77.00

Police Officer Trainee 5,279 - 5,819 3.00 3.00 3.00

Police Sergeant 6,617 - 8,043 16.00 16.00 16.00

Secretary 3,414 - 4,150 2.00 2.00 2.00

Senior Information Technology Analyst 5,849 - 7,019 0.00 1.00 1.00

Total 143.00 143.00 143.00

Budget Summary - 29

Budget Summary PERSONNEL ALLOCATIONS BY DEPARTMENT

Monthly Budgeted Approved Approved

Department/ Title Salary Ranges ($) 2001/ 02 2002/ 03 2003/ 04

Public Works Services

Administrative Secretary 3,804 - 4,565 1.00 1.00 1.00

Assistant Engineer II 4,958 - 6,026 1.00 1.00 1.00

Central Stores Specialist 4,123 - 5,011 1.00 1.00 1.00

Consumer Service Technician 3,495 - 4,248 6.00 6.00 6.00

Customer Support Service Specialist 4,451 - 5,411 1.00 1.00 1.00

Delivery Driver/ Stock Clerk 2,953 - 3,589 1.00 1.00 1.00

Equipment Mechanic II 3,926 - 4,771 5.00 5.00 5.00

Equipment Operations Leader 4,321 - 5,250 1.00 1.00 1.00

Equipment Service Worker 3,104 - 3,773 1.00 1.00 1.00

Lead Equipment Mechanic 4,321 - 5,250 1.00 1.00 1.00

Lead Maintenance Electrician 4,748 - 5,772 1.00 1.00 1.00

Lead Public Works Maintenance Wrkr 3,857 - 4,686 10.00 10.00 10.00

Maintenance Electrician 4,319 - 5,248 2.00 2.00 2.00

Management Analyst 5,491 - 6,588 1.00 1.00 1.00

Public Works Maintenance Wrkr II 3,495 - 4,248 30.00 30.00 30.00

Public Works Maintenance Wrkr III/ E. O. 3,672 - 4,463 4.00 4.00 4.00

Public Works Service Director 9,611 - 13,490 1.00 1.00 1.00

Public Works Superintendent 6,706 - 8,049 4.00 4.00 4.00

Public Works Supervisor 5,585 - 6,701 6.00 6.00 6.00

Secretary 3,414 - 4,150 4.00 4.00 4.00

Tree Maintenance Worker II 3,533 - 4,295 2.00 2.00 2.00

Urban Forestry Specialist 4,468 - 5,430 1.00 1.00 1.00

Utility Locator 3,857 - 4,686 1.00 1.00 1.00

Utilities Specialist 4,451 - 5,411 3.00 3.00 3.00

Total 89.00 89.00 89.00

Budgeted Approved Approved

RECAP 2001/ 02 2002/ 03 2003/ 04

City Clerk 3.50 3.50 3.50

City Council 7.00 7.00 7.00

City Manager 6.75 6.75 6.75

City Attorney 4.00 4.00 4.00

Community Development Services 66.56 70.15 69.40

Finance 32.75 32.75 32.75

Fire 73.50 73.50 73.50

Human Resources 11.00 11.00 11.00

Library 45.94 46.44 46.44

Parks, Recreation and Community Services 111.52 114.19 114.19

Police 143.00 143.00 143.00

Public Works 89.00 89.00 89.00

Grand Total 594.52 601.28 600.53

( 1) Personnel under the management control of each department. Salary and benefits ( in certain situations) may be

distributed to other departments.

Budget Summary - 30

City Council Priorities

City Council Priorities - 1

The City Council sets both operational and capital priorities to establish parameters for two- year financial planning.

Ongoing projects remain from the Council priorities set in the previous two- year budget, and the City Council has directed

staff to continue work on these projects. In addition, for the next two fiscal years, 2002/ 2003 and 2003/ 2004, the City

Council established the following priorities at their annual priority setting session. In departmental operating budgets,

specific objectives have been established to accomplish these priorities. In the Capital Improvement Program budget,

specific projects are funded and prioritized based on these same priorities. The City Council will revisit these priorities mid-term

in this two- year budget and planning process. Where appropriate and desired by the City Council, changes may be

made to the priorities.

In setting priorities, the Council applies its three " overarching guidelines," which are:

I. Aesthetics

II. Creating Pedestrian- Friendly Public Places

III. Quality of Life

1. Youth and Education

¡ Additional funding for extended use of new gyms/ libraries/ media centers at schools

¡ Look for opportunities to lock in land/ space for two additional soccer fields and two additional baseball fields; tie

to parks and schools

¡ Lighting of McGarvey and Garfield fields

¡ Childcare location exploration ( Franklin St.)

2. Transportation and Traffic

¡ Study in- town shuttles for youth/ seniors/ others; coordinate with SamTrans

3. Infrastructure

¡ Maintain existing public access to Bair Island

¡ Redwood Shores Branch Library

4. Housing

¡ Increase housing programs for teachers/ seniors ( including possible Cañada College site)

¡ Housing education/ forum regarding density awareness, definitions, types, locations, and needs

5. Downtown Improvements

¡ Create an implementation plan for the Downtown Plan ( including possible additional committees)

¡ Implement Courthouse Plaza restoration

6. Doing Business Effectively and Efficiently

¡ Advance planning tied to General Plan update: Step 1: Build- out analysis; Step 2: Zoning codes

updates/ additional area plans

¡ Review codes and development permitting process to ensure appropriate follow- up

7. Water Supply

¡ Address Redwood City water supply assurance

¡ Implement Water Recycling Project

¡ Regional water supply - Fix the system ( Hetch Hetchy)

8. Cultural Activities

¡ ( No specific programs or projects were defined)

Neighborhood Services Survey

Neighborhood Services Survey - 1

The City of Redwood City hired Godbe Research and Analysis to conduct the second biennial Neighborhood Services

Survey in June of 2001. Godbe conducted an 18- minute telephone survey with 630 randomly selected Redwood City

residents, 100 of which were from the Redwood Shores neighborhood. Godbe also conducted one focus group of 14

neighbors from Redwood Shores. The results of this survey are in the attached executive summary. We will conduct a

similar survey every two years and use the information to develop objectives for budget purposes as well as on- going

continuous improvement plans.

The survey is a means to provide valuable feedback about satisfaction with City services and quality of life issues for the

community. It is also an opportunity to receive direct feedback from Redwood City residents about how Redwood City is

doing and how we can improve.

It is our intention to feature a department every other year to gather more detailed information on the individual department.

The featured department in this survey was the Library Department. There was also an additional focus on determining the

priorities of the residents in the Redwood Shores area.

The objectives of the survey were to: 1) expand direct citizen feedback on City services and quality of life indicators as

objectively as possible; 2) do a more complete assessment of library needs and demographic information for all of Redwood

City, and 3) determine the priorities among Redwood Shores area residents from a list of possible capital pro jects.

As you will see in this budget document, many departments have set objectives based on the results of the survey where

appropriate. In most cases, the objectives are geared towards improving ratings or maintaining levels of services where there

is a good or excellent rating.

Introduction

City of Redwood City Godbe Research & Analysis

Page 1

Introduction

Godbe Research & Analysis is pleased to present the results of a public opinion research

project conducted for the City of Redwood City. This report is organized into the following

sections:

Executive Summary The Executive Summary includes a summary of the Key Findings from the survey and a

Findings & Conclusions section, which details our recommended course of action based on

the survey results.

Methodology The Methodology section explains the methodology used to conduct this type of survey

research. This section also explains how to use the detailed crosstabulation tables in Appen-dix

B.

Summary of Results In the body of the report, we present a question- by- question analysis of the survey. The dis-cussion

is organized into the following sections:

n Issues of Importance

n Satisfaction with City Services

n Library Use, Locations, and Services

n City Services

n Additional Demographic and Behavioral Measures

Appendices We have included the following three Appendices:

n Appendix A, which presents the questionnaires with topline results.

n Appendix B, which presents the complete cross tabulations for the survey.

n Appendix C, which presents the verbatim responses for the open ended questions in the

survey.

Executive Summary

City of Redwood City Godbe Research & Analysis

Page 2

Executive Summary

Key Findings

Based on an analysis of the survey data, Godbe Research & Analysis ( GRA) offers the follow-ing

key findings:

Issues of Importance The issues that were mentioned most often by respondents as the most important issue con-cerned

‘ improving the quality of education’ ( 13%), ‘ create affordable housing’ ( 13%), and

‘ reducing traffic congestion’ ( 12%). Additional issues mentioned included ‘ energy crisis’

( 6%), ‘ schools’ ( 5%), ‘ none or nothing’ ( 5%), ‘ reducing crime’( 4%), ‘ improving public

transportation’ ( 3%), and ‘ gangs’ ( 3%).

Satisfaction with City Services Respondents were asked to indicate whether, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with

the job the City of Redwood City is doing to provide programs and services, and to maintain

public facilities. Because this question did not reference a specific program or facility and

requested that respondents consider the City’s performance in general, the responses to the

question can be viewed as an overall performance rating for the City.

The majority of respondents reported that they were either ‘ very’ ( 30%) or ‘ somewhat’ satis-fied

( 51%) with the City’s efforts to provide programs and services, and to maintain public

facilities. Approximately 7 percent of respondents were ‘ somewhat dissatisfied’ and 5 percent

were ‘ very dissatisfied’.

With respect to specific City services tested, respondents were most satisfied with ‘ fire protec-tion/

prevention services’, ‘ library services’, ‘ maintenance of park/ recreation facilities’, and

the ‘ recycling program’. Alternatively, respondents were least satisfied with the ‘ availability

of affordable housing’ and the ‘ reduction of traffic congestion’ in the City of Redwood City.

Finally, it is important to note that nine of the fifteen services received a mean score of at

least + 1, indicating that respondents were at least somewhat satisfied with more than half of

the tested services offered by the City of Redwood City.

Library Use, Locations, and Services Approximately three- fourths of respondents ( 73%) reported that a member of her/ his house-hold

has used a public library during the past year. Nearly 27 percent reported that he/ she or

a member of their household had not used a public library and less than 1 percent were not

sure whether they have used the library or not.

The public library that the largest percent of library users indicated that their household uses

most often was the Redwood City Main Library ( 77%) followed by Schaberg ( 13%), Fair Oaks

( 8%), and San Carlos ( 6%).

Executive Summary

City of Redwood City Godbe Research & Analysis

Page 3

The two reasons respondents most frequently gave for choosing the libraries they used most

often were ‘ location’ ( 69%) and ‘ availability of materials’ ( 15%). In addition, 4 percent

stated that the library they chose was ‘ bigger/ larger’ than other libraries and 2 percent indi-cated

that ‘ staff’ was a deciding factor in choosing a library.

Next, Redwood City library users were asked what were their top two reasons for using the

City of Redwood City public library. The reasons mentioned most often by Redwood City

library users for using the Library were ‘ personal reading’ ( 36%), ‘ research’ ( 25%), ‘ chil-dren’s

use’ ( 18%), school- related/ homework’ ( 14%), and ‘ reference materials’( 10%).

Next, non- library users were asked to indicate the main reason why their household has not

used the public library in the past year. The most frequent responses to this question were

that a respondent had ‘ no need for a library’( 21%) or ‘ don’t have time’ ( 19%). The other

most frequently reported reasons for not using the public library were ‘ use the Internet

instead’ ( 9%), ‘ I buy books’ ( 5%), ‘ don’t know where they [ libraries] are’ ( 4%), and ‘ loca-tions

are inconvenient’ ( 4%).

Next, all respondents were asked to rate the Redwood City public library services. 41 percent

rated the City of Redwood City Public Library services as ‘ excellent’ and 37 percent rated the

Redwood City Public Library services as ‘ good’. Finally, 8 percent of respondents rated the

Library services as ‘ fair’ and less than 2 percent rated the Library services as ‘ poor’.

Redwood City library users were next asked to rate the availability of materials at the City of

Redwood City Public Library. The vast majority of respondents rated the availability of mate-rials

as at least good (‘ excellent’: 44% and ‘ good’: 43%). Approximately 10 percent of respon-dents

rated the availability of materials as ‘ fair’, and 1 percent of respondents rated the

availability of materials as ‘ poor’.

Respondents perceived the following library programs and services as most important: ‘ chil-dren’s

books‘, ‘ library staff’, ‘ reference materials’, ‘ convenient location’, ‘ quiet reading/

study areas’, and ‘ current books’. Categories such as ‘ movies on video/ DVDs’, ‘ non- fiction

films’, ‘ adult programs’, ‘ music and entertainment programs’, and meeting rooms’ were

ranked least important overall. It is important to note, however, that all of the library ser-vices

except for one was ranked as at least ‘ somewhat important’.

Respondents were asked where they prefer to get books or find information. The largest per-cent

of respondents stated that they preferred to go to the ‘ Redwood City Public Library’

( 55%) compared to the percent of respondents who indicated that they preferred to use the

‘ Internet’ ( 31%) or go to ‘ chain bookstores’ ( 12%) to get a book or find information.

The primary reasons respondents preferred to get books and information from a ‘ chain

bookstore’ or the ‘ Internet’, included ‘ convenience/ easy access’( 38%), ‘ Internet- better

Executive Summary

City of Redwood City Godbe Research & Analysis

Page 4

resource’( 15%), ‘ keep or buy the book’ ( 9%), ‘ greater availability and selection’ ( 7%), and

‘ did not have to leave their home’ ( 6%).

Approximately 25 percent of respondents reported visiting the Redwood City library web site.

Respondents who had Internet access and have visited the Redwood City library web site,

indicated that they used it for the following reasons: ‘ conduct research’ ( 22%), ‘ access online

resources’ ( 18%), ‘ access online catalog’ ( 16%), ‘ renew library books’ ( 11%), and ‘ informa-tion

about libraries’ ( 10%).

City Services Condition of streets and sidewalks: 27 percent stated that the streets and roads

were in ‘ good condition all over’, 54 percent stated that the streets and roads were ‘ mostly

good’, and 18 percent stated that the streets and roads had ‘ many bad spots’.

29 percent stated that the sidewalks were in ‘ good condition all over’, 49 percent stated that

the sidewalks were ‘ mostly good’, and 15 percent stated that the sidewalks had ‘ many bad

spots’.

Street sweeping: Next respondents were asked if they would be willing to move their cars

every two weeks to allow for street sweeping. Approximately 69 percent responded ‘ definitely

yes’, 14 percent responded ‘ probably yes’, 3 percent responded ‘ probably no’ and 5 percent

responded ‘ definitely no’.

Those respondents that stated they would ‘ probably not’ or ‘ definitely not’ be willing to move

their car every two weeks for street sweeping were asked why they were not willing to move

their car. The responses included: ‘ too annoying/ inconvenient’ ( 23%), ‘ I have a driveway/

carport/ garage’ ( 21%), ‘ no other places to park/ not enough places’ ( 15%), and ‘ streets are

fine don’t need cleaners’ ( 8%). 5 percent gave responses of ‘ go around me’, ‘ I won’t do it’, or

‘ not a concern’. Finally, 3 percent of respondents stated that they ‘ clean the gutter myself’.

Approximately 50 percent felt ‘ very safe’ walking alone in their neighborhood. In addition,

33 percent felt ‘ reasonably safe’, 13 percent felt some ‘ unsafe’, and 3 percent felt ‘ very

unsafe’ walking alone in their neighborhood.

Weeds, junk lots, graffiti abandoned automobiles, and dilapidated

houses: Next, respondents were asked if they felt things like weeds, junk lots, graffiti, aban-doned

automobiles, and dilapidated houses were a big problem in their neighborhood. 12

percent of respondents felt it was a ‘ big problem’, 17 percent felt it was ‘ somewhat of a prob-lem’,

23 percent felt it was ‘ only a small problem, and 47 percent felt it was ‘ not a problem at

all.’

Traffic enforcement: When asked about the enforcement of traffic laws, 24 percent of

respondents stated that traffic law enforcement is ‘ excellent’, 44 percent stated that traffic

Executive Summary

City of Redwood City Godbe Research & Analysis

Page 5

law enforcement is ‘ good’, 25 percent stated that traffic law enforcement is ‘ fair’, and 4 per-cent

stated that traffic law enforcement is ‘ poor’.

Contact with Police Department: Respondents were next asked if they had any con-tact

with Redwood City’s police department in past 12 months. 34 percent of respondents

stated that they had contact with the Redwood City police department, 66 percent stated that

they had not had any contact with Redwood City’s police department.

Approximately 40 percent of respondents who have had contact with the Redwood City police

department stated that the police were ‘ excellent’ in the way they handled the contact and 29

percent stated that the police were ‘ good’ in the way they handled the contact. 14 percent of

respondents felt the police were only ‘ fair’ and 15 percent felt the police handle the contact

in a ‘ poor’ manner.

Contact with City employees: Respondents were next asked if they had called, written

or gone to see any City employee or Council member ( other than police) about an issue or

problem. 18 percent of respondents indicated that they had called, written, or gone to see a

City employee or Council member in the past year.

56 percent of respondents who had contact with a city employee or council member in the

past year rated the City employee or Council member as ‘ very helpful’ and 21 percent rated

them as ‘ somewhat helpful’. 10 percent of respondents felt the City employee or Council

member was ‘ not very helpful’ and 12 percent felt they were ‘ not helpful at all'.

Additionally, respondents were asked if the City employee or Council member was courteous.

63 percent of respondents rated the City employee or Council member as ‘ very courteous’

and 27 percent rated them as ‘ fairly courteous’. Alternatively, 8 percent of respondents rated

the city employee as ‘ fairly’ ( 1%) or ‘ very’ ( 7%) discourteous.

Redwood Shores Facilities ( only asked of Redwood Shores residents):

Next, only Redwood Shores residents were asked what two types of facilities would they most

like to have in Redwood Shores. According to the results, the largest percentage of Redwood

Shores residents indicated that they would want a ‘ public library branch’. Other responses

given by a large percentage of Redwood Shores residents included ‘ community swimming

pool’, ‘ teen center’, ‘ community center’, and ‘ child care facilities’.

Respondents with Internet access that indicated that they have visited the Redwood City web

site were asked what they have used the City web site for. 16 percent stated that they used the

web site for ‘ information about the community’, ‘ current events’ ( 13%), ‘ city services’

( 10%), and ‘ job opportunities’ ( 8%). 37 percent stated that they visited the web site for rea-sons

‘ other’ than what was pre coded in the survey.

Executive Summary

City of Redwood City Godbe Research & Analysis

Page 6

Parks and Recreation Services: Next, respondents were asked about Redwood City

parks and recreation. 69 percent of respondents stated they or someone in their household

had used a Redwood City park, recreation facility, or recreation program.

The next question addressed respondents’ evaluation of recreation programs and services

provided by Redwood City. 29 percent stated that the recreation opportunities, services and

programs were ‘ excellent’, 46 percent stated that the opportunities, services and programs

were ‘ good’, 15 percent stated that the opportunities, services and programs were ‘ fair’, and 1

percent stated that the opportunities, services and programs were ‘ poor’. 9 percent of respon-dents

stated that they either had ‘ no opinion’ ( 3%) or ‘ didn’t know’ ( 6%).

Finally, 31 percent of the respondents felt that maintenance by Redwood City has been

‘ excellent’, 44 percent felt that the maintenance by Redwood City has been ‘ good’, 13 percent

felt that the maintenance by Redwood City has been only ‘ fair’, and 2 percent felt that the

maintenance by Redwood City has been ‘ poor’.

Executive Summary

City of Redwood City Godbe Research & Analysis

Page 7

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the research objectives for this study and the findings of the analyses, GRA is

pleased to offer the following conclusions and recommendations:

City Satisfaction In general, Redwood City residents appeared to be quite satisfied with the City of Redwood

City’s overall efforts to provide programs and services, and maintain public facilities. A large

majority of residents in the City were either ‘ very satisfied’ ( 30%) or ‘ somewhat satisfied’

( 51%) with the City in general. Although this represents a high level of satisfaction, the City

still has an opportunity to increase the satisfaction levels and to increase the percentage of

‘ very satisfied’ residents compared with ‘ somewhat satisfied’ residents. When compared with

results from other similar survey projects that GRA has conducted for cities throughout Cali-fornia,

the overall level of satisfaction is about average.

With respect to Redwood City residents’ satisfaction with specific City services, residents were

the most satisfied with fire protection/ prevention, library services, and maintenance of park/

recreation facilities provided by the City. Alternatively, residents expressed a lower level of sat-isfaction

with the following services: availability of affordable housing, reduction of traffic

congestion, and promotion of business district. It is important to note that housing and traf-fic

were among the most frequently reported importance issues in Redwood City. Therefore,

given the higher importance and lower satisfaction ratings of these issues, housing and traf-fic

represent opportunities for improvement in the City of Redwood City.

Other issues that were considered among the most important issues in Redwood City

included education and the energy crisis. Education, housing, and traffic were also consid-ered

among the top four most important issues in the 1999 survey conducted by Redwood

City. Whereas crime was among the top four important issues in 1999, the energy crisis was

the fourth most frequently reported important issue in the present survey ( 2001). These

results are consistent with GRA’s experience with other cities and counties. Specifically,

crime and education are usually the most important issues. In addition, traffic and afford-able

housing are typically perceived as very important in San Mateo and Santa Clara Coun-ties.

Library Services Approximately 73 percent of households had used the library within the past 12 months.

This represents a 7 percent increase in use from the 1999 survey. Based on our experience,

this represents a slightly above average level of household library use. In addition, library

services received a high rating overall. Specifically, 78 percent of respondents rated the

library services as at least good. Moreover, respondents from households that have used the

library in the past 12 months rated the library services higher than did those respondents

whose household has not used the library in the past six months. Library non- users were

more likely to have no opinion or not know about library services. This suggests that non-users’

reasons for not using the library are not based a negative opinion of the library ser-

Executive Summary

City of Redwood City Godbe Research & Analysis

Page 8

vices. Instead, the most frequently reported reasons for not using the library were ‘ no need’

and ‘ no time’. These are the same reasons we have seen in other Cities for not using the

library. Moreover, these reasons represent a challenge because it is difficult to try to convince

someone that they do, in fact, have a need for the library.

Interestingly, respondents without school- aged children were more likely to report ‘ no need’

and respondents with school- aged children were more likely to report ‘ no time’ as the reason

for not using the library in the past 12 months. It has been GRA’s experience that households

with children are likely to use the library. Given these households tend to be library users and

understanding the barrier to these respondents is simply no time, we recommend the library

develop services and strategies to minimize the amount of perceived time necessary to visit

the library and to inform residents of these services and strategies.

The availability of materials at the library also represents an important component of public

library services. Approximately 87 percent of households that have used a Redwood City pub-lic

library in the past 12 months rated the availability of materials as at least good. In addi-tion,

availability of materials was not mentioned as a reason for not using the library and it

was not the most frequently mentioned reason for choosing a particular library. Although

availability of materials does not seem to be a major issue in Redwood City right now, it is

vital that the library continues to have the items and services that users feel are important.

The services perceived as most important to respondents were children’s books, library staff,

and reference materials. However, almost all the services tested were considered at least

somewhat important.

Availability of materials is important because if the library does not have a particular item,

then an individual may decide to go to a bookstore or use the Internet instead. Right now,

bookstores and the Internet represent real competition for libraries. Therefore, respondents

were asked whether they preferred to get books and information from the Redwood City Pub-lic

Libraries, bookstores, or the Internet. The majority of respondents preferred the Redwood

City Public Libraries to chain bookstores and the Internet. Respondents who preferred chain

bookstores or the Internet were asked to provide a reason for their preference. The most fre-quently

provided reason for preferring a chain bookstore was because one can keep the book

and the availability/ selection at chain bookstores. Alternatively, the most frequently reported

reason for preferring the Internet was the convenience associated with the Internet. Under-standing

these reasons provides important insight that can aid in the development of services

and strategies to meet these needs. Once these services and strategies are developed then they

should be communicated to City residents. One possible strategy is to increase the awareness

and the functionality of the Library’s website.

City Services Condition of streets and sidewalks: Although 81 percent of respondents perceived

the condition of the streets as at least ‘ mostly good/ few bad spots’ in the current study, this

represents a decrease from 1999. In 1999, 92 percent of respondents indicated that they felt

Executive Summary

City of Redwood City Godbe Research & Analysis

Page 9

the condition of City streets was at least ‘ mostly good/ few bad spots’. Moreover, perception

shifted from ‘ good condition’ to other extreme of ‘ many bad spots’. There was also a less pos-itive

perception of the condition of the sidewalks in 2001 compared with 1999. This change

in perception was not as drastic as it was for the condition of streets. Specifically, the percep-tion

changed from ‘ good condition’ to ‘ mostly good/ few bad spots’. Based on these results,

the condition of streets and sidewalks represent an opportunity for improvement within Red-wood

City.

Street sweeping: There was a general willingness among respondents to move their cars

to allow for City street sweeping. The primary reason for not wanting to move their car was

because of the inconvenience.

Weeds, junk lots, graffiti abandoned automobiles, and dilapidated

houses: The largest percentage of respondents indicated they felt the weeds, junk lots, graf-fiti

abandoned automobiles, and dilapidated houses in Redwood City were not a problem at

all. However, more than one- fourth of respondents felt that this was at least somewhat of

problem. Therefore, we recommend that Redwood City continues to make sure that this does

not become more of a problem in Redwood City.

Safety: The majority of residents felt reasonably safe walking alone in their neighborhood.

In addition, respondents, overall, were at least somewhat satisfied with the City’s provision of

neighborhood patrols. However, it is important to keep in mind that reducing crime was

mentioned by 4 percent of respondents as one of the most important issues.

Traffic enforcement: Overall, the largest percentage of respondents felt that traffic

enforcement was good. The most frequently reported reasons for a fair or poor rating was

that there was too much speeding and motorists running red lights. However, some respon-dents

indicated that they were not happy with the traffic enforcement because they had

recently received a ticket.

Contact with Police Department: Over one- third of respondents reported having

some contact with the police department in the past 12 months. This represents an increase

in contact from the 1999 survey results. In addition, a trend emerged between contact with

the police department and satisfaction with the investigation of criminal activity. Specifi-cally,

a larger percentage of respondents who were very satisfied with the investigation of

criminal activity had contact with the police compared to the percentage of individuals who

were very dissatisfied with the investigation of criminal activity.

Contact with City employees: The majority of respondents who have had contact

with a City employee felt that the City employee was helpful and courteous. However, a larger

percentage of respondents indicated the City employee was courteous compared to the per-centage

of respondents who indicated that the City employee was helpful. Therefore, we rec-

Executive Summary

City of Redwood City Godbe Research & Analysis

Page 10

ommend that the City ensure that City employees are able to help residents as well as being

courteous to residents.

Redwood Shores Facilities ( only asked of Redwood Shores residents):

The largest percentage of Redwood Shores residents indicated that they would most like to

have a public library branch and community swimming pools in Redwood Shores.

Parks and Recreation Services: The majority of households have used a park, recre-ation

facility or recreation program in the past 12 months. Since 1999, park and recreation

use has increased by 10 percent. In addition, the maintenance of these facilities and the

overall recreation opportunities, services and programs in Redwood City were rated high

among residents. Finally those who have used a park, recreation facility or recreation pro-gram

in the last 12 months tended to provide higher ratings for maintenance and overall

ratings of opportunities than did non- users.

By conducting tracking surveys regarding resident satisfaction, the City can assess residents’

opinions regarding a variety of services and can identify a shift in the positive direction

among the different City services. Throughout the Conclusions and Recommendations sec-tion,

we have included comparisons between the results from the current project ( 2001) to

the results from the 1999 survey conducted by Redwood City. In the following table, the

results for the questions asked in both surveys are presented to facilitate a comparison

between the two surveys. In this table, we have also provided a column that represents the

differences between the two surveys. If the number in the ‘ change’ column is positive, then

there as been a increase since 1999. Conversely, a negative number in the ‘ change’ column

represents a decrease since 1999.

Executive Summary

City of Redwood City Godbe Research & Analysis

Page 11

Table 1. Tracking Survey Results

Most important issue 1999 2001 % Change

traffic 14% 12% - 2%

education 18% 13% - 5%

crime 8% 4% - 4%

housing 10% 13% 3%

energy crisis 6% 6%

gangs 3% 3%

Condition of streets

Good condition 39% 27% - 12%

Few bad spots 53% 54% 1%

Many bad spots 8% 18% 10%

Condition of sidewalks

Good Condition 37% 29% - 8%

Few bad spots 41% 49% 8%

Many bad spots 15% 15% 0%

Weed/ junk/ graffiti problem

Big/ Somewhat problem 37% 29% - 8%

Small/ Not a problem 62% 70% 8%

Used parks/ rec past 12 months

Yes 59% 69% 10%

No 41% 30% - 11%

Rating park/ rec

Excellent/ Good 76% 75% - 1%

Fair/ Poor 9% 16% 7%

Used library in past 12 months

Yes 66% 73% 7%

No 34% 27% - 7%

Availability of material

Excellent/ Good 91% 87% - 4%

Fair/ Poor 9% 11% 2%

Library services overall

Excellent/ Good 77% 78% 1%

Fair/ Poor 4% 10% 6%

Contact with police past 12 months

Yes 28% 34% 6%

No 72% 66% - 6%

Rating police handling of contact

Excellent/ Good 80% 69% - 11%

Fair/ Poor 17% 29% 12%

Past year contact with City employee

Yes 11% 18% 7%

no 88% 82% - 6%

City employee/ Council member- helpfulness

Very/ Somewhat Helpful 79% 77% - 2%

Not Very/ Not at all Helpful 22% 22% 0%

City employee/ Council member- courteous

Very/ Fairly Courteous 87% 90% 3%

Fairly/ Very Discourteous 9% 8% - 1%

Executive Summary

City of Redwood City Godbe Research & Analysis

Page 12

City- Resident Communication The survey also found that although the majority of Redwood City residents have access to

the Internet ( and most of those access from home), less than one- third of them had visited

the City’s web site. These findings suggest an opportunity for the City to increase its residents’

use of its web site.

City web sites are often a neglected source of information for residents. GRA recommends

that the City publish the URL of the web site in its local newspapers, inviting residents to visit.

To the extent that the City may use local newspapers to increase local residents’ use of its web

site, the City may be able to strengthen its communication link with Redwood City residents.

An improved communication link not only serves to strengthen community involvement in

local government, but it can also improve perceptions of the City and its efforts to provide

services by making individuals aware of such efforts. It seems that often times residents’

opinions are shaped largely by how they perceive that the City is approaching a particular

problem. Sometimes knowing that their City is putting forth efforts increases their overall

satisfaction with a particular service or issue. For instance, GRA recently worked with a City

that received a considerably low score for the perceived safety of its parks and recreation

facilities. Several months later, the City began to dig trenches and lay down wire to provide

many of their parks and facilities with exterior lighting. Several weeks into the project, the

City conducted another survey of its residents and asked a similar set of questions. The City

Manager was concerned that because of the work in progress in the parks, accessibility was

hindered and that would reflect negatively in the survey. However, to everyone’s surprise,

accessibility was rated highly, and even more surprisingly, so was safety. Even though the

parks had no additional lighting and were not actually any ‘ safer’ than before, simply know-ing

that the City was acting to improve safety seemed to influence the public’s perception of

it.

Such may also be the case for important local issues in Redwood City, such as affordable

housing and traffic. Proactively informing residents of the City’s efforts to manage traffic

may be one of the first steps in addressing these issues and also improving the residents’ per-ceptions

of their City.

Performance Measures

Performance Measures - 1

Background

One of the City Council priorities is " Doing Business Efficiently." Establishing performance measures as a decision- making

and management tool for the organization is responsive to this policy direction and is reflected throughout the City's adopted

two- year budget for 2002/ 2003 and 2003/ 2004. Redwood City's goal in comparing our performance to the other cities is to

improve Redwood City's services by learning from successful practices in those cities.

1. International City/ County Management Association ( ICMA) Performance Measures

The information was developed through our participation in a nation- wide study led by the International City/ County

Management Association ( ICMA). As you will see in this budget document, each graph is annotated with: a definition ( what

is being measured); an analysis ( what the data means and what steps have been taken in the last year); and next steps ( what

we plan to do with the data).

Reporting Structure

The budget includes 33 performance measures that have broad interest to the City Council, the public and the following

departments: Police, Fire, Human Resources, Library, Parks, Recreation and Community Services, Community Development

Services, Finance and Public Works Services. The ICMA study does not collect any measures for the City Manager, City

Clerk, City Attorney or City Council functions. However, the support from these departments for the City- wide performance

measure effort was critical to the success of collecting the data for measures and completing our fourth year in the program.

The performance results achieved by the City of Redwood City are compared with other cities shown on the graphs. We

have attempted to select five comparison full service cities that are similar to Redwood City in size and structure. These five

cities are Merced, Santa Monica, Davis, Carlsbad, and San Mateo. In previous years Daly City was one of our comparison

cities. Unfortunately we learned that Daly City is no longer participating in the ICMA studies. In several cases, the data was

not collected by all cities for a specific measure. In these cases, the next larger or smaller city, outside of the group of five

cities, was used for comparison for that measure. We also found that some cities would report one year, but not the next. As

a result, in many cases, it was necessary to select additional cities for comparison purposes. This reporting process will

continue to evolve as ICMA works with member cities to refine the measures and the definitions.

On each graph there are two legends. The top legend shows the annual median for the cities on that graph. The bottom

legend shows the national median for cities under 100,000 in population for the year 2000. While we don’t have the national

median data for previous years, we plan to include it on future graphs as it becomes available. We believe the national

median will be more valuable as it provides a more accurate and broader comparison.

In addition, you will note that we are concentrating on 2000 data. However, you will also see 1998 and 1999 data so that we

cannot only compare ourselves to other cities' 2000 data, but we can also compare ourselves to other cities' previous years’

data as well as our own. Finally, you will see that we have also included 2001 data for Redwood City and a few of the

comparison cities. Since Redwood City's 2001 information is available, as well as a few select comparison cities, we have

included the information as it provides an additional year to track our progress to improve services. ICMA has made some

improvement in their data collection and reporting systems. We will receive all of the information from ICMA regarding

other cities in June 2002.

Even with these time limitations, we continue to find this process to be highly valuable, and we are committed to the process.

We view the measures as the " door" we will use to open conversations and share ideas with other cities. In addition, the

process demonstrates that we are:

§ Open to a review of our methods;

§ Willing to share with others;

§ Interested in examining best practices;

§ Seeking opportunities to challenge ourselves; and

§ Promoting continuous improvement and innovation.

The ICMA Comparative Performance Measurement Program has become another way we are working to assure that we are

providing exceptional Redwood City services. The program provides an effective means of being accountable for our

performance and communicating our findings to the Council and citizens. The networks we are developing with comparable

cities will provide a wealth of information and ideas. We anticipate the next ICMA data will be helpful to develop and refine

policies and set priorities for this budget, especially at mid- budget review.

Performance Measures

Performance Measures - 2

2000 Comparison Cities Population Statistics

Jurisdiction Population Square Miles

Alameda 74,259 12.0

Antioch 84,485 29.0

Bellevue, Washington 106,400 31.0

Carlsbad 82,030 42.0

Daly City ( no longer reporting) 104,200 8.0

Davis 58,629 10.0

Fullerton 128,500 22.0

Gresham, Oregon 85,435 23.0

La Mesa 59,210 9.0

Lodi 57,935 12.0

Merced 63,330 20.0

Pomona 147,700 23.0

Redwood City 78,000 34.0

Riverside 256,843 79.0

San Bernardino 184,500 59.0

San Jose 923,591 177.0

San Mateo 95,400 16.0

Santa Monica 96,528 8.0

2. Other Performance Measures

As you will see in the budget document, several departments are using comparative performance measures independent of the

ICMA effort. This separate data collection effort confirms that this process is of great value to the departments. You will see

examples of non- ICMA measures in Public Works Services, Human Resources and Finance.

City Council - 1

CITY COUNCIL

Legislative and

Policy Determination

City Council DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW

City Council - 2

BUDGET DATA

2002/ 03 Department

Percentage of Bu