CC - Item 5A - Adoption of the 2016-17 Fiscal Year BudgetROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BILL R. MANIS, CITY MANAGER 5R _\
DATE: JUNE 28, 2016
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE 2016 -17 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET
SUMMARY
At the June 14, 2016, City Council Meeting, staff was directed to consider a potential re-
alignment of the City's organizational structure. The initial assessment and
recommendations relating to this request are included in Attachment C. Should the City
Council decide to move forward with the suggested recommendations outlined in
Attachment C, the total appropriations and the ongoing Fund Operating Budget totals
reflected in this staff report would be adjusted accordingly. These adjustments would
also need to be incorporated the City Resolution 2016 -27, Attachment A.
The City Council will consider the adoption of the City's Budget for the 2016 -17 Fiscal
Year, which provides for total appropriations of $33,934,800. The ongoing General
Fund Operating Budget of $20,920,300 is balanced with a small surplus for the
upcoming fiscal year. Consequently, a full scope of services to residents will be
continued without service reductions.
A budget workshop with the City Council was held on May 10, 2016. The General Fund
operating budget has a surplus of $553,900; however, this operating surplus will be
transferred into the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) along with limited resources
from the unallocated fund balance of the General Fund to pay for needed infrastructure
projects. No additional major financial changes have been made to the draft budget as
presented at the May10th workshop.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution 2016 -27 approving the City of Rosemead's Operating and
Capital Improvement Budget for the 2016 -17 Fiscal Year.
2. Adopt Resolution 2016 -07 approving the Housing Development Corporation's
Operating and Capital Improvement Budget for the 2016 -17 Fiscal Year.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
ITEM NO. 5.A
City Council Meeting
June 28, 2016
Paoe 2 of 2
Submitted by:
Carolyn A. Chu
Finance Director
Attachments: A — City Resolution 2016 -27
B — RHDC Resolution 2016 -07
C — Assessment of Organizational Structure
RESOLUTION NO. 2016 -27
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADOPTING
THE ANNUAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR THE
2016 -17 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, a proposed annual budget for the City of Rosemead, California for the
Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017 was submitted to the City
Council for it's review and consideration and the proposed annual budget is on file in the City
Clerk's office; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,
CALIFORNIA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The 2016 -17 Annual Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budget is hereby
adopted in the amount of $33,934,800.
2. There is hereby appropriated to each account group set forth in the "Detail Budget"
of said budget attached hereto, and made a part hereof as though fully set forth
herein, the sum shown for such account groups in the 2016 -17 Adopted Column.
3. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this Resolution and thereupon the same shall take effect and be in force.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED the 28 day of June, 2016.
Sandra Armenta, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ericka Hernandez
Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rachel Richman
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 2016 -07
A RESOLUTION OF THE ROSEMEAD HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
ADOPTING THE ANNUAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
FOR THE 2016 -17 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, a proposed annual budget for the Rosemead Housing Development
Corporation for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2016 and ending June 30, 2017 was
submitted to the Housing Development Corporation Board of Directors for its review and
consideration and the proposed annual budget is on file in the Corporation Secretary's office;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ROSEMEAD
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
4. The 2016 -17 Annual Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budget is hereby
adopted in the amount of $843,600.
5. There is hereby appropriated to each account group set forth in the "Detail Budget"
of said budget attached hereto, and made a part hereof as though fully set forth
herein, the sum shown for such account groups in the 2016 -17 Requested Column.
6. The President shall sign and the Corporation Secretary shall certify to the passage
and adoption of this Resolution and thereupon the same shall take effect and be in
force.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED the 28 day of June, 2016.
Sandra Armenta, President
ATTEST:
Ericka Hernandez
Acting Corporate Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rachel Richman
City Attorney
City of Rosemead
Memorandum
Attachment C
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Bill R. Manis, City Manager
Date: June 28, 2016
Re: Assessment of Organizational Structure
At the June 14, 2016, City Council Meeting, the City Manager was directed to provide an
assessment of the organizational structure of City Hall. Specifically, the City Manager's
Office, Parks & Recreation, Public Works, and Public Safety. Community Development,
and Finance were also reviewed as part of this assessment.
After serving in the City Manager capacity for the past eight (8) weeks, I have made my
initial observations of the organization. As mentioned previously, it would not be
responsible of any new City Manager to come in and make immediate changes unless the
organization was experiencing obvious deficiencies that impact our level of service to the
community. Ideally, it does make sense to have the majority of my Executive Team in
place and make potential changes to the organization at the mid -year point.
While I do not have any immediate concerns relating to our level of service, I do see
several areas that warrant organizational adjustments.
City Manager's Office —
I have received comments that suggest our Human Resources Department is over staffed.
Currently, the Human Resources Division consists of a Human Resources Manager and a
Human Resources Analyst. It was suggested that the Human Resources Analyst position
could be reclassified to a Management Analyst position reporting to the City Manager or
Assistant City Manager. This would provide additional day -to -day staff support to the
City Manager function.
Human Resources is appropriately staffed and it makes organizational sense to have a
Manager and Analyst position representing this Division. Removing the Analyst and
leaving only a Manager could create occasional deficiencies with the Division. This
Division currently falls under the City Manager's Office and if there is a need to shift the
Analyst over for a special assignment or project I currently have that option.
The proposed budget calls for a paid intern for the Human Resources Division. While I
do not see the added value in bringing on a paid intern, I do think anytime we can bring
on an unpaid intern we should welcome the assistance. This not only helps to supplement
a team, it also helps a job seeker gain valuable experience to build a resume and
encourages the chances of that person entering the workforce.
Recommendation: Eliminate the paid intern request, cost savings of $16,000.
Public Safety Department —
Based on my observations, conversations with our Chief (Lt. Somoano), the Council, and
community members, I see deficiencies in the Code Enforcement Division of Public
Safety. The balance of the Public Safety function, via our contract with the Los Angeles
County Sherrill Department, meets my expectations.
Approximately three (3) years ago the City had four (4) full -time Code Enforcement
Officers and one (1) full -time Code Enforcement Supervisor. The Division is
supplemented with thirteen (13) Community Safety Officers (LSO's) /Public Safety
Officers(PSO's). In May 2013, one (1) Code Enforcement Officer position was
eliminated.
Based on the number of Code cases we handle, and the importance of addressing code
related violations in a timely mariner, our City's level of service would be enhanced by
adding one (1) additional Code Enforcement Officer to this Division. In speaking with
our Chief, we would increase the number of hours in this Division by forty (40) hours in
the Code Enforcement function and decrease the number of hours by forty (40) in in
CSO/PSO function with a net cost of $34,900 including salary and benefits. If we were to
not shift the hours outlined above and just add a new Code Enforcement Officer, the cost
with salary and benefits would be $82,510. It makes sense to first try the adjusted hours
approach and then adjust if needed.
The new Code Enforcement Officer would support the case management /workload of the
Division and enhance our staffing levels to better serve our community.
Recommendation: Adjust hours as outlined adding one (1) new Code Enforcement
Officer, cost of $34,900.
Parks & Recreation Department —
The Parks & Recreation Department now has a new Director, effective June 13, 2016.
The Director and I have sat down to discuss his initial observations and the observations I
have made. The obvious gap within the organizational structure for this Department is the
lack of depth at the mid- management level. Typically, a highly valued/busy Department
like this one would have mid- management level team to support the Director, oversee the
subordinate positions, assist in the project management function, and also represent the
Director in his absence. The Parks & Recreation Manager position would report to the
Director and have a strong background in special events, facility and park management,
and be well rounded in other areas of the industry.
2
The Parks and Recreation Manager position would have a salary of $96,000 and benefits
package of $40,700 for a total of $136,700.
In addition, the Parks & Recreation Department has six (6) 3/4 time positions. Four (4)
are preschool teachers, one (1) is a Recreation Leader II, and one (1) is a Recreation
Coordinator. In talking with the Director, we do not think the preschool teachers merit an
increase to full time employees and the Recreation Leader II position lacks the capacity
needed for the RCRC Coordinator. Moving the 3/4 time Recreation Coordinator to a full -
time position of RCRC Coordinator is recommended. This 3/4 time position is currently
limited due to hours and it has been difficult to operate at maximum capacity and output
as a result. This recommended change would result in an increase of 416 hours and have
a delta in salary and benefits cost of $29,600.
Recommendation: Add a Parks & Recreation Manager position at a cost of $136,700.
Bump one (1) 3/4 time position to full -time position at a cost of $29,600. Due to the
current vacancy of the full -time Recreation Coordinator positon we have a cost saving of
$51,200. This savings would be absorbed lowering the total cost of the recommendation
to $115,100.
Public Works Department —
As the Council is aware, the Public Works Department is currently recruiting for a new
full -time Director. Our City Engineer is serving as the Interim Director during this
process. In looking at the Department and discussing deficiencies with the Interim
Director, there are a variety of recommendations to consider. Some of these
recommendations are position related while others are program /service related. Adding a
new Engineering Assistant at a salary and benefits cost of $78,867 was proposed,
however this is not something I support at this time.
The Public Works Team is managing their day -to -day projects and assignments. Once the
new Director is on board and settled an additional assessment will be made. If I can
connect a higher level of service with the recommendations being proposed, and justify
the budget increase associated with the recommendations, I will subsequently bring it
before the City Council for consideration.
Recommendation: No budget related adjustments at this point in time.
Community Development Department —
My initial assessment of this Department does not warrant any changes that would impact
the budget. I ant always looking for ways to improve the level of service we provide to
our clients. As a result, the internal processes and delivery of services we provide in
Community Development will continue to be fine -tuned and an area of focus for the
Director.
Recommendation: No budget related adjustments at this point in time.
3
Finance Department —
Similar to Community Development, I do not have any changes that would impact the
budget. The Director is malting some internal adjustments based on conversations we
have had since my arrival. Transparency and internal controls are at the top of my priority
list for the Finance function. The new Assistant City Manager will be providing some
oversight in this regard and any budget related recommendations will be presented at a
future date.
Recommendation: No budget related adjustments at this point in time.
Total Cost of Recommendations: $134,000
If Supported:
Adjusted Appropriations Budget: $34,068,800
Adjusted General Fund Operating Budget: $21,054,300
4