Item 4 - Consideration of Comprehensive Financial Program
-- / t, IPf~
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
..TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manager/Executive Director
INITIATED BY; John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager/Assistant Executive Directo~Jr
Peggy A. Stewart, Director of Administrative Service~
Peter Moote, Deputy Director of Administrative Services
DATE: June 20, 1995
SUBJECT: Consideration of the Comprehensive Financial Program for Fiscal Year
1995-1996
ABSTRACT
This evening's hearing represents the second of three public hearings scheduled for
consideration of the proposed Comprehensive Financial Program for Fiscal Year 1995-1996
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is not subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT
As stated throughout this report.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
The members of the Budget Review Committee have been notified of this report.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council;
1. Receive public input regarding the Proposed Comprehensive Financial Plan for
FY 1995-96; and
2. Continue Public Hearing to June 27, 1995
ACTION
I 1 of 5
-
---- ----------...--
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POW A Y
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manager/Executive Director
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager/Assistant Executive Directorcti)\
Peggy A. Stewart, Director of Administrative Services
Peter Moote, Deputy Director of Administrative Services
DATE: June 20, 1995
SUBJECT: Consideration of the Comprehensive Financial Program
for Fiscal Year 1995-1996
BACKGROUND
On March 14, 1995, the City Council received the FY 1994-95 mid-year budget status
report which provided a review of year-to-date revenue and expenditure activity.
The report projected that FY 1994-95 will close with a General Fund surplus, which
is now expected to approach $300,000. This surplus results from an estimated
savings in expenditures of $126,880 and an increase in revenues of $150,560.
Using the mid-year budget review as a base, staff prepared the Preliminary
Comprehensive Financial Program for FY 1995-96. The Proposed Comprehensive
Financial Program was submitted to the Budget Review Committee for review. The
Committee presented their report regarding the Financial Program at the June 13,
1995 Public Hearing. Also at this hearing, Council received the agenda report
prepared by staff regarding the FY 1995-96 Financial Program which delineated
s i gnifi cant changes from FY 1994-95 and the fi ve-year fi sca 1 forecast.
FINDINGS
The proposed Comprehensive Financial Program for FY 1995-96 recommends a City
operating budget of $34,272,800 and a Redevelopment/Housing Services operating
budget of $5,060,930. The proposed General Fund budget will be balanced with
projected revenues of $16,039,330 and proposed General Fund expenditures of
$15,863,160 as amended to date. A summary of General Fund revenue and expenditure
activity is shown on Attachment A, and significant changes from FY 1994-95 are shown
on Attachment B.
ACTION:
2 of 5
- -
- FY 1995-96 Budget
Page 2
Copies of the Proposed Comprehensive Financial Program were previously distributed
to the City Council, and a copy has been filed with the City Clerk. All amendments
to the Proposed Comprehensive Financial Program will be included in the adopting
resolution for Council consideration on June 27, 1995.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is not subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT
As stated throughout this report.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
The members of the Budget Review Committee have been notified of this report.
- RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Receive public input regarding the Proposed Financial Program for FY 1995-96;
and
2. Continue Public Hearing to June 27, 1995.
3 of 5 .1UN 2 0 1995 ITEM 4 ~,
CITY OF POWAY
REVENUE VS EXPENDITURES
GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES:
FY 1993-94 FY 1994-95 FY 1994-95 FY 1995-96
DEPARTMENT ACTUAL APPROVED ESTIMATED PROPOSED
Legislative &
Administrative Services 883,788 928,969 928,004 948,864
Administrative Services 995,011 1,095,588 1,097,774 1,149,399
Community Services 2,512,160 2,725,380 2,745,561 2,785,600
Planning Services 1,068,315 1,071,085 1,082,539 1,157,180
Public Services 1,140,902 1,155,067 1,110,394 1,146,373
Safety Services 7,195,623 7,107,570 6,982,900 7,203,550
Engineering Services 1,403,019 1,374,274 1,383,883 1,472,191
Prior Year 237,926
Total Gen. Fund Expenditures 15,436,744 15,457,933 15,331,055 15,863,157
REVENUES:
Major Items
Property Tax 3,667,942 3,761,620 3,680,503 3,734,630
Sales Tax 3,593,312 3,620,000 3,627,700 3,689,000
Interest Income/Rental of Prop. 632,775 650,000 675,133 743,020
State Subventions 1,561,910 1,560,360 1,558,780 1,560,360
Franchise Fees 589,035 589,000 708,595 805,950
RDA/Special District Admin. 1,919,741 1,653,590 1,606,610 1,803,620
Development Fees 1,250,902 976,370 1,154,231 949,760
Community Services Fees 906,265 1,098,420 992,086 1,085,380
Safety Services Fees 937,106 943,710 919,902 934,840
PERS Excess Earnings 218,534 50,000 7,391 -
Subtotal - Major Items 15,277,523 14,903,070 14,930,931 15,306,560
All Other Revenue Items 456,267 557,130 679,825 732,770
Total General Fund Revenue 15,733,790 15,460,200 15,610,756 16,039,330
Unadjusted General Fund
Surplus/(Deficit) 297,046 2,267 279,701 176,173
Capital Replcmnt Fund Credit - 388,000 - -
Adjusted General Fund
Surplus/(Deficit) 297,046 390,267 279,701 176,173
Attachment A nEII 4
4 of 5 JUN 2 0 1995 ,t
- -
-
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO GENERAL FUND ACTlVITY AMOUNT OF CHANGE
.. INCREASE OR
DESCRIPTION (DECREASE) FROM
MIDYEAR
REVENUE
First full year Solid Waste Franchise Fee in effect $93,980
First full year of Sports Parks Lease payments $73,750
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
FEMA Disaster Reimbursements $120,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
Insurance Retroactive Rebate $60,160
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
Sheriff's Contract rebate and COPS/FAST Program $75,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
Development Services Fees $(204,470)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
RdA Reimbursement of Scripps-Poway Pkway Division costs $146,390
-
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
All other general fund revenue adjustments $63,764
I Total Revenue <Adjustments 1 $428,5741
Annual increase in Law Enforcement I $262,750
I
I
Contract/DARE/Dispatch I
----------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------
Contribution to Street Maintenance I $100,000
I
I
I
----------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------
Set-aside for non-operating costs for new Library I $100,000
I
I
I
----------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------
Insurance Expense I $34,000
I
I
I
----------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------
Temporary Scripps-Poway Parkway Division I $146,390
I
I
I
----------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------
All other general fund expenditure adjustments I $(111,038)
I
I
I
Total Expenditure Adjustments $532,102
Attachment B
5 of 5 JUN 2 0 1995 ItEII 4.,C!1I
- -
r r~ ~?,/f?5
'''1- - ,
, - "'..
J ames Christenson
- 12733 Elm Park Lane
Poway, California 92064-4401
June IS, 1995 r RECEIVED
,
Majorie Wahlsten, City Clerk JUN 1 4 1995
City of Poway '. CITYOFPOWAY -(
Post Office Box 789
Poway. California 92064-0789 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Ref: Public Hearing regarding Conditional Use Permit 83-01. Congregation Iglesia ni Cristo. on Elm Park Lane
Dear Ms, Wahlsten.
As I will not be speaking at the Public Hearing. I wish to submit my concerns in writing at this time and to recommend that
you approve the statf recommendation.
The area surrounding this site is a quite. single family neighborhood. The single-story homes are on small lots. Recently the
area has seen an increase in quality: owner occupancy has risen, people are remodeling and relandscaping. People are
investing in the neighborhood.
For reasons that I detail below. the Iglesia ni Cristo is not and has not been an asset to the community. I encourage you to
review the many noncompliance violations of Conditional Use Permit 83-0I. and to not allow this church continued use of
the site until all previous conditions are meet. Furthermore, continued use must require frequent future reviews of the
conditions to assure continued compliance. The church must be required to provide specific plans, with deadlines. delineating
steps that will be taken to come into compliance.
While we do not want to drive the church out of the community, we do need a responsible church entity within our commu-
nity. I request that the City Council side with the needs of the home owners to help this church fit into the community.
Having attended the community meeting on April 19, 1995 which presented plans for a new church, I feel that I must also put
my concerns about those plans in writing.
. Noncompliance. The plan is in noncompliance with most of the findings of the original Conditional Use Permit 83-
01. The most recent proposal is not compatible with adjacent uses, it adversely affects adjacent uses, it is not in
harmony with adjacent uses. it will have a harmful effect upon neighborhood characteristics, traffic will be adversely
impacted, and the site is not suitable for the intensity of the use. To be more specific:
. Size. I am greatly concerned with the size of the recently proposed building. It is an enormous building, both in bulk
and height. plunked down in the middle of small, single-story homes on small lots. It overwhelms the neighborhood.
In addition there are two further outbuildings, which we did not see the designs for. This project must be scaled back
in size.
The church is planning on this location as a regional center of worship. Very few members of this church live in
Poway. And the church itself provides no revenue to the city. Yet it will be a drain on the infrastructure of Poway;
this was seen when it came to light just how many times members of the community have already called the police
and various agencies regarding church activities. To be compatible with the community the church facility should
remain approximately the size it is now. This would be large enough to meet the needs of the local members.
. Design. The design is from the Philippines and is not site specific. It was done by someone who has never seen the
community within which this will be built. A Gothic cathedral does not fit the "look" of the community. If any new
structure is built. it should be designed by a local architect sensitive to the local environment. Yes. the church has
certain "signature motif' requirements. Those could be incorporated into the local design.
~ -j;, ~~ Page lof2
~~~
JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM 5 "
~
. Traffic. The reason I bought the home I did was that it was on a quiet cul-de-sac. Tiny Elm Park Lane will not
accommodate the traffic volume of the proposed regional center. This church is very busy: there are activities there
seven days a week. Exceptfor two days a week when people arrive at 4:30am or earlier, members begin arriving
mid-afternoon and are there until after midnight. During this time there is a constant flow of people arriving and
leaving. With the down-sizing of the design suggested above, there will be sufficient parking available in the lower
level (this lot is almost never more than a quarter full now). Allow a few handicapped parking spaces near the
church on the upper level. To assure safety, please. please do not allow a second entrance way at the cul-de-sac end
of Elm Park. Given the speed with which church members drive, you may as well make it a freeway.
. Pocket Park. As we know, the conditional use permit for the church requires the building of a pocket park. It has
had this requirement for ten years and the park has never been built. Please stipulate the condition that the park must
be built prior to issuing any further permits - require construction plans to be submitted on a certain date.
. FencinglSignage. It is unclear from the plans I saw whether or not the site is gated and fenced. The church appears
paranoid of the outside world and is seized with a fortress mentality. Previously the site was surrounded by a broken
chain-link fence, rusting UNo Trespassing" signs. and locked gates. Although crime is nearly nonexistent in our
community, the church claims the fence and signs are required to keep out vandals. All were eyesores and ineffec-
tual. As a result of the last meeting, the church has removed the fencing and signage. However, in talking to mem-
bers. it is obvious that they are furious at having to do so. Nor do they have any grasp for why the community made
these requests. They are absolutely convinced that without protection their church will be destroyed by vandals,
defaced with graffiti, and infested with drug dealers.
The fact of the matter is that the church wants to isolated itself from the community. It was painfully apparent to me
from statements made by. and the attitude of. the church leaders that they have absolutely no intention of opening
themselves up to the neighborhood. They do not wish to become a part of their surrounding community. And if the
church elects not to participate in the community, then that community in turn owes nothing to the church and
should deny all permits on these grounds.
. Violations. I have lived opposite the church for five years. During this time we have suffered a litany of problems
caused by the church: all night celebrations, boom boxes, all night basketball games, loud music. fireworks, bon-
fires, cars double and triple parked, cars parked in front of the fire hydrant, cars parked in front of driveways,
speeding cars, street litter and trash. I have stood on my porch and watched a car full of church members park in
front of my house and throw trash onto my yard. A neighbor has seen beer cans thrown at her house by youths in a
car from the church. (This neighbor did not report this for fear of retribution. This same neighbor will not attend any
meetings out of fear.)
In short, this church is simply not a good neighbor, If these permits are approved. we must require quarterly reviews
to assure that the church is adhering to the conditions of the permit as they will not do so voluntarily.
. Landscaping. The plans s'lOwed abundant landscaping. Currently the church has lilt!e landscaping and that is
poorly maintained. Recently, again as a result of the last meeting, there has been a flurry of activity to clean the
grounds, introduce potted plants, and add irrigation. I appreciate that you have or will drive by this site. I want to
assure you that this site has never been this neat in the past ten years: it is usually very unkept with un watered and
dying plants, unmowed grass. untrimmed trees, and litter. My past dealing with members of this church tells me that
if we do not require frequent review of the permit conditions, everything will return to the previous conditions.
After carefully reviewing all issues I am sure that you will reach the proper decision to protect our neighborhood. Thank you
for your assistance in these matters.
SinCere]y;:~
Jam~' Christenson
Page 20f2
JUN 2 0 1995 ITEM 5 ""