Loading...
Attachment 02Subject: Please fully disclose the cost drivers increasing total departmental expenditures $5.3m over last year From: Phil Koen <pkoen@monteropartners.com> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 7:37 AM To: Steven Leonard's; Marcia Jensen; Marico Sayoc; BSpector; Rob Rennie Cc: Laurel Prevetti; lvannada@gmail.com; tduryea@AOL.COM; Rick Tinsley Subject: Please fully disclose the cost drivers increasing total departmental expenditures $5.3m over last year Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council, I would request that the Council pull Agenda Item 7 from the consent calendar and engage in a thoughtful discussion regarding the projected financial results for this fiscal year. Accurate estimates are critical. On that, I believe we can all agree. Without accurate estimates, the Council is unable to properly govern the Town's financial condition nor make appropriate policy decisions. Unfortunately the mid -year budget report raises more questions than it answers and for this very reason the agenda item should be pulled from the consent calendar and discussed in a public session. The mid -year budget report does not provide an explanation as to why the current year's total department expenditures are projected to increase 16.7% over the prior year level. That is an increase of $5,340.„288. Since this is on the consent calendar, I am assuming that the Town Council is aware of this increase and understands the cost drivers. However, the public doesn't understand this and they should be informed. Here is what I know. I know that the Town Council approved pay increases of approximately 7% for the staff and police, and there is a onetime $1m expenditure associated with the preparation of the new General Plan. The staffing level from prior year is flat and the minimum mandatory payment to CALPERS is increasing approximately $600k. This explains perhaps 50% of the $5.3m increase. Where is the rest of this increase coming from? The Staff should provide a cost bridge which will clearly explain to the public the massive year over year increase. (Note: This years $3.1m 115 Pension Trust payment is included in non -departmental expenditures, which is included in the General Government line item. General Government expenditures are not included in 1 ATTACHMENT 2 the departmental expenditures). What additional services or goods are the residents of the Town getting as a result of this $5.3m increase? Or are we just paying more for the same services? Are the Town's financial resources being properly managed? These are all reasonable questions that deserve an answer. Lastly, if you look at last year's departmental expenditure pattern, at the mid -year mark the Town had spent approximately 50% of the full year amount. This makes sense since departmental expenses are primarily labor and benefit costs which occur at a linear rate. Using the mid -year expenditures for this fiscal year as the baseline, that would suggest that the full year expenditures should be approximately $35.1m. As you can see, the full year estimate is $37.3m. This implies that there is at least $2m in "cushion" included in the full year estimates. If past practices are any indication of current practices, I predict that there is at least $2m in "cushion" in the full year forecast of department expenditures. This is what happened last year. If correct, then the Council has $2m more in funding available to them this year. Since there is only 4 1/2 months left in the fiscal year, the Staff should have excellent visibility on the Town's departmental expenditures and should be able to forecast this number with a high degree of precision. Please pull this agenda item and engage in a discussion of the mid -year budget report so the public will gain a better understanding of the Town's financial position. Thank you. Phil Koen <Attachment_1= _Budget_PerformaMonths_Ending_December_31_2018 16.pdf> 2 From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com> Date: February 15, 2019 at 10:44:37 PM PST To: Steven Leonardis <SLeonardis@losgatosca.gov>, Marcia Jensen <MJensen@losgatosca.gov>, Bspector <BSpector@losgatosca.gov>, Marico Sayoc <msayoc@losgatosca.gov>, Rob Rennie <rrennie@losgatosca.gov>, Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>, Robert Schultz <RSchultz@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Comments for Town Council Meeting 2/19/19 Dear Mayor Steve Leonardis, Other Council Members Marcia Jensen, Barbara Spector, Marico Sayoc, and Rob Rennie, Town Manager Laurel Prevetti, and Town Counsel Robert Schultz: The following are my thoughts for your consideration on council agenda items for the scheduled 2/19/19 meeting: 1. Annexation FISCAL IMPACT: Once the annexation is certified by the State Board of Equalization, the Town will receive approximately 9.6 percent of the property taxes. What is the cost of services on an approximate basis? My understanding is town services for residential property exceeds the revenue received. If we don't have the approximate cost of the services, how can we fairly consider the fiscal impact? Should we be taking on more net debt obligations at this time? Would that be fiscally prudent? 2. Budget Use additional funds for unfunded liabilities and fire protection? 3. RESOLUTION 2019- DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ADOPTING A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FOR THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS WHEREAS, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (known as AB 32) sets a mandate for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (known as SB 375) requires emissions reductions through coordinated regional planning that integrates transportation, housing, and land -use policy, and achieving the goals of these laws will require significant increases in travel by public transit, bicycling, and walking; and Looks like a winner. 4. PPW Job Number 18-811-9901 Annual Street Repair and Resurfacing Project (Rubber Cape Seal) A. Authorize contract award to the project low bidder, American Pavement Systems, in an amount not to exceed $1,053,800, including a ten percent construction contingency. B. Authorize staff to execute potential change orders within the ten percent construction contingency. C. Recognize $414,061 of project reimbursements and authorize a revenue and expenditure budget adjustment of $414,061 to the Annual Street Repair and Resurfacing Project. D. Authorize a revenue decrease of $178,000 in Gas Tax revenue to the Annual Street Repair and Resurfacing Project. E. Authorize a revenue increase of $10,650 in GFAR revenue to the Annual Street Repair and Resurfacing Project. Staff Report Attachment 1 - Street List for Project 18-811-9901 Can we seal with cool colors? White, off-white, light green? Get the seal and reduction in street ambient air temperature? Less use of air conditioning? Enhanced property values and tax revenues? Creatively address Climate Change? 5. Conditional Use Permit Application U-18-020. Project Location: 114 S. Santa Cruz Avenue. Property Owner: 102 S. Santa Cruz, LP. Applicant: Brian Edwards. The promoters, as I recall from reading about them, demonstrated a tremendous work ethic on the sports field and in the classroom at LGHS. Supposing they bring that same ethic to their enterprise, they seem poised to benefit the town citizenry. I can envision them being respectful of the nearby residents. 6. Budget If the VanNada/Koen concept for paying down unfunded liabilities will not jeopardize the town's financial reserves to an imprudent level, it seems to me it is worthy of careful and thorough review. Their coming up with creative ways to deal with the liabilities is to be lauded. I feel the town citizenry owes them a "debt of gratitude". As you can see, both Scenario's 1+2 have their advantages. Scenario 1 requires a $10,895,100 Ali 1 but has a $18,956,000 overall reduction to pension liabilities over 26 years. Scenario 2 was an Alternative Mr. Koen devised if the $10,895,100 was too high for some of you. Scenario 2 requires a $7,006,000 ADP, but reduces pension liabilities by $8,795,000 over 14 years with 61 % coming in the first 6 years and 87% within the first 10 when we need pension reductions the most. N We believe that the $11 million can come from the three sources: 1. Excess Capital Project Reserve 2. Excess Internal Service Funds 3. Proceeds from the sale of surplus property Total $6,500,000 $3,000,000 $1,900,000 $11,400,000 In addition to the above, the Town could elect to use some of the current 115 Pension Trust balance to help fund an ADP. For example, if the Town elected to withdraw $2.5m from the current 115 Pension Trust balance, the Town would only need to find an incremental $4.5m from the sources listed above for Scenario 2. We hope you find this helpful. We feel that the most important thing Council can do would be to make as big a payment to Ca1PERS as possible. I think the above should help you feel better that we'll not be shooting ourselves in the financial foot. With either scenario, there will be annual cash flows in terms of annual payment reductions to the present and future budgets. Our interest is to provide information to the Council and the Staff that helps with the overall success of the Town by thinking of creative ways to extricate ourselves from the pension debt. Jak VanNada Phil Koen Respectfully, John Shepardson, Esq.