HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2013 0529 CC SPC BGT ITEM 05A ITEM 5.A.
CITY OF tOOOR,'�ARK,CALIFORL-
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL City Councii Meeting
,�
AGENDA REPORT of
13'-
AC110N.--
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Steven Kueny, City Manager
By: Ron Ahlers, Finance Directon9-4—
DATE: May 20, 2013 (Special Council Meeting of May 29, 2013)
SUBJECT: Consider Proposed Operating and Capital Improvement Budgets for
Fiscal Year 201312014
Refer to Budget Binder previously distributed to the City Council on May 21, 2013.
ITEM 5.A.
SUPPLEMENTAL
REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK MCEIVED►
AGENDA REPORT MAY p2� 9 2013;
To: Honorable City Council
From: Steven Kueny, City Manager >
Date: May 29, 2013
Subject: Budget follow-up issues for Fiscal Year 2013/2014
Budget Message
Page II —Two new revenue sources of$300,000 in General Fund:
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)/Community Maintenance Fee $137,000 & $155,000
Page VIII —Typo in third paragraph, last sentence; should read FY 2013/14
Page XXIX—Transit VCTC will fund Vista East-County Bus Route, saving City $40,000
Page XXXIX— First paragraph, last sentence should be $1,000,000 annually.
Page XXXIX — Last sentence, Revenue Enhancement report is attached
Budget Summaries
Page 2 — Moorpark Highlands Fund accounts for the bond proceeds to spend on the
capital infrastructure in the Moorpark Highlands area. This $2,844 is the residual amount
that has not been spent.
Community Development
Page 76 —Second item, "Reel Life Pictures (new)" is a budget request for $12,000 to video
record the Oversight Board meetings.
Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Page 94 — Emergency Response Exercise for $12,000 is to train city staff in EOC
operations
Page 139, both Project 7818 sections should have the title, "Mammoth Highlands Park".
The second 7818 reflects the expenses from the General Fund for the central irrigation
system in the prior year.
Page 139, Project 7850, Nature Trails is the Serranta Trail
Page - 1 -
Budget Issue
May 29, 2013
Page 141 161 Second Street Park, General Maintenance of$15,000; should be $5,000
which is approximately three months of maintenance
Page 142 Campus Park Restroom maintenance and repair. In the prior year there was a
CIP project to replace this restroom; however it was not funded.
Page 142, Campus Canyon Park, Irrigation Booster Pump, $6,500. Needed to increase
water pressure for irrigation coverage for the turf.
Page 146, Open Space, Map of locations is attached
Page 161&168 Happy Camp weed abatement, See attached map for location
Public Safety
Page 210 — Police Staffing replace "1 — Deputy SRO/Community Services Officer"with "1
— Deputy Community Resources Officer. Delete 1 Senior Deputy Community Services
Officer". This is also on page XXXII of the Budget Message.
Page 210 — bottom of the page -Avoid the 14 grant is DUI enforcement
Capital Improvements
Page 236 — Spring Road Widening, $1,250,000 is correct amount
7 Year Capital Improvement Program, page B-51 is for reference only. Project 104 shows
the total project cost at $1,250,000 which matches the budget book
Page 237, Railroad Crossing Improvements at Spring Road, amount is correct at
approximately $2'/4 million.
7 Year Capital Improvement Program, page B-15 shows the SCRRA contribution of$1.1
million, which is not included in the budget book.
Page 254, Spring & Princeton Overlay budget of$770,000 is correct.
7 Year Capital Improvement Program has a typo, correct project number is 8093
High Street Streetscape Project was removed in error. It is added back with a dollar
amount to be determined.
Five project detail sheets are missing from the Capital Improvement Program. The
projects are listed on the summary page 216 and their budgets are correctly posted to the
proper funds. The five project sheets are attached:
5081 161 2"d Street Neighborhood Park
5084 450 High Street
5088 224 Charles Street
5089 236 Charles Street
8001 Sidewalk Reconstruction Project
Page -2-
FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Finance, Administration and Public Safety Committee
Mayor Parvin and Mayor Pro Tern Van Dam
FROM: Ron Ahlers, Finance Director
DATE: January 30, 2013 (FAPS Meeting February 6, 2013)
SUBJECT: Consider Revenue Enhancement Measures
BACKGROUND
In November 2007, the City Council received the final report from the Voter Opinion
Survey regarding possible support for certain revenue enhancement measures that
might be considered. The Council referred these considerations to the Finance,
Administration and Public Safety Committee.
The City's General Fund revenues come from a variety of sources, most notably:
property taxes (22%); sales taxes (21%); property taxes in lieu of motor vehicle license
fees (19%); cost plan revenues from other funds (18%); franchise fees (7%),
investments and use of property (4%); all other revenues (9%).
The top two sources of revenue the City relies on, property taxes and sales/use taxes
are economy driven. Property taxes, while currently showing "no-growth" in the budget,
in reality have declined by approximately 1% due to the present down-turn in the real
estate market. The down-turn is continuing and could last another year or two. Sales
tax revenues have shown an increase over the past few years. Even the build-out of
current approved commercial development will not produce adequate increases in this
source. The remaining revenue sources are largely dependent upon a prosperous
economy. Given the volatility of almost all of the City's revenue sources, the Committee
is being asked to discuss and identify different ways in which the City can diversify and
enhance its revenue stream.
As provided in the Budget Message, there is a long-term need for additional General
Fund revenue to address the following:
• The ongoing utilities and maintenance costs of the Police Services Center,
Moorpark Public Services Facility and within three to five years a new city
hall and possibly a library.
Finance, Administration and Public Safety Committee
February 6, 2013
Page 2
• Long-term street maintenance needs since the Gas Tax and
Transportation Development Act (TDA) provide only for staff and basic
maintenance. Under current State law (SB 716) the City will not be able to
use TDA funds for street purposes beginning July 1, 2014. The City
currently spends about $800,000 of TDA funds per year for street
purposes. The City's street projects are beginning to require support from
the General Fund. In addition, there are a number of potential capital
projects that could individually or collectively, require the use of a
significant portion of the General Fund reserve.
• The cost allocation plan, while appropriate, does transfer dollars from
other funds. The goal should be to have enough General Fund to fund
this cost ($1.9 million).
• Assessment district subsidies are projected to be approximately $441,000
for FY 2012/13. The Gas Tax Fund and General Fund split these deficits
however additional General Fund support will be needed in the future. The
City Council authorizes appropriations from the General Fund each year
once these amounts are known.
• Continuing cost increases for law enforcement services that exceed the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) and growth in General Fund Revenues.
• Evaluate the Community Development Fund to stabilize revenues and
expenditures and determine an appropriate amount of General Fund
revenue to be available for City Planning and Engineering programs. This
fund continues to receive a $1 million transfer from the General Fund
annually.
• Staff is developing strategies to reduce the reliance on interest income
and Cost Allocation Plan by one-half within five years. Potential strategies
include:
1. Reduction in services;
2. Operational efficiencies;
3. Fee adjustments;
4. Deferred maintenance and capital projects; and
5. New and enhanced revenues such as Business License
Tax, Sales/Use Tax, Utility Users Tax, General Property Tax,
and updated assessments for park maintenance, street
lighting and landscaping. These measures would require a
public vote.
There are different ways the City can enhance its revenue streams. The most common
methods are through increasing taxes and special assessments. In order to increase
Finance, Administration and Public Safety Committee
February 6, 2013
Page 3
these revenue sources, State law requires that certain steps be taken before the
increase can occur.
Taxes
Votinq on Taxes
Staff has gathered information regarding voting. State law requires that if a tax
measure is consolidated with a regularly scheduled election of members of the City
Council, it would require a two-thirds vote by the Council. Therefore, four out of five
Council members would need to vote for the tax measure proposal to be placed on the
ballot. If not consolidated with a Councilmanic election, unanimous declaration of
"emergency" is required by the City Council. Therefore, the City can really only have a
tax measure on a November ballot in the even numbered years. The November 2014
election is the next ballot to place a tax measure before the voters.
General and Special: General tax revenues may be used for any purpose. General tax
revenues include sales tax, property tax, utility users tax and business license tax.
Special tax revenues are levied for a specific purpose. In order to adopt a new or
increase an existing general tax, a majority of those voting in the City must approve the
tax in the same election in which City Council members are elected. For a special tax, a
two-thirds affirmative vote of those voting in the City must approve the tax. The earliest
the City might place a tax increase measure on an election ballot would be November
2014. Several of these tax measures are summarized below:
Sales Tax: Municipalities may adopt additional increments of local sales tax
with the approval of two-thirds of voters for revenue for specified services such as police
and fire. A simple majority vote would be required for general purpose revenues. An
additional 1/4% tax would produce approximately $825,000 per year.
For Sales Tax, staff has gathered the following information. In 2003, Governor Gray
Davis signed SB566 (Scott) which gave every county and every city the ability to seek
voter approval of local transactions and use tax increase under the following conditions:
1. the transactions and use tax may be imposed at a rate of 0.25% or a multiple
thereof,
2. the ordinance proposing the tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of all
members of the governing body,
3. if for general purposes, the tax must be approved by a majority vote of the voters
in the city or county,
4. if for specific purposes, the tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the
voters in the city or county, and
5. Maximum combined rate of transactions and use taxes in any location may not
exceed 2%.
Of the 99 cities that currently impose a transactions and use tax, only eight do so under
special legislation from prior to 2003. Altogether, there are currently 80 cities with
Finance, Administration and Public Safety Committee
February 6, 2013
Page 4
general purpose rates and 22 with special purpose transactions and use taxes. The
table below shows the frequency of rates and the uses of the 22 special taxes.
Number of currently approved taxes; effective as of October 1, 2012
Rate 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 1.00%
General 12 50 5 15
Special 6 16 2 0
Special Tax Uses
Police & Fire 4 8 2
Hospital/Medical 1
Parks/Recreation 2
Streets/Roads/Transit 5
Libraries 1
Wastewater Treatment 1
*Three cities currently impose both a special tax rate and a general tax rate: El Cajon, El Cerrito
and Santa Rosa.
Two cities impose two general rates: Eureka (% cent in 2008, %cent in 2010) and Woodland(%
cent in 2006, /< cent in 2010).
Two cities impose two special rates: Ft Bragg (%cent streets-2004, %cent community center-
2012) and Placerville (%cent police-1998, X cent wastewater-2010)
City County Rate Effective End Purpose Authority in State Law
Oxnard Ventura 0.50% 4/1/2009 3/31/2029 General Rev & Tax Code § 7285.9
Port Hueneme Ventura 0.50% 4/1/2009 None General Rev &Tax Code § 7285.9
Business License Tax: This tax is imposed on businesses for the privilege of
doing business in the City. It is most commonly based on gross receipts or levied as a
flat rate. The adoption of a business license tax also requires voter approval with a
simple majority. The City currently collects a Business Registration Fee that is limited to
the recovery of administrative costs for its collection and generates about $125,000
annually. A Business License Tax enacted with a typical formula could generate
approximately $500,000 annually.
Property Tax: There are 9,627 single family homes with a total assessed value
of $3.55 billion. This includes condominiums and excludes mobile homes and multi-
family dwellings. In October 2007, a Voter Opinion Poll revealed varying levels of
support for a property tax increase levied at between $9 and $32 per $100,000 of
assessed valuation. Revenues from such tax increases on residential parcels would be
as follows:
Finance, Administration and Public Safety Committee
February 6, 2013
Page 5
RESIDENTIAL PARCELS ONLY
$/ 100,000 of Revenue % of Voters Polled
Assessed Value Generated that would vote YES*
$ 9.00 $ 320,000 64
15.00 532,000 60
21.00 745,000 52
27.00 960,000 48
32.00 1,135,000 42
*213 or 66.6% vote required for adoption
Parcel Tax: A parcel tax is a special tax on a parcel or unit of real property.
Unlike the property tax, a parcel tax is not based on the value of the property. Instead
parcel taxes are generally based on a flat per-parcel rate. Parcel taxes always require a
two-thirds majority voter approval and are imposed for any number of purposes
including funding police services, neighborhood improvement and revitalization and
open space protection. The Voter Opinion Poll did not test this measure. Based on the
number of parcels included in the City's 2010-2011 General Taxing District
(approximately 11,000) a flat rate of $10.00 per parcel would only generate an
additional $110,000 annually. An increase to $20 would generate $220,000.
Utility User Tax: Utility user taxes can be imposed with simple majority voter
approval (for general purposes) on the residential and commercial consumers of any
combination of electric, natural gas, cable television, water, cell phone, landline
telephone and trash services. Such taxes are imposed by ordinance as a percentage of
sales and typically collected by the utility provider. Staff has no current calculation for
this tax.
Transient Occupancy Tax: Municipalities may impose the transient occupancy
tax on persons staying 30 days or less in a room(s) in a hotel, inn, motel, tourist home,
non-membership campground or other lodging facility. The City has enacted a transient
occupancy tax that could generate an estimated $200,000 to $250,000 with the
approved 112-room hotel project. However this project has been delayed and is not
anticipated to open any time in the near future.
Assessments
Assessments are charges levied against properties to pay for public improvements or
services within a predetermined district or area according to the benefit the property
owner receives from the improvement or service. For example, Community Facilities
District (CFD) 2004-1, established for the Moorpark Highlands residential project by
Pardee Homes includes an assessment of $400 per home for law enforcement services
that, at build-out would generate approximately $250,000 annually with adjustments
Finance, Administration and Public Safety Committee
February 6, 2013
Page 6
based on the greater of 3% or the percentage change in the CPI. The City received
$186,000 from this assessment in FY 2011-12.
The City has enacted benefit assessments for park maintenance and a lighting and
landscaping district (L&L) assessment for the maintenance of street and parkway
landscaping and for street lighting costs. In recent years these assessments have not
been enough to cover expenses and have been supplemented by the City's General
Fund and Gas Tax Fund. The City's 2012-13 Operating Budget includes a General
Fund appropriation of$1,442,000 to supplement the Park Maintenance Fund. The L&Ls
required actual transfers of$61,000 from Gas Tax and $359,000 from the General Fund
during FY 2012-13 to cover actual deficits for FY 2011-12. Staffs current projections for
these amounts for FY 2012-13 are $426,000 from the General Fund and ZERO from the
Gas Tax Fund. The Gas Tax Fund does not have the capacity to transfer money into
these districts anymore. A staff report was presented and approved by the City Council
on January 16, 2013.
In order to increase assessments or add a new district a City must follow a number of
steps. First, the City must determine if the property owners will receive a "special
benefit" from the project or service proposed to be financed by the assessment. The
special benefit must be a benefit to land and buildings or else it cannot be financed with
the assessment. Once it has been determined that the property owners will receive a
special benefit, then the City is required to use a professional engineer's report to
estimate the amount of special benefit landowners would receive from the project or
service, as well as the general benefit. If the split of special benefit to general benefit is
50/50 then the assessment can only pay for 50% of the total project cost. Once the
amount is set, the City must set individual assessment charges so that no property
owner pays more than their fair share of the total cost. This may require setting
assessment rates on a parcel by parcel basis.
Once all of this information has been calculated and completed, the City must mail
information regarding the assessments to all property owners. Each notice must contain
a mail-in ballot for the property owner to indicate approval or disapproval of the
assessment. After the notices are mailed, the City must hold a public hearing, at the
conclusion of which, the ballots will be tabulated and weighted based on the amount of
the assessment that each property owner would pay. An affirmative majority of property
owners is needed in order to impose the assessment.
Revenue Diversification
Diversification of the City's revenue sources will improve the City's ability to handle
fluctuations in revenues and help distribute the cost of providing services. Unfortunately,
as previously discussed, State law does not allow for random levying of taxes and
assessments and imposes many requirements, including majority or two-thirds approval
by voters.
Finance, Administration and Public Safety Committee
February 6, 2013
Page 7
In addition, the Voter Opinion Survey conducted in October 2007, showed that there
would be virtually no support for a general tax increase. The Survey did show that
voters were more likely to vote for a property tax increase to maintain and improve city
services and facilities, as long as it was around $9 per $100,000 in assessed value,
however, none of the tested tax rates reached the two-thirds majority support level.
Summary
Based on the increased transfers from the General Fund to the landscaping and lighting
districts along with the continued low level of development activity which affects
Community Development Fund and General Fund revenues, preliminary projections
indicate the City will need to address an approximate $500,000 gap between operating
revenue and expenses for FY 2013-14. This can be in the form of enhanced revenue,
use of general fund reserve, or reductions in services and staffing or any combination of
such.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review and discuss various revenue enhancement ideas.
41.
Li
.............
-IN
z
930
[17
7,
par
P hu,
o nde�xtye A ve
L
m 010.1 -Q
N=RAV
meramy
_F TedeAVe R etU?Ave
I, n v
V_
r.-crest:
T71
SDI e�m e
F' n
-Jr CNN
Properties (Open-Space) Owned by the City of Moorpark
CITY OF MOORPARK
BUDGET LINE ITEM DETAIL
FISCAL YEAR 2013114
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Department: Successor Agency to the City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency Project Number: 5056
Project Title: High Street Streetscape
Project Description:
Implementation of conceptual plan.
20 3
Total 2012/13 Estimated Estimated
Object Expenditures as Estimated Carryover 2013/14 New 2013/14 Total Future Year(s) Estimated Total
Budget Unit Code Account Description of 6/30112 Expenditures Amount Appropriations Budget Amount Project Cost
2905.2410.5056 9601 Design/Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2904.8310.5056 9601 Design/Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
9103.2411.5056 9601 Desi n/En ineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
9104.2411.5056 9601 Design/Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Totals: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Funding Sources:
MRA 2006 TAB Proceeds-Fund 2905 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MRA 2001 TAB Proceeds-Fund 2904 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Successor Agency-RDA 2001 TAB-Fund 9103 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Successor Agency-RDA 2006 TAB-Fund 9104 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Totals: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CITY OF MOORPARK
BUDGET LINE ITEM DETAIL
FISCAL YEAR 2013/14
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Department: Successor Agency to the City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency Project Number: 5081
Project Title: 161 2nd Street Neighborhood Park
Project Description:
Redevelopment of land for a neighborhood park.
Total 2012/13 Estimated Estimated
Object Expenditures as Estimated Carryover 2013114 New 2013/14 Total Future Year(s) Estimated Total
Budget Unit Code Account Description of 6130112 Expenditures Amount Appropriations Bud et Amount Project Cost
2800.2410.5081 9601 Design/Engineering $0 $0 $62,000 $0 $62,000 $0 $62,000
2905.2410.5081 9609 Relocation Assistance-CIP $7,620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,620
9104.2411.5081 9609 Relocation Assistance-CIP $20,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,200
2905.2410.5081 9610 Land Acquisition $519,139 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $519,139
1000.2410.5081 9611 Site Clearance Costs $2,226 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,226
2800.2410.5081 9613 Grounds&Improvements $0 $0 $0 $305,425 $305,425 $0 $305,425
2400.2410.5081 9613 Grounds&Im rovements-Mainten. $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000
2800.2410.5081 9631 Indoor/Outdoor Furniture $0 $0 $0 $81,250 $81,250 $0 $81,250
2800.2410.5081 9633 JPlayground Equipment $0 $0 $0 $144,250 $144,250 $0 $144,250
2800.2410.5081 9625 Construction Management $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000
Project Totals: $549,185 $10,000 $62,000 $555,925 $617,925 $0 $1,177,110
Funding Sources:
General Fund-Fund 1000 $2,226 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,226
Park Maintenance District-Fund 2400 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000
Endowment-Fund 2800 $0 $0 $62,000 $550,925 $612,925 $0 $612,925
MRA 2006 TAB Proceeds-Fund 2905 $526,759 $0 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $526,759
Successor Agency RDA 2006 TAB-Fund 9104 $20,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,200
Totals: $549,185 $10,000 $62,000 $555,925 $617,925 $0 $1,177,110
CITY OF MOORPARK
BUDGET LINE ITEM DETAIL
FISCAL YEAR 2013/14
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Department: Successor Agency to the City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency Project Number: 5084
Project Title: 450 High Street
Project Description:
Land Acquisition FY10/11;demolition scheduled for FY12/13.
3
Total 2012/13 Estimated Estimated
Object Expenditures as Estimated Carryover 2013114 New 2013114 Total Future Year(s) Estimated Total
Budget Unit Code Account Description of 6/30112 Expenditures Amount Appropriations Budget Amount Project Cost
2904.2410.5084 9610 Land Acquisition $911,604 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $911,604
2904.2410.5084 9625 Building Improvements $119 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $119
1000.2410.5084 9611 Site Clearance Costs $4,717 $890 $24,393 $0 $24,393 $0 $30,000
9101.2411.5084 9611 Site Clearance Costs $0 $128,470 $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,470
1000.2410.5084 9625 Building Improvements $68 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $68
2902.2410.5084 9625 Building Improvements $1,054 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,054
9103.2411.5084 9611 Site Clearance Costs $0 $10,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $210,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Totals: $917,562 $139,360 $24,393 $200,000 $224,393 $0 $1,281,315
Funding Sources:
MRA Operating-Fund 2902 $1,054 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,054
MRA 2001 TAB Proceeds-Fund 2904 $911,723 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $911,723
General Fund-Fund 1000 $4,785 $890 $24,393 $0 $24,393 $0 $30,068
Successor Agency RDA Econ Devt-Fund 9101 $0 $128,470 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,470
Successor Agency RDA 2001 TAB-Fund 9103 $0 $10,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $210,000
Totals: $917,562 $139,360 $24,393 $200,000 $224,393 $0 $1,281,315
CITY OF MOORPARK
BUDGET LINE ITEM DETAIL
FISCAL YEAR 2013114
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Department: Community Development-City Housing Project Number: 5088
Project Title: 224 Charles Street
Project Description:
Land Acquisition FY12/13
0
Total 2012/13 Estimated Estimated
Object Expenditures as Estimated Carryover 2013/14 New 2013/14 Total Future Year(s) Estimated Total
Budget Unit Code Account Description of 6130112 Expenditures Amount Appropriations Budget Amount Project Cost
2201.2430.5088 9610 Land Acquisition $0 $185,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $185,000
- - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Totals: $0 $185,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $185,000
Funding Sources:
City Affordable Housing-Fund 2201 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $185,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $185,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Totals: $0 $185,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $185,000
CITY OF MOORPARK
BUDGET LINE ITEM DETAIL
FISCAL YEAR 2013/14
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Department: Community Development-City Housing Project Number: 5089
Project Title: 236 Charles Street
Project Description:
Land Acquisition FY12/13
Total 2012/13 Estimated Estimated
Object Expenditures as Estimated Carryover 2013/14 New 2013/14 Total Future Year(s) Estimated Total
Budget Unit Code Account Description of 6/30/12 Expenditures Amount Appropriations Bud et Amount Project Cost
2201.2430.5089 9610 Land Acquisition $0 $218,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $218,000
_ _ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
_ - _ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Totals: $0 1 $218,000 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $218,000
Funding Sources:
City Affordable Housing-Fund 2201 $0 $218,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $218,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Totals: $0 $218,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $218,000
CITY OF MOORPARK
BUDGET LINE ITEM DETAIL
FISCAL YEAR 2013/14
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Department: Public Works Department JProject Number: 8001
Project Title: Sidewalk Reconstruction Project
Project Description:
Replacement of sidewalks,curbs,and gutters at various locations. Recurring project each fiscal year.
2 3
Total 2012113 Estimated Estimated
Object Expenditures as Estimated Carryover 2013114 New 2013114 Total Future Year(s) Estimated Total
Budget Unit Code Account Description of 6130112 Expenditures Amount Appropriations Budget Amount Project Cost
2605.8310.8001 9640 Construction of Streets $230,084 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $230,084
2603.8310.8001 9640 Construction of Streets $0 $125,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $175,000
- - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Totals: $230,084 $125,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $405,084
Funding Sources:
Gas Tax-Fund 2605 $230,084 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $230,084
TDA Article 8A-Fund 2603 $0 $125,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $175,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 1 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Totals: $230,084 1 $125,000 1 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $405,084