HomeMy Public PortalAboutA2003-06-17LPFA,..,,,
.-
This Agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered. Copies of the
Staff reports or other written documentation re/afing to each item of business referred to on the
Agenda are on ale in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection. A person
who has a question concerning any of the agenda items may call fhe Cify Manager at (310) 603-
0220, ext. 200.
Procedures for Addressing the Council
IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS, WE ASK THAT ALL PERSONS
WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL FILL OUT A FORM PROVIDED AT THE DOOR, AND
TO TURN IT IN TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. FAILURE
TO FILL OUT SUCH A FORM WILL PROHIBIT YOU FROM ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL IN
THE ABSENCE OF THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE COUNCIL.
~b~
i ~ F.:-.. ~~: r;:. ~ ~ ;~;`; ~;) AGENDA ITEMS ON FILE FOR CONSIDERATION
'< ~ --_ ~:~- ~ :'~':,_"-,,,~, AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF
~ ` ' ` ' ` '~' '~~','== THE LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
TO BE HELD ON JUNE 17, 2003
. ; i ? :: ~'~u3 6:00 P.M.
f'~1 ~~ COUNCIL CHAMBERS
'~~~j~;i~,tt~a~~;,~c`~;`k;s~~ 11330 BULLIS ROAD, LYNWOOD, CA 90262
(,~ ~ FERNANDO PEDROZA
'" `" ` l ~ PRESIDENT
RAMON RODRIGUEZ LOUIS BYRD
VICE PRESIDENT MEMBER
ARTURO REYES
MEMBER
PAUL H. RICHARDS, II
MEMBER
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FINANCE DIRECTOR
LORRY HEMPE ALFRETTA EARNEST
SECRETARY TREASURER
ANDREA L. HOOPER IRIS PYGATT
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
Louis Byrd
Fernando Pedroza
Arturo Reyes
Paul H. Richards, II
Ramon Rodriguez
3. CERTIFICATION OF AGENDA POSTING BY SECRETARY
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Regarding Agenda Items Only)
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
IF AN ITEM IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, THERE SHOULD BE NO SUBSTANTIAL
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE BY THE LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY, BUT
IT IS ALL RIGHT FOR THE LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY MEMBERS TO
REFER THE MATTER TO THE STAFF OR SCHEDULE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION
FOR A FUTURE MEETING.
(The Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950-54962, Part III, Paragraph 5.)
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
Special Meeting, April 9, 2003
Regular Meeting, May 6, 2003
5. STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2003-2004 BUDGET UPDATE
Comment:
The purpose of this item is to provide the Members of the Authority with an update
on the 2003-2004 State Budget. The Budget is currently in the Joint Budget
Conference Committee.
The two items currently being debated that could have the most significant impact
on the City of Lynwood are the requirement of Redevelopment Agencies to make
contributions to ERAF and an uncategorized cut or shift from local governments.
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully requests that the Board of Directors of the Lynwood Public
Finance Authority receive and file this information.
ADJOURNMENT
THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING WILL BE HELD ON JULY 1, 2003 AT
6:00 P.M., IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL, 11330 BULLIS ROAD,
CITY OF LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA.
LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
SPECIAL MEETING
APRIL 9, 2003
The Public Finance Authority of the City of Lynwood met in a Special Meeting at 11330
Bullis Road on the above date at 6:15 p.m.
President Pedroza presiding.
Members Byrd, Reyes, Rodriguez, and Pedroza answered roll call.
Member Richards was absent.
Also present were Interim Chief Administrative Officer Hempe, City Attorney Casso,
Secretary Hooper, and Treasurer Pygatt
Secretary Hooper announced that the agenda had been posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Regarding Agenda Items Only)
NONE
Member Richards arrived at 6:20 p.m.
PUBLIC ORALS COMMUNICATIONS
NONE
Item #4: BUDGET STATUS PREPARATION
Interim Chief Administrative Officer Hempe -Explained to the Members that staff is in
the beginning stages of preparing the FY 2003-2004 Budget. Prior to preparing detailed
departmental budgets, staff would like to receive direction from the Members on the
direction of the organization. Staff will be presented a Personnel Overview based upon
the FY 2002-2003 Adopted Budget. Preliminary FY 2002-2003 Year-End Estimates, a
Financial Forecast for FY 2003-2004 through FY 2005-2006 for the major funds, and a
proposed project driven reorganization.
Personnel Officer Gail Black -Presented to the Members an overview of the City's
Recruitment Status and Close Promotions.
Interim Chief Administrative Officer Hempe -Explained to the Members that this
presentation is only a Budget proposal for the new two-year Budget.
Member Richards -Questioned on the Budget why is it being adopted before the
Ordinance.
City Attorney James Casso -Stated to the Members that the subsequent action that was
taken at that time is still currently a subject matter of a lawsuit pending with the City I
will request that we discuss the specifics of that action in Close Session because it could
prejudice the defense of this City in that lawsuit.
Member Richards -Stated he respects the City Attorneys request, he just wanted to raise
a point so this can be the backup of the serious deliberation concerning these matters, I
am just hoping we can resolve these types of issues.
Interim Chief Administrative Officer Hempe -Stated that she would like to continue on
the other positions that are slated to be laid off.
Member Richards -Explained that since this is going to be a particular issue, it might
also be impacted by Close Session deliberations, questioned if there was another aspect
of the budget they can discuss.
Interim Chief Administrative Officer Hempe -Stated that yes the Members can go ahead
and discuss the year-end estimates for this year.
Director of Finance and Administration Alfretta Earnest - Explained a ruff draft of the
Fund Balance Analyst to the Members.
President Pedroza -Questioned on the Law Enforcement Funds.
Director of Finance and Administration Alfretta Earnest -Stated that this is just a ruff
draft, any of these estimates can vary at any time.
Member Reyes -Questioned on the floating bonds for the Water Funds.
Director of Finance and Administrative Alfretta Earnest -Explained to the Members that
there has only been one floating bond which was used back in 1999 of 5.5 million for the
Water Maintenance Fund.
Director of Finance and Administration Alfretta Earnest -Gave the Members a brief
presentation on the Water Funds and the Street Lightning Maintenance Funds.
Director of Environmental Services Joe Wang -Gave the Members a brief draft on the
Assessments for Lightning Maintenance Projects.
Director of Finance and Administration Alfretta Earnest - Presented a brief presentation
to the Members on the Landscaping Maintenance Fund.
Director of Environmental Services Joe Wang -Explained the Assessments for
Landscaping Maintenance Projects.
Director of Finance and Administration Alfretta Earnest -Presented the Retirement
Funds and Fund 23 to the Members.
Member Richards -Questioned on the fixed cost for trimming trees, is it in the same
fund as the Maintenance Fund.
President Pedroza -Questioned on the Tree Trimming Contract is it an agreement for
one-time four-year contract.
Director of Environmental Services Joe Wang -Stated that yes it is a four-year contract
instead of a year-to-year contract.
Interim Chief Administrative Officer Hempe -Explained to the Members that this is just
an overview of the Budget Status. The actual Budget will be an overall balance for all the
fifty Funds.
Member Richards -Moved to authorize staff to prepare atwo-year Budget Plan
combining fiscal year 2004-2005.
President Pedroza -Second the motion.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: MEMBER BYRD, RICHARDS, PEDROZA
NOES: MEMBER REYES, RODRIGUEZ
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ADJOURNMENT
Having no further discussion, it was moved by Vice President Rodriguez, seconded by
President Pedroza and carried to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Fernando Pedroza, President
Andrea L. Hooper, City Clerk
LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 6, 2003
The Public Finance Authority of the City of Lynwood met in a Regular Meeting at 11330
Bullis Road on the above date at 8:11 p.m.
President Pedroza presiding.
Members Byrd, Reyes, Richards, Rodriguez, and Pedroza answered the roll call
Also present were Chief Administrative Officer Hempe, City Attorney Casso, Secretary
Hooper, and Treasurer Pygatt
Secretary Hooper announced that the agenda had been posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Regarding Agenda Items Only)
NONE
PUBLIC ORALS COMMUNICATIONS
NONE
Item #4: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
None
Item #5: REFUNDING OF BOND ISSUES
It was moved by Member Reyes, seconded by Vice President Rodriguez to approve
Option #1: Continue to rehire the bonded debt as presently scheduled, and forgo the
projected savings.
Member Richards made a Substitute Motion, seconded by Member Byrd to approve
Option #2: Refund Water Bond Series 1995 and Revenue Bond Series 1993 and
authorize staff to form the financing team to complete the refunding process. In addition,
the selected team members will be subject to approval by the Lynwood Public Finance
Authority Board members and the City Council at a subsequent meeting.
President Pedroza requested that staff explain this item further. Assistant City Manager
Alfretta Earnest explained staff requested Backstorm, McCarley, Berry & Co. to review
LPFA bond issues to determine if refunding was cost effective. In response to staff's
request, the firm prepared a refunding analysis report to determine which bond issues
would provide a savings, if refunded. The refunding analysis report notes that by
refunding the bond issues, a net present value (NPV) savings of approximately $265,000
(6.6% refunding savings) would be realized on the Water Bond Series 1995 and
approximately $737,000 (over 10% refunding savings) NPV on the Revenue Bond Series
1993 as long term savings.
Assistant City Manager Earnest stated option #1 would not provide any savings.
Member Reyes stated refinancing existing bonds would immensely cost the City plenty
of money.
Assistant City Manager Earnest recommendation was to refinance the bonds because it
would be a savings to the City such as in the General Fund.
Vice President Rodriguez inquired about the Water System Improvement Project debts.
Assistant City Manager Earnest responded she was not sure of the debt amount but it was
probably between $400,000/$500,000 ayear (in combination of both funds).
ROLL CALL ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION
AYES: MEMBERS BYRD, RICHARDS AND PEDROZA
NOES: MEMBERS REYES AND RODRIGUEZ
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Member Richards stated that every city takes advantage of benefiting through bond issues
and would like to commend city staff for taking action on this matter. Also
recommended and instructed Director of Finance to prepare a Bond Issue Training
making rating agencies and bond insurers available to meet with the Board Members.
Member Byrd commented he visited Wall Street in New York and it was a unique
experience as it gives you an entire perspective of how the Wall Street really works.
ADJOURNMENT
Having no further discussion, it was moved by Member Richards, seconded by Member
Byrd and carried to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 8:21 p.m., in Memory of
John McAlister, former long time resident of Lynwood.
Fernando Pedroza, President
Andrea L. Hooper, Secretary
DATE: June 17, 2003
TO: HONORABLE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE LYNWOOD
PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
FROM: Lorry Hempe, Chief Administrative Officer
BY: Autra C. Adams, Special Assistant/Intergovernmental Relations ~~~
SUBJECT: State of California 2003-2004 Budget Update
PURPOSE:
To provide the President & Members of the Lynwood Public Finance Authority
with an update relative to the State of California 2003-2004 Budget.
BACKGROUND:
Each year the Governor submits his budget to the Legislature by January 10,
followed by the Chair of the Senate and Assembly Budget Committees
introducing a budget bill containing the appropriations necessary to finance the
programs proposed in the Governor's Budget.
In May, the Department of Finance updates its estimates of current year, and
budget year revenues, expenditures, and surplus. The Governor then submits
the May Revise to the Budget based on these numbers.
The Constitution states that the Budget is supposed to be signed by the
Legislature by June 15th of each year and by the Governor by June 30th of each
year.
ANALYSIS:
Based upon the Governor's May Revise, the current state budget gap is $38.2
billion. This is an increase from the estimated $34.6 billion deficit that was
released in January.
The 2003-2004 State Budget is currently in the Joint Budget Conference
Committee. The purpose of the Conference Committee is for both houses to
negotiate, since the Assembly and Senate passed two very different versions of
the budget. The Conference Committee is composed of two Democrats in the
Assembly, two Democrats in the Senate, one Republican in the Assembly and
one Republican in the Senate.
Currently the two key items being debated that will have the most significant
impact on Lynwood are:
- ERAF Shift from Redevelopment Agencies - In the Governor's budget he
is proposing a $250 million cut to Redevelopment agencies in 2003-2004,
and also proposes a continued and increasing cut to Redevelopment
Agencies in future budget years. The Governor's Proposal also requires
local government general fund revenues to backup a portion of this cut if
the redevelopment agency cannot produce the necessary revenue. The
Senate adopted language for the $250 million transfer as a one time-
transfer only. The Assembly denied the language to transfer $250 million
on an on-going basis. The Joint Committee has not yet taken any action
on this item.
- Uncategorized Cut/Shift from Local Governments -Although not included
in the Governor's budget or as part of the budget bills adopted by the
Senate and Assembly, last week the League of California Cities sent out
an alert indicating that there could be a $1.16 billion cut to locai
governments (cities, counties and special districts). The city share of this
cut could be as high as $466 million. Based upon this figure, Lynwood's
share would be close to $1.2 million. According to the League, this figure
was determined because it is equivalent to three-months of the Vehicle
License Fee (VLF) backfill "gap". Although, the state has made a
commitment to pull the trigger on VLF fees, it will take approximately three
months before the new revenues come to the state.
Letters of opposition relative to these potential cuts have been sent to Lynwood's
Legislative Representatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the President & Members of the Lynwood Public Finance
Authority receive and file this information.
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: (916) 658-8200 Fax: (916) 658-8240
www.cacities.org
TO: City Officials
FROM: Chris McKenzie, Executive Director
DATE: June 9, 2003
SUBJECT: Impact of Possible Budget Cuts--Contact Legislators and We Need Your Stories
Over the last few days there have been serious discussions in the Senate of a package of cuts that would include a
$1.16 billion cut to local governments (cities, counties, special districts). This figure is being considered, according
to Senate staff sources, because it is the equivalent of a three-month VLF backfill "gap" (i.e., the time between the
end of the fiscal year and the expected receipt of new VLF revenues after the VLF trigger is pulled) and the $250
million RDA recommendation of the Governor in his January budget.
While a raid of local revenues of this magnitude to all local governments would be substantially lower than the one
called for by the Governor in his January budget, it would still be substantial. The city share of such a cut may be
as high as $466 million total. Most discussions center around the concept of providing cities, counties and special
districts with one amount for their "contribution" with flexibility in allocating the funding, at the city council's
discretion, among the general fund, RDA, or any other city fund. If allocated like the Governor's proposed VLF
backfill hit in January, it would be about 40% of that ongoing amount for cities ($1.2 billion).
The most disturbing aspect of this discussion is the consideration of multi-year or ongoing cuts. There is no
justification for this, and we need to let legislators know right away that this is totally unacceptable.
The League needs your help ri hg t~ in communicating two things:
What would be the impact of such a reduction on your city if the state seized revenues of this amount?
If the cut were repeated in the next two fiscal years, what would the impact be?
The League is actively communicating its opposition to any cuts and stating forcefully that it will not support any
budget with cuts to cities or temporary taxes without the legislature putting a constitutional amendment on the
ballot to prevent this from happening again. A cut of any magnitude would be painful, but ongoing cuts could be
devastating. WE NEED YOUR STORIES IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THIS.
Here is what we ask that you do immediately:
- Assess the impact of a cut of this magnitude one year or for 2 - 3 years.
- Communicate it to your League Regional Representative ASAP so they can package it in a form that is
useable in our budget negotiations.
- Communicate your opposition to cuts to your city to your legislators, and state clearly that any cuts must
be accompanied by a constitutional amendment to prevent it from happening again. (Go to
www.cacities.org/budget for more information and to be connected the online Advocacy Center
(www.cacities.org/advocacycenter), where you can find talking points to use in drafting and sending an
online or downloadable letter.)
- Please be sure to provide us with a copy of any letters you send. (Send to League Lobbyist Jean Korinke,
email: jkorinke(~i~cacities.or~; fax: 916.658.8240.)
Propo:~"d Budget Cuts: Im; acts on
City Revenues'
$s00
FY 02-03 FY 03-04
$400
$200
$0 -~-
-$200
~' ERAF Property ERAF Prope:
-$400
Tax Shif t Tax Shift
-$soo
-$soo
-$1,000
-$1,200
-$1,400
FY 02-03 (in
millions) FY 03-04 (in
millions) Difference (03-04
amount - 02-03
amount)
1. Booking Fee Relief 2 $38 $38 $0
2. Public Libraries z $18 $0 $-18
3. Police Tech Grants (CLEEP) ~ $14 $0 $- 14
4. Traffic Congestion Relief Z $78 $78 $ 0
5. COPS (SLESF) Z $78 $78 $ 0
6. Public Safety Sales Tax 3 $135 $142 $ 7
7. ERAF Property Tax Shift -$779 -$827 $- 48
9. Redevelopment ERAF Shift -$71 $0 $ 71
10. City "Donation" to State $0 $- 466 $- 466
Net -~4R9 -957 ~- 4fiR
1 This chart does not include:
(a) Taxpayer relief programs listed in the state budget under "local assistance
including: the VLF
(b) backfill, Senior Citizen Property Tax Relief, Homeowners' Property Tax Relief
and Williamson Act reimbursements. These programs provide taxpayer relief
from State via reductions in local taxes. They do not provide assistance to local
government..
(c) State mandate reimbursements These legal obligations of the state reimburse
local government for the costs of program mandates imposed by the State.
They do not provide fiscal assistance to cities.
(d) Special local one-time project allowances
z This represents the following programs: Booking Fee Relief, Public Libraries, Police
Tech Grants, Traffic Congestion Relief, COPS (SLESF).
3 Authorized by Proposition 172.
Notes
Cities not including the City/County of San Francisco
Proposition 172 Public Safety Augmentation funds are not state general fund
Local Government Budget "Contributions":
A New ERAF?
Background
Huge Ongoing Cuts Rumored. As the state's budget crisis deepens, rumors
persist that legislators from both parties and both houses are considering imposing
local government "contributions" in the neighborhood of $1.1 billion, and that this
"con>fribution"cnuld be ongoing.
/ Some legislators are rumored to be receptive to some type of ongoing
contribution, at the $1 billion level or some other level.
/ Distribution of the cut. Reportedly, this "contribution" would be split as
follows: cities (40%), counties (40%) and special districts (20%).
Key Points
• An increase in excess of 50% of the "ERAF" Shift? This proposal
would cost California cities $466 million in FY 2003-04 -equivalent to a 56%
increase in the continuing city ERAF shift of $827 million.
/ The "shift" could be ongoing - draining a total of $1,293 billion from cities in
FY 2003-04.
/ Cities' status as net donors to the state -providing more revenue from
the ongoing shift* -- would grow by 50%.
• These cuts are too high, and unfair to California communities.
• No permanent cuts. Local governments can't afford another "ERAF" shift.
Local governments were not the cause of the state's crisis. They shouldn't
shoulder a disproportionate share of the solution.
• Constitutional Protection Against Future Costs and Cost Shifts.
Legislators must protect their communities from future state reductions or cost
shifts, by placing a constitutional amendment on the state ballot to prevent further
raids on local services.
• Maximum Flexibility. Local governments should have the discretion to draw
on various local funds to absorb the impact of any possible budget cuts.
*The exact allocation method of the potential $466 m shift has not yet been
determined.
6/12/0361-~8~
FERNANDO PEDROZA
Mayor
June 11, 2003
Honorable Ed Vincent
Capitol Office
State Capitol, Room 5052
Sacramento, CA 95814
~ Ctty ~teettatg CkaQQe«ges
11330 BULLIS ROAD
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90262
(310) 603-0220 EXT. 201
Fax: (310) 764-4908
RE: Fiscal Year 03-04 Budget Package -Oppose
Dear Senator Vincent:
,~~I~l
OFFICE OF THE
City Council
As Mayor of the City of Lynwood, I regret to inform you that I am strongly opposed to the budget package
in which discussions are underway, suggesting a potential cut in the State's budget to local governments
of over $1.1 billion dollars, in the upcoming year and possibly making it a multi-year or on-going cut. The
City of Lynwood opposes any attempts at on-going cuts to local governments, and we are very
concerned about the amount of the suggested cufs.
The current economic downturn is impacting cities as well as the state. In addition, drastic increases in
workers compensation and PERS benefit costs are having a dire effect on our ability to provide services.
Any additional cuts from the state will only exacerbate an already difficult situation.
The City of Lynwood's General Fund, or any other major fund, cannot bear an additional cut by the state
of $1.2 Million. The City of Lynwood has already made many critical reductions in the general fund
budget for the current year. General fund revenues are critical to our ability to continue to provide police,
fire and other services essential to maintaining the quality of life in Lynwood. This type of cut will
require us to make even more difficult choices, including removing police officers from the
streets, laying off employees, decreasing critical services and further delaying much needed
capital improvement projects. For Lynwood, $7.2 Million is equivalent to approximately, 25% of
the city's law enforcement budget, one-third of the city's fire services budget and exceeds the
city's annual allocation for street improvements.
! urge you to vote against any budget that includes amulti-year or ongoing cut to local
governments, and encourage you to reduce or eliminate the cut being considered for fiscal year
03-04.
Sincerely,
'%
Fernando Pedroza
Mayor
~~ty ~ ~~Nwoon
CC: Lynwood City Council
Lorry Hempe, City Manager
_--~`-Nw
0
.~~. ~d:
~~
~y~.
FERNANDO PEDROZA
Mayor
June 11, 2003
Honorable Marco Antonio Firebaugh
Capitol Office
State Capitol, Room 319
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 95814
11330 BULLIS ROAD
LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90262
(310) 603-0220 EXT. 201
Fax: (310) 764-4908
RE: Fiscal Year 03-04 Budget Package -Oppose
Dear Assembly Member Firebaugh:
~~~~~1
OFFICE OF THE
City Council
As Mayor of the City of Lynwood, I regret to inform you that I am strongly opposed to the budget package
in which discussions are underway, suggesting a potential cut in the State's budget to local governments
of over $1.1 billion dollars, in the upcoming year and possibly making it a multi-year or on-going cut. The
City of Lynwood opposes any attempts at on-going cuts to local governments, and we are very
concerned about the amount of the suggested cuts.
The current economic downturn is impacting cities as well as the state. In addition, drastic increases in
workers compensation and PERS benefit costs are having a dire effect on our ability to provide services.
Any additional cuts from the state will only exacerbate an already difficult situation.
The City of Lynwood's General Fund, or any other major fund, cannot bear an additional cut by the state
of $1.2 Million. The City of Lynwood has already made many critical reductions in the general fund
budget for the current year. General fund revenues are critical to our ability to continue to provide police,
fire and other services essential to maintaining the quality of life in Lynwood. This type of cut will
require us to make even more difficult choices, including removing police officers from the
streets, laying off employees, decreasing critical services and further delaying much needed
capital improvement projects. For Lynwood, $1.2 Million is equivalent to approximately, 25% of
the city's law enforcement budget, one-third of the city's fire services budgef and exceeds the
city's annual al/ocafion for street improvements.
I urge you to vote against any budget that includes amulti-year or ongoing cut to local
governments, and encourage you to reduce or eliminate the cut being considered for fiscal year
03-04.
Sincerely,
'Fernando Pedroza /
Mayor
city ~ ~YN~OOD
~ Ctty vUeettxg CkaQQenges
CC: Lynwood City Council
Lorry Hempe, City Manager
Estimated City Contributions to State Budget
Allocation basis: City Base VLF
$ 466,000,000 Total City Contribution
FY03-04 estimated % of %General$ to
Contribution to State General$ Fire & Police
-----------------
-- ------
------- ---------•
--------
ALAMEDA -$1,207,066 2% 69%
ALBANY -$271,472 3% 64%
BERKELEY -$1,694,905 2% 57%
DUBLIN -$529,419 2% 50%
EMERYVILLE -$118,530 1% 60%
FREMONT -$3,367,492 4% 59%
HAYWARD -$2,341,294 3% 63%
LIVERMORE -$1,222,703 3% 49%
NEWARK -$707,425 3% 59%
OAKLAND -$6,652,946 2% 95%
PIEDMONT -$180,055 2% 54%
PLEASANTON -$1,064,332 2% 41%
SAN LEANDRO -$1,317,712 2% 53%
UNION CITY -$1,116,461 5% 74%
AMADOR -$3 251 4% I1%
I ON E -$118,644 11 % 43%
JACKSON -$64,840 3% 38%
PLYMOUTH -$16,027 5% 30%
BUTTER CREEK -$37,695 4% 38%
BIGGS -$29,405 11% 91%
CHICO -$1,049,752 4% 60%
GRIDLEY -$90,231 5% 95%
OROVILLE -$212,580 4% 76%
PARADISE -$431,386 6% 74%
ANGELS Camp -$51,170 4% 45%
COLUSA -$89,272 5% 56%
WILLIAMS -$61,914 4% 50%
Source: Coleman Advisory Services calculations based on Controller's reports.
6/9/2003 11:27 AM page 1 of 15
Estimated City Contributions to State Budget
Allocation basis: City Base VLF
$ 466,000,000 Total City Contribution
FY03-04 estimated % of %General$ to
Contribution to State General$ Fire & Police
ANTIOCH -$1 524 733 8% 59%
BRENTWOOD -$411653 5% 66%
- CLAYTON -$178 543 9% 50%
CONCORD -$2 018 213 4% 53%
DANVILLE -$696 584 5% 28%
EL CERRITO
--------------------------------- -$382 817
------ 3% 62%
- HERCULES -----------------$325,015 -------- 6 /°----...
° ----------------------•
44%
- LAFAYETTE -$393 529 5% 25%
MARTI NEZ -$593,431 5% 45%
MORAGA -$268 611 8% 44%
OAKLEY
------------------------------------- -$560,596
------------- 14%
ORINDA ----------$289,774 _ ...---- 6 /o------- -----------------...._.
30%
PINOLE
------------------------------------- -$316,449
---------------------- 4% 68%
-- PITTSBURG -$953-198 - ----•-- ~% ------- --------...--------.._.
66%
PLEASANT HILL -$541,822 4% 43%
RICHMOND
------------------------------------- -$1 653 374
---------------------- 2% 40%
--SAN PABLO -$503,590 - ------- 6 /°----•--
° --------------------...
70%
-- SAN RAMON -$749,493 3% 22%
WALNUT CREEK -$1,069,631 2% 27%
CRESCENT CITY ----•---------------$120,318 - ------- 5%------- -------- 47%----...--.
PLACERVILLE
------------------------------------- -$161,101
----•----------------- 4% 50%
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE -$389,400 ' ------' 2 /o~----•-
° ----------•-----------•
52%
CLOVIS -$1151393 5% 76%
-• COALINGA
------- -------------•-- -$269 179
--------------------- 11% 91%
. FIREBAUGH
---------------------------------- '-$96,375 -
------------------ ------- 7% ------- ----------------------•
57%
- FOWLER
-----------------------------•---- -----$66,742 -
------------------- ------• 5%~------ ----•-----------•----..
35%
FRESNO --------------
-$7,171,604 -------------------
5% ----------o----------•
81 /o
HURON
----------------------•----...----•--- -$106,518
-•---------------- 13% 76%
- KERMAN ----$145,3 99 - ------- 7% -------- -------------------...
60%
KINGSBURG -$156,452 5% 73%
MENDOTA -$132,412 14% 28%
ORANGE COVE -$138,182 13% 20%
- PARLIER_________________________ _$190,360
____________________ 15% 85%
REEDLEY _
-$347,576 -
------- 8%--------
------- 64%---------•
BANGER -$319 439 6% 70%
SAN JOAQUIN -$55,478 11% 20%
ELMA------------------•-------- ---------------------=$329:761-- ------- 5%-------- ------- 52%
Source: Coleman Advisory Services calculations based on Controller's reports.
6/9/2003 11:27 AM page 2 of 15
~.
Estimated City Contributions to State Budget
Allocation basis: Ciry Base VLF
$ 466,000,000 Total City Contribution
FY03-04 estimated % of %General$ to
Contribution to State General$ Fire & Police
ORLAND -$103 559 6% 47%
WILLOWS -$102,194 5% 48%
ARCATA -------•------------$275,438 -- ------ 6%------- -------- 44%--------..
BLUE LAKE -$18,660 3% 38%
EUREKA -$427,030 3% 62%
FERNDALE -$22,464 6% 41%
FORTUNA -$172,447 6% 41%
RIO DELL -$51,804
TRINIDAD -$5,104 3% 43%
BRAWLEY -$379 225 7% 74%
CALEXICO -$477,729 6% 77%
CALI PATRIA -$122,106 16% 72%
EL CENTRO -$649,396 5% 61%
HOLTVILLE -$96,196 7% 60%
IMPERIAL -$131,274 6% 53%
WESTMORLAND -$36,964 9% 40%
BISHOP -$58,729 2% 58%
- ARVIN -$220 041 13% 49%
BAKERSFIELD -$4134,703 5% 62%
CALIFORNIA CITY -$151,820 7% 49%
DELANO -$654,939 10% 72%
MARICOPA -$18 482 9% 68%
MCFARLAND -$161 280 15% 59%
RIDGECREST -$415,115 7% 50%
- SHAFTER -$214,742 7% 50%
-- TAFT
------------------------------- -$]44 733
------------------------ 5% 52%
-- TEHACHAPI -$185,841---- ----- 7 /o--•----
° ----•-----------------•
38%
WASCO -$357 134 14% 68%
-- AVENAL -$255,022 21% 59%
CORCORAN -$343,805 11% 59%
HANFORD -$717,016 6% 59%
LEMOORE -$339,254 10% 50%
-- CLEARLAKE -$215,750 8% 60%
LAKEPORT -$79,259 3% 53%
SUSANVILLE -$302,339 8% 56%
Source: -Caterrrattxcdvisary5ervfoes-calavlatfons-basetl-on~COntrotl>yYSreporrs----------- ----------------- ---------------------•
6/9/2003 11:27 AM page 3 of 15
Estimated City Contributions to State Budget
Allocation basis: City Base VLF
$ 466,000,000 Total City Contribution
FY03-04 estimated % of %General$ to
Contribution to State General$ Fire & Police
AGOURA HILLS -$339,709 4% 30%
ALHAMBRA -$1,430,439 5% 64%
ARCADIA -$881,206 3% 66%
ARTESIA -$273,763 6% 41%
AVALON -$52,194 1 % 34%
AZUSA -$748,826 4% 54%
BALDWIN PARK -$1,281,253 10% 74%
BELL -$617162 8% 51%
BELLFLOWER -$1 217,371 7% 43%
BELL GARDENS -$741 739 S% 46%
BEVERLY HILLS -$561,652 1% 40%
BRADBURY -$14,174 3% 12%
BURBANK -$1,664,785 2% 54%
CALABASAS -$331,436 3% 26%
CARSON -$1,519,613 4% 32%
CERRITOS -$854 662 2% 15%
CLAREMONT -$573,063 4% 46%
-- COMMERCE
.. -$211 849
--- 1% 14%
COMPTON -$1571482 4% 62%
COVINA -$781 011 4% 78%
CU DAHY
--------------------------------------- -$411 604
-------------------- 11 % 61
CULVER CITY -$645,771 --- ------1 /o-------
° ----------------------•
S7%
DIAMOND BAR -$936 114 8% 35%
DOWNEY -$1 797 700 5% 73%
DUARTE -$358 727 6% 39%
-- EL MONTE -$1 947,082 5% 53%
-- EL SEGUNDO -$265,994 1% 51%
GARDENA -$969 030 4% 64%
GLENDALE -$3 235,064 4% 67%
GLENDORA
----------------------------------------
-•------•-----•-----$822,445 °
6 /o 53%
HAWAIIAN GARDENS ----
-$248,292 -----
--------
7% -----------...----....
54%
HAWTHORNE
---------------------------------------• -$1,408,967
--------------------- 6% 79%
HERMOSA BEACH
-----------------------•-------------•-- ------------
-$307 411
------------------- -------a---------
2 /0 --•----...o-----•----•
56 /o
HIDDEN HILLS '-$31 404 --- ----- 3 /o_..-----
° ---------------------•
13%
HUNTINGTON PARK -$1,033,611 6% 76%
INDUSTRY -$12 955 0% 10%
INGLEWOOD
---------------------------------------- -$1,888,028
------------------ 4% 57%
IRWINDALE ---$24,334 --- ----" 0 /o--------
° ---------------------•
37%
LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
---------------------------------------- -$336,767
--------------- 5% 29%
-- LA HAB RA H EIG_ H_ TS ------------- ------$95,090 ---
---------------- ----- 4% --•----- ---------------------•
29%
LAKEWOOD ------•----------
-$1,318,249 -----------------
6% -------
---------•
27%
Source: Coleman Advisory Services calculations based on Controller's reports.
6/9!2003 11:27 AM page 4 of 15
Estimated City Contributions to State Budget
Allocation basis: City Base VLF
$ 466,000,000 Total City Contribution
FYQ3-04 estimated % of %Generals to
_ Con_ tribution to State Generals Fire & Police
LA MIRADA _
-$778,199 4% 25%
LANCASTER -$1 985 443 7% 49%
LA PUENTE
--------------- -$690 699 10% 50%
LA VERNE ------
-$525,550
5%
70%
LAWNDALE -$530 248 5% 33%
LOMITA
---------------- -$332 996
- 5% 38%
- LONG BEACH -
-
-$7,698,618
3%
78%
LOS ANGELES -$61 812 460 2% 70%
LYNWOOD -$1,177,205 8% 63%
MALIBU -$209 232 2% 42%
MANHATTAN BEACH -$564,562 2% 52%
MAYWOOD -$473,340 12% 67%
MONROVIA -$615,618 4% 76%
MONTEBELLO -$1,042,876 5% 79%
MONTEREY PARK -$1,010,740 5% 61%
NORWALK -$1,729,788 6% 31%
PALMDALE -$1,973,545 9% 52%
PALOS VERDES ESTATES -$220,610 2% 36%
PARAMOUNT -$928,393 7% 51%
PASADENA -$2,231,687 2% 63%
PICO RIVERA -$1,067,144 7% 37%
POMONA -$2,515,285 5% 79%
RANCHO PALOS VERDES -$682,734 6% 24%
REDONDO BEACH -$1,051,003 3% 61%
ROLLING HILLS -$30,982 3% 16%
ROLLING HILLS,ESTATES -
- - - -:$127,470 3% 30%
ROSEMEAD -
-$899,720
9% -
---•
53%
SAN DIMAS -$581,857 5% 36%
SAN FERNANDO -$397,430 4% 64%
SAN GABRIEL -$663,732 6% 68%
SAN MARINO -$213,994 2% 35%
SANTA CLARITA
- - - ------------------------------ -$2,521 510
------------------ 6% 27%
SANTA FE SPRINGS -$292,538 --- ------1 /o--------
° ---------------------•
54%
- SANTA MONICA -$1 400,969 1% 38%
SIERRA MADRE -$174 902 5% 40%
SIGNAL HILL -$158,273 1% 39%
SOUTH-EL MON_ TE---------------- $355 590
------------ 5% 44%
SOUTH GATE -------
---
-$1,622,701 -----
---------
10% -------
---------•
85%
SOUTH PASADENA -$403 444 4% 71%
TEMPLE CITY -$554,191 8% 34%
TORRANCE -$2,291,099 2% 56%
VERNON -$1528 0% 87%
Source: Coleman Advisory Services calculations based on Controller's reports.
6/9/2003 11:27 AM page 5 of 15
Estimated City Contributions to State Budget
Allocation basis: City Base VLF
$ 466,000,000 Total City Contribution
FY03-04 estimated % of %General$ to
Contribution to State _ General$ Fire & Police
WALNUT -$498,893 7% 35%
WEST COVINA -$1,772,245 5% 83%
WEST HOLLYWOOD -$590,488 2% 34%
WESTLAKE VILLAGE -$138,296 2% 21%
WHITTIER -$1,397,036 5% 41%
CHOWCHILLA -$243 822 13% 56%
MADERA -$745,624 8% 65%
BELVEDERE -$34 931 2% 40%
CORTE MADERA -$149,300 1% 42%
FAIRFAX -$120,058 4% 65%
LARKSPUR -$197,073 2% 55%
MILL VALLEY -$223,390 2% 46%
NOVATO -$791,235 4% 43%
ROSS -$38,215 2% 67%
SAN ANSELMO -$202,421 3% 57%
SAN RAFAEL -$925,597 2% 57%
SAUSALITO -$120,383 2% 58%
TIBURON -$142,441 4% 56%
FORT BRAGG -$115,474 2% 47%
POINT ARENA -$7,819 4% 20%
UKIAH -$254,371 3% 63%
WILLITS -$82,932 4% 66%
ATWATER -$384 459 7% 46%
DOS PALOS -$75,796 8% 71%
GUSTINE city -$79,226 7% 52%
LIVINGSTON -$173,861 9% 81%
LOS BANGS -$447,056 8% 66%
MERGED -$1,062,463 5% 84%
ALTURAS -$47 545 4% 57%
-- MAMMOTH LAKES ------------ -----------------------$120 968 --- ----- 1%------- -------- 22%
Source: Coleman Advisory Services calculations based on Controller's reports.
6/9/2003 11:27 AM page 6 of 15
Estimated City Contributions to State Budget
Allocation basis: City Base VLF
$ 466,000,000 Total City Contribution
FY03-04 estimated % of %General$ to
Contribution to State General$ Fire & Police
CARMEL-By-the-Sea -$66,466 1% 29%
DEL REY OAKS -$26,869 4% 81%
GONZALES -$129,405 7% 38%
GREENFIELD -$208,468 11% 55%
KING CITY -$184,525 6% 46%
MARINA -$457,345 7% 62%
MONTEREY -$482,800 1% 34%
PACIFIC GROVE -$252,860 2% 49%
SALINAS -$2,544,137 5% 62%
SAND CITY -$4,389 0% 33%
SEASIDE -$521,438 4% 60%
SOLEDAD -$364,530 14% 49%
AMERICAN CANYON -$163 507 3% 26%
CALISTOGA -$85,159 2% 40%
NAPA -$1,196,012 4% 49%
ST HELENA -$97,659 2% 45%
YOUNTVILLE -$66,189 2% 20%
GRASS VALLEY -$181 209 3% -- -- SO% - -- --
NEVADA CITY -$49,561 2% 54%
TRUCKEE -$232,379 2% 27%
Source: Coleman Advisory Services calculations based on Controller's reports.
6/9/2003 11:27 AM page 7 of 15
Estimated City Contributions to State Budget
Allocation basis: City Base YLF
$ 466,000,000 Total City Contribution
FY03-04 estimated % of %General$ to
Contribution to State General$ Fire & Police
ALISO VIEJO -$1,021,078
ANAHEIM -$5,466,751 4% 56%
BREA -$586,555 2% 53%
BUENA PARK -$1,301,246 4% 57%
COSTA MESA -$1,803,178 3% 59%
CYPRESS -$766,382 4% 41%
DANA POINT -$582,068 3% 28%
FOUNTAIN VALLEY -$908,237 4% 65%
FULLERTON -$2,100,592 4% 62%
GARDEN GROVE -$2,750,508 6% 77%
HUNTINGTON BEACH -$3,149,206 3% 59%
IRVINE -$2,439,473 3% 34%
LAGUNA BEACH -$392,667 1% 48%
LAGUNA HILLS -$551,200 3% 25%
LAGUNA NIGUEL -$1,027,417 6% 33%
LAGUNA WOODS -$750,777 20%
LA HABRA -$988,552 5% 62%
LAKE FOREST -$1,519,613 7% 31%
LA PALMA -$254,859 3% 53%
LOS ALAMITOS -$190,669 2% 41%
-- MISSION VIEJO--------------------- ----------------$1:569,694 4% 24%
NEWPORT BEACH ----
-$1,170 053 -----
-------
2% --------
---------•
55%
ORANGE -$2,159,061 3% 60%
PLACENTIA -$774,038 4% 58%
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA -$1,056,042
SAN CLEMENTE
-- - -$852,646 4% 53%
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO -$562,416 4% 30%
SANTA ANA -$5 658,997 5% 82%
SEAL BEACH -$398 568 3% 54%
STANTON -$622,640 6% 77%
-- TUSTIN -$1,124 816 4% 57%
VILLA PARK
-$99,479 °
5 /o 35%
WESTMINSTER
--------------------------------------- -$1,461746
-•-------------- 4% 86%
YORBA LINDA -$975,565 --- ----- 5 /°-------- ---------------------•
37%
---
AUBURN
---------------'-$203,364 ---
----- 3%--------
------- 53%---------•
COLFAX -$25,033 2% 46%
LINCOLN
---- -$225 909 8% 62%
-- LOOMIS -$102,226 5% 31%
ROCKLIN -$627,988 5% 52%
ROSEVILLE -$1,349 181 2% 44%
Source: Coleman Advisory Services calculations based on Controller's reports.
6!9!2003 11:27 AM page B of 15
Estimated City Contributions to State Budget
Allocation basis: City Base VLF
$ 466,000,000 Tota! City Contribution
FY03-04 estimated % of %General$ to
Contribution to State General$ Fire & Police
PORTOLA -$36 541 5% 9%
BANNING -$394,358 6% 89%
BEAUMONT -$190,149 6% 94%
BLYTHE -$340,554 6% 65%
CALIMESA -$118,026 5% 65%
CANYON LAKE -$166,026 10% 56%
CATHEDRAL CITY -$725,663 5% 65%
COACHELLA -$389,205 9% 67%
CORONA -$2,133,378 4% 66%
DESERT HOT SPRINGS -$276,315 6% 58%
HEMET -$985,025 5% 72%
INDIAN WELLS -$65,409 1% 14%
INDIO -$836,798 5% 65%
LAKE ELSINORE -$493,837 6% 48%
LA QUINTA -$427,843 4% 30%
MORENO VALLEY -$2,381,410 6% 51%
MURRIETA -$761,261 7% 49%
NORCO -$402,241 5% 70%
PALM DESERT -$688,131 2% 25%
PALM SPRINGS -$712,269 2% 44%
PERRIS -$610 352 7% 60%
RANCHO MIRAGE -$226,186 1% 25%
RIVERSIDE -$4,318 642 4% 67%
- SAN JACINTO -$406 159 10% 72%
TEMECULA -$1,009,537 4% 34%
CITRUS HEIGHTS --~- ------------~-$2,238,921----- ---~ 8%-------- ------- 36%---------•
ELK GROVE -$1,815,938
FOLSOM -$929,222 2% 42%
GALT -$329,306 9% 59%
ISLETON -$13,719 4% 50%
RANCHO CORDOVA -$1,426,808
SACRAMENTO -$6,806 066 3% 42%
-- HOLLISTER --------------------------- $579 370
----------- 8°~0 45%
-- SAN JUAN-BAUTISTA---------------- -----
----
----------------- $25,894 ---- ----
--------
---- 4%-------- -------
---------•
----... 30%---------•
Source: Coleman Advisory Services calculations based on Controller's reports.
6!9/2003 11:27 AM page 9 of 15
--.,
Estimated City Contributions to State Budget
Allocation basis: City Base VLF
$ 466,000,000 Total City Contribution
FY03-04 estimated % of %General$ to
Contribution to State General$ Fire & Police
ADELANTO --------------------$302,014 --- ----- 8%------- -------- 81%---------•
APPLE VALLEY -$909,749 10% 51%
BARSTOW -$350,567 4% 66%
BIG BEAR LAKE -$91,303 1% 21%
CHINO -$1,118,477 6% 65%
CHINO HILLS -$1,124,556 10% 38%
COLTON -$797,558 6% 94%
FONTANA -$2,196,024 5% 49%
GRAND TERRACE -$192,538 9% 60%
HESPERIA -$1,044,111 11% 63%
HIGHLAND -$740,813 ]0% 48%
LOMA LINDA -$315,636 6% 62%
MONTCLAIR -$553,135 4% 61%
NEEDLES -$80,624 2% 42%
ONTARIO -$2,638,675 4% 77%
RANCHO CUCAMONGA -$2,156,411 6% 31%
REDLANDS -$1,061,650 4% 64%
RIALTO -$1,539,412 9% 84%
SAN BERNARDINO -$3,092,184 4% 72%
TWENTYNINE PALMS -$420,512 11% 43%
UPLAND -$1,139,657 5% 74%
VICTORVILLE -$1,098,191 8% 54%
YUCAIPA -$686,392 7% 35%
YUCCA VALLEY -$279,794 5% 34%
Source: Coleman Advisory Services calculations based on Controllers reports.
6/9/2003 11:27 AM page 10 of 15
Estimated City Contributions to State Budget
Allocation basis: City Base VLF
$ 466,000,000 Total Ciry Contribution
FY03-04 estimated % of %General$ to
Contribution to State General$ Fire & Police
CARLSBAD -$1,356,772 2% 38%
CHULA VISTA -$2,979,099 5% 56%
CORONADO -$391,741 2% 38%
DEL MAR -$72,415 1% 29%
EL CAJON -$1,571,515 5% 63%
ENCINITAS -$964,235 3% 41%
ESCONDIDO -$2,227,282 4% 65%
IMPERIAL BEACH -$448,307 8% 62%
LA MESA -$902,776 4% 59%
LEMON GROVE -$413,132 5% 63%
NATIONAL CITY -$921,696 4% 61%
OCEANSIDE -$2,688,789 4% 70%
POWAY -$797,818 4% 32%
SAN DIEGO -$20,330,114 3% 55%
SAN MARCOS -$944,876 4% 30%
SANTEE -$872,769 5% 67%
SOLANA BEACH -$215,327 3% 45%
VISTA -$1,495,686 5% 47%
SAN FRANCISCO -$10,647,936
-- ESCALON --- --- -----------------$100,227 --- ---- 5%-------- ------- 32%---------•
LATHROP -$177,259 4% 41%
.. LODI----------------------------------- -----------------$952,418 4% 46%
MANTECA ----
-$844,014 ----
--------
6% -------
---------•
69%
RIPON -$173,910 3% 33%
STOCKTON -$4,081,062 4% 80%
TRACY -$994,437 4% 52%
ARROYO GRANDE -$261,946 4% 56%
-- ATASCADERO -$436 929 4% 48%
- EL PASO DE ROBLES -$409 459 3% 36%
GROVER City -$215,506 6% 72%
MORRO BAY -$170 448 2% 46%
-- PISMO BEACH -$140 295 2% 43%
-- SAN LUIS OBISPO------------------- -----------------$725:176 -•-- ---- 3%--------- ------- 46%---------•
Source: Coleman Advisory Services calculations based on Controller's reports.
6!9/2003 11:27 AM page 11 of 15
Estimated City Contributions to State Budget
Allocation basis: Ciry Base VLF
$ 466,000,000 Tota! City Contribution
FY03-04 estimated % of %General$ to
Contribution to State General$ Fire & Police
ATHERTON -$118,075 2% 49%
BELMONT -$413,457 3% 54%
BRISBANE -$59,395 1% 65%
BU RLINGAM E -$464,562 1% 41
COLMA -$19,733 0% 21%
DALY CITY -$1,713,695 3% 52%
EAST PALO ALTO -$492,927 8% 64%
FOSTER CITY -$473,535 3% 74%
HALF MOON BAY -$196,797 4% 41%
HILLSBOROUGH -$178,364 2% 70%
MENLO PARK -$508,158 2% 34%
MILLBRAE -$341,010 3% 50%
PACIFICA -$634,685 5% 59%
PORTOLA VALLEY -$73,228 2% 9%
REDWOOD CITY -$1,246,760 2% 51%
SAN BRUNO -$662,838 3% 57%
SAN CARLOS -$455,655 3% 51%
SAN MATED -$1,525,871 3% 53%
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO -$1,003,312 3% 58%
WOODSIDE -$88,052 4% 15%
BUELLTON -------------------- -$64,402 --- ----- 2%------- -------- 21%---------•
CARPINTERIA -$237,093 5% 35%
GOLETA -$778,259
GUADALUPE -$98,163 5% 56%
LOMPOC -$685,221 6% 66%
SANTA BARBARA -$1,530,455 2% 47%
SANTA MARIA -$1,301,132 5% 54%
SOLVANG -$88,507 2% 22%
Source: Coleman Advisory Services calculations based on Controller's reports.
6/9/2003 11:27 AM page 12 of 15
Estimated City Contributions to State Budget
Allocation basis: City Base VLF
$ 466,000,000 Total City Contribution
FY03-04 estimated % of %General$ to
Contribution to State General$ Fire & Police
-------------------
-- ------
------- -------...
--------
CAMPBELL -$628,606 3% 48%
CUPERTINO -$834,424 3% 16%
GILROY -$707,718 3% 61%
LOS ALTOS -$456,646 3% 53%
LOS ALTOS HILLS -$130,315 5% 23%
LOS GATOS -$472,739 2% 40%
M I LPITAS -$1,037,431 3% 65%
MONTE SERENO -$57,282 6% 11%
MORGAN HILL -$562,351 5% 69%
MOUNTAIN VIEW -$1,174,280 2% 36%
PALO ALTO -$988,861 1% 37%
SAN JOSE -$14,935,452 3% 46%
SANTA CLARA -$1,700,513 2% 38%
SARATOGA -$490,668 5% 31%
SUNNYVALE -$2,177,868 2% 47%
CAPITOLA -$165 604 2% 42%
SANTA CRUZ -$894,469 2% 46%
SCOTTS VALLEY -$187,532 3% 45%
WATSONVILLE -$775,468 5% 59%
---------------~---
-- ----~~
------- ~
ANDERSON -$148,601 5% --~---- 56%
REDDING -$1,341,720 4% 63%
SHASTA LAKE -$149,056 6% 64%
LOYALTON -$14 012 6% 18%
DORRIS -$14,402 9% 95%
DUNSMUIR -$31,258 4% 51%
ETNA -$12,695 6% 47%
FORT JONES -$10,728 5% 34%
MONTAGUE -$23,667 8% 32%
MT SHASTA -$59,184 3% 55%
TULELAKE -$16,645 7% 93%
WEED -$48,407 4% 75%
YREKA -$118,497 3% 43%
Source: Coleman Advisory Services calculations based on Controller's reports.
619/2003 11:27 AM page 13 of 15
Estimated City Contributions to State Budget
Allocation basis: City Base VLF
$ 466,000,000 Total City Contribution
FY03-04 estimated % of %General$ to
Contribution to State General$ Fire & Police
BENICIA --------------------$442,131 -- ------ 2%------- ---...-- 53%---------•
DIXON -$265,165 2% 53%
FAIRFIELD -$1,605,666 4% 55%
RIO VISTA -$77,812 4% 65%
SUISUN CITY -$433,759 9% 69%
VACAVILLE -$1,482,893 5% 68%
VALLEJO -$1,930,340 3% 74%
CLOVERDALE
-$116,254
6% ----.._.
58%
COTATI -$108,322 4% 69%
HEALDSBURG -$183,582 4% 72%
PETALUMA -$908,302 4% 70%
ROHNERT PARK -$693,072 4% 53%
SANTA ROSA -$2,453,305 3% 52%
SEBASTOPOL -$127,714 3% 69%
SONOMA -$152,746 3% 54%
WINDSOR -$385,531 4% 27%
CERES -$574 234 6% 71%
HUGHSON -$67,344 11% 51%
MODESTO -$3,159,772 4% 70%
NEWMAN -$122,399 9% 73%
OAKDALE -$256,680 4% 66%
PATTERSON -$200,292 10% 60%
RIVERBANK -$265,165 10% 48%
TURLOCK -$938,813 6% 91%
WATERFORD -$115,035 9% 47%
LIVE OAK -$105 396 6% 35%
YUBA CITY -$719,942 5% 59%
------------
CORNING --------$110,760 --- ----- 4 /°------- ---------------------..
61%
RED BLUFF -$215,815 4% 70%
TEHAMA -$7,071 9%
Source: Coleman Advisory Services calculations based on Controller's reports.
6/9/2003 11:27 AM page 14 of 15
Estimated City Contributions to State Budget
Allocation basis: City Base VLF
$ 466,000,000 Total City Contribution
FY03-04 estimated % of %General$ to
Contribution to State General$ Fire & Police
DINUBA -$282 996 6% 68%
EXETER -$152,633 7% 53%
FARMERSVILLE -$146,277 13% 71%
LINDSAY -$171,163 8% 63%
PORTERVILLE -$660,351 6% 64%
TULARE -$733,157 6% 60%
VISALIA -$1,532,162 4% 52%
WOODLAKE -$112,093 11 % 70%
SONORA -$73,000 2% 61%
CAMARILLO -$956,059 5% 32%
FILLMORE -$229,128 10% 80%
MOORPARK -$522,608 8% 49%
OJAI -$129,551 3% 40%
OXNARD -$2,888,479 4% 50%
PORT HUENEME -$361,653 7% 52%
SAN BUENAVENTURA -$1,667,320 3% 49%
SANTA PAULA -$476,315 8% 68%
SIMI VALLEY -$1,866,653 6% 66%
THOUSAND OAKS -$1,941,003 4% 30%
DAVIS -$1011732 4% 42%
WEST SACRAMENTO -$524,250 3% 66%
WINTERS -$101,527 6% 58%
WOODLAND -$822,721 4% 58%
MARYSVILLE --------------------$199,414 -------- 4%------- -------- 64%---------~
WHEATLAND -$37,012 9% 70%
Source: Coleman Advisory Services calculations based on Controller's reports.
6/9/2003 11:27 AM page 15 of 15
Priority Focus: Budget Process Movin~Along ,,,~ Page 1 of
,.`~
~:
andys+s, conanentcay anc u~or~s oa legislaliye and P~1~ issuts ghat affECt caifarnia citi+~
Issue #22--2003 June 6, 2003
HOME
CONTENTS Budget Process Moving Along
Editor's Note
AB 1221 Authors Early this week both houses passed differing versions of SB 53 -the
Agree to League vehicle being used this year for the budget proposal, moving the
Request to Hold discussion to the budget conference committee. Additional bills
Bill In Assembly containing critical trailer bill language also moved forward. Appointed
This Year conferees include: AssemblylVlembers Oropeza (chair), Campbell and
Budget Process Steinberg; Senators Chesbro (co-chair), Ackerman and Alpert.
Moving Along
Board sets The initial meeting of the budget conference committee was held
League's State Wednesday night, June 4. The committee focused on resolving the
Budget Principles differences between the budgets approved by the Senate and
Assembly budget committees (SB 53 and AB 100). Links to the
Bill Summaries conference committee agenda and the LAO's analysis of the Senate
League Sponsors and Assembly budget packages are posted on the League's Budget
CaITRUST, A p-ag-e•
New Investment
Pool For Local The conference committee hopes to pass and report the revised
Governments budget bill to both houses of the legislature by Sunday, June 8 -but
League Testifies that deadline could be missed. Last year both houses did not pass the
on State Funded budget until the last day of session -August 31st. This year, the last
Mandates day of session is September 12th.
Local
Government Critical Local Government Issues Unresolved
Omnibus Act of
2003 Set for Critical issues for local government remain in discussion either as a
June 18 Hearing formal part of the conference committee agenda, or outside of it. Both
LOCAL Update the Senate and Assembly versions of the budget assumed full-year
Major Unresolved savings from the vehicle license fee backfill (without including the
Concerns with mechanisms to accomplish this). In addition, discussions continue
AB 1221 regarding an additional ERAF shift from redevelopment associations,
The Budget Story reimbursement to cities of booking fee costs, and other items.
-- Some Press
Quotes League lobbying principles were clarified by a conference call of the
entire League board of directors earlier this week. (See "Board Sets
League°s State Budget Principles")
The budget's final impact on cities and other local agencies won't be
fully understood for some time.
http://www.imakenews.com/priorityfocus/e_article,000157202.cfm?x=a1MJ462,aRkgFDN 6/11/03
Leg Update .•. ,,,,,,, Page 1 of
FROM: JOHN F. SHIREY, EX_.:UTIVE DIRECTOR
Legislative Update, June 10, 2003
The conference committee on the state budget began meeting last week to resolve differences
between Senate- and Assembly-passed bills. These bills were considered in their respective
houses with appropriation language and any tax increases deleted so that they could be passed
with majority votes rather than two-thirds votes. Thus, the most controversial issues that divide
Democrats and Republicans were avoided for the time-being.
One issue yet to be decided in the conference committee is the size of the cut in redevelopment
funding. The Senate version contains a $250 million, one-time cut in funding and the Assembly
version contains no cut in funding.
While there are many important issues to resolve in the budget conference committee, the real
negotiations are taking place behind the scenes among Senate and Assembly leaders. Out of
those. discussions has come a proposal that affects local government directly. Senators John
Burton and Jim Brulte have proposed a permanent $1.166 billion cut in funding for local
government. This proposed cut would be apportioned 40% to cities, 40% to counties, and 20%
to special districts. Within those groups the cuts would be done on a proportional per capita
basis. We understand the amount for cities, for example, would be $16 per capita.
In addition, under this proposal local governments would decide locally from what source(s) to
make their payments. One option would be to make those payments from redevelopment
agency funds.
Senators Burton and Brulte are working to pass a state budget by June 20, which is apparently
deadline by which the State must act to be able to issue $11 billion in revenue anticipation note
in order to repay borrowings made earlier in the fiscal year.
At one point, there was talk of making this cut for one year only and in return the Legislature
would place a constitutional amendment on the ballot protecting local government revenues-
including redevelopment revenues-from future cuts. That proposal has gone by the wayside,
apparently as the leadership is attempting to fashion a budget package that will not require tax
increases in order to garner the necessary Republican votes for passage of a budget. The result
is severe, permanent cuts to local government, which, of course, had nothing to do with creatior
of the State's deficit in the first place.
We have to assume that if a cut of $1.166 billion annually is enacted, cities and counties would
have little choice but to pass along much of their share of the cut to their redevelopment
agencies. That would be the same as a permanent cut in redevelopment, which CRA has argued
against all year.
Once again, we are urging you to contact your legislators to ask for their opposition to this
devastating proposal, pointing out how permanent cuts will curtail or eliminate important
redevelopment activities.
http://www.ca-redevelopment.orgBudgetUpdate 18.htm 6/11 /0?
This Agenda confains a brief general description of each item fo be considered. Copies of the
Staff reports or ofher written documenfation relating to each ifem of business referred fo on the
Agenda are on file in the Office of the Cify Clerk and are available for public inspection. A person
who has a quesfion concerning any of the agenda items may call the City Manager at (370) 603-
0220, ext. 200.
Procedures for Addressing the Council
IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS, WE ASK THAT ALL PERSONS
WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL FILL OUT A FORM PROVIDED AT THE DOOR, AND
TO TURN IT IN TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. FAILURE
TO FILL OUT SUCH A FORM WILL PROHIBIT YOU FROM ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL IN
THE ABSENCE OF THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE COUNCIL.
AGENDA ITEMS ON FILE FOR CONSIDERATION ~ - ~~~\~C°>~~s
AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF ', - - - _
THE LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
TO BE HELD ON JUNE 4, 2003
6:00 P.M. Jyn p~ L'`
COUNCIL CHAMBERS ~
11330 BULLIS ROAD, LYNWOOD, CA 90262 ~~y~,s`~~_"~ ~+ ? ;; ~ _ ~,:~~;
FERNANDO PEDROZA ~-~:~~--c-~;~ ~-~~~
PRESIDENT ~., ~~~~~~~~~
RAMON RODRIGUEZ LOUIS BYRD
VICE PRESIDENT MEMBER
ARTURO REYES PAUL H. RICHARDS, II
MEMBER MEMBER
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FINANCE DIRECTOR
LORRY HEMPE ALFRETTA EARNEST
SECRETARY TREASURER
ANDREA L. HOOPER IRIS PYGATT
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
Louis Byrd
Fernando Pedroza
Arturo Reyes
Paul H. Richards, I
Ramon Rodriguez
3. CERTIFICATION OF AGENDA POSTING BY SECRETARY
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Regarding Agenda Items Only)
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
IF AN ITEM IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, THERE SHOULD BE NO SUBSTANTIAL
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE BY THE LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY, BUT
IT IS ALL RIGHT FOR THE LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY MEMBERS TO
REFER THE MATTER TO THE STAFF OR SCHEDULE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION
FOR A FUTURE MEETING.
{The Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950-54962, Part III, Paragraph 5.)
4. PROPOSED FY 03-05 BUDGET
Comments:
The Budget Process started in early April when staff presented a projection of all
funds based upon current expenditure level. At that time, staff was authorized to
prepare atwo-year budget to improve financial planning by allowing staff and the
City Council to take a broader perspective on resource allocation.
The draft two-year budget reflects a project driven organization that maintains the
status quo of the City's commitment to deliver services in an effective and efficient
manner, while also focusing on various stakeholder work programs.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Lynwood Public Finance Authority Members receive a
presentation from staff on the proposed budget and provide comments so that the
budget can be properly noticed for ratification on July 1, 2003.
ADJOURNMENT
THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING WILL BE HELD ON JUNE 17, 2003
AT 6:00 P.M., IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL, 11330 BULLIS
ROAD, CITY OF LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA.
2
This Agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered. Copies of the
Staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the
Agenda are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection. A person
who has a question concerning any of the agenda items may call the City Manager at (390) 603-
0220, ext. 200.
Procedures for Addressing the Council
IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS, WE ASK THAT ALL PERSONS
WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL FILL OUT A FORM PROVIDED AT THE DOOR, AND
TO TURN IT IN TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. FAILURE
TO FILL OUT SUCH A FORM WILL PROHl61T YOU FROM ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL IN
THE ABSENCE OF THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE COUNCIL.
c1 ~~~
~„ _ - -
t•~.'~~ ~ Vii'
..... ~:
~h9 PEA
,~ +l 19,1 ~~ ~•~?;r`E
"~FB~~'i- i= 1~.~ ~4L:-:tee
L~~
AGENDA ITEMS ON FILE FOR CONSIDERATION
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
TO BE HELD ON JUNE 3, 2003
6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11330 BULLIS ROAD, LYNWOOD, CA 90262
FERNANDO PEDROZA
PRESIDENT
RAMON RODRIGUEZ
VICE PRESIDENT
ARTURO REYES
MEMBER
LOUIS BYRD
MEMBER
PAUL H. RICHARDS, II
MEMBER
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FINANCE DIRECTOR
LORRY HEMPE ALFRETTA EARNEST
SECRETARY TREASURER
ANDREA L. HOOPER IRIS PYGATT
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
Louis Byrd
Arturo Reyes
Paul H. Richards, II
Ramon Rodriguez
Fernando Pedroza
3. CERTIFICATION OF AGENDA POSTING BY SECRETARY
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Regarding Agenda Items Only)
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
IF AN ITEM IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, THERE SHOULD BE NO SUBSTANTIAL
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE BY THE LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY, BUT
IT IS ALL RIGHT FOR THE LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY MEMBERS TO
REFER THE MATTER TO THE STAFF OR SCHEDULE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION
FOR A FUTURE MEETING.
(The Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950-54962, Part III, Paragraph 5.)
4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
NONE
5. SELECTION OF FINANCING TEAM
Comments:
The purpose of this item is to have the President and Boardmembers adopt a
resolution approving selection of the financing team for refunding certain bond
issues.
Recommendation:
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution
entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING THE APPOINTMENT OF CERTAIN
PROFESSIONALS TO SERVE AS FINANCING TEAM MEMBERS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE REFUNDING OF CERTAIN BOND ISSUES."
ADJOURNMENT
THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING WILL BE HELD ON JUNE 17, 2003
AT 6:00 P.M., IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL, 11330 BULLIS
ROAD, CITY OF LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA.
DATE: June 3, 2003
TO: Honorable President and Members of the Lynwood Public Finance Authority
FROM: Lorry Hempe, Chief Administrative Officer
BY: Alfretta F. Earnest, Finance Director ~~'~
SUBJECT: Selection of Financing Team
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this item is to have the President and Board Members adopt a resolution
approving selection of the financing team for refunding certain bond issues.
BACKGROUND:
The firm, Backstrom, McCarley Berry & Co. has previously prepared an analysis report
to provide the net benefits of refunding both the 1993 Revenue Bond and the 1995
Water Bond. According to the report a net present value (NPV) savings of
approximately $265,000 or 6.6% refunding savings would be realized on the Water Bond
Series 1995 and approximately $730,000 or over 10% refunding savings would be
realized on the Revenue Bond Series 1993.
At its meeting on May 6, 2003, the Lynwood Public Finance Authority (LPFA) authorized
staff to form the finance team to complete the refunding process for the Water Bond
Series 1995 and the Revenue Bond Series 1993.
Staff is recommending the following firms to serve on the financing team:
Backstrom McCarley Berry 8~ Co to serve as underwriter. This is an investment banking
firm with its public finance headquarters located in San Francisco. Their underwriting
transactions include over $ 7 billion in calendar year 2001 and over $16 billion in
calendar year 2002. The firm's client list includes such agencies as the State of
California, the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, the County of San
Francisco, and the Los Angeles Community College District.
Robinson & Pearman, LLP to serve as bond counsel. This is a nationally recognized
bond counsel firm involved in more than two hundred financing transactions in excess of
$18 billion. The firm has served as bond counsel or co-bond counsel for financings
relative to the County of Los Angeles, the City of Los Angeles, Metropolitan Water
District, Los Angeles, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution
entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE LYNWOOD PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY OF
THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AUTHORIZING THE APPOINTMENT OF CERTAIN
PROFESSIONALS TO SERVE AS FINANCING TEAM MEMBERS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE REFUNDING OF CERTAIN BOND ISSUES ." r
ITEM
5
The recapped activities of the Professionals of BMCB for our underwriting Activities are
as follows:
CALIFORNIA TRANSACTIONS 2001-2002
Year Number of Transactions Par Value
2001 11 $7,175,550,000
2002 17 $16,568,870,000
NON-CALIFORNIA TRANSACTIONS 2001-2002
Year Number of Transaction Par Value
2001 59 $8,812,396,000
2002 32 $5,869,990,000
More important than the number of deals BMCB was involved in, is the number of
repeat business we have completed. For example, during the years 2001 and 2002 we
completed repeat business for, The State of California, the Los Angeles Unified
School District, the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, Los Angeles
Community College District, the City and County of San Francisco, the San Diego
Unified School District and the San Diego Redevelopment Agency.
PERSONNEL
Vncent E. McCarley.
Chief Executive Officer
Mr. McCarley is the CEO of Backstrom McCarley Berry & Co., LLC. He leads our
housing group and will perform a project management role for this engagement.
Mr. McCarley has served as a senior manager and financial advisor for numerous
governments and non-profit organizations throughout the United States. Mr. McCarley
has served as a senior manager and financial advisor for numerous governments and non-
profit organizations throughout the United States. Vincent's senior engagements have
included state agency issuer's (California, Washington, Connecticut, & Mississippi),
major cities (Los Angeles, Baltimore, Indianapolis, & Philadelphia), and a wide range of
local California issuers. Recent financings have included the City of Lynwood, City of
Compton, Los Angeles CRA, Los Angeles Community College District, and San
Francisco Community College District.
R OSINSON ~ PEA.RMAN LLP
1606 Via Cotueu
San TJisR~+. Caliknni~)2(137
183A14.ie-0901
71fD ~auth 1•trnver Stree~, Suim 1 ! rK~
Luc Atueles, ('alifernu VpL~17
r? 1 ~> 384-7m
?tro ~ ('hmar~ Rr~l, Su,te 22U
Oee:uecafc, Galili~mir 42~).S4
(760i 757-;171
AlfrCtta l~. Earnest
Assistant Git}• Manager
City of Lynwood
City i Tall
11330 Bullis Road
Lynwctiod, LA 90262
neclr Ms Earnest:
A'j'T(3RIYEYS AT ti.A W
loss wept 7~h Sant. S.11. 2800
11q Aopeks, Crliiotllir lllgl7
C21 ~) 627-lN160
FILL: YO.
7TL1((:OPIHR (2131 a?7-9061
L407.t)U2
May 22.2UU3
Infortnaticln on Firm
i enjoyed merting you today' aad discussing the: proposed fn1>tncitigs l~lr the City
of Lynwood. Atts~:hed. as reyuested, is a short statement introducing our firm's hoed
counsta practice and a brief resume. 1 look tonvard to working with you and thz City in
completing this financing.
Very truly yours,
.~
.., ,
C.'arl C. Rclhinson
__ ' '.. _-_ - ~- - - .. -..5
BRIEF RBSUME Ot4~ CARL, C. ROB[1VSON
CARL C. ROBINSOl1T has a substaruial practice as band counsel and
underwriter's counsel in mtmicipal and tax exempt securities issued by cities, counties and
codevcli~ment agencies and has represented corporations and lending institutions in business
formations, mergers and acquisi[inns, public aril private sales of securities, and financing
transaetionr~, Mr. Robinson received a B_S,1r. in Acmnautical Engineering fn~m the
University of Michigan in 19b9. While un active duty with the U.S. Air Force, 1969-1974
(rank: Captain), he carved a Masters in Business Administraticm front Golden Gate
University. TIe earned his Juris Doctorate at the University of California at Los Angeles
Sehaol of Law in 1977 where he was, among other things, law s::hool student txxiy president,
a member of the Law School Admissions Camnuttee, editor of the student ncwslcuer, and
C<~mrneru:ement Speaker. Mr. Robir~crm clerked for Justice Harald Leventhal nn the U.S.
Court of Awls, U.C. Circuit during an extern clerkship. l;e began his legal career in 1977
with O'Melveny & Myers in Los Angeles whets he :crnained until February 1984, when he
formed the partnership of Burks, Robinson 8c Pearnkut, the prede-:.essor to the current firm.
Mr. Robinson has served as a [rte[[tbcr of the Board of DirCC;tors of the San Fernarulc~ Valley
Nerghburhood Legs! Services, loc., the National Association of Securities Professionals, lne.,
the John M. Langston Bar Association, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, Inc. , and the
[1CLA Puhlie InUerest Law Faundati~n, and has served on various wmmittces of the Los
Angeles County Bar Association and the Statr IIar of California. Adrnittrd to practice in
California and Washington, D.C.
ATTEST:
Andrea L. Hooper, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
Lorry Hempe, Chief Administrative Officer