Sales and utility taxes, plus license fees boost city coffers. City discusses financial costs of reopening the Malibu Sheriff’s Station-what entity shall bear the burden?
By Jonathan Friedman/Special to the Malibu Times
The city ended the 2002-03 fiscal year with a half million more dollars in revenue than it previously projected, announced Administrative Services Director Julia James at last week’s City Council quarterly meeting. James said the increased total came from a higher-than-expected return in sales tax ($300,000) and utility users tax ($200,000) money, with most of the sales tax money coming from Hughes Research Laboratory. Also, the city received a larger amount of building permit fees, vehicle license fees and obtained $175,000 in court settlement money.
The increased money will go toward covering some city expenditures that exceeded the budget and the city’s general fund reserve, which was at $8.2 million at the end of the fiscal year.
With the state Legislature having finally passed a budget just the day before the meeting, Councilmember Jeff Jennings asked City Manager Katie Lichtig how it was going to affect Malibu. She said she had not yet analyzed it, but, in general, she believed the city would be getting a little more vehicle license fee money than it originally thought, while not getting some of the law enforcement grants and other funding it had anticipated.
Also at the meeting, Jennings said the city needed to clarify how it felt about reopening the Malibu Sheriff’s Station. It still remains unclear whether that would be a cost incurred by the city or the county. Lichtig said there is a dispute between the county and Sheriff’s Department about what they would like to put at the Civic Way site, which formerly housed City Hall. Lichtig said the cost of reopening the station could range from $700,000 to $8 million, with the higher-end figure creating a full-fledged 24-hour station. The council recommended that Lichtig conduct further analysis and that additional information be obtained from the Sheriff’s Department.
During the department reports, Environmental and Community Development Director Vic Peterson said planning applications were at the lowest level they have been in several years, due to the coastal development permit temporary halt. He said, for now, this was a positive thing, because it allows staff to work on its backlog. But he said if the stall were to continue for a lengthy amount of time, it would eventually reach the point with there would be a great deal of people on staff with nothing to do. And Permit Services Supervisor Gail Sumpter said she has seen an increase in people doing significant development on their property without applying for permits, but added that enforcement was stepping up to combat that.
Mayor Ken Kearsley and Jennings then asked Peterson about the companies the city uses to perform planning inspections and geology reviews, saying they had heard of cases in which the companies were taking extra time to complete their tasks or doing things that were not needed. Peterson said he was unaware of that being a problem, adding there was no financial incentive for the companies to take longer than usual, because there was a flat fee established by the city code. However, he said people may be charged an additional fee if they require a large number of inspections. But, he said, if that type of situation occurs, he looks into what may be going on. Peterson estimated that has only happened twice in the nine years he has been on the job.
In another department report, City Maintenance Manager Richard Calvin said the city was having trouble getting companies to comply with the city’s and state’s mandates for solid waste recycling. He said this was happening despite a letter being distributed about it being a requirement. One of the non-complying companies is GI Industry, the city’s largest waste hauler.
Several councilmembers said city staff should create some sort of fining system. Jennings said he would like an incentive created to encourage compliance.
Lastly, the council selected the second meeting in October for its vote on the amendments to the Malibu Local Coastal Plan.