Fountain Valley passes $79-million budget that uses new sales tax dollars

Fountain Valley’s City Council passed a budget Tuesday for fiscal 2017-18 with an anticipated boost from the city’s newly increased sales tax.

The additional 1% sales tax, which local voters approved as Measure HH in November’s election, is expected to close a $4.2-million gap in the city’s general fund. With $46.9 million in operating expenses, the general fund is the largest and least restricted portion of the city’s overall $79-million budget.

Without help from the tax, the city would have $46.9 million in operating expenditures and only $42.7 million in revenue, officials said.

The additional tax, which raised the sales tax in Fountain Valley to 8.75%, took effect in April and is expected to generate $11.5 million annually for 20 years. Money raised from it is to be used for public safety, after-school programs, senior services, pension obligations, stormwater systems and other general services. It will be disbursed starting this fall.

City Finance Director David Cain on Tuesday summarized a spending plan for phasing in Measure HH funding for services such as adding a fire battalion chief and two police officers, new fire apparatus, repairing park lights and playgrounds and maintaining senior citizen and youth programs.

Cain said the city will review the spending plan after six months.

The capital-improvements portion of the budget will cover several building and infrastructure projects, including an exterior refresh of the main recreation center at Mile Square Regional Park, neighborhood road repairs and a new traffic signal at Talbert Avenue and Mount Washington Street.

Cain said the city most recently issued bonds in 2014 and 2016 and does not expect to issue more in the near future.

Councilman abstains

Councilman Mark McCurdy abstained from voting on the budget, along with all other agenda items, Tuesday because of how the evening’s meeting was noticed to the public.

The full agenda was not available to residents until Monday morning. It is typically available by the Friday before the meeting.

Per state law, a “regular” meeting must come with 72 hours’ notice. A “special” meeting, as Tuesday’s was billed, can be posted with 24 hours’ notice. McCurdy acknowledged that as a “special” meeting, it was posted legally, but said he still thought it was unfair to residents because it didn’t give them adequate time to read the agenda and accompanying documents. He said he abstained “as a matter of conscience.”

Interim City Manager John Sibley said residents were informed of Tuesday’s meeting date when the May 16 council meeting was adjourned. The posting delay was an administrative oversight, he said, so the city noticed the meeting as “special” out of “an abundance of caution.” Special meetings legally can include budget meetings.

hillary.davis@latimes.com

Twitter: @Daily_PilotHD