Council Looks at Ways to Offset Expected Budget Shortfall : Government: The city could lose $1 million in state funds. City service fees, including trash pickup, may be increased to help balance a $75-million spending plan.

Facing the threat of losing more than $1 million in state funds in 1992-93, the Beverly Hills City Council is set on Tuesday to do some contingency planning.

During study sessions last week, City Manager Mark Scott presented the council with a proposed budget of $75 million. Last year’s general fund budget was about $76 million. Scott had projected a surplus of $207,000 for the next fiscal year but cautioned the council that the budget does not take into consideration the probable loss of about $1 million collected by the state in vehicle license fees and property taxes.

State officials, to balance their own budget, want to hold on to a total of $1 billion that had been shared revenue, Scott said. The state is not expected to adopt its budget until June 30, also the deadline for passage of the city budget, he said.

Now faced with a shortfall instead of a modest surplus next year, the council will have to look at ways to generate new revenue, said Donald Oblander, the city’s director of finance administration.

The sources of new revenue could include increasing fees for city services, asking voters to approve a parcel tax, passing a utility users tax for the first time, and making further cuts in the budget, he said.

The council will begin considering its alternatives at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday.

At 3 p.m. Tuesday, the council will hear pleas for increases in funding from various community service groups, including the Maple Center, Beverly Hills TV, the Westside Food Bank, Los Angeles Free Clinic, and the Beverly Hills Ministerial Assn. In most cases, the proposed budget calls for the same amount of funding next year as in 1991-92.

During its formal meeting, beginning at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, the council will hear public comment on the proposed budget and may vote to adopt a 1992-93 budget. If the budget is not approved June 23, it will be taken up again during an optional meeting scheduled for June 30.

Even without taking into consideration the loss of shared revenue from the state, the proposed budget reflects the decline in city revenues from retail sales taxes and a continued weakness in the national economy, Scott said.

Sales tax revenues have declined from a high of more than $13 million in 1989-90 to $12.5 million in 90-91 and an estimated $11 million in 91-92. The city is projecting it will receive $10.3 million from retail sales next year.

“The bad news is the economy has continued to worsen,” Scott said. “The budget does not predict a rebound in the economy.”

The proposed budget for 1992-93 calls for no salary increases for city workers, even though some city contracts with workers are set to expire at the end of the 1991-92 fiscal year.

To further save the city money, about 30 vacant staff positions, including four police officers, are still frozen, Scott said, although funds for all of those jobs are provided in the proposed budget. Last year, the city saved well over $1 million by not filling vacant positions.

The proposed budget also calls for increases in the refuse fee charged to residents every two months. The city currently subsidizes about half the cost of hauling the city’s trash out of its general fund with users paying the rest. However, solid-waste costs, including landfill fees, continue to climb, Scott said.

The city manager proposed a rate increase of about 50% to residential users. The bill for lots with less than 10,000 square feet would rise $9. For lots 10,000 to 20,000 square feet, rates would increase $18, and it would be $30 for lots over 20,000 square feet.

Mayor Robert K. Tanenbaum balked at the proposed increase, saying the council should consider phasing it in over a period of time.

“I think the hit is too big coming out of nowhere,” he said.