RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_06_17_03_WQFPP_Annual_User_Fee_RateCITY OF Rt\NCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: June 17, 2014
Subject: Water Quality and Flood Protection Program -Annual User Fee
Rate -FY14-15
Subject Property: Certain Parcels Throughout City
1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Duhovic
2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Senior Engineer Dragoo
Associate Engineer Winje
4. Public Testimony:
Applicant: NIA
Appellant: N/A
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Duhovic
8. Council Deliberation:
9. Council Action:
3-1
CrTYOF
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE ~OUNCIL
DENNIS McLEAN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND~
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
MICHAEL THRONE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
JUNE 17, 2014
PUBLIC HEARING -WATER QUALITY AND FLOOD
PROTECTION PROGRAM -ANNUAL USER FEE RATE -FY14-
15 (Supports 2014 City Council Goal for Public Infrastructure)
CAROLYNN PETRU, CITY MANAGER~
Staff Coordinators: Ron Dragoo, PE, Senior Engineer
Andy Winje, PE, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION
1) Receive, review and file the independent 2014 Annual Report on the Water Quality
and Flood Protection Program prepared by the Oversight Committee for the storm
drain program, dated May 29, 2014;
2) Conduct a public hearing pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 5473.2 and
Section 3.44.40 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code on the Annual Report
prepared by Harris & Associates, the user fee recommendations included in the
Annual Report prepared by the Oversight Committee and information provided by
Staff, and determine whether to collect the Storm Drain User Fee (the "Fee") for FY14-
15, and if so, the rate per Equivalent Residential Unit ("ERU") for FY14-15;
3) At the conclusion of the Public Hearing determine the existence or absence of a
majority protest;
4) In the absence of a majority protest, Staff recommends that the Council determine
that the rate per ERU for FY14-15 shall be $96.75 as set forth in the Annual Report,
adopt the attached Resolution No. 2014 -_; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
3-2
PUBLIC HEARING -WATER QUALITY AND FLOOD PROTECTION
PROGRAM -ANNUAL USER FEE RATE-FY14-15
June 17, 2014
Page 2 of 7
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FINALLY ADOPTING A
REPORT, AS FILED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE STORM DRAIN USER FEE
ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3.44 OF THE RANCHO PALOS
VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE; DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF SUCH FEE FOR
FY14-15; AND ORDERING THAT SUCH FEE BE COLLECTED ON THE COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES TAX ROLL FOR FY14-15; and
5) In the event of a majority protest, direct Staff to present to City Council at a subsequent
meeting a resolution determining the amount of the Storm Drain User Fee for FY14-
15 and providing for an alternative method of collecting the Storm Drain User Fee for
FY14-15.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff has timely published public notices for this Public Hearing in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News on May 29, 2014 and June 5, 2014. At the conclusion of the Public
Hearing, the City Council shall make a decision whether to collect the User Fee for FY14-
15 and, if so, the amount to be collected, but not to exceed the maximum rate allowed by
the Municipal Code.
Prior to this Public Hearing, Staff updated the Oversight Committee for the Water Quality
and Flood Protection (storm drain) Program on April 24, 2014 and May 29, 2014 (see
staff report included as Attachment A to the Oversight Committee's Annual Report),
including the status of storm drain capital projects, storm drain lining projects and other
expenses for the program. At both the noticed meeting on April 24, 2014 and the public
hearing conducted on May 29, 2014, Staff presented to the Committee the ,proposed
project plan and budget for the Storm Drain program for FY14-15, excerpts from the draft
2014 Five-Year Financial Model, the draft 2014 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan, as
well as the 5-Year Storm Drain Plan.
Staff presented its recommendation to increase the User Fee by 0.5% from $96.27/ERU
to $96.75/ERU, the maximum increase allowed. Upon concluding the public hearing, the
Committee voted 5-0 to recommend to the City Council an increase of the Fee to
$96.75/ERU, the maximum allowable by the City's Municipal Code, based upon the law
enacted by vote of the property owners.
At a public hearing conducted last year on August 6, 2013, the City Council unanimously
(4-0 vote with Campbell absent) decided to set the Fee for FY13-14 at $96.27, the
maximum fee that was allowed by the City Ordinance. This year, the maximum fee for
FY14-15 can be increased by 0.5% to the maximum rate of $96.75/ERU.
If the Council elects to collect the Fee during FY14-15, it must decide whether to:
3-3
PUBLIC HEARING -WATER QUALITY AND FLOOD PROTECTION
PROGRAM -ANNUAL USER FEE RATE -FY14-15
June 17, 2014
Page 3of7
1) Follow the recommendation of the Oversight Committee and Staff to increase the
User Fee to the maximum rate: $96.75/ERU; or
2) Maintain the current Fee rate at $96.27/ERU; or
3) Set the Fee rate at some other amount, but not to exceed $96.75/ERU.
Alternatively, if the Council elects to not collect the Fee during FY14-15, it must decide
whether to:
~ Reduce the Fee to zero for FY14-15; or
~ Repeal Chapter 3.44 (the User Fee Ordinance).
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Methodology for Determining Maximum User Fee Rate and User Fee Rate History
The property owners who use the City's storm drain system voted to establish the Fee in
2005 at a rate of $86 per ERU. The ballot measure was incorporated into the City's
Municipal Code and includes a provision to increase the Fee annually based upon the
Consumer Price Index ("CPI") for all Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles, Riverside
and Orange County areas, including all items as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, as of March 1 of each year (based upon the February CPI report), but not to
exceed a maximum increase of two percent per year.
The Municipal Code provides that without a vote of the property owners, in any year, the
City Council may do any and all of the following: (i) repeal this Chapter 3.44; (ii) reduce
the rate per ERU for the Fee below the maximum rate; or (iii) increase the rate per ERU
for the Fee up to or below the maximum rate if it has been previously set below such rate.
In no event shall the City Council increase the storm drain user rate per ERU in excess
of the maximum rate without approval by a majority vote of the property owners subject
to the Fee.
The methodology for setting the Fee, as enacted by a vote of the property owners,
includes a provision to increase the rate per ERU for the Fee, up to the maximum rate
that is allowed in accordance with the annual CPI increase, but not to exceed 2% per
year.
The City Council should conduct the public hearing and consider all relevant evidence,
including the (attached) Engineer's Report prepared by Harris & Associates, Staff's
recommendation, the recommendation from the Oversight Committee, its own review of
the Fee rate, as well as Staff's estimates of other revenue and current and projected
expenditures (including the Storm Drain program), the current and projected General
Fund Reserve and the fund balance in the WQFP enterprise fund.
3-4
PUBLIC HEARING -WATER QUALITY AND FLOOD PROTECTION
PROGRAM -ANNUAL USER FEE RATE -FY14-15
June 17, 2014
Page 4 of 7
User Fee and Other Recommendations by the Oversight Committee
Based upon the information provided by Staff to the Oversight Committee, the Oversight
Committee (5-0 vote) recommended that the User fee be increased to the maximum rate:
$96.75/ERU, as recommended by Staff. The Oversight Committee offered several other
comments and recommendations in their (attached) Annual Report, dated May 29, 2014,
including the following:
"USER FEE RATE FOR FY14-15.
The WQFP Committee recommends that the annual Storm Drain User Fee for
the FY14-15 be set at the maximum allowable rate of $96.75/ERU as limited
by 'the 0.5% increase in CPI.
All members agree that there are more known projects critical to the protection of
life and property than there is funding available, even including the maximum user
fee. The Committee believes that the User Fee is a reliable, dedicated source,
authorized by the voters, which prudence requires be used for these critical storm
drain problems. Failure to collect the User Fee will jeopardize continuation of
essential storm drain work.
OTHER COMMENTS
Taking note of the historic importance of the User Fee collections in funding critical
WQFP projects, the Committee again recommends that planning begin now for
reliable funding of the City's storm drain and water quality systems beyond June
30, 2016, when the Storm Drain User Fee sunsets. The last fee collections will
occur during FY15-16, just one fiscal year away. The Committee recommends
that such funding be strategically developed now while there is still time to plan
rather than waiting for another crisis.
The Committee recognizes that the City is considering development of an
Infrastructure Management Plan (IMP) to coordinate with the City's Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP). The Committee recommends that the City's storm
drain and water quality infrastructure be integrated into the City's infrastructure
management and capital projects planning.
The Committee believes that the Oversight Committee structure has worked well.
However, when the Council considers what structure (if any) should be created to
replace the User Fee and Oversight Committee, the Council may wish to consider
some factors that have become apparent over the years.
1. Historically, the General Fund has provided the majority of funding for
storm drain and water quality projects. Therefore, these projects have competed
with other City capital projects for limited General Fund resources.
2. The City has a huge list of unfunded, capital improvement projects that
do not involve storm drains and water quality and thus are beyond the purview of
3-5
PUBLIC HEARING -WATER QUALITY AND FLOOD PROTECTION
PROGRAM -ANNUAL USER FEE RATE -FY14-15
June 17, 2014
Page 5of7
this Committee. See Attachment B.
3. This Oversight Committee's evaluation of the User Fee monies has had
a significant blind spot -the Committee has never known the appropriateness of
the priorities of individual WQFP projects versus the City's broader list of unfunded
Capital Improvements. Although Water Quality and Flood Protection projects
compete for the same General Fund monies as do other City Capital Improvement
Projects, this Oversight Committee is unaware of any City committee that
evaluates relative priorities between CIP and WQFP projects.
4. The Council may wish to give consideration to the following options:
(A) Create a new 'capital projects/public works' committee authorized to make an
integrated evaluation of the relative priorities of all City capital projects (including
but not limited to storm drains and water quality),
(8) Reauthorization of the User Fee and Oversight Committee, and;
(C) Create a dedicated funding source for mandated water quality projects and
programs.
5. It is prudent to continue with a dedicated funding source to replace the
current User Fee after the Fee sunsets on June 30, 2016. Revenues from the
General Fund alone have not been sufficient to fund all known, critical storm drain
and water quality needs. The City has struggled to allocate the General Fund
resources necessary to fund major projects such as the completed Mccarrell storm
drain (approximately $9 million total for construction and land acquisition) and the
current San Ramon Canyon project (approximately $19 million, of which the City
will ultimately pay about $9.5 million). General Fund revenues and expenditures
are within the purview of the Financial Advisory Committee, not this Oversight
Committee. However, this Oversight Committee understands that the General
Fund is subject to substantial uncertainties in both·revenue and expenditures, even
when Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue from Terranea is included in
planning.
6. Although storm drains have been the primary focus of WQFP funding
since 2007, federal and state laws that are coming to bear on the City mandate
expansive, new, water-quality-control measures which the City must fund. Staff
estimates that these federal-and state-mandated duties will cost the City
$900,000 annually. Thus, the need for future, annual WQFP funding will
increase, even though three major storm drain projects have been completed
since the User Fee was adopted by the voters (Mccarrell Canyon, San
Ramon Canyon, and re-lining 72 pipes).
7. Future funding of mandatory water quality projects may differ from storm
drain issues in one key respect. The existing User Fee is not charged to those of
the City's land owners whose parcels are served by County of Los Angeles storm
drains. The existing storm drain User Fee is charged on a parcel-by-parcel basis
only to that fraction of the City's land owners whose parcels are served by City-
managed storm drains. In theory, the existing storm drain fee structure could
simply be reauthorized for an additional period of years beyond 2016. Water
quality measures, however, will affect all landowners, and, indeed, all residents.
Therefore, some different or additional fee structure may be necessary if a user
fee is to be assessed city-wide for water quality measures."
3-6
PUBLIC HEARING -WATER QUALITY AND FLOOD PROTECTION
PROGRAM -ANNUAL USER FEE RATE -FY14-15
June 17, 2014
Page 6 of 7
Staff's Finding and Recommendation
Staff presented its findings and recommendation to continue the user fee and raise the
rate to $96.75/ERU in a report presented to the Oversight Committee on May 29, 2014.
An updated summary of the findings for the City Council follows:
Summary of 2014 Five-Year Financial Model
The proposed 2014 Five-Year Financial Model, presented in a separate report, dated
June 17, 2014, indicates that the General Fund Reserve may fall below the policy
threshold level (50% of annual expenditures) in FY15-16. By FY18-19, the estimated
General Fund Reserve may decrease to $9.4 million ($1. 7 million below the City Council's
policy level). The primary driver behind this trend is the updated cost estimates for
residential street rehabilitation in response to the current bid market, and to provide for
projects that address all associated improvements in a neighborhood (e.g. curb & gutter,
sidewalks, etc.). If the City wishes to maintain current service levels, as well as current
residential and arterial road conditions, and carry out the 2014 Capital Improvement
Program as proposed, it may be necessary to make future program budget changes
and/or replace the storm drain user fee that sunsets in 2016 in order to preserve a prudent
General Fund reserve.
Restricted revenue, expenditure savings, and the accumulated Street Maintenance Fund
balance has been sufficient in recent years to provide for right-of-way maintenance. The
General Fund has not made a subsidy to that program since FY09-10. However, it
appears that beginning in FY15-16, the General Fund will need to resume annual
subsidies. The primary driver behind this trend is the updated cost estimates for
residential street rehabilitation in reaction to the current bid market, and to provide for
projects that address all associated improvements in a neighborhood (e.g. curb & gutter,
sidewalks, etc.). The estimated annual subsidy ranges from $497,000 to $616,000 (a
cumulative total of about $2.2 million) in years 2 through 5 of the 2014 Model.
Summary of Draft 2014 Five-Year CIP
Public Works Staff has proposed capital improvement projects for the next five years to
be funded with a combination of restricted money and the Capital Improvement Projects
("CIP") Reserve. The CIP Reserve is annually replenished with General Fund transfers
equal to transient occupancy tax and prior year General Fund expenditure savings per
City Council policy. After inclusion of the proposed projects, the estimated ending CIP
Reserve in year 5 is $3.8 million. The City Council's Reserve Policy requires the CIP
Reserve to be maintained with a minimum of $3 million for emergency projects. The 2014
Capital Improvement Plan includes a minimum cost estimate of $28.2 million for projects
that remain unfunded.
3-7
PUBLIC HEARING -WATER QUALITY AND FLOOD PROTECTION
PROGRAM -ANNUAL USER FEE RATE -FY14-15
June 17, 2014
Page 7 of 7
User Fee Sunsets in 2016
The dedicated storm drain user fee that raises $1.3 million annually sunsets in FY15-16.
With the proposed storm drain expenditures included in the 5-Year Storm Drain Plan, as
well as the loss of that dedicated revenue source, an estimated $3.1 million of subsidies
is included in the Model over the next five years to maintain a minimum program of storm
drain lining and maintenance. Unless the City's voters approve a renewal of the fee, the
subsidy will come from the CIP Reserve (General Fund money). Storm drain projects
with a total minimum cost estimate of $9.4 million (in 2005 dollars) remain unfunded as
the user fee sunsets, including the Altamira Canyon drainage project in the landslide area.
Additionally, new high-priority storm drain projects may be identified once the ongoing
update of .the Master Plan of Drainage is completed during the next year.
Attachments
Resolution No. 2014 -_;A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES FINALLY ADOPTING A REPORT, AS FILED, IN
CONNECTION WITH THE STORM DRAIN USER FEE ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 3.44 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE;
DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF SUCH FEE FOR FY14-15; AND ORDERING THAT
SUCH FEE BE COLLECTED ON THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TAX ROLL FOR
FY14-15
Attachment A -2014 Annual Report of the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program,
dated May 29, 2014, prepared by the Oversight Committee for the storm drain program
(with staff report, dated May 29, 2014, an attachments to it)
Attachment B -Annual Report for the Storm Drain User Fee -FY14-15, prepared by
Harris & Associates
3-8
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES ADOPTING A REPORT, AS FILED, IN CONNECTION
WITH THE STORM DRAIN USER FEE ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 3.44 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL
CODE; DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF SUCH FEE FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2014-15; AND ORDERING THAT SUCH FEE BE COLLECTED
ON THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TAX ROLL FOR FISCAL YEAR
2014-15
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY
FINDS, DETERMINES, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
S~ction 1. The City Council finds:
A. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 418 of the City Council of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City Council"), adopted on August 16, 2005, and Chapter
3.44 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code"), the City
Council is authorized to levy an annual Storm Drain User Fee on each parcel of real
property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City") that drains into City-maintained
storm drain infrastructure. The Storm Drain User Fee is levied to fund the City's Water
Quality and Flood Protection Program.
B. Pursuant to Section 5473 of the California Health and Safety Code,
the City elected in Ordinance No. 418 to have the Storm Drain User Fee collected for
each fiscal year on the County of Los Angeles tax roll in the same manner, by the same
person, and at the same time as, together with, and not separately from the general
taxes of the City.
C. A written report (the "Report") entitled, "Annual Report for the Storm
Drain User Fee, FY 2014-15" has been prepared by Harris & Associates and has been
filed with the City Clerk. The Report contains a description of each parcel of real
property in the City that drains into the City's storm drain system and the proposed
amount of the Storm Drain User Fee for each such parcel for Fiscal Year 2014-15
(commencing July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015), computed in conformity with
Chapter 3.44 of the Municipal Code. Such Report is on file in the office of the City Clerk
and incorporated herein by reference.
D. The City Clerk caused notice of a hearing on the Report to be
published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on May 29, 2014 and June 5, 2014.
E. The City Council held a public hearing on the Report on June 17,
2014 (the "Public Hearing"). In addition, pursuant to Section 3.44.40 of the Municipal
Code, at the Public Hearing the City Council considered whether to collect the Storm
Drain User Fee for Fiscal Year 2014-15, and the rate per Equivalent Residential Unit
("ERU") for Fiscal Year 2014-15. In that regard, the City Council took into account the
current and projected revenues of the City for Fiscal Year 2014-15, including but not
-1-
3-9
limited to, property taxes, sales taxes and transient occupancy taxes; the current and
projected expenditures of the City for Fiscal Year 2014-15, including, but not limited to,
proposed expenditures in connection with the City's storm drain system; the balance, if
any, in the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Enterprise Fund; and the
current and projected General Fund reserves. In addition, the City Council took into
account any report and recommendation submitted by the Oversight Committee
established by the City Council in connection with the City's Water Quality and Flood
Protection Program.
F. All interested persons were given an opportunity to attend the
Public Hearing and express opinions about the Report and the proposed levy of the
Storm Drain User Fee for Fiscal Year 2014-15. The City Council heard and considered
all protests and objections against the Report and all testimony regarding the proposed
levy of the Storm Drain User Fee for Fiscal Year 2014-15.
G. No majority protest against the Report, determined in accordance
with.Health and Safety Code Section 5473.2, exists.
Section 2. The City Council hereby overrules all protests and objections;
hereby approves and adopts the Report as filed; hereby determines that the Storm
Drain User Fee for Fiscal Year 2014-15 against each parcel described in the Report
shall be as described in the Report; and orders that the Storm Drain User Fee shall be
collected for Fiscal Year 2014-15 on the County of Los Angeles tax roll in the same
manner, by the same person, and at the same time as, together with, and not
separately from the general taxes of the City.
Section 3. The City Clerk is directed to file a copy of the Report, with a
statement endorsed on the Report over the City Clerk's signature that the Report has
been approved and adopted by the City Council, with the City Treasurer on or before
August 9, 2014 pursuant to Section 4 of Ordinance No. 418.
Section 4. The City Clerk is directed to file a copy of the Report, with a
statement endorsed on the Report over the City Clerk's signature that the Report has
been approved and adopted by the City Council, with the Auditor of the County of Los
Angeles on or before August 9, 2014 pursuant to Section 5 of Ordinance No. 418.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 2014.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2-
3-10
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify
that the above Resolution No. 2014-was duly and regularly passed and adopted
by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 17, 2014.
City Clerk
-3-
3-11
Attachment A
2014 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE WATER QUALITY
AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROGRAM
May 29, 2014
INTRODUCTION
A voter proposition established this Oversight Committee and the Committee's duties were elaborated
by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in 2007. The Committee is instructed to annually review
project expenditures and plans for the Water Quality and Flood Protection (WQFP) Program and to
recommend a User Fee Rate for each fiscal year. The Committee currently consists of the following
members:
Lowell Wedemeyer (Chair)
Elizabeth Sala (Vice Chair)
Krista Johnson
Yi Hwa Kim
Frank Lyon
The Committee met twice with the City's Finance and Information Technology and Public Works staffs
in April and May. The Committee reviewed WQFP Program activities in FY13-I4, as well as projects
planned and budgeted expenditures proposed for FYI 4-I 5. Staff also provided the Committee with the
proposed Storm Drain Plan through FYI 8-I 9, excerpts from the City's 20 I 4 Five-Year Financial Model,
the 20I4 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and Staffs recommendation for the FYI4-I5 User Fee Rate.
This report conveys the Committee's conclusions and recommendations in accordance with its
responsibilities designated by the City Council on May 5, 2009 and documented in RPV Municipal Code
Section 3.44.080.
FY13-I4 EXPENDITURES
The WQFP Program expenditure plan (i.e. budget) approved by the City Council for FYI3-I4 totaled
$I 7.8I million. Based upon the staff report dated May 29, 20I4, $I3.42 million had been spent or
committed through June 30, 20 I 4. Fiscal year expenditures are summarized by the Staff in the Storm
Drain Plan through FYI8-I9 (Attachment A).
Major projects for FYI 3-I 4 are described in the PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS -PROJECTS INCLUDED
IN FY13-I4 BUDGET section, pages I -7, of the April 23, 20I4 Staff report entitled WATER
QUALITY AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROGRAM -MIDYEAR REPORT & WORKING DRAFT
OF FYI4-I5 BUDGET AND 5-YEARPLAN.
Staff estimates that there will be carryover from the FY13-I4 budget to the FYI4-I5 budget of
approximately $4.39 million. Based upon Staff reports to the Committee this variance, between the
$I7.8I million FYI3-I4 budget and the estimated FY13-I4 expenditures of about $13.42 million, is
primarily attributable to the following projects (in order of the size of the variance):
Oversight Committee Report, 2014-05-29 Final Page 1of6
3-12
Attachment A
I) San Ramon Canyon (Project A). The carryover is estimated to be $1.92 million on the San
Ramon Canyon Stabilization Project from FY13-I4 to FYI4-I5. After many years of effort by the
current and past Councils, a financing plan has been adopted by the City Council, including 50/50 cost
sharing under a grant administered by the California Department of Water Resources. Principal contracts
were awarded early in 20I3. Groundbreaking occurred on April I6, 2013. Staff advises that the major
structural features of this project now are complete. This includes raising and stabilizing the canyon
stream bed, excavation of the tunnel and slant drain, installation of about 4000 linear feet of steel storm
drain, completion of the outlet at the sea shore, and substantial completion of the inlet near the PVDE
switchbacks.
The remaining project work is running about two months behind schedule due to tunneling delays
and delays by the landscaping contractor. Still in progress are the rebuilding of the hillside below PVDS,
the access road from PVDE to the inlet, restorative landscaping and site cleanup.
The .original project contract price has been reduced due to value-engineering change orders by
the contractor, the savings from which are being shared between the contractor and the City. Because
of the savings, Staff is proposing to the State of California that additional drainage work be done to take
full advantage of the 50-50 cost sharing grant from the State. (See Project F, carryover item 2 below.)
Importantly, the canyon stream bed, drain inlet, steel drain and outlet at the sea shore now are
functionally ready to receive the next storm, even though significant collateral work remains to be done.
Staff expects that the project (other than the proposed additional drainage work on the switchbacks) will
be completed by the end of Summer 20 I 4.
The projected $1.92 million carryover from FYI3-I4 to FYI4-I5 is reasonable under the
circumstances.
2) Palos Verdes Drive East Lower Switchbacks. (Project F). The estimated carryover from
current FYI 3-I 4 to FYI 4-I 5 will be $485,000 for the PVDE Lower Switchbacks, (listed as Project F for
FY13-I4 and as project area 9 for FYI2-13 budgetary purposes). These lower switchbacks are adjacent
to the San Ramon Canyon project on the southern part of Palos Verdes Drive East. This amount is being
carried over for the second year because design of this project is being coordinated with completion of
the San Ramon Canyon project. Staff has a pending proposal to the State of California that this drainage
on the PVDE Lower Switchbacks be approved for 50-50 funding from the remainder of the State grant
for the San Ramon Project. This project will need to be completed in FYI4-I5 to accommodate PVDE
Arterial Roadway rehabilitation. If the State approves cost sharing then an equivalent amount of funds
will be released for other projects.
3) Palos Verdes Drive South, East of Barkentine (Project G). The estimated carryover from
FY13-I4 to FYI4-I5 is $408,050 for Palos Verdes Drive South (East of Barkentine near Seacove,
adjacent to Abalone Cove Shoreline Park). (This is Project G for FY13-I4, project area I I for FYI2-
I3). This project is being studied by a consultant, including the nature and extent of needed
improvements and an evaluation of potential to integrate storm-water quality Best Management Practices
(BMP). (Staff has advised that the PVDS East of Barkentine project is more than 500 feet from Chair
Wedemeyer's residence so that he has not recused himself as to that project.) The feasibility study at a
cost of $37,950 will be complete this fiscal year and final design and construction are being planned for
the next fiscal year using the carryover funds.
Oversight Committee Report, 2014-05-29 Final Page 2of6
3-13
Attachment A
4) Storm Drain Lining. (Project D). The estimated carry over will be $390,848 for the 2012
Storm Drain Lining and Rehabilitation Project. (Project D for FY13-14, project area 12 for FY12-13.)
Staff reports that 72 pipes in this project are 100% complete. Nine remaining pipes are being transferred
to other projects. Of these nine, four are part of the PVDE Arterial Rehabilitation project (Project F for
FY13-14, carryover item 2 above.). The other five pipes need difficult point repairs before lining can
proceed. These pipes will be addressed in FY14-15 in a new Project 0, Point Repair Projects.
5) Marguerite Open Channel (Project I). The estimated carryover is $365,4 70 for the Marguerite
Open Channel (Project I for FY13-14, project area 12 for FY12-13). This project is located near Calle
Entradero and Palos Verdes Drive West. It currently is under study by a consultant to determine the
nature and extent of needed improvements and potential inclusion of storm-water quality, structural Best
Management Practices. The feasibility study at a cost of $34,530 will be complete this fiscal year and
final design and construction are being planned for next fiscal year using the carryover funds.
6) Miscellaneous Repair and Filtration Maintenance (Project J). The estimated carryover is
$280,034 for Miscellaneous Repairs and Filtration Maintenance (Inspection/cleaning, Project J for
FY13-14, project area 12 for FY12-13). Of this amount $274,556 was also carried over from FYl 1-12.
This category addresses a number of smaller maintenance improvements, repairs and emergency work.
Staff advises that these carryovers are due. to lower than expected storm costs during the last three dry
years. Work done in FY13-14 in this category includes the inlet structure on the north side of PVDS
east ofTerranea Way and $200,000 of unencumbered funds for inspection and cleaning to aid planning
of future drain lining projects.
7) San Pedro Canyon Drainage Tributaries and PVDE Rehabilitation. Palos Verdes Drive East
has been undergoing an Arterial Rehabilitation, which is funded and accounted for as a Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) project, not a WQFP project. However, several storm drains within the
San Pedro Canyon drainage cross under PVDE. $362,360 of WQFP funds was transferred to, and
accounted for in, the CIP fund for repair of these storm drains which was coordinated with rehabilitation
of PVDE. Other storm drain projects in the San Pedro Canyon drainage are accounted for in the WQFP
fund, including Miraleste Plaza (completed last year), Via Colinita, and Roan. The estimated carryover
to FY14-15 will be $218,725 on the Via Colinita and Roan projects. (Project E for FY13-14, project
area 7 for FY12-13 budgetary purposes). The Via Colinita and Roan projects were referred to in earlier
years as a combination of project areas 6 and 7. The Committee is referring to these projects by their
location names, Via Colinita and Roan, to minimize confusion over shifting project numbering. There
was a $242,500 carryover from FY12-13 to FY13-14. The Roan project was deferred in FY12-13 due
to prioritized allocation of Staff resources (primarily to San Ramon Canyon), and design work began in
FY13-14 at a cost of $23,775. The San Pedro Canyon storm drains connect to downstream storm drains
of the City of Los Angeles. The capacity limits of downstream Los Angeles storm drains have
significantly restricted efforts of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to manage San Pedro Canyon drainage
in traditional ways. More study is needed and a prioritization of this work is expected in the pending
Master Plan of Drainage.
8) Drainage Master Plan (Project K). There will be an estimated carryover of $206,399 from
FY13-14 to FY14-15 with respect to the update of the Drainage Master Plan (Project K for FY13-14,
project area 12 for FY12-13). There was a carryover of $697,789 from FYl 1-12 and another carryover
of $727,789 from FY12-13. Staff has advised the Committee over the years that these carryovers
occurred because the Drainage Master Plan Program is intended to be integrated into the City's
Geographic Information System ("GIS"), which itself has been under continuing development. The City
Oversight Committee Report, 2014-05-29 Final Page 3of6
3-14
Attachment A
awarded a contract to RBF Consulting in the fall of 2013 to begin integrating the Drainage Master Plan
into the City's GIS system.
NEW PROJECTS ADDED TO THE FY14-15 DRAFT BUDGET.
Staff is proposing to budget three new projects: Altamira Canyon Drainage Study (Project L),
South HawthomeNia Frascati (Project M) and Palos Verdes Drive South at Sacred Cove (Project N).
As noted in item 4 above, especially difficult repairs on five existing storm drains have been re-grouped
as a new Project 0 for FY14-15. These projects are being budgeted for evaluation in FY14-15. The
total costs have not yet been reliably estimated but are thought likely to be several millions of dollars.
HISTORY OF COMPLETED PROJECTS
During the years this Committee has been in operation since 2007, the Staff has annually
projected five-year models for identifying and implementing a list of 38 needed storm drain and water
quality projects. The total project costs for the 38 originally-listed projects have been roughly estimated
at $46 mill.ion. The respective City Councils, with Staff advice, have set project priorities and
implemented projects as funding was achieved. The list of projects and the cost estimates have been
refined and revised over the years, enabled by on-going investigations and project work, and some new
projects were identified.
Staff has advised the Committee that of the original 38 projects, approximately 25 have been
addressed (through construction or mitigation by another project) at a total cost of about $20.5 million,
nine projects are currently in progress with a FY13-14 budgeted cost of$16.3 million, and four projects
remain unfunded at an estimated cost of at least $ 9 .4 million (in 2005 dollars).
In rough order by dollar amount, the money for projects that are completed or in progress has
come from the City's general fund ($17.2 million), from collections of the Storm Drain User Fee ($10.1
million), and from state and federal grants ($9.5 million).
FEE COLLECTIONS FORFY13-14.
User Fee collections are estimated to be about $1.3 million during FY 13-14.
COMMITTEE FINDING CONCERNING USER FEE EXPENDITURES IN FY13-14.
The Committee believes that all WQFP Program costs for FY13-14 that included User Fee
revenues have been properly spent to discover and mitigate storm drain problems in the City.
User Fees have paid for a critical portion of City investment in storm drain rehabilitation and new
construction from 2007 to date, supplementing the General Fund from which the majority of such
expenditures have been funded.
PLANS FOR FY14-15.
Staff presented the Committee with a proposed FY 14-15 Storm Drain expenditure plan in the amount of
$2,304,996 (see Attachment A). These are newly budgeted funds, not including previously authorized
but unspent funds (which are referred to above as "carryover" funds). When combined with the expected
$4,392,519 in uncommitted funds to be carried forward from FY13-14, the total WQFP Program
expenditures in FY14-15 are projected to be about $6,697,515.
Oversight Committee Report, 2014-05-29 Final Page 4of6
3-15
Attachment A
All planned projects appear necessary and are being funded appropriately under the present
circumstances.
USER FEE RATE FOR FY14-15.
The WQFP Committee recommends that the annual Storm Drain User Fee for the FY14-15 be set
at the maximum allowable rate of $96.75/ERU as limited by the 0.5% increase in CPI.
All members agree that there are more known projects critical to the protection of life and property than
there is funding available, even including the maximum user fee. The Committee believes that the User
Fee is a reliable, dedicated source, authorized by the voters, which prudence requires be used for these
critical storm drain problems. Failure to collect the User Fee will jeopardize continuation of essential
storm drain work.
OTHER COMMENTS
Taking note of the historic importance of the User Fee collections in funding critical WQFP projects,
the Committee again recommends that planning begin now for reliable funding of the City's storm drain
and water quality systems beyond June 30, 2016, when the Storm Drain User Fee sunsets. The last fee
collections will occur during FY15-16, just one fiscal year away. ·The Committee recommends that
such funding be strategically developed now while there is still time to plan rather than waiting for
another crisis.
The Committee recognizes that the City is considering development of an Infrastructure Management
Plan (IMP) to coordinate with the City's Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). The Committee
recommends that the City's storm drain and water quality infrastructure be integrated into the City's
infrastructure management and capital projects planning.
The Committee believes that the Oversight Committee structure has worked well. However, when the
Council considers what structure (if any) should be created to replace the User Fee and Oversight
Committee, the Council may wish to consider some factors that have become apparent over the years.
1. Historically, the General Fund has provided the majority of funding for storm drain and water
quality projects. Therefore, these projects have competed with other City capital projects for limited
General Fund resources.
2. The City has a huge list of unfunded, capital improvement projects that do not involve storm
drains and water quality and thus are beyond the purview of this Committee. See Attachment B.
3. This Oversight Committee's evaluation of the User Fee monies has had a significant blind
spot-the Committee has never known the appropriateness of the priorities of individual WQFP projects
versus the City's broader list of unfunded Capital Improvements. Although Water Quality and Flood
Protection projects compete for the same General Fund monies as do other City Capital Improvement
Projects, this Oversight Committee is unaware of any City committee that evaluates relative priorities
between CIP and WQFP projects.
4. The Council may wish to give consideration to the following options:
(A) Create a new 'capital projects/public works' committee authorized to make an integrated
evaluation of the relative priorities of all City capital projects (including but not limited to storm
drains and water quality),
(B) Reauthorization of the User Fee and Oversight Committee, and;
Oversight Committee Report, 2014-05-29 Final Page 5of6
3-16
Attachment A
(C) Create a dedicated funding source for mandated water quality projects and programs.
5. It is prudent to continue with a dedicated funding source to replace the current User Fee after
the Fee sunsets on June 30, 2016. Revenues from the General Fund alone have not been sufficient to
fund all known, critical storm drain and water quality needs. The City has struggled to allocate the
General Fund resources necessary to fund major projects such as the completed Mccarrell storm drain
(approximately $9 million total for construction and land acquisition) and the current San Ramon Canyon
project (approximately $19 million, of which the City will ultimately pay about $9.5 million). General
Fund revenues and expenditures are within the purview of the Financial Advisory Committee, not this
Oversight Committee. However, this Oversight Committee understands that the General Fund is subject
to substantial uncertainties in both revenue and expenditures, even when Transient Occupancy Tax
(TOT) revenue from Terranea is included in planning.
6. Although storm drains have been the primary focus of WQFP funding since 2007, federal
and state laws that are coming to bear on the City mandate expansive, new, water-quality-control
measures which the City must fund. Staff estimates that these federal-and state-mandated duties will
cost the City $900,000 annually. Thus, the need for future, annual WQFP funding will increase,
even though three major storm drain projects have been completed since the User Fee was adopted
by the voters (Mccarrell Canyon, San Ramon Canyon, and re-lining 72 pipes).
7. Future funding of mandatory water quality projects may differ from storm drain issues in one
key respect. The existing User Fee is not charged to those of the City's land owners whose parcels are
served by County of Los Angeles storm drains. The existing storm drain User Fee is charged on a
parcel-by-parcel basis only to that fraction of the City's land owners whose parcels are served by City-
managed storm drains. In theory, the existing storm drain fee structure could simply be reauthorized for
an additional period of years beyond 2016. Water quality measures, however, will affect all landowners,
and, indeed, all residents. Therefore, some different or additional fee structure may be necessary if a
user fee is to be assessed city-wide for water quality measures.
Attachment A: Storm Drain Plan through FYl 8-19
Attachment B: RPV Capital Improvement Plan -Unfunded Projects
Attachment C: Program Highlights -Projects Included in FY13-14 Budget
Attachment D: Storm Drain User Fee Rate History
Oversight Committee Report, 2014-05-29 Final Page 6of6
3-17
Attachment A
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM: .
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE FOR THE WATER QUALITY AND FLOOD
PROTECTION PROGRAM
MICHAEL THRONE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DENNIS McLEAN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
·.-~/::-.·.·.·.
MA Y,,.;~~'.::::zg,t 4
WATER QOA,L'.1,-y;,AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROGRAM -
PUBLIC HEARf;N~FOR ANNUAL USER FEE RATE-FY14-15
.·:··-;.· .. :.
Staff Coordinators: Ron Dragoo: PESS.~.!'lior Engineer
Andy Winje, PE, A.~.s9ciate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION
1) Receive, review and file the revised 5-Year Storm.frfain Plan excerpts from the
working draft of both the 2014 Five-Year Financial Model ("Model") and 2014
Capital Improvement Plan ("CIP").
2) Conduct a public hearing to consider Staff's recommendation to increase the.annual
Storm Drain User Fee (the "Fee") to the maximum annual user fee rate per
Equivalent Residential Unit, a proposed increase of 0.5%, from $96.27/ERU to
$96.75/ERU, based upon the change in CPI for the 12 months ended February,
2014, to fund the City's Water Quality and Flood Protection Program.
3) Draft the Annual Report of the Oversight Committee to be addressed to the City
Council regarding Staff's recommendation to increase the Fee, as well as any other
findings, comments and recommendation it wishes to make to the City Council
regarding the City's Water Quality and Flood Protection Program.
3-18
Attachment A
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Overview of Scope and Purpose for the Oversight Committee
The Scope and Purpose for the Oversight Committee, approved by the City Council on
May 5, 2009, serves to establish the process by which the Oversight Committee exercises
its duty. The process was outlined in the Resolution as follows:
As described in Section 3.44.080 A., "The committee shall hold at least one public
hearing and issue a report, on at least an annual basis, to inform city residents and
the City Council regarding how storm drain user fee revenues are being spent and to
make recommendations to the city council regarding future expenditures of the storm
drain user fee revenues." Staff expects to use maps, pictures, video and financial
information regardin storm.drain program to assist the Oversight Committee's
understanding.
de the following information provided by Staff:
~ a comparison of budget v. act unting for the current fiscal year;
~ a construction project status repo , ·ng information about expenditures to date
and major contract status (i.e. desig onstruction contracts);
~ the proposed budget (including major ) for the forthcoming year;
~ an excerpt of the Five-Year Financial Mo e storm drain program, including
the estimated ending balance, if any, in the Quality and Flood Protection fund;
~ an excerpt of the Five-Year Financial Model reg an e projected revenues of the
General Fund of the City for the current and forth fiscal years, including but
not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes and tr. occupancy taxes; the
projected expenditures of the General Fund of th r ,£;/y_ for the current and
forthcoming fiscal years; and the estimated ending Genel!ffFund reserves for the
current and forthcoming fiscal years; and
~ Staffs recommendation regarding the User Fee rate for the forthcoming year prior to
making its own recommendation regarding the User Fee rate for the next fiscal year.
Staff believes that its presentation to the Oversight Committee made on April 10, 2013,
along with the information included with this report, satisfies the provisions of Municipal
Code section 3.44.080 that outlines the information to be annually reviewed by the
Oversight Committee.
Passage of Measure C -November 6, 2007
On November 6, 2007, the voters approved an amendment to the Fee ordinance to include
a voter enacted Oversight Committee and a 10-year sunset of the Fee. When the Fee rate
was established by the property owners in 2005, the total User Fees to be collected over
30 years was estimated to be about $50 million to pay for known construction projects,
storm drain lining, maintenance, staffing and engineering. Based upon the 10-year sunset
3-19
Attachment A
established with the passage of Measure C, the maximum total User Fees that could be
collected is estimated to be about $13 million. Although the Fee has been an essential,
dedicated source of funding that has enabled significant progress towards rehabilitating the
City's existing storm drain system, it appears as though it will be necessary to secure other
funding sources to continue the Storm Drain program when the Fee expires on June 30,
2016.
Methodology for Determining Maximum User Fee Rate and User Fee Rate History
The property owners who use the City's storm drain system voted to establish the Fee in
2005 at a rate of $86 per ERU. The ballot measure was incorporated into the City's
Municipal Code and includes a provision to increase the Fee rate based upon the
Consumer Price Index ("CPI") for all Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles, Riverside and
Orange County areas, inclµ..Qing all items as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, as of March 1'·''0f,~e~h year, but not to exceed a maximum increase of two
percent per year. c(''_,,f)<
,· •• ::-· ·~·'.<·.
(,:: ... :::-:·,·;;::-.;~::
The ballot measure, as incorporat~tfln.t~ the Municipal Code, provides that without a vote
of the property owners, in any year:·ttli1{~ify Council may do any and all of the following: (i)
repeal this Chapter 3.44; (ii) reduce the'.rafi!tper ERU for the Fee below the maximum rate;
or (iii) increase the rate per ERU for the Fe~'~p,Jo or below the maximum rate if it has been
previously set below such rate. In no event sfi~!l4tie City Council increase the storm drain
user rate per ERU in excess of the maximum r~l~~A~tf.thout approval by a majority vote of the
·property owners subject to the Fee. The Oversi!fht QofQmittee could recommend any of
the three alternatives described in (i) through (iii) de~priped in the preceding paragraph.to
the City Council ··-.,.,:-:-· ,:::::)
.. ;:-·
At its meeting on May 29, 2013 and incorporated into their26'.1·3 Annual Report to the City
Council, the Oversight Committee recommended to increase the Fee for FY12-13 from
$92.53 to $96.27 (on a 4-1 vote), the maximum rate allowed. At its meeting on August 6,
2013, the City Council voted to increase the rate to $96.27 for FY13-14. Based upon its
findings described herein, Staff recommends the increase the annual the Fee to the
maximum annual Fee rate per Equivalent Residential Unit, a proposed increase of 0.5,
from $96.27/ERU to $96.75/ERU, based upon the change in CPI forthe 12 months ended
February, 2014. Again, the Oversight Committee could recommend any of the three
alternatives described in (i) through (iii) described in the preceding paragraph to the City
Council, including support for Staffs recommendation to increase the annual the Fee to the
maximum annual Fee rate per Equivalent Residential Unit, a proposed increase of 0.5%,
from $96.27/ERU to $96.75/ERU.
Staff has provided Attachment D -User Fee Rate History, including annual and total
estimated Fee revenue, incremental increases of Fee revenue and other useful
information. Attachment D offers a one page view of the economic trends of Fee revenue
since its inception.
3-20
Attachment A
City Council Policy 41 -Reserve Policies
The City Council approved revisions of the Reserve Policies on December 21, 2010 and
April 19, 2011. Paragraph B. of the Policy establishes a procedure for the prudent
management of Transient Occupancy Tax ("TOT") revenue for funding capital
improvement projects. On April 30, 2013, the City Council further revised the Reserve
Policies as follows (see underlined text):
"The City will maintain a minimum of $3 million in the Capital Improvement Projects
(CIP) fund as a reserve for major improvement projects related to roadways, storm
drains, parks, buildings, rights-of-way, and the sewer system. Subject to the annual
budgeting process, the CIP reserve will be funded, to the extent possible, by
allocating the following to the CIP fund:
1. Amounts equ
2. Amounts e u
variance when a
annual transient occupancy tax (TOT); and
e rior ear General Fund favorable ex enditure
le.
All interest earnings in this fun e used for capital improvement projects."
The revised Policy 41 serves to provide a ism to facilitate the link of TOT revenue
and future favorable budget variances (if they , with CIP needs, especially in light of
the priorities and amount of unfunded CIP pr Je ·ncluding unfunded storm drain
projects).
City Council Reserve Policy also includes the set-asid
follows:
General Fund reserves as
"The City will maintain a minimum fund balance of at least 50 percent of annual
operating expenditures in the General Fund. This is considered the minimum level
necessary to maintain the City's credit worthiness and to adequately provide for:
1. Economic uncertainties, local disasters, and other financial hardships or
downturns in the local or national _economy.
2. Contingencies for unseen operating or capital needs.
3. Cash flow requirements."
STAFF'S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION
Total City-wide revenue, including all funds of the City and the Improvement Authority, is
expected to be $33.7 million for FY14-15 (exeluding inter-fund transactions). The proposed
City-wide spending plan is $36.6 million (excluding inter-fund transactions). The following
3-21
Attachment A
summary paragraphs about the City's General Fund budget, capital spending plan,
unfunded, known capital projects and minimal reserve levels, prepared in conjunction with
the FY14-15 budget process, lead Staff to its recommendation to increase the annual Fee
to the maximum annual Fee rate per Equivalent Residential Unit, a proposed increase of
0.5%, from $96.27/ERU to $96.75/ERU, based upon the change in CPI for the 12 months
ended February, 2014.
Summary of Draft FY14-15 Budget-General Fund Reserves
Although the draft FY14-15 General Fund budget is currently balanced by a slim margin, at
least two factors may necessitate re-balancing over the next several weeks.
• On April 29, 2014, the City Council directed Staff to provide cost information for an
additional staff perSQJl to manage inquiries from both the City Council and the
public. The potenttal:Sfojt ~f thi~ additional staff person has not yet been quantified
or approved by the Oif,.P~.unc1I.
• As a participating juti@d~ti.on in the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable
Communications System')(fftfiq;.tty, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department "··· /.. .. · .. may pass on a share of the ope[alion cost to the City beginning as early as FY14-
15. The item is scheduled to besO:fiS,idered by the City Council on June 17th, which
is the same agenda that Staff ex·p~~ the City Council will adopt the FY14-15
budget. \= •. :::·4
The draft FY14-15 General Fund budget is basecf'.upprr~.stimated revenue of about $26.5
million, less estimated operating expenditures to~J_l~1,.about $20.5 million, less net
transfers out to other funds/programs totals about $7.4 mtfljPQ:-.and resulting in an estimated
ending General Fund Reserve of about $10.3 million at Jl.fn.f.i ~O, 2015, barely above the
Reserve Policy Threshold set by the City Council. ·:.)=···' ...
Summary of Draft 2014 Five-Year Financial Model
Based upon the draft 2014 Five Year Financial Model presented to the Finance Advisory
Committee on May 21, 2014, the General Fund Reserve may fall below the policy
threshold level (50% of annual expenditures) in FY15-16. By year 5, FY18-19, the
estimated General Fund Reserve may decrease to $9. 7 million ($1.4 million below the City
Council's Reserve Policy Threshold level). To provide the proposed level of residential
street rehabilitation, future budgets may need adjustments to remain balanced and
preserve the General Fund Reserve.
Summary of Draft 2014 Five-Year CIP
Public Works Staff has proposed capital improvement projects for the next five years to be
funded with a combination of restricted money and the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)
3-22
Attachment A
Fund Reserve. The CIP Reserve is annually replenished with General Fund transfers
equal to transient occupancy tax and prior year General Fund expenditure savings, subject
to annual approval by the City Council. After inclusion of the proposed projects, the
estimated ending CIP Reserve in FY18-19 is $3.3 million. The City Council's Reserve
Policy requires the CIP Reserve to be maintained with a minimum of $3 million for
emergency projects. The draft 2014 Capital Improvement Plan also includes a minimum
cost estimate of $28.3 million for projects that remain unfunded.
User Fee Sunsets in 2016
The storm drain user fee sunsets in FY15-16. With additional proposed storm drain
expenditures and the loss of a dedicated revenue source, an estimated $3.1 million of
subsidies may be needed over the next five years to maintain a minimum program of storm
drain lining and maintenanc Unless the City's voters approve a renewal of the fee, the
subsidy will come from th eserve (General Fund money). Storm drain projects with
a total minimum cost estim 9.4 million (in 2005 dollars) remain unfunded, including
the Altamira Canyon drainage ct in the landslide area. Additionally, new high-priority
storm drain projects may be ide nee the ongoing update of the Master Plan of
Drainage is completed during the
Council member Misitech has stated tha ns to bring a future agenda item to a future
study session of a Council meeting to dire f to report to the Council outlining what
steps were taken when the storm drain user i e ~-established in 2005, as well as what
steps that should be considered to enable the vottfrs nsider a replacement of the user
fee revenue.
San Ramon Canyon (Storm Drain) Project Funding
As explained in a staff report to the Oversight Committee, dated April 23, 2014, a
construction contract were formally awarded by City Council to L.H. Woods and Sons, Inc.
on March 5, 2013 for the San Ramon Canyon Stormwater Flood Reduction Project (aka
PVDE/PVDS Roadway Stabilization Project) for the Stormwater Flood Management
Program.
The San Ramon Canyon Project is in its final stages of construction. Since last summer,
the canyon streambed has been raised and stabilized, the tunnel and slant drain have both
been successfully excavated, about 4,000 linear feet of steel storm drain has been
installed, and the outlet structure has been completed. Completion of the inlet structure,
rebuilding of the hillside below PVDS, the access road to the inlet, restorative landscaping
and site cleanup are in progress.
The project is running about two months behind schedule due to tunneling delays and a
slow start by the landscaping contractor. The extra costs for construction management
due to this delay will be borne by the contractor. The project contract price has been
3-23
Attachment A
reduced due to net effects of change orders initiated as value engineering by the
contractor. City staff is currently proposing additional drainage work to the State of
California in order to take full advantage of the entire grant award. The additional work will
improve drainage along the PVDE switchbacks and is tributary to the San Ramon drain.
Staff expects the State to give a decision in the next month or so.
Finance Advisory Committee Recommendation Regarding Funding for the San Ramon
Canyon Stabilization Project
When construction-related contracts for the San Ramon Canyon Stabilization Project were
approved by the City Council on March 5, 2013, Staff reported the following:
"The City was awarded a grant from the Disaster Preparedness and Flood
Prevention Bond Act of 2006 to assist in financing the San Ramon Canyon
Stormwater Flood ~ction Project for the Stormwater Flood Management
Program. The Grant is Jg · ·stered by the State Department of Water Resources.
The maximum dollar am reimbursement offered through this State grant was
set at $9,464, 727; the to of the work eligible for 50150 cost sharing is
$18,929,455."
The City's 50% share of the Project ha n funded with the City's Reserves. The City
Council adopted a reimbursement resoluti August 21, 2012 which allows the City to
reimburse its Reserves (not to exceed $12 in the event the City Council decides to
issue tax-exempt debt for the Project after co t!~ction began. The resolution did not
obligate the City to issue debt; but it preservecfthE 's ability to do so. In order to
reimburse itself for the costs of the Project with proc tax-exempt debt, the City must
sell the bonds within 18 months of the date that the Cit he first construction invoice
on June 4, 2013. Tim Schaefer of Mag is Advisors (the C1 · ancial Advisor) previously
advised Staff and the City Council that its decision needs e made by mid-March 2014
in order to complete the debt financing by December 2014 (if the City Council elects to
proceed).
At its meeting on February 26, 2014, the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) received a
presentation by the City's Financial Advisor of funding options for the San Ramon Canyon
Stabilization Project which includes the option to finance a portion of the project through
the issuance of debt. Subsequent to presentations by Staff and the City's Financial
Advisor, as well as the FAC's discussion, the FAC unanimously agreed that the FAC's
recommendation to the City Council should include the following:
1) Do not issue debt for the San Ramon project;
2) Fast-track preparation of the Infrastructure Management Plan (the
"IMP");
3) Develop an overall IMP that may include the use of debt; and
3-24
Attachment A
4) Engage in public outreach (e.g. civic engagement, provide education
about the IMP and gain public trust).
Staff and the City's Financial Advisor agree with the recommendation provided by the FAC.
At its meeting conducted on March 18, 2014, the City Council decided to follow the FAC &
Staff's four recommendations described above.
Infrastructure Management Plan
Public Works and Finance Staff are working together to develop an Infrastructure
Management Plan (IMP) to address the long-term capital needs of the City. As noted in
previous reports to both the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) and the City Council, the
City's infrastructure is aged; and due to budgetary constraints, the City has been cautious
when budgeting for capitals nding over the years. Staff expects that the IMP will provide
a roadmap for future s tic replacement, refurbishment, and financing of City
infrastructure. Such plan ill allow the City to increase efficiency by bundling
upcoming projects, and makin airs during periods where the repair is less costly (vs.
waiting until the infrastructure ha e and the repair is more costly).
The City's Capital Improvement Proje ) Reserve established by the City Council to
provide for infrastructure rehabilitation i f d with annual transfers from the General
Fund equivalent to transient occupancy t T) revenue (currently about $4 million
annually). Again, Staff has prepared a r endation to fund $26.9 million of
infrastructure projects over the next five years fro t P Reserve. Although it is a good
start, the CIP Reserve is not sufficient to finance al f e City's infrastructure needs as
demonstrated by the following extrapolation.
~ On the City's books, infrastructure is carried at its rical cost of $159.7 million,
less $78.0 million of depreciation as of June 30, 2013. About one-quarter of the
infrastructure cost was estimated at 1973 value, when the City was incorporated
and assets were transferred from the county. Most of the infrastructure has
estimated useful life ranging from 30 to 50 years. We can roughly estimate the
hypothetical replacement cost of this infrastructure with a simple calculation. If the
increase of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is applied to the historical cost of the
assets (average of 3.28% annually since 1973), then today's estimated replacement
cost is more than $300 million. If this estimated replacement cost in nominal dollars
is evenly distributed over a 50 year period, the rate of infrastructure rehabilitation
spending would be about $6 million per year (or about 150% of the City's annual
transit occupancy tax revenue). The actual replacement cost of the City's
infrastructure assets may be greater or less than this hypothetical estimate. This
hypothetical estimate does not provide for any enhancements of infrastructure, only
the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure.
~ The working draft of the 2014 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan includes a list of
projects that have been identified and quantified by the City's engineering staff, yet
3-25
Attachment A
funding has not been identified. Some of these projects address both safety issues
and City Council goals, which have a total estimated cost starting at $28.3 million.
The list does not include new construction or refurbishment of City Hall.
);;>-The Fee that provides about $1.3 million annually towards on-going repairs,
maintenance and improvements of storm drains sunsets in 2016. Another funding
source will be needed to backfill ongoing repairs and maintenance beginning in
FY17-18.
Although the General Fund is contributing about $4 million annually into the Capital
Improvement Projects Reserve (using transient occupancy tax received from the Terranea
Resort), it is not enough to pay for the City's infrastructure needs.
CONCLUSION ANDS REC
Therefore, Staff believes t
annual Fee rate per Equiva
$96.27/ERU to $96.75/ERU, ba
February, 2014.
Attachments:
1s necessary to increase the Fee up to the maximum
esidential Unit, a proposed increase of 0.5%, from
n the change in CPI for the 12 months ended
Staff Report, Dated April 23, 2014
Attachment A -Draft 5-Year Storm Drain Plan Thr Y18-19
Attachment B -Draft Excerpt_2014 Five-Year Financ1 el
Excerpts from Draft 2014 CIP -Capital Improvement Pl nfunded Projects
Exhibit C-1 -CIP Project Fund Expenditures (Fro ft 2014 Model)
Exhibit C-2 -CIP Reserve Reconciliation (From Draft 2014 Model)
Attachment D -User Fee Rate History
3-26
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Attachment A
HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE FOR THE WATER QUALITY AND FLOOD
PROTECTION PROGRAM
MICHAEL THRONE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DENNIS McLEAN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
APRffS~~ .,2014
tl=::;:f·.
WATER Q~~!.TY AND FLOOD PROTECTION PROGRAM -
MIDYEAR R;qFO@T & WORKING DRAFT OF FY14-15 BUDGET
& 5-YEAR PLAN==·=··> .
·; .·
•,·· .·:· '."
Project Managers: Ron Dragoo, Senid::~"@Qineer
Andy Winje, Associate,:;E.pgineer
/t ... :r
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS-PROJECTS INCLUDED IN FY13-14 BUDGET
San Ramon Canyon (PVDE/PVDS Roadway) Stabilization Project
The San Ramon Canyon Project is in its final stages of construction. Since last
summer, the canyon streambed has been raised and stabilized, the tunnel and slant
drain have both been successfully excavated, about 4,000 linear feet of steel storm
drain has been installed, and the outlet structure has been completed. Completion of
the inlet structure, rebuilding of the hillside below PVDS, the access road to the inlet,
restorative landscaping and site cleanup are in progress.
The project is running about two months behind schedule due to tunneling delays and a
slow start by the landscaping contractor. The extra costs for construction management
3-27
Attachment A
due to this delay will be borne by the contractor. The project contract price has been
reduced due to net effects of change orders initiated as value engineering by the
contractor. City staff is currently proposing additional drainage work to the State of
California in order to take full advantage of the entire grant award. The additional work
will improve drainage along the PVDE switchbacks and is tributary to the San Ramon
drain. Staff expects the State to give a decision in the next month or so.
Finance Advisory Committee Recommendation Regarding Funding for the San Ramon
Canyon Stabilization Project
When construction-related contracts for the San Ramon Canyon Stabilization Project
were approved by the City Council on March 5, 2013, Staff reported the following:
"The City was awarded a grant from the Disaster Preparedness and Flood
Prevention Bond Act of 2006 to assist in financing the San Ramon Canyon
Stormwater Flood ction Project for the Stormwater Flood Management
Program. The Gr. n administered by the State Department of Water
Resources. The maxi /far amount of reimbursement offered through this
State grant was set at , 727; the total cost of the work eligible for 50150
cost sharing is $18,929,45 .
The City's 50% share of the Project h n funded with the City's Reserves. The City
Council adopted a reimbursement resol n August 21, 2012 which allows the City
to reimburse its Reserves (not to excee Million) in the event the City Council
decides to issue tax-exempt debt for the ,e>)e'ct after construction began. The
resolution did not obligate the City to issue debtfbL · reserved the City's ability to do
so. In order to reimburse itself for the costs of the ro· ct with proceeds of tax-exempt
debt, the City must sell the bonds within 18 months o !)jjie. that the City paid the first
construction invoice on June 4, 2013. Tim Schaefe 4'fJ~agis Advisors (the City's
Financial Advisor) previously advised Staff and the City c&t'ffi'cil that its decision needs
to be made by mid-March 2014 in order to complete the debt financing by December
2014 (if the City Council elects to proceed).
At its meeting on February 26, 2014, the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) received a
presentation by the City's Financial Advisor of funding options for the San Ramon
Canyon Stabilization Project which includes the option to finance a portion of the project
through the issuance of debt. Subsequent to presentations by Staff and the City's
Financial Advisor, as well as the FAC's discussion, the FAC unanimously agreed that
the FAC's recommendation to the City Council should include the following:
1) Do not issue debt for the San Ramon project;
2) Fast-track preparation of the Infrastructure Management Plan (the
"IMP");
3) Develop an overall IMP that may include the use of debt; and
4) Engage in public outreach (e.g. civic engagement, provide education
about the IMP and gain public trust).
Staff and the City's Financial Advisor agree with the recommendation provided by the
3-28
Attachment A
FAC. At its meeting conducted on March 18, 2014, the City Council decided to follow
the FAC & Staff's four recommendations described above.
Master Plan of Drainage Program
The Master Plan of Drainage (MPD) was awarded to RBF Consulting last autumn and
kicked off a few weeks later. Since then, the consultant has taken delivery of the City's
stormwater infrastructure drawings, began its field verification of field conditions and is
assembling a computer model that will be used to determine capacity issues and
pollutant loading scenarios. When completed the model will provide City staff a very
useful tool to catalogue improvements, test "what-if' scenarios, and track maintenance
issues. A list of prioritized projects that will reflect system improvements made and
revisions to design standards made since the earlier report will be a final product of the
MPD. This list of projects will include a planning level cost estimate for each project.
As part of the IT services ided to the City by Palos Verdes on the Net, the City has
obtained access to the Co digital LAR-IAC aerial photography, elevation contour
maps, parcel shape files a eel data. In light of the City Council's direction to
conduct a competitive process "~IT services, both Staff and PVNET have recently
decided to recommend to the <Jiy~ ouncil that the City acquire its own LAR-IAC
licensing that would be operated in ity's virtual machine (server). Staff will also
pursue additional software to allo sktop interface with the LAR-IAC and
infrastructure data. ¢Sj
-&?r Storm Drain Lining
Work was completed early this fiscal year on th Storm Drain Rehabilitation
Project including the three sections of large diameter t were lined using a newer
and innovative technology. Overall, 72 pipes totaling ab 00 linear feet ("LF") were
cleaned and inspected. Of these 23 segments were re oved from the lining program
because they determined not to be in need of lining (e.g. concrete, previously lined,
etc.) Of the 49 pipes deemed to be in need of rehabilitation 40 segments (about 5,500
linear feet) were lined in the project. The remaining 9 segments require significant point
repairs, are difficult to access or are being wrapped into the PVDE Arterial Roadway
Rehabilitation Project. Construction begins this spring on that project. The remaining
pipes, those not in the PVDE project, are slated for design of point repairs this summer
with construction of those repair assumed for next year. Lining will occur thereafter if
needed when it can be economically combined with a larger project. A $200,000
contract was also awarded this year (first year of a three year contract) to inspect and
clean storm drain pipes along Western Avenue, on the City's west side and on the east
side. That work will begin this spring and, along with work performed during next FY,
will form the basis of planning for the next lining project.
A summary of on-going projects and proposed projects for FY14-15 follows. The
alphabetical reference for each project described below has also been added to the
Five Year Storm Drain Plan Through FY18-19 schedule (see Attachment A).
3-29
Attachment A
PROJECT UPDATES -PROJECTS IN FY13-14 BUDGET
A. San Ramon Canyon Flood Reduction Project
Spent in Prior Years: $ 5.4 MM
FY13-14 Budgeted: $13.9 MM
Funds Encumbered: $12.0 MM
Expected Carryover: $ 1.9 MM
Total/Estimated Costs: $19.3 MM
Percentage Completion: 85%
Description/Status:
Project to stabilize PVDE and PVDS, eliminate flooding on 25th Street and divert
stormwater around Tarapaca landslide by installation of a 4,000 LF steel pipeline,
restoring streambed ~itigating environmental impacts. City Council awarded
construction and profesfl'~ service contracts (for construction support) on March
5, 2013, as well as a bu~1solution for $17,949,603. Groundbreaking was held
on April 16, 2013. Constr~~under way in two primary locations: just east of
switchbacks and just south of at City border with Los Angeles. Construction
about 85% complete. Work exp be completed in June 2014.
8. San Pedro Canyon Storm Drains
Spent in Prior Years: $251,878
Funds Transferred to CIP: $362,360
FY13-14 Budgeted: $ 7,996
Funds Encumbered: $ 5.660
Expected Carryover: $ 2,336
Total/Estimated Costs: $622,234
Percentage Completion: 80%
Description/Status:
This project includes several pipe systems that are tributary to San Pedro Canyon
Staff identified the Miraleste Plaza subsystem as a priority and has completed
construction of improvements to the Plaza drainage in prior years. Staff has also
developed design drawings and awarded a construction contract within PVDE
Arterial Rehabilitation Project that is budgeted and accounted for within the Capital
Improvement Program ("CIP") fund. Because the PVDE Rehab Project is accounted
for in the CIP fund, $362,360 was transferred from the WQFP fund to the CIP fund,
to repair or replace four pipe crossings under Palos Verdes Drive East. There may
be additional work to do in this system, some of which will be addressed in the Via
Colinita project and some of which will be incorporated into future projects.
C. Paintbrush Canyon Drainage Project Study Report
Budgeted Cost: $120,000
FY13-14 Budgeted: $ 60,000
Encumbered Funds: $ 0
Expected Carryover: $ 60,000
3-30
Total/Estimated Cost:
Percentage Completion:
. Description/Status:
$120,000
0%
Attachment A
This Project Study Report ("PSR") will investigate design requirements and
alternative solutions for the Paintbrush Canyon drainage system. A Hydrology and
Hydraulics analysis was planned for this year, but will likely be covered in the master
plan work. Funds are expected to be carried over to next year to complete the PSR,
using the information from the master plan. Design parameters, maintenance
economy, land ownership, constructability, environmental regulation and costs will
all be addressed in the PSR.
D. 2012 Storm Drain Lining and Rehabilitation Project
Spent in Prior Years: $1,052,462
FY13-14 Budgeted: $ 748,759
Encumbered Funds: $ 357,911
Expected Carryover: $ · 390,848
Total/Estimated Cost: ~~~410,373
Percentage Completion: yC%
Description/Status: ~
As described previously in this Re 72 pipes were addressed in this project,
All but 9 pipe segments were solved
· ing nine, four will be addressed as
f. he others will be addressed after
which was completed in early FY 20
(lined or deemed not to need it). Of th
part of the PVDE Arterial Rehabilitation pr
point repairs are made in the future.
E. Via Colinita and Roan Projects
FY13-14 Budgeted: $242,500
Encumbered Funds: $ 6, 125
Expected Carryover: $236,375
Total/Estimated Cost: $242,500
Percentage Completion: 3%
Description/Status:
Drainage issues on Via Colinita are only partially analyzed at this time. Additional
work there will be deferred pending modeling results from the Master Plan of
Drainage. A project to repair the Roan Road system is currently underway. Bidding
of this project is anticipated in May resulting in a construction contract award in Jur:ie
and construction beginning and ending this summer. The Via Colinita segment of
this project was completed in prior years at a cost of about $204,000.
F. PVDE Lower Switchbacks Project
FY13-14 Budgeted: $485,000
Encumbered Funds: $ 0
Expected Carryover: $485,000
Total/Estimated Cost: $485,000
Percentage Completion: 0%
3-31
Attachment A
Description/Status:
Drainage deficiencies along the switchbacks are being partially addressed as part of
the San Ramon Canyon project. If a pending amendment to the State Grant is
approved, portions of this Project could be funded under the State Grant program.
Whatever is not approved by the state in the program will be addressed through this
project, which will need to be completed in early FY14-15 to accommodate PVDE
Arterial Roadway rehabilitation.
G. PVDS (East of Barkentine)
FY13-14 Budgeted:
Encumbered Funds:
Expected Carryover:
Total/Estimated Cost:
Percentage Completion:
$446,000
$ 37,950
$408,050
$446,000
10%
This project is located al DS in the Seacove area. It is currently being studied
Description/Status: ~
by a consultant to deter tent and nature of flood control improvements
needed. The consultant is e ·ng the potential for integrating a storm water
quality structural BMP into an ed improvements to integrate storm water
quality concerns.
H. Machado Lake Drainage Catch Basin ·ng Devices
Spent in Prior Years: $110,765
FY13-14 Budgeted: $ 53,000
Encumbered Funds: $ 0
Expected Carryover: $ 53,000
Total/Estimated Cost: $110, 765
Percentage Completion: 65%
Description/Status:
Retrofitting of catch basins with full capture pipe screens is required by the Regional
Board for the Machado Lake watershed. Sixty eight (68) catch basins have been
retrofitted in prior years. The final 40 or so catch basins will be retrofitted in Spring or
Summer of 2014 with no further cost to the City for construction. Payments in
previous years will serve as the City's matching share for this state grant project.
The new MS4 Permit may require the City to retrofit all of the remaining basins in the
City, so it is recommended to roll any unused funds forward year by year to achieve
permit compliance.
I. Marguerite Open Channel
FY13-14 Budgeted:
Encumbered Funds:
Expected Carryover:
Total/Estimated Cost:
Percentage Completion:
$400,000
$ 34,530
$365,470
$400,000
10%
3-32
Attachment A
Description/Status:
This project·is located adjacent to Calle Entradero. It is currently being studied by a
consultant to determine extent and nature of flood control improvements needed.
Consultant is evaluating the potential for integrating a storm water quality structural
BMP into any needed improvements to integrate storm water quality concerns.
J. Miscellaneous Repairs and Filtration Maintenance
FY13-14 Budgeted: $557,927
Encumbered Funds: $277,893
Expected Carryover: $280,034
Percentage Completion: On-going
Description/Status:
These projects typically address smaller maintenance improvements, repairs and
emergency work. A notable example for this year is the repair to the inlet structure
along PVDS just east rranea Way. Another $200,000 of the encumbered funds
for this year are for in · n and cleaning to assist in planning the next lining
project. A dry year has · ed need for significant emergency work.
K. Stormwater Master Plan Pro New Master Plan of Drainage
Spent in Prior Years: $ 1
FY13-14 Budgeted: $75 ,
Encumbered Funds: $551,3
Expected Carryover: $206,399
Total/Estimated Cost: $573,601
Percentage Completion: 15%
Description/Status:
RBF Consulting Engineers was awarded the contract velop a new Master Plan
of Drainage. The GIS-based master plan will be a Ii ng document that catalogues
all existing facilities, allows for changes resulting from maintenance activities and
improvement projects that are completed, provides for modeling and what if
scenarios, and identifies project priorities to meet discovered deficiencies.
Currently, RBF has taken receipt of available City drawings, performed field
verifications, and had begun to build their model. Completion of the first draft of the
tool is expected at the end of this calendar year. It is recommended to roll any
unused funds forward year by year to enhance and maintain this living document.
NEW PROJECTS INCLUDED IN DRAFT FY14-15 BUDGET
L. Altamira Canyon Drainage Project Study Report
FY14-15 Budgeted: $500,000
Total/Estimated Cost: TBD
Percentage Completion: 0%
Description/Status:
Altamira Canyon is located on the south side of the Peninsula and runs from south
of Crest Road, through the Abalone Cove community, across PVDS and to the
3-33
Attachment A
ocean. This PSR will investigate design requirements and alternative solutions for
the Altamira Canyon drainage system. Hydrology, hydraulics, scour analysis,
design parameters, maintenance economy, land ownership, easement
requirements, constructability, environmental regulation, permits and costs will all be
addressed.
M. South Hawthorne I Via Frascati
FY14-15 Budgeted: $440,000
Total/Estimated Cost: TBD
Percentage Completion: 0%
Description/Status:
This. "project" is actually two projects that have been bundled together at the
initiation of the WQFP program and carried forward. They are not significantly
related. South Hawthorne has historically experienced some flooding but
development of the front Estates neighborhood entrance and improvements
to Golden Cove Shoppi nter may have alleviated them~ Staff proposes using
information developed i aster plan to confirm or deny the need for further
investigation. On Via Frase oding has been infrequent and may be solved with
installation of curb and gutter a portion of the road. An analysis using current
County design standards will be ~ed to determine what might be necessary.
N. PVDS at Sacred Cove Project ~~
FY14-15 Budgeted: $450,000 ·~Yi
Total/Estimated Cost: TBD "' 4(
Percentage Completion: 0%
Description/Status:
This project will seek to reestablish and improve dra adjacent to PVDS in the
Sacred Cove (ski jump) area. The existing system as been rendered ineffective
due to misalignment over time from land movement and will need to be rebuilt.
0. Point Repair Projects (Legacy to 2012 Lining Project)
FY14-15 Budgeted: $ 150,000
Total/Estimated Cost: $1,050,000
Percentage Completion: 0%
Description/Status:
After completion of the 2012 Lining Project, four to six pipes remained that could not
be lined because point repairs needed to be made. The difficulty of executing these
repairs required the pipes be pulled from that project. This new project intends to
accomplish the repairs needed making the pipes ready for the next lining project, if
in fact a lining is needed after the repair. The budget in FY2014-15 is for design of
repairs and establishment of access rights.
WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS
Last year, staff reported on a pending funding issue that was being initiated by the
3-34
Attachment A
County known as the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure and the Water Quality
Funding Initiative (WQFI). As written and if it had been enacted, the WQFI would have
essentially legally required a parcel fee to be collected from every parcel in the District
(about 2.2 million parcels.) to address stormwater quality issues.
This initiative has taken a back burner by direction of the LA County Board of
Supervisors and its future is unclear. What is clear is that storm water quality issues are
coming to center stage and the City will be required to expend increasing amounts of
General Funds to meet these regulatory requirements until a dedicated funding source
is established.
To give an idea of these costs, in FY13-14 and FY14-15 the City has budgeted over
$900,000 for Storm Water Quality. A large share of that will be used to develop an
Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP). The EWMP will identify the activities
required to determine· what pollutants of concern to address, what specific pollutant
levels are allowed to be · harged from the storm drains, how, where and when to
monitor storm water and d her flow samples, and what programmatic efforts (e.g.
public outreach and educati ~ structural projects (BMPs) the City will need to meet
these limits. In addition to the~ Water Quality program, The CIP is carrying about
$400,000 worth of water quality s ral BMPS in FY14-15 that will need to be done
before the plan is even approved. pproved, the costs of plan implementation is
expected to be greater still.
INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT PLA
At its meeting on April 29, 2014, the City Coun · w discuss the merits of moving
ahead with an Infrastructure Management Pl ich is intended to be a
comprehensive financial pl.anning tool for all of the ~;ublicly held infrastructure.
Public Works and Finance Staff are working together ~the City's consultants to
develop an IMP to address the long-term capital needs of the City. Staff expects that
the IMP will provide a roadmap for future systematic replacement, refurbishment, and
financing of City infrastructure.
The City's Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Reserve established by the City Council
to provide for infrastructure rehabilitation is funded with annual transfers from the
General Fund equivalent to transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenue (currently about
$3.9 million annually). With the working draft of the CIP, Staff has prepared a
recommendation to fund $26.9 million of infrastructure projects over the next five years
from the CIP Reserve. Although it is a good start, the CIP Reserve is not sufficient to
finance all of the City's infrastructure needs as demonstrated by the following.
•!• The working draft of the 2014 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes
a list of projects that have been identified and quantified by the City's engineering
staff, yet funding has not been identified. Some of these projects address both
safety issues and City Council goals, which have a total estimated cost starting at
about $29 million; again, only represents what has been quantified. Staff is
currently working on estimates for additional projects that will be added to the
unfunded list once they are quantified.
3-35
Attachment A
•!• The storm drain fee that provides about $1.3 million annually towards on-going
repairs, maintenance and improvements of storm drains sunsets in 2016. As
previously stated, the working draft of the 2014 CIP indicates that at least $9.3
million of known storm drain projects will not be completed before the storm drain
fee sunsets.
Attachments:
A -Storm Drain Plan through FY18-19
B -User Fee Rate History
3-36
Attachment A
Backbone Projects
2 Mccarrell Canyon
Mccarrell Canyon, Tarragon Property
2 Acquisition 1,403,500 1,403,500
1 Sunnyside Ridge 417,361 417,361
A 3 Lower San Ramon Canyon Stabilization 5,389,917 19,271,818
5 PVDE Miraleste Canyon System 2,839,637
B 6 PVDE San Pedro Canyon System 251,878 259,874 2,438,992
L Altamira Canyon Drainage Study 500,000 500,000 1,750,000
c Paintbrush Canyon Drainage Study 120,000 180,000
Pipe Lining
12 Phase I 532,000 532,000
10 Phase II (Monero Storm Drain) 174,723 174,723
2 PVDS (from Clipper to Seacove) 210,000 210,000
10 Crest to Crestridge 59,700 59,700
10 Hawthorne to Silver Arrow 130,000 130,000
9 Tarapaca Drive 80,000 80,000
5 Pontevedra Drive 317,792 317,792
D 12 Storm Drain Lining, Other 2,207,914 335,278 340,836 347,653 350,000 350,000 4,680,440
Capacity & Secondary System Projects
E 7 Via Colinita & Roan Projects 204,228 446,728
Hawthorne Blvd. (closed FY10-11, re-
allocated to the San Pedro Canyon Storm
2 Drain Pfoject)
F 9 PVDE Lower Switchbacks 485,000
M 6 South Hawthorne/Via Frascati 440,000
11 Middlecrest Road Project 139,160
G 11 PVDS (East of Barkentine) 446,000
N 11 PVDS at Sacred Cove 450,000 450,000
Filtration Systems
H 12 Catch Basin Filtration Devices 438,255 491,255
2 30502 PVDW Catch Basin 8,600 8,600
Other Projects
Mccarrell Canyon Interim,
2 Barkentine/Seacove 135,000 135,000
Mccarrell Canyon Interim, Gabion & Timber
2 Walls 119,213 119,213
2 Palos Verdes Bay Club Interim Improvements 185,000 185,000
10 PVDS Salvation Army Outlet 26,000 26,000
6 Bronco Drive 66,000 66,000
5 Noble View Canyon 27,000 27,000
12 Citywide Interim, Other 7,400 7,400
10 Alida Place Storm Drain Relocation 98,480 98,480
3 Tarapaca Landslide Study 6,377 6,377
6 PVDE Engineering Reserve 20,360 20,360
3
-
3
7
0
4 PVDS @ Altamira Canyon
5 Via Canada
12 Marguerite Open Channel
12 Point Repair Projects
Miscellaneous Repairs & Maintenance
12 Miscellaneous Repairs
Storm Drain/Filtration Maintenance (includes
Hawthorne, Montemalaga & Video
12 lnspection/Cleanin
:8:~:::~;:. ~~:~~~~~::.:. P . . ;., ·:!8.~x .
12 Purchase of Push Camera
12 Administration (contract/staff engineer)
K 12 Drainage Master Plan Program
12 Storm Water Enterprise Asset Registry
12 Asset Maintenance Management System
12 Hydrologic, Hydraulic & Pollutant Modelling
12 Analysis & Prioritizing of Deficiencies
12 Capital Improvement Programming
12 Land Acquisition
89,334
150,000
145,470
754,797 237,518
11,813
1,075,239 162,200
22,211 30,000
Attachment A
89,334
400,000
900,000 1,050,000
145,470
245,544 250,455 250,000 250,000 2,546,241
-:~ 43,640,267 '""·
11,813
147,831 152,266 1,688,836
30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 930,000
19,750 1-----l
.. ::::: . ··' m 46,290 666 :i,.':
3
-
3
8
Attachment A
" REVISED l\iil•~··1•••••11~ g BUDGET >•·············='~··.·•>••···· =~'=····· ~ FY13-14 l'.~Vi'll ·"'"" ,,
PAGE/f > >> ······ >< , . .,, . .....,~ •:.. ... / ....... :• % Increase % Increase % Increase % Increase % Increase % Increase % Increase % Increase % Increase % Increase
ECONOMIC MODEL INPUT FACTORS (a-I!}:
Maximum Property Assessment Increase (a) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Increase Factor(%) Expenditures (b) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA 1.9% 2.1% 2.2% 2.4% 2.4%
Consumer Price Index(%) (c) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA 1.9% 2.1% 2.2% 2.4% 2.4%
Sales Tax(%) (d) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA 1.9% 2.1% 2.2% 2.4% 2.4%
Property Taxes (%) (e) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA 3.45% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%
Sheriff Contract (%) (f) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA 3.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Permit Revenues(%) (g) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Investment Interest(%) (h) NIA NIA NIA N/A N/A 0.22% 1.41% 3.00% 3.65% 3.65%
Utility Users Tax/Franchise Tax(%) (i) NIA .,,.... NIA N/A N/A NIA 1.9% 2.1% 2.2% 2.4% 2.4%
~ H
3
-
3
9
SUMMARY OF ENDING UNRESERVED FUND
BALANCES
UNRESTRICTED FUND
(101) General Fund
RESTRICTED BY COUNCIL ACTION
(212) Beautification Fund
(330) GIP Fund
(681) Equipment Replacement Fund
(686) Building Replacement Fund
(685) Employee Benefits Fund
SUBTOTAL
:,:::if:: 12,464,441 18,229,778
a 1,065,483 512,753
15,406,941 17,146,043
2,584,089 2,482,289
•. ·18'.• 943,007 941,628
.. •.11:::: 90,743 30,083
20,090,263 21,112,796
RESTRICTED BY LAW OR EXTERNAL AGENCIES .-» ""'".f
City Funds .,,,. '1ff ""'~
14,370,257 (3,859,521)
1,003,131 490,378
11,565,617 (5,580,426)
2,584,020 101,731
940,605 (1,023)
111,371 81,288
16,204,744 (4,908,052)
REVISED
BUDGET
FY13-14
11,626,014
316,971
7,889,691
1,914,720
943,405
111,461
11,176,248
10,307,300 9,863,355
93,661 0
7,696,980 9,501,480
1,795,635 1,695,135
945,505 958,805
111,701 113,271
10,643,482 12,268,691
Attachment A
9,875,770 9,664,955 9,710,762
0 0 0
9,899,180 8,507,080 3,323,080
1,617,535 1,545,035 1,466,835
987,605 1,023,605 1,061,005
116,671 120,931 125,341
12,620,991 11,196,651 5,976,261
(202) Street Maintenance Fund : 12'•': 1,056,896 :'l .37 914,473 (304,664) 734,989 568,472 676,243 673,033 642,503 578,253
l--"-(2_0_,3)'-1_9_7_2_A_c_t L_a_n_d_sc_a_,_p_e_&_L_,ig,_h_ti--'ng"---Fu_n_d ____ .. :.,:1.,.3.,,·',·.,.:: ___ 7_8_....,0~7~9-+---''<--w-M' 9 70,062 6,593 65,452 45,292 29,232 17,012 8,032 2,222
1--,_(2_0_,9)'-E~l~P~ra~d-=o_L--'ig,_h_ti_ng"---F_un_d _________ ,:,.,1.,,4,_,<": ___ 1_0_....,7_7=4-+-_"__, 19,000 1,246 19,950 20,890 22,080 23,640 25,400 27,230
1-<>=3-'-10:!)....:C:..:D:..:B:..:G:..:F__:u:::n.:::_d_~~~~~-----·:•;;;;;it<,;s..,<,..· -~(>,:4=2,'......:44~7"')+-~c== '"'-0 (22,338) 0 0 0 0 0 0
1->=<2:..:1.:c1lc.,1:..:9....:1_....1 -'-A=:ct:.S:::t::..:re:..:e..:.t =Li'><g"'ht::..:in,,,g_....F-=u::..:nd=-------::•c'1,.a:;,;·•:•1:: __ 1:..:,6.::..7:..:0:.c,3:..:84=--i--'1"",4:..:6=8, •• Af,709,606 240,822 1,607 ,506 1,587 ,906 1,586, 106 1,608,206 1,638,906 1,667 ,606
,_~~~-~-!~~ :-i-:-~-~-a~-i;-d-~c-~-~a-ng-:-~-ned_nt_F_u_n_d------il: :::; ':::on u '1"'15"'90"-t--5-~-:~=~-:::=~-:-~'f---3-::=~-::~=~-=-:..----3-=:~=-:c:-:~:c:O"-t---3-=:-=-~-=:~-:~c:-:+--3c-1~"'~~:~"'~"':-+---:~c:-~5='1 :"'~~"':0'-t---~=~=~-::~=~-=--I:
~=~~~1~5~)P:r=o=po=s~it~io:n=C~~(S~tr:e=et~s=rr~ra=n~s=iQ=F=u=n=d======~-:~:··~1~~":~··f---1--''-=-34=1~,8~1~1.-t----::-:3=3"°',8:-:9-::4+---': 4 _1:..:,5_5_8_....,4_6_9...__ ___ 36_3~,2-'-6--'1...__ ___ 2_84__:.c_,7-'4-0-l-_2_1_1_....,2_4_0-+---'1-'4--'1,-'-98_0-+---'7-3~,6-6-'-0-1---5~,0_5_0~
l--~~:..:1=~~P='r-::o7.po_s-=it_io~n~A~(T="-'ra-'-n-'-si~Q_F_u-'nd ______ _.'.:~:2~0~>~' ___ 17=0_....,4=2=1-+-__ 2_3_3'=,9-=-1-=-1+----= "'---'7-'-7,~0_80-l-____ 8_64-1-___ 9_3~,4_:_8_4'-l-__ 2_3_8,~3_94--f. __ 3_9-=2~,2_::_4_4-+-__ 55_6~,6_6_4'-J-__ 7_3_0,~6_84-'-.f
(217) Public Safety Grants • tf' 20,188 588 , 19,812 20,400 20,440 20,730 21,350 22,130 22,940
(220) Measure R /22:':' 391,926 192,436 805, -=="i"'1-=3+-------=0=8-='5,'=86"'6:+----,1.-:4-=-0.:..:13"'9*--=0"'10=","'59=9.-t---::1-:c13~.5=9=9-+---5=7"',5""'4"'9-l---1:-:1"°'.2:-:4-=--'9
(222) Habitat Restoration Fund-NCCP '•"•2'3'•'• 221,041 177,850 214,641 ·>' =-'t----=2=0"'0,-=5-=-01.,-1"---=204=-,3"'2=2:--t---=2=0"'4,-;1"'92=-t---2=0=0-:,8=2=2-r---=27.10=-,9=7=2:--t---:2""1"'5,-.,.1=-72=-1
(223) Subregion 1 Maintenance Fund <24/ 773,559 772,359 791, 701 ~' 2 784,001 764,201 753,001 753,201 757 ,601 761,501
(224)MeasureACap.&Maint.Funds •2'!>•••1 (65,685) (65,515) (197,638) (1 ,123 ii""'°""· 44,112 44,212 44,832 46,172 47,862 0
(225) Abalone Cove Sewer District Fund I 39,271 26,771 35,906 9,13$; .~ 35,086 35,246 34,726 33,566 31,146 27,106
(227) Ginsburg Cultural Arts Building Fund 158,480 139,270 138,890 (38clj "',#"~,370 119,630 121,310 124,950 129,510 134,240
(228) Donor Restricted Contributions Fund 406,809 398,876 843,448 444,572 .¥.. .;.'6§'.'WJ"-1---8-'46--''"=5~18~ __ 5_8'=,4"'1-=-8+---6'-0"", 1=6c:8+ __ 62'-''"=36~8~--64~,64::c=-'18
1-(>=3=.34:.<)-"Q-u-'im.:.cb_c:.y.:.cF_.:.u"'nd-'--'-=-=.-'-"'"'--'"'-'-'-'-=-=-''-----_J,, 29,421 421 29,505 29,084 '--fljli':--J1----:=-7c:-0-:-5+----:=-:7-;-15-:-+-----,::-':.7375:+---..,.='-=-76:-:5.-+---:c:-7""9"'5--I
(336)Low-ModeratelncomeHousingFund L:®c( 0 0 12,411 12,411 '2.j~1 12,411 12,411 12,411 12,411 12,411
(337) Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fund )$1)::.----c5=0:-:1--:,1c::879+---=5:0017,-=-83"'90"-t---5;::0:::2"',1"'8"'8-t----::-34"'9:-i----:4ID!lt_=1t;~-.---5;::0:::0cc,9:c:8:::8-t---::5708=',"'o3"'8:-t---:5..::2"'3-=,2=18=-1'--54=2cc,3"'7..::8-t---::5;::52=-,-::17;::8:-1
(338) Environmental Excise Tax (EET) Fund _>32{ 414,525 304,495 448,851 144,356 63, 165 41, 144 31,724 22,674 13,504 3,994
(340) Bikeways (TOA Article 3) Fund ::::l:f: 61 0 61,054 61,054 0 0 0 0 0 0
(501) Water Quality& Flood Protection Fund )~if' 3,531,615 17,051,412 9,727,246 (7,324,166) 271,416 142,620 163,109 67,635 40,135 11,635
Improvement Authority Funds I
(285) Improvement Authority -Portuguese Bend :::'aif' 309,724 298,424 366,012 67,588 292,732 235,772 180,492 126,202 69,712 9,652
(795) Improvement Authority -Abalone Cove '.'~{ 202,814 98,814 108,543 9,729 59,908 26,908 5,508 2,508 5,208 7,308
SUBTOTAL 11,597,005 23,290,255 19,043,759 (4,246,496) 7,202,834 6,200,837 5,978,357 5,438,123 5,425,583 5,343,461
,_G_RA_N_D_T_O_T_A_L_-_A_L_L_F_U_N_D_S_l_N_C_LU_D_E_D ____ -+-_
3
-
4
0
Attachment A
~~i: !ill~ [:.;1~1:~·1~-REVISED ········ ····· ~~~~ ~~~~f ..... g ······~~ "''"'' .... / -~ ' > . l!~t'Et< ~ BUDGET
· ... · . FY13·14 •·••••·••·••·•·• •·.·•·•••••·•'•·••c···•"•c>•• ·.•:":•~:W.:'~~-•.•
PAGE3 ..•.. ::
·:. ·/• ······•·
GENERAL FUND REVENUE DETAIL
Property taxes (e) 6,075,623 6,254,800 6,300,110 45,310 6,630,000 6,863,100 7,103,300 7,351,900 7,609,200 7,875,500
Property taxes In-Lieu of VLF Revenues (e) 3,605,510 3,694,230 3,694,230 0 3,890,000 4,024,200 4,165,000 4,310,800 4,461,700 4,617,900
Property taxes In-Lieu of Sales Tax (d) 541,717 453,908 453,908 0 534,000 544,300 555,700 567,700 0 0
Sales and use tax (d) 1,448,508 1,552,200 1,589,104 36,904 1,640,000 1,671,500 1,706,600 1,743,400 2,365,600 2,422,800
Property transfer tax (e) 272,802 285,000 371,373 86,373 416,000 416,900 422,800 435,500 451,400 467,900
Business license tax (c) 700,156 718,000 737,481 19,481 715,000 728,700 744,000 760,100 778,000 796,800
Transient occupancy tax (c) 3,349,015 3,611,074 3,790,359 179,285 3,948,700 4,024,500 4,109,000 4,197,700 4,296,600 4,400,500
Franchise taxes (i) 1,881,163 1,917,000 1,906,613 (10,387) 1,779,000 1,813,200 1,851,300 1,891,300 1,935,900 1,982,700
Utility user tax (i) 2,333,440 2,385,000 2,480,966 95,966 2,610,000 2,660,100 2,716,000 2,774,600 2,840,000 2,908,700
Golf tax (c) 398,226 409,000 383,015 (25,985) 404,000 411,800 420,400 429,500 439,600 450,200
SUBTOTAL TAXES 20,606,160 21,280,212 21,707,159 426,947 22,566,700 23,158,300 23,794,100 24,462,500 25,178,000 25,923,000
Animal control fees (g) '~fi 32,644 (19,556) 35,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
Right of way & parking permits (g) 63 66,700 80,398 13,698 72,400 72,400 72,400 72,400 72,400 72,400
Building and safety permits & geology fees (g) 1,307,4 600 1,518,490 154,890 1,317,500 1,317,500 1,317,500 1,317,500 1,317,500 1,317,500
Planning permits (g) 354,785 000 354,010 57,010 317,000 397,500 397,500 397,500 397,500 397,500
Film permits (g) 45,575 41,313 (3,687) 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000
Massage Permits (g) 941 144 (2,756) 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUBTOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS 1,806,148 1,82 ' Yi 2..026,999 199,599 1,786,900 1,862,400 1,862,400 1,862,400 1,862,400 1,862,400
~ lo, Ak&
Miscellaneous court fines (c) 147,684 77,000 w?Jt 28,186 105,000 107,000 109,200 111,600 114,200 117,000
False alarm fines 7,300 8,200 (2,200) 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500
Tow fees (c) 4,504 0 5,346 5,000 5,100 5,200 5,300 5,400 5,500
SUBTOTAL FINES & FORFEITURES 159,488 85,200 116 """ 31,332 115,500 117,600 119,900 122,400 125,100 128,000
~ Property & Monopole Leases (c) 151,837 137,000 169,354' ,354 151,500 154,400 157,600 161,000 164,800 168,800
Facility rentals -PVIC (c). 209,049 170,000 194,406 6 223,000 227,300 232,100 237,100 242,700 248,600
Facility rentals -Other (c) 121,581 113,000 108,744 ,25:it3: 86,500 105,000 107,200 109,500 112,100 114,800
Parking lot fees 59,451 58,000 67,259 9,25 98,000 98,000 98,000 98,000 98,000 98,000
PVIC gift shop (c) 98,449 100,000 100,806 80~ 134,000 136,600 139,500 142,500 145,900 149,400
Interest earnings (h) 46,421 60,000 41,945 (18,055) -~3,790 26,610 152,540 312,100 380,170 372,480
SUBTOTAL USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 686,788 638,000 682,514 44,514 #'" 7,46,lil!O 747,910 886,940 1,060,200 1,143,670 1,152,080
?'§9
Engineering fees (g) 60,239 40,000 42,989 2,989 35.B\!QI • 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000
Recreation fees (c) 11,909 9,600 18,254 8,654 ""ltr,fOO 18,700 19,100 19,500 20,000 20,500
Sale of Signs/Services (g) 5,901 7,700 10,925 3,225 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000
Administration of Successor Agency 38,000 80,000 62,139 (17,861) 80,000 100,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
lnterfund charges for services (a) 154,300 157,400 157,400 0 156,000 155,800 158,900 162,100 165,300 168,600
SUBTOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 270,349 294,700 291,707 (2,993) 297,700 317,500 321,000 274,600 278,300 282,100
Grant income 6,365 22,312 44,437 22,125 27,000 0 0 0 0 0
SUBTOTAL REVENUES FROM OTHER AGENCIES 6,365 22,312 44,437 22,125 27,000 0 0 0 0 0
Donations (c) 32,369 21,300 22,670 1,370 17,100 25,000 25,500 26,100 26,700 27,300
Repayment of City Loan to former RDA 0 0 0 0 0 72,915 72,915 72,915 72,915 72,915
Other miscellaneous (c) 103,190 62,740 639,934 577,194 15,000 246,606 15,600 15,900 16,300 16,700
SUBTOTAL OTHER REVENUES 135,559 84,040 662,604 578,564 32,100 344,521 114,015 114,915 115,915 116,915
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 23,670,857 24,231,864 25,531,952 1,300,088 25,572,690 26,548,231 27,098,355 27,897,015 28,703,385 29,464,495
3
-
4
1
Attachment A
"' ·••••••·•~t~• ~·••••••••••••••·•~ll••••••••••••~•~s• REVISED :111~ ······ ···· ····· .···.····· ~=~· ~~~ :1r g BUDGET ······.·• ···•· MU~L.
u :::::::: ::>>IDf ~~1'~ :-: .·.".-::. . ·:::.::~~~~·~·> .~, it . .. '" ::,'.;:· " · ........ •·•·. :. FY13-14 : '.•'""''cc•:•:<•·• · ... ······••••• ·••:c•c"'•'':'.•: · ·
PAGE4 . ·.· ········· ········.· ..... .· :.·.:.-·:.·.:.
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE DETAIL
City Council (b) 133,698 143,500 137,802 5,698 149,100 152,000 155,200 158,500 162,200 166,100
City Manager (b) 995,275 1,718,227 1,694,526 23,701 955,900 1,035,100 966,500 987,400 1,010,700 1,035,100
Legal Services (b) 1,057,102 1,045,000 992,324 52,676 1,045,000 1,045,000 1,066,900 1,089,900 1,115,600 1,142,600
City Clerk (b) 503,877 404,750 403,468 1,282 717,250 485,750 679,700 510,500 706,800 539,500
Community Outreach (b) 102,702 105,400 93,588 11,812 80,574 86,099 42,200 43,100 44,100 45,200
RPVTV (b) 109,454 119,478 119,478 0 143,400 168,600 172,100 175,800 179,900 184,200
Risk Management (b) 660,899 0 0 0 475,000 400,000 408,400 417,200 427,000 437,300
Personnel (b) 294,298 277,005 216,035 60,970 319,050 438,250 353,500 361,100 369,600 378,500
Finance (b) 1,341,972 1,290,000 1,284,651 5,349 1,419,700 1,417,000 1,446,800 1,478,000 1,512,800 1,549,400
Information Technology-Data (b} 356,281 383,000 377,980 5,020 463,800 594,800 556,200 568,200 581,600 595,700
Information Technology-Voice (b) 69,218 88,400 80,834 7,566 99,300 96,000 98,000 100,100 102,500 105,000
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION 5,624,776 5,574,760 5,400,686 174,074 5,868,074 5,918,599 5,945,500 5,889,800 6,212,800 6,178,600
Public Safety -Sheriff Services (f) ,,,,. 4,154,039 19,961 4,254,200 4,306,900 4,456,100 4,523,800 4,614,300 4,706,600
Special Safety Programs (b) 24,513 500 54,610 49,890 104,500 92,400 94,300 96,300 98,600 101,000
Animal Control (b) 55,862 49,204 39,046 88,000 85,000 86,800 88,700 90,800 93,000
Emergency Preparedness (b) 140,500 89,920 111,982 236,100 269,900 275,600 281,500 288,100 295,100
SUBTOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 4,177,926 4, 8, 4,347,773 220,879 4,682,800 4,754,200 4,912,800 4,990,300 5,091,800 5,195,700 'Y,
Public Works Administration (Staffing, Project '~ Management and Engineering) (b) 1,974,634 1,960,425 ,470 19,955 2,076,000 2,232,250 2,354,800 2,405,600 2,609,600 2,672,700
Traffic Management (b) 139,712 260,300 0 41,300 296,000 216,000 220,500 225,300 230,600 236,200
Storm Water Quality (NPDES Compliance) (b) 92,945 180,800 1 70,599 405,500 496,000 506,400 517,300 529,500 542,300
Public Building Maintenance (b) 491,226 600,200 439 160,448 596,600 612,300 625,200 638,700 653,800 669,600
Parks Maintenance (b) 1,012,060 1,284,000 1,005, 278,713 1,351,130 1,361,100 1,308,000 1,336,200 1,367,700 1,400,800
Sewer Maintenance (b) 13,307 88,000 13,24 .7~ 68,000 68,000 69,400 70,900 72,600 74,400
SUBTOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 3,723,884 4,373,725 3,727,956 jjill5Aij9 4,793,230 4,985,650 5,084,300 5,194,000 5,463,800 5,596,000 « ~
Planning (b) 1,302,440 1,357,218 1,337,343 19,87~ l'!,315,840 1,505,040 1,499,500 1,531,900 1,568,000 1,605,900
Building & Safety Services (b) 574,613 581,537 540,933 40,6041 ~ 749,100 764,800 781,300 799,700 819,000
Code Enforcement (b) 187,237 213,300 198,363 14,937 218,700 223,300 228,100 233,500 239,100
View Restoration/Preservation (b) 324,520 368,300 366,351 1,949 388,700 396,900 405,500 415,100 425,100
Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) 2,380 9,280 9,280 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
Geology (Privately Initiated Projects) (g) 88,708 150,000 135,441 14,559 150,000 153,100 156,400 160,100 164,000
SUBTOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2,479,898 2,679,635 2,587,711 91,924 2, 7i!2';7 40 3,011,540 3,037,600 3,103,200 3,176,400 3,253,100
Recreation Administration (Staffing, Park Rangers) (b) 555,664 588,175 529,155 59,020 663,650 665,650 721,600 737,200 754,600 772,800
Recreation Facilities (b) 448,980 470,650 469,492 1,158 464,700 524,500 555,900 567,900 581,300 595,400
Special Events (b) 45,025 121,001 109,675 11,326 88,350 93,250 95,200 97,300 99,600 102,000
Pt. Vicente Interpretive Center (PVIC) (b) 356,709 385,375 385,058 317 345,875 445,350 454,700 464,500 475,400 486,900
REACH (b) 48,036 48,000 43,410 4,590 39,100 42,200 43,100 44,000 45,000 46,100
Recreation Support Services (Reception & Other) (b) 0 0 0 0 0 49,500 50,500 51,600 52,800 54,100
SUBTOTAL RECREATION & PARKS 1,454,414 1,613,201 1,536,790 76,411 1,601,675 1,820,450 1,921,000 1,962,500 2,008,700 2,057,300
NON-DEPARTMENTAL 0 500,000 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 17,460,898 19,309,973 17,600,916 1,709,057 19,678,519 20,490,439 1 20,901.200 11 21. 130,800 11 21,953,500 I 22,280,700
GENERAL FUND NET BEFORE TRANSFERS 6,209,959 4,921,891 7,931,036 3,009,144 5,894,171 6,057,792 6,197,15511 6,757,21511 6,749,885 7,183,795
3
-
4
2
Attachment A
"' REVISED rm:':,•~r···;1:1;r1~ ~*·.· e BUDGET :::...:._:~::.,, :.: o.·. " :t FY13·14 ":::;::::::.:::::.>:.:::}· ·.· .·. :·:::·:::·:·
. ---.--.--. -.-... PAGE.5••········
·•
.. ·.·. \······································
GENERAL FUND TRANSFER DETAIL
GENERAL FUND TRANSFERS IN:
From Measure A Main! 100,000 100,000 82,000 (18,000) 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 49,612
From Public Safety Grants fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
From Waste Reduction 0 12,000 12,000 0 5,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
From Employee Benefits 340,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total General Fund Transfers In I 540.000 I 212,000 I 194,000 I (18.000>1 210.000 I 208.000 II 208.000 II 208.00011 208.000 I 152,612
GENERAL FUND TRANSFERS OUT:
To CIPfund 5,472,272 6,451,668 6,550,256 (98,588) 8,094,725 7,255,806 6,082,400 6,171,100 6,370,000 6,473,900
To Street Maintenance Fund (b) 0 0 0 0 0 0 432,000 441,000 451,000 462,000
ToCDBG 0 0 9,302 (9,302) 0 0 0 0 0 0
To Improvement Authority Portuguese Bend (b) "~: 106,000 0 70,000 40,000 41,000 42,000 43,000 44,000
To Improvement Authority Abalone Cove (b) 0 0 20,000 35,000 36,000 37,000 38,000 39,000
To Abalone Cove Sewer District 10,700 00 10,700 0 50,700 50,700 50,700 50,700 50,700 50,700
To Habitat Restoration (b) 90,000 00 90,000 0 150,000 157,000 160,000 163,000 167,000 171,000
To Subregion 1 Maintenance Fund (b) 60,000 ~ 65.lllJll 65,000 0 61,000 46,000 47,000 48,000 49,000 50,000
Total General Fund Transfers Out I 5,692,972 I 6, 6,831.258 I (107,890)1 8,446,4251 7,584,50611 s.849.100 II s,952,800 II 1.168,100 I 7,290,600
Net Activity I 1,056,987 I (1,589, 2,883,254 (2,342,254) (1,318,714) (443,945) I 12,41511 (210,815)1 45,807
3
-
4
3
GENERAL FUND SUMMARY
Beginning Fund Balance
Plus: Revenues
Less: Expenditures
Plus: Transfers In
Less: Transfers Out
Extraordinary Item
Ending Fund Balance
Less Non-Spendable, Restricted, Committed &
Assigned:
Long-Term Advance to RDA (Principal Only)
Continuing Appropriations
Inventory & Other
Unassigned Fund Balance (Available for Spending)
Policy Reserve Threshold (50% of Expenditures)
Excess/(Deficient) General Fund Reserves
18,900,260 19,957,249
23,670,857 24,231,864
(17,460,898) (19,309,973)
540,000 212,000
(5,692,972) (6,723,368)
0 0
19,957,249 0 14,508,251
25,531,952 1,300,088 25,572,690
(17,600,916) 1,709,057 (19,678,519)
194,000 (18,000) 210,000
(6,831,258) (107,890) (8,446,425)
(6,742,776) (6,742,776)
14,508,251 (3,859,522) 12,165,997
0 0 0
Attachment A
12,165,997 10,847,283 10,403,338 10,415,753 10,204,938
26,548,231 27,098,355 27,897,015 28,703,385 29,464,495
(20,490,439) (20,901,200) (21,139,800) (21,953,500) (22,280,700)
208,000 208,000 208,000 208,000 152,612
(7 ,584,506) (6,849,100) (6,952,800) (7,168,700) (7,290,600)
10,847,283 10,403,338 10,415,753 10,204,938 10,250,745
0 0 0 0 0
401,989
137,994
10,245,220
62,081 I
3
-
4
4
CIP FUND PROJECTS TYPE
1t:ngmeenng ana 1.:>ram
Administration
Infrastructure Report Card
Adm in
Adm in
ADA Transition Plan Projects Buildings
•r1oer optic -/\ovove ::;ewer
Stations/Shoreline Pk/Ladera
Linda Buildings
I Hesse l"'arK Multi-l"'urpose
Room AudioNisual Upgrade Buildings
r<l"'v 1 v Bullamg
Improvements Buildings
!Hesse 1-'anvr<yan 1-'arK rlt>er
Optic Cabling Buildings
,Laaera unaa t;ommurnty
Center Replacement Buildings
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES -2014 FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL MODEL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND EXPENDITURES
21,548 12,989 50,000 150,000 120,000 120,000
54,500
24,432 375,000 400,000 150,000 150,000
175,000
110,000
60,000 260,000
RPVTV Studio Restroom Buildings 38,000
Wall of Honor Buildings 40 ,000
385,000
PVIC -Solar System Buildings 410,000
New Lanas11ae uewatenng
1o..11•v•• A
1 vii"' interest
120,000 120,000 Earnings/Reserve
CIP Reserve
150,000 150,000 EET/GIP Reserve
1,600,000 CIP Reserve
GIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
GIP Reserve
4,000,000 GIP Reserve
GIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
Grant
Grant
GIP Reserve 180,000
Hesse Park -Solar System Buildings ~
Wells Landslide 000 180,000 450,000 450,000 180,000
h,L~a=naT.1s~m~ae=-.--=t:;aniy~v"""va=m~m=gc--~+-~~~~~-1-~~~~~+-~~~ ~~----<>--~~~-1-~~~~~+-~~~~-1--~~~~~+--~~~~--+-~~~~~~~~---1
System Landslide "° 300,000 CIP Reserve
,Abalone cove ::;noreune 1-'arl<. """~
Parking Lot Parks/Open Space 332!l)Ofl ~ Quimby
Staff 4Y
GIP Reserve
Abalone c.;ove ::;noreune l"'arK .w A ~
hB~ld~g~/R=e=s?tr~o~o=m~s/=D=n=ve~w=a~y==,,-+P_a_rk~s~/O"-"-pe~n_S~p~a_ce-+~~~~~+-~~~--1~~1~0~8~,0~0_0--1-"'-,---+-~~~~-1-~~~~~+-~~~~--r~~~~~r-~~~~~~~~-1
Aba1one vove ~norenne l"'arK .
Grant/GIP Reserve hP~a=rk'-l=m=p?ro~v~e~m~e=n=ra=--===-+P_a_rk_s_/O~pe_n_S~p_a_c_et-~~~~-1-~-1_6_,3_8_3-f~~6_4_8~,7_9_3-f~~ ~_,._~~~+-~~~~--t~~~~~+-~~~~-1-~~~~~~~~---1
,Abalone t;OVe Beach Access .~
Road Rehab Parks/Open Space i ' .
.i:sronco, Martingale &
Grayslake Trails -Design Parks/Open Space
California Coastal Trail Parks/Open Space
Sunnyside Segment Trail Parks/Open Space
11::astv1ew ParK 1-'laygrouna
Improvements Parks/Open Space
Gateway Park Development Parks/Open Space
Hesse Park Parking Lot Parks/Open Space
Ladera Linda Site Master Plan Parks/Open Space
I Lower Hesse/Granav1ew 1-'arK
Improvements
Misc Project Design
1r-v1v -t:1u11amg ~1gn &
Screening Wall
PVIG Exhibits
PVIG Landscaping
Eastview Dog Park
,1,:;ranav1ew l"'arK
Parks/Open Space
Parks/Open Space
Parks/Open Space
Parks/Open Space
Parks/Open Space
Parks/Open Space
Improvements Parks/Open Space
Ryan l"'arK l"'arKmg LOI
Expansion Parks/Open Space
;Kyan 1-'arK Kestroom
Improvements Parks/Open Space
Kyan l"'arK ~oumem t:mrance
Road -Design Parks/Open Space
41,077
59,355
103,216
10,353
50,000
126,328 461,636
465,000
182,982
35,625 200,000
210,000
100,000
19, 141 16,859 1,000,000
10,000
110,000
50,000
430,000
210,463 56,670
23,298 206,349
100,000 CIP Reserve
Quimby
Grant/GIP Reserve
Grant/GIP Reserve
!Knabe Measure A 1,:;ranu1.,1r-
Reserve <
CIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
GIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
GIP Reserve
GIP Reserve
400,000 Donations
400,000 Donations
CIP Reserve
635,000 CIP Reserve
Quimby/GIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
3
-
4
5
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES -2014 FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL MODEL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND EXPENDITURES
CIP FUND PROJECTS
Ryan Park Staff Building
Rehabilitation
Salvation Army Trail
.,,, oreune 1-'an< 1::.ros1on
Control
Abalone Cove
Basswood Avenue
Ginger Root Lane
Ironwood Street
Malaga Canyon
Miscellaneous Projects
1-'alos veraes LJnve t:.ast
Sewer Relocation
PVDS at Schooner Drive
PVDS at Sea Cove Drive
West General Street
"ua1one 1.;ove :;ewer LJrstnct
Rehabilitation
""ena1 Mea1an improvements
(PVDW) ·
Arterial Street Rehab
crensnaw Ave -Utimy
Undergrounding
Hawmone 1:11va -1 ramc ::;1gna1
TYPE
Parks!Open Space
Parks!Open Space
Parks!Open Space
Sewer
Sewer
Sewer
Sewer
Sewer
Sewer
Sewer
Sewer
Sewer
Sewer
Sewer
Streets
Streets
Streets
Synchronization Streets
Hawmorne 1:11va -1-'eaesman
Improvements Streets
Hawmorne 1:11va -1.;ornaor
Beautification Study Streets
t'avemem Management t'1an
Update Streets
.-vuc: -t:.arly Action Safety
Improvements Streets
.-vuc: -Heaa1ana ::;arety
Improvements Streets
r VU<:> -Dll\eWay ::iaTety
Project Streets
rvu<:> -Lanas11ae KOaaway
Realignment and Drainage Streets
t'vu::; -Reangn East c:na or
Landslide Streets
Residential Street Rehab Streets
1 ramc ::;1gna1 -
Crenshaw!Crestridge Streets
vvestern /\Ve -1 ramc
Improvements Streets
uramage f\rea Momtonng
System Water Quality
"''orm vvarer <.!Uamy Keg1ona1
Project Water Quality
Other Small Projects Various
Total CIP Fund Expenditures
143,000
7,645 27,355
567,000
114,000
247,275
113,982
603,000
199,000
~: 26,810
2,202,336 1 1!2 2,500,000
~n
¥
6,007 5,000 774,5
139,818 36,573 1,246,190
38,863 81,137
273, 114
41,700
360 4,980 788,905
500,000
13,940 272,485
7,309 1,589,705 5,180,369 3,000,000
149,160
200,000 300,000
200,000 100,000
58,100 54,616
2,939,431 2,511,671 18,740,987 9,335,000
NOTE: The total expenditures above agree to Total CIP fund expenditures on Page 8 of the Model.
50,000
203,000
407,000
465,000
500,000 500,000
200,000 2,600,000
~ ~ 500~
2,000,000 2,000,000
100,000 100,000
5,985,300 6,895,000
CIP Reserve
Quimby!CIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
500,000 500,000 CIP Reserve
Beautification Fund
Measure "'r rop
1,800,000 1,800,000 C&NSTPUCIP Reserve
1,200,000 Rule 20A Funds
Grant!CIP Reserve
Grant!CIP Reserve
150,000 CIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
Grant!CIP Reserve
Grant!CIP Reserve
Grant!CIP Reserve
3,060,000 CIP Reserve
CIP Reserve
2,100,000 2,100,000 General Fund!TDA Article 3
Grant!CIP Reserve
uutsiae f\gency 1.;onmo11.;1t'
3,200,000 Reserve
CIP Reserve
100,000 100,000 CIP Reserve
Various
9,900,000 13,845,000
3
-
4
6
Beginning Balance
I rans1er trom {.;enera1 runa
(Establish CIP Reserve)
Transfer from General t-una
(Equal to TOT)
1 ransrer rrom <.:>eneral Funa
(General Liabiltty Rebate)
1 ranster trom <.:>enera1 runa
(Equal to PY Exp Savings)
1 rans1ertrom {.;enera1 r una
(Other Projects) Timing
Diff/Savings**
Interest Earnings
1 t:ng1neenng ana <.:>ram
Administration
Misc Park Project Design
Infrastructure Report Card
FEMA Reimbursement
Upper Filiorum Purchase
Lower Hesse/Grandview
Hesse Park Parking Lot
Eastview Playground
California Coastal Trail
Salvation Army Trail
Sunnyside Segment Trail
Gateway Park Development
1ADa1one l;OVe tsu11aing &
Driveway
Abalone Cove Parking Loi
lf\Ualone Gove ::;noreune l'a!'K
Improvements
Aoalone Gove Beach Access
Road Rehab
Ryan Park Restrooms
Ryan Park South Entrance
IKyan l'arK l'arKmg Lot
Improvements
1 Kyan ParK ;:,iarr tmnamg
Rehabilitation
1 :snore11ne l'arK t:ros1on
Control
PVI C Screening Wall
Eastview Dog Park
<.:>ranav1ew t-'an<
Improvements
1:san Kaman c.;anyon
Stabilization
WQFP Subsidy
Hawmome I ramc :s1gna1
Synchronization
I Hawu orne t-'eaesman Access
Improvements
I Hawmorne l;Orrtaor
Beautification Study
PVDS Bikeway Improvements
1ruture Kesiaen11a1 ::meer
Rehab Projects
Attachment A
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES -2014 FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL MODEL EXHIBIT C-2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) RESERVE RECONCILIATION
0 7,207,180 7,081,596 11,649,780 15,406,940 11,565,617 7,889,691 7,696,980 9,501,480 9,899,180 8,507,080
3,000,000
85,245 1,954,507 2,640,368 3,349,015 3,790,359 3,948,700 4,255,806 4,109,000 4,197,700 4,296,600 4,400,500
563,554
1,184,897 1,709,057
4,077,574 (1,735,682) 2,017,636 554,061 (19,064) (3,971,753)
44,361 30,220 32,485 36,780 44,678 20,400 17,300 108,200 285,000 361,300 310,500
(7,325) (21,548) (12,989) (50,000) (150,000) (120,000) (120,000) (120,000) (120,000)
(10,000)
(5,000)
(59, (3,541)
(374,629)
(55,75 ,716) (19,141) (16,859) (1,000,000)
(210,000)
(32,982)
(4 (126,328)
(143,000) 103,000
(165,000)
(35,625) (200,000)
(108,000)
A <@82,000) 332,000 ·e
(100,000)
(210,843) (
(206,321"9
(430,000) ,000
(50,000)
(27,355)
(110,000)
(50,000)
(635,000)
(8,293,009)
(820,000) (300,000) (800,000) (600,000) (600,000)
(23,513)
(52,663)
(150,000)
(158,905)
3
-
4
7
ruture Ar1ena1 ;:>treec Kenao
Projects
wavemem Management Plan
Update
1r-vui::: -Heaa1ana :satety
Improvements
1r-vu;:, -Realign i:::asc i:::na of
Landslide
1rvuo -Lanasuae Koaaway
Realignment and Drainage
I western Ave -1ra111c
Improvements
ADA Transition Plan Projects
Basswood Avenue Sewer
West General Street Sewer
Abalone Cove Sewer
Ironwood Street Sewer
1r-vu;:, at ;:.cnooner unve
Sewer
1rvuo ac :;ea i.;ove unve
Sewer
Ginger Root Lane Sewer
Malaga Canyon Sewer
Miscellaneous Sewer Projects
[ADa1one i.;ove :;ewer u1smc1
Rehabilitation
I i.;aoe I v tiunaing
Improvements
[Hesse pa"""yan t'arK rmer
Optic Cabling
[Hesse t'arK Mulll-t'urpose
Room AudioMsual Upgrade
RPVTV Studio Restroom
Wall of Honor
1rmer upuc-AD i.;ove :;ewer
Lift Sins/Shoreline Pk/Ladera
Linda
1 Laa era unaa i.;ommurnty
Center Replacement
'ura1nage Area Monnonng
System
:;1orm water uua1ity Keg1ona1
Project
Lanasuae t:any warning
System
New Lanas1iae uewacenng
Wells
Ending Balance 7,207,180
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES -2014 FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL MODEL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) RESERVE RECONCILIATION
(66,125) (630,731) (1,045,817)
(38,863) (81,137)
(41,700)
(13,940) (527,485)
(245,000)
(24,432) (25,000) (300,000)
(114,000)
(122,000)
(567,000)
(247,275)
(603,000)
(199,000)
(110,000)
.. ,
'%160,000) (260,000)
<c1~
(18,00liJ
(~~
·~
(200,000) (300,000)
(200,000) (100,000)
(300,000)
(170,000) (180,000)
7,081,596 11,649,780 15,406,940 11,565,617 7,889,691 7,696,980
Attachment A
EXHIBIT C-2
(35,000) (1,435,000) (1,085,000) (585,000)
(120,000)
.(12,700)
(3,060,000)
(1,600,000)
(115,000) (115,000) (115,000) (115,000)
(203,000)
(407,000)
(465,000)
(500,000) (500,000) (500,000) (500,000)
(1,600,000)
(4,000,000)
(100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000)
(450,000) (450,000) (180,000) (180,000)
9,501,480 9,899,180 8,507,080 3,323,080
**Projects funded by transfers from the General Fund may not be completed in the year of the funding transfer. Therefore, project spend may occur in a subsequent year. Any savings derived from
projects funded by the General Fund is retained in the CIP Reserve. Amounts reported on this line total $922,772, which represents project savings over 6 years.
3
-
4
8
Attachment A
User Fee Rate History Attachment D
Note: CPI Index based uoon LA -Oranae -Riverside CPl-U (Urban City) Annual Change
User Fee Estimated
Index User Fee Incremental
(Increase Maximum Rate Estimated Cumulative
% limited to User Fee Adopted Annual User Increase Annual
Change 2% Rate/ by City Fee Revenue -Revenue from
CPI Index CPI annually) FY ERU Council Not Actual CPI
Feb
2006 rate enacted by the voters) $ 86.00 $ 86.00 $ 1,175,000 $ 1, 175,000
2007 214.76 3.5% 2.0% FY07-08 $ 87.72 $ 87.72 $ 22,369 $ 1,197,369 $ 22,369
2008 221.431 3.1% 2.0% FY08-09 $ 89.47 $ 89.47 $ 23,947 $ 1,221,316 $ 46,316
2009 221.439 0.0% 0.0% FY09-10 $ 89.47 $ 89.47 $ -$ 1,221,316 $ 46,316
2010 224.62 1.4% 1.4% FY10-11 $ 90.72 $ 90.72 $ 17,544 $ 1,238,861 $ 63,861
2011 229.729 2.3% 2.0% FY11-12 $ 92.53 $ 92.53 $ 24,777 $ 1,263,638 $ 88,638
2012 234.537 2.1% 2.0% FY12-13 $ 94.39 $ 92.53 $ -$ 1,263,638 $ 88,638
2013 239.753 2.2% 2.0% FY13-14 $ 96.27 $ 96.27 $ 50,546 $ 1,314,183 $ 139,183
2014 241.059 0.5% 0.5% E¥.14-15 $ 96.75 ?
f'f
15.1% 11.9% 7 .. .P. ·" $ 495,320 --Conservative estimate of user fee collec'lEil ~r 7 years through 6/30/2013 $ 9,895,320
Estimated soent or committed in the WQFP w~ 6130/2014 $ 35,768,566
Percentage spent or committed in the WQFP fu user fee collected 28%
Note: Actual storm drain user fee collected in FY12-13/Wiil f; about $1.3 million; hence, the Estimated
Incremental Cumulative Increase Annual Revenue from ~j ~av be understated bv about 8%
~~
3-49
Annual Report
for the
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee
FY 2014-15
For the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Los Angeles County, California
June 11, 2014
Attachment B
3-50
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Annual Report-FY 2014-15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificates ............................................................... Pg. 1
Introduction .............................................................. Pg. 2
Cost Estimates ........................................................ Pg. 3
Annual Fee Rate Calculations ............................. Pg. 4
Sample Calculations ............................. Pg. 6
Assessment Roll ...................... Under Separate Cover
June 11, 2014
Attachment 8
Q:\RPV\Stormwater\FY14-15\reports\SD Fee Rpt 14-15.docx 11 I Hanis & Associates
3-51
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Annual Report-FY 2014-15
FY 2014-15 Annual Report
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Storm Drain User Fee
June 11, 2014
Page 1
Attachment 8
The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report as directed by the City Council.
DATED: June 11, 2014
BK~
R.C.E. No. 50255
Q:\RPV\Stormwater\FY14-15\reports\SD Fee Rpt 14-15.docx 11 I Harris & Associates
3-52
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Annual Report-FY 2014-15
INTRODUCTION
June 11, 2014
Page2
Attachment B
To insure a flow of funds for the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program, the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes established a user fee in September 2005. This Fee ensures a fair and equitable levying
of the costs of the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program.
Pursuant to Section 3.44.40 of the City's Municipal Code, at a public hearing, the City Council will
consider whether to collect the Storm Drain User Fee for Fiscal Year 2014-15 (July 1, 2014 through
June 30, 2015), and, if so, establish the rate per Equivalent Residential Unit for Fiscal Year 2014-15.
In making its determinations, the City Council will take into account the current and projected
revenues of the City for Fiscal Year 2014-15, including but not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes
and transient occupancy taxes; the current and projected expenditures of the City for Fiscal Year
2014-15, including, but not limited to, proposed expenditures in connection with the City's storm
drain system; the balance, if any, in the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program Enterprise
Fund; arid the current and projected General Fund reserves. In addition, the City Council will
consider any report and recommendation submitted by the Oversight Committee established by the
City Council in connection with the City's Water Quality and Flood Protection Program.
This report, as signed and presented to the Council for approval, has been prepared according to the
methodology and rates approved by the City Council in 2005.
The Storm Drain User Fee is levied under the authority of the California Health and Safety Code
Section 5471 et seq. (the "Code"). Payment of the fees for each parcel will be made in the same
manner and at the same time as payments are made for property taxes for each property.
This report contains the necessary data required to establish the annual fee rates and is submitted for
filing in the office of the City Clerk, where it shall remain open for public inspection.
Q:\RPV\Stormwater\FY14-15\reports\SD Fee Rpt 14-15.docx 11 I Harris & Associates
3-53
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Annual Report-FY 2014-15
COST ESTIMATE
June 11, 2014
Page3
Attachment B
The estimated annual costs to fund the Water Quality and Flood Protection Program are provided
below in Table 1.
Table 1 -Estimated Annual Costs
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (7/1/14)
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Annual Fee Levy
Interest Earnings
CIP Transfer
City Contribution
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Storm Drain Master Plan
Backbone Projects
Pipe Lining
Secondary Projects
Other Projects
Miscellaneous Repairs & Maintenance
Filtration Device Installation
Reserve for Anticipated Additional Costs
Administration (contract/staff engineer)
ENDING FUND BALANCE (6/30/14)
The ending fund balance constitutes a Reserve for Future Projects.
Q:\RPV\Stormwater\FY14-15\reports\SD Fee Rpt 14-15.docx
$271,416
$1,431,942
$600
$820,000
$0
$2,252,542
$30,000
$500,000
$335,278
$890,000
$150,000
$237,518
$0
$0
$162,200
$2,304,996
$218,962
11 I Harris & Associates
3-54
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Annual Report -FY 2014-15
ANNUAL FEE RATE CALCULATIONS
June 11, 2014
Page4
Attachment B
By definition, all properties that drain into the City's storm drain system use the storm drain system.
The amount of use attributed to each parcel is measurable by the amount of storm runoff contributed
by the property, which is directly proportional to the amount of impervious area on a parcel (such as
buildings and concrete). The more impervious area on a property, the more storm runoff the property
generates. Vacant, unimproved parcels are still in their natural states and do not contribute any
additional runoff to burden the system, therefore these parcels are not charged a storm drain fee.
Table 2 shows the estimated Impervious Percentages for single-family residential (SFR) properties of
various size ranges. These Impervious Percentages are the estimated percent impervious cover on a
property based on a ten percent data sampling of SFR parcels within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
when the fee was initially adopted.
Because of the variations in condominiums and non-SFR properties, which include multi-family
residential, institutional (such as churches and private schools) and government-owned properties,
these properties were reviewed individually using the City GIS and Aerial photography to determine
the actual Impervious cover for each parcel.
Table 2-SFR Impervious Percentages
Land Impervious
Use Percentage SFR Size Ranges
SFR1 74.0% 0.01 -0.16acres(-1 sf--7,012sf)
SFR2 58.0% 0.161 -0.20 acres (-7,013 sf --8,755 sf)
SFR3 48.5% 0.201 -0.28 acres (-8,756 sf --12,239 sf)
SFR4 41.0% 0.281 -0.54 acres (-12,240 sf --23,565 sf)
SFR5 34.5% 0.541 -2.99** acres (-23,566 sf --130,680 sf)
SFR6 n/a* 3.0 acres and i:ireater
* the actual impervious percentage is used for each parcel.
** the actual impervious percentage is used for SFR5 over 3/4 AC
if less than originally noticed.
The amount each parcel uses the storm drain system is computed by the following formula:
(Parcel Area) x (Impervious Percentage)= Drainage Units
The more Drainage Units a parcel has, the more storm run-off it generates, and the more it uses the
storm drain system.
It is often convenient to relate other land uses to a developed single family home, instead of working
exclusively with Drainage Units. Since 85% of the parcels within the City are designated as Single
Family Residential (SFR) parcels, and the median number of Drainage Units is 0.118 for all SFR
parcels, it makes sense to relate all parcels to this median residential property. Therefore, 0.118
Drainage Units is set equal to one Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU).
Parcels within the City that have runoff flowing out of the City without going through any City-
maintained drainage infrastructure are not included in this fee. There are also a number of County-
maintained pipes within the City. If properties drain exclusively to these pipes and the pipe system
Q:\RPV\Stormwater\FY14-15\reports\SD Fee Rpt 14-15.docx 11 I Harris & Associates
3-55
Land
Use
SFR1
SFR2
SFR3
SFR4
SFR5
SFR6
CNDO
MFR
COM
INST
GOV
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Annual Report-FY 2014-15
June 11, 2014
Page 5
does not include any City-maintained infrastructure, then they are not included in thx ft~._ These B
areas, which consist of approximately 3,047 parcels, are excluded from the Storm ~~Q.t
For the purposes of this report, City-maintained infrastructure includes pipes, inlets, outlets, and
natural drainage courses, and is also referred to as the "City's storm drain system."
Inventory of Parcels
Table 3, below, provides a summary of parcels by land use and shows the total estimated Drainage
Units and ERUs for the City.
Parcels Acreaae
1, 113 162.57
1,899 349.68
3,096 736.60
2,806 1,106.31
948 744.10
10 49.76
1,846 139.48
39 53.69
47 144.94
20 114.24
47 490.24
11,871 4,091.60
Table 3 -Drainage Unit Summary Table
Percent
Change in
lmperv. Drainage Prior Yr Drain Units
Percent Units ERU Drain Units over Prior Yr Land Use Description
74.0% 120.056 1,017.4318 120.056 0.00% SFR: 0.01 -0.16 acres (-0 sf--7,012 sf)
58.0% 202.669 1,717.5829 202.768 -0.05% SFR: 0.161 -0.20 acres (-7,013 sf--8,755 sf)
48.5% 357.307 3,028.0663 357.307 0.00% SFR: 0.201 -0.28 acres (-8,756 sf--12,239 sf)
41.0% 450.551 3,818.2338 450.244 0.07% SFR: 0.281 -0.54 acres (-12,240 sf--23,565 sf)
34.5%* 213.884 1,812.5763 213.391 0.23% SFR: 0.541 -2.99 acres (-23,566 sf--130,680 sf)
actual* 3.666 31.0677 3.666 0.00% SFR: 3.0 acres and greater
actual* 95.727 811.2726 95.727 0.00% Condominiums
actual* 41.736 353.6949 41.736 0.00% Multi-Family Residential
actual* 75.717 641.6693 75.184 0.71% Commercial
actual* 64.669 548.0422 64.692 -0.04% Churches, Private Schools, Institutions
actual* 120.454 1,020.7963 120.454 0.00% Government-owned parcels
1,746.436 14,800.4341 1,745.225 0.07%
* the actual impervious percentages have been used for parcels with these landuses
which includes SFR5 parcels> .75 AC
The parcel areas for condominiums are calculated by dividing the total area of the condominium
complex (which includes the common area) by the number of condominium units, and the total
imperviousness of the entire complex is attributed to each individual condo parcel in the complex.
(This divides the runoff of the entire complex to each of the individual units.) Because the
condominium common areas are taken into consideration in this manner, they are exempt from the
charge.
Q:\RPV\Stormwater\FY14-15\reports\SD Fee Rpt 14-15.docx 11 I Harris & Associates
3-56
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Annual Report-FY 2014-15
Annual Fee Rate
June 11, 2014
Page6
Attachment B
Table 4 provides the calculation of the Maximum Annual Fee Rate for FY 2014-15 and shows the
actual proposed Fee Rate.
Table 4 -Annual Fee Rate
CPI CPI 2% Max. Actual
Increase Rate Rate Rate Rate
Base Year -FY 2006-07 $86.00 $86.00
FY 2007-08 3.8% $89.27 $87.72 $87.72 $87.72
FY 2008-09 3.3% $90.61 $89.47 $89.47 $89.47
FY 2009-10 0.0% $89.47 $91.26 $89.47 $89.47
FY 2010-11 1.4% $90.72 $91.26 $90.72 $90.72
FY 2011-12 2.3% $92.81 $92.53 $92.53 $92.53
FY2012-13 2.1% $94.47 $94.38 $94.38 $92.53
FY 2013-14 2.2% $96.46 $96.27 $96.27 $96.27
FY 2014-15 0.5% $96.75 $98.20 $96.75 $96.75
The maximum rate will increase automatically on an annual basis by an amount equal to the annual
change in Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI) for the Los Angeles, Riverside,
Orange County Areas including all items as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of
March 1 of each year (12 months ended February), not to exceed a maximum increase of two percent
(2%) per year.
The actual rate to be levied each year will be as approved by the City Council at a public hearing,
after they consider an Annual Fee Report outlining the estimated annual costs of the program.
Table 5 provides sample fee calculations for various land uses and parcel sizes based on the proposed
Actual Fee Rate.
Q:\RPV\Stormwater\FY14-15\reports\SD Fee Rpt 14-15.docx 11 I Harris & Associates
3-57
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Annual Report -FY 2014-15
June 11, 2014
Page7
Table 5 -Sample Calculations A tt~t"'h m~nt I=
Est. FY 14-15 Annual
Land Use Parcel Parcel lmperv. Drainage Fee Rate/ERU
Designation Area (sf) Area (ac) x Percent = Units I 0.118 = ERU's $96.75
SFR1 3,500 0.08 x 0.740 = 0.059 I 0.118 = 0.5000 $48.38
SFR2 7,400 0.17 x 0.580 = 0.0991 0.118= 0.8390 $81.17
SFR2 8,300 0.19 x 0.580 = 0.110 I 0.118 = 0.9322 $90.19
SFR3 9,200 0.21 x 0.485 = 0.102 I 0.118 = 0.8644 $83.63
SFR3 10,000 0.23 x 0.485 = 0.112 I 0.118 = 0.9492 $91.84
SFR3 11,300 0.26 x 0.485 = 0.126 I 0.118 = 1.0678 $103.31
SFR4 13,500 0.31 x 0.410 = 0.127 I 0.118 = 1.0763 $104.13
SFR4 17,000 0.39 x 0.410 = 0.160 I 0.118 = 1.3559 $131.18
SFR4 21,400 0.49 x 0.410 = 0.201 I 0.118 = 1.7034 $164.80
SFR5 52,300 1.20 x 0.345 = 0.414 I 0.118 = 3.5085 $339.45
CNDO* 1,307 0.03 x 0.800 = 0.024 I 0.118 = 0.2034 $19.68
CNDO* 3,049 0.07 x 0.850 = 0.060 I 0.118 = 0.5085 $49.20
Non-SFR 13,068 0.30 x 0.820 = 0.246 I 0.118 = 2.0847 $201.69
Non-SFR 13,068 0.30 x 0.700 = 0.210 I 0.118 = 1.7797 $172.19
Non-SFR 29,185 0.67 x 0.350 = 0.235 I 0.118 = 1.9915 $192.68
Non-SFR 29,185 0.67 x 0.700 = 0.469 I 0.118 = 3.9746 $384.54
Non-SFR 71,874 1.65 x 0.650 = 1.073 I 0.118 = 9.0932 $879.77
Non-SFR 71,874 1.65 x 0.850 = 1.403 I 0.118 = 11.8898 $1,150.34
Non-SFR 135,907 3.12 x 0.400 = 1.248 I 0.118 = 10.5763 $1,023.26
Non-SFR 135,907 3.12 x 0.600 = 1.872 I 0.118 = 15.8644 $1,534.88
0.118 = Drainage Units per median SFR ERU = Equivalent Residential Unit
* Condominium parcel areas =the area of the entire complex divided by the total number of units in the complex.
The Preliminary Fee Roll, which is a listing of each parcel to be charged a fee and the maximum and
actual fee for FY 2014-15, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Appeals Process
If a property owner disagrees with the calculation of his or her fee, based on the parcel area and
estimated impervious percentage assigned to the property, then the property owner may appeal the
calculation as follows:
1. Property owner must provide written documentation explaining the reason why the charge
should be changed. This documentation must include:
a. The name, phone number, mailing address, and email address, if available, of the property
owner.
Q:\RPV\Stormwater\FY14-15\reports\SD Fee Rpt 14-15.docx 11 I Harris & Associates
3-58
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Water Quality and Flood Protection Program
Storm Drain User Fee Annual Report-FY 2014-15
b. The Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) of the property in question.
June 11, 2014
Page 8
Attachment 8
c. To-scale drawings of the property in question and the impervious areas located on it with
accompanying calculations. The to-scale drawings shall include the square footage and
labels for each impervious area (i.e. house, garage, driveway, patio, tool shed, carport, etc.).
2. If additional documentation is required or insufficient documentation was submitted, a
representative of the Public Works Department or his or her designee (Staff) will notify the
property owner in writing within two (2) weeks of receipt of the appeal.
3. Once Staff has determined that sufficient documentation has been submitted, Staff will perform
the initial review. Staff will notify the property owner in writing within four ( 4) weeks from the
time sufficient documentation was submitted as to whether or not the fee amount will be
changed.
a. If the determination is to change the fee amount, then the new fee amount will be
documented within the City's fee database.
b. If the determination is that the fee should not be changed, the property owner can appeal
Staffs decision to the Director of Public Works (Director). The appeal must be made in
writing and returned no later than four ( 4) weeks from the date of mailing of Staff's initial
review decision. The Director will notify the property owner in writing within four ( 4)
weeks from the date of receipt of the appeal as to whether or not the fee amount will be
changed.
If the Director's determination is that the fee should not be changed, the property owner can
appeal this decision to the City Council. The appeal must be made in writing and returned
no later than four ( 4) weeks from the date of mailing of the Director's appeal decision. The
City Clerk shall fix a time and place for hearing the appeal and shall give notice in writing to
the appellant in the manner prescribed in Section 3.16.090 for service of notice of hearing.
The City Council's determination on the appeal shall be final.
Appeals will be accepted annually up until June 30 for inclusion on the following fiscal year's
property tax roll submittal. However, if an appeal is granted by Staff, the Director or the City
Council that does not permit inclusion for the following fiscal year's property tax roll submittal, a
reimbursement will be provided to the property owner by the City.
Q:\RPV\Stormwater\FY14-15\reports\SD Fee Rpt 14-15.docx 11 I Harris & Associates
3-59