Loading...
20100522 Late CorrespondenceRANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: Dennis McLean & Kathryn Downs FROM: Steve Wolowicz CC: Carolyn Lehr DATE: May 21, 2010 SUBJECT: CC meeting item #4 budget FY 10-11 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Dennis and Kathryn, My apology for this late delivery of my questions. Unfortunately this has been a very busy three-week period with City issues and meetings. I understand that I may find answers to some of these questions in the detail charts. Given this late delivery, I am not requesting for answers this evening, just be aware of these items for discussion during our meeting. Thanks, Steve Carryover topics from last year 1. Did the two one-time transfers from FEMA account ($113,000) and recycling revenues account ($230,000) fully exhaust those funds? Staff Reply: No, there is still a $274,430 FEMA reserve in the CIP Fund. There is still an estimated fund balance of more than $100,000 in the Beautification Fund (recycling monies). 2. The total budgeted revenues (excluding TOT) for FY 09-10 is almost the same as FY 10-11, is that true for actual revenues also? Staff Reply: Of course, we don't yet know what actual revenues for FY09-10 will be and its difficult to project. We believe that actual revenues for FY09-10 will near budgeted revenue. We are not aware of any significant variances at this time. 3. In the Park Ranger program was the JAG grant received and has it been included in FY 10-11 budget? Staff Reply: The receipt of that grant is included in FY09-10 revenue. FY 10-11 issues 4. Just be clear on the budget worksheet. The total impact to the general fund reserves — if all amounts, including the items not included in staff's proposed budget would result in a decrease of the GF reserve of $418,872 with an excess GF reserve of $1,060,048. Page 1 of 3 I:1Budget 20101Steve Replies—McLean edits.doc 05122/10 6:33 AM Staff Reply: That is correct. 5. The combined sheriff contract savings is slightly over $121,000. Does this represent the entire amount of the recently announced rate reductions and cancelation of the first quarter payments? Staff Reply: No, it only reflects the FY10-11 savings. 6. How much of the current transfers are for storm drains? Staff Reply: There are no additional General Fund transfers to the WQFP Fund included in the draft FY10-11 budget. 7. Is the residential pavement add back to transfers of $405,045 a permanent reduction or just temporary? Staff Reply: This represents a permanent savings. 8. Just confirming that the $460,000 for the ball field upgrade is not duplicated in the Hesse Park improvement project? Staff Reply: The budget provision for the Hesse Park ball field project is $500,000 ($40,000 is funded with EET money). This is a separate project from the Hesse Park Lower Picnic Playground project. 9. Why there is such a big difference in the base amounts used for increases are different for each of the percentage increases shown? computed base Cost of living allowance 83,000 1.9% 4,368,421 Merit increase 54,000 1.6% 3,375,000 Bonus pool 83,100 1.5% 5,540,000 Staff Reply: If approved by the City Council, all employees would receive a cost of living allowance on July 1 st Not all employees would be eligible for a merit increase, and those increases would be effective on the date of the employee's annual evaluation; therefore, staggered throughout the FY10-11. The bonus pool was calculated in 2009 (in preparation of the two-year budget document), based on estimated salaries. Whereas the cost of living allowance is based on actual salaries, including the impact of some staff vacancies. 10. The total increase in total payroll increase is $453,260 (excluding the HSA retirement contributions). In aggregate how does the amount of the increase compare with FY 09-10 actual increase? Page 2 of 3 I:\Budget 2010\Steve Replies—McLean edits.doc 05/22/10 6:33 AM Staff Reply: The $453,260 includes $82,200 of additional administrative interns, $33,960 of additional Recreation part-timers, and $83,100 for the bonus pool. The actual amount of salary increases is $254,000 which is about 4.6% of payroll. The FY09-10 PILSI was based on 3.5% of payroll. The average increase over the last 8 years has been 5.5% of payroll. 11. Is the $203,000 code enforcement for a new employee or contract? Staff Reply: This is the cost of the existing code enforcement function (2 full-time employees plus a small operational budget). The City Council would need to add it to the baseline to maintain the current code enforcement function. 12. How much is budgeted for pension expenses? Staff Reply: An allocation of $831,000 has been included in the draft FY10-11 budget. 13. Grants to NPO's of $53,500 exclude the REACH program entirely? Staff Reply: Correct. The $53,500 does not include the REACH program. It includes organizations such as the Peninsula Seniors and the PV Library Annex. 14. Overall, what effect, if any, has the concept of performance based budgeting had on the budget? Staff Reply: The City has not adopted a true performance based budgeting system. Such a system requires a vast amount of data collection to have meaningful results. Most agencies that have a true performance based budget have at least 1 FTE dedicated to the data collection necessary to facilitate the process. Staff will provide an oral overview about the hybrid zero -based budget during its presentation. Page 3 of 3 I:\Budget 2010\Steve Replies—McLean edits.doc 05/22/10 6:33 AM LI RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: MAY 22, 2010 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received for today's meeting: Item No. Description of Material 4 Partial replies to questions posed by Councilman Campbell 2nd of 2; Partial replies to questions posed by Councilman Campbell 1St of 2; Answers to questions posed by Councilman Misetich; Memorandum from Blais & Associates; Memorandum from Regional Law Enforcement Committee; Staff Memorandum regarding the REACH Program — FY10- 11 Public/Private Partnership: Emails from Robert J. Nelson; Tina Harris; Tom Rippo; Kit Fox Respectfully submitted, •_ _ Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page were submitted through Thursday, May 20, 2010**. W:WGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20100522 additions revisions to agenda.doc PARTIAL REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ASKED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAMPBELL — 2nd of 2 Replies What is the average annual value. Per employee of the pay, medical and every other benefit of the 55 FTE's? I'd like to see included the HSA contribution, CalPers contribution, car allowances, membership fees etc. Not for individual employees, just an average annual cost across all of the FTE's. Do not include training related costs. Staff Reply: The average salary for full-time employees is about $85,000, and there is an all-inclusive 40% benefit rate. Rancho Palos Verdes is a contract city managed by a staff primarily comprised of degreed professionals. Currently, it is estimated that about 2/3 of staff have 4 -year degrees or higher, as well as licenses and certifications. The benefit rate, which includes the CalPERS contribution, varies greatly from one agency to another. As the City recently paid off its pension side -fund liability, our actuarial determined CalPERS rate is low compared to other cities. Workers' compensation insurance is another example of an actuarial determined cost that results in an apples -to -oranges comparison with other agencies. - What is the pay range for our part-time employees per hour, and what benefits do they get? Staff Reply: There are 8 part-time pay ranges. The lowest is a Recreation Leader ($9.49 to $12.33 per hour), and the highest is an Intern ($10.72 to $25.82 per hour). Except for certain part-time employees that participate in the City's pension plan, part-time employees do not receive any benefits. - How many part-time employees do we have and in which departments? Staff Reply: There are about 35 to 40 part-timers on staff at any given time. All but 6 are employed in the Recreation Department. There is I in Public Works, 2 in Finance & IT, 2 student interns in Administration and 1 in Community Development. PARTIAL REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ASKED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAMPBELL What is the average annual value, per employee of the pay, medical and every other benefit of the 55 FTE's? I'd like to see included the HSA contribution, CalPers contribution, car allowances, membership fees etc. Not for individual employees, just an average annual cost across all of the FTE's. Do not include training related costs. What is the pay range for our part-time employees per hour, and what benefits do they get? - How many part-time employees do we have and in which departments? - How is our Attorney Services calculated? By month, by a minimum retainer + extras, etc? Just an overview is what I am looking for. Staff Reply: The City Attorney will be copied with this reply and may wish to augment the reply. Attorney services are billed based upon actual time spent using contractual hourly rates. A detailed invoice listing all dates and descriptions of services is received monthly from Richards, Watson & Gershon. We have pasted the following from the Budget Document: 101-1003-411-32-00 PROFITECH SERVICE 65,000 Specialized contractual services, with third party legal advisors, associated with litigation and prosecution. Expenditures in this account are for the services of law firms other than Richards, Watson & Gershon. The amount expended in prior years has varied due to fluctuations in the levels of special litigation and routine code enforcement prosecution activity. 101-1003-411-33-00 LEGAL SERVICES 1,000,000 Legal services are provided to the City by Richards, Watson & Gershon. Basic legal costs account for about 40% of the RING annual legal fees, while litigation costs represent about 60%. - What Memberships and Dues are paid for with the $67,730? Staff Reply: Although not all-inclusive, the following is a fairly comprehensive list of membership dues included in the FY10-11 budget: Memberships & Dues include: ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) California Coastal Commission California Contract Cities South Bay Cities Council of Governments West Basin Municipal Water District Portuguese Bend Community Association Rotary Club of the Palos Verdes Peninsula League of California Cities International City Managers Association American Planning Association Local Agency Formation Commission International Institute of Municipal Clerks City Clerks Association of California National Notary Association Peninsula Chamber of Commerce San Pedro Chamber of Commerce Palos Verdes Peninsula Coordinating Council Los Angeles Area G Disaster Council Business & Industry Council for Emergency Planning & Preparedness Government Finance Officers Association California Society of Municipal Finance Officers American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Municipal Information Systems Association of California California Municipal Treasurers' Association Municipal Management Association of Southern California Maintenance Superintendents Association American Public Works Association Institute of Traffic Engineers Planners Advisory Service Association of Environmental Planners American Institute of Certified Planners International Congress of Building Officials National Parks & Recreation Association California Parks & Recreation Society - Brief overview of the Merchant Credit Card & Bank fees. What Bank and what are these fees for? Staff Reply: The draft FY10-11 budget includes a provision for about $22,500 for credit card processing fees. Upon completing a competitive process, the City Council approved the selection of TransFirst several years ago. Establishing the service allowed City residents and other customers the convenience to pay with a credit card. The City currently processes nearly $1 million of credit card transactions annually. The fees are transaction based (amounts & percentages per transaction) and average less than 3% of the total transaction amounts. The FY10-11 budget includes a provision for about $7,500 to Bank of America for traditional business banking transaction fees (deposits, checks, wire transfers, stop payments, etc.). - Brief breakdown of the building maintenance expenses. Staff Reply: Although several minor revisions have been made to the draft FY10-11 budget, the details of the Building Maintenance program can be found on pages 194 & 195 of the City's two-year budget document (PDF pages 200 & 201). See the link below: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/finance/city-budget-FY09-10 FY10-11.pdf Further detailed questions may need to be re -directed to Public Works staff. What were the programs that were cut last year and how much did we previously fund each one for? Staff Reply: During its deliberation, the City Council made the following program/service cuts for FY09-10: Original Final Estimate Adopted Savings Regional shared Community Resource (CORE) Deputies were cut from 3 to 2 270,000 180,000 90,000 Student & the Law duties were transferred to the remaining 2 CORE deputies 23,000 - 23,000 Sheriff traffic control duties at Miraleste Intermediate School were re -assigned to other available personnel 30,000 - 30,000 Consulting services for design of the RPV logo were discontinued 2,500 - 2,500 Publication of the City Newsletter was reduced from 4 to 2 issues annually 20,000 11,000 9,000 Decreased City tiles, pins & proclamations 8,500 6,500 2,000 Transitioned to action minutes instead of comprehensive minutes for City Council meetings 13,400 - 13,400 Friday building inspections were reduced by 50% 20,000 10,000 10,000 The tri -annual dog license canvassing program was 1 deferred 75,000 - 75,000 REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MISETICH 1) Please explain how does the Lock -in FY 09-10 Payments in Lieu of salary work? Staff Reply: During the employee's FY09-10 annual review, they receive a PILSI; which is an annual amount to be spread over the employee's next 26 bi-weekly paychecks. It is not an addition to their salary. If the City Council elects to lock -in the FY09- 10 PILSI's, at the time of the employee's FY10-11 annual review, the amount they were receiving as a PILSI will be added to their salary. 2) The cost of a CORE deputy is $154,000 with a car. The regional traffic control deputy is $242,000. Can the CORE deputy pick up this function? Staff Reply: Only with the concurrence of the two other regional contract cities, as having one of the two existing CORE Deputies assume traffic enforcement responsibilities would take them away from fulfilling the traditional mission of the CORE Team. Further, the Sheriff's Regional Law Bureau would not allow the City to eliminate a full -cost position and replace it with a grant or growth rate position, such as adding a third CORE Deputy to do traffic enforcement. 3) Why does RPV have a Regional Traffic Control officer and a Dedicated Traffic Control officer? Staff Reply: Prior to 2005, the three regional contract cities shared two non -relief traffic deputies that work regular hours during the weekday and had no dedicated traffic enforcement during the evenings and on weekends. In FY05-06, RPV added the Dedicated Traffic Control Deputy to address specific speeding and other traffic issues we were experiencing outside the traditional 40 hour week schedule, such as motorcycles and other vehicles speeding on the PVDE Switchbacks and speeding around school sites. After this program had been in place for a year, in FY06-07, and based on a recommendation from the Captain of the Lomita Sheriff's Station to provide more balance between the daytime and the evening/weekends shifts, the three cities agreed to add a third Regional Traffic Control Deputy. 4) If the state wanted to take our TOT revenue, what is a reasonable guesstimate that they could take, 10%, 25%, 50%, 100%? Staff Reply: TOT is a locally imposed tax, not state -shared revenue (like Vehicle License Fees or Highway Users Tax). Staff is unaware of any ballot and/or legislative initiatives to take locally imposed taxes. 5) Employee bonus pool- did every employee who was eligible receive a bonus in FY 2008-09? Staff Reply: No, only those employees who were recognized for a significant achievement received a bonus during FY08-09. 6) Did the employees who resigned receive a bonus in FY 2008-09? Staff Reply: Yes. The bonus amounts average about $400 and serve to reward achievement rather than instill longevity. 7) What components make up the CPI%? Food, gasoline, housing? Can you show me the analysis? Staff Reply: The City uses the Consumer Price Index, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for Pacfic Cities, Los Angeles -Riverside -Orange Counties. The tables can be found at the following link: http://www.bls.gov/ro9/pachist.htm 8) CIP Question- Is the cost to develop Grandview and Hesse parks about $1,000,000 apiece? Staff Reply: As outlined in the November 17, 2009 staff report, improvements are estimated to be about $1.2 million for Lower Hesse Park and about $0.8 million for Grandview Park. 9) What happens if RPV doesn't contribute it's share of $130,000 to the PVTA and MAX transit? Staff Reply: The City's MAX contribution is about $124,500. The City's PV Transit contribution is $603,000. The City's decreasing Proposition A revenue leaves the City about $130,000 short for the total annual program. The City has entered into agreements with these transit agencies. Based on these agreements, the City is legally obligated to make its contribution. Non-payment would constitute a breach of contract. Staff recommends a review of the City's transit funding program during the next year. 10) Can RPV expect further demands from the state as a result of the $700 milliopn demand from CalPERS to the state? Staff Reply: No. The CaIPERS demand to the state is related to the state's contract for its own employees, and does not affect other agencies' contracts with CalPERS. 11) In the 2010 five year financial model staff says that they recommend that the CC set aside Terranea TOT for capital projects(including the San Ramon Canyon Stabilization project) yet in the illistration Page 2-2 (staff uses of TOT) does not specifically include San Ramon Canyon Stabilization project. Staff Reply: Staff has not yet included the set-aside of TOT for capital projects in the Five - Year Model, as the City Council has not yet acted on Staff's recommended change to the reserve policy. The San Ramon project is a high-priority project that wcould be served by the Reserve in the future. 12) Can RPV have a financial plan(in case RPV has to solve this situation alone) for a Tarapaca dooms day senario-in case Tarapaca fails massively in next winter's rain? Staff Reply: Yes; but any theoretical contingency plans for how to pay for Lower San Ramon Canyon in the event of an emergency would be mere speculation, as factors can easily and rapidly change. The possibility of relief from FEMA is also an unknown factor. A plan would be pre -mature until the conclusions of the Project Study Report are available. Blais Associates Memorandum MAY 2 0 2010 Date: May 18, 2010 To: Carolyn Lehr, City Manager '-- Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager From: Desttiin glais� & Associates Subject: Federal Advocate Recommendation Over the course of the past year, Blais & Associates, Inc. (B&A) has worked with you and your staff to position the Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South Roadway Stabilization Project (Project) for grant funding. The work has been significant and included bringing the Project to a new level of awareness/urgency and funding potential. To that end, I believe we are at a point where the use of a federal advocate in Washington, D.C. should be carefully considered. My chief reason for this recommendation is the current funding requests we have pending with Senators Feinstein and Boxer and Congressman Rohrabacher, which are: Reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU - Requested $9.75 million from Feinstein, Boxer, and Rohrabacher, Water Resources Development Act- Requested $9.75 million authorization from Feinstein, Boxer, and Rohrabacher; also requested amended language per recommendation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers staff, and • Federal Fiscal Year 2011 Appropriations -Requested $2 million for Project and $900,000 for San Ramon Canyon. With the grant requests submitted, we are now at the pleasure of our federal delegation to deliver. We have worked hard to build momentum and the next 6-9 months will be crucial as I expect each of the above items to be fully deliberated and bills passed and signed by the President. The reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU is most critical because that legislation is only available every six years. With Congressman Rohrabacher taking a "no earmark pledge," with his GOP colleagues in the House, we must be extra vigilant with Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer. Page 2 May 18, 2010 Ms. Carolyn Lehr Ms. Carolynn Petru As you know, the work of B&A is grant research, writing, and management and we do not retain registered lobbyists on our staff. I believe we have taken the Project and funding potential to the point where we have been most effective with respect to federal earmarks and authorizations. Obtaining funding for the Project without the use of a federal advocate is possible; however, in full disclosure, it is my opinion that we will need a.federal advocate in Washington to have a successful, final outcome. I offer this recommendation with a strong opinion that it is paramount that the City selects an advocate who has substantial experience winning SAFETEA-LU and WRDA funding and has close contacts with the City's entire federal delegation. I can offer one to two recommendations and my experience is that the cost can range anywhere from $60,000 - $110,000 annually. The use of a federal advocate will, unfortunately, not offset existing costs the City is incurring for the Project. The funds budgeted for this service will go directly to ensuring that the City's needs, concerns, and projects are fully vetted in the halls of Congress and the Senate. The services of an advocate can include other needs of the City too such as assistance in local grassroots contact with your federal delegation, noise abatement issues from the airport, and national forest and public land issues, etc. B&A would work with your federal advocate on detailed/grant administrative issues and help ensure that the federal advocate has the necessary information to perform his or her duties. We would of course continue to work on identifying and writing competitive grants that are suitable for the Project (and any other needs of the City). I look forward to continuing this discussion with you and I understand this topic may be discussed at your May 22, 2010, Budget Workshop. If you have any follow-on questions please do not hesitate to call me. AGENDA MAY 13 2010 ITEM NO. (0-8 May 4, 2010 • A TO: REGIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE FROM: DOUGLAS R. PRICHARD, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: STATUS OF CORE PROGRAM Attached you will find information regarding the Peninsula Region's Community Resource (CORE) Deputy Program. In preparing for each City's Fiscal Year 2009-10 budget deliberations, the Regional Law Enforcement Committee recommended reducing the number of CORE Deputies from three to two, which is the team's current complement of deputies. In advance of the Fiscal Year 2010-11 budget deliberations, the Committee should consider the status of this program and determine whether or not any changes are recommended. F111' Attachment MSTATUS CORE PROGRAM Page 1 of 1 Doug Prichard From: Bolin, Darrell B. [DBBolin@lasd.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 3:49 PM To: Doug Prichard Cc: Anda, Ronene M. (Capt.) Subject: CORE Team Job Description Attachments: CORE Team.pdf Doug, Attached is a detailed document describing the vast duties and responsibilities of the Community Resource (CORE) Deputy. As you know, the purpose of the CORE Team is to proactively address community concerns and quality of life issues throughout the Peninsula Region. CORE deputies, by virtue of their flexible schedules, can deploy anytime in order to best handle or resolve issues as they arise. And, because they are not subject to calls for service while in the field, they can devote their attention to matters at hand without interruption. CORE deputies devote several hours each week interacting with area schools, and they are intervention specialists with respect to wayward youths. They are active participants on the School Attendance Review Board (SARB) and popular instructors of the Student and the Law class at Peninsula High School and Rancho Del Mar. Having developed school safety plans for each of the areas 56 schools, the CORE Team is deservedly recognized throughout the region as disaster preparedness experts. They also speak to many neighborhood, civic and service groups regarding myriad law enforcement / safety-related subjects. CORE deputies also augment station resources during critical incidents such as search and rescue operations, earthquakes, brush fires, or other large scale incidents. The cost of a growth deputy for fiscal year 2010/2011: $144,976 without car $164,548 with car Lt. Blaine Bolin Lomita Operations (310) 891-3221 4/29/2010 COMMUNITY RESOURCE (CO.RE.) DEPUTY The purpose of the CO.RE. Team is to address community concerns in a "pro -active" way, before the concern becomes criminal activity. The primary object of these concerns are the Juvenile population and issues that impact the quality of life. The CORE. Team addresses these community concerns throughout the Peninsula Region, consisting of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Rolling Hills Estates (combined population of 55,250). The combined community is mainly rural with two small commercial areas. The CO.RE. Team is predicated on the Sheriff Department's Community Oriented Policing concept. The Deputies assigned to the detail have volunteered for the position and have expressed a desire to strengthen the bond between the community and the Sheriff s Department. The CO.RE. concept gives the community a "familiar face" who they can "reach out to", instead of a "new and unfamiliar face" every time they call for service. The CORE. Team provides a "police procedures source" for the community to approach in a friendly atmosphere. The CORE. Deputies also have more. time to address other quality of life issues for the community at large, as they are not subject to radio calls for service as are regular patrol units. The entire community, not just one city or populace (juvenile) of the community, benefits from the CO.RE. Team. Originally, the CO.RE. Team consisted of one Deputy working at Peninsula Center and Palos Verdes Peninsula High School. There had been a large number of fights involving high school students at Peninsula Center. The CO.RE. Deputy was stationed there to be a visible deterrent. The team was then expanded to two Deputies to deal with increasing duties involving Neighborhood Watch and Disaster Preparedness. In 1999, California State Law dictated that each school from grades Kindergarten through 12 have a school safety plan developed by the local police agency. There are currently 56 schools in the Palos Verdes Peninsula region serviced by Lomita Sheriff s Station that are required to have these annually updated school safety plans. The CORE. Team again expanded (to a third Deputy) to handle this additional workload, along with an increase in criminal activity along Palos Verdes Drive South. At the time the CO.RE. Team was expanded a second time, the State's Fish and Game resources were curtailed, limiting the state enforcement of local environmental concerns. These issues are now addressed by the CORE. Team. As additional concerns reach the cities' "ears," the cities are able to advise the community that they are addressing these concerns by assigning them to the CO.RE. Team, resulting in a positive reaction from the community. The CORE. Team has also devoted time to attending Neighborhood Watch meetings. There are approximately 400 Neighborhood Watch Blocks in RPV alone. RHE is establishing a similar program of approximately 20 Neighborhood Watch Blocks within their city. Quite often these meetings are at night, which conflicts with the other details assigned to the CORE. Team. The CORE. Team is eager to attend these meetings as a means to further reach out and bond with the community. But with the increased level of activity, the CO.RE. Team has often completed their work week before Friday of each week, let alone having the hours necessary to adjust to work the evening hours to attend such meetings (unless the meetings are early in the week, but this still causes a loss of coverage for the other details by the end of the week). The CORE. Team provides crime statistics and information to the attendees of these meetings, and often field questions about "police service." The development of the School Safety Plans has also led the CORE. Team to become the Palos Verdes Peninsula Region's "anti -terrorism" and disaster preparedness experts. The elaborate labor intensive plans are the model for other Sheriff Stations within the County of Los Angeles. They have spent a great deal of time in assisting community groups in preparing their own emergency/disaster plans, and addressing community concerns about such events. The CO.RE. Team often monitors drills for these groups, including the local schools, to give suggestions on where improvement could be made. The CORE. Team also has assisted in the training and development of a number of the community's volunteer emergency response groups, such as the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT.) and the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control Equine Response Team (L.A.C.D.A.C.C.E.R.T.). Additionally, the City of RPV has also asked the Neighborhood Watch Groups to organize "emergency preparedness" meetings with the citizens of the community, and to have Deputies at these meetings to facilitate the cooperation between the citizens and city staff. The CORE. Team's flexibility in their work schedule enables them to devote the time necessary to aiding the community in the development of these plans, something a regular patrol unit cannot do as it lacks the requisite time and expertise. Emergency/Disaster Preparedness has transformed from a "collateral"duty to a "specific" duty for the CORE. Team. A major concern of the community is the juvenile population. No one wants to use "authoritative" tactics on the juvenile population, and everyone does want the juvenile population to receive help in lieu of punishment. The CORE. Team was established with such tactics in mind. The CO.RE. Team tries to intervene with juveniles who are developing a pattern of trouble prior to the actual commission of a serious crime. The CO.RE. Team works hand in hand with the local schools in an effort to put everyone on the same page in dealing with the developing problem, before it becomes a criminal matter. The problems at the Peninsula Center and the Promenade are based on a large number of teenagers from all over the Peninsula being dropped off by their parents. The CORE. Team has seen juveniles at Burger King in Peninsula Center as early as 6AM and as late as 6PM. When questioned, the juveniles all stated that their parents had to go to or are at work and they (the juveniles) just "hang around" (Burger King and Peninsula Center) until school starts (8AM, over at 2:45 PM) or until their parents pick them up. Burger King has become a "Day Care" facility for the juveniles. In conjunction with their involvement with the juvenile populace, the CO.RE. Team is involved with the local schools, and they sit on the School Attendance Review Board (S.A.R.B.). The CO.RE. Team speaks to various parent -teacher -student groups on such things as "hazing," "bullying," and narcotics use (the CORE Deputies have "contraband" and "narcotics" example boards for demonstration). The CO.RE. Team's involvement with the high school in particular benefits the community at large because students attending the high school are not just from the one city the school is located in. The CO.RE. Team often goes to school classes to provide students withe the opportunity to question the deputies in a non-aggressive setting. Moreover, due to budget cuts, the CO.RE. Team has been teaching the Student and the Law class at Rancho Del Mar and Peninsula High School as part of their daily duties. The CO.RE. Deputies also give their attention to the other (elementary and intermediate) schools in our community, but due to limited hours (55 schools versus 2 Deputies) this service is currently limited to a "call for service" basis. Expanding the CORE. Team to include a third member would help tremendously in developing "pro -active" tactics to on-going local problems (juveniles at Peninsula Center, nudityand "surf rage" at the various coastal beaches). However, the level of activity has also gone up, forcing the CO.RE. Team back to a level of "reactive" police work, as opposed to the desired stated goal of "pro -active" guidance. As previously mentioned, the committments to Rancho Del Mar Continuation School and Peninsula High School's Student and the Law Program, the available hours of the Deputy for that area dwindle to approximately 25 for each week, until the summer months. Since one Deputy is assigned to the school during these times, this leaves one deputy as the only CO.RE. Team member available to respond to these problems (provided their other details leave them available). This brings us back to the "reactive" (response) versus "pro -active" (self -initiated) argument and goal structure. The Deputies are responding to what has already happened, not going to a "source of information" and finding out where the problems are going to occur. The CORE. Team contract currently is for 80 man hours a week. Of this number, 14 hours are immediately spent on the Student and the Law classes at the respective high schools. The remaining hours quickly dwindle between details performed at the Cities' behest and incidents observed by the CO.RE. Team. The CORE. Deputies help with special events in the community (PV Marathon, sporting events and community events at the school). The CO.RE. Team also assists other Lomita Sheriff's Station details, such as the traffic cars, and providing service to community -specified problem areas (such as when a neighborhood requests additional help with cars "speeding" in their community). The requests for the CORE. Team to speak at functions/meetings increases with each year (Red and Yellow Ribbon weeks, PTA, PV Chamber of Commerce, etc.). On average, the team speaks to various groups approximately five times a week. Additionally, the CORE. Team provides additional resources to protect the cities (and community) when emergent incidents tax the limits of the cities' standard resources (i.e., bank robberies, large traffic collisions, search and rescue operations along the cliffs, earthquakes, brush fires, etc). Additional duties include: • Act as a liaison between City Managers and Lomita Station • On-going working relationships with elected officials within our contract cities • On-going working relationships with Code Enforcement Officers • Provide a uniform presence at "Hot Topic" City Planning and City Council Meetings • Liaison between city and Animal Control and Fish and Game Wardens • Close bond with Neighborhood Watch Coordinators • Close bond with ALL principals and School Officials • On-going working relationships with PTA Groups in every school • Walk thru local campuses • Teach Student and the Law classes at Peninsula High School and Rancho Del Mar • Conduct teen driving talks to various charity leagues on the Peninsula • Participate in "Red and Yellow Ribbon Week" at various schools • Participate in "Read Across America and Dr. Seuss" at various schools • Participate in Health and Career Day Fairs • Conduct child safety and "Kiddie Talks" throughout the year • Participate in Student Attendance Review Board (SARB) - quarterly • Handle "Quality of Life Issues" affecting our residents • Attend Community Association Meetings and Neighborhood Watch Block Parties • Attend Emergency Preparedness meetings hosted by the cities and residents • Sit on Palos Verdes Peninsula CERT Executive Committee • Sit on PVPUSD Disaster Committee • Sit on Area G Disaster Committee • Sit on RHE Holiday Parade Committee • Conduct resolution meetings for neighbor problems • Monitor and check on residents with Mental Health issues. • Stop and Spend "One on One Time" with residents and businesses • Assist Station Detectives with identifying juveniles involved in crimes • Assist Station Detectives with search warrants and surveillance operations • Be available as a reliable contact for residents • Off Road Patrol utilizing the Polaris Rangers • Summer Beach Patrols • Liaison with Lomita Station Volunteer Groups (ie, Posse, VOP, Reserves) MEMORANDUM IA� RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COON IL FROM: TOM ODOM, INTERIM DIRECTOR, RECREATION S DATE: MAY 21, 2010 SUBJECT: REACH Program — FY 10-11 Public/Private Partnership REVIEWED: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER As a result of comments, requests, and suggestions from particular Council members and Recreation Staff, we offer a public/private partnership approach to fund the REACH program in FY 10-11. The operation suggested would be similar to the City's current privatized recreation offerings, but with an infusion of additional support in the form of fee subsidies and equipment. This approach would involve contracting with a private consultant to run the REACH program and activities. The City contribution would include waiving facility fees for activities and free use of the City's bus for activity transportation. The City would also make CDBG funds available to provide financial assistance to program participants if eligible. CDBG funds would be available to underwrite any market rate fee structure for special needs activities which would lessen program cost for participants. The advantages to this recommended structure include: • Safeguards a well-established program for special needs population which will operate independent of the City's annual budgetary conditions and constraints • Reallocates City staff to allow for planning of general recreational activities serving a larger section of the community, including some recreational activities to mainstream the special needs community • Fosters an opportunity for entrepreneurial innovation with a partnership between local businesses and the City • Offers a stable and cost effective mechanism to manage limited City resources Please see attached brief survey of local special needs programs. City of Torrance Special Needs Recreation Programs Special Needs After School Program S.T.A.R. (Sharing Togetherness and Recreation) An afterschool program for youth and teens with intellectual disabilities, STAR provides a wide variety of recreational activities. Held at McMaster Park, 3624 Artesia Boulevard, Mondays through Fridays from 2:00 pm - 6:00 pm, the program runs from September through July. Monthly fee is $118. Enrollment is limited. Residents Only Now. 0 This program runs 11 months of the year. 0 14-20 participants P.A.L.S. (People Actively Learning and Sharing) A social club for teens and adults with intellectual disabilities, that offers monthly dances, social activities, quarterly newsletter and more. Annual membership is $12 0 65 Active Membership 0 Bowling -Twice a month, 30 Participants 0 Dances - Quarterly, 30 Participants 0 Residents and Non -Resident (@ 50% resident and 60%® are non-resident) 0 No transportation to and from events is provided. 0 Annual membership is $12 Special Olympics/Special Needs Sports A year-round sports training program for youth (aged 8 and older) and adults with intellectual disabilities. Weekly practice locations vary and competitions are held throughout Southern California. Sports include track and field, basketball, tennis, softball, soccer, bocce, cycling and snowshoeing. Registration is required. Free to participants Open to residents and non-residents Track and Field is likely to fold in the near future Basketball -2 Teams Tennis -10 Participants Softball -2 Tems Soccer -3 `beams Bocce -50 Teams City of Redondo Beach Does not offer programs City of Hermosa Beach Does .not offer programa City of Manhattan Beach Does not offer programs specifically for developmentally disable but encourages mainstreaming them to participate in existing programs. The City of Manhattan Beach Parks and Recreation Department provides a wide variety of programs, activities and classes for all members of our community; including children with special needs. Parents wishing to enroll their child with special needs in any of the City's programs, activities and classes should make sure to complete the space on the Registration Form where requests for special accommodations can be made. Those parents that complete this section will be contacted by Parks and Recreation Department staff so that all reasonable requests can be made to accommodate the inclusion of their child. Parents looking for after-school or vacation activities for their child with special needs need look no further than the Playground Program, Teen Center Program and the Aquatics Program. Each of these City -sponsored programs has children with special needs as regular program participants. When, due to the nature of a child's disability, the child requires an aide or caregiver provided by the family, our staff will work closely with the child's caregiver to maximize inclusion in the program. Recently, City Council directed staff to research and develop additional ways to service the children with special needs of our community. Expanding current services, programs and activities, creating new ones and augmenting the services and programs of local organizations working with children with special needs are all options that are under consideration. The City offers dedicated times for children with special needs to participate in events such as the Pumpkin Races and the Holiday snow park. The Manhattan Beach programs (Playground Program, Teen Center Program and the Aquatics Program) are all drop-in, non-custodial, mainstreamed programs. From: Robert Nelson [mailto:blueeye@charter.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:36 PM To: 'Carolynn Petru' Subject: RE: RPV Budget Workshop Carolynn: I'm so sorry that it has taken this amount of time for me to respond. I have been Diagnosed with Cancer and I'm currently going thorough Chemotherapy Treatments. I don't think that I will be able to go to the Meeting on the 22nd Once again 1 would like to extend Harbor Community's gratefulness for the City supporting us in the trying times that the state of the economy has done to all of us. Best Regards, Robert J. Nelson Controller Harbor Community Clinic From: Carolynn Petru [mailto:carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 5:57 PM To: mayna25@msn.com; blueeye@charter.net; jfarber@vfnet.com; 'Joe Cislowski'; 'Kay Finer'; 'Katherine Gould'; dciminera@cox.net; jhamiltonlee@sbclinic.org; sbchc@earthlink.net; shawlhouse@cox.net; anndshaw@msn.com; seniors@pvseniors.org; 'Merryman, John' Subject: RPV Budget Workshop Dear Grant Recipient — Following up on my March 23rd email, I just wanted to confirm that the City Council will be conducting a Budget Workshop on Saturday, May 22nd from 7:00 AM to 12:OOPM at Hesse Park. The agenda and staff report regarding the Draft FY10-11 City Budget is attached for your information. Staff is presenting a balanced FY10-11 Budget for the Council's consideration which includes funding all of your organizations at the same level as last fiscal year. However, the City Council still has the ability to remove or add items to the budget at its discretion. Your attendance at the workshop is not required, but you are of course free to make your own determination on whether to attend and/or provide written correspondence. Final adoption of the FY10-11 Budget, based on the direction received on the 22"d, is expected to take place on Tuesday, June15, 2010, during a regular Council meeting. Please send me a reply email confirming that you have received this message. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, aarveymm Carolynn Petru Deputy City Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes From: Tina Harris [tina@sbchc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 6:25 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Budget Workshop 5/22/10 Dear City Council Members, I am the Executive Director at South Bay Children's Health Center and our agency was granted $10,000 from the City Rancho Palos Verdes for the FY2009-2010. Ms. Petru contacted me about the RPV's Budget Workshop this Saturday morning. I regret that I cannot attend this workshop, as I am hosting my son and daughter-in-law's Baby Shower on Saturday. I am however, very interested in the RVP's FY2010-2011 Budget and the prospect of the city again granting the South Bay Children's Health Center $10,000 to be used for mental health service to residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. When I spoke before the City Council last year, I mentioned the fact that the other PV cities were experiencing budget deficits. The forthcoming FY doesn't look much better for these cities and I believe it is safe to assume that we will not be receiving a grant from them. The PVUSD budget is even worst. Currently, we are providing 2 therapeutic groups at Ridgecrest Middle School and 2 therapeutic groups at Miraleste Middle School (Robert Babb, MFT facilitator). We also provide a therapist (Carol Wood, MFT facilitator) at Rancho Del Mar Continuation School one full day a week. Ms. Woods has two groups, provides individual and crisis counseling on campus. It is not surprising that there is a demand for additional services . In addition, the RPV grant provides individual counseling services to youth, adults and couples counseling. The South Bay Children's Health Center hopes that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will again consider a grant to our agency providing the funding to continue on -campus mental health services as well as individual mental health services at a therapist's professional office. Again, I apologize for not being available for the important Budget Workshop on Saturday. However, I will be available for questions Monday through Friday following the workshop. Sincerely, Christina J. (Tina) Harris Executive Director South Bay Children's Health Center 410 Camino Real Redondo Beach, CA 90277 310-316-1212 310-316-4411 (FAX) tins sbchc.com website: www.sbchc.com 5/21/2010 This entail transmission may contain Protected Health Information (PHI) or other infor•matiorz that is privileged and confidential. It is, intended only,fbr the use of the authorized recipient gfthis information is, prohibited front disclosing the information to any other party. If you are not the intended recipient, pleme be alvare that the copying, dissemination, or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please nolify the sender immediately and confidentially destroy information that was sent. 2a�2 5/21/2010 From: Tom Rippo [tlrippo@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 12:22 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Reach Program Dear RPV City Council, My name is Tom Rippo and I have been a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes for 23 years. I am writing to ask for your flexibility in keeping the Reach program active in our community. My sister, Katy Rippo, who is mentally retarded and autistic, has participated in Reach for 18 years. She is 29 now and continues to gain invaluable social skills during Reach activities. As mentally challenged children reach adulthood, the number of social programs available to them shrinks dramatically. Reach is one of very few programs that offers these individuals a chance to grow, socialize, and have fun with those who share their challenges. Mona Dill, Recreational Supervisor, has run the program with a singular focus on it's participants and I can wholeheartedly say that her work has made a real difference in my sister's life and the lives of all Reach participants. Please be flexible and generous in giving this program the opportunity it deserves to continue. The families of Reach participants are eager to explore any possibilities available to keep this valuable program alive. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Kind regards, Tom Rippo From: Kit Fox [kitfox62@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 3:32 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Agenda Item 4 - Draft FY10-11 Budget and Employee Compensation Dear Mayor Wolowicz and Members of the City Council: I am not able to attend the budget workshop on Saturday, May 22nd, but I wanted to make a few comments regarding employee compensation in the FY10-11 budget. First off, I very much appreciate the actions that the City Council took last year to preserve our 3.5% merit pool and 1.5% employee bonus pool. These actions demonstrated the City Council's commitment to acknowledging the fine and valuable work of City Staff, particularly in these challenging times. I especially appreciate that the City Council endorsed an "outside the box" solution like our "pay in lieu of salary increase" (PILSI) merit system for FY09-10. For employees like me who are at the top of their salary ranges, it meant the prospect of a meaningful, merit -based pay increase --albeit temporary --for the first time in many years. There are several budget "menu" items for your consideration today related to employee compensation that I would like to briefly address: Item 1. Making the FY09-10 PILSI payments permanent: As you are aware, employees' PERS pensions are based upon their highest annual salary. Making this past year's PILSI a part of employees' base salary in FY10-11 will mean that a year's worth of earnings will not be "lost" when it comes time to retire. Item 2. Reset salary ranges to 75th percentile: As an organization, we are finally at a point where nearly all departments are fully staffed. However, we need to remain competitive with other similar cities in the area. I hope that you will adopt the adjusted salary ranges identified in the new salary survey. Item 3. 1.9% COLA: Last year saw no COLA due to the downtown in the economy. As things have begun to look brighter in the past few months, I hope that you will consider this nominal increase. Item 4. 1.6% merit pool: Proposed at less than one-half of last year's merit pool, I believe that this is a very modest proposal that will allow outstanding City Staff to be acknowledged financially for their achievements. Item 7. 1.5% employee bonus pool: This long-standing bonus program allows employees' achievements to be acknowledged by their peers, not just their supervisors. Item S. City contribution to Retirement Health Savings accounts: I very much appreciate the generosity of the City's contribution to this important post-retirement benefit. I also appreciate that I am able to control my investments and assume responsibility for my personal financial future. In addition to the items listed above, I'd also like you to know that I appreciate that the City continues to contribute most of the employees' share of PERS premiums. Also, I was one of the long-time "hold outs" against the Health Savings Accounts, but I finally "gave in" this past year and have been very happy with my coverage and the ease of use of the program. I understand that, economically, we are far from being out of the woods yet. Many other cities in the South Bay are in far worse shape than we are, and their employees are facing much more dire situations than we find ourselves in. I think it is a testament to the prudent financial management of this and previous City Councils that we are doing as well in this economy as we are. As such, I encourage you to support the modest proposals to maintain and improve employee compensation that are included in the draft FY10-11 budget. Thank you very much for your consideration of my concerns and comments. 5/21/2010 1 0r" ?_ Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICP Associate Planner Community Development Department 14 -Year RPV Employee Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how. 5/21/2010 O LAk -, � RANCHO PALOSVERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: MAY 20, 2010 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Thursday afternoon for the Saturday, May 22, 2010 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material Revised Pages 1 through 3 of the Staff Report 4 Staff correspondence REACH Program/Participants; FY 10-11 Budget Workshop Menu Council Worksheet; Email from Patricia Warhol Respectfully submitted, C[TYOF MEMORANDUM !IWCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CAROLYNN PETRU, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER DATE: MAY 22, 2010 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT 2010 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEWED BY: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER Project Manager: Sara Singer, Senior Administrative Analys`& RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive and file the draft of 5 -Year Capital Improvement Plan. 2. Provide direction regarding the proposed 5 -Year CIP schedule. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed 2010 Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (Cl P) has not been significantly changed from the plan which was presented to the City Council during the Mid -Year Review on March2, 2010. New projects include two new median projects along Hawthorne Blvd. to be constructed in FY12-13 and FY14-15 and the continuation of the Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program in FYI 4-15. The Draft FYI 0-11 Five -Year CIP Schedule has been integrated into the Draft 2010 Five -Year Financial Model. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a guide for the efficient and effective provision of resources for improving and maintaining public infrastructure and facilities. Programming capital facilities and improvements over time can promote better use of the City's limited 17M REVIEW OF DRAFT 2010 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN May 22, 2010 Page 2 financial resources, reduce costs and assist in the coordination of public and private development. Based on the guidelines of the framework and those set forth by the City Council, Staff developed an inventory of capital projects. This inventory was compiled through a comprehensive review of existing reports, infrastructure plans, community input and City Council direction. Some of these plans include the following: the Pavement Management System, Vision Plan, Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, Public Use Master Plan, Trails Network Plan, Storm Drain Master Plan and the General Plan. During the FY09-10 budget process, a Five -Year CIP was developed and adopted by the City Council. The proposed FYI 0-11 Five -Year Plan (Attachment A) is an update of the FY09-10 plan, with some modifications to existing projects and the addition of some new projects. Projects which were budgeted for FY09-10 are shown in the Five -Year Cl P FY09-10 Project Status Report (Attachment B). The Draft FYI 0-11 Five -Year CIP Schedule (Attachment C) has been integrated into the Draft 2010 Five -Year Financial Model that will be presented to the Council during the May 22nd Budget Workshop. As required by law, the Planning Commission will review the CIP at their meeting on May 11, 2010, to determine whether or not the proposed projects are consistent with the goals and policies in the General Plan. The results of the Planning Commission review will be presented at the May 22nd Budget Workshop. The purpose of this presentation is to provide the City Council with an overview of projects which have been proposed for the Five -Year CIP, to present any changes that are being proposed and to receive input and further direction from the Council on these projects. The updated Five -Year Plan (Attachment C) shows the addition of projects in future,years, including the construction of Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park. At the November 17, 2009 City Council meeting, the Council directed Staff to retain a consultant to develop conceptual designs for these City parks. The development of the conceptual designs is funded in the FY09-10 Budget, and the construction of these parks is being proposed for FYI 0-11. Staff proposes using several funding sources, which include TOT revenue, and grant funding to fund the construction of these two parks. A preliminary estimate for the construction of Grandview Park and Lower Hesse Park is approximately $2 million. In addition to this new project, the Fred J. Hesse Park Field Upgrade Phase I and Il has also been added to the updated Five -Year Plan for FYI 0-11. Phase I of this project was included in the FY09-10 budget forthe amount of $146,300 to rehabilitate the existing ball field. The City's grant consultant has identified a promising funding opportunity (Baseball Tomorrow Grant) to upgrade the existing field as well as construct the second field planned forthis location. Therefore, the funding for Phase I was shifted to improve and upgrade the field at Robert E. Ryan Park in FY09-10. Preliminary estimates for Fred J. Hesse Park Field Upgrade Phase I and I I show that construction of these fields will cost approximately $500,000. Staff proposes to use TOT revenue and grant funding to fund the construction of this project. Other projects added to the update Five -Year Plan include two new median projects along Hawthorne Blvd. to be constructed in FY12-13 and FY14-15 and the continuation of the Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program in FYI 4-15. 1-2 REVIEW OF DRAFT 2010 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT .PLAN May 22, 2010 Page 3 Additional needs have also been identified by Staff, the City Council or the public, and have been added to the Unfunded Projects list (Attachment D). These needs have resulted in the following additional projects: 1) Operational Improvements at the Intersection of Crenshaw & Crest; 2) Hesse Park/Hawthorne Blvd. Traffic Circulation and Safety Study; 3) Improvements at the Intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE) & Bronco Drive; 4) Traffic Safety Improvements on the Switchbacks; and, 5) Lower Point Vicente Park Access Modification Project. The Operational Improvements at the Crenshaw & Crest project was identified through parking issues resulting from activity at St. John Fisher Church. The Hesse Park/Hawthorne Blvd. Traffic Circulation and Safety Studywas identified through the public outreach process for the Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design process. The Bronco Drive and Switchback traffic safety projects on PVDE were introduced to the City Council at the January 23, 2010 Tactical Planning Workshop. These projects were two of nine traffic safety projects resulting from the Palos Verdes Drive East Preliminary Study Report and have been included on the unfunded project list. Some of the projects resulting from the PVDE Preliminary Study Report do not meet the $100,000 threshold required to be included in the CIP; therefore, these smaller projects will be considered for inclusion in the Public Works program budget. The Lower Point Vicente Park Access Modification Project was added to address existing conditions at the entrance to the property which have not been modified since the property was first opened for public use. Other changes have been made to the Unfunded Projects list such as revisions to some cost ranges due to the availability of new information about the projects and refined scopes of work. Other projects have been moved from the Unfunded Projects list to the Five -Year CIP funded plan. The Hawthorne Blvd. Runaway Truck System was removed from the Unfunded Projects list because additional research was completed by the Public Works Department and this project as previously described is not feasible at this time. More research would be required to determine a feasible project and cost range estimate. Projects have been included in the draft Rancho Palos Verdes Five -Year CIP (Attachment A) based on needs that have been identified through planning documents and known available resources. Although the draft of the Five -Year CIP includes capital projects consistent with prior years (i.e. Storm drain projects, residential and arterial roadway projects and minimal projects for recreation facilities), other projects may be included in the schedule if additional revenue is identified. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Five -Year CIP Attachment B: Five -Year CIP FY09-10 Project Status Report Attachment C: Five -Year CIP Schedule Attachment D: Unfunded Project List 1-3 May 17, 2010 Dear REACH participants, families and friends, The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, like many cities in California, continues to be challenged with economic constraints. As you may know, the REACH program has been significantly subsidized by the City's general fund for many years --in other words, the program fees and grants fall far short of covering the program costs. In fact, CDBG funding has been shrinking over the past few years as well. Last year, the Council decided to reduce the subsidy by approximately 30%. As we prepare for the upcoming fiscal year budget, we have been asked by the City Council to recommend priorities and cost savings opportunities in order to achieve a balanced budget. As a result, City staff will be recommending a number of services and expenses to be reduced or eliminated—one of which will be that the REACH program be reduced or re -structured to become cost neutral to the City. If the Council accepts this recommendation, I anticipate that staff will work in conjunction with participants and their families to re -align services and fees to resolve the current shortfall. Your comments and feedback are welcome. You may send your comments via email at ccCa)-rpv.com or you may attend the budget workshop. The budget workshop is scheduled for: Saturday, May 22, 7:00 a.m.-noon. Hesse Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes CA Please note that we do not anticipate discussion about REACH to begin before 8:OOa.m. The fiscal year 2010-2011 budget is scheduled to be adopted on Tuesday, June 15 at the City Council Meeting. I appreciate your concerns, and feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5335 or by email at tomo@rpv.com or, you may contact Mona Dill at (310) 544-5266 or by email at monad@rpv.com. Best regards, Tom Odom Interim Director, Recreation and Parks City of Rancho Palos Verdes Attachment B t' •' General Fund Reserves 10,594,554 4,550,067 15,144,621 Policy Threshold (50% of Expenditures) BudgetExcess General Fund Reserves Baseline # 8,927,636 1,666,918 Revenues a Expenditures 8,026,125 7,118,496 Transfers Net 09 0. .- Items included in Staffs Proposed Budget: Lock -in FY09-10 payments in lieu of salary increases 1 (97,000) Set Salary Ranges at 75th Percentile of Survey Results 2 (20,000) Cost of Living Allowance (1.9%) 3 (83,000) Employee Salaries, Merit Increase (1.6%) 4 (54,000) Administrative Interns (increase of hours) 5 (82,200) Part -Time Wages - New 6 (33,960) Employee Bonus Pool (1.5%) 7 (83,100) Contributions to Employee Retirement Healthcare Accounts 8 (78,300) Charter City proposal (consulting & public information) 9 (50,000) Organizational Development 10 (20,000) City Newsletter 11 (11,000) Community Leaders' Breakfasts 12 (4,200) Holiday Reception 13 (8,300) Proclamations, Tiles & Pins 14 (6,500) Grants to Non -Profit Organizations 15 (53,500) RPV TV 16 (85,000) Sheriff Regional Traffic Control (RPV 60% Share) 17 (145,367) Sheriff Dedicated Traffic Control 18 (242,278) Sheriff Regional CORE Deputies (RPV 60% share of 2) 19 (184,816) Park Ranger Program 20 (115,000 Emergency Preparedness Committee 21 (6,700) Emergency Preparedness Newsletter 22 (10,000) Park Site Hours (Ladera Linda closed Sunday, Ryan Park closed Tuesday, PVIC closed Monday) 23 (15,200) Fourth of July Celebration 24 5,350 (28,800 Whale of a Day Celebration 25 (11,800) Consultant Traffic Engineer (use qualified traffic engineers on staff) 26 (10,000) Traffic Safety Commission (staff support overtime) 27 (9,120) Speed Radar Trailer Program 28 (5,600) Oversized Vehicle & Neigborhood Parking Permit Programs 29 12,000 (33,200) Building & Safety Technical Consultant 30 (10,000) Code Enforcement 31 (203,000) Backfill Transit Funding (due to declining Proposition A revenue) 32 (60,000) Pedestrian Improvements on Hawthorne Blvd (City 20% match) 33 (228, 320) Lower Hesse/Grandview park improvement projects 34 (2,000,000) Hesse Park Ball Field Upgrade (project cost $500K, with $40K of EET funding) 35 (460,000) Subregion 1 Trail Repair 36 (10,000) Items NOT included in Staffs Proposed Budget: Recreation & Parks Director (salary & benefits) 37 (182,573) Sheriff CORE Program - Third Deputy Position 38 (154,013) Emergency Supplies for Residents 39 (10,000) Peafowl Trapping Program 40 (15,000) Traffic Safety Commission Comprehensive Minutes 41 (14,000) Los Angeles Storm Water Quality Partnership 42 (27,500) Planning Commission Stipend Increase 43 (12,600) REACH Recreation Program 44 9,200 (47,390) 26,848 BudgetDraft FYI 0-11 0• 0,0. IM From: Pbwarhol@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:54 PM To: CC@RPV.COM Subject: THE REACH PROGRAM I am trying to grasp how you all, as a group, could even consider canceling RPV's REACH program. This is not like other programs which, being canceled, might disappoint some people or inconvenience some people. REACH provides a real life to people who, without it, would have NO social life. Canceling it would not be just unfortunate or inconvenient; that's for other people who have the ability to function socially on their own. It would be tragic! Cancel more road repairs. Cancel improving horse trails. Cancel Mommy and Me programs --these things can be worked around. People can find alternatives. There are no alternatives for REACH members. No alternatives except staying home and feeling lonely and left out while life just passes them by. They can't drive to each other's houses or hang out with their friends like other people can. You have to understand this: REACH provides the lonely with companions and friends! It gives them interesting and fun and sometimes even exciting places to go and things to do. Without it there is only loneliness and isolation. The REACH program is a brilliant undertaking and RPV can be rightfully proud of sponsoring such a valuable program. Do not give it up. Our daughter Susan has been active in the REACH program for nearly thirty years. What would she do without it? I can't even bear to think about it. You must find the funding somewhere. You must figure out a way to keep the REACH program going. Whatever else has to be cut from the budget, do not cut the REACH program. Patricia Warhol 32228 Searaven Drive RPF 90275 310-541-3421 pbwarhol(a)-aol.com 5/18/2010 t