Table of Contents Item 1- Minutes 5-1-2017 10 Item 2- 6_19_2017 List of Demands.pdf 18 Item 4- CEC Grant - Staff Report Final.pdf 32 Item 5- Sheriff's Contract - June 2017 - Full Packet.pdf 57 Item 6- Parking LCPA Second Reading.pdf 108 Item 7- CityHallTechConsultant.pdf 115 Item 8- City Engineer Contract Amendment-StfRpt 6-19-2017.pdf 135 Item 9- DMVA Contract for Destination Marketing.pdf 139 Item 10- DMCC Contract for Housing Admin.pdf 157 Item 11- Specific Plan Processing Policy.pdf 176 Item 12- Del Mar Resort Specific Plan Authorization.pdf 187 Item 13- City Hall - Project Status Update - 6-13-17.pdf 195 Item 15- Puppy Mill Ordinance.pdf 203 Item 16- League Delegate Designation (Jones)6-13-2017.pdf 231 Item 17- Final Report FY 17-18 and FY 18-19 Operating-Capital Budget.pdf 237 Item 18- STR Report w Attachments.pdf 322 Item 19- Del Mar Police Department Report.pdf 343 Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda City of Del Mar, City Council Chambers 2010 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Suite 100, Del Mar, California
Civility Works: The Del Mar Code of Civil Discourse: Together we will promote inclusion; listen to understand; show respect; be clear and fair; and focus on the issue.
Terry Sinnott Regular Meeting Mayor EARLY START TIME Monday, June 19, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. Dwight Worden It is the intention of your City Council to be receptive to your Deputy Mayor concerns about your community. Your participation in local government will assure a responsible and efficient City of Del Mar.
Dave Druker Regular Meetings of the City Council are held on the first and third Council Member Mondays of the month beginning at 6:00 p.m. Council meetings are occasionally held on the second Mondays and/or special meetings called. For further information regarding the scheduling of meetings Ellie Haviland or meeting agendas, check the City’s website at Council Member www.delmar.ca.us, or call the Administrative Services Department at (858) 755-9313. Any electronic presentations must be received Sherryl Parks before 9 a.m. on the date of the Council meeting. No PowerPoint presentations can be loaded during the meeting. Council Member You may sign up on the City’s website for email notifications of Scott W. Huth public meetings. A full City Council agenda packet with all backup City Manager information is available at City Hall, the Del Mar Library, and on the City’s web site the Friday before each Council meeting. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after Leslie E. Devaney distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection City Attorney at City Hall at 2010 Jimmy Durante Blvd. during normal business hours and are posted online as “Red Dots.”
Ashley Jones Consent Calendar: Items on the Consent Calendar will be enacted Administrative Services in accordance with the recommendations in one motion unless Director removed from the Consent Calendar by Council, staff, or a member of the public. If you wish to remove an item from the Consent Calendar, please submit a “Speaker Slip” to the City Clerk prior to Kathleen A. Garcia the meeting. Removed items will be considered after the motion to Planning and Community approve the Consent Calendar. Development Director How to Speak at a Council Meeting: Anyone may address the City Council for up to three minutes, at the Mayor’s discretion, on items on the Agenda. Please submit a “Speakers Slip” to the City Clerk prior to the Mayor announcing the agenda item. The forms are located near the door at the rear of the Meeting Room. The Agenda item number being addressed should appear on the speaker slip. The Mayor will call you forward at the appropriate time. To speak on a City-related concern that is NOT on the Agenda, please complete a “Speaker Slip” and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the beginning of the meeting. You will be called forward during the ORAL COMMUNICATIONS portion of the agenda.
When addressing the Council, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Each speaker will have up to three minutes to speak at the discretion of the Mayor. Whenever possible, lengthy testimony should be presented to the Council in writing and only pertinent points presented orally. Agenda items MAY be addressed in any order at the discretion of the Mayor. Special Needs: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Administrative Services Department at 2010 Jimmy Durante Blvd., or by calling (858) 755-9313. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
As a courtesy to all meeting attendees, please set cellular phones to silent mode and engage in conversations outside the Council Chambers.
2010 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting June 19, 2017 Agenda Page 2
I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Each person wishing to speak before the City Council on any matter shall submit a “Speaker Slip” to the City Clerk. When the Mayor recognizes you, please come forward and state your name and address. Each speaker will have up to three (3) minutes to speak at the discretion of the Mayor and you may be asked clarifying questions about your issue. Your information may be received, placed on a future agenda, or referred to the City Manager by the City Council. State law generally precludes the City Council from discussing or acting upon any topic presented during oral communications that is not described on the posted agenda. NOTE: THERE IS A TIME LIMIT OF 30 MINUTES FOR THIS SECTION OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AND EACH SPEAKER WILL BE HEARD IN THE ORDER OF THE SUBMISSION OF THEIR SPEAKER SLIP. SPEAKERS WHO HAVE TURNED IN A SPEAKER SLIP PRIOR TO THE TIME ORAL COMMUNICATIONS WAS CALLED ON THE AGENDA, BUT WERE NOT HEARD DURING THE INITIAL TIME PERIOD SHALL BE CALLED TO SPEAK AT THE END OF THE AGENDA.
IV. GOVERNING BODY ACTIONS AND COMMENTS
V. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
VI. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the City Council or the public so requests, in which event, the item will be considered separately at the end of the agenda.
1. Approval of Minutes: May 1, 2017 Regular Meeting
Recommended Action: Approve Minutes.
Reference: Clerk’s Minutes Book
2. Ratification of List of Demands, dated June 19, 2017
Recommended Action: Ratify the List of Demands.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 201-3
3. Waiver of Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
Recommended Action: Waive Reading of Ordinances. Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-4
2010 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting June 19, 2017 Agenda Page 3
4. Authorization to Accept Award of California Energy Commission Grant for Civic Center Energy Enhancements
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to accept grant funding from the California Energy Commission in the amount of $388,893 in response to the awarding of the Local Government Challenge solicitation (GFO-16-404) and execute a subcontract with the Center for Sustainable Energy in a not-to-exceed amount of $94,700, for Civic Center Energy Efficiency Enhancements.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1403-4; 201-13
5. Resolution Authorizing Approval of a Five-Year Agreement Among the City of Del Mar, the County of San Diego, and the San Diego County Sheriff for General and Specialized Law Enforcement and Traffic Services
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution authorizing approval of a five-year agreement with the County of San Diego and the San Diego County Sheriff for General and Specialized Law Enforcement and Traffic Services.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1; 1503-19
6. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance for Zone Code Amendment ZA15-001/Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA15-001 to Amend Prospective Parking Ordinance No. 924 Pursuant to Coastal Commission Action May 11, 2017
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council adopt the Ordinance to formally accept the Coastal Commission’s required modifications for final certification.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 905-3
7. Authorization to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement for Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services with PlanNet for the new City Hall/Town Hall
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement with PlanNet for Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services for the new City Hall/Town Hall for a not to exceed amount of $43,950
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1
2010 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting June 19, 2017 Agenda Page 4
8. Engineering Services Contract Amendment with Michael Baker International
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Michael Baker International to provide Engineering Services through June 30, 2019, for a not-to- exceed amount of $540,000 per year. The amendment does not require any changes to the recommended Fiscal Year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1
9. Agreement with the Del Mar Village Association for Marketing Services
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Del Mar Village Association to promote Del Mar as a visitor destination.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1; 1202-16
10. Authorization to Renew a Two-Year Agreement with Del Mar Community Connections for Administration of the City’s Shared Housing and Rental Assistance Programs
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a proposed two- year agreement with Del Mar Community Connections (DMCC) for the period of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1; 1202-16
11. Establishment of a City Council Policy Regarding the Processing of Specific Plans
Recommended Action: Adopt the proposed resolution amending the City Council Policy Book by establishing a Council policy for the processing of Specific Plan applications and associated project entitlements within the City of Del Mar.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 101-2; 301-6
12. Authorization of the Specific Plan Process for the Proposed Del Mar Resort Project
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution, authorizing the Specific Plan process and its extended community outreach process for the Del Mar Resort project.
2010 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting June 19, 2017 Agenda Page 5
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 301-6
13. Status Report/ Direction on the City Hall/Town Hall Project
This is a standing item for the Council Subcommittees for the City Hall/Town Hall Project and staff to provide updates, status reports, or other information on the Project for City Council discussion and direction. City Council Subcommittee Assignments for the City Hall/Town Hall Project
Subcommittees Council Assignments Design/Construction Plan Changes Al Corti (Council Appointed)/ Sherryl Parks Cost and Financing Terry Sinnott/Finance Committee Sustainability Features* Dwight Worden Community Outreach/Neighbor Relations Sherryl Parks/ Dwight Worden * selection process for solar panels, chargers for electric bikes and vehicles
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 307-7
14. Guidelines for Use of the Community Room at the L’Auberge Hotel
Recommended Action: Consider adoption of the Guidelines for Use of the Community Room at the L’Auberge Hotel per the Specific Plan (Attachment A), including the associated Application For Use Of Community Meeting Room At L’auberge Hotel (Attachment B) and the recommended approach for coordinating scheduling and prioritizing requests for use of this benefit.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1
VIII. CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS
15. Proposed Regulation of the Sale of Dogs, Cats, and Rabbits in Del Mar
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council discuss and direct staff to work with the City Attorney to finalize an ordinance for City Council consideration regulating the sale of dogs, cats, and rabbits in the City of Del Mar.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-9
2010 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting June 19, 2017 Agenda Page 6
16. Designation of Voting Delegate and Voting Delegate Alternate(s) to the League of California Cities 2017 Annual Conference
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council appoint a voting delegate to represent the City of Del Mar at the League of California Cities 2017 Annual Conference in Sacramento, California.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1506-2
17. Resolution Adopting the Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget and City Council Priorities and Amending the Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget; Resolution Adopting the Compensation Plans for the Management and Professional, General, Seasonal Employees, and Firefighters for Fiscal Years 2017-2018; Resolution Establishing the Fixed Charge Assessments for Bonded Indebtedness for Fiscal Year 2017-2018; Resolution Establishing the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2017-2018; and Resolution Approving the Statement of Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Recommended Action: Adopt the proposed resolutions.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 202-2
18. Policy Direction for the Regulation of Short Term Rentals (Part 1 of 2 – Scheduled Meetings)
Recommended Action: Staff requests that the City Council consider the options presented and provide policy direction for the development of a preferred ordinance for Short Term Rental (STR) establishments. Reference: Clerk’s File No. 301-19
19. Amendment to the Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report
Recommended Action: Accept the amended Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report and provide direction on next steps.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1506-2
IX. COUNCIL PRIORITIES- REPORTS
20. A Council member assigned as a Liaison to a Subcommittee or Regional Organization may make a written or oral report. State law precludes the Council from commenting on, discussing, or acting on a report, unless the item of business within the report is described in this agenda. A. 22nd District Agricultural Association - Community Relations Committee (Worden/Haviland)
2010 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting June 19, 2017 Agenda Page 7
B. Ad-Hoc Development Review Process Citizens’ Advisory Committee (Haviland/Worden) C. Ad-Hoc San Dieguito Double Track Project Committee (Druker) D. Business Support Advisory Committee (Druker/Parks) E. CSA-17 Ambulance District Advisory Board (Parks/Druker) F. Concerned Coastal Communities Coalition (Worden) G. Fairgrounds Master Plan/EIR Advisory Committee (Worden/Haviland) H. Finance Committee (Sinnott/Parks) I. Fire Services Subcommittee (Druker/Parks) J. Housing Element Advisory Committee (Worden/Parks) K. Human Resources Subcommittee (Haviland/Sinnott) L. LAFCO Cities Advisory Committee (Sinnott/Worden) M. League of California Cities – San Diego Chapter (Sinnott/Worden) N. Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee (Sinnott/Parks) O. North San Diego County Transit District Board (NCTD) (Druker/Worden) P. North County Transit District Railroad Right-of-Way Subcommittee (Druker/Sinnott) Q. Parks and Recreation Committee (Sinnott) R. Planning Process Subcommittee (Worden/Haviland) S. Regional Solid Waste Association (Sinnott/Parks) T. San Diego Association of Governments Board (Sinnott/Haviland/Druker) U. San Diego Association of Governments, Various Subcommittees (Worden/Sinnott) V. San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Commission (Parks/Minicilli) W. San Dieguito Lagoon Committee (Haviland) X. San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space JPA (Worden/Haviland) Y. Sea-Level Rise Stakeholder-Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) (Druker/Worden) Z. Segment #5 Camino Del Mar CIP Subcommittee (Druker/Parks) AA. Shores Advisory Committee (Parks/Sinnott) BB. Sustainability Advisory Board (Haviland) CC. Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee (Druker) DD. Other Committee-Subcommittee Report
X. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
The following topics/items are planned for upcoming agendas. Please watch our web site: www.delmar.ca.us for City Council Agendas. Final agendas are posted at City Hall 72 hours in advance of the meetings and are also posted on our web site with the accompanying report. Please note that the wording for topics listed below may change once the final agenda is published.
July 10, 2017 (Administrative Special Meeting) Law Enforcement Questions and Answers Voices for Children Presentation 2010 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting June 19, 2017 Agenda Page 8
Construction Contract Award Citywide Landscaping Improvements
XI. ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATION
I, Ashley Jones, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk for the City of Del Mar, hereby certify that a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall on the 13th day of June, 2017 at approximately 9:00 PM.
______6/13/2017___ Ashley Jones, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk Date
2010 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us
CITY OF DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 1, 2017 City Council Chambers 2010 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Suite 100, Del Mar, California
The minutes set forth the actions taken by the City Council on the matters stated. Audio/video recordings of the City Council proceedings are retained for a period of ten years, in accordance with the City's Records Retention Schedule. Audio/video recordings, as well as written materials presented to the City Council, including Red Dots (materials provided to the City Council after the agenda has published), are available on the City’s website at www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter or by contacting the Administrative Services Department at (858) 755-9313.
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Sinnott called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Sinnott, Deputy Mayor Dwight Worden, Council Members Dave Druker, Ellie Haviland and Sherryl Parks
Absent: None
Staff Members Present: City Manager Scott Huth, Assistant City Manager Kristen Crane, City Attorney Leslie Devaney, Management Analyst Sarah Krietor, Director of Community Development & Planning Kathy Garcia, Public Works Director Eric Minicilli
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Sinnott led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Greg Rothnem, 9th Street, Del Mar, explained that Moving Del Mar Forward (MFD) is a community group committed to capturing the voice of Del Mar residents on matters impacting the community. Mr. Rothnem reviewed the results of the MFD survey issued to 1,200 plus residents in March 2017. Mr. Rothnem provided a PowerPoint presentation and stated he would send the results of the survey to the Council for additional review.
Rose Ann Sharp, 834 Crest Road, Del Mar, invited the City Council and the community to the 20th anniversary of the Sandpiper, Del Mar’s community monthly newsletter. It will be held Sunday, May 7th at Powerhouse Park from 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. with dinner starting at 5:30 p.m.
Kristen Druker, 157 10th Street, Del Mar, stated she wished to draw attention to the blight of temporary storage units in the City of Del Mar. She specifically noted a storage unit has been in place for two to three years in front of Les Artistes hotel at the end of 10th Street. Ms. Druker stated her second item is a public safety issue at the construction site of the new City Hall. She reviewed an incident with large cement trucks and suggested a safety monitor be on site when large construction trucks are present with the goal of preventing accidents and the City being held liable.
1 June 19, 2017 Item 1 City Council Regular Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 2 of 8
GOVERNING BODY ACTIONS AND COMMENTS Deputy Mayor Worden stated he and Council Member Druker attend the second of the Sea-Level Rise Stakeholder-Technical Advisory Committee meetings and he will defer to Council Member Druker to provide the report.
Deputy Mayor Worden requested an agenda item be placed on the May 15th City Council’s agenda regarding the 22nd District Agricultural Association proposal to convert a portion of its Surfside Race Place to a concert venue. Council Member Haviland seconded Deputy Mayor Worden’s request.
Council Member Druker reported that at the Sea-Level Rise meeting on April 25, 2017, there was a presentation but the meeting was lightly attended.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Huth reported the following: • The City Council Budget Workshop will take play Friday, May 5th from noon to 5 p.m. and Saturday, May 6th from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. • On Saturday, May 6th, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., Zephyr Development will be holding its first public outreach meeting regarding the new beach hotel/resort to be located on the bluff top properties located at the northwest corner of Del Mar. The meeting will take place at 929 Boarder Avenue. There will be a required Citizens’ Participation Meeting which will take place on May 13th at the same location. • Bike to Work Day will take place on May 18th and the City and the Del Mar Village Association is hosting an official pit stop location at 1104 Camino Del Mar from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m.
Deputy Mayor Worden inquired about an update on summer plans for policing and managing traffic. Mr. Huth stated that item will be on the May 15th agenda.
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS Council Member Parks stated that in following up with the tent/barn that is going to be constructed for the Breeders’ Cup, she and Jan McMillan will going to the Del Mar Foundation and the School District to pitch the idea of using the tent/barn for fundraising activities.
CONSENT CALENDAR Management Analyst Krietor read the titles and recommendations of Items 1 through 8 on the Consent Calendar. Mayor Sinnott opened Items 1 through 8 to public comment. There being no speakers, Mayor Sinnott closed the items to public comment.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DRUKER SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR WORDEN TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 THROUGH 8. Ayes: Mayor Sinnott, Deputy Mayor Worden, Council Members Druker, Haviland and Parks Noes: None Absent: None
ITEM 1: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND SPECIAL MEETING, APRIL 3, 2017, (CLERK’S MINUTE BOOK)
ITEM 2: RATIFICATION OF LIST OF DEMANDS, DATED MAY 1, 2017 (CLERK’S FILE NO. 201-3)
2 June 19, 2017 Item 1 City Council Regular Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 3 of 8
ITEM 3: WAIVER OF READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-4)
ITEM 4: APPOINTMENT TO THE BUSINESS SUPPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-5)
ITEM 5: AUTHORIZATION FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM THROUGH A THREE-YEAR EXTENSION TO AN EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO ADMINISTER THE CDBG PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2018 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2021 (CLERK’S FILE NO. 201-13)
ITEM 6: DEL MAR FAIRGROUNDS 2008 MASTER PLAN REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 307-6; 1502-10)
ITEM 7: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY PLAN AND LITIGATION AGAINST THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1506-3)
ITEM 8: AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACT TO LESAR DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS TO PREPARE THE “22 IN 5” AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM PER RFP 2017-01 (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1)
COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE INTERVIEWS ITEM 9: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD INTERVIEWS AND APPOINTMENTS (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-5) City Manager Huth stated Staff is recommending that the City Council continue this Item to a later date in order to give Staff time to solicit additional interest. Mr. Huth stated there are currently two vacancies on the DRB and three Citizen Interest Forms were received before the deadline of April 7, 2017. Council Member Parks stated she would prefer to have more applicants. After discussion, Mayor Sinnott stated Item 9 would be continued to the May 15th City Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS ITEM 10: STATUS REPORT/DIRECTION OF THE CITY HALL/TOWN HALL PROJECT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 307-7) This is a standing item for the Council Subcommittees and staff to provide updates, status reports, or other information of the City Hall/Town Hall Project for City Council discussion and direction.
City Council Subcommittee Assignments for the City Hall/Town Hall Project:
Subcommittees Council Assignments Design/Construction Plan Changes Al Corti (Council Appointed)/ Sherryl Parks Cost and Financing Terry Sinnott/Finance Committee Sustainability Features* Dwight Worden Community Outreach/Neighbor Relations Sherryl Parks/ Dwight Worden
*Selection process for solar panels, chargers for electric bikes and vehicles Assistant City Manager Crane provided the City Hall/Town Hall Project update.
3 June 19, 2017 Item 1 City Council Regular Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 4 of 8
ITEM 11: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN PROPOSAL AND PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1401-8) Public Works Director Eric Minicilli introduced Michael Peltz, principal of MW Peltz & Associates and landscape architect for this project. Mr. Peltz provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the four project areas to be improved as well as the time-frame scheduling.
Deputy Mayor Worden inquired about the new parking spaces near the Brigantine and how to discourage people from crossing the median at that location. Mr. Peltz stated that succulent landscaping in the median can be utilized to funnel people to the proper crosswalks rather than crossing at the median.
Council Member Druker asked if the construction was finished on Court Street. Mr. Minicilli replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Sinnott opened Item 11 to public comment and the following person spoke:
John Gillies, 2136 San Dieguito Drive, Del Mar, stated he would like to see a tree i.e., Torrey Pine, in the landscaping of the traffic circles.
Mayor Sinnott closed Item 11 to public comment.
Mayor Sinnott noted all the work Mr. Peltz, Staff, and various committees have put into the development of the landscape improvement plan.
Council Member Parks stated she is curious about the monument in the triangle. Mayor Sinnott stated the Council has already approved the monument in the roundabout and this presentation just shows other design possibilities for a monument. Council Member Parks inquired if the Council would like to approve a monument in the triangle. Council Member Haviland stated that with the existing signage in the triangle area, the City monument signage would get “lost”. Mayor Sinnott concurred.
Deputy Mayor Worden stated he liked the consistency of theme and color palette and the idea of having a tree in the roundabout and he agreed with Mayor Sinnott in not making a profound landscaping statement in the triangle area.
Council Member Druker stated a tree in the roundabout is important and requested it be as lush as possible. He also stated the Court Street surrounding neighbors deserve attractive landscaping and that project needs to be done as quickly as possible.
Council Member Haviland stated she supports the tree in the roundabout but will leave the appropriate choice of tree for that location up to the professionals.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DRUKER, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PARKS THAT DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE DESIGN PROPOSAL AND PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (Vote 5-0) Ayes: Mayor Sinnott, Deputy Mayor Worden, Council Members Druker, Haviland and Parks Noes: None Absent: None
4 June 19, 2017 Item 1 City Council Regular Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 5 of 8
ITEM 12: SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN – INTRODUCTION OF THREE INITIAL SHARED- USE MASTER PLAN “BUBBLE DIAGRAM” CONCEPT DESIGNS AND REPORT ON NEXT STEPS FOR SEEKING COMMUNITY INPUT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 307-8) Council Member Druker recused himself from the dais on this item since his residence is within 500 feet of the proposed Plan.
Assistant City Manager Crane provided the staff presentation. Glen Schmidt from Schmidt Design Group provided a presentation on the three concept designs for the shared-use master plan concept.
Mayor Sinnott opened Item 12 to public comment and the following persons spoke:
Betty Wheeler, Seaview Avenue, Del Mar, provided a PowerPoint presentation to keep all six bubbles on the table for public review
Lynn Gaylord, 2820 Ocean Front, Del Mar, concurred with Ms. Wheeler.
Laura De Marco, Avenida Primavero, Del Mar, representing Friends of Del Mar Parks who raised $5 million towards the purchase of this property. Ms. De Marco stated this property was not to be a dog park but for the kids of Del Mar with more organized sports field space.
Bob Gans, 735 Hoska Drive, Del Mar, President of the Del Mar Foundation, reiterated need for dedicated indoor community space at the Shores.
Tom McGreal, 1135 Stratford Court, Del Mar, Board Member of Del Mar Community Connections, reviewed the need for dedicated office and programing space and the difficulty regarding the concept of shared specific spaces between organizations sharing the building.
Mayor Sinnott closed Item 12 to public comment.
After questions to staff and discussion Council requested to move forward with all six “bubble” design concepts
IT WAS MOVED BY DEPUTY MAYOR WORDEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HAVILAND THAT THE DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCEED TO SECURE COSTING OF ALL SIX “BUBBLE” DESIGNS FOR THE SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN INCLUDING 3-D ESTIMATES AND OPERATIONAL COSTS; TO MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE COMMUNITY VENTING PROCESS TOWARDS A WORKSHOP; AND, TO PROCEED WITH LEASE AND EXCHANGE SHARED USE REMEDIES. (Vote 4-0, Council Member Druker absent) Ayes: Mayor Sinnott, Deputy Mayor Worden, Council Members Haviland and Parks Noes: None Absent: Council Member Druker
Council reconvened after a 10 minute recess.
ITEM 13: RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT CITY COUNCIL APPEAL HEARING REGARDING: DETERMINATION ON INTERPRETATION APPLICATION NO.I17-001, AN INTERPRETATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE AN ALLOWED USE WITHIN THE CITY OF DEL MAR’S RESIDENTIAL ZONES PURSUANT TO DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE (DMMC) SECTION 30.01.020. (CLERK’S FILE NO. 301-19)
5 June 19, 2017 Item 1 City Council Regular Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 6 of 8
Mayor Sinnott explained how Items 13 and 14 may be addressed at the same time by public speakers
Director of Community Development & Planning Kathy Garcia, made the staff presentation
Mayor Sinnott opened Item 12 to public comment and the following persons spoke:
Debbie Church, 152 27th Street, Del Mar Jennifer McDowell, 1605 Forest Way, Del Mar Kimberly Jackson, 145 21st Street, Del Mar Gina Mattern, 2731 Camino del Mar, Del Mar Ivo Feierabend, 626 Zuui Drive, Del Mar Barbara McRoskey, 243 26th Street, Del Mar Tyneal Simon, 460 Camino del Mar, Del Mar Steve Scola, 113 Melanie Way, Del Mar Eric Charnholm, 1951 Ocean Front, Del Mar Don Instone, 1223 Crest Road, Del Mar Susan Feierabend, 146 24th Street, Del Mar Debroha Logarito, 130 21st Street, Del Mar Ralph DeMarco, 544 Avenida Primavera, Del Mar Laura DeMarco, 544 Avenida Primavera, Del Mar Abby Margarith, 701 Crest Road, Del Mar Terri Pavelko, 1661 Lunita Drive, Del Mar Sharon Friedbed 626 Zuni Drive, Del Mar
Speaker slips submitted but did not speak or donated time to other speakers: David Thomas, 136 22nd Street, Del Mar Kate Ditzler Tom Davis, 1820 Ocean Front, Del Mar Brian Church, 152 27th Street, Del Mar Steven McDowell, 1605 Forest Way, Del Mar Susan Instone, 1223 Crest Road, Del Mar Rich Logarito, 130 21st Street, Del Mar Don Slater Price, Grand Avenue Maryrose Mulvey, 105 Via de la Valle, Del Mar John Stanlie, 13780 Condesa, Del Mar Evangeline Gonzalez, 13780 Condesa, Del Mar Barbara Fletchar, 1808 Ocean Front, Del Mar Gala Yayla, 545 Rimini Road, Del Mar Jill Coughlin, 565 Van Dyke, Del Mar M. Johnson, 1333 Camino Terrace, Solana Beach Terry Gaasterland, 526 Stratford Court #C, Del Mar Robin Crabtree, 140 25th Street, Del Mar Ed Yuskiewicz, 18th Street and Coast, Del Mar
Mayor Sinnott closed Item 12 to public comment.
Council discussed the proposed resolution.
6 June 19, 2017 Item 1 City Council Regular Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 7 of 8
IT WAS MOVED BY DEPUTY MAYOR WORDEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DRUKER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2017-29 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, TO SUPPORT CITY COUNCIL APPEAL HEARING REGARDING: DETERMINATION ON INTERPRETATION APPLICATION NO.I17-001, AN INTERPRETATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE AN ALLOWED USE WITHIN THE CITY OF DEL MAR’S RESIDENTIAL ZONES PURSUANT TO DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE (DMMC) SECTION 30.01.020, PAST, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY A MAJORITY OF THE DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL WITH A VOTE OF 4-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF MAY, 2017. Ayes: Deputy Mayor Worden, Council Members Druker, Haviland and Parks Noes: Mayor Sinnott Absent: None
ITEM 14: DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL REGULATIONS, ALLOWANCES OR PERMITTING OF SOME TYPES OF SHORT TERM RENTALS (CLERK’S FILE NO. 301-19)
Director of Community Development & Planning Kathy Garcia, made the Staff presentation
Mayor Sinnott opened Item 14 to public comment and the following persons spoke: Ed Yuskiewicz, 18th Street and Coast, Del Mar Claire McGreal, Stratford Court, Del Mar Tom McGreal, Stratford Court, Del Mar Barbara Johanson, 255 25th Street, Del Mar David Doyle, 26th Street, Del Mar Jennifer McDowell, 1605 Forest Way, Del Mar Kimberly Jackson, 145 21st Street, Del Mar Laura DeMarco, 544 Avenida Primavera, Del Mar Susan Feierabend, 626 Zuni Drive, Del Mar Steph Scola, 115 Melanie Way, Del Mar
Speaker slips submitted but did not speak or donated time to other speakers: Robin Crabtree, 25th Street, Del Mar Bill Michalski, Drawer O, Del Mar Lynn Gaylord, Ocean Front, Del Mar Ira Sharp, Crest Road, Del Mar Betty Wheeler, Seaview, Del Mar Nancy Doyle, 26th Street, Del Mar Tyneal Simon, 460 Camino del Mar, Del Mar Donald Grimm, 1839 Zapo Street, Del Mar Kathy Grimm, 1839 Zapo Street, Del Mar Julie Maxey-Allion, 227 10 Street, Del Mar Doug Mulvey, 105 Via de la Valle, Del Mar
It was noted there were 37 Red Dots submitted; 30 in opposition to short-term rentals.
Mayor Sinnott closed Item 14 to public comment.
7 June 19, 2017 Item 1 City Council Regular Minutes May 1, 2017 Page 8 of 8
After discussion, Council Member Druker suggested continuing this item because of the need to discuss this matter more thoroughly before giving direction to Staff. Council concurred to continue this item to the scheduled Saturday, May 6th meeting.
IT WAS MOVED BY DEPUTY MAYOR WORDEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PARKS, TO CONTINUE ITEM 14 TO THE MAY 6, 2017 SPECIAL MEETING. Ayes: Mayor Sinnott, Deputy Mayor Worden, Council Members Druker, Haviland and Parks Noes: None Absent: None
ITEM 15: COUNCIL DIRECTION ON UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOPS (CLERK’S FILE NO. 202-1)
City Manager Huth reviewed the draft agenda for the upcoming budget workshops.
COUNCIL PRIORITIES – REPORTS Deputy Mayor Worden reported the League of California Cities is reenacting their Coastal Cities Coalition which includes all coastal cities in California and he will investigate and report back to the Council. Deputy Mayor Worden also stated at the last meeting of the Planning Process Subcommittee they had discussion and suggestions to Staff on the processing of Specific Plans.
Council Member Haviland reported that San Dieguito Lagoon Day will take place on May 20th starting at 8:30 a.m. with a Bird Walk. Family-oriented events will take place between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. Council Member Haviland also reported from the Del Mar Heights Board Meeting that the School History tour will be June 6, 2017.
ADJOURNMENT Mayor Sinnott adjourned the meeting at 11:32 p.m.
Ashley Jones, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk
8 June 19, 2017 Item 1 LIST OF DEMANDS
CITY OF DEL MAR for Gity Council Meeting June 19, 2017
Regular Vendor Payments (Attached) 6t2rt7,6t9117 $ 363,904.50 Voids 5t30117 (e,039.03) Wires and EFTs Federal & State Taxes 619117 38,234.65 PERS Retirement (EFT) 619117 40,292.70 PARS Retirement (EFT) 619117 2,173.27 ICMA - Deferred Comp (Wire) 6t9t17 10,112.03 Cafeteria Plan 619117 1,038.17 Total w
by: Approved by
T e Terry Sinnott of Finance/Treasurer Mayor
Date: Date 611212017
Attachments: Check Registers
1 June 19, 2017 Item 2 VoidCkEP Void Gheck Postinq List Page: I 05/30/17 2:56PM City of Del Mar
Document #: 604060 Void Date: 0513012017 Posting #: 1 8865 Group: judyl Gheck #: 119073 Bank code: gunion Gheck Date: 03124117 Vendor: sch69 SCHMIDT DESIGN GROUP INC Post into: 1112017 Check amount: 9,039.03 Doc Source Account Number Description Amount disb B 21.2110.0000 A/P-GENERAL 9,039.03 CR disb S* B 21 .1 1 00.0000 CASH AND INVESTMENT 9,039.03 DB disb S* B 72.1160.0000 UNION BANK - GENER 9,039.03 DB disb S" B 72.1100.0000 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 9,039.03 CR Balance Sheet Totals: 18,078.06 DB 18,078.06 CR Difference: 0.00
S" = Automatic Summary Page: 1 2 June 19, 2017 Item 2 apChkLst FinalGheck List Page:1 0610112017 12:34:50PM City of Del Mar
Bank: qunion GENERALACCOUNT UNION B¡
Gheck # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 119681 61212017 adt02 ADT SECURITY SERVICES 625219188 511812017 ALARM PHCC JUN/AUG 145.47 145.47 Voucher: 1 1 968l 119682 6t2t2017 adtO2 ADT SECURITY SERVICES 625325567 511912047 ALARM STE #22OAJUN 50.13 50.13 Voucher: 1 1 9682 119683 6t2t2017 agr03 AGRICULTURAL PEST CONTF423572 511812017 PEST CONTROL#1OO MAY 110.00 Voucher: 1 1 9683 423356 511112017 PEST CONTROL PHCC 70.00 180.00 119684 61212017 air01 AIRGAS USALLC 1645976 51912017 ATMOSPHERIC TESTER RPR 607.43 607.43 Voucher: 1 I 9684 1'19685 6t2t2017 sbc03 AT&T 9391031504 512012017 TELEPHONE MAY 341.08 341.08 Voucher: 1 1 9685 119686 6t2t2017 sbc03 AT&T 9391031500 512012017 TELEPHONE MAY 278.34 278.34 Voucher: 1 1 9686 119687 6t2t2017 sbc03 AT&T 9391054486 5t20t2017 TELEPHONE MAY 161.23 161.23 Voucher: 1 1 9687 119688 6t2t2017 sbc03 AT&T 9391026228 5t20t2017 TELEPHONE MAY 149.44 149.44 Voucher: 1 1 9688 119689 612t2017 sbc03 AT&T 9391031503 512012017 TELEPHONE MAY 117.41 117.41 Voucher: 1 1 9689 119690 6t2t2017 sbc03 AT&T 9391031502 512012017 TELEPHONE MAY 98.55 98.55 Voucher: 1 1 9690 119691 612t2017 sbc03 AT&T 9391031501 512012017 TELEPHONE MAY 98.55 98.55 Voucher: 1 1 9691 119692 6t2t2017 sbc03 AT&T 9391026229 512012017 TELEPHONE MAY 93.83 93.83 Voucher: 1 1 9692 119693 61212017 sbc03 AT&T 9391024005 5t20t2017 TELEPHONE MAY 82.12 82.12 Voucher: 1 I 9693 119694 612t2017 sbc03 AT&T 9391031507 5120t2017 TELEPHONE MAY 80.69 80.69 Voucher: 11 9694 119695 61212017 sbc03 AT&T 9391031506 512012017 TELEPHONE MAY 38.70 38.70 Voucher: 1 1 9695 119696 612t2017 sbc03 AT&T 9391026231 5t20t2017 TELEPHONE MAY 38.70 38.70 Voucher: 1 1 9696 119697 6t212017 sbc03 AT&T 9391031509 512012017 TELEPHONE MAY 22.18 22.18 Voucher: 1 1 9697
Page: I 3 June 19, 2017 Item 2 apChklst FinalCheck List Page:2 0610112017 12:34:50PM City of Del Mar
Bank: qunion GENERALACCOUNT UNION B¡ (Continued) Gheck # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Description Amount Paid Gheck Total 119698 6t2t2017 sbc03 AT&T 9391026230 512012017 TELEPHONE TVIAY 19.72 19.72 Voucher: 1 1 9698 119699 6t2t2017 sbc03 Aï&T 9391031510 5t13t2017 TELEPHONE IVIAY 18.37 18.37 Voucher: 119699 119700 6t2t2017 ban07 BANNERBANK #8 512512017 CH PROJ #8 RI=TENTION 57,059.14 57,059.14 Voucher: 119700 119701 6t2t2017 ban07 BANNERBANK #7 412412017 CH PROJ #7 RI=TENTION 52,750.53 52,750.53 Voucher: 119701 119702 6t2t2017 bis0l BJ'S RENTAL INC 773852-6 511012017 TOWER FRAME RNTL 202.35 202.35 Voucher: 119702 119703 6t2t2017 cal8l CALLTOWER tNC 7930000001705: 512512017 TELEPHONE NIAY 2,949.10 2,949.10 Voucher: I 1 9703 119704 6t2t2017 cofO1 COFFEE AMBASSADOR, INC. 716380 513012017 COFFEE CH 147.62 147.62 Voucher: 119704 119705 6t2t2017 cou34 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO lTDELMANGRC 51112017 NEXTGEN RCSì PYMT#1 46,500.83 46,500.83 Voucher: 1 1 9705 119706 6t2t2017 ste23 DAVID WALKER & WHITNEY 52017052601 512612017 WTR MTR UPCìRADE 2044 C( 2,576.63 2,576.63 Voucher: 1 1 9706 119707 612t2017 lee01 DCL ENTERPRISES INC DBA CTOOO9214O 5122t2017 RSTRM KEYS #I20 17.51 17.51 Voucher: 119707 119708 6t2t2017 del06 DEL MAR AUTOMOTIVE SERV3O396 512412017 VEH WIPER BLADES CS 42.60 42.60 Voucher: 1 1 9708 119709 6t2t2017 del02 DEL MAR BLUE PRINT CO, IN(418607 511812017 LNSCPING EN]IANCEMENT C 34.55 34.55 Voucher: 11 9709 119710 6t2t2017 del14 DEL MAR VILLAGE ASSOCIATIOI9 5131t2017 DMVAAGRMT¡\PR 18,798.41 18,798.41 Voucher: 119710 119711 6t2t2017 dia01 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SOOOl 067440 512212017 RENTAL 3OOO CDM JUN 978.98 Voucher: 119711 0001067439 512212017 RENTAL 29TH IST JUN 326.33 1,305.31 119712 612t2017 dixO1 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO. 06.0179558 511512017 PAINT SUPPLIES PW 82.21 Voucher: 119712 06-01 79568 511512017 LUMBER SUPF'LIES PW 46.73 06-01 80037 5117t2017 PAINT SUPPLIES PW 38.62 06-01 79780 5t16t2017 BATTERY SUPPLIES PW 30.13 06-0180078 5t17t2017 ST MARKING SUPPLIES 12.37 210.06 119713 61212017 duk01 DUDEK & ASSOCIATES 20172530 5t15t2017 FATS OIL GRE/\SEAPR 3,155.00 3,155.00 Voucher: 119713
Page:2 4 June 19, 2017 Item 2 apGhkLst FinalGheck List Page: 3 0610112017 12:34:50PM Gity of Del Mar
Bank: qunion GENERALACCOUNT UNION B¡ (Continued) Gheck # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Descriotion Amount Paid Check Total 119714 6t2t2017 ess02 ESGIL CORPORATION 5115-5121t17 5t22t2017 BLDG tNSpS/15-5t21t17 8,237.44 8,237.44 Voucher: 119714 119715 6t2t2017 goIO4 GOLDEN NEEDLE TAILOR 1 8973 512412017 PATCH CS 10.00 r 0.00 Voucher: 119715 119716 6t2t2017 har32 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 34343 514t2017 CITYWIDE WSTWTR EMERG 9,487.50 Voucher: 119716 34425 511112017 CITYWIDE WSTWTR EMERG 5,302.50 34429 511112017 WSTWTR INFRASTRTRAPR 2,820.00 17,610.00 119717 6t2t2017 lan09 LANSOLUTIONS LLC 88129 5117t2017 PROJ BLCK MIGRATION 1,500.00 Voucher: 119717 18132 512612017 MIGRATION TOOL FEE 1,190.00 2,690.00 119718 61212017 mma01 MMASC 05102017 5t10t2017 MBRSHP R BELD 85.00 85.00 Voucher: 119718 119719 6t2t2017 nor13 NORTH COUNTY DISPATCH JI201617-199 5I1BI2O17 DISPATCH PW Q4 311.10 311 .10 Voucher: 119719 119720 61212017 off05 OFFICETEAM 48436341 512412017 TEMP SRVCS WK5I19I17 1,067.60 Voucher: 119720 48408735 512212017 TEMP SRVCS WKSI'19117 1,067.60 48394285 511812017 TEMP SRVCS WK5I12I17 854.08 48359641 511512017 TEMP SRVCS WK5I12I17 427.O4 3,416.32 119721 61212017 ori03 ORIGINALWATERMEN INC. 42183 511112017 LFGRD UNIFORM SHORTS 123.86 123.86 Voucher: 119721 119722 612t2017 po110 PORTABLE STORAGE CORP 110354 512212017 STORAGE CS JUN 143.00 143.00 Voucher: 119722 119723 61212017 pru01 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPI13O747229 511912017 UNIFORMS PW 59.13 59.13 Voucher: 119723 119724 61212017 nesO1 READY REFRESH BY NESTLEO7EOO3398281O 512212017 WATER PW 170.65 170.65 Voucher: 119724 119725 61212017 recOl RECON ENVIRONMENTAL INC55681 511612017 ENV/HIST EVAL 119 IOTH 8,929.39 Voucher: 119725 55682 511612017 ENVASSMT 2928 SANDY#4 1,936.25 10,865.64 119726 61212017 uni03 SAN DIEGO - UNION TRIBUNE653466 511612017 SUBSCRIPTION CH 693.47 693.47 Voucher: 119726 119727 61212017 san03 SAN DIEGOCOUNTYWATER,OS262OIT-1 512612017 SDCWACAPACITYCHARGE 3,017.00 3,017.00 Voucher: 119727 119728 61212017 san03 SANDIEGOCOUNTYWATER,OS262O|T-2 512612017 SDCWACAPACITYCHARGE 3,017.00 3,017.00 Voucher: 119728 119729 61212017 sds01 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC42219840632 512312017 UTILITIESAPR 2,999.19 2,999.19 Voucher: 119729
Page: 3 5 June 19, 2017 Item 2 apGhkLst FinalCheck List Page: 4 0610112017 12:34:50PM Gity of Del Mar
Bank: qunion GENERALACCOUNT UNION B¡ (Continued) Gheck # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Descriotion Amount Paid Check Total 119730 61212017 sdq02 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 12620915489 5126t2017 UTILITIES MAY 62.57 62.57 Voucher: I I 9730 119731 61212017 san39 SANGIS/COUNTY OF SAN DIESAN578 s12412017 GIS REGIONAL.IMAGERY 478.19 478.19 Voucher: 119731 119732 61212017 sch69 SCHMIDT DESIGN GROUP IN(14-409.19 1t31t2017 SHORES MASI-ER PLAN JAN 5,797.78 Voucher: 119732 14-409.20 212812017 SHORES MASTER PLAN FEB 3,241.25 9,039.03 119733 61212017 shr01 SHRED-IT USA 8122341493 511512017 ON-SITE SHRE:DDING MAY 141.91 141.91 Voucher: 119733 119734 61212017 sis12 SIGNA DIGITAL SOLUTIONS INAR-S1 77671 512412017 CANON MAINT #120 MAY 323.78 323.78 Voucher: 119734 119735 6t2t2017 sms01 SMS SYSTEMS MAINT SRVCSgOO71461 51112017 EXT HRDWR V/ARRANTIES 2,199.96 2,199.96 Voucher: 119735 1'19736 6t2t2017 sol0'l SOLANA BEACH, CITY OF F17-62 512212017 PALOMAR TRAJNING SPRING 1,008.00 1,008.00 Voucher: 1 1 97s6 119737 61212017 sol06 SOLANACENTERFORENV OOOO2 6t13t2016 WASTE DIVERSION MAY FYlI 1,063.75 Voucher: 119737 4045-07-16 811512016 WASTE DIVERSION JUL 453.75 1,517.50 r19738 6t2t2017 sou02 SOUTHCOAST HEATING & 4IF989183 511912017 HVAC SRVCS ÍiHORES r 64.00 r 64.00 Voucher: 1 1 9738 119739 61212017 spa0l SPARKLETÏS 24543434256321 5t28t2017 WATER CH 277.45 277.45 Voucher: I 1 9739 119740 6t2t2017 spu01 SPURLOCK POIRTER 417039 4t30t2017 STREETSCAPE PROJ APR 3,532.25 3,532.25 Voucher: 119740 119741 61212017 tre07 TREDENT DATASYSTEMS IN(54947 511712017 ctsco MATNT'7 t1 t17 -3t25t18 252.O0 252.00 Voucher: 119741 119742 6t2t2017 ver03 vERlzoN WIRELESS 570653198-000C 511812017 TELEPHONE ]VIAY 152.04 152.04 Voucher: 119742 119743 6t2t2017 ver03 vERtzoN W|RELESS 542070053-000C 5t20t2017 TELEPHONEAPR il.46 54.46 Voucher: 119743
Sub totaf for GENERALACCOUNT UNION BANK: 261,023.52
Page:4 6 June 19, 2017 Item 2 apChkLst FinalCheck List Page: 5 0610112017 12:34:50PM Gity of Del Mar
63 checks in this report. Grand TotalAll Checks 261,023.52
Y, I't
Page:5 7 June 19, 2017 Item 2 apChklst FinalCheck List Page:1 0610812017 11:26:374M City of Del Mar
Bank: qunion GENERALACCOUNT UNION B¡ Check # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Descri Amount Paid Check Total 119744 6t9t2017 ace12 ACE UNIFORMS/UNIFORM SP71 949 512612017 PRKNG METAL NAME TAGS 210.34 210.34 Voucher: 119744 119745 6t9t2017 zep01 ACU ITY SPEC IALTY PROD U C] 9OO2B47 67 9 5130t2017 CLEANING SUPPLIES FIRE 792.64 792.64 Voucher: 119745 119746 6t9t2017 norl 9 BRUCE C PURDIE 211629 513012017 PHCC LANDSCAPING MAY 180.00 180.00 Voucher: 119746 119747 6t9t2017 com10 COMLINK LASERCARE 64774 512512017 TONER SUPPLIES 223.68 223.68 Voucher: 119747 119748 619t2017 corl 5 CORONADO MOBI LE STORAGO5312O17 513112017 STORAGE CONTRS JUN 255.00 255.00 Voucher: 119748 119749 61912017 cou16 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - RE(17CTOFDMC11 6t1t2017 RCS PAGING SRVCS MAY 70.00 70.00 Voucher: 119749 119750 619t2017 del76 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL 54751407 513112017 CANON FIN JUN 233.33 233.33 Voucher: 1 1 9750 119751 61912017 dixO1 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO. 06-0181150 512412017 PRKNG MAINT SUPPLIES 18.01 18.01 Voucher: 119751 119752 61912017 elc02 EL CAMINO RENTAL 525137-1 5115t2047 CEMENT MIXER RNTL 161.62 Voucher: 119752 525625-1 512312017 CEMENT MIXER RNTL 161.62 323.24 119753 61912017 esg02 ESG|L CORPORATTON 5t22-5t28t17 5t30t2017 BLDG INSP 5/22-5128117 11,575.73 Voucher: 1 1 9753 5129-6t4t17 61512017 BLDG INSP 5/29-614/17 883.54 12,459.27 119754 619t2017 lir12 FIRESTATS LLC DMR 17-2-3 31612017 FIRE STATS PROG 2O/3O 540,00 Voucher: 119754 DMR 17-4 61712017 FIRE STATS PROG 4Q 270.O0 810.00 'r19755 619t2017 fre15 FREDERICKSON, SHANA B 06012017 6l'U2017 REF DAMAGE DEP 5I3OI17 800.00 800.00 Voucher: 1 1 9755 1'19756 6t9t2017 frvOS FRYMOYER, DAVID 05312017 513112017 REF DAMAGE DEP 5128117 800.00 800.00 Voucher: 119756 119757 619t2017 atsO1 GARDA CL WEST LOCKBOX #I O3O73O4 61112017 ARMORED SRVCS JUN 391.20 391.20 Voucher: 119757 119758 6t9t2017 geo00 GEORGE & KROGH WELDING442O5 41312017 BOAT TRAILER REPAIR 1,199.14 1,199.14 Voucher: 11 9758 119759 6t9t2017 ips02 IPS GROUP INC 25498 5131t2017 PRKG PAPER ROLLS 187.05 187.05 Voucher: 1 1 9759 1'19760 6t9t2017 kar03 KAROLY, ELIZABETH A 06012017 6t1t2017 REF CANCELLED 91812017 525.00 525.00 Voucher: 1 1 9760
Page: 1 8 June 19, 2017 Item 2 apChklst FinalCheck List Page: 2 0610812017 11:26:374M Gity of Del Mar
Bank sunion GENERALACCOUNT UNION B¡ (Continued) Gheck # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Descriotion Amount Paid Check Total 119761 61912017 lalO1 LALLEY CONSTRUCTION SRVl 32 5t20t2017 ELECTR LFGFID HDQTRS 4,391.00 Voucher: 119761 133 5t2112017 ELECTR SAN IfIEGUITO PUM 432.00 131 41112017 ELECTR SRVCS PHCC 132.O0 4,955.00 119762 61912017 louO1 LOUKELTON DISTRIBUTING IT7O27O 5t22t2017 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES PW 1,165.32 Voucher: 119762 70294 5t25120't7 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES CS 209.57 70277 512212017 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES PW 113.95 1,488.84 119763 6t9t2017 mcr03 MCREYNOLDS, MAUREEN B 05302017 5t3012017 REF CANCELI.ED 1213117 600.00 600.00 Voucher: 1 1 9763
119764 6t9t2017 mic11 M I CHAEL BAKER I NTERNATI O 9791 41 512212017 CITY ENGINEERAPR 47,997.30 47,997.30 Voucher: 119764 119765 6t9t2017 offO3 OFFICE DEPOT 930724172001 512412017 OFFICE SUPPLIES CS 177.O3 Voucher: 1l 9765 930727406001 512412017 OFFICE SUPPLIES PL 112,51 930724420001 5124t2017 OFFICE SUPPLIES CS 98.73 930727648001 5t24t2017 OFFICE SUPPLIES PL 9.44 397.71 119766 6t9t2017 ostO5 OSTARI INC 170601 61112017 NTWRK SWITI3H CONFIG 1,500.00 1,500.00 Voucher: 1 1 9766 119767 6t9t2017 pac05 PACIFIC PIPELINE SUPPLY 314233 512212017 WTR MTR LIDS PW 428.11 428.11 Voucher: 119767 119768 6t9t2017 hon02 PIONEER LABELS INC 799149 512412017 PAY & DISPLA'/ RECEIPTS 249.46 249.46 Voucher: 1 1 9768 119769 6t9t2017 pru01 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPP 130748733 512612017 UNIFORMS PW 56.49 Voucher: 1 1 9769 130748731 5126t2017 FLOOR MATS PW 13.41 130748732 5t26t2017 SHOP TOWELS PW 3.72 73.62 119770 61912017 recO1 RECON ENVIRONMENTAL INC55737 512412017 ENVASSMT EA16-004 1,183.08
Voucher: 119770 55735 5t24t2017 ENV ASSMT E,A-1 6-OO7/SSP 1 I 336.65 1,519.73 119771 6t9t2017 red04 REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS RTSOOI 271 9 5t31t2017 REDLIGHT CAMERAMAY 4,732.53 4,732.53 Voucher: 119771 119772 61912017 sdg02 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 8173772988 5 61212017 UTILITIES MAI/ 7,079.48 Voucher: 119772 6653 9227667 61212017 UTILITIES MAI/ 529.27 6737 350 888 I 6t1t2017 UTILITIES MAI/ 171.27 4414 208 301 7 6t2t2017 UTILITIES MAI/ 36.14 5503 068 492 2 61212017 UTILITIES MA\/ 10.07 5711 089 098 1 61212017 UTILITIES MAIT 8.08 7,834.31 119773 61912017 san75 SAN DIEGO MAIN PI 2094 512012017 STANDARD BULK MAIL 225.00 225.00 Voucher: 119773
Page:2 9 June 19, 2017 Item 2 apChkLst FinalCheck List Page: 3 0610812017 11:26:37AM City of Del Mar
Bank: qunion GENERALACCOUNT UNION B¡ (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 119774 6t9t2017 sou14 scsT tNc 377516 313112017 JD ROUNDABOUT MAR 1,568.50 1,568.50 Voucher: 119774 119775 6t9t2017 she01 SHELL FLEET PLUS 065 379 786 5119t2017 GAS & OIL CS APRYMAY 973.49 973.49 Voucher: 119775 119776 6t9t2017 spa05 SPART, WILLIAM 05302017 5130t2017 REF DAMAGE DEP 5127117 800.00 800.00 Voucher: 119776 119777 6t9t2017 sta24 STATEWIDE TRAFFIC SFTY & 01002857 5t25t2017 CUSTOM ST SIGNS PW 95.06 95.06 Voucher: 119777 119778 6t9t2017 the23 THE LAWTON GROUP INC 52957 511912017 PW TNTERNS 5t8-5t14t17 417.15 417.15 Voucher: 119778 119779 6t9t2017 tim04 TIME WARNER CABLE 8448410060128f 512112017 FIBER CONNECTION CS JUN 1,097.30 1,097.30 Voucher: 119779 119780 6t9t2017 tim04 TIME WARNER CABLE 8448410060128I 512112017 FIBER CONNECTION FIRE JU 853.46 853.46 Voucher: 1 1 9780 119781 6t9t2017 tim04 TIME WARNER CABLE 844B410060144I 512412017 INTERNET/PEG FEES CH JUI' 834.55 834.55 Voucher: 119781 119782 6t9t2017 tim04 TIME WARNER CABLE 8448410060143I 512712017 CABLE #1OO JUN 248.39 248.39 Voucher: 119782 119783 6t9t2017 tim04 TIME WARNER CABLE 8448410060128I 512112017 CABLE/INTERNET PW JUN 136.82 136.82 Voucher: 1 1 9783 119784 6t9t2017 tim04 TIME WARNER CABLE 8448410060128f 512112017 CABLE TV CS JUN 77.73 77.73 Voucher: 119784 '119785 6t9t2017 uni25 UNITS MOBILE STORAGE OF 0222291 61512017 STORAGE CS JUN 203.65 203.65 Voucher: 1 1 9785 119786 6t9t2017 ver03 vERtzoN W|RELESS 872374736-000C 511812017 TELEPHONE MAY 169.82 169.82 Voucher: 1 1 9786 119787 6t9t2017 ver03 VERIZON WIRELESS 872374736-OOOC 5t18t2017 TELEPHONE MAY 131 .85 131.85 Voucher: 119787 119788 6t9t2017 ver03 VERIZON WIRELESS 570653198-OOOC 511812017 TELEPHONE MAY 114.03 114.03 Voucher: 1 1 9788 119789 6t9t2017 ver03 VERIZON WIRELESS 5706531g8-OOOC 511812017 TELEPHONE MAY 38.01 38.01 Voucher: 119789 119790 6t9t2017 xoc01 xo coMMUNtcATroNS 0291811553 5121t2017 TELEPHONE MAY 48.53 48.53 Voucher: I 1 9790
Page:3 10 June 19, 2017 Item 2 apGhkLst FinalGheck List Page: 4 0610812017 11:26:374M Gity of Del Mar
Sub total for GENERALACCOUNT UN¡ON BANK: 99,287.85
Page:4 11 June 19, 2017 Item 2 apChklst FinalGheck List Page: 5 0610812017 11:26:374M Gity of Del Mar
47 checks in this report. Grand TotalAll Checks 99,287
Jwrr 8pnfr
Page:5 12 June 19, 2017 Item 2 apChklst FinalCheck List Page:1 0610812017 2:31=O2PM Gity of Del Mar
Bank: qun¡on GENERALACCOUNT UNION B¡ Check # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 2506 6t9t2017 irs01 IRS Benl39643 6t9t2017 FEDERAL TAX: PAYMENT 30,678.63 30,678.63 Voucher: 2506 2507 61912017 van03 VANTAGEPOINTTRANSFERABenI39645 6t9t2017 ICMA DEFERRED COMP 4578 8,080.23 8,080.23 Voucher: 2507 250B 6t9t2017 perOl PERS 8en139647 6t9t2017 PERS CONTRIBUTIONS EE&T 40,292.70 40,292.70 Voucher: 2508 2509 6t912017 eddO1 EMPLOYMENTDEVELOPMENBenI39649 6t9t2017 STATE TAX: PAYMENT 7,556.02 7,556.02 Voucher: 2509 2510 6t9t2017 natl5 NATIONALBENEFITSERVICEIBenI3965I 619t2017 SEC. 125 FLEXIBLE SAVINGS 1,038.17 1 ,038.17 Voucher: 2510 2511 61912017 par21 U.S.BANKPARS+67460224008en139653 6t9t2017 PUBLIC AGENCY RETI REMEN 2,173.27 2,173.27 Voucher: 2511 2512 6t9t2017 van02 VANTAGEPOINTTRANSFERABenI39655 6t9t2017 4O1A PLAN: PAYMENT 770.17 770.17 Voucher: 2512 2513 6t9t2017 van07 VANTAGEPOINTTRANSFER- 8en139657 6t9t2017 ICMA 457(8) LOAN PAYMENT: 1,261.63 1,261.63 Voucher: 2513 119791 6t912017 calT8 CAST DISBURSEMENT UNIT 8en139641 6t9t2017 CASTATE DISBURSMENT UN 250.61 250.61 Voucher: 119791 119792 61912017 uni21 MUFG UNION BANK NA 8en139639 6t9t2017 DMCEA DUES: PAYMENT 231.00 231.00 Voucher: 119792 119793 6t9t2017 har30 THE HARTFORD 8en139456 512612017 HARTFORD DEP LIFEADJ: PI 3,111.52 3,111.52 Voucher: 119793 Sub total for GENERAL ACCOUNT UNION BANK: 95,443.95
Page: 1
13 June 19, 2017 Item 2 apChkLst FinalCheck List Page: 2 0610812017 2:31:02PM Gity of Del Mar
1l checks in this report. Grand Total All Ghecks: 95,443.95
Llsl%t+
Page'.2 14 June 19, 2017 Item 2 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: HonorableMayorandCityCouncilMembers
FROM: Shaun McMahon, Management Analyst Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager Prepared by Don Mosier, City Council-appointed C.A.P. Facilitator
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Authorization to Accept Award of California Energy Commission Grant for Civic Center Energy Enhancements
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the City Manager to accept grant funding from the California Energy Commission in the amount of $388,893 in response to the awarding of the Local Government Challenge solicitation (GFO-16-404) and execute a subcontract with the Center for Sustainable Energy in a not-to-exceed amount of $94,700, for Civic Center Energy Efficiency Enhancements.
DISCUSSION:
In February 2017, the City Council authorized submitting a grant application to the California Energy Commission for energy efficiency enhancements for the new Civic Center under the Local Government Challenge solicitation (GFO-16-404). The Energy Commission’s Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Plan (Action Plan) provides a roadmap to activate market forces and transform California’s existing residential, commercial, and public buildings to become high-performing and energy-efficient.
On April 20, 2017, the California Energy Commission released the Notice of Proposed Award for the Local Government Challenge Grant Solicitation GFO-16-404 (Attachment A). The City of Del Mar received a recommendation as an awardee, receiving a score of 83%, which was the highest score within Del Mar’s category of solicitation.
The purpose of this report is to seek City Council authorization on two of the next steps required for acceptance and administration of the grant.
The City of Del Mar assembled a team of experts to write and submit the application by the March 6, 2017 submission deadline. The team includes Don Mosier, volunteer City Council-appointed Climate Action Plan Facilitator; Tim Sasseen from the Center for ______City Council Action:
1 June 19, 2017 Item 4 City Council Staff Report Grant Acceptance: GFO-16-404 June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 4
Sustainable Energy; Shawn Jones from the Center for Sustainable Energy; Eitan Aharoni, Construction Manager for City Hall/Town Hall; and City staff Shaun McMahon, Management Analyst, coordinating administration of the grant, and Kristen Crane, Assistant City Manager. The help from Don Mosier and the Center for Sustainable Energy was integral in the commissioning of this grant submission and without their help, such a competitive grant proposal would not have been feasible.
The “Civic Center Energy Efficiency Enhancements” project proposed for CEC GFO 16- 404 funding entailed three components:
1) Installation of a 40-60 kW photovoltaic (PV) system on the roof of the new City Hall, which is currently under construction with an anticipated completion date of May 2018;
2) Installation of a battery energy storage system (ESS) to provide a minimum of five hours backup or supplemental power; and
3) A collaboration with the Center for Sustainable Energy in San Diego to disseminate information on the energy savings and performance metrics provided by the PV/ESS system.
The proposed PV/ESS project will make the new Civic Center buildings (City Hall and Town Hall) more energy efficient by generating and storing electricity on site. This project yields several benefits to the City and its residents. It will reduce electricity consumption from the grid, provide backup power when grid power is lost, and allow battery discharge to power early evening events when SDG&E’s time-of-use rates will be highest.
This project also implements the City of Del Mar Climate Action Plan (CAP), which sets a goal of achieving a 100% renewable energy supply by 2035 and encourages funding acquisition for energy efficiency projects.
Based on this award, the City now needs to set-up some of the administrative components of the grant, which includes executing an agreement with the California Energy Commission and executing a separate agreement with the Center for Sustainable Energy.
Allowing the City Manager to execute the agreement with the California Energy Commission will allow the City to formally accept the proposed award of $388,893, which covers 100% of the funds that were requested in the original grant submission.
As a part of the overall grant submission, the Center for Sustainable Energy, which is a nonprofit organization based in San Diego providing clean energy program design, management and technical advisory services throughout the United States, has been a
2 June 19, 2017 Item 4 City Council Staff Report Grant Acceptance: GFO-16-404 June 19, 2017 Page 3 of 4 critical partner on this project with the City of Del Mar, both in the development of the application and will also play an integral role in implementing the energy efficiency enhancements. In order for the Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE) to complete the necessary work once the City has formally accepted the funds from the California Energy Commission, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a subcontract with CSE for a not-to-exceed amount of $94,700. This contract will cover their roles in task numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 which are detailed below and in more detail in the attached Scope of Work (Attachment B). The amount to be paid to CSE ($94,700) will be covered by the grant from CEC.
The tasks within CSE’s Scope of Work are as follows:
Task 1: Grant Administration Attend all kick-off meetings, create monthly progress reports and a final grant report, and obtain all required permits.
Task 2: Load Estimation and Photovoltaic (PV) design Creating a Building Load and PV Performance Assessment Report by developing electricity consumption models for City Hall and Town Hall.
Task 3: Energy Storage System design Determine the optimal energy and power capacity for an energy storage system which is capable of providing the Town Hall with full power from 6pm to 11pm.
Task 4: Prepare Bid Documents for the PV Installation Create technical specifications and Request for Proposal (RFP) documents for the PV and ESS systems. This task will involve collaboration between the City and the CSE.
Task 7: Measurement and Evaluation Measure and collect PV and ESS performance data to validate system design, confirm intended system functionality, and for system operation and performance dissemination.
Task 8: Education and Public Outreach Develop and execute a plan for broadcasting/showcasing the project results and to make the knowledge gained, results and lessons learned from Agreement tasks available to other local governments.
Next Steps
Upon executing final agreements with the CEC and CSE, the next step will be for the City to attend the California Energy Commission’s project kick-off meeting. Subsequently, the City will then prepare the necessary documents for procurement of the PV and ESS equipment and installation services through a competitive purchasing
3 June 19, 2017 Item 4 City Council Staff Report Grant Acceptance: GFO-16-404 June 19, 2017 Page 4 of 4 process, with the goal of selecting the vendor and entering a contract by early November 2017.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total value for the project contemplated by this grant is $488,000, which includes designing the solar/battery storage system, purchasing the necessary equipment, construction modifications to accommodate the battery storage, technical consulting services, targeted public education/outreach on the project to the commercial building industry, construction management, and grant administration. This amount also includes the amount previously expended by the City to make the building rooftop solar ready (e.g., the architectural/engineering costs and construction costs).
Moving forward with the staff recommendation would allow the City to formally accept grant funding in the amount of $388,893 from the California Energy Commission, as well as execute a subcontract with CSE in the not-to-exceed amount of $94,700, which would be funded through the awarded grant.
Additionally, as part of the grant application, the City made a commitment of in-kind matching funds of up to $100,000. This will be largely based on in-kind costs the City has already incurred for the design and construction costs of making the new City Hall/Town Hall facility solar-ready, and the direct labor costs of producing the grant application and implementing/administering the grant after the award is received. As an “in kind match,” there is minimal additional expense to be incurred by the City related to this project, with the exception of some minor costs for additional construction management services ($24,750).
Although the project was designed to be “solar ready,” funding to purchase the solar panels was not included in the project budget. Additionally, the new Civic Center did not originally include the battery storage component, so that is an enhancement to the project. Staff recommends tracking the budget for this component of the City Hall/Town Hall project separate from the larger budget in order to minimize confusion.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
The acceptance of this grant award is consistent with adoption of the City of Del Mar Climate Action Plan (CAP) on June 6, 2016.
City Council authorized staff to submit the grant application for GFO-16-404 at the February 21, 2017 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Notice of Proposed Award for GFO-16-404 Attachment B – Scope of Work for GFO-16-404
4 June 19, 2017 Item 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA – NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR.,Governor
REVISED NOTICE OF PROPOSED AWARD
Local Government Challenge Grant Solicitation GFO-16-404 April 1120, 2017
The purpose of this revised Notice of Proposed Awards is to include two proposals that were not included in the Notice of Proposed Awards released on April 11, 2017.
On January 6, 2017, the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) released a competitive solicitation to fund projects that stimulate innovation in building energy efficiency and developing or implementing climate action plans. Up to $10.2 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding is available to fund applications from local governments in two groups: the Energy Innovation Challenge and the Small Government Leadership Challenge.
The Energy Commission received 38 proposals by the due date of March 27, 2017. Each proposal was screened, reviewed, evaluated and scored using the criteria in the solicitation. Twenty-six proposals passed the Stage One Application Screening.
The attached “Notice of Proposed Awards” identifies each applicant selected and recommended for funding by Energy Commission staff and includes the recommended funding amount and score. The total amount recommended is $10.2 million.
Funding of proposed projects resulting from this solicitation is contingent upon the approval of these projects at a publicly noticed Energy Commission Business Meeting and execution of a grant agreement. If the Energy Commission is unable to timely negotiate and execute a funding agreement with an Applicant, the Energy Commission, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to cancel or otherwise modify the pending award, and award the funds to another applicant.
In addition, the Energy Commission reserves the right to: 1) add to, remove, or shift funding between the different groups if there are insufficient passing proposals in one group and 2) negotiate with successful applicants to modify the project scope, schedule, and/or level of funding.
This notice is being mailed to all parties who submitted an application to this solicitation and is also posted on the Energy Commission’s website at: www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/.
June 19, 2017 Item 4 Questions should be directed to: Sandra Raymos Contracts, Grants and Loans Officer California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street, MS-18 Sacramento, CA95814 (916) 654-4584
6 June 19, 2017 Item 4 California Energy Commission
Local Government Challenge
Solicitation GFO-16-404 Small Government Leadership Challenge Notice of Proposed Awards April 1120, 2017 Proposal Funds Proposed Applicant Project Title Score Recommendation Number Requested Award Proposed Awards Civic Center Energy Efficiency 2 City of Del Mar $388,893 $388,893 83.0% Awardee Enhancements Gateway Cities Council of Gateway Cities Climate Action 18 $466,384 $466,384 80.8% Awardee Governments Planning (CAP) Framework
San Bernardino Council of Sub-Regional Greenhouse Gas 6 $250,635 $250,635 80.6% Awardee Governments Reduction Plan Update
EnergyWise Plan Energy Section County of San Luis Update including Zero Net Energy 28 $327,206 $327,206 79.7% Awardee Obispo Neighborhood Feasibility, Design, and Implementation Study
Deep Energy Efficiency at Municipal 21 City of Santa Cruz Facilities through Advanced Building $523,672 $523,672 78.0% Awardee Controls
Ventura County Regional 37 Central Coast Energy Plan $427,944 $427,944 75.5% Awardee Alliance
Marin Climate and Energy Marin General Services 8 Partnership/Resilient Neighborhoods $275,008 $275,008 74.7% Awardee Authority Grassroots Climate Action
City of Galt Climate Action Plan, 38 City of Galt $645,800 $645,800 73.3% Awardee Corridor Plan, and Master Plan
City of Santa Barbara, ZNE 29 City of Santa Barbara $519,459 $186,708 72.3% Partial Fund Awardee Roadmap and Implementation Plan
TOTAL FUNDING RECOMMENDED $3,825,001 $3,492,250 Passed But Not Funded Davis Zero Net Carbon (NZC) 19 City of Davis Climate Action and Adaption Plan $871,261 $0 70.7% Finalist Update
Accelerating Climate Action in 33 City of Sunnyvale $697,350 $0 70.0% Finalist Sunnyvale Did Not Pass Truckee Climate Action Strategies 7 Town of Truckee $512,873 $0 Did Not Pass and Policies Disqualified
Integrated Design 360 Palo Alto Post Occupancy Energy 5 $763,450 $0 n/a Disqualified LLC Efficiency Performance Program
StopWaste Energy Alameda County Small Cities Climate 11 $475,029 $0 n/a Disqualified Council Action Planning Leadership
Page 1 of 2
June 19, 2017 Item 4 Proposal Funds Proposed Applicant Project Title Score Recommendation Number Requested Award
City of Chico Climate Action Plan 15 City of Chico $750,000 $0 n/a Disqualified Implementation
TOTAL PROPOSALS RECEIVED $7,894,964 $3,492,250
Page 2 of 2
8 June 19, 2017 Item 4 California Energy Commission
Local Government Challenge
Solicitation GFO-16-404 Energy Innovation Challenge Notice of Proposed Awards April 1120, 2017 Proposal Funds Proposed Applicant Project Title Score Recommendation Number Requested Award Proposed Awards MCE "Building Efficiency 32 Marin Clean Energy $1,720,343 $1,720,343 83.3% Awardee Optimization" Project Smart City Open Urban Platform 3 City of San Diego $1,991,444 $1,991,444 82.7% Awardee (SCOUP)
City of San Leandro's Innovative 20 City of San Leandro Energy Efficiency and Renewable $1,995,963 $1,995,963 82.3% Awardee Energy Deployment Project
StopWaste Energy Accelerating Multifamily Building 16 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 82.0% Awardee Council Upgrades
TOTAL FUNDING RECOMMENDED $6,707,750 $6,707,750 Passed But Not Funded
31 City of Davis Zero Net City Hall $1,565,894 $0 78.0% Finalist
Housing Authority of the HACSB Strategic Energy Plan 14 $2,000,000 $0 77.7% Finalist County of San Bernadino Upgrades
County of Santa Clara Advanced 30 County of Santa Clara Energy Monitoring and Tracking $1,900,000 $0 77.5% Finalist Project
City Buildings Energy Infrastructure 17 City of Norwalk $1,364,629 $0 76.3% Finalist Upgrade
25 City of Oakland Low Carbon City Strategy $1,979,712 $0 72.7% Finalist
Did Not Pass 35 City of San Jose City Center of Energy Innovation $2,000,000 $0 Did Not Pass
22 City of Indio Corporate Yard Solar Project $1,988,801 $0 Did Not Pass
County of Sonoma, Delivering Zero Net Energy Local 13 General Services $1,998,384 $0 Did Not Pass Government Department
34 City of Vista Civic Center Solar Project $2,000,000 $0 Did Not Pass
Converting an Existing Building to a 10 City of Anaheim $1,446,893 $0 Did Not Pass Zero Net Energy Use Facility Disqualified Association of Bay Area California Energy Data Leadership 12 $1,999,767 $0 n/a Disqualified Governments Project
36 City of Rialto NRDC-BEI $1,427,701 $0 n/a Disqualified
Chula Vista: A Smart City Effort with 4 City of Chula Vista Energy and Climate Action Plan $1,754,974 $0 n/a Disqualified (CAP) Initiatives
Page 1 of 2
June 19, 2017 Item 4 Proposal Funds Proposed Applicant Project Title Score Recommendation Number Requested Award
Hydrogen Energy Storage Generator 24 County of Santa Barbara $1,933,491 $0 n/a Disqualified (HESG) MicroGrid Project
Remote Monitoring Pump (RMP) 26 City of Riverside $1,500,000 $0 n/a Disqualified Program
9 City of Hawthorne City of Hawthorne HVAC $500,000 $0 n/a Disqualified
27 City of South Pasadena City of South Pasadena $450,000 $0 n/a Disqualified
TOTAL PROPOSALS RECEIVED $34,517,996 $6,707,750
Page 2 of 2
10 June 19, 2017 Item 4 California Energy Commission
Local Government Challenge
Solicitation GFO-16-404 Notice of Proposed Awards April 20, 2017
Proposal Funds Proposed Applicant Project Title Score Recommendation Number Requested Award Disqualified
1 Erich Mueller Hydrogen Powerplant not indicated $0 n/a Disqualified
23 City of Seaside Tryden Energy Pilot Project $1,996,648 $0 n/a Disqualified
Page 1 of 1June 19, 2017 Item 4
SCOPE OF WORK TECHNICAL TASK LIST Task # Task Name 1 Grant Administration 2 Load Estimation and PV design 3 Energy Storage System design 4 Prepare bid documents for PV/ESS procurement and installation 5 Issue RFP for PV/ESS procurement and installation 6 Construction and installation 7 Measurement and evaluation 8 Education and outreach
KEY NAME LIST Task # Key Personnel Key Subcontractor(s) Key Partner(s) 1 Tim Sasseen CSE Kristen Crane, Shaun McMahon 2, 3, 4 Tim Sasseen CSE Shawn Jones Miller Hull Architects Eitan Aharoni 5 Kristen Crane, Shaun NA McMahon 6 Eitan Aharoni TBD by bid outcome 7 Shawn Jones CSE SDG&E 8 Shawn Jones CSE Don Mosier, Kristen Crane, Shaun McMahon
GLOSSARY Specific terms and acronyms used throughout this scope of work are defined as follows: Term/ Definition Acronym CAM Commission Agreement Manager CAP Climate Action Plan Challenge Local Government Challenge CPR Critical Project Review CSE Center for Sustainable Energy ED Efficiency Division
May 2017 Page 1 of 14 GFO-16-404 Exhibit A:Scope of Work Local Government Challenge 12 June 19, 2017 Item 4
Term/ Definition Acronym EIC Energy Innovation Challenge Energy California Energy Commission Commission ESS Energy Storage System (batteries) GHG Green House Gases PV Photovoltaic Recipient Challenge Grant Recipient SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric SGLC Small Government Leadership Challenge
Problem Statement: The recent adoption of a CAP by the City of Del Mar leads to the problem of how to best implement strategies that will reduce energy consumption prior to 2020, and what type of demonstration project might achieve the dual goals of significant reduction in building energy use and heighten public awareness of new technologies that can be adopted by both residential and nonresidential buildings. We believe that the requested SGLC grant can provide such a demonstration project that will incentivize further investment in renewable energy sources and energy management that will benefit the region and the state. Goals of the Agreement: The goal of this Agreement is to determine if coastal cities like Del Mar can maximize the energy efficiency of municipal buildings and meet CAP goals for increased installation of photovoltaic panels and GHG reductions by installing high efficiency PV panels and storing energy in state-of-the art ESS, namely, Tesla PowerPack Li ion batteries in our new Civic Center currently under construction. The performance of the PV/ESS installation will be closely monitored for the first year of operation, and data shared with the CEC and local government entities. Although not required in the SGLC grant, we will actively disseminate information via a subcontract with CSE. The expected benefits of the agreement will be: . Fills funding gap generated by higher than expected construction costs . Provides demonstration project for the city and region . Achieves CAP goal of greater building energy efficiency . Reduces the cost of energy to the city . Reduces pollution associated with energy generation . Provides emergency power for the Emergency Operations Center in Town Hall . Complements other energy saving design features of the Civic Center
This pilot project will help overcome barriers to early adaptation of efficient PV/ESS installations because of concerns about energy storage efficiency, return on investment, performance in a coastal environment with more clouds and fog than inland sites, and uncertainty about energy costs from legacy utilities.
May 2017 Page 2 of 14 GFO-16-404 Exhibit A:Scope of Work Local Government Challenge 13 June 19, 2017 Item 4
Objectives of the Agreement: The objectives of this Agreement are to provide real time data for electrical energy usage in a new municipal Civic Center equipped with a state-of-the-art PV/ESS equipment, with kWh/mo usage, energy bills that track cost savings, time of use data that demonstrate the best time of day to take electricity from the ESS, and efficiency of the ESS in supporting functions of the Emergency Operations Center during test drills. TASK 1 ADMINISTRATION Task 1.1 Attend Kick-off Meeting The goal of this task is to establish the lines of communication and procedures for implementing this Agreement. The Commission Agreement Manager (CAM) shall designate the date and location of this meeting and provide an agenda to the Recipient prior to the meeting. The Recipient shall: Attend a “Kick-Off” meeting with the CAM, the Commission Agreement Officer (CAO), and a representative of the Energy Commission Accounting Office. The Recipient shall bring their Project Manager, Agreement Administrator, Accounting Officer, and any others determined necessary by the Recipient or specifically requested by the CAM to this meeting. Discuss the following administrative and technical aspects of this Agreement: o Agreement Terms and Conditions o Critical Project Review (Task 1.2) o Match fund documentation (Task 1.6) No reimbursable work may be done until this documentation is in place. o Permit documentation (Task 1.7) o Subcontracts needed to carry out project (Task 1.8) o The CAM’s expectations for accomplishing tasks described in the Scope of Work o An updated Schedule of Products and Due Dates o Monthly Progress Reports (Task 1.4) o Quarterly Progress Reports (Task 1.5) o Technical Products o Final Report (Task 1.6) Recipient Products: Updated Schedule of Products Updated List of Match Funds Updated List of Permits Commission Agreement Manager Product: Kick-Off Meeting Agenda
May 2017 Page 3 of 14 GFO-16-404 Exhibit A:Scope of Work Local Government Challenge 14 June 19, 2017 Item 4
Task 1.2 Critical Project Review (CPR) Meetings CPRs provide the opportunity for frank discussions between the Energy Commission and the Recipient. The goal of this task is to determine if the project should continue to receive Energy Commission funding to complete this Agreement and to identify any needed modifications to the tasks, products, schedule or budget. The CAM may schedule CPR meetings as necessary, and meeting costs will be borne by the Recipient. Meeting participants include the CAM and the Recipient and may include the Commission Agreement Officer, the Efficiency Division (ED) program lead, other Energy Commission staff and Management as well as other individuals selected by the CAM to provide support to the Energy Commission. The CAM shall: Determine the location, date, and time of each CPR meeting with the Recipient. These meetings generally take place at the Energy Commission, but they may take place at another location. Send the Recipient the agenda and a list of expected participants in advance of each CPR. If applicable, the agenda shall include a discussion on both match funding and permits. Conduct and make a record of each CPR meeting. Prepare a schedule for providing the written determination described below. Determine whether to continue the project, and if continuing, whether or not modifications are needed to the tasks, schedule, products, and/or budget for the remainder of the Agreement. Modifications to the Agreement may require a formal amendment (please see section 8 of the Terms and Conditions). If the CAM concludes that satisfactory progress is not being made, this conclusion will be referred to the Lead Commissioner for Efficiency for his or her concurrence. Provide the Recipient with a written determination in accordance with the schedule. The written response may include a requirement for the Recipient to revise one or more product(s) that were included in the CPR. The Recipient shall: Prepare a CPR Report for each CPR that discusses the progress of the Agreement toward achieving its goals and objectives. This report shall include recommendations and conclusions regarding continued work of the projects. This report shall be submitted along with any other products identified in this scope of work. The Recipient shall submit these documents to the CAM and any other designated reviewers at least 15 working days in advance of each CPR meeting. Present the required information at each CPR meeting and participate in a discussion about the Agreement. CAM Products: Agenda and a list of expected participants Schedule for written determination Written determination
May 2017 Page 4 of 14 GFO-16-404 Exhibit A:Scope of Work Local Government Challenge 15 June 19, 2017 Item 4
Recipient Product: CPR Report(s) Task 1.3 Final Meeting The goal of this task is to closeout this Agreement. The Recipient shall: Meet with Energy Commission staff to present the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The final meeting must be completed during the closeout of this Agreement. This meeting will be attended by, at a minimum, the Recipient, the Commission Grants Office Officer, and the Commission Agreement Manager. The technical and administrative aspects of Agreement closeout will be discussed at the meeting, which may be two separate meetings at the discretion of the Commission Agreement Manager. The technical portion of the meeting shall present an assessment of the degree to which project and task goals and objectives were achieved, findings, conclusions, recommended next steps (if any) for the Agreement, and recommendations for improvements. The Commission Agreement Manager will determine the appropriate meeting participants. The administrative portion of the meeting shall be a discussion with the Commission Agreement Manager and the Grants Officer about the following Agreement closeout items: o What to do with any equipment purchased with Energy Commission funds (Options) o Energy Commission’s request for specific “generated” data (not already provided in Agreement products) o Need to document Recipient’s disclosure of “subject inventions” developed under the Agreement o “Surviving” Agreement provisions o Final invoicing and release of retention Prepare a schedule for completing the closeout activities for this Agreement. Products: Written documentation of meeting agreements Schedule for completing closeout activities Task 1.4 Monthly Progress Reports The goal of this task is to periodically verify that satisfactory and continued progress is made towards achieving the objectives of this Agreement on time and within budget. The objectives of this task are to summarize activities performed during the reporting period, to identify activities planned for the next reporting period, to identify issues that may affect performance and expenditures, and to form the basis for determining whether invoices are consistent with work performed.
May 2017 Page 5 of 14 GFO-16-404 Exhibit A:Scope of Work Local Government Challenge 16 June 19, 2017 Item 4
The Recipient shall: Prepare a Monthly Progress Report which summarizes all Agreement activities conducted by the Recipient for the reporting period, including an assessment of the ability to complete the Agreement within the current budget and any anticipated cost overruns. Each progress report is due to the Commission Agreement Manager within 10 days of the end of the reporting period. The recommended specifications for each progress report are contained in Section 6 of the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement. In the first Monthly Progress Report and first invoice, document and verify match expenditures and provide a synopsis of project progress, if match funds have been expended or if work funded with match share has occurred after the notice of proposed award but before execution of the grant agreement. If no match funds have been expended or if no work funded with match share has occurred before execution, then state this in the report. All pre-execution match expenditures must conform to the requirements in the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement. Product: Monthly Progress Reports Task 1.5 Quarterly Progress Reports The goal of this task is to periodically verify that satisfactory and continued progress is made towards achieving the objectives of this Agreement on time and within budget. The objectives of this task are to summarize activities performed during the reporting period and to report them to the Energy Commission’s Commission Agreement Manager, which meets federal reporting requirements. The Recipient shall: Prepare a Quarterly Progress Report with the required fields, as determined by the Energy Commission. Each progress report is due to the Commission Agreement Manager within 10 days of the end of the reporting period. Product: Quarterly Progress Reports
Task 1.6 Final Report The goal of the Final Report is to assess the project’s success in achieving the Agreement’s goals and objectives, advancing science and technology, and providing energy-related and other benefits to California. The objectives of the Final Report are to clearly and completely describe the project’s purpose, approach, activities performed, results, and advancements in science and technology; to present a public assessment of the success of the project as measured by the degree to which goals and objectives were achieved; to make insightful observations based on results obtained; to draw conclusions; and to make recommendations for further projects and improvements to the ED project management processes.
May 2017 Page 6 of 14 GFO-16-404 Exhibit A:Scope of Work Local Government Challenge 17 June 19, 2017 Item 4
The Final Report shall be a public document. If the Recipient has obtained confidential status from the Energy Commission and will be preparing a confidential version of the Final Report as well, the Recipient shall perform the following activities for both the public and confidential versions of the Final Report. The Recipient shall: Prepare an Outline of the Final Report, if requested by the CAM. Prepare a Final Report following the latest version of the Final Report guidelines which will be provided by the CAM. The CAM shall provide written comments on the Draft Final Report within fifteen (15) working days of receipt. The Final Report must be completed at least 60 days before the end of the Agreement Term. Submit one bound copy of the Final Report with the final invoice. Products: Outline of the Final Report, if requested Draft Final Report Final Report Task 1.6 Identify and Obtain Matching Funds The goal of this task is to ensure that the match funds planned for this Agreement are obtained for and applied to this Agreement during the term of this Agreement. The costs to obtain and document match fund commitments are not reimbursable through this Agreement. Although the Energy Commission budget for this task will be zero dollars, the Recipient may utilize match funds for this task. Match funds shall be spent concurrently or in advance of Energy Commission funds for each task during the term of this Agreement. Match funds must be identified in writing and the associated commitments obtained before the Recipient can incur any costs for which the Recipient will request reimbursement. The Recipient shall: Prepare a letter documenting the match funding committed to this Agreement and submit it to the Commission Agreement Manager at least 2 working days prior to the kick-off meeting. If no match funds were part of the proposal that led to the Energy Commission awarding this Agreement and none have been identified at the time this Agreement starts, then state such in the letter. If match funds were a part of the proposal that led to the Energy Commission awarding this Agreement, then provide in the letter a list of the match funds that identifies the: o Amount of each cash match fund, its source, including a contact name, address and telephone number and the task(s) to which the match funds will be applied.
May 2017 Page 7 of 14 GFO-16-404 Exhibit A:Scope of Work Local Government Challenge 18 June 19, 2017 Item 4
o Amount of each in-kind contribution, a description, documented market or book value, and its source, including a contact name, address and telephone number and the task(s) to which the match funds will be applied. If the in-kind contribution is equipment or other tangible or real property, the Recipient shall identify its owner and provide a contact name, address and telephone number, and the address where the property is located. Provide a copy of the letter of commitment from an authorized representative of each source of cash match funding or in-kind contributions that these funds or contributions have been secured. For match funds provided by a grant a copy of the executed grant shall be submitted in place of a letter of commitment. Discuss match funds and the implications to the Agreement if they are reduced or not obtained as committed, at the kick-off meeting. If applicable, match funds will be included as a line item in the progress reports and will be a topic at CPR meetings. Provide the appropriate information to the Commission Agreement Manager if during the course of the Agreement additional match funds are received. Notify the Commission Agreement Manager within 10 days if during the course of the Agreement existing match funds are reduced. Reduction in match funds must be approved through a formal amendment to the Agreement and may trigger an additional CPR meeting. Products: A letter regarding match funds or stating that no match funds are provided Copy(ies) of each match fund commitment letter(s) (if applicable) Letter(s) for new match funds (if applicable) Letter that match funds were reduced (if applicable) Task 1.7 Identify and Obtain Required Permits The goal of this task is to obtain all permits required for work completed under this Agreement in advance of the date they are needed to keep the Agreement schedule on track. Permit costs and the expenses associated with obtaining permits are not reimbursable under this Agreement. Although the Energy Commission budget for this task will be zero dollars, the Recipient shall budget match funds for any expected expenditures associated with obtaining permits. Permits must be identified in writing and obtained before the Recipient can make any expenditure for which a permit is required. The Recipient shall: Prepare a letter documenting the permits required to conduct this Agreement and submit it to the Commission Agreement Manager at least 2 working days prior to the kick-off meeting. If there are no permits required at the start of this Agreement, then state such in the letter. If it is known at the beginning of the Agreement that permits will be required during the course of the Agreement, provide in the letter: o A list of the permits that identifies the: . Type of permit
May 2017 Page 8 of 14 GFO-16-404 Exhibit A:Scope of Work Local Government Challenge 19 June 19, 2017 Item 4
. Name, address and telephone number of the permitting jurisdictions or lead agencies o The schedule the Recipient will follow in applying for and obtaining these permits. Discuss the list of permits and the schedule for obtaining them at the kick-off meeting and develop a timetable for submitting the updated list, schedule and the copies of the permits. The implications to the Agreement if the permits are not obtained in a timely fashion or are denied will also be discussed. If applicable, permits will be included as a line item in the Progress Reports and will be a topic at CPR meetings. If during the course of the Agreement additional permits become necessary, provide the appropriate information on each permit and an updated schedule to the Commission Agreement Manager. As permits are obtained, send a copy of each approved permit to the Commission Agreement Manager. If during the course of the Agreement permits are not obtained on time or are denied, notify the Commission Agreement Manager within 5 working days. Either of these events may trigger an additional CPR. Products: Letter documenting the permits or stating that no permits are required A copy of each approved permit (if applicable) Updated list of permits as they change during the term of the Agreement (if applicable) Updated schedule for acquiring permits as changes occur during the term of the Agreement (if applicable) A copy of each final approved permit (if applicable) Task 1.8 Obtain and Execute Subcontracts The goal of this task is to ensure quality products and to procure subcontractors required to carry out the tasks under this Agreement consistent with the Agreement Terms and Conditions and the Recipient’s own procurement policies and procedures. It will also provide the Energy Commission an opportunity to review the subcontracts to ensure that the tasks are consistent with this Agreement, and that the budgeted expenditures are reasonable and consistent with applicable cost principles. The Recipient shall: Manage and coordinate subcontractor activities. Submit a draft of each subcontract required to conduct the work under this Agreement to the Commission Agreement Manager for review. Submit a final copy of the executed subcontract. If Recipient decides to add new subcontractors, then the Recipient shall notify the CAM.
May 2017 Page 9 of 14 GFO-16-404 Exhibit A:Scope of Work Local Government Challenge 20 June 19, 2017 Item 4
Products: Letter describing the subcontracts needed, or stating that no subcontracts are required Draft subcontracts Final subcontracts
May 2017 Page 10 of 14 GFO-16-404 Exhibit A:Scope of Work Local Government Challenge 21 June 19, 2017 Item 4
TECHNICAL TASKS TASK 2. LOAD ESTIMATION AND PV DESIGN The goal of this task is to estimate the hourly power consumption of the Del Mar Civic Center Town Hall and City Hall buildings, to determine the best PV components to suit the City Hall installation design, to estimate hourly PV power productions, to estimate the resulting net power production and demand, and to estimate the electricity costs to the City using the appropriate SDG&E rate for a Net Energy Metering (NEM) interconnection. The Recipient shall: Develop a electricity consumption models for the City Hall and Town Hall Design a PV system inclusive of modules and inverters with commercially available characteristics Assess net energy consumption of the City Hall and Town Hall with the designed PV system Calculate electricity costs using SDG&E rate information Prepare a Building Load and PV Performance Assessment Report which will include but not be limited to: o City Hall and Town Hall electrical energy consumption o PV system power production o Estimated net electricity costs with and without PV system
Products: Building Load and PV Performance Assessment Report
TASK 3. ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM DESIGN The goal of this task is to determine the optimal energy and power capacity for an energy storage system which is capable of providing the Town Hall with full power from 6pm to 11pm, which provides maximum economic benefit from reduction of peak demand and time of use charges, and which fits within commercially available system characteristics. The Recipient shall: Model operation of energy storage using models and data generated in task 3, for a range of power and energy capacities Calculate electricity costs using SDG&E rate information Prepare an Energy Storage Performance Assessment Report which will include but not be limited to: o Energy storage power and energy flows o Estimated net electricity costs with and without the energy storage system
Products:
May 2017 Page 11 of 14 GFO-16-404 Exhibit A:Scope of Work Local Government Challenge 22 June 19, 2017 Item 4
Energy Storage Performance Assessment Report TASK 4. PREPARE BID DOCUMENTS FOR PV/ESS PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION The goal of this task is to create technical specifications and request for proposal (RFP) documents for the PV and ESS. This task will involve collaboration between the Project Manager and the CSE subcontractor. The Recipient shall: prepare bid documents to allow the City of Del Mar to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to qualified contractors for procurement and installation of the specified PV/ESS components based on the output from Tasks 2 and 3. Products: RFP document that will be shared with the Energy Commission. TASK 5. ISSUE RFP FOR PV/ESS PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION The goal of this task is to solicit bids from qualified solar installers for the installation of all components of the PV/ESS project specified in the bid documents. The Recipient shall: Issue an RFP to qualified solar installers for installation of the designated PV/RSS system documented in the RFP. Review questions from interested bidders during the one month the RFP is active. Select the most qualified bidder from the RFP respondents.
Products: Contract with solar installer for installation of PV/ESS components. Change order with general contractor and electrical subcontractor to supply pad and conduits for battery and inverter.
TASK 6. CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION The goal of this task is to install the PV and ESS system and confirm operation. The Recipient shall: Provide project oversight and supervision Coordinate PV/ESS installation with electrical subcontractor work Insure that site prep work is completed prior to PV/ESS installation Ensure connectivity to Town Hall EOC outlets Oversee grid connection with SDG&E to ensure controller function following loss of grid power Ensure compliance with all electrical and fire code regulations
May 2017 Page 12 of 14 GFO-16-404 Exhibit A:Scope of Work Local Government Challenge 23 June 19, 2017 Item 4
CSE will work with the suppliers during the commissioning phase to assess system operation Produce a Commissioning Report which will include but not be limited to: O PV and ESS installers’ commissioning reports O Verification of PV output and disconnect functionality O Verification of ESS charge and discharge capabilities O Verification of ESS islanding operation of the Town Hall Products: Commissioning Report showing the completed installation of the state of the art PV/ESS at the City Hall/Town Hall sites
TASK 7. MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION The goal of this task is to measure and collect PV and ESS performance data to validate system design, confirm intended system functionality, and for system operation and performance dissemination. The Recipient shall:
Collect power and energy data from the PV system, the ESS, the City Hall power demand and the Town Hall power demand Produce Quarterly Performance Reports which will include but not be limited to: o PV system energy production o ESS charge/discharge cycles, efficiency, and energy throughput o Electricity bill reduction contributions and energy consumption reductions from the PV and the ESS systems Produce First Year Performance Report which will include but not be limited to: o PV system energy production o ESS charge/discharge cycles, efficiency, and energy throughput o Electricity bill reduction contributions and energy consumption reductions from the PV and the ESS systems o Operations and maintenance issues and costs
Products: Quarterly Performance Reports First Year Performance Report
TASK 8. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
May 2017 Page 13 of 14 GFO-16-404 Exhibit A:Scope of Work Local Government Challenge 24 June 19, 2017 Item 4
The goal of this task is to develop and execute a plan for broadcasting/showcasing the project results and to make the knowledge gained, results and lessons learned from Agreement tasks available to other local governments.
The Recipient shall: Prepare a Public Outreach/Broadcast Results Plan explaining any public outreach actions proposed during the term of the Agreement and how the knowledge gained from Agreement tasks will be made available to other local governments. Key elements from this report shall be included in the Final Report for this Agreement. Install monitoring kiosk in City Hall Lobby for public demonstration Conduct public webinars to share lessons learned Track engagement programs through surveys and participant feedback
Products: Public Outreach/Technology Transfer Plan Monitoring kiosk in City Hall Lobby Public lessons-learned webinars
May 2017 Page 14 of 14 GFO-16-404 Exhibit A:Scope of Work Local Government Challenge 25 June 19, 2017 Item 4 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Kristen M. Crane, Assistant City Manager Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Approval of a Five-Year Agreement Among the City of Del Mar, the County of San Diego, and the San Diego County Sheriff for General and Specialized Law Enforcement and Traffic Services
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution authorizing approval of a five-year agreement with the County of San Diego and the San Diego County Sheriff for General and Specialized Law Enforcement and Traffic Services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City has contracted with the San Diego County Sheriff for law enforcement services since its incorporation in 1959. The proposed agreement is effective from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2022, continuing the previous five-year agreement with various adjustments as described below. Adopting the proposed resolution will allow the City to continue to receive general and specialized law enforcement and traffic services for an additional five-year term. The City may elect to terminate the agreement upon one-year notice to the Sheriff.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Del Mar is among nine cities in San Diego County who receive law enforcement services from San Diego County. The other eight cities are Solana Beach, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Poway, San Marcos, Santee and Vista. The cities negotiate together as a single entity called CLETAC (Contract Law Enforcement Technical Advisory Committee) to secure a common contract with the Sheriff, with individual services tailored to each city designated in each contract’s “Attachment B.” The form of the contract is the same for each city, but each city must approve it and sign it individually. The proposed contract is attached as Attachment A to this staff report. ______City Council Action:
1 June 19, 2017 Item 5 City Council Staff Report Resolution Approving Contract for Law Enforcement Services June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 4
Contract negotiations began in Fall 2016 with representatives of the County Sheriff, and a subcommittee of the CLETAC consisting of the cities of Encinitas, Lemon Grove, and Vista. The contract is calendared for consideration by the County Board of Supervisors on July 20, 2017. This agreement will only be effective upon approval by the Board of Supervisors.
The City contracts for 24-hour per day, seven-day per week coverage of one Deputy Patrol Officer, which requires 5.32 full-time staff equivalents (FTEs), including relief for sick, vacation leave, and training, and one Deputy Traffic Officer for five days per week (1.27 FTE including relief). The City also receives the services of one Detective without relief. The City receives just over one FTE in supervisor services, consisting of Patrol, Traffic and Detective Sergeants, and a portion of Lieutenants and Captains and just over one FTE for administrative/support services. The total FTEs contracted for is 9.8. The City also uses overtime to direct additional enforcement efforts as needed. While the City will generally receive this level of staffing, in the case of a significant incident or emergency, the City will have the resources of the Sheriff’s Department available to respond.
The proposed contract establishes a fixed annual amount for the next five years, subject to variation if the City elects to subscribe for different service levels or use overtime to meet its needs.. This set amount includes all costs for staffing, operation, and forecasted for Sheriff’s Department pension costs. Del Mar’s annual cost for year 1 is $2,237,566, of which about 82% is for law enforcement services and 18% is attributable to traffic enforcement. The table below lists the percentage costs increases for each year across all contract cities:
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year FY 2017-2018 FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 FY 2021-2022 Percentage 6% 6% 5.5% 5% 4.5% Increase
The most significant driver for the increases in the proposed five-year law enforcement contract is Sheriff’s Department retirement costs. County of San Diego employees, including Sheriff’s deputies, are members of a retirement system called the San Diego County Employee Retirement Association (SDCERA). Unlike CALPERS, which phases- in investment assumption changes over three-years, SDCERA does not phase-in assumption changes. SDCERA decreased the investment return assumption rate from 7.50% to 7.25%, and simultaneously increased the life expectancy of Safety retirees by several years. These changes resulted in a 9.68% increase in contract costs for the first year of the new contract, an amount that was not acceptable to the collective CLETAC contract cities. The contract cities negotiated to smooth this increase over the five-year term of the agreement, and also to attain predictability in the law enforcement costs. For most contract cities, law enforcement costs account for about a significant portion of their General Fund budgets, so predictability is a desirable goal.
2 June 19, 2017 Item 5 City Council Staff Report Resolution Approving Contract for Law Enforcement Services June 19, 2017 Page 3 of 4
Following are highlights of the key achievements in the proposed contract:
Contract costs are smoothed over the five-year term, and increases are fixed percentages. The table below in the Fiscal Impact section of the report shows the fixed increases for each fiscal year, and the projected contract costs to the City for each of these contract years. (This is important too because if Del Mar were to cancel its Sheriff contract, the City would otherwise be paying for all the upfront costs in the first year with no benefit.)
Station Captains will remain in place in each city for a minimum of two years, unless unavoidable. For example, attrition in upper management might provide a station Captain with a promotion to Commander, but otherwise the Captain would remain. This is important because we have had four Captains in the last five years.
In year three of the contract, either party may re-open negotiations to discuss a planned increase in general liability billings. The Sheriff anticipates the general liability fund will be depleted, and starting in year four of the contract, plans to bill the CLETAC cities collectively an additional $350,000 annually for this fund. The impact to Del Mar is anticipated to be less than $8,000 annually. That estimate is not shown in the year-four or year-five cost estimates.
The contract now formalizes that retired deputies (“retired-rehired deputies”), referred to as “960s,” are a low-cost staffing option for contract cities for certain types of duties. These deputies are currently drawing pensions from the County, and cities would not be paying their benefit costs. Use of these deputies, under restricted circumstances, could provide a potential lower-cost law enforcement approach. For example, Del Mar has been using a 960 retired deputy to review the red light camera citations instead of a detective; this has resulted in a greater percentage of citations being processed. Staff continues to inquire with the Sheriff’s Department about additional opportunities for using 960 employees to augment the City’s law enforcement team, however the scope is very limited for the types of duties these positions can perform.
The remaining contract provisions carry over from the prior agreement. The proposed five-year agreement is presented in “strike through, underline” format identifying the key changes from the former agreement.
Attachment B of the agreement reflects Del Mar’s costs for each position for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, including the 960 Deputy, as well as ancillary support, vehicles, management support, and liability. This amount does not include overtime and directed additional enforcement that the City may request.
As in the previous agreement, if a contract city were to elect to discontinue participation in the Contract Law Enforcement Program, a redistribution of overhead costs could cause a readjustment for the remaining cities to be exceeded.
3 June 19, 2017 Item 5 City Council Staff Report Resolution Approving Contract for Law Enforcement Services June 19, 2017 Page 4 of 4
Correlation with the City’s Evaluation of Law Enforcement Options
Within the last several years, the City of Del Mar has been evaluating alternative service models for providing law enforcement services. A City Council workshop on this topic is planned for July 10, 2017. The updated contract costs are being incorporated into the City Manager’s law enforcement feasibility study and will be presented at this meeting.
Entering a five-year agreement does not represent a long-term commitment to the City to remain with the Sheriff’s Department, as there is a provision within the agreement that allows the ability to exit the contract upon a one-year notice to the Sheriff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact associated with the staff recommendation is included in the proposed operating budgets for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19. General and specialized law and traffic enforcement contract costs with the San Diego County Sheriff for FY 2017-18 is $2,237,566 and will be included in the adopted FY 2017-18 Budget. This reflects a cost increase of approximately 6.0% more than the FY 2016-17 cost. For FY 2018-19, the estimated cost is $2,371,820. This also reflects a six percent cost increase over FY 2017-18. Thereafter, the annual cost increases are 5.5%, 5%, and 4.5% respectively. Future anticipated costs are included in the City’s 30-Year Model and will be included in future adopted annual operating budgets. A summary of the estimated costs over the five-year duration of the contract is shown in the table below. (This cost does not reflect overtime budgeted figures.)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year FY 2017-2018 FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 FY 2021-2022
Amount $2,237,566 $2,371,820 $2,502,270 $2,627,384 $2,745,616 Percentage 6% 6% 5.5% 5% 4.5% Increase
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
January 23, 2013 - The City Council approved the previous five-year agreement with the Sheriff for law enforcement services, which was retroactive to July 1, 2012.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Proposed Agreement for General and Specialized Law Enforcement and Traffic Services and Attachments Attachment B: Resolution
4 June 19, 2017 Item 5 Attachment A
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR, THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, AND THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF
FOR GENERAL AND SPECIALIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TRAFFIC SERVICES
This Agreement is between the City of Del Mar , a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “CITY” and the County of San Diego, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY", for services to be provided by the San Diego County Sheriff, hereinafter referred to as "SHERIFF".
RECITALS
WHEREAS, COUNTY through SHERIFF provides public safety services throughout the County of San Diego and is equipped and will do so to the extent and in the manner hereinafter provided; and
WHEREAS, CITY is a municipal corporation of the State of California within the County of San Diego and desires to obtain general and specialized law enforcement and traffic services; and
WHEREAS, Sections 51300-51308, 51350, 55632, and sections 54980 et seq. of the California Government Code authorize COUNTY and CITY to contract for performance of Sheriff services within the CITY; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY through SHERIFF currently provides general and specialized law enforcement and traffic services to CITY pursuant to a contract dated TBD; and
WHEREAS, CITY and COUNTY through SHERIFF desire to enter into a new agreement with provisions concerning the nature and extent of general and specialized law enforcement and traffic services to be provided to CITY and establishing the compensation to be paid therefore; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY acknowledges that CITY requires standards of performance that demonstrate professional excellence both in the execution of duties and in the interpersonal relations with CITY employees and all persons utilizing the services of CITY;
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors on July 20, 2017 authorized the Clerk of the Board to accept and execute this Agreement for General and Specialized Law and Traffic Enforcement Services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Del Mar on June 19, 2017 authorized the City Manager to accept and execute this Agreement for General and Specialized Law and Traffic Enforcement Services; and
5 June 19, 2017 Item 5 1
NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, COUNTY and CITY jointly intend that CITY will fund and COUNTY will provide a level of general and specialized law enforcement and traffic services, as set forth in this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
I. PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of this Agreement is to satisfy the requirements of California Government
Code §§51300-51308, 51350 and 54980, et seq. This Agreement supersedes and replaces
the December 4, 2007 contract between COUNTY and CITY for the period of July 1, 2012
through June 30, 2017, including all supplements, insofar as that contract relates to
provision of general and specialized law enforcement and traffic services to CITY.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
COUNTY through SHERIFF shall provide general and specialized law enforcement and
traffic services to CITY as follows:
A. Method of Service Delivery
SHERIFF will maintain a Law Enforcement Services Bureau, which will be
responsible for performance of COUNTY’s obligations under this Agreement.
General and specialized law enforcement and traffic services will be staffed as
described in Section IV, Standards of Service. These services shall be provided from
SHERIFF’s existing stations and other such facilities as COUNTY or the CITY may
hereafter acquire.
B. Law Enforcement Services
COUNTY through SHERIFF will provide general and specialized law enforcement
and traffic services (“Law Enforcement Services”) to CITY as outlined in
6 June 19, 2017 Item 5 2
Attachment B. Law Enforcement Services consist of enforcement of the California
Penal Code, the California Vehicle Code, and pertinent regulatory ordinances as
adopted by the City Council of CITY, as well as direct supervision of law
enforcement personnel assigned to provide Law Enforcement Services to CITY; all
to the extent necessary and appropriate to meet the Standards of Service described in
Section IV. Staffing for Law Enforcement Services shall be as provided in Section
IV D of this Agreement.
C. Ancillary Services
Services of the SHERIFF’s units related to the following services will be provided
to CITY as an integral part of the law enforcement services described above and are
included in the cost of such services: crime prevention, juvenile intervention,
financial crimes, homicide, domestic violence, communication, information
technology support, and clerical support. SHERIFF will consult with CITY when
new programs are proposed that would increase costs to CITY, and implement them
only after discussion with CITY.
D. Regional Services
The following regional services are provided to CITY as needed as an adjunct to the
Law Enforcement Services described above at no additional cost: Special Weapons
& Tactics (SWAT); Aerial Support to Regional Enforcement Agencies (ASTREA);
Bomb/Arson; Search and Rescue; Fire/Rescue helicopter; Crime Lab; and Property
and Evidence.
E. Search and Rescue Responsibility
The COUNTY and the CITY agree that some rescues are the responsibility of and
will be performed by the SHERIFF while other rescues are the responsibility of and
7 June 19, 2017 Item 5 3
will be performed by the CITY’s public safety services. In many instances, rescues
will be conducted in a joint operation involving both the SHERIFF and the CITY’s
emergency response personnel.
F. Reserve Program
The SHERIFF, in partnership with the CITY, will take active steps to recruit
individuals to participate in the Reserve Program.
G. Additional Services
1. General
COUNTY through SHERIFF may provide supplemental Law Enforcement
Services or additional related equipment and supplies as requested by CITY.
Additional Services not covered under Law Enforcement Services may
include, but are not limited to, added patrol or traffic services required for
special events such as street fairs, concerts, movie productions and other
third party promotions as well as auditing of red light camera programs.
2. Requests
Requests for Additional Services shall be made to SHERIFF by CITY
through the SHERIFF’s Station Commander or his or her designee and shall
be made in writing or, if made in person or by telephone, shall be confirmed
in writing by the requestor within forty-eight (48) hours of the request.
CITY shall provide SHERIFF with as much advance notice as possible
regarding requests for Additional Services.
3. Provision of Additional Services
SHERIFF shall advise CITY promptly and shall confirm in writing if
SHERIFF is unable to provide some or all of any requested Additional
8 June 19, 2017 Item 5 4
Services. If SHERIFF is able to provide some or all of the requested
Additional Services, SHERIFF shall promptly advise CITY in writing of the
estimated costs of the services. Unless CITY disapproves in writing of an
estimate provided by SHERIFF, SHERIFF shall provide such Additional
Services to CITY and shall be reimbursed for the actual cost of providing the
Additional Services subject to Section V B 2. COUNTY shall delegate the
authority to SHERIFF to approve additional services consistent with the
intent of this provision.
4. Identification
COUNTY and CITY acknowledge and agree that it is impractical to specify
in this Agreement each and every category of Additional Services that might
be desired by CITY, and that the parties will reasonably cooperate in
identifying and addressing such potential Additional Services within the
scope of Law Enforcement Services.
H. Emergencies
1. General
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in the event of an
emergency occurring within CITY, SHERIFF shall take any and all actions
reasonably necessary or appropriate to respond to the emergency, to include
appropriate referrals to, and coordination with, other law enforcement
agencies.
2. Temporary Duties
SHERIFF’s personnel assigned to perform services for CITY under this
contract (“SHERIFF’s contract city personnel”) may be required to perform
9 June 19, 2017 Item 5 5
temporary duty outside the scope of this Agreement. For the purpose of this
Agreement, “temporary duty” shall include, but not be limited to,
assignments necessitated by a public safety emergency or other exigent
circumstances such as might be required under “mutual aid” agreements.
3. Redeployment of Staff
During the period of any public safety emergency or exigent circumstance
such as responding to mutual aid requests, SHERIFF’s contract city
personnel may be temporarily redeployed for emergency response. If
reasonable and practical, SHERIFF shall notify the City Manager for the
CITY and discuss the redeployment prior to reassignment. If the public
safety emergency or exigent circumstance such as requests for mutual aid
demand immediate redeployment, SHERIFF need not notify the City
Manager in advance, but shall do so as soon as practical. In the event of a
major disaster for which the SHERIFF is reimbursed by FEMA for salary
and benefit costs, the SHERIFF shall reimburse CITY (less administrative
fee) from which the staff was redeployed.
III. TERM OF AGREEMENT
A. Term
The term of this Agreement shall commence at midnight July 1, 2017, and shall
continue in effect through and terminate at midnight on June 30, 2022, subject to the
termination provisions in Section III. B. below.
B. Termination
10 June 19, 2017 Item 5 6
Notwithstanding any other section or provisions of this Agreement, either party
hereto may terminate this Agreement by giving a one-year advance written notice of
intention to terminate.
IV. STANDARDS OF SERVICE
A. Anticipated Service Outcome
The anticipated outcome of law enforcement services provided by COUNTY
through SHERIFF to CITY under this Agreement is the provision of efficient and
effective police protection and the performance of all duties as required by law or
contract. These duties include patrol, traffic, general and specialized investigations,
crime prevention, crime analysis, criminal intelligence, narcotics enforcement,
emergency services, licensing, crime lab and communications.
B. Performance Standards
COUNTY through SHERIFF shall provide CITY with qualified personnel to meet
the following performance standards and scope of service:
1. General
All SHERIFF personnel who provide general and specialized law
enforcement and patrol services to CITY pursuant to this Agreement shall
have met the minimum qualifications designated for their specific
classification, including a background investigation.
2. Patrol Services
COUNTY through SHERIFF shall provide general law enforcement services
via the various options listed in Attachment A of this Agreement. To the
extent such staff is provided within CITY, their services, together with all
normal ancillary services related thereto, shall primarily provide
11 June 19, 2017 Item 5 7
enforcement of the California Penal Code, the California Vehicle Code, and
pertinent regulatory ordinances as adopted by the City Council of CITY.
3. Traffic Services
COUNTY through SHERIFF shall provide traffic services via the various
options listed in Attachment A. To the extent that such staff is provided
within CITY, their services, together with all normal ancillary services
related thereto, shall primarily provide enforcement of the California Vehicle
Code and pertinent traffic regulatory ordinances as adopted by the City
Council of CITY, accident investigations, analysis of traffic related problems
of CITY, and cooperate with various CITY departments to obtain solutions
to the traffic problems of CITY.
4. Special Purpose Officers
COUNTY through SHERIFF shall provide problem solving services via the
various Special Purpose Officer options listed in Attachment A of this
Agreement. To the extent such staff is provided within CITY, their services,
together with all normal ancillary services related thereto, shall primarily be
to identify and resolve problems of both a criminal and non-criminal nature
for a designated geographic area through investigation, patrol support,
coordination of departmental resources and cooperation with various CITY
departments.
5. School Resource Officers
COUNTY through SHERIFF shall provide school resource services via the
various Special Purpose Officer options listed in Attachment A of this
Agreement. To the extent such staff is provided within CITY, their services,
12 June 19, 2017 Item 5 8
together with all normal ancillary services related thereto, shall primarily
provide enforcement and follow up investigation on school property for
violations of the Penal Code of the State of California, the California Vehicle
Code, and the California Education Code and cooperate with school
administration, faculty, students, and parents to obtain solutions to problems
of the school district.
6. Community Service Officers
COUNTY through SHERIFF shall provide community services via the
Community Service Officer options listed in Attachment A of this
Agreement. To the extent such staff is provided within CITY, their services,
together with all normal ancillary services related thereto, shall primarily
provide response/information to citizen inquiries, completion of minor
reports, fingerprinting, traffic direction, parking enforcement, vehicle
abatement, crime prevention education and enforcement of pertinent
regulatory ordinances as adopted by the City Council of CITY.
7. Detectives
COUNTY through SHERIFF shall provide follow-up criminal investigative
services via the Detective option listed in Attachment A of this Agreement.
To the extent such staff is provided within CITY, their services, together
with all normal ancillary services related thereto, shall primarily be to
investigate crime reports submitted by Patrol Services, Community Service
Officers, Special Purpose Officers or other personnel. Detectives are
responsible for classifying and closing cases, identifying suspects, gathering
evidence, making arrests, submitting cases for prosecution and supporting
13 June 19, 2017 Item 5 9
said prosecution with needed supplemental investigation.
8. Retired-Rehired Deputies
COUNTY through SHERIFF shall, to the extent such personnel are
available, make available Retired Deputies according to the options listed on
Attachment A of this Agreement. Such Retired-Rehired Deputies are eligible
for short-term assignments or assignments requiring specialized skills or
knowledge on a temporary basis to CITY. Such Retired-Rehired Deputies
are not available for routine Patrol, Traffic, Detective, or Special Purpose
Officer services and are limited by State Law and Retirement System policy
to working a maximum of 960 hours per fiscal year.
C. Assignment of Personnel
1. Sheriff’s Responsibility
The management, direction, supervision and discipline of SHERIFF
personnel, the standards of performance, and all other matters incident to the
performance of services, shall be performed by and be the responsibility of
COUNTY through SHERIFF in SHERIFF’s sole but reasonable judgment
and in accordance with the provisions of applicable labor agreements.
SHERIFF shall be the appointing authority for all personnel provided to
CITY and shall have complete discretion as to the assignment of all
individual SHERIFF’S personnel under this Agreement.
2. Transfers and Selection of Station Commanders
SHERIFF will consult with CITY prior to reassignment of the station
commander serving CITY and CITY will be afforded the opportunity to
interview potential candidates prior to one being selected as the Station
14 June 19, 2017 Item 5 10
Commander of the station serving CITY. SHERIFF will solicit input from
CITY when completing Station Commander's performance review. CITY
and SHERIFF acknowledge that the length of assignment of the Station
Commander serving CITY cannot be precisely defined; however Sheriff will
endeavor to maintain the Station Commander serving the CITY in that
assignment for twenty four (24) months.
3. Other Staff Assignments
If CITY has specific concerns regarding the actions of any officer, agent or
employee who performs Law Enforcement Services, CITY may address
those concerns with the Station Commander serving CITY.
4. Liability for Payment of Wages
CITY shall have no liability for any direct payment of salary, wages,
indemnity, or other compensation or benefit to persons engaged in
COUNTY’s performance of this Agreement.
D. Staffing for Basic Services
COUNTY through SHERIFF shall staff CITY as described in Attachment B in order
to provide Law Enforcement Services. SHERIFF shall ensure that adequate
numbers of qualified SHERIFF personnel are provided to CITY at all times during
the term of this Agreement to meet the Law Enforcement Services, Scope of
Services and Standards of Service commitments set forth herein, at no less than the
staffing and classification levels established in the most current Attachment B.
SHERIFF shall use best efforts to fill CITY funded position vacancies within a
reasonable period of time.
15 June 19, 2017 Item 5 11
E. Changes in Staffing
CITY shall provide COUNTY through SHERIFF thirty days advance notice when
requesting changes in staffing. If CITY and SHERIFF agree that changes to the
staffing level for Law Enforcement Services are needed and/or agree that staff
additions or deletions in CITY are necessary in order to provide adequate levels of
Law Enforcement Services in the succeeding contract year, CITY and COUNTY
through SHERIFF shall execute and sign an amendment to Attachment B.
COUNTY shall delegate the authority to SHERIFF to sign amendments to
Attachment B consistent with the intent of this provision after review and approval
by County Counsel. The level of service shall not be changed without the mutual
consent of the SHERIFF and CITY.
F. Vehicles, Equipment and Supplies
COUNTY shall provide all supplies, equipment and materials required for
performance of the required law enforcement services; except that the CITY shall, at
its own expense, supply any special stationery, supplies, notices, or forms which are
to be issued in the name of the CITY.
COUNTY agrees to provide the standard equipment for CITY vehicles per
Attachment E. All marked vehicles (black & white) will generally be replaced at
100,000 miles. Vans and sedans will generally be replaced at 100,000 miles.
Motorcycles will be replaced as needed at COUNTY’s discretion.
The name of the city and city seal will be included on the doors of patrol cars if
requested by the CITY. The CITY shall provide their CITY decal in the size
requested by the SHERIFF.
16 June 19, 2017 Item 5 12
Subject to written approval of the SHERIFF or his designee, the CITY may
purchase equipment deemed necessary to facilitate program implementation or
operation. If the COUNTY does not accept ownership of the equipment, the
purchase price and all ongoing costs will be the responsibility of the CITY. If the
COUNTY accepts in writing the equipment from the CITY, such equipment
becomes the property of the COUNTY, and the CITY shall be credited the total cost
for the equipment. Total cost shall mean a value agreed upon between COUNTY
and CITY at the time the transfer is made.
G. Asset Ownership
1. Vehicles
Vehicle ownership will be retained by the entity (CITY or COUNTY) that
purchased the vehicle and is currently carrying ownership via the vehicle
registration.
2. Office Equipment
Office equipment (desks, chairs, computers, etc.) ownership will be retained
by the entity (CITY or COUNTY) that purchased the equipment and is
currently carrying ownership on the entity’s inventory.
3. Safety Equipment
Safety equipment (firearms, uniforms, leather gear, etc.) ownership will be
retained by the COUNTY.
4. Facilities
CITY shall retain ownership of facilities that CITY constructed for the
purpose of use as a Sheriff’s station. SHERIFF’s payment to CITY is a lease
payment only.
17 June 19, 2017 Item 5 13
H. Memberships
1. For each year that this Agreement is in effect, CITY agrees to maintain its
membership in the Automated Regional Justice Information System Joint
Powers Agency (ARJIS).
2. For each year that this Agreement is in effect, CITY agrees to maintain its
membership in the Regional Communications System (RCS).
3. For each year that this Agreement is in effect, CITY agrees to maintain its
participation in the California Identification System Remote Access Network
(CAL-ID).
I. Contract Administration
1. County Representative
COUNTY designates SHERIFF or his designee to represent COUNTY in all
matters pertaining to the administration of the Agreement.
2. City Representative
CITY designates its City Manager or designee to represent CITY in all
matters pertaining to the administration of the Agreement.
3. Meetings between City and Sheriff
SHERIFF or his designee shall be available to confer with the City Manager
or designee whenever feasible, practical and not in conflict with mandated
duties and responsibilities. SHERIFF and/or Undersheriff and the Assistant
Sheriff will meet with the City Managers as a group twice each year to
discuss the law enforcement contract. CITY and COUNTY shall provide
full cooperation and assistance of its officers, agents, and employees to each
other in the performance of this contract.
18 June 19, 2017 Item 5 14
4. Implementation of New Programs
The COUNTY will discuss the implementation of any new programs with
the CITIES. The County will provide the justification and value to CITY for
the program and estimates of the cost impact. Such programs, if resulting in
additional costs to CITY will only be implemented after discussion with the
CITY.
5. Labor Negotiations
The CITY will be requested to provide the SHERIFF with comments and
recommendations during labor negotiations. The SHERIFF will review and
pass on the CITY’s comments to the COUNTY’s labor negotiators.
6. CLETAC
CITY, along with other cities within San Diego County entering into
contracts for law enforcement services similar to this Agreement (“CITIES”)
shall maintain a Contract Law Enforcement Technical Advisory Committee
(CLETAC). The Law Enforcement Services Bureau Assistant Sheriff, Law
Enforcement Commanders and Sheriff's Contracts Manager shall meet with
the committee on at least a quarterly semi-annual basis to review contract
administration including contract interpretation, costs, and liability.
Additional meetings can be scheduled at the request of either party
J. Audit and Inspection of Records
COUNTY agrees that records generated under this contract shall be made available
to CITY to audit and examine. CITY agrees that any such audit will be arranged by
contacting COUNTY Board of Supervisors or designated representative in writing at
least ten working days prior to the commencement of the audit and shall be
19 June 19, 2017 Item 5 15
conducted during normal working hours. CITY through its City Manager shall have
access to reports and other documents pertaining to this Agreement including
statistical reports on crime rates, traffic incidents and calls for service within CITY.
K. Reporting Requirements
CITY will receive monthly reports that provide information with respect to staffing,
crime statistics, traffic statistics, programs, patrol activities and Information Led
Policing strategies.
V. COST OF SERVICES/CONSIDERATION
A. General
As full consideration for the satisfactory performance and completion by COUNTY
through SHERIFF of the Law Enforcement Services set forth in this Agreement,
CITY shall pay COUNTY for the services agreed to on the basis of invoices and
submittals as set forth hereunder.
B. Personnel Costs
1. Law Enforcement Services
The cost of a Law Enforcement Services position includes amounts that
compensate COUNTY for all absences due to compensatory time off,
bereavement, family, injury, military, and sick leave, holidays, jury duty,
leave without pay, related training, and vacation but does not provide
coverage or include costs required to maintain coverage for Law Enforcement
Services during such absences. If, however, there is an individual absence of
more than 30 calendar days, CITY is not required to compensate the
COUNTY from the 31st day until the position is staffed. In the event of a
20 June 19, 2017 Item 5 16
vacancy, CITY is not required to compensate the COUNTY from the 1st day
of a vacancy until the position is filled.
2. Additional Services
CITY shall compensate COUNTY for Additional Services requested and
approved by CITY in accordance with Section II G, based upon the actual
costs incurred by SHERIFF to provide those services.
C. Full Cost Center with Direct Space
1. Cost Center Development
A Cost Center model including each station showing the direct, station
support, space and overhead costs for both the CITY and COUNTY shall be
developed.
2. Direct Costs
CITY shall pay for direct staff and equipment, which includes:
a) Deputies
b) Detectives
c) Sergeants
d) Community Service Officers
e) Vehicles
f) Handheld Radios
3. Station Support Costs & Space
Station Support costs shall include:
a) Lieutenants
b) Captains
21 June 19, 2017 Item 5 17
c) Administrative Secretary I & II
d) Office Assistants
e) Property & Evidence Specialists
f) Sr. Office Assistants
g) Departmental Aid
h) Crime Prevention
i) Crime Analyst
j) Supplies
k) Space
All Station Support costs shall be allocated between the COUNTY and the
CITY (or CITIES) occupying the station based on their number of deputies,
detectives, sergeants and community services officers in that station. All
deputy, detective and sergeant positions shall be allocated the same amount
of Station Support Costs and community service officers will be allocated
one half the amount of Station Support Costs allocated to a deputy, detective
or sergeant.
4. Overhead Costs
Overhead costs shall consist of:
a) Communications Center
b) Reserves
c) Traffic Coordinator
d) Juvenile Intervention
e) Family Protection
f) Financial Crimes
22 June 19, 2017 Item 5 18
g) Domestic Violence Unit
h) Homicide
i) Crime Analysis Administration
j) Supplies
k) Administrative Support
l) Financial Services
m) Personnel
n) Data Services
o) County Counsel
p) County Support Costs
All CITY overhead costs shall be allocated to all the CITIES based on their
number of deputies, detectives, sergeants and community services officers.
All deputy, detective and sergeant positions will be allocated the same
overhead amount and community service officers will be allocated one half
the amount of overhead allocated to a deputy, detective or sergeant. CITY
costs shall be listed in Attachment C.
5. Overhead Allocation Date
The staffing of each city on May 1st (June 1st in contract year one) and any
requested adjustments shall be used to allocate overhead, station support and
space calculation shall be used to allocate overhead, station support costs and
Space Calculation for the contract year starting the following July 1st
6. Staff Added After May 1st
For staff added after May 1st, (June 1st in Ccontract year one) the CITY will
23 June 19, 2017 Item 5 19
only pay the direct cost (Salary, benefits, retirement, vehicle costs and the
one time equipment charge) until July 1st of the following year (e.g. 14
months or 13 months in contract year one) when they will be included in the
new overhead and Station Support Costs and Space Calculation.
7. Deleted Positions After May 1st
If a CITY deletes a position after May 1st (June 1st in contract year one), they
will not have to pay the direct cost but that position will still be included in
overhead, Station Support Costs and Space Calculation until the following
July 1st.
D. CostsCaps
1. Fixed Cap for Cost Increase
Cost increases for each city will be 6% in contract years one and two, 5.5%
in contract year three, 5.0% in Contract Year four and 4.5% in Contract Year
Five. Cost increases for each city will be capped at 2.75% for contract year
two and 3.0% for contract years three and four and 3.25% for contract year
five. In any year where the actual cost increase is less than the cap, only the
actual costs increases will be charged.
2. Application of Fixed Cost Cap
Only staff included in the previous year’s overhead calculation and staff
added adjustments made mid-year (prior to May 1st (June 1st for contract
year one) will be used to determine the base for the percentage cost
increase. for cap purposes. Any Adjustments for staff being added any
changes in the future contract year will be counted when determining the
24 June 19, 2017 Item 5 20
cost increase for cap purposes for the current year.made after applying the
fixed percentage increase.
3. Exceptions to the CapFixed Cost
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the CITY’s cost
may increase above the cap fixed cost ifpercentage if any of the following
situations occur:
a) If any city elects to discontinue its participation in the Contract Law
Enforcement Program or deletes positions, all city overhead shall be re-
spread among the remaining CITIES at the beginning of the next contract
year as provided for in the compensation plan Section V.4 above.
b) If the SHERIFF opens another facility and moves deputies,
supervisors or support staff from the station supporting a city, the station
overhead will be re-spread among the CITIES at the beginning of the next
contract year as provided for in the compensation plan.
c) Facilities occupied only by unincorporated staff will have no cost
impact on the CITIES.
d) If a city builds a new station that increases the pooled facility costs,
the entire amount of the increase in the CITIES’ pool will be responsibility
of the city building the facility. This provision only applies to Contract Years
One and Two.
Retirement CostsLiability
1. Retirement costs are exempt from the capContract years one, two and three
25 June 19, 2017 Item 5 21
.. Retirement costs will consist of the San Diego County Employee Retirement
System contribution approved by the Board of Supervisors, The Fiscal Year 2011-
12 Employee Pension Offset paid by the County, Pension Obligation Bond
Payments and Other Post-Employment BenefitsThe cities will pay a total of
$650,000. This amount shall be allocated to each city using the formula for
overhead in V.C.4.
2. Contract years four and five
The Cities will pay a total of one million dollars. This amount shall be allocated to
each city using the formula for Overhead in V.C.4.
3. Reopener
During contract year three, either party may request a meeting to discuss liability
costs. All changes require the consent of both parties.
a. If the COUNTY reduces the employees' Pension offset amount but
gives wage increases to offset the impact to the employee, only the net
wage increase (if any) will be subject to the cap. Net wage increase is
the amount that the wage increase exceeds the reduction of the pension
offset.
E. Retirement Enhancement
If the COUNTY enhances the retirement benefits to the employees the CITY will
not have to pay costs directly associated with that enhancement. Enhancements
mandated by state or federal law are exempt from this provision.
F. Pension Offset Enhancement
If the COUNTY increases the Employee Pension Offset amount above the Fiscal
Year 2011-12 amount the CITY will not have to pay the additional retirement
26 June 19, 2017 Item 5 22
costs associated with the increase.
I.F Rate of Compensation
1. First Year
For the first year of this Agreement, CITY will compensate COUNTY for
provision of the Law Enforcement Services in an amount equal to the fiscal
year base amount set forth in Attachment B effective 07/01/17. Included in
this amount will be a liability cost agreed to by COUNTY and CITY. In
addition to the charges for Law Enforcement Services, CITY will
compensate COUNTY for Additional Services as set forth in Section V B 2,
above. This amount shall be subject to the provisions of section V D, above.
2. Subsequent Years
a. Cost Detail
By April 1st of each year, SHERIFF shall provide CITY with service
costs as defined in Attachment A. The cost for services provided by
SHERIFF shall be based upon the actual cost of such services as
identified in Attachment A. The salaries and benefits shall be based
upon the most current payroll and adjusted for any known increases
approved by the COUNTY’s Board of Supervisors. Included in this
amount will be an annual liability cost agreed to by COUNTY and
CITY. All other costs will be based on actual costs per the
COUNTY auditor’s previous fiscal year accounting records.
b. Level of Service
27 June 19, 2017 Item 5 23
By May 1st of each year, CITY shall determine the level of Law
Enforcement Services as defined in Section IV B required within
CITY for the upcoming fiscal year (July 1 through June 30). At a
minimum, such service shall include the availability of one
continuous twenty-four hour per day patrol unit and one continuously
available eight and one-half hour, seven day a week, day traffic unit.
c. Joint Operating and Financial Plan
By July 1st of each year, COUNTY and CITY shall prepare a written
Joint Operating and Financial Plan specifying the level of service for
the upcoming fiscal year and the total cost for such services as
determined in accordance with Section V C and V D, above. This
plan, when approved by CITY and the COUNTY through the
SHERIFF shall be effective July 1st and shall be made a part of this
Agreement as Attachment B.
d. Mandated Costs
CITY shall pay all costs which are mandatory as of the effective date
of this contract for any city police force to pay pursuant to state or
federal statute or case law, if such costs are not included in the
agreed-to costs enumerated in the Joint Operating and Financial Plan.
Further, CITY shall pay any mandatory costs that shall become
operational during the term of this Agreement.
JG. Mid-Year Adjustments to Basic Services
With thirty days (30) advance notice, either party may propose amendments or
modifications to this Agreement. Such changes, including any increase or decrease
28 June 19, 2017 Item 5 24
in the level of service, which are mutually agreed upon by and between COUNTY
and CITY shall be effective when incorporated in a revised Joint Operating and
Financial Plan written amendmentsthat is attached to this Agreement as Attachment
B and approved by both the COUNTY through the SHERIFF and CITY. If CITY
and COUNTY through SHERIFF agree to a change in the level of Law Enforcement
Services which requires a revision to Attachment B, CITY and COUNTY through
SHERIFF shall execute and sign an amendment to Attachment B. COUNTY shall
delegate the authority to SHERIFF to sign amendments to Attachment B consistent
with the intent of this provision after review and approval by County Counsel. When
CITY opts to increase or reduce service levels thus impacting the base staff count,
SHERIFF will reallocate costs in accordance to Section V C and V D, above.
KH. Method of Payment, Proportional Payment, Credits
1. Monthly Invoices
COUNTY shall invoice CITY monthly for services received (1/12 of annual
costs). CITY, within 30 days from the date of the invoice, shall pay to the
County Treasurer, through the SHERIFF at 9621 Ridgehaven Court, San
Diego, CA 92123, for costs of the services agreed upon as reflected in the
Joint Operating and Financial Plan (Attachment B).
2. Billing for Additional Services
In the event that Additional Services have been agreed to by the parties and
provided by SHERIFF to CITY, such services shall be billed in addition to
those listed above. CITY agrees to pay the allowable cost of such services
so requested. CITY shall not be obligated to pay for any regional services
listed in Section II D above. However, in the event that all non-contract
29 June 19, 2017 Item 5 25
cities are charged by COUNTY for any regional service, the COUNTY may
reopen negotiations with CITY and, upon agreement of the parties, a charge
for such regional service may take effect at any time during the term of this
Agreement.
3. Credits
a. Vacancies and Absences
In the event that a credit is due CITY for vacancies or for absences
extending beyond 30 calendar days, SHERIFF will deduct the
amount of the credit from the total amount billed. This credit will not
be “pooled” among all of the CITIES but will be credited to CITY
only, for not having received the contractual service.
b. Towing Fees
CITY shall be given credit for towing fees collected under California
Vehicle Code section 22850.5.
LI. Booking Fees/Jail Access Fee
Effective 7/1/07, in lieu of charging CITY booking fees, COUNTY will receive an
annual appropriation from the state. COUNTY may charge a “jail access fee” for
certain low-level offenses (municipal code violations and misdemeanor violations
except driving under the influence, domestic violence offenses, and enforcement of
protective orders), for each booking in excess of CITY’s three year average of such
bookings (recalculated annually). In the event that the state reduces its annual
appropriation, COUNTY may reinstate booking fee in accordance with Government
Code 29550-29552.
30 June 19, 2017 Item 5 26
MJ. Distribution of Fines and Forfeitures
All personnel provided by SHERIFF in the performance of the services of this
contract for CITY shall be COUNTY officers and employees, but shall be deemed
officers and employees of CITY for the sole purpose of distributing fines and
forfeitures pursuant to Penal Code Section 1463.
NK. Forfeited Property and Assets
Any property retrieved in CITY by SHERIFF’S personnel such as unclaimed stolen
goods or revenue generated by the sale of such property by COUNTY shall be made
available to CITY net of allowable expenses, at first option to retain for CITY
purposes. Assets seized through the Asset Forfeiture process by SHERIFF’s
personnel within CITY as a result of self-initiated activities or calls for service shall
be shared with CITY according to current Federal Asset Seizure guidelines.
OL. Grant Availability
SHERIFF will advise CITY of availability of grant funding to maximize efforts to
obtain funds for such things as anti-terrorism activities, programs and training.
PM. Availability of Funding
All terms and conditions of this Agreement are subject to the continued
appropriations and availability of funds for either party for the performance of the
services stated herein.
VI. DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION
A. Indemnification Related to Workers Compensation and Employment Issues
COUNTY shall fully indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers, employees
and agents, from any claims, losses, fines, expenses (including attorneys’ fees and
court costs or arbitration costs), costs, damages or liabilities arising from or related
31 June 19, 2017 Item 5 27
to (1) any workers’ compensation claim or demand or other workers compensation
proceeding arising from or related to, or claimed to arise from or relate to,
employment which is brought by an employee of COUNTY or any contract labor
provider retained by COUNTY, or (2) any claim, demand, suit or other proceeding
arising from or related to, or claimed to arise from or relate to, the status of
employment (including without limitation compensation, demotion, promotion,
discipline, termination, hiring, work assignment, transfer, disability, leave or other
such matters) which is brought by an employee of COUNTY or any contract labor
provider retained by COUNTY. CITY shall fully indemnify and hold harmless
COUNTY, its officers, employees and agents, from any claims, losses, fines,
expenses (including attorneys’ fees and court costs or arbitration costs), costs,
damages or liabilities arising from or related to (1) any workers’ compensation
claim or demand or other workers compensation proceeding arising from or related
to, or claimed to arise from or relate to, employment which is brought by an
employee of CITY or any contract labor provider retained by CITY, or (2) any
claim, demand, suit or other proceeding arising from or related to, or claimed to
arise from or relate to, the status of employment (including without limitation
compensation, demotion, promotion, discipline, termination, hiring, work
assignment, transfer, disability, leave or other such matters) which is brought by an
employee of CITY or any contract labor provider retained by CITY.
B. Defense And Indemnity; Acts And Omissions
1. Claims, Actions or Proceedings Arising From Acts or Omissions of
COUNTY
COUNTY hereby agrees to defend and indemnify the CITY, its agents,
32 June 19, 2017 Item 5 28
officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against CITY,
arising out of the acts or omissions of COUNTY in the performance of this
Agreement. At its sole discretion, CITY may participate at its own expense
in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding, but such participation shall
not relieve COUNTY of any obligation imposed by this Agreement. CITY
shall notify COUNTY promptly of any claim, action or proceeding and
cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Claims, Actions or Proceedings Arising From Acts or Omissions of
CITY
CITY hereby agrees to defend and indemnify the COUNTY, its agents,
officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against
COUNTY, arising out of the acts or omissions of CITY in the performance
of this Agreement. At its sole discretion, COUNTY may participate at its
own expense in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding, but such
participation shall not relieve CITY of any obligation imposed by this
Agreement. COUNTY shall notify CITY promptly of any claim, action or
proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense.
3. Claims, Actions or Proceedings Arising From Concurrent Acts or
Omissions
COUNTY hereby agrees to defend itself, and CITY hereby agrees to defend
itself, from any claim, action or proceeding arising out of the concurrent acts
or omissions of COUNTY and CITY. In such cases, COUNTY and CITY
agree to retain their own legal counsel, bear their own defense costs, and
waive their right to seek reimbursement of such costs, except as provided in
33 June 19, 2017 Item 5 29
paragraph 5 below (referring to joint defense agreements and reimbursement
and/or reallocation).
4. Limited COUNTY Defense And Indemnification Of CITY; Claims
Investigation
a. Limited COUNTY Defense And Indemnification Of City
The COUNTY shall indemnify, defend and hold the CITY harmless
where asserted CITY liability is based solely on one or more of the
following three circumstances:
(1) The CITY’s contractual relationship with COUNTY under
this Agreement;
(2) The incident giving rise to the claim or suit is alleged to have
occurred within the boundaries of CITY and there is no
"dangerous condition" allegation against the CITY;
(3) The conduct alleged to be that of the CITY is, in fact,
COUNTY conduct.
b. Procedure For Determination Of Duty To Defend And Indemnify
If the COUNTY and/or CITY receive a claim or claims containing a
description of circumstances, and/or are served with a complaint
containing allegations, that the actions and/or omissions of the
COUNTY and CITY in the performance of this Agreement
contributed to the injuries and/or damages alleged in the complaint,
the COUNTY shall look beyond the mere description of
circumstances or allegations to determine whether CITY acts,
omissions or dangerous conditions of CITY property may have
34 June 19, 2017 Item 5 30
contributed to the injuries and/or damages alleged in the complaint,
notwithstanding the allegations. The COUNTY, consistent with its
long standing practice, shall review the information in any COUNTY
claims file, including investigative materials of the factual
circumstances underlying the complaint’s allegations and/or available
law enforcement agency incident reports. If the COUNTY review
determines that there are no facts supporting any viable theory of
liability alleged in the complaint against the CITY, the COUNTY
shall defend and indemnify the CITY pursuant to the provisions in
paragraph 4.a above. However, if as a result of the COUNTY review,
there appears to be a reasonable basis for concluding that CITY acts,
omissions or dangerous conditions of CITY property may have
contributed to the injuries and/or damages alleged in the complaint,
COUNTY shall, as soon as practicable contact the appropriate CITY
representative to discuss COUNTY's findings. If, after the discussion
with CITY representative, the COUNTY is convinced that CITY was
not involved, the COUNTY shall defend and indemnify the CITY
pursuant to the provisions in paragraph A, above. However, if there
continues to appear to be a reasonable basis for concluding that CITY
acts, omissions or dangerous conditions of CITY property may have
contributed to the plaintiff's injuries and/or damages alleged in the
complaint, the COUNTY will notify the CITY that the COUNTY,
pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, is not obligated to
defend and indemnify CITY under paragraph 4 (a), above. When the
35 June 19, 2017 Item 5 31
COUNTY defends a claim or suit pursuant to paragraph 4(a), above,
the CITY shall cooperate with COUNTY in the defense of the action
or claim.
5. Joint Defense
Notwithstanding paragraph 4 above, in cases where COUNTY and CITY
agree in writing to a joint defense, COUNTY and CITY may appoint joint
defense counsel to defend the claim, action or proceeding arising out of the
concurrent acts or omissions of CITY and COUNTY. Joint defense counsel
shall be selected by mutual agreement of COUNTY and CITY. COUNTY
and CITY agree to share the costs of such joint defense and any agreed
settlement in equal amounts, except as follows: COUNTY and CITY further
agree that neither party may bind the other to a settlement agreement without
the written consent of both COUNTY and CITY. Where a trial verdict or
arbitration award, in a joint defense case, allocates or determines the
comparative fault of the parties, COUNTY and CITY may seek
reimbursement and/or reallocation of defense costs, judgments and awards,
consistent with such comparative fault.
VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Independent Contractor Status
In the performance of services under this Agreement, COUNTY and their respective
officers, agents and/or employees shall be deemed independent contractors and not
officers, agents or employees of CITY. All such personnel provided by COUNTY
under this Agreement are under the direct and exclusive supervision, daily direction,
36 June 19, 2017 Item 5 32
and control of COUNTY and COUNTY assumes full responsibility for the actions
of such personnel in the performance of services hereunder.
CITY and COUNTY acknowledge and agree that CITY does not control the manner
and means of performing the work of COUNTY’s officers, agents or employees
who perform Law Enforcement Services, and that CITY does not have the right or
authority to hire, discipline or terminate such officers, agents or employees.
COUNTY has no authority of any kind to bind CITY, and CITY has no authority to
bind COUNTY and/or SHERIFF in any respect whatsoever, nor shall COUNTY or
SHERIFF act or attempt to act, or represent itself directly or by implication as an
agent of CITY, or in any manner assume or create or attempt to assume or create
any obligation on behalf of or in the name of CITY. CITY shall not act or attempt
to act, or represent itself directly or by implication as an agent of COUNTY, or in
any manner assume or create or attempt to assume or create any obligation on behalf
of or in the name of COUNTY.
B. Notices
Any notice, request, demand or other communication required or permitted
hereunder shall be in writing and may be personally delivered or given as of the date
of mailing by depositing such notice in the United States mail, first-class postage
prepaid and addressed as follows; or to such other place as each party may designate
by subsequent written notice to each other:
37 June 19, 2017 Item 5 33
To COUNTY and SHERIFF:
County of San Diego Sheriff Chairperson AND Contracts Manager San Diego County PO Box 439062 Board of Supervisors 9621 Ridgehaven Ct 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92123 San Diego, CA 92101
To: CITY
City Manager City of Del Mar 1050 Camino Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014
A notice shall be effective on the date of personal delivery if personally delivered
before 5:00 p.m. on a business day or otherwise on the first business day following
personal delivery; or two (2) business days following the date the notice is
postmarked, if mailed; or on the first business day following delivery to the
applicable overnight courier, if sent by overnight courier for next business day
delivery and otherwise when actually received.
C. Time of the Essence
Time is of the essence of this Agreement. Unless specifically stated to the contrary,
all references to days herein shall be deemed to refer to business days, not to include
COUNTY holidays.
D. Amendments
With the exception of the modification or amendment of Exhibits as noted in
Sections IV E , V C and V D, above, this Agreement may be modified or amended
38 June 19, 2017 Item 5 34
only by a written document signed by all parties, and no oral understanding or
agreement shall be binding on the parties. No party shall assign any of its rights or
delegate any of its obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the
other parties.
E. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, including all Exhibits hereto, constitute the complete and exclusive
statement of agreement between COUNTY and CITY with respect to the subject
matter hereof. As such, all prior written and oral understandings are superseded in
total by this Agreement.
F. Construction
Each party has had the opportunity to participate in the review of this Agreement
and this Agreement will be deemed to have been made and shall be construed,
interpreted, governed and enforced pursuant to and in accordance with the laws of
the State of California. The headings and captions used in this Agreement are for
convenience and ease of reference only and shall not be used to construe, interpret,
expand, or limit the terms of the Agreement and shall not be construed against any
one party. Each of the Exhibits attached to this Agreement is hereby incorporated
into this Agreement by this reference.
G. No Third Party Beneficiaries
This Agreement is intended solely for the benefit of the COUNTY and the CITY.
Any benefit to any third party is incidental and does not confer on any third party to
this Agreement any rights whatsoever regarding the performance of this Agreement.
Any attempt to enforce provisions of this Agreement by third parties is specifically
prohibited.
39 June 19, 2017 Item 5 35
H. Waiver
A waiver by COUNTY of a breach of any of the covenants to be performed by
CITY, or a waiver by CITY of a breach of any of the covenants to be performed by
COUNTY, shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same
or other covenants, agreements, restrictions, or conditions of this Agreement. In
addition, the failure of either party to insist upon strict compliance with any
provision of this Agreement shall not be considered a waiver of any right to do so,
whether for that breach or any subsequent breach. The acceptance by COUNTY or
CITY of either performance or payment shall not be considered a waiver of the
other party’s preceding breach of this Agreement.
I. Authority to Enter Agreement
COUNTY and CITY each has all requisite power and authority to conduct its
respective business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each party
warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power,
right, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party.
J. Cooperation
COUNTY through SHERIFF and CITY will cooperate in good faith to implement
this Agreement.
K. Counterparts
This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall
be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.
L. Severability
This Agreement is subject to all applicable laws and regulations. If any provision of
40 June 19, 2017 Item 5 36
this Agreement is found by any court or other legal authority, or is agreed upon by
the parties, to be in conflict with any law or regulation, then the conflicting
provision shall be considered null and void. If the effect of nullifying any
conflicting provision is such that a material benefit of this Agreement to either party
is lost, then the Agreement may be terminated at the option of the affected party,
with the notice as required in this Agreement. In all other cases, the remainder of
this Agreement shall be severable and shall continue in full force and effect.
M. Representation
CITY’s City Manager, or his or her designee, shall represent CITY in all discussions
pertaining to this Agreement. With the exception of the procedures set forth in
sections II E, IV E, and V D, concerning services and payment, the SHERIFF, or his
or her designee, shall represent COUNTY in all discussions pertaining to this
Agreement.
N. Job Actions
In the event of a work slowdown, strike, or any other form of job action by those
individuals assigned to perform CITY Law Enforcement Services, COUNTY
through SHERIFF agrees to provide only that minimal level of service agreed to by
CITY and COUNTY, and CITY shall have no responsibility for the cost of
SHERIFF’s Law Enforcement Services personnel who withhold Law Enforcement
Services to CITY under those circumstances.
O. Dispute Resolution Concerning Services and Payment
In the event of any dispute concerning services and payment arising from this
Agreement, the Assistant Sheriff of the Law Enforcement Services Bureau, or his or
her designee, and CITY’s City Manager, or his or her designee, will meet and confer
41 June 19, 2017 Item 5 37
within 10 (ten) business days after receiving notice of the dispute in an attempt to
resolve the dispute. In the event no agreement can be reached, SHERIFF, or his or
her designee, and CITY’s City Manager, or his or her designee, shall meet to discuss
resolution of said dispute.
P. Obligation
This AGREEMENT shall be binding upon the successors of the members of the
City Council, the Mayor and City Manager of CITY, and the members of the
COUNTY Board of Supervisors and the SHERIFF.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY, by resolution duly adopted by its City Council on June 19,
2017 ( ), has approved the execution of this contract by its City Manager, and the COUNTY, by order of its Board of Supervisors on July 20, 2017 ( ) has approved the execution of this contract on the 29th Day of January, 2013XXXXXX..
CITY COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
______Scott W. Huth, City Manager Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Approved by City Council Approved by Board of Supervisors
Action______Action______
Date______Date______
By:______By:______
Approved as to form and legality Approved as to form and legality
By______By______City Attorney County Counsel
Date______Date______
42 June 19, 2017 Item 5 38
EXHIBITS TO THIS AGREEMENT: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E
43 June 19, 2017 Item 5 39
ATTACHMENT A
CONTRACT LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
SERVICE COSTS FY 2017/2018
SALARY & START UP RADIO SERVICE CATEGORY BENEFITS COSTS REPLACEMENT (Prorate (Full) (Prorate if partial year) if partial year)
STAFF:
Deputy Patrol $176,417.39 $17,559.00 $506.03 Deputy Traffic $176417.39 $17,559.00 $506.03 Deputy Motor $138,725.58 $17,559.00 $506.03 Deputy SPO $176,417.39 $17,559.00 $506.03 Detective $184,622.85 $17,559.00 $506.03 CSO $77,254.92 $10,308.00 $506.03
Sergeant $228,142.66 $17,559.00 $506.03
Lieutenants $241248.58 $17,559.00 $506.03 Captains $280,804.60 $17,559.00 $506.03
Admin Sec II $83,862.96 $5,133.00 $0.00
Admin Sec I $71,220.34 $5,133.00 $0.00 Office Assistant $67,017.44 $5,133.00 $0.00 Office Support Specialist $60,822.88 $5,133.00 $0.00 Sr. Office Assistant $79,088.72 $5,133.00 $0.00
SheriWs Prop & Evid Spec I $69,628.22 $5,133.00 $0.00 Dept. Aide $47,228.30 $5,133.00 $0.00 Crime & Intelligence Analyst $127,599.62 $5,133.00 $0.00
Rehire (960 program) per hour $40.00
AUTO: Cost per auto (Prorate if partial year) Patrol Sedan BIW $25,523.32 Patrol 4x4 BIW $30,744.11
Traffic Sedan B!W $25,523.32 Motorcycle $12.1 17.66
Management Sedan $11,418.67
Detective Sedan & Det. Supervisor $8601.45
SPO - Sedan 4 Dr $8,601.45 SPO - Van $13,066.57 SPO - B&W $25,523.32
CSO - Sedan 4 Dr $8,601.45 CSO - Van $6,004.99
44 June 19, 2017 Item 5 ATTACHMENT B City of Del Mar Effective 711117 through 6130118 June 2017
Staff #of Unit Total SERVICE CATEGORY Cost Staff Factor Net Cost Notes
Deputy Patrol $ 176,417.39 5.320 938,540.49 Deputy Traffic $ 176,417.39 1.268 223,684.72
Deputy Motor $ 188,725.58 -
Deputy SPO $ 176,417.39 - - Detective $ 184,622.85 1.000 184,622.85
- CSO $ 77,254.92 -
Sergeant Patrol $ 228,142.66 0.453 103,295.23 Sergeant Traffic $ 228,142.66 0.091 20662.05 Sergeant Relief $ 228,142.66 0.091 20,857.00
Sergeant Dedicated $ 228,142.66 - - Detective Sgt $ 228,142.66 0.111 25,349.18
Station Staff 122,539.31
Subtotal 1,639,550.83
Ancillary Support 267,608.66 Supply 36,487.71 Vehicles 128,567.06 Space 29,557.88 Management Support 82,789.69 Liability 14,604.67
559,615.67
Adjustments:
TOTAL AMOUNT $ 2,199,166.50
Attachment B 12-Jun-17
45 June 19, 2017 Item 5 ATTACHMENTC
OVERHEAD COST DETAIL SHEET
DEPUTY SHERIFF & SERGEANT COMMUNITYSERVICE OFFICER
Station Support Staff Direct Charge Now Direct Charge Now
Ancillary Support Communications Ctr $ 15,199.34 $ 7,599.67 Reserves $ - $ Crime Prevention $ 1,808.50 $ 904.25 Crime Analysis $ 475.02 $ 237.51 Traffic Coordinator $ 435.81 $ 217.91 Juvenile Intervention $ 2,654.71 $ 1,327.36 Family Protection $ 3,737.30 $ 1,868.65 Financial Crimes $ 2,725.31 $ 1,362.66 Domestic Violence $ 1,268.61 $ 634.31 Homicide $ 3,806.66 $ 1,903.33 Total $ 32,111.26 $ 16,055.65
Supplies Station Direct Charge Now Direct Charge Now Support Other $ 1,932.23 $ 966.12 Total $ 1,932.23 $ 966.12
Space Cost Space Direct Charge Now Direct Charge Now Total $ $
Management Support Admin $ 1,423.28 $ 711.64 Fiscal $ 1,561.40 $ 780.70 Personnel $ 2,591.77 $ 1,295.89 Data Services $ 1,375.19 $ 687.60 Other $ 1,857.31 $ 928.66 Total $ 8,808.95 $ 4,404.49
Grand Total $ 42,852.44 $ 21,426.26
Note: Deputy, Detective, CSO, Sergeant, Station Staff, Station Supplies, Space & Vehicles are calculated directly per station.
Attachment C 6/1212017 46 June 19, 2017 Item 5 ATTACHMENTD
LIABILITYFUND HISTORY
AMOUNT
Beginning Balance 1,643,947.51
FY 2009/2010 307,764.05
FY 2010/2011 (1,298,299.47)
FY 2011/2012 209,033.65
FY 2012/2013 258,994.88
FY 2013/2014 15,350.61
FY 2014/2015 60,289.48
FY 2015/2016 (635,636.98)
FY 2016/2017(2 Quarters) (178,801.17)
Total 382,642.56
47 June 19, 2017 Item 5 ATTACHMENT E 48
VHF Mobile radio STANDARDIZED EQUIPMENT LIST PATROL STATIONS
Mobile Handitalk IHF Mobile VRM Light Plastic Vehicle Type Radio Radio Radio MCTs (1) Modems AVL (2) Siren Rear Seat Radar Push Bar Gunlock Winch Screen
Patrol Sedan x x x X x x x x x x
Patrol 4X4 (Expedition) x x x x x x x x x x x
Patrol 4X4 (Pick Up) x x x x x x x x x x
Traffic Sedan x x x x x x x x x x x June 19, 2017 Traffic Motorcycle x x x
Detective (4-Door) x x
Detective (2-Door) x x
Detective (Black & white) x x x x x x x x x
Detective (Van) x x
CSO (Van) x x x x x(3)
Supervisory Sedan x x No* x
(1) Mobile Computer Terminals - purchased by Communication Center. (2) Auto Vehicle Locator (3) Amber warning light in rear deck. Item 5 Staff Equivalent for Coverage and Relief
Work seven days a week with relief for weekends and time off Hours per day Coverage Hours per shift days per week Staff required 7 day with Relief (old unit) 8.5 8.5 7.0 1.78 New Unit 10.5 10.5 7.0 2.19 New Unit 12.5 12.5 7.0 2.61 New Unit 25.0 12.5 7.0 5.22 New Unit 25.5 8.5 7.0 5.33
Work full shifts a week with relief for time off Hours per day Coverage Hours per shift days per week Staff required 5 day with Relief (Old Unit) 8.5 8.5 5.0 1.27 New Unit 10.5 10.5 4.0 1.27 New Unit 12.5 12.5 3.4 1.27
Work full shifts a week with no relief for time off Hours per day Coverage Hours per shift days per week Staff required 5 day without Relief (Old Unit) 8.5 8.5 5.0 1.00 New Unit 10.5 10.5 4.0 1.00 New Unit 12.5 12.5 3.4 1.00
Note: add partial totals and round totals up. For example, ifyou need coverage for 2 positions 5 days a week with relief you would need 1.27 staff x 2 or 2.54 and would need 3 staff.
Assumptions Hours per year Hours per week Work 1,743 33.52 Off 467 8.98 Total 2,210 42.50
49 June 19, 2017 Item 5 Attachment B
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIVE- YEAR AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITY OF DEL MAR, THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF FOR GENERAL AND SPECIALIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TRAFFIC SERVICES.
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar is one of nine cities in San Diego County which elect to have General and Specialized Law Enforcement and Traffic Services provided by the San Diego County Sheriff; and
WHEREAS, the nine cities have traditionally negotiated together with the Sheriff to agree upon a contract common to all of the nine cities, with individual services described in each contract’s Attachment B; and
WHEREAS, each City Council must individually approve its contract for General and Specialized Law Enforcement and Traffic Services; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the nine contract law enforcement cities have met and conferred with representatives of the San Diego County Sheriff to secure an agreement mutually agreeable to representatives of each contract city and the San Diego County Sheriff; and
WHEREAS, sufficient funds have been included in the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Operating and Capital Budget to pay the first year costs of this agreement; and
WHEREAS, the proposed agreement is contained in its entirety as Attachment A of the staff report; and
WHEREAS, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors has scheduled to consider the proposed agreement in its July 20, 2017 meeting with a recommendation for approval from the County Sheriff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California that the City Manager is directed to execute the Five-Year Agreement Among the City of Del Mar, the County of San Diego, and the San Diego County Sheriff for General and Specialized Law Enforcement and Traffic Services subject to its approval by the County Board of Supervisors.
50 June 19, 2017 Item 5 Resolution No. 2017-__ Page 2 of 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 19th day of June 2017.
______TERRY SINNOTT, Mayor City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF DEL MAR
I, ASHLEY JONES, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution 2017-___, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 19th day of June 2017, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______Ashley Jones Administrative Services Director/City Clerk City of Del Mar
51 June 19, 2017 Item 5 City of Del Mar
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Kathleen A. Garcia, Planning and Community Development Director Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager Prepared by Amanda Lee, Senior Planner
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance for Zone Code Amendment ZA15-001/Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA15-001 to Amend Prospective Parking Ordinance No. 924 Pursuant to Coastal Commission Action May 11, 2017
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the Ordinance to formally accept the Coastal Commission’s required modifications for final certification.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On June 5, 2017, the City Council introduced an Ordinance to accept modifications required by the California Coastal Commission as part of their action to conditionally certify the City’s Local Coastal Program Amendment (Ordinance No. 924) on May 11, 2017. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 924 on December 5, 2016, to update various parking regulations and improve parking management tools. Coastal Commission approval is required for the new parking regulations to become effective.
The Council is being asked to adopt the Ordinance in Attachment A, which amends prospective Ordinance No. 924 consistent with the Coastal Commission action. Upon adoption by the City Council, the Ordinance package as a whole will be resubmitted to the Coastal Commission for final certification. Both Ordinances will become effective immediately on the date that the Coastal Commission takes action to certify.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
New parking regulations are proposed to update and improve the City’s parking management tools. The proposed amendments to Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 30.80 (Parking) constitute a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) and are subject to Coastal Commission approval. On May 11, 2017, the Coastal Commission voted to ______City Council Action:
1 June 19, 2017 Item 6 City Council Staff Report Parking Ordinance June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 2 conditionally certify the City’s LCPA with four minor changes required relating to On-Site Paid Parking, Site-Specific Parking Management Plans, Valet Parking, and the In-Lieu Fee Parking Program. Acceptance of the Coastal Commission’s modifications will allow for the City to obtain final certification and for the new parking regulations to become effective.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed amendments would not, in and of themselves, result in a fiscal impact. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed amendments are categorically exempt from preparation of an environmental document under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA guidelines Article 19, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). The regulations in and of themselves will not have a significant effect on the environment and involve a negligible or no expansion of use. PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
On June 5, 2017, the City Council voted unanimously to introduce the Ordinance. The staff report for that meeting is available for review on the City’s website at: www.delmar.ca.us.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Ordinance: Amendment to Prospective Parking Ordinance No. 924 Pursuant to Coastal Commission Action May 11, 2017
2 June 19, 2017 Item 6 ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. __
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 30.80 RELATED TO PARKING BY REVISING SECTIONS 30.80.020, 30.80.095, 30.80.160, AND 30.80.170 AS ADOPTED BY PROSPECTIVE ORDINANCE NO. 924 IN ORDER TO OBTAIN FINAL CERTIFICATION OF THE SUBMITTED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT APPLICATION IN PROCESS PURSUANT TO THE CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION ACTION TAKEN BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ON MAY 11, 2017.
WHEREAS, the Del Mar City Council adopted Ordinance No. 924 on December 5, 2016 following a multi-year effort to update the City’s parking regulations; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2017, the California Coastal Commission took action to conditionally certify the City’s Local Coastal Program Amendment for Parking Ordinance No.924; and
WHEREAS, if the City Council adopts the code amendments included herein that amend prospective Ordinance No. 924, the City of Del Mar can resubmit the Ordinances to the Coastal Commission to obtain final certification of the parking-related Local Coastal Program Amendment package.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Del Mar hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION ONE
That Section 30.80.020 of the Municipal Code, as amended by prospective Ordinance No. 924, be revised to read as follows:
30.80.020 General Parking Regulations
A. through C. [No change in text]
D. Unless approved through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) pursuant to Chapter 30.74, the parking of motor vehicles shall be without monetary charge when such parking is required pursuant to this Chapter. This Section shall not prohibit measures to limit the use of such parking to the owners, proprietors, employees, and customers for which the parking is required and provided. Any CUP authorized to allow a monetary charge for parking shall be subject to conditions and the findings for approval in Section 30.74.020 and shall only be allowed during times at least 30 minutes before or after the hours of operation for which the parking is required to ensure that the monetary charge will not result in
3 June 19, 2017 Item 6 Ordinance No. ____ Page 2 of 5
adverse impacts to the availability of parking either in the public right-of-way or on other private properties in the vicinity.
E. [No change in text.]
SECTION TWO
That new Section 30.80.095 of the Municipal Code, as added by prospective Ordinance No. 924, be revised to read as follows:
30.80.095 Site-Specific Parking Management Plans
A. For commercial development with multiple tenants that are located within the Central Commercial, Visitor Commercial, North Commercial, Professional Commercial, and Beach Commercial zones, approval to alternatively meet the required parking as set forth in DMMC Section 30.80.030 may be requested by making application for approval of a Site-Specific Parking Management Plan. The approved blended rate parking requirements for the multi-tenant commercial development as a whole shall generally be no lower than 1 space per 300 feet.
B. through E. [No change in text.]
SECTION THREE
That Section 30.80.160 of the Municipal Code, as amended by prospective Ordinance No. 924, be revised to read as follows:
30.80.160 Conditional Use Permit Approval for Valet Parking
A. through C. [No change in text.] . D. The decision maker may impose conditions of approval as deemed necessary to protect the public, health, safety and welfare, to ensure the right of coastal access, and to ensure compliance with the Permit. At a minimum, conditions shall address the following:
1. through 8. [No change in text.]
E. [No change in text.]
SECTION FOUR
That Section 30.80.170 of the Municipal Code, as amended by prospective Ordinance No. 924, be revised to read as follows:
4 June 19, 2017 Item 6 Ordinance No. ____ Page 3 of 5
30.80.170 In-Lieu Parking Fee Program
The In-Lieu Parking Fee Program was established to provide a tool for better management and utilization of parking spaces within the City’s Downtown area. The goal of the program is to expand on the existing capacity of off-street parking spaces available to the public, and to facilitate public access and mobility within the Village Center and to local park and beach areas.
A. [No change in text.]
B. In-Lieu Parking Fee funds collected by the City shall be deposited in a designated fund and shall be expended by the City exclusively for: [Ord. 850]
1. The acquisition, development, operation or maintenance of off- street parking spaces available for use by the general public; and
2. The development and implementation of an alternate public transportation program, such as a shuttle system, to transport the public to and from off-street parking spaces available for use by the general public along Camino del Mar through the Village Center and to the Powerhouse/Seagrove Parks at the foot of 15th Street to facilitate public access and mobility within the Village Center and to beach areas.
C. through E. [No change in text.]
F. In-Lieu Parking Fees may not be collected for more than 50 total parking spaces before both the public parking facility and alternate public transportation program are fully operational. Once the public parking facility and alternate public transportation program become fully operational, the City shall utilize its best efforts to continue the In-Lieu Parking Fee Program. Should the program ever be discontinued or substantially modified, the City shall seek reauthorization of the program with the Coastal Commission through a separate Local Coastal Program Amendment.
SECTION FIVE
The City Council finds that approval of this ordinance is categorically exempt from the preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines Article 19, Section 15301. This ordinance in and of itself will not have a significant impact on the environment because it involves existing facilities with a negligible or no expansion of use. The City Council bases this finding upon the record prepared by the City and the City’s analysis of the potential environmental effects of this ordinance.
5 June 19, 2017 Item 6 Ordinance No. ____ Page 4 of 5
SECTION SIX
This Ordinance was introduced by the City Council on June 5, 2017.
SECTION SEVEN
The City Clerk is directed to prepare and have published a summary of this Ordinance no less than five days prior to the consideration of its adoption and again within 15 days following adoption indicating votes cast.
SECTION EIGHT
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
SECTION NINE
Upon adoption, the Ordinance will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for certification together with the resubmittal of Ordinance No. 924 as part of the current Local Coastal Program Amendment application in process with the Coastal Commission. The Ordinance will take effect and be in force on the date that the California Coastal Commission takes action to unconditionally certify the Local Coastal Program Amendment .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ____ day of _____ 2017.
______Terry Sinnott, Mayor City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney City of Del Mar
6 June 19, 2017 Item 6 Ordinance No. ____ Page 5 of 5
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF DEL MAR
I, ASHLEY JONES, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No.____, which has been published pursuant to law, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the ___ day of ______, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
______Ashley Jones, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk City of Del Mar
7 June 19, 2017 Item 6 City of Del Mar
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Scott W. Huth, City Manager Prepared by Emily Bernardo, IT Manager
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Authorization to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement for Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services with PlanNet for the new City Hall/Town Hall
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement with PlanNet for Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services for the new City Hall/Town Hall for a not to exceed amount of $43,950
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: The technology infrastructure, also referred to as “low voltage systems,” for the new City Hall/Town Hall includes structured cabling (Ethernet and fiber backbone), electronic access control, video security, intrusion detection, wireless technology, server room build-out, and audio-visual (A/V) systems. A competitive request for proposals (RFP) process will be used to select the vendors to procure and install all of the technology components. Time is of the essence to complete the RFP process and award the vendor contracts to begin work by early September 2017.
Due to the complex nature of coordination, integration, and installation of the low voltage systems, it is necessary for the City to engage an experienced technology firm to act as technology advisors that are subject matter experts in a variety of disciplines including A/V and building security in new municipal construction projects. The consultant will work with the City to understand its goals and to insure that the technology solutions align with the City’s expectations and budget. The consulting firm will provide oversight of the entire process from validation of the equipment and design specifications, through the RFP preparation, vendors’ proposal evaluation and selection, construction oversight, and closeout to insure a smooth, timely, and successful implementation.
A key role of the consultant is to provide validation and peer review of the existing design specifications. Since the spring of 2016, the City has been working with Western Audio-Visual and Vector USA to design the specifications for these low-voltage ______City Council Action:
1 June 19, 2017 Item 7 City Council Staff Report New City Hall Technology Consulting Services June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 2
systems. This design work was incorporated into the construction documents. Both Western Audio-Visual and Vector USA are resellers and integrators of the proposed systems and are allowed to bid on the project. Since the consultant is not affiliated with any resellers or installers of the proposed equipment, they will provide an objective review of the proposed equipment and design and provide recommendations to insure the RFP requirements match the City’s goals and budget. In addition, they will insure compatibility and interoperability between the complex systems.
In May 2017, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP 2017-02) for Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services for the new City of Del Mar City Hall/Town Hall. Two proposals were received in response to the RFP. The evaluation committee reviewed the two proposals and interviewed both firms. The evaluation committee unanimously selected PlanNet based on over sixteen years of experience working with public agencies on similar projects, their depth of technology expertise, and commitment to customer service. PlanNet has an excellent reputation in the industry and has recently completed projects for the City of Pasadena, City of Redlands, and City of Thousand Oaks.
FISCAL IMPACT The project scope consists of three phases. The first phase, peer review and recommendations of the design standards and RFP administration, is a fixed fee of $13,700. The second phase, RFP Administration, is a fixed fee of $16,250. Construction oversight and project close out will be performed on an as-needed basis, charged at an hourly rate, with an estimated cost of up to $14,000. The total cost of the consulting agreement is a not to exceed amount of $43,950 which includes the estimated maximum hours for construction oversight and closeout. There are sufficient funds available in the Civic Center Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FF&E) budget to cover the cost of these services.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Technology Consultant Professional Services Agreement Attachment B: Vendor Proposal
2 June 19, 2017 Item 7 CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR AND PLANNET LLC FOR TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING OVERSIGHT SUPPORT SERVICES
This Consulting Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ___ day of ______, 2017 by and between the City of Del Mar, a Charter City and a municipal corporation (“City”), and PlanNet, LLC. (“Consultant”) (collectively “Parties”).
WHEREAS, the City desires to employ a consultant to provide technology consulting oversight support services for the new City Hall/Town Hall low voltage systems (“Consulting Services”). Said work is to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below and as described in the scope of services, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the City has initially determined that Consultant is qualified by experience and ability to perform the services desired by City, and Consultant is willing to perform such services; and
WHEREAS, Consultant will conduct all the work as described and detailed in this Agreement to be provided to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto mutually covenant and agree with each other as follows:
1. CONSULTING SERVICES.
1.1 Scope of Services. The Consultant shall perform the Consulting Services as set forth in the written Scope of Services, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein. Such services shall be provided at the direction of the City.
1.2. Project Coordinator. The City Hall Project Manager is hereby designated as the Project Coordinator for City and will monitor the progress and execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall assign a single Project Director to provide supervision and have overall responsibility for the progress and execution of this Agreement for Consultant. Bob Otoupalik is hereby designated as the Project Director for Consultant. City shall provide Consultant access to appropriate staff and resources for the coordination and provision of services.
1.3. City Modification of Scope of Services. City may order changes to the Scope of Services within the general scope of this Agreement consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions. If such changes cause a change in the Consultant’s cost of, or time required for, completion of the Scope of Services, an equitable adjustment to Consultant’s compensation and/or contract time shall be made, subject to the City’s approval. All such changes shall be authorized in writing, executed by Consultant and City. If such a change results in an extension of the term of this Agreement or increases the maximum amount to be paid under this Agreement, no such change shall have any force or effect unless an amendment to this Agreement is approved by the City Council.
3 June 19, 2017 Item 7 Consulting Services Agreement For Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services Page 2 of 12
2. DURATION OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Term, Time for Performance. This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three years from the date first written above unless sooner terminated by the City.
Time is of the essence for this Agreement and each provision of this Agreement, unless otherwise specified in this Agreement.
2.2 Delay. Any delay occasioned by causes beyond the control of Consultant may merit an extension of time for the completion of the Scope of Services. When such delay occurs, Consultant shall immediately notify the Project Coordinator in writing of the cause and the extent of the delay, whereupon the Project Coordinator shall ascertain the facts and the extent of the delay and grant an extension of time for the completion of the Consulting Services when justified by the circumstances provided that no extension of time shall be granted which would extend the time for performance beyond the date specified in section 2.1 above.
2.3 City’s Right to Terminate for Default. Should Consultant be in default of any covenant or condition hereof, City may immediately terminate this Agreement for cause if Consultant fails to cure the default within ten (10) calendar days of receiving written notice of the default.
2.4 City’s Right to Terminate without Cause. Without limiting its rights in the event of Consultant’s default, City may terminate this Agreement, without cause, by giving written notice to Consultant. Such termination shall be effective upon receipt of the written notice. Consultant shall be compensated for all effort and material expended on behalf of City under the terms of this Agreement, up to the effective date of termination. All personal property remaining in City facilities or on City property thirty (30) days after the expiration or termination of this Agreement shall be, at City’s election, considered the property of City.
3. PERFORMANCE AFTER TERMINATION. Upon termination of this Agreement as provided herein, Consultant shall, within such reasonable time period as may be directed by City Manager, complete those items of work which are in various stages of completion and which City Manager determines are necessary to be completed by Consultant to allow the project to be completed in a timely, logical, and orderly manner. Upon termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, models, photographs, reports, and other materials prepared by Consultant shall be delivered to the City Manager, upon his request, as property of City.
4. COMPENSATION.
4.1 Total Amount. Compensation to Consultant shall be provided on a fixed fee basis for Phase 1, Peer Review, and Phase 2, Request for Proposal (RFP) Adminstration, in the amount of $29,950 as in the Proposal Pricing Sheet contained in Exhibit “A”. Compensation to Consultant shall be provided on an hourly basis for Phase 3, Construction Phase and Close- out, at the rates described in the Proposal Pricing Sheet contained in Exhibit “A” and shall not exceed $14,000. Consultant shall bill the City for work provided and shall present a written request for such payment monthly. City shall pay all invoices in arrears and shall in no event be required to pay for any services provided by Consultant in advance. Consultant acknowledges that it is not guaranteed any particular amount of work.
2
4 June 19, 2017 Item 7 Consulting Services Agreement For Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services Page 3 of 12
4.2 Additional Services. City may, as the need arises or in the event of an emergency, request additional services of Consultant. Should such additional services be required, Compensation therefore shall be paid to the Consultant in accordance with Scope of Services contained in Exhibit “A.” City and Consultant shall agree to the costs prior to commencement of such work.
5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Consultant is, for all purposes arising out of this Agreement, an independent contractor. The Consultant has and shall retain the right to exercise full control and supervision of all persons assisting the Consultant in the performance of said services hereunder, the City only being concerned with the finished results of the work being performed. Neither Consultant nor Consultant’s employees shall in any event be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled, including, but not limited to, overtime, any retirement benefits, workers’ compensation benefits, any injury leave or other leave benefits, Consultant being solely responsible for all such matters, as well as, compliance with social security and income tax withholding and all other regulations and laws governing such matters.
6. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE. Consultant agrees that it has the financial resources, service experience, completion ability, personnel, and experience in dealing with public agencies necessary for performing the Scope of Services and that such performance shall be in accordance with the standards customarily adhered to by an experienced and competent Consultant using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable Consultants practicing in the same field of service in the State of California. By executing this Agreement, Consultant represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness, and capacity to perform the Agreement in a manner satisfactory to City. Additionally, Consultant and all of Consultant’s employees or agents shall secure and maintain in force such permits and licenses as are required by law in connection with the furnishing of services pursuant to this Agreement.
7. AUDIT OF RECORDS.
7.1 At any time during normal business hours and as often as may be deemed necessary, the Consultant shall make available to a representative of City for examination all of its records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement and shall permit City to audit, examine, and/or reproduce such records. Consultant shall retain such financial and program service records for at least four (4) years after termination or final payment under this Agreement.
7.2 The Consultant shall include the City’s right to audit under this section in any and all of their subcontracts, and shall ensure that these sections are binding upon all subcontractors.
8. CONFIDENTIALITY. All Consulting services performed by Consultant, including, but not limited to, all drafts, data, correspondence, proposals, reports, research and estimates compiled or composed by Consultant, pursuant to this Agreement, are for the sole use of the City, its agents and employees. Neither the documents nor their contents shall be released to any third party without the prior written consent of the City. This provision does not apply to information that (a) was publicly known, or otherwise known to Consultant, at the time that it was disclosed to Consultant by the City, (b) subsequently becomes publicly known through no act or omission of Consultant or (c) otherwise becomes known to Consultant other than through disclosure by the City. Except for any subcontractors that may be allowed upon prior agreement, neither the
3
5 June 19, 2017 Item 7 Consulting Services Agreement For Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services Page 4 of 12 documents nor their contents shall be released to any third party without the prior written consent of the City. The sole purpose of this section is to prevent disclosure of City’s confidential and proprietary information by Consultant or subcontractors.
9. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
9.1 Consultant shall at all times comply with all federal, state and local conflict of interest laws, regulations, and policies applicable to public contracts and procurement practices, including, but not limited to, California Government Code §§ 81000 et seq. (Political Reform Act) and §§ 1090 et seq. Consultant shall immediately disqualify itself and shall not use its official position to influence in any way any matter coming before the City in which the Consultant has a financial interest as defined in Government Code § 87103. Consultant represents that it has no knowledge of any financial interests, which would require it to disqualify itself from any matter on which it might perform services for the City.
9.2 Consultant shall comply with all of the reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act. The Consultant shall file a Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700 (Assuming Office Statement) within thirty (30) calendar days of the City’s determination that the Consultant is subject to a conflict of interest code, if applicable. The Consultant shall also file a Form 700 (Annual Statement) on or before April 1, disclosing any financial interests held during the previous calendar year for which the Consultant was subject to a conflict of interest code.
9.3 If, in performing the Consulting Services set forth in this Agreement, the Consultant makes, or participates in, a “governmental decision” as described in Title 2, section 18701(a)(2) of the California Code of Regulations, or performs the same or substantially all the same duties for the City that would otherwise be performed by a City employee holding a position specified in the department's conflict of interest code, the Consultant shall be subject to a conflict of interest code requiring the completion of one or more statements of economic interests disclosing the Consultant’s relevant financial interests.
10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by Consultant under this Agreement shall be considered the property of City. Consultant shall be permitted to reference and use said materials for use in future studies, work, and marketing so long as said materials are considered “public documents” and are not subject to attorney-client privilege, or the subject of pending closed or executive session discussions.
11. INSURANCE
11.1 Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the Consultant, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than “A” and “VII” and are admitted to do business in the State of California, unless otherwise approved in writing by the City’s Risk Manager.
11.2 Consultant’s liabilities, including but not limited to Consultant’s indemnity obligations, under this Agreement, shall not be deemed limited in any way to the insurance coverage required herein. All policies of insurance required hereunder must provide that the City
4
6 June 19, 2017 Item 7 Consulting Services Agreement For Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services Page 5 of 12 is entitled to thirty (30) days prior written notice (ten (10) days for cancellation due to non-payment of premium) of cancellation or non-renewal of the policy or policies. Maintenance of specified insurance coverage is a material element of this Agreement.
11.3 Types and Amounts Required. Consultant shall maintain, at minimum, the following insurance coverage for the duration of this Agreement:
11.3.1 Commercial General Liability (CGL). Insurance written on an ISO Occurrence form CG 00 01 07 98 or equivalent providing coverage at least as broad which shall cover liability arising from any and all personal injury or property damage in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and subject to an annual aggregate of $2,000,000. There shall be no endorsement or modification of the CGL limiting the scope of coverage for either insured vs. insured claims or contractual liability. All defense costs shall be outside the limits of the policy.
11.3.2 Commercial Automobile Liability. For all of the Consultant's automobiles including owned, hired and non-owned automobiles, automobile insurance written on an ISO form CA 00 01 12 90 or a later version of this form or an equivalent form providing coverage at least as broad for bodily injury and property damage for a combined single limit of $300,000 per occurrence. Insurance certificate shall reflect coverage for any automobile (any auto).
11.3.3 Workers' Compensation. For all of the Consultant's employees who are subject to this Agreement and to the extent required by applicable state or federal law, a Workers' Compensation policy providing at minimum $1,000,000 employers' liability coverage. The Consultant shall provide an endorsement that the insurer waives the right of subrogation against the City and its respective elected officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives.
11.3.4 Consulting Liability. Consulting liability (errors and omissions) coverage with a limit of $1,000,000 per claim and $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The Consultant shall ensure both that (1) the policy retroactive date is on or before the date of commencement of the Scope of Services; and (2) the policy will be maintained in force for a period of three years after substantial completion of the Scope of Services or termination of this Agreement whichever occurs last. The Consultant agrees that for the time period defined above, there will be no changes or endorsements to the policy that increase the City's exposure to loss. All defense costs shall be outside the limits of the policy.
11.4 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions are the responsibility of the Consultant and must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, or (2) the Consultant shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses.
11.5 Additional Required Provisions. The commercial general liability and automobile liability policies shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
5
7 June 19, 2017 Item 7 Consulting Services Agreement For Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services Page 6 of 12
11.5.1 The City, its officers, officials, employees, and representatives shall be named as additional insureds. The City's Additional Insured status must be reflected on additional insured endorsement form which shall be submitted to the City.
11.5.2 The policies are primary and non-contributory to any insurance that may be carried by the City, as reflected in an endorsement which shall be submitted to the City.
11.6 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this Section 11. The endorsement should be on forms provided by the City or on other than the City’s forms provided those endorsements conform to City requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time.
12. DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION.
12.1 Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend (with attorneys approved by City), and hold harmless the City, and its officers, officials, agents and employees (the “Indemnified Parties”) from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability that arise out of, or pertain to, or relate to the Consultant, its employees, agents, and subcontractors performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant’s duty to indemnify under this section shall not include liability for damages for death or bodily injury to persons, injury to property, or other loss, damage or expense arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct by the City or its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees. Consultant's indemnification obligations shall not be limited by the insurance provisions of this Agreement. The Parties expressly agree that any payment, attorney's fees, costs or expense City incurs or makes to or on behalf of an injured employee under the City's self-administered workers' compensation is included as a loss, expense, or cost for the purposes of this section, and that this section will survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
12.2 This indemnity is in addition to any other rights or remedies which City may have under the law or this Agreement. In the event of any claim or demand made against any party which is entitled to be indemnified hereunder, City may, at its sole discretion, reserve, retain or apply any monies due to Consultant under this Agreement for the purpose of resolving such claims; provided however, that City may release such funds if Consultant provides City with reasonable assurances of protection of the City's interest. The City shall, in its sole discretion determine whether such assurances are reasonable.
12.3 Consultant agrees that its duty to defend arises upon an allegation of liability based upon the performance of services under this Agreement by Consultant, its officers, agents, representatives, employees, sub-consultants, or anyone for whom Consultant is liable and that an adjudication of Consultant’s liability is not a condition precedent to Consultant's duty to defend.
13. SUBCONTRACTORS.
13.1 The Consultant’s hiring or retaining of third parties (i.e. subcontractors) to perform services related to the Project is subject to prior approval by the City.
6
8 June 19, 2017 Item 7 Consulting Services Agreement For Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services Page 7 of 12
13.2 All contracts entered into between the Consultant and its subcontractor shall also provide that each subcontractor shall obtain insurance policies, which shall be kept in full force and effect during any and all work on this Project and for the duration of this Agreement. The Consultant shall require the subcontractor to obtain all policies described in section 11 of this Agreement in the amounts required by the City, which shall not be greater than the amounts required of the Consultant.
13.3 In any dispute between the Consultant and its subconsultants, the City shall not be made a party to any judicial or administrative proceeding to resolve the dispute. The Consultant agrees to defend and indemnify the City as described in section 12 of this Agreement should the City be made a party to any judicial or administrative proceeding to resolve any such dispute or should the City incur any costs in responding to third-party discovery requests.
14. NON-DISCRIMINATION. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or any other class protected under state, federal, or local law. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to any class or category protected under state, federal, or local law and shall make reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. Consultant agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment any notices provided by City setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause.
15. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party shall be delivered to the persons listed below. Any such written communications by mail shall be conclusively deemed to have been received by the addressee five (5) calendar days after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as noted below.
City of Del Mar If to Consultant: City Clerk Bob Otoupalik 1050 Camino del Mar 2951 Saturn St, Ste E Del Mar, CA 92014 Brea, CA 92821
16 ASSIGNABILITY. This Agreement and any portion thereof shall not be assigned or transferred, nor shall any of the Consultant’s duties be delegated or sub-contracted, without the express written consent of the City.
17. RESPONSIBILITY FOR EQUIPMENT. City shall not be responsible nor held liable for any damage to persons or property consequent upon the use, misuse, or failure of any equipment used by Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees or subcontractors, even if such equipment has been furnished, rented, or loaned to Consultant by City. The acceptance or use of any such equipment by Consultant, Consultant’s employees, or subcontractors shall be construed to mean that Consultant accepts full responsibility for and agrees to exonerate, indemnify and hold harmless City from and against any and all claims for any damage whatsoever resulting from the use, misuse, or failure of such equipment.
7
9 June 19, 2017 Item 7 Consulting Services Agreement For Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services Page 8 of 12
18. CALIFORNIA LAW; VENUE/MISC. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Any action brought to enforce or interpret any portion of this Agreement shall be brought in the county of San Diego, California. Consultant hereby waives any and all rights it might have pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 394.
19. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The Consultant shall comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies of the federal, state, and local governments applicable to this Agreement, including California Labor Code section 1720, et seq., relating to payment of prevailing wages for public works projects, if applicable. Consultant shall indemnify and defend the Indemnified Parties from and against any liability incurred due to any failure on the part of Consultant to comply with any applicable Laws.
To the extent Consultant is required to comply with prevailing wage requirements, Consultant does hereby acknowledge that they are aware of, have read, and understand the terms and implications of SB 854 and Consultant and any subconsultants ensure that they are familiar with and comply with its requirements. Such requirements include, but are not limited to, the registration requirement with the Department of Industrial Relations, State of California (DIR), pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. As of March 1, 2015, in compliance with SB 854, the City requires all affected contractors and consultants to be registered with the DIR prior to submitting a bid or proposal on any eligible District project. As of April 1, 2015, failure to comply with the requirements of SB 854 by any contractor or consultant, including registration with the DIR pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5, shall be a material breach of this Agreement which may be terminated by the City in its sole and absolute discretion. Where applicable, this project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR.
20. CONSULTANT’S CERTIFICATION OF AWARENESS OF IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986. Consultant certifies that Consultant is aware of the requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8 USC §§ 1101-1525) and has complied and will comply with these requirements, including, but not limited to, verifying the eligibility for employment of all agents, employees, subcontractors, and consultants that are included in this Agreement.
21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matters herein. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written, except as set forth herein.
22. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney. No change, alteration, or modification of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, and no verbal understanding of the Parties, their officers, agents, or employees shall be valid unless agreed to in writing by both Parties.
23. NO WAIVER. No failure of either the City or the Consultant to insist upon the strict performance by the other of any covenant, term or condition of this Agreement, nor any failure to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach of any covenant, term, or condition of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any such breach of such covenant, term or condition.
8
10 June 19, 2017 Item 7 Consulting Services Agreement For Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services Page 9 of 12
24. SEVERABILITY. The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision of this Agreement shall not render any other provision unenforceable, invalid, or illegal.
25. DRAFTING AMBIGUITIES. The Parties agree that they are aware that they have the right to be advised by counsel with respect to the negotiations, terms and conditions of this Agreement, and the decision of whether or not to seek advice of counsel with respect to this Agreement is a decision which is the sole responsibility of each Party. This Agreement shall not be construed in favor of or against either Party by reason of the extent to which each Party participated in the drafting of the Agreement.
26. LEGAL FEES. In the event of the bringing of any action or suit by either party hereto against the other party hereunder to enforce or interpret any of the provisions, covenants or conditions of this Agreement, or arising out of any tortuous conduct by either party incident to this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or suit shall be entitled to recover all costs and expenses of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees. In any action or suit brought to enforce this Agreement, the damages available shall be limited to specific performance or other such equitable relief that the court may order.
27. CONFLICTS BETWEEN TERMS. If an apparent conflict or inconsistency exists between the main body of this Agreement and the Exhibits, the main body of this Agreement shall control. If a conflict exists between an applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, regulation, order, or code and this Agreement, the law, rule, regulation, order, or code shall control. Varying degrees of stringency among the main body of this Agreement, the Exhibits, and laws, rules, regulations, orders, or codes are not deemed conflicts, and the most stringent requirement shall control. Each Party shall notify the other immediately upon the identification of any apparent conflict or inconsistency concerning this Agreement.
28. EXHIBITS INCORPORATED. All Exhibits referenced in this Agreement are incorporated into the Agreement by this reference.
29. SIGNING AUTHORITY. The representative for each Party signing on behalf of a corporation, partnership, joint venture, or governmental entity hereby declares that authority has been obtained to sign on behalf of the corporation, partnership, joint venture, or entity and agrees to hold the other Party or Parties hereto harmless if it is later determined that such authority does not exist.
9
11 June 19, 2017 Item 7 Consulting Services Agreement For Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services Page 10 of 12
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first hereinabove written.
CITY OF DEL MAR, PlanNet LLC. a municipal corporation
By: ______By: ______Scott W. Huth, City Manager Bob Otoupalik, Principal
ATTEST:
______Ashley Jones, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
10
12 June 19, 2017 Item 7 Consulting Services Agreement For Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services Page 11 of 12
EXHIBIT A – SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. Peer Review, site visit, evaluation and recommendations The consultant will attend a kick off meeting with the City of Del Mar to review the overall scope for overseeing the technology implementation of the project. The consultant will validate the existing design standards and construction drawings for the technology components. The consultant will make recommendations as needed.
2. RFPs Evaluation, Vendors Selection Western AV and Vector USA will provide the material necessary to include in the RFPs for the procurement and installation phase. The Consultant shall review the material and assist the City in refining the RFPs for publishing by the City. The Consultant shall assist the City in responding to the RFIs, evaluating the Bidders proposals, and the final selections.
3. Construction Phase Administration (CA) a. The Consultant shall assist the City in reviewing submittals, and performing routine Contract Administration (CA), including periodic site visits, and addressing field issues. b. The main function of the Consultant in this phase is to oversee the activities and installations by the Vendors, and help identify issues and recommend solutions. c. The consultant shall coordinate its activities and shall communicate with the City and its consultants and contractors who are contributing to the low voltage systems. d. The City is using the Procore construction management program. The consultant may be requested to communicate using Procore.
4. Closeout a. The consultant shall review the closeout schedule which will be provided by the Vendors and oversee the prompt commissioning, training, and submission of Owner Manuals by the Vendors.
Project Timeline (subject to change by the City) Action Date Distribution of RFP May 17, 2017 Pre-Proposal Construction Site Visit May 23, 2017 Last date for Consultant Questions May 29, 2017 Response date for Consultant Questions June 1, 2017 Proposal Submittal Deadline June 7, 2017 Consultant Interviews (optional) Week of June 12, 2017 City Council Contract Approval for Technology June 19, 2017 Consultant Kick Off Meeting June 20, 2017 Release RFPs for Technology Components July 14, 2017 Deadline for Technology RFPs August 4, 2017 Identify preferred vendors August 17, 2017 City Council Contract Approval for Technology September 5, 2017 Vendor contracts
11
13 June 19, 2017 Item 7 Consulting Services Agreement For Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services Page 12 of 12
Scope of Work – Key Milestones Amount
Phase 1. Peer Review and site visit. Submit status report and recommendations for $13,700 modifications to design specifications.
$16,250 Phase 2. RFP Administration, RFP Evaluation, Vendor recommendations
Total Scoped Work Fixed Fee $29,950
Phase 3. Construction Phase Administration (CA) and Closeout – Time & Expense for Not to Exceed Cabling & Security and A/V $14,000
Hourly rates: Project Manager ($185/hr) Sr. Consultant ($165/hr)
Total Not to $43,950 Exceed Amount
12
14 June 19, 2017 Item 7 Proposal for Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services for the new City of Del Mar City Hall/Town Hall (RFP 2017-02) June 7, 2017
15 June 19, 2017 Item 7 1
COVER LETTER / EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
June 7, 2017
Emily Bernardo IT Manager City of Del Mar Email: [email protected]
Re: Technology Consulting Oversight Support Services Proposal for the New City of Del Mar City Hall/Town Hall (RFP 2017-02)
Dear Ms. Bernardo and Members of the Selection Committee:
PlanNet is excited at the prospect of providing technology consulting support services for the City of Del Mar new City Hall/Town Hall. We have included within this proposal a project team and competitive cost specifically prepared to meet your project goals. PlanNet will provide unparalleled depth and breadth of expertise and experience that will ensure project success.
• Size and In-house Resources: As the largest independent communications technology firm on the West Coast, PlanNet brings a wide range of in-house resources and experience unparalleled by any other firm, with especially strong public-sector experience at all government levels.
• Multi-disciplinary Expertise: With PlanNet, IT, network, telecommunications, security, audio visual, infrastructure, drafting and technical facility expertise are under one roof. No work will be subcontracted. Our professional team is comprised of a skilled and experienced staff fully capable of managing multidisciplinary efforts and understanding integration points between IT infrastructure and other systems such as AV and security.
• Contract Acceptance: PlanNet is fully prepared to enter into a contract with the City according to terms and conditions specified in the RFP and PlanNet price quotes provided herein. PlanNet’s insurance coverages meet or exceed all those specified in the RFP, and PlanNet will have a valid City of Del Mar business license in place prior to project initiation.
• Letter of Transmittal: This cover letter shall also serve as an official letter of transmittal. As a Principal of PlanNet, I am authorized to make this offer, sign on behalf of PlanNet, and negotiate and execute contract terms and conditions
In summary, we believe you will find PlanNet to be the most competent and qualified consulting firm available to the City for this important project. We look forward to being selected as your low-voltage technology partner in driving this project to a successful conclusion.
Best regards,
PlanNet
Bob Otoupalik Principal [email protected]
16 June 19, 2017 Item 7 2
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS
PlanNet is a California LLC. We are a technology focused professional services firm with a highly skilled team of over 80 technologists, project managers and construction professionals supporting a broad variety of engagements from IT infrastructure and enterprise systems to workplace technology and technical facility construction. PlanNet’s team includes PEs (Professional Engineers), RCDDs (Registered Communications Distribution Designers), and CTSs (Certified Technology Specialists).
TEAM QUALIFICATIONS / RESUMES
Bob Otoupalik Principal -- Project Principal and Project Manager for this project Bob Otoupalik has over 40 years of experience in the IT/telecom industry, the past 30 as an industry consultant. Otoupalik has an enviable track record of helping clients effectively plan, design, implement and utilize information technology tools to achieve critical business objectives. He specializes in the integration of voice, data, video and physical security technologies, with particular focus on complex, multi-site networked applications for both public sector and private enterprise clients.
Jeff Struthers, CTS-D Sr. Audio Visual Consultant -- Lead AV consultant for this project Jeff Struthers brings over 25 years of audio visual systems design experience and will be the technical contributing professional responsible for assessing, designing, creating specifications and overseeing installation of the audio visual systems. Jeff’s experience goes beyond design and systems engineering to performing audio visual needs assessments, construction documentation, and digital signal processing (DSP) configuration and programming.
Timothy (T.J.) Hicks Sr. Security Consultant -- Lead physical security consultant for this project T.J. Hicks has over 28 years of experience and progressive responsibilities managing large and complex security and low voltage system projects primarily focusing on all aspects of assessment, facility planning, design, implementation, and operations. T.J. provides consulting and engineering services that merge the physical/technical solution to client’s business objectives. He pursues a balanced approach to the implementation of perimeter security, security and access control systems, digital video management systems, cable distribution network design, and integrated systems planning and implementation insuring system designs are consistent with the objectives and projected use.
RECENTLY COMPLETED PROJECTS
PlanNet has a long and distinguished history working with government entities on the municipal, county, state and federal level. Below is a list of a few of these entities.
• City of Anaheim, California • City of Los Angeles, California • City of Bakersfield, California • City of Mesa, Arizona • City of Brentwood, California • City of Palmdale, California • City of Dana Point, California • City of Pasadena, California • City of Fontana, California • City of Redlands, California • City of Gilroy, California • City of Santa Monica, California • City of Goodyear, Arizona • City of San Clemente, California • City of Henderson, California • City of Scottsdale, Arizona • City of Huntington Beach, California • City of Temecula, California • City of Indio, California • City of Torrance, California • City of West Hollywood, California
17 June 19, 2017 Item 7 3
MUNICIPAL REFERENCES FROM RECENT PROJECTS
Randall Hendon IT Project Manager City of Pasadena [email protected] (626) 744-4220 100 N. Garfield Avenue, Room N123 Pasadena, CA 91101 Project: City of Pasadena City Council Chambers
Danielle Garcia Chief Innovation Officer City of Redlands [email protected] (909) 798-7507 1270 W. Park Ave., Bldg. A Redlands, CA 92373 Project: City of Redlands, Broadcast Facility Renovation for City Council Chambers
John Augustyn Deputy Finance Director/ Information Technology Manager City of Thousand Oaks (805) 449-2232 2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 Project: Phone System Evaluation and RFP Preparation
UNDERSTANDING OF AND APPROACH TO THE PROJECT
SUMMARY OF APPROACH
PlanNet will take a collaborative approach to technology systems design and installation with the City of Del Mar to assure a clear, concise scope of work is developed that provides a technically sound, user friendly and operationally reliable foundation for implementation of technologies. The Technology components in this scope of work include: • Structured cabling (CAT 6 and fiber backbone) • Electronic Access Control • Door Hardware Coordination • Intrusion Detection • Video Surveillance • Server Room/MDF/IDF build-out • Wireless Access Points • Audio-Visual equipment for conference rooms, Council Chambers, television • broadcasting, digital signage. • UPS backup • Coordination of electronic equipment for the Town Hall (City Council) dais, staff table and public lectern
18 June 19, 2017 Item 7 4
PlanNet shall provide the following phased services outlined in the RFP for the new City Hall/Town Hall project:
Phase I – Peer Review (For Infrastructure, Physical Security and AV disciplines):
PlanNet shall participate in a kick-off meeting with the City of Del Mar to review the project scope of work and associated specifications and design drawings produced by Western AV and Vector USA that the City contemplates implementing. Where we have questions with respect to system design and/or product choices, we will discuss such with the City as well as our rationale for such questions and/or concerns, and provide viable alternatives for consideration if deemed appropriate by the City. Once this process is completed, we will make appropriate final recommendations to the City of Del Mar regarding move-forward design and implementation plans.
Phase II – RFPs Evaluation, Vendor Selection:
Upon completion of the peer review process in Phase I, PlanNet shall assist the City with the refinement of required RFPs to ensure that the bid documents include a comprehensive Scope of the Work, defined work product, technical system requirements, installation methods, installation practices, installation procedures, contractor qualification, acceptance requirements and documentation requirements required for a successful project. These documents shall serve as the tools to obtain competitive bids.
Additionally, and also included in this phase of the work, PlanNet shall facilitate and respond to bidders’ Requests for Information (RFI’s). Upon receipt of bids, PlanNet will assist the City in reviewing and analyzing the three (3) lowest cost qualified proposals. With the City’s concurrence, PlanNet will facilitate a “Bid Leveling” process to ensure that all contractors have provided the specified requirements and have structured their project approach and delivery in a uniform method appropriate to your situation. Bid leveling ensures “apples-to-apples” bid comparisons and often provides a foundation for price reductions (i.e., savings to the City). Once the bid evaluation process has been completed, PlanNet shall provide a Level Bid spreadsheet document to the City for review and comment. To the degree requested, PlanNet shall participate in a final evaluation/decision process with the City. One (1) on-site meeting has been budgeted for this final process.
Phase III – Technical Support During Construction Phase:
Upon completion of the above Phase II scope of work, PlanNet’s fixed fee scope of work on this project shall be complete. Construction Administration is not included in this proposal. However, PlanNet has provided hourly rates in the Proposal Pricing Table should the City request our assistance to review submittals, address field issues and any other service that shall assist the City as needed towards the successful completion of the project. PlanNet’s project services typically do include this implementation oversight phase, so we would welcome the opportunity to support the City in this effort.
STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH TO THE SCOPE OF WORK
PlanNet understands that the City desires to work with an independent, vendor neutral consultant that is not a reseller or integrator of any of the proposed technology systems. The consultant’s firm and any of its affiliates are precluded from bidding on this project. The consultant will serve as the subject matter expert and technology advisor to the City. The scope of work includes review of the existing design standards, plans and specifications developed for the City by Western AV (for audiovisual systems), and Vector USA (for cabling, surveillance, access control, intrusion), assistance with the bid process and response to RFIs, vendor selection, and technical support throughout the implementation.
19 June 19, 2017 Item 7 5
DESCRIPTION OF ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING TO BE USED FOR THE PROJECT
Please refer to firm qualifications starting on page 2. INDICATION OF INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION REQUIRED FROM CITY STAFF
PlanNet will expect City representatives to provide relevant information in reasonable timeframes from requests, to make decisions in reasonable timeframes so as not to delay consultant work or the overall project, be available upon reasonable notice to discuss and resolve issues that may arise, and to be generally involved so as to understand consultant activities, directions and priorities. PlanNet’s approach is very collaborative. With that said, PlanNet is very adept at leading, partnering and communicating with all project stakeholders, and following client directives. PROJECT SCHEDULE
PlanNet has reviewed the project construction schedule provided in the RFP. Rather than attempting to “fit” our consulting efforts into an often fluid and dynamically changing construction schedule at this point, PlanNet’s commitment is to work with the City to perform and complete all scoped project tasks in timeframes required to meet construction deadlines and not cause any delays due to technology processes or issues. Specific schedules for consultant work efforts can be committed to after conversations take place about final construction phasing and scheduling with the City and GC.
ATTACHMENT A – PROPOSAL PRICING SHEET
Scope of Work – Key Milestones Amount 1. Peer Review, Submit status report and recommendations for Cabling & Security $6,900 modifications to design specifications. AV $6,800 Cabling & Security $7,650 2. RFP Administration, RFP Evaluation, Vendor Recommendations AV $8,600 TOTAL SCOPED WORK FIXED FEE $29,950 3. Additional Technical Support Services during Construction Phase Cabling & Security T&M + Closeout AV T&M Project Manager $185/hr List hourly rates and estimate based on estimated hours. Sr Consultant $165/hr *See Note Below
*Note: Project implementation oversight and closeout costs can vary significantly from one project to another for a variety of reasons, among them quality of planning and installation work (or lack thereof) done by selected contractors, project schedule changes, unforeseen circumstances, and/or client requested changes. As ROM budget estimates for a project of this magnitude and complexity, we would recommend approximately $5,000-$7,000 per discipline.
20 June 19, 2017 Item 7 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Joe Bride, Acting Public Works Director Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Engineering Services Contract Amendment with Michael Baker International
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Michael Baker International to provide Engineering Services through June 30, 2019, for a not-to-exceed amount of $540,000 per year. The amendment does not require any changes to the recommended Fiscal Year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
On July 14, 2009, the City entered into a contract with Michael Baker International (formerly RBF Consulting) to provide a variety of engineering services to the City. The City Council approved contract amendments extending the contract term through June 30, 2019, and implemented a not-to-exceed contract limit of $470,000 per year.
Michael Baker International’s work plan for Fiscal Years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 has expanded significantly, thereby necessitating an increase to the not-to-exceed contract limit of $470,000 per year. The primary drivers of the work plan increase are the ongoing duties of engineering design management for the City’s Capital Improvement Program and significant increases to development review needs related to private redevelopment projects. The continued planned aggressive implementation of the City’s capital improvement projects, including completion of the roadway and sidewalk improvement projects on Camino del Mar in downtown and between Carmel Valley Road and 4th Street, vector control improvements at the drainage ditch next to the City tennis courts, and implementation of the next stage of the Camino del Mar Bridge over the San Dieguito River project have and will continue to require additional engineering effort on behalf of the City by Michael Baker International. Additionally, development review activities are continuing to surpass estimates as private redevelopment projects ______City Council Action:
1 June 19, 2017 Item 8 City Council Staff Report Contract Amendment for City Engineering Services June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 2 within the City are occurring at a heavier pace than typical. While these changes necessitate an amendment to alter the annual contract limit through Fiscal Year 2018- 2019, no changes are required to the recommended budget, as these costs are either already budgeted within the Capital Budget or paid by increases in development fees submitted to the City.
Staff is recommending authorization for the City Manager to execute an amendment (Attachment A) to the Professional Services Agreement, for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $540,000 per year.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This amendment results in no increase in total cost to the City. This amendment increases the Professional Service agreement’s not-to-exceed limit due to the increase in work scope for RBF Consulting. The additional costs are already included in the proposed Capital Budget or are recovered through development review fees.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
On May 18, 2015, Council authorized the City Manager to execute the fifth amendment to this contract increasing the annual not-to-exceed contract amount to $470,000.
On May 15, 2017, Council authorized the City Manager to execute the sixth amendment to this contract extending this contract through June 30, 2019, with an annual not-to- exceed contract amount of $470,000.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Seventh Amendment to Professional Services Agreement
2 June 19, 2017 Item 8 ATTACHMENT A
SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT DATED JULY 14, 2009 FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
THIS SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT (the “Seventh Amendment”) is made this 19th day of June, 2017, by and between the City of Del Mar, a California municipal corporation and Charter City (the “City”) and Michael Baker International (“Consultant”) (collectively “Parties”) for engineering services.
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2009 the City and Consultant entered into an Agreement for Engineering Services (“Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that any modification of the Agreement must be in writing; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined it is necessary to amend the Agreement by increasing the contract amount not to exceed to $540,000 in accordance with Section 3.1 of the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Section 3.4 of the Agreement shall be amended to read as follows:
“Total Amount. The total cost for all work described in the Scope of Services, attached as Exhibit “A”, shall not exceed $540,000 per year.”
2. Except as otherwise provided in this Amendment, the Agreement, and each and every term, condition, attachment and exhibit thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
3 June 19, 2017 Item 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed and effective as of June 19, 2017, regardless of the date of execution.
CITY of DEL MAR, Michael Baker International, a Pennsylvania a municipal corporation Corporation
______By: Scott W. Huth, City Manager Robert Schlesinger
Its: Senior VP, Office Executive/Principal Date: ______
By: Tim Thiele
Its: Vice President
Date: ______
[Signature Page to Sixth Amendment to Michael Baker International’s Services Agreement]
4 June 19, 2017 Item 8 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Rachel Beld, Senior Management Analyst Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Agreement with the Del Mar Village Association for Marketing Services
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Del Mar Village Association to promote Del Mar as a visitor destination.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The City of Del Mar has long realized the value of the promotion of Del Mar as a tourist destination. A substantial portion of the City’s revenues come from TOT and sales tax and parking meter revenues largely paid by tourists. The highest proportion of tourism- based revenues is received from the hotels in the form of TOT. Therefore, in October 2015, the City Council increased TOT by 1% to a total of 12.5% and entered into a contract with the Del Mar Village Association (DMVA), funded by the additional TOT, to oversee promotion of Del Mar as a tourist attraction. The increase in TOT offset the equivalent funding previously generated by a Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) which was dissolved in 2015.
The DMVA has overseen the marketing and promotion efforts related to tourism since 2010, first via the TBID and since 2015, under contract with the City. The current contract for destination marketing services with the DMVA expires June 30, 2017, and staff recommends approval of an agreement (Exhibit 1) for a two-year term, expiring June 30, 2019.
The contract outlines a one (1) percent TOT allocation to the DMVA for continuation of tourism marketing and promotion. The amount of the TOT pass-through is estimated to be approximately $220,000 per year, with actual expenditures for the two-year contract not to exceed receipts from the one percent TOT allocation, for a total contract amount
______City Council Action:
1 June 19, 2017 Item 9 City Council Staff Report Agreement with DMVA for Marketing Services June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 2 of approximately $440,000. As in past years, staff would remit the proceeds from the TOT increase as they are received.
The proposed agreement requires the DMVA to provide the City with monthly, mid-year, and annual reports and establishes timelines for submittal of the proposed annual budget and marketing plan for the program. The included scope of services details the various methods of promotion which include advertising, website communication, social media, and special events.
In addition to the contract for destination marketing services, the DMVA also receives a Community Support Funding allocation of $50,000 annually to support their efforts as a designated Main Street Organization.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The related Transient Occupancy Tax revenues are anticipated to be $220,000 on an annual basis, or $440,000 total for the two-year contract term.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Agreement with Del Mar Village Association for Marketing and Promotion services
2 June 19, 2017 Item 9 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR AND THE DEL MAR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION
This Agreement (“Agreement”), made this ___ day of ______, 20___, by and between the CITY OF DEL MAR, a Municipal Corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California ("CITY"), and the Del Mar Village Association, a California 501c3 nonprofit public benefit corporation ("DMVA") with reference to the following facts which are acknowledged by each party as true and correct:
RECITALS
A. CITY is a general law city, formed and existing pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code.
B. CITY is authorized to enter into consultant agreements under the provisions of California Government Code section 53060.
C. CITY desires or is in need of downtown destination marketing/promotional services to foster economic development pursuant to the Del Mar Community Plan.
D. DMVA’s marketing programming implements Del Mar Community Plan Goal Number 4 to help focus “major retail and office activity into one economically viable, pedestrian oriented and attractive area that serves the needs of both the Del Mar residents and visitors and is well integrated into the fabric of the community.”
E. DMVA’s marketing programming also implements Del Mar Community Plan Goal Number 5 to preserve Del Mar’s economic integrity through commercial growth that permits the City’s income to keep pace with its expenditures and that fosters and promotes uses in the commercial area that allow for the “greatest economic benefit to the community.”
F. All of DMVA’s marketing programming was developed to help increase transient occupancy tax and sales tax revenue from across the Del Mar Village business community to create an economically strong downtown community.
G. DMVA has special knowledge, experience and facilities for accomplishing the downtown destination marketing/promotional services.
H. CITY now desires to retain DMVA to accomplish the above services, and DMVA is willing to be so retained pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows:
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC}DMVA ~ City of Del Mar Destination Marketing Contracting Agreement
3 June 19, 2017 Item 9 OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
1. RESPONSIBILITIES OF DMVA
1.1 DMVA shall undertake to carry on the scope of services as listed in the attached Scope of Services (refer to Exhibit “A”), which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. To the extent the provisions of Exhibit “A” are ambiguous in relation to the provisions of this Agreement, inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, or expand upon the provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall take precedence and the provisions of Exhibit “A” shall not apply. These duties may be adjusted from time to time as agreed upon in writing by DMVA and CITY. Any additional services authorized by CITY shall be subject to all terms and conditions of this Agreement, except as modified in writing in accordance with Section 24.
1.2 Representations. DMVA will perform the services set out in this Agreement, as contemplated herein, in an efficient, timely, and professional manner, and in accordance with generally accepted standards for performing similar services. It is understood that CITY, in entering into this Agreement, is relying on DMVA’s representations for quality and professional work performed in a timely manner, and DMVA shall perform in accordance with those representations and standards.
1.3 Budget. Attachment A – Scope of Work, includes the budget, timeline and marketing programming for FY 2017/2018, including administrative expenses and reserves. By May 1, 2018, DMVA shall submit a FY 2018/2019 Proposed Marketing and Metrics plan with a budget and timeline for inclusion in the City’s annual budget process.
1.4 Reports. DMVA shall prepare and submit to the designated CITY representative monthly written reports (Submitted to the City on the 25th day of each month), a Mid-Year Report (Submitted to the City March 1, 2018 and March 1, 2019), and an Annual Destination Marketing Plan, Timeline and Budget (Submitted to the City September 1, 2018 and September 1, 2019) specifying the activities of DMVA pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to the list of any subcontractors and expenditures to date. DMVA shall prepare the reports in a format acceptable to the CITY. Reports at a minimum will report progress on the metrics identified in Attachment A – Scope of Work to this agreement, and will identify the expenditures and remaining budget for each work items. Mid-Year and Annual Reports will reflect any adjustments to the budget as required per the projected receipts of transient occupancy tax revenues as described in 4. PAYMENT TO DMVA.
2. ADMINISTRATION OF AGREEMENT
2.1 CITY appoints its City Manager, or his designee, to administer CITY’s rights under this Agreement, and to review the work performed by DMVA pursuant to the scope of services.
2.2 DMVA shall keep the City Manager, CITY’s representative, or his designee or designees, fully informed as to the progress of the work and shall submit to CITY such oral and written reports as CITY may specify.
2.3 This Agreement shall be administered on behalf of the parties hereto, and any notice desired or required to be sent to a party hereunder shall be addressed, as follows:
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC} 2 of 16
4 June 19, 2017 Item 9 ForCITY: CityManager Address: CityofDelMar 1050 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: (858)755-9313 e-mail: [email protected]
For DMVA: JENNIFER GROVE Address: 1104CaminoDelMar,Suite1 Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: (858)735-.3650 Email: [email protected]
3. TERM
3.1 The term of this Agreement shall be from June 30, 2017 to June 30, 2019.
3.2 The agreement may be renewed by the City Council as a part of the budget process upon mutual agreement of the CITY and DMVA.
3.3 Time is of the essence for this Agreement and each provision of this Agreement, unless otherwise specified in this Agreement.
4. PAYMENT TO DMVA
4.1 Consideration. In consideration of the services to be performed by DMVA for the CITY as set forth in Section 1, the CITY agrees to pay DMVA on a monthly basis up to a total estimate of $440,000 for services performed through June 30, 2019, subject to the receipt of one percent transient occupancy taxes of this amount earned between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2019. Payments shall be disbursed as described in 4.3 Payments and will be subject to an annual true up to ensure that annual payments made equal the amount of one percent transient occupancy tax received. The City shall adjust the annual appropriation based on the true up amount as a part of the subsequent fiscal year’s annual mid-year budget adjustment.
4.2 Additional Services. If CITY desires any additional services (“Additional Services”), DMVA may, upon written request by the CITY, furnish a proposal including an itemized statement of the estimated cost of the Additional Services thereof, and the CITY may modify or alter the proposal, or may reject the proposal in its entirety, at its sole discretion, or may direct the submission of a new proposal which may be accepted, altered or rejected. Upon the written approval of any Additional Services including costs by DMVA and CITY, DMVA shall perform the Additional Services and CITY will pay to DMVA the cost of the Additional Services as agreed in writing. All money due for Additional Services shall be supported by a detailed statement of DMVA showing the basis of said claims, and certified by proper officers of DMVA.
4.3 Payments. DMVA shall submit monthly check requests reflecting the actual TOT one percent collected each month. By mutual agreement of DMVA and CITY, CITY may honor
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC} 3 of 16
5 June 19, 2017 Item 9 check requests for greater than one-twelfth the annual one percent transient occupancy tax revenue if needed to cover cash flow needs of DMVA with the understanding that subsequent payment(s) will be reduced as required to remain within the budget appropriation by the City Council. No later than 30 days from the beginning of each quarter, CITY shall estimate its receipts of the one-percent transient occupancy tax revenue and will promptly inform DMVA in the case that revenue projections indicate that the annual appropriation by the City Council needs to be adjusted. Payment of DMVA’s fee shall be made in accordance with CITY’s normal schedule for issuance of checks.
DMVA agrees that the sole source of funding for this agreement is the one-percent transient occupancy tax, and DMVA affirms that it knows that this revenue varies from month to month and is not guaranteed to be received. It is DMVA’s responsibility to budget appropriately as to not exceed projected revenues, and it is CITY’s responsibility to promptly inform DMVA of any unusual receipts in revenue which may require adjustments to the annual budget approved by the City Council. DMVA agrees and acknowledges that it is DMVA’s sole responsibility to report as income all compensation received from CITY, and to make the requisite tax filings and payments to the appropriate federal, state and local tax authorities.
5. STATUS OF DMVA
5.1 Independent Contractor. It is understood and agreed that CITY is interested only in the results obtained from service hereunder and that DMVA shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. DMVA shall complete this Agreement according to its own methods of work which shall be in the exclusive charge and control of DMVA and which shall not be subject to control or supervision by the CITY, except as to the results of the work. DMVA is, for all purposes arising out of this Agreement, an independent contractor, and neither DMVA, nor its employees, agents and representatives shall be deemed an employee of the CITY for any purpose.
5.1.1 Coordination with CITY. DMVA agrees to meet with representatives appointed by CITY at least quarterly to discuss DMVA’S approach and progress towards achieving the work tasks identified in Attachment A – Scope of Work.
5.2 Employee Benefits. DMVA shall be responsible for all salaries, payments, insurance and benefits for all of its officers, agents, representatives and employees in performing services pursuant to this Agreement. It is expressly understood and agreed that DMVA and its employees, agents, and representatives shall in no event be entitled to any CITY benefits to which CITY employees are entitled, including, but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, insurance, vacation, worker's compensation, sick or injury leave or other benefits.
5.3 Workers' Compensation Insurance. DMVA agrees to procure and maintain in full force and effect Workers' Compensation Insurance covering its employees and agents while these persons are participating in the activities hereunder, as provided in Section 6.1.2 of this Agreement.
5.4 Prevailing Wages. Pursuant to the provisions of section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Agreement, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC} 4 of 16
6 June 19, 2017 Item 9 obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office. DMVA shall post a copy of such rates at their office and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. If applicable, DMVA shall comply with the provisions of sections 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code and any other applicable laws.
Pursuant to the provisions of section 1775 of the Labor Code, DMVA shall forfeit to CITY, as a penalty, the sum of fifty dollars ($50.00) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Agreement, by him or by any sub-DMVA under him, in violation of the provisions of this Agreement.
6. INSURANCE
DMVA shall not begin the services under this Agreement until it has: (a) obtained, and upon the CITY's request, provided to the CITY, insurance certificates reflecting evidence of all insurance required in this Section 6; however, CITY reserves the right to request, and DMVA shall submit, copies of any policy upon reasonable request by CITY; (b) obtained CITY approval of each company or companies as required by Section 6; and (c) confirmed that all policies contain the specific provisions required in Section 6.
6.1 Types of Insurance. At all times during the term of this Agreement, DMVA shall maintain insurance coverage as follows:
6.1.1 Commercial General Liability. Commercial General Liability (CGL) Insurance written on an occurrence basis to protect DMVA and CITY against liability or claims of liability which may arise out of this Agreement in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and subject to an annual aggregate of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000). There shall be no endorsement or modification of the CGL limiting the scope of coverage for either insured vs. insured claims or contractual liability.
6.1.2 Workers' Compensation. For all of DMVA’s employees who are subject to this Agreement and to the extent required by applicable state or federal law, DMVA shall keep in full force and effect a Workers' Compensation policy. That policy shall provide employers' liability coverage as required by applicable state and/or federal Workers’ Compensation laws, and DMVA shall provide an endorsement that the insurer waives the right of subrogation against the CITY and its respective elected officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives. In the event a claim under the provisions of the California Workers' Compensation Act is filed against CITY by a bona fide employee of DMVA participating under this Agreement, DMVA agrees to defend and indemnify the CITY from such claim.
6.1.3 Professional Liability. For all of DMVA’s employees who are subject to this Agreement, DMVA shall keep in full force and effect Professional Liability coverage for professional liability with a limit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) annual aggregate. DMVA shall ensure both that: (1) the policy retroactive date is on or before the date of commencement of services under this Agreement; and (2) the policy will be maintained in force for a period of four years after termination of this Agreement or substantial completion of services under this Agreement, whichever occurs last. DMVA agrees that for the time period defined above, there will be no changes or endorsements to the policy that increase the CITY's exposure to loss.
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC} 5 of 16
7 June 19, 2017 Item 9 6.1.4 Commercial Automobile Liability. For all of the DMVA's automobiles including owned, hired and non-owned automobiles, automobile insurance written on an ISO form CA 00 01 12 90 or a later version of this form or an equivalent form providing coverage at least as broad for bodily injury and property damage for a combined single limit of $500,000 per occurrence. Insurance certificate shall reflect coverage for any automobile (any auto).
6.2 Insurer Requirements. All insurance required by express provision of this Agreement shall be carried only by responsible insurance companies that are no less than “A” and “VII” or better by the A.M. Best Key Rating Guide, and are licensed to do business in the State of California. CITY will accept insurance provided by non-admitted “surplus lines” carriers only if the carrier is authorized to do business in the State of California.
6.3 Deductibles. All deductibles on any policy shall be the responsibility of DMVA and shall be disclosed to CITY at the time the evidence of insurance is provided.
6.4 Specific Provisions Required. Each policy required under this Section 6 shall expressly provide, and an endorsement shall be submitted to CITY, that: (a) the policies are primary and non-contributory to any insurance that may be carried by CITY; and (b) CITY is entitled to thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for cancellation due to non-payment of premium) of cancellation, material reduction, or non-renewal of the policy or policies. Additionally, the CGL and Workers’ Compensation policies shall expressly provide, and an endorsement shall be submitted to CITY, that the City of Del Mar and its respective officers and employees are additional insured under the policy.
6.5 Indemnity Not Limited by Insurance. DMVA’s liabilities, including, but not limited to, DMVA’s indemnity and defense obligations under this Agreement, shall not be deemed limited in any way to the insurance coverage required herein. Maintenance of specified insurance coverage is a material element of this Agreement, and DMVA’s failure to maintain or renew coverage or to provide evidence of renewal during the term of this Agreement may be treated as a material breach of contract by CITY.
7. AUDIT AND INSPECTION OF RECORDS
At any time during DMVA’s normal business hours and as often as CITY may deem necessary, and upon reasonable notice, DMVA shall make available to CITY, or any of its duly authorized representatives, for examination, audit, excerpt, copying or transcribing, all data, records, investigation reports and all other materials respecting matters covered by this Agreement. DMVA will permit CITY to audit and to make audits of all invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel and other data related to all matters covered by this Agreement. All material referenced in this Section, including all pertinent cost accounting, financial records, and proprietary data, must be kept and maintained by DMVA for a period of at least four (4) years, or for the period required by law, whichever is greater, after completion of DMVA’s performance hereunder, unless CITY’s written permission is given to dispose of same prior to that time.
8. CONFIDENTIALITY AND USE OF INFORMATION
8.1 Except as otherwise provided by law, all reports, communications, documents and information obtained or prepared by DMVA respecting matters covered by this Agreement shall not be published without prior written consent of City Manager or his designees, nor shall
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC} 6 of 16
8 June 19, 2017 Item 9 DMVA issue any news releases or publish information relating to its services hereunder without the prior written consent of the City Manager. DMVA shall hold in trust for the CITY, and shall not disclose to any person, any confidential information. Confidential information is information which is related to the CITY's research, development, trade secrets and business affairs, but does not include information which is generally known or easily ascertainable by nonparties through available public documentation.
8.2 DMVA shall advise CITY of any and all materials used, or recommended for use, by DMVA to achieve the project goals that are subject to any copyright restrictions or requirements. In the event DMVA shall fail to so advise CITY and, as a result of the use of any programs or materials developed by DMVA under this Agreement, CITY should be found in violation of any copyright restrictions or requirements, DMVA agrees to indemnify and hold harmless CITY against any action or claim brought by the copyright holder.
8.3 Ownership of Records. All records created by the DMVA shall become the property of the CITY and shall be subject to state law and CITY policies governing privacy and access to files. The CITY shall have access to and the right to examine all books, documents, papers and records of the DMVA involving transactions and work related to this Agreement. The DMVA shall retain all copies of records for a period of five (5) years from the date of final payment.
9. NOTICE
All notices or demands to be given under this Agreement by either party to the other shall be in writing and given either by: (a) personal service, (b) by U.S. Mail, mailed either by certified mail, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid and addressed to the party to whom the notice is directed, or (c) via facsimile transmission (with proof of confirmation by sender). Service shall be considered given when received if personally served or, if mailed, two days after deposit in the United States Mail by certified mail, return receipt requested. The address to which notices or demands may be given by either party may be changed by written notice given in accordance with the notice provisions of this section. At the date of this Agreement, the addresses of the parties are as set forth in Section 2 above.
10. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE
10.1 CITY may terminate this Agreement upon giving of written notice of intention to terminate for cause. Cause shall include: (a) a material violation of any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement by DMVA, (b) DMVA, through any cause, failing to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, (c) any act by DMVA exposing CITY to liability to others for personal injury or property damage, or (d) if DMVA is adjudged bankrupt, DMVA makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, or a receiver is appointed on account of DMVA’s insolvency. Written notice by CITY of termination for cause shall contain the reasons for such intention to terminate and shall specify the effective date thereof. Unless prior to the effective date of the termination for cause the condition or violation shall cease, or satisfactory arrangements for the correction thereof be made, this Agreement shall cease and terminate on the effective date specified in the written notice by CITY.
10.2 In the event of such termination, DMVA shall be paid the reasonable value of satisfactory services rendered up to the date of receipt of the notice of termination in
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC} 7 of 16
9 June 19, 2017 Item 9 accordance with this Agreement, less any payments theretofore made, as determined by CITY, not to exceed the amount payable herein, and DMVA expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement in the event of such termination, except as set forth herein.
11. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE OF CITY
11.1 CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason by giving written notice to DMVA of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date.
11.2 If the Agreement is terminated as provided in this Section, DMVA shall be entitled to receive compensation for any satisfactory work completed up to the receipt by DMVA of notice of termination, less any payments theretofore made and not to exceed the amount payable herein, and for satisfactory work completed between the receipt of notice of termination and the effective date of termination pursuant to a specific request by CITY for the performance of such work.
12. PERFORMANCE AFTER TERMINATION
Upon termination of this Agreement as provided herein, DMVA shall, within such reasonable time period as may be directed by City Manager, complete those items of work which are in various stages of completion and which City Manager determines are necessary to be completed by DMVA to allow the project to be completed in a timely, logical, and orderly manner. Upon termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, models, photographs, reports, and other materials prepared by DMVA shall be delivered to the City Manager, upon his request, as property of CITY.
13. DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION
13.1 DMVA shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, hold harmless, protect, defend (with attorneys approved by CITY) and indemnify the CITY, its council, and each member thereof, its officers, agents, employees, representatives, and their successors and assigns, from and against any and all losses, liabilities, claims, suit damage, expenses and costs including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and expert costs and investigation expenses (“Claims”), which arise out of or are in any way connected to the performance under this Agreement or any negligent or wrongful act or omission by DMVA, its officers, employees, representatives, subcontractors, or agents regardless of whether or not such claim, loss or liability is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. DMVA shall have no obligation, however, to defend or indemnify CITY if it is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that such Claim was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY.
13.2 General Indemnity Provisions. This indemnity is in addition to any other rights or remedies which CITY may have under the law or this Agreement. In the event of any claim or demand made against any party which is entitled to be indemnified hereunder, CITY may, at its sole discretion, reserve, retain or apply any monies due to DMVA under this Agreement for the purpose of resolving such claims; provided however, that CITY may release such funds if DMVA provides CITY with reasonable assurances of protection of the CITY's interest. The CITY shall, in its sole discretion determine whether such assurances are reasonable.
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC} 8 of 16
10 June 19, 2017 Item 9 DMVA agrees that its duty to defend the indemnities arises upon an allegation of liability based upon the performance of services under this Agreement by DMVA, its officers, agents, representatives, employees, sub-DMVAs, or anyone for whom DMVA is liable and that an adjudication of DMVA's liability is not a condition precedent to DMVA's duty to defend.
14. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
14.1 DMVA shall be bound by the requirements of the FPPC (Fair Political Practice Commission) and state law with regard to disclosure of financial interests and prohibited conflicts of interest.
14.2 Prior to execution of this Agreement, DMVA shall disclose in writing to CITY any and all compensation, actual or potential, which DMVA may receive in any form from a party other than CITY as a result of performance of this Agreement by DMVA. If DMVA becomes aware of the potential for such compensation subsequent to the execution of this Agreement, DMVA shall disclose such compensation within three (3) working days of becoming aware of the potential for such compensation.
14.3 Prior to or concurrent with making any recommendation of any products or service for purchase by the CITY, DMVA shall disclose any financial interest that DMVA may have in any manufacturer or provider of the recommended products or services. The term “financial interest” includes, but is not limited to, employment (current or prospective) or ownership interest of any kind and degree.
14.4 DMVA shall not conduct business for third parties which may be in conflict with DMVA’s responsibilities under this Agreement. DMVA may not solicit any business during the term of this Agreement which conflicts with its responsibilities under this Agreement. DMVA shall provide no services for any private client within the corporate boundaries or sphere of influence of CITY during the period of this Agreement which may constitute a conflict of interest.
DMVA acknowledges that he/she has read Section 14. Conflict of Interest, and may have ___ or does not have ___ a potential conflict of interest, and will ___ or will not ____ need to file a Statement of Economic Interest Form 700. If DMVA is required to file a Statement of Economic Interest, a Form 700 shall accompany this executed Contract.
______DMVA’s Initial ______City of Del Mar Initial
15. ASSIGNMENT
No portion of this Agreement or any of the work to be performed hereunder may be assigned or delegated (including hiring and retaining use of any other person or entity for any purpose, except for those certain subcontractors specifically included in the quarterly report to the City of Del Mar) by DMVA without the express written consent of CITY, nor may any interest in this Agreement be transferred (whether by assignment or novation) by DMVA without the express written consent of CITY, and without such consent all services hereunder are to be performed by DMVA, its officers, agents and employees. However, claims for money due or to become due to DMVA from CITY under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company, or other financial institution without such approval. Notice of such assignment or transfer shall be furnished promptly to CITY. Any assignment requiring approval may not be further assigned without CITY approval.
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC} 9 of 16
11 June 19, 2017 Item 9 16. SURVIVAL
DMVA’s representations, insurance and indemnity obligations, and performance obligations post-termination shall survive termination of this Agreement.
17. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS
DMVA agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and ordinances that are now or may in the future become applicable to DMVA, DMVA’s business, equipment and personnel engaged in activities covered by this Agreement or arising out of the performance of such activities.
18. PERMITS/LICENSES
DMVA and all of DMVA’s employees or agents shall secure and maintain in force such permits and licenses as are required by law in connection with the furnishing of services pursuant to this Agreement.
19. NONDISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT
DMVA agrees that it will not engage in unlawful discrimination in employment and shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of CITY and/or all other relevant government agencies, including, but not limited to, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Also, DMVA certifies and agrees that all persons employed by DMVA, its affiliates, subsidiaries and related entities, if any, will be treated equally by DMVA, without unlawful discrimination based upon creed, sex, race, national origin, or any other classification prohibited by state or federal law. If CITY finds that any of the provisions of this Section have been violated, such violation shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement, upon which CITY may determine to cancel, terminate, or suspend this Agreement. While CITY reserves the right to determine independently that the anti-discrimination provisions of the Agreement have been violated, in addition, a determination by the California Fair Employment Practices Commission or California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or successor agency, or the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or successor agency, that DMVA has violated state or federal anti-discrimination laws relative to this Agreement shall constitute a finding by CITY that DMVA has violated the anti-discrimination provisions of this Agreement.
20. NON-WAIVER
The failure of CITY or DMVA to seek redress for violation of, or to insist upon, the strict performance of any term or condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver by that party of such term or condition, or prevent a subsequent similar act from again constituting a violation of such term or condition. Payment to DMVA of compensation under this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive CITY’s rights or DMVA’s rights contained in this Agreement.
21. SEVERABILITY
If any term, condition or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable, invalid, or void, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in full force and effect and shall not be affected, impaired or invalidated in any way.
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC} 10 of 16
12 June 19, 2017 Item 9 22. DISPUTES
In the event that any action is brought by either party to construe this Agreement or enforce any of its terms, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred, whether or not the matter proceeds to judgment.
23. REMEDIES
The rights and remedies of the CITY provided in this Agreement are not intended to be exclusive, and are in addition to any other rights and remedies permitted by law.
24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT/AMENDMENT
This Agreement and any exhibits attached hereto constitute the entire agreement between the parties and supersede any prior or contemporaneous understanding or agreement with respect to the services contemplated, and may be amended only by a written amendment executed by both parties to the Agreement.
25. GOVERNING LAW/VENUE
The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any action or proceeding brought by any party against any other party arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be brought exclusively in San Diego County.
26. BINDING AGREEMENT
This Agreement is intended to be binding on the parties and their respective successors and assigns.
27. NUMBER
The plural shall include the singular, and the singular shall include the plural and neuter wherever the context so indicates or requires.
28. WARRANTY OF AUTHORITY
Each of the parties signing this Agreement warrants to the other that it has the full authority of the entity on behalf of which its signature is made.
29. COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, all of which taken together will be considered one original document.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF DEL MAR DMVA
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC} 11 of 16
13 June 19, 2017 Item 9 ______Scott Huth, City Manager Jennifer Grove, DMVA Executive Director
ATTEST: ______Name/title of signatory [if necessary]
______Signature Administrative Services Director/City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Leslie Devaney, City Attorney
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC} 12 of 16
14 June 19, 2017 Item 9 EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services 1. Scope of Services: Goals, Provisions & Responsibilities
1.1 DMVA has developed a FY 17-18 Destination Marketing Plan, Timeline and Budget (Exhibit B) to promote Del Mar as a destination. This Plan addresses the following components:
1.1.1 Advertising; 1.1.2 Website; 1.1.3 Social Media; 1.1.4 Special Events; 1.1.5 Public, Media, Community and Visitor Relations.
1.2 DMVA shall oversee and coordinate all promotion/marketing efforts including working closely with and monitoring the work product of vendors and other subcontractors;
1.3 DMVA shall effectively communicate with the City of Del Mar and provide updates as requested;
1.4 City shall, upon request, provide DMVA with any documentation necessary to execute the services required in this project.
2. Promotion/Marketing Planning & Programming
2.1 Exhibit B contains an implementation schedule, budget and measurable qualitative and quantitative goals, objectives and metrics;
2.2 DMVA shall prepare and submit to the designated CITY representative monthly written reports (Submitted to the City on the 25th day of each month), a Mid-Year Report (Submitted to the City March 1, 2018 and March 2019), an Annual Destination Marketing Plan, Timeline and Budget Report (Submitted to the City September 1, 2018 and September 2019) that detail the progress made in and achieving the established promotion/marketing goals and objectives;
2.3 DMVA shall fulfill tasks that include, but are not limited to:
2.3.1 Advertising
2.3.1.1 DMVA shall be responsible for the creation and development of the Del Mar brand promotion and marketing program campaign materials including graphic design, layout, content, website and photography;
2.3.1.2 DMVA shall select and manage all print and online
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC} 13 of 16
15 June 19, 2017 Item 9 placement in key media outlets to promote Del Mar as a destination for both visitors and the community;
2.3.1.3 DMVA shall design and print collateral such as informational brochures, banners, promotional materials etc.;
2.3.1.4 DMVA shall provide monthly, mid-year and annual marketing reports to the City regarding advertising noting marketing highlights, campaign changes, budget issues, or other concerns.
2.3.2 Website
2.3.2.1 DMVA shall oversee the maintenance, update, and oversight of www.visitdelmarvillage.com website;
2.3.2.2 DMVA shall ensure that the website is regularly updated with relevant content and items of interest to the local community and Del Mar visitors;
2.3.2.3 DMVA shall provide monthly, mid-year and annual m a r k e t i n g a n d metrics reports to the City noting the progress made and a forecast of future accomplishments for the months ahead. This reporting will be inclusive of website(s) activity and campaign results. The metrics shall include Google Analytics from the website(s) (including total number of unique visitors, average web pages viewed, and average time spent on website(s)) and paid digital ad analytics along with results of any online surveys.
2.3.3 Social Media
2.3.3.1 DMVA shall maintain and routinely update the Del Mar Facebook, Instagram and all other social media;
2.3.3.2 DMVA shall develop social media campaigns and promotions that increase visibility for Del Mar as a destination;
2.3.3.3 DMVA shall provide monthly, mid-year and annual reports on the Social Media metrics to the Del Mar City, noting the progress made and a forecast of future accomplishments for the months ahead. This reporting will be inclusive of follower growth, volume of posts, reach rate and total engagement.
2.3.4 Special Events
2.3.4.1 DMVA shall plan, promote and produce downtown events to market Del Mar as a destination to the community and visitors, such as
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC} 14 of 16
16 June 19, 2017 Item 9 Summer Solstice, Taste of Del Mar, Breeders’ Cup Festival Week Best at the Barn, Santa by the Sea and Holiday Tree Lighting, Breast Cancer Cheering Station etc.;
2.3.4.2 DMVA shall provide monthly, mid-year and annual reports on the Special Event metrics to the City of Del Mar Manager noting the progress made and a forecast of future accomplishments for the months ahead. This reporting will be inclusive of number of attendees at the events, survey results, media coverage and response from business community.
2.3.5 Public, Media, Community & Visitor Relations
2.3.5.1 DMVA shall write, edit and publish monthly promotional press releases;
2.3.5.2 DMVA shall coordinate media relations, including media hostings, media FAM visits, press trips to promote Del Mar as a destination;
2.3.5.3 DMVA shall meet with travel writers and other destination publications to promote Del Mar;
2.3.5.4 DMVA shall operate the Del Mar Village Community & Visitor Center as a resource for information on the destination;
2.3.5.5 DMVA shall provide monthly, mid-year and annual reports on the PR metrics to the Del Mar City, noting the progress made and a forecast of future accomplishments for the months ahead. This reporting will be inclusive of media pitches, partner leads, media assists and media visits.
3. Research and Measurement
3.1 DMVA shall conduct or utilize existing research, as appropriate, to ensure that the marketing plan and strategy are effective and producing quantifiable results. Examples include, but are not limited to, membership surveys, customer satisfaction surveys, website and social media analytics, and hospitality industry research, etc.;
3.2 DMVA shall prepare monthly, mid-year and annual reports and present findings to the City of Del Mar and adjust the marketing program if necessary based on research results.
4. Administration
4.1 DMVA will ensure that t h e r e a r e m o n t h l y Board meeting presentations and discussions related to the promotion/marketing of Del Mar as a destination. This includes preparing agendas and meeting minutes, as well as maintaining records;
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC} 15 of 16
17 June 19, 2017 Item 9 4.2 DMVA shall facilitate and provide follow-up for all Board and subcommittee meetings;
5. Reporting and Deliverables
5.1 DMVA shall provide monthly and mid-year and annual metric reports to the City of Del Mar as specified under each section in this Scope of Work identifying the progress and a forecast of future accomplishments.
5.2 Upon Agreement execution and upon each term renewal, DMVA shall confirm the strategic goals and develop a tailored Del Mar Village Destination Marketing Plan, Timeline and Budget with key performance metrics and goals for advertising, website, social media, special events and public relations.
{Client Files/4630/1/K/S0435349.DOC} 16 of 16
18 June 19, 2017 Item 9 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Kathleen A Garcia, Planning and Community Development Director Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager Prepared by Shaun McMahon, Management Analyst
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Authorization to Renew a Two-Year Agreement with Del Mar Community Connections for Administration of the City’s Shared Housing and Rental Assistance Programs
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a proposed two-year agreement with Del Mar Community Connections (DMCC) for the period of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Each year, in an effort to provide affordable housing opportunities, the City participates in two programs known as the Rental Assistance Program and the Shared Housing Program. The Rental Assistance Program is a means by which families/individuals of low or low-to-moderate income are provided a subsidy to offset their rental costs and, thereby, have the opportunity to continue to reside in Del Mar. The Rental Assistance Program is funded by the City’s Housing Assistance Fund. The other affordable housing program available in the City is the Shared Housing Program which provides housing matches between residents with available rooms in their homes and individuals searching for a place to live.
Since 2002, Del Mar Community Connections, a non-profit organization, has assisted the City with the administration of the Rental Assistance and Shared Housing Programs. The current agreement for services between the City of Del Mar and Del Mar Community Connections ends on June 30, 2017. In order for DMCC to continue with its administration of the referenced programs, it is now appropriate to execute a new agreement. The agreement would be in effect for the period of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019. There are no proposed changes to the compensation for services to be provided. The contract amount is the same as was included in the two previous agreements executed with DMCC.
______City Council Action:
1 June 19, 2017 Item 10 City Council Staff Report Regarding Contract Renewal for DMCC June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
The subject agreement for services would require the expenditure of $37, 000 for each of the Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 for the administration of two of the City’s affordable housing programs. The fees to cover the costs of this agreement would be paid from the City’s dedicated Housing Assistance Fund. That Fund is supported by the periodic receipt of housing mitigation fees collected as conditions of approval for condominium conversion projects. Corresponding figures were included in the adopted Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Improvement Budgets.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
This action is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment A - Agreement for Services
2 June 19, 2017 Item 10 CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT Del Mar Community Connections (DMMC)
This Consulting Services Agreement (“AGREEMENT”) is made and entered into this 1st day of July, 2017 by and between the CITY OF DEL MAR, a Charter City and a municipal corporation (“CITY”), and Del Mar Community Connections (“CONSULTANT”) (collectively “PARTIES”).
WHEREAS, the CITY desires to employ a CONSULTANT to furnish professional services for support services for the City of Del Mar’s Shared Housing Program and for administration of the City’s Rental Assistance Program (PROJECT), as such programs are described in Attachment “A”. (“CONSULTING SERVICES”); and
WHEREAS, the CITY has initially determined that CONSULTANT is qualified by experience and ability to perform the services desired by CITY, and CONSULTANT is willing to perform such services; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT will conduct all the work as described and detailed in this AGREEMENT to be provided to the CITY.
NOW, THEREFORE, the PARTIES hereto mutually covenant and agree with each other as follows:
1. CONSULTING SERVICES.
1.1. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall perform the CONSULTING SERVICES as set forth in the written Scope of Services, attached as Attachment “A”, at the direction of the CITY. CITY shall provide CONSULTANT access to appropriate staff and resources for the coordination and completion of the projects under this AGREEMENT.
1.2. Project Coordinator. The City Manager or his/her designee is hereby designated as the Project Coordinator for CITY and will monitor the progress and execution of this AGREEMENT. The President of Del Mar Community Connections is hereby designated as the Project Director for CONSULTANT and will provide supervision and have overall responsibility for the progress and execution to this AGREEMENT for CONSULTANT.
1.3. City Modification of Scope of Services. CITY may order changes to the Scope of Services within the general scope of this AGREEMENT consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions. If such changes cause a change in the CONSULTANT’S cost of, or time required for, completion of the Scope of Services, an equitable adjustment to CONSULTANT’S compensation and/or contract time shall be made, subject to the CITY’S approval. All such changes shall be authorized in writing, executed by CONSULTANT and CITY. If such a change results in an extension of the term of this Agreement or increases the maximum amount to be paid under this Agreement, no such change shall have any force or effect unless an amendment to this Agreement is approved by the City Council.
3 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 2 of 17
2. DURATION OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Term, Time for Performance. This AGREEMENT shall commence on July 1, 2017 and shall expire on June 30, 2019. The time for performance of the Scope of Services is set forth in the Time Schedule, included in Attachment “A.” Time is of the essence in the performance of work under this AGREEMENT, unless otherwise specified in this AGREEMENT.
2.2 Delay. Any delay occasioned by causes beyond the control of CONSULTANT may merit an extension of time for the completion of the Scope of Services. When such delay occurs, CONSULTANT shall immediately notify the Project Coordinator in writing of the cause and the extent of the delay, whereupon the Project Coordinator shall ascertain the facts and the extent of the delay and grant an extension of time for the completion of the CONSULTING SERVICES when justified by the circumstances provided that no extension of time shall be granted which would extend the time for performance beyond the date specified in Section 2.1 above.
2.3 City’s Right to Terminate for Default. Should CONSULTANT be in default of any covenant or condition hereof, CITY may immediately terminate this AGREEMENT for cause if CONSULTANT fails to cure the default within 10 (10) calendar days of receiving written notice of the default.
2.4 City’s Right to Terminate without Cause. Without limiting its rights in the event of CONSULTANT’s default, CITY may terminate this AGREEMENT, without cause, by giving written notice to CONSULTANT. Such termination shall be effective upon receipt of the written notice. CONSULTANT shall be compensated for all effort and material expended on behalf of CITY under the terms of this AGREEMENT, up to the effective date of termination. All personal property remaining in CITY facilities or on CITY property thirty (30) days after the expiration or termination of this AGREEMENT shall be, at CITY’s election, considered the property of CITY.
3. COMPENSATION.
3.1. Total Amount. The total cost for all work described in the Scope of Services shall not exceed $74,000 with $37,000 allocated for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 and $37,000 allocated for Fiscal Year 2018-2019. CONSULTANT shall bill the CITY for work provided and shall present a written request for such payment monthly.
3.2. Additional Services. CITY may, as the need arises or in the event of an emergency, request additional services of CONSULTANT. Should such additional services be required, CITY and CONSULTANT shall agree to the cost prior to commencement of these services and authorization for such additional costs shall be obtained in accordance with Section 1.3 above.
4 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 3 of 17
4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CONSULTANT is, for all purposes arising out of this AGREEMENT, an independent contractor. The CONSULTANT has and shall retain the right to exercise full control and supervision of all persons assisting the CONSULTANT in the performance of said services hereunder, the CITY only being concerned with the finished results of the work being performed. Neither CONSULTANT nor CONSULTANT’s employees shall in any event be entitled to any benefits to which CITY employees are entitled, including, but not limited to, overtime, any retirement benefits, workers’ compensation benefits, any injury leave or other leave benefits, CONSULTANT being solely responsible for all such matters, as well as compliance with social security and income tax withholding and all other regulations and laws governing such matters.
5. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE. CONSULTANT agrees that it has the financial resources, service experience, completion ability, personnel, and experience in dealing with public agencies necessary for performing the Scope of Services and that such performance shall be in accordance with the standards customarily adhered to by an experienced and competent Consultant using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable Consultants practicing in the same field of service in the State of California. By executing this AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness, and capacity to perform the AGREEMENT in a manner satisfactory to CITY.
6. AUDIT OF RECORDS.
6.1. At any time during normal business hours and as often as may be deemed necessary the CONSULTANT shall make available to a representative of CITY for examination all of its records with respect to all matters covered by this AGREEMENT and shall permit CITY to audit, examine and/or reproduce such records. CONSULTANT shall retain such financial and program service records for at least four (4) years after termination or final payment under this AGREEMENT.
6.2. The CONSULTANT shall include the CITY's right under this section in any and all of their subcontracts, and shall ensure that these sections are binding upon all subcontractors.
7. CONFIDENTIALITY. All Consulting services performed by CONSULTANT, including but not limited to all drafts, data, correspondence, proposals, reports, research and estimates compiled or composed by CONSULTANT, pursuant to this AGREEMENT, are for the sole use of the CITY, its agents and employees. Neither the documents nor their contents shall be released to any third party without the prior written consent of the CITY. This provision does not apply to information that (a) was publicly known, or otherwise known to CONSULTANT, at the time that it was disclosed to CONSULTANT by the CITY, (b) subsequently becomes publicly known through no act or omission of CONSULTANT or (c) otherwise becomes known to CONSULTANT other than through disclosure by the CITY. Except for any subcontractors that may be
5 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 4 of 17 allowed upon prior agreement, neither the documents nor their contents shall be released to any third party without the prior written consent of the CITY. The sole purpose of this section is to prevent disclosure of CITY’s confidential and proprietary information by CONSULTANT or subcontractors.
8. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
8.1. CONSULTANT shall at all times comply with all federal, state and local conflict of interest laws, regulations, and policies applicable to public contracts and procurement practices, including but not limited to California Government Code §§ 81000 et seq. (Political Reform Act) and §§ 1090 et seq. CONSULTANT shall immediately disqualify itself and shall not use its official position to influence in any way any matter coming before the CITY in which the CONSULTANT has a financial interest as defined in Government Code § 87103. CONSULTANT represents that it has no knowledge of any financial interests which would require it to disqualify itself from any matter on which it might perform services for the CITY.
8.2. CONSULTANT shall comply with all of the reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act. The CONSULTANT shall file a Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700 (Assuming Office Statement) within thirty (30) calendar days of the CITY’s determination that the CONSULTANT is subject to a conflict of interest code. The CONSULTANT shall also file a Form 700 (Annual Statement) on or before April 1, disclosing any financial interests held during the previous calendar year for which the CONSULTANT was subject to a conflict of interest code.
8.3. If, in performing the CONSULTING SERVICES set forth in this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT makes, or participates in, a “governmental decision” as described in Title 2, section 18701(a)(2) of the California Code of Regulations, or performs the same or substantially all the same duties for the CITY that would otherwise be performed by a CITY employee holding a position specified in the department's conflict of interest code, the CONSULTANT shall be subject to a conflict of interest code requiring the completion of one or more statements of economic interests disclosing the CONSULTANT’s relevant financial interests.
9. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT shall be considered the property of CITY. CONSULTANT shall be permitted to reference and use said materials for use in future studies, work, and marketing so long as said materials are considered “public documents” and are not subject to attorney-client privilege, or the subject of pending closed or executive session discussions.
6 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 5 of 17
10. INSURANCE
10.1. CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the AGREEMENT insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the CONSULTANT, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than “A” and “VII” unless otherwise approved in writing by the CITY’s Risk Manager.
10.2. CONSULTANT’s liabilities, including but not limited to CONSULTANT’s indemnity obligations, under this AGREEMENT, shall not be deemed limited in any way to the insurance coverage required herein. All policies of insurance required hereunder must provide that the CITY is entitled to thirty (30) days prior written notice (ten (10) days for cancellation due to non-payment of premium) of cancellation or non-renewal of the policy or policies. Maintenance of specified insurance coverage is a material element of this AGREEMENT.
10.3. Types and Amounts Required. CONSULTANT shall maintain, at minimum, the following insurance coverage for the duration of this AGREEMENT:
10.3.1. Commercial General Liability (CGL). Insurance written on an ISO Occurrence form CG 00 01 07 98 or equivalent providing coverage at least as broad which shall cover liability arising from any and all personal injury or property damage in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and subject to an annual aggregate of $2,000,000. There shall be no endorsement or modification of the CGL limiting the scope of coverage for either insured vs. insured claims or contractual liability. All defense costs shall be outside the limits of the policy.
10.3.2. Commercial Automobile Liability. For all of the CONSULTANT's automobiles including owned, hired and non-owned automobiles, automobile insurance written on an ISO form CA 00 01 12 90 or a later version of this form or an equivalent form providing coverage at least as broad for bodily injury and property damage for a combined single limit of $300,000 per occurrence. Insurance certificate shall reflect coverage for any automobile (any auto).
10.3.3. Workers' Compensation. For all of the CONSULTANT's employees who are subject to this AGREEMENT and to the extent required by applicable state or federal law, a Workers' Compensation policy providing at minimum $1,000,000 employers' liability coverage. The CONSULTANT shall provide an endorsement that the insurer waives the right of subrogation against the CITY and its respective elected officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives.
10.3.4. Consulting Liability. Consulting liability (errors and omissions) coverage with a limit of $1,000,000 per claim and $2,000,000 annual
7 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 6 of 17 aggregate. The CONSULTANT shall ensure both that (1) the policy retroactive date is on or before the date of commencement of the Scope of Services; and (2) the policy will be maintained in force for a period of three years after substantial completion of the Scope of Services or termination of this AGREEMENT whichever occurs last. The CONSULTANT agrees that for the time period defined above, there will be no changes or endorsements to the policy that increase the CITY's exposure to loss. All defense costs shall be outside the limits of the policy.
10.4. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions are the responsibility of the CONSULTANT and must be declared to and approved by the CITY. At the option of the CITY, either (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, or (2) the CONSULTANT shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the CITY guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses.
10.5. Additional Required Provisions. The commercial general liability and automobile liability policies shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
10.5.1. The CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and representatives shall be named as additional insureds. The CITY's Additional Insured status must be reflected on additional insured endorsement form which shall be submitted to the CITY.
10.5.2. The policies are primary and non-contributory to any insurance that may be carried by the CITY, as reflected in an endorsement which shall be submitted to the CITY.
10.6. Verification of Coverage. CONSULTANT shall furnish the CITY with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this Section 5. The endorsement should be on forms provided by the CITY or on other than the CITY’s forms provided those endorsements conform to CITY requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the CITY before work commences. The CITY reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time.
11. INDEMNIFICATION. CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY, and its officers, officials, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability that arise out of, or pertain to, or relate to the CONSULTANT, its employees, agents, and subcontractors performance of services under this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT’s duty to indemnify under this section shall not include liability for damages for death or bodily injury to persons, injury to property, or other loss, damage or expense arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct
8 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 7 of 17 by the CITY or its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees. CONSULTANT's indemnification obligations shall not be limited by the insurance provisions of this AGREEMENT. The PARTIES expressly agree that any payment, attorney's fees, costs or expense CITY incurs or makes to or on behalf of an injured employee under the CITY's self-administered workers' compensation is included as a loss, expense, or cost for the purposes of this section, and that this section will survive the expiration or early termination of this AGREEMENT.
12. SUBCONTRACTORS.
12.1. The CONSULTANT’s hiring or retaining of third parties (i.e. subcontractors) to perform services related to the PROJECT is subject to prior approval by the CITY. 12.2. All contracts entered into between the CONSULTANT and its subcontractor shall also provide that each subcontractor shall obtain insurance policies which shall be kept in full force and effect during any and all work on this PROJECT and for the duration of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall require the subcontractor to obtain all policies described in section 10 of this Agreement in the amounts required by the CITY, which shall not be greater than the amounts required of the CONSULTANT.
12.3. In any dispute between the CONSULTANT and its subcontractor, the CITY shall not be made a party to any judicial or administrative proceeding to resolve the dispute. The CONSULTANT agrees to defend and indemnify the CITY as described in Section 11of this Agreement should the CITY be made a party to any judicial or administrative proceeding to resolve any such dispute.
13. NON-DISCRIMINATION. CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, nor shall CONSULTANT discriminate against any qualified individual with a disability. CONSULTANT shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin and shall make reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. CONSULTANT agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment any notices provided by CITY setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause.
14. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party shall be delivered to the persons listed below. Any such written communications by mail shall be conclusively deemed to have been received by the addressee five (5) calendar days after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as noted below.
9 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 8 of 17
City Manager President City of Del Mar Del Mar Community Connections 1050 Camino del Mar PO Box 2947 Del Mar, CA 92014 Del Mar, CA 92014
15. ASSIGNABILITY. This AGREEMENT and any portion thereof shall not be assigned or transferred, nor shall any of the CONSULTANT’s duties be delegated or sub-contracted, without the express written consent of the CITY.
16. RESPONSIBILITY FOR EQUIPMENT. CITY shall not be responsible nor held liable for any damage to persons or property consequent upon the use, misuse, or failure of any equipment used by CONSULTANT or any of CONSULTANT’s employees or subcontractors, even if such equipment has been furnished, rented, or loaned to CONSULTANT by CITY. The acceptance or use of any such equipment by CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT’s employees, or subcontractors shall be construed to mean that CONSULTANT accepts full responsibility for and agrees to exonerate, indemnify and hold harmless CITY from and against any and all claims for any damage whatsoever resulting from the use, misuse, or failure of such equipment.
17. CALIFORNIA LAW; VENUE/MISC. This AGREEMENT shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Any action brought to enforce or interpret any portion of this AGREEMENT shall be brought in the county of San Diego, California. CONSULTANT hereby waives any and all rights it might have pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 394.
18. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The CONSULTANT shall comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies of the federal, state, and local governments applicable to this AGREEMENT.
19. CONSULTANT'S CERTIFICATION OF AWARENESS OF IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986. CONSULTANT certifies that CONSULTANT is aware of the requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8 USC §§ 1101-1525) and has complied and will comply with these requirements, including but not limited to verifying the eligibility for employment of all agents, employees, subcontractors and consultants that are included in this AGREEMENT.
20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT sets forth the entire understanding of the PARTIES with respect to the subject matters herein. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written, except as set forth herein.
21. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the
10 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 9 of 17
City Attorney. No change, alteration, or modification of the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT, and no verbal understanding of the PARTIES, their officers, agents, or employees shall be valid unless agreed to in writing by both PARTIES.
22. NO WAIVER. No failure of either the CITY or the CONSULTANT to insist upon the strict performance by the other of any covenant, term or condition of this AGREEMENT, nor any failure to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach of any covenant, term, or condition of this AGREEMENT shall constitute a waiver of any such breach of such covenant, term or condition.
23. SEVERABILITY. The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision of this AGREEMENT shall not render any other provision unenforceable, invalid, or illegal.
24. DRAFTING AMBIGUITIES. The PARTIES agree that they are aware that they have the right to be advised by counsel with respect to the negotiations, terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT, and the decision of whether or not to seek advice of counsel with respect to this AGREEMENT is a decision which is the sole responsibility of each Party. This AGREEMENT shall not be construed in favor of or against either Party by reason of the extent to which each Party participated in the drafting of the AGREEMENT.
25. LEGAL FEES. In the event of the bringing of any action or suit by either party hereto against the other party hereunder to enforce or interpret any of the provisions, covenants or conditions of this Agreement, or arising out of any tortuous conduct by either party incident to this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or suit shall be entitled to recover all costs and expenses of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees. In any action or suit brought to enforce this Agreement, the damages available shall be limited to specific performance or other such equitable relief that the court may order.
26. CONFLICTS BETWEEN TERMS. If an apparent conflict or inconsistency exists between the main body of this AGREEMENT and the Exhibits, the main body of this AGREEMENT shall control. If a conflict exists between an applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, regulation, order, or code and this AGREEMENT, the law, rule, regulation, order, or code shall control. Varying degrees of stringency among the main body of this AGREEMENT, the Exhibits, and laws, rules, regulations, orders, or codes are not deemed conflicts, and the most stringent requirement shall control. Each Party shall notify the other immediately upon the identification of any apparent conflict or inconsistency concerning this AGREEMENT.
27. EXHIBITS INCORPORATED. All Exhibits referenced in this AGREEMENT are incorporated into the AGREEMENT by this reference.
11 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 10 of 17
28. SIGNING AUTHORITY. The representative for each Party signing on behalf of a corporation, partnership, joint venture or governmental entity hereby declares that authority has been obtained to sign on behalf of the corporation, partnership, joint venture, or entity and agrees to hold the other Party or PARTIES hereto harmless if it is later determined that such authority does not exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have executed this AGREEMENT the day and year first hereinabove written.
CITY of DEL MAR, DEL MAR COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS, a municipal corporation a non-profit organization
______By: Scott W. Huth, City Manager Don Mosier, President
Its: ______
ATTEST:
______Ashley Jones, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
12 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 11 of 17
Attachment “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Contracting Agent: City of Del Mar Contractor: Del Mar Community Connections Contact: Jenelle Zingg, Program Director Phone: (858) 792-7565 Contract Period: July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2019
In cooperation with the City of Del Mar (City) and the Del Mar Housing Corporation, Del Mar Community Connections (DMCC) will coordinate, implement and promote the Del Mar Shared Housing Program (DMSHP) and the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program (DMRAP).
The specific tasks are set forth below for both programs (Del Mar Shared Housing Program and the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program).
Del Mar Shared Housing Program
Program Goals: DMCC will coordinate and implement the City of Del Mar’s shared housing program to establish successful shared housing matches between Del Mar homeowners and those seeking affordable housing.
Program Summary: To achieve the program goals, the proposed program includes three components: 1) outreach and education; 2) service delivery; and 3) evaluation.
Program Components:
1. Outreach and Education
DMCC shall promote the Del Mar Shared Housing Program to increase community awareness of shared housing opportunities. DMCC shall provide information on all housing assistance and support services to all interested parties.
DMCC shall attend and participate in the Del Mar Housing Corporation meetings and meetings of the Housing Element Update Citizens’ Advisory Committee.
2. Service Delivery
DMCC shall offer home-owner and home-seeker client choices for making shared housing matches that best meet their circumstances in the Del Mar service area.
13 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 12 of 17
DMCC shall interview homeowner clients to mutually determine which housing assistance alternative best meets the needs of the client.
DMCC shall seek appropriate home-seeking clients to match with homeowner clients.
DMCC shall gather and maintain records of confidential information, as appropriate, in accordance with applicable laws governing same.
DMCC shall develop a model contract and encourage the home provider and home seeker to construct a housing agreement to fit their individual situation.
DMCC shall provide criminal and DMV background checks as appropriate for home providers and home-seekers.
Three Housing Assistance Alternatives
Shared Living Residence: DMCC shall interview applicants and conduct home visits/inspections.
Full Service Exchange for Housing: DMCC shall conduct a home visit/inspection to ensure that requests for this service accurately reflect the home provider’s needs.
Partial Service Exchange: DMCC shall provide the same service as with the Full Service Exchange alternative.
DMCC shall refer home seekers to homeowners.
DMCC shall assist in developing an agreement that delineates chores, such as cooking, cleaning, driving or running errands, and their frequency.
3. Evaluation
DMCC shall periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the program in achieving shared housing matches.
Del Mar Rental Assistance Program
DMCC shall operate the rental assistance program including conducting outreach into the community to educate the public about the program.
14 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 13 of 17
Program Goals: To successfully operate the rental assistance program to provide affordable housing opportunities for residents of the City and employees of business within the City to achieve the City’s Housing Element Goals,
Program Components:
1. Outreach and Education
DMCC staff and volunteers shall promote the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program to increase community awareness of its programs and benefits. DMCC shall provide information about the Rental Assistance and Shared Housing Programs to interested parties and shall be included in DMCC educational pamphlets. DMCC shall participate in the Del Mar Housing Corporation meetings and in meetings of the Housing Element Update Citizens’ Advisory Committee.
2. Service Delivery
DMCC shall operate the Rental Assistance program according to priorities established and as may be amended by the Del Mar Housing Corporation:
DMCC shall determine eligibility of new applicants based upon applicant income and special need(s) and in accordance with the following priorities:
1st Priority: Very-low income individuals, specifically, elderly (62 years or older) and disabled, or families of two or more persons, living or working within the City of Del Mar city limits.
2nd Priority: Low income individuals, specifically, elderly (62 years or older) and disabled, or families of two or more persons, living or working within the City of Del Mar city limits.
3rd Priority: Very-low income individuals, specifically, elderly (62 years or older) and disabled, or families of two or more persons, living or working within the zip code area of 92014.
4th Priority: Low income individuals, specifically, elderly (62 years or older) and disabled, or families of two or more persons, living or working within the zip code area of 92014.
5th Priority: Very-low income individuals, especially, elderly (62 years or older) and disabled, or families of two or more persons, living or working within the County of San Diego.
15 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 14 of 17
6th Priority: Low income individuals, specifically, elderly (62 years or older) and disabled, or families of two or more persons, living or working within the County of San Diego.
SERVICES AND DOCUMENTS
During the terms of this AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT shall maintain professional certifications and licenses as required in order to properly comply with all CITY, state, and federal law.
CONSULTANT shall perform all work required to accomplish the program services in conformity with applicable requirements of federal, state, and local law.
CONSULTANT will cooperate and maintain close coordination with CITY staff.
CONSULTANT shall assure that all staff and volunteers maintain confidentiality and protect the privacy of program participants.
Contracting Agent: City of Del Mar Contractor: Del Mar Community Connections (DMCC) Contact: Program Coordinator Phone: (858) 792-7565 Contract Period: July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2019
MANNER OF PERFORMING CONTRACT
The following persons are volunteers or employees of the CONSULTANT and have been assigned the responsibility of performing the CONSULTANT’s obligations arising under this AGREEMENT:
1. Del Mar Community Connections Program Director
2. Del Mar Community Connections Housing Committee Chairperson
16 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 15 of 17
BUDGET AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE OF CONTRACT
DEL MAR SHARED HOUSING AND RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PROGRAM BUDGET 7/1/2017 – 6/30/2018
PERSONNEL
Housing/Rental Assistance Counselor $ 22,400
Clerical and Administrative Support $ 1,200
Payroll Taxes & Fringe Benefits $ 4,800
Total Personnel $ 28,400
NON-PERSONNEL
Contracted Training Services $ 1,000
Insurance $ 3,900
Advertising $ 1,500
Mileage $ 200
Printing $ 500
Telephone, Postage and Supplies $ 1,000
Miscellaneous $ 500
Total Non-Personnel $ 8,600
TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET 7/1/2017 – 6/30/2018 $37,000
17 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 16 of 17
DEL MAR SHARED HOUSING AND RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PROGRAM BUDGET 7/1/2018 – 6/30/2019
PERSONNEL
Housing/Rental Assistance Counselor $ 22,400
Clerical and Administrative Support $ 1,200
Payroll Taxes & Fringe Benefits $ 4,800
Total Personnel $ 28,400
NON-PERSONNEL
Contracted Training Services $ 1,000
Insurance $ 3,900
Advertising $ 1,500
Mileage $ 200
Printing $ 500
Telephone, Postage and Supplies $ 1,000
Miscellaneous $ 500
Total Non-Personnel $ 8,600
TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET 7/1/2018 – 6/30/2019 $37,000
18 June 19, 2017 Item 10 General Consulting Services Agreement Del Mar Community Connections Page 17 of 17
The CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for the DESCRIBED SERVICES as follows:
The total cost of the services rendered for the twelve-month period beginning on July 1, 2017 and ending on June 30, 2018 is $37,000.
The total cost of the services rendered for the twelve-month period beginning on July 1, 2018 and ending on June 30, 2019 is $37,000.
Payments will be made on a quarterly basis based on an invoice. Each payment will be made for one-fourth of the contract, $9,250 in advance.
The quarterly payments shall be made on the dates of July 1, October 1, January 1, and April 1, of each year.
19 June 19, 2017 Item 10 City of Del Mar
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Kathleen A. Garcia, Planning and Community Development Director Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager Prepared by Matt Bator, AICP, Senior Planner
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Establishment of a City Council Policy Regarding the Processing of Specific Plans
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the proposed resolution amending the City Council Policy Book by establishing a Council policy for the processing of Specific Plan applications and associated project entitlements within the City of Del Mar.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council maintains a Policy Book with individual policy sections that articulate methods and procedures to be used in conducting City Council business. The policies are used to educate the public and to guide staff in the application of the City’s regulations and procedures. Although they are not codified as part of the Municipal Code, the policies also serve as a tool to be used by City staff and the City Council in making determinations on permit applications and other actions requested of the City. With this agenda item, staff is recommending adoption of a new policy to formalize the community outreach, legislative and discretionary actions required for, and during, the processing of a Specific Plan. The recommended processing policy would provide consistency to the application process and set orderly scheduling parameters for applications involving both legislative and discretionary review.
BACKGROUND:
With regards to the development of land, the City of Del Mar enacts both a legislative process (Community Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, etc.) and a discretionary process (Design Review Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, etc.). A Specific Plan becomes part of the legislative action but includes many elements traditionally found in Del Mar’s discretionary actions.
______City Council Action:
1 June 19, 2017 Item 11 City Council Staff Report Amendment to Council Policy Book June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 4
The preparation of a Specific Plan is regulated by State of California Government Codes §65450 – 65457. A Specific Plan is defined as a special set of development standards that apply to a particular geographical area, carrying out the intent and goals of a General (Community) Plan. A Specific Plan encompasses the legislative actions to assign a new Community Plan, Zoning Map and Local Coastal Program (LCP) designation to property, along with accompanying regulatory development parameters. In essence, it creates a land use designation and zone for the property or properties. In addition to laying out the zoning parameters, the Specific Plan can also address such issues as the public benefits that would be derived from the project, a description of any deviations from the otherwise applicable (existing) zoning regulations and community- protection measures. Specific Plans generally include exhibits for proposed development, the structural massing of sites, and right-of-way or other related public improvements. Additionally, the process requires that opportunities for the involvement of citizens and interested parties.
With the exception of the Specific Plans included within and related to various elements of the 1976 Community Plan, the City of Del Mar has only processed the following Specific Plans: the Carmel Valley Precise Plan (1980); The Plaza Specific Plan (1987); The Del Mar Hotel (L’Auberge) Specific Plan (1987), and the Garden Del Mar Specific Plan (2008).
Specific Plans are commonly used by jurisdictions to approve the zoning, regulatory framework and broad design parameters for the future development of properties. While it includes design guidelines, this type of Specific Plan does not include detailed or comprehensive architectural drawings, such as Del Mar utilizes for its discretionary Design Review process. The previously mentioned Carmel Valley Precise Plan (CVPP), which is technically a “Specific” plan under State law, is an example of this type of Specific Plan. In this example, only legislative approvals were sought by an applicant during the Specific Plan process. Individual projects, such as the custom single-family homes within a Specific Plan area, were then subject to obtaining [separate] ministerial or discretionary entitlements prior to their construction and were designed to “fit” within the parameters of the Specific Plan.
In some cases, Specific Plans are utilized to facilitate the development process for a particular project and detailed architectural plans are developed side-by-side with the Specific Plan document. This was the case with the Garden Del Mar Project. Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 30.54, also known as “Measure B,” requires the use, adoption, and approval of a Specific Plan by the City of Del Mar for certain development projects located within the Central Commercial Zone. For the Garden Del Mar project, the Specific Plan document was essentially developed with the proposed project’s physical design as it was created. In this situation, both legislative and discretionary approvals were sought by an applicant, as close to simultaneously as possible. This method processed the legislative and discretionary actions somewhat concurrently.
2 June 19, 2017 Item 11 City Council Staff Report Amendment to Council Policy Book June 19, 2017 Page 3 of 4
In the cases of the Del Mar Hotel and Del Mar Plaza, both subject to Measure B and processed in the same manner, the Specific Plans established rights for structural heights, massing and building locations legislatively, but required discretionary (Design Review Board) approval for final architectural detailing, materials, appearance of the building exteriors and landscaping, in accordance with (then) existing Design Review Ordinance provisions.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The examples discussed above would all require (most) of the same steps/actions while going through the Specific Plan application process. However, regarding review for building entitlements, each of the three cases would be processed slightly different. A current example similar to the CVPP would be fairly straight forward in that no specific entitlements would be sought, at least not immediately. Future project owners or individual lot owners would seek entitlements separately from, but under the regulatory provisions of, the adopted Specific Plan and its legislative approvals. This would be a sequential process ensuring the legislative entitlements first and then, at a later date, securing the discretionary permits, either individually or collectively.
However, as is the case with Measure B projects, some Specific Plans processed in the City of Del Mar would be associated with at least conceptual, if not fully-detailed, architectural design plans. In some cases, the design plans would only be drawn with enough detail to ensure that height, massing and building location provisions regulated within and by the Specific Plan would be consistent with the Municipal Code. The applicants would delay creation of fully detailed plans until after all legislative requests have been approved. But in other cases, applicants may desire to gain discretionary entitlements at the same time as the legislative approvals in order to expedite the overall development schedule.
The City currently has three Specific Plan applications submitted for review and approval, almost equal to the amount processed over the last 37 years. As mentioned, each will require many of the same regulatory processing steps/actions, but each may desire to integrate submission and approval of entitlements differently. The City of Del Mar does not currently have a policy or code that would provide applicants or staff clear direction regarding the specific processing steps/actions that would be required and the order in which they need to be performed.
Therefore, staff has developed a draft set of Specific Plan Processing Guidelines. The Guidelines are a chronologically based outline that, depending on the specific aspects of the application request, site location and the proposed development, would guide the processing of the legislative and discretionary entitlement reviews from start to finish. The Guidelines take into account issues such as the proper timing/integration of Citizens Participation (CPP) meetings, coordination with Coastal Commission staff
3 June 19, 2017 Item 11 City Council Staff Report Amendment to Council Policy Book June 19, 2017 Page 4 of 4
(when needed), and provisions for additional outreach and informational meetings with City discretionary bodies.
Additionally, the Guidelines provide distinctly separate processes for the discretionary entitlement review of Specific Plan projects, depending on the applicant’s intentions regarding the development of architectural plans. In the case of an applicant who desires to process legislative and discretionary applications simultaneously, the proposed Guidelines elevate the final approval responsibility of both to the City Council, upon recommendation by the Planning Commission and Design Review.
Staff has worked closely with Planning Liaisons Worden and Haviland to review the proposed guidelines and the Specific Plan processes within Del Mar. In order to facilitate immediate use of the proposed Specific Plan Guidelines and memorialize the City Council’s agreement with the procedures set forth, staff is providing them to the City Council in the form of a Policy, to be adopted by resolution, and added to the City Council’s Policy Book. If adopted, the Specific Plan Processing Guidelines would become City Council Policy #112.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
The City Council last reviewed changes to the Policy Book at its October 16, 2015 meeting
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Proposed Resolution Attachment B - Proposed Policy #112
4 June 19, 2017 Item 11 ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEW POLICY RELATED TO THE PROCESSING OF A SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, it is beneficial to identify and describe methods and procedures for the conduct of City Council meetings and business; and
WHEREAS, the establishment and updating of City Council policies provides a mechanism for articulating methods and procedures for the conduct of City Council business; and
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar has maintained a City Council Policy handbook, adopted and utilized by the City Council for many years; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to establish a new policy to provide consistency to the Specific Plan application process and set orderly scheduling parameters for Specific Plan applications involving both legislative and discretionary review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, hereby adopts Policy #112, “PROCESSING SPECIFIC PLANS,” included as Attachment B to the June 19, 2017 Staff Report; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Policy #112 shall be incorporated into the City Council Policy Book.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 19th day of June, 2017.
______Terry Sinnott, Mayor City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney City of Del Mar
5 June 19, 2017 Item 11 Resolution No. 2017-____ Page 2 of 2
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF DEL MAR
I, ASHLEY JONES, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2017-_____, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 19th day of June, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
______Ashley Jones, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk City of Del Mar
6 June 19, 2017 Item 11
ATTACHMENT B CITY OF DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
DATE ADOPTED: 112 PROCESSING SPECIFIC PLANS BY RESOLUTION: PAGES: 1 OF 4
POLICY
Pursuant to the State of California Government Code §65450 – 65457, the City of Del Mar utilizes the Specific Plan process as a means to ensure development complies with the intent and goals of the Del Mar Community Plan when addressing zoning changes and Central Commercial (Measure B) development. This policy sets forth processing guidelines for formalize the community outreach, legislative and discretionary actions required for, and during, the processing Specific Plan. The recommended processing policy would provide consistency to the application process and set orderly scheduling parameters for applications involving both legislative and discretionary review.
SPECIFIC PLAN PROCESSING GUIDELINES
PROCESSING ACRONYMS:
SP = Specific Plan PC = Planning Commission CPP =Community Participation Program DRB = Design Review Board CEQA = Environmental Review/Document CC = City Council
PROCESS BEFORE APPLICATION IS DEEMED COMPLETE
[SP 1] Interested land owner(s)/developer(s) (Applicant) seeks City Council concurrence to either: process a Specific Plan as required by the Municipal Code for a Measure B development project; or to change the existing land use designation and zoning of property as applicable through the use of a Specific Plan.
[SP 2] Submittal of applications and establishment of a deposit account for the Specific Plan, other legislative actions as applicable (e.g. General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment) and the Environmental Assessment. Note that a complete project description will be required to begin the City’s process of initiating CEQA [CEQA 1]. The Specific Plan document and associated plans (if required) must be provided for the application to be deemed complete [SP 7].
[SP 3] Staff-level project scoping meeting to identify potential issues regarding public infrastructure, streets, engineering issues, use of City property, impact on City resources and programs, etc.
[LCPA 1] Staff meeting with California Coastal Commission staff, if needed, for early discussion of the project proposal and to solicit early concerns or comments from Coastal staff
7 June 19, 2017 Item 11 CITY OF DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
DATE ADOPTED: 112 PROCESSING SPECIFIC PLANS BY RESOLUTION: PAGES: 2 OF 4
[CPP 1] The applicant is required to conduct a public outreach meeting in conformance with the “Initial Public Outreach” provisions of DMMC Section 23.08.068 (A-1-a) “Citizens’ Participation Program”.
[CEQA 1] City of Del Mar Selection of Environmental consultant for completion of Initial Study and appropriate CEQA documentation, including an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or other required environmental documentation.
[CEQA 2] Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Scoping Meeting held, if required.
[PC 1] Presentation provided to the Planning Commission, giving a general overview of the project proposal and summary of early public input, including results of the CEQA Scoping meeting.
[DRB 1] Presentation provided to the Design Review Board, giving a general overview of the project proposal and summary of early public input, including results of the CEQA Scoping meeting.
[CEQA 3] Concurrent preparation of the Specific Plan document/project design with the CEQA processing and preparation of draft EIR or other environmental documentation, as required.
[SP 4] Additional public outreach is performed at various stages of the development project design in accordance with the applicant’s project specific processing plan, adopted by City Council in step SP-1 of this processing document. This is recommended at the time when conceptual building location(s), massing, and heights are created.
[SP 5] Draft Specific Plan document and accompanying conceptual design plan is submitted by the Applicant for City Staff review and incorporation into the environmental review (project deemed “complete.”).
FORMAL PROCESSING (APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE)
[LCPA 2] Second staff initiated meeting with California Coastal Commission staff to review conceptual design (if appropriate).
[CEQA 4] City Release/distribution of Draft EIR.
[PC 2] Non-action noticed public hearing with the Planning Commission conducted for DEIR input during the 45 day public review period.
[CEQA 5] Preparation of written responses to DEIR comments and preparation of Final EIR.
8 June 19, 2017 Item 11 CITY OF DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
DATE ADOPTED: 112 PROCESSING SPECIFIC PLANS BY RESOLUTION: PAGES: 3 OF 4
FOR SPECIFIC PLANS PROCESSED WITH FULLY DEVELOPED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, CONTINUE FOLLOWING THE PROCESS BELOW ENTITLED ‘COMBINED PROCESSING.”
FOR SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECTS WHERE THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO DELAY THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS BEYOND BUILDING/STRUCTURE “FORM, MASSING AND LOCATION,” SKIP BELOW TO THE NEXT SECTION ENTITLED “SEQUENTIAL PROCESSING (OPTION B)”
COMBINED PROCESSING (OPTION -A)
[CPP 2A] The applicant is required to conduct a public outreach meeting in conformance with the “Project Proposal Meeting” provisions of DMMC Section 23.08.068 (A-1-b) “Citizens’ Participation Program”, which includes the placement of story poles, and availability of DRB-level design plans, 3D modeling of the proposed development, and photo simulations of the project to illustrate community/neighborhood compatibility.
[DRB 2A] Applicant’s submittal of necessary discretionary Development Permit Applications (DRB, CDP, LC, CUP, or others as appropriate).
[DRB 3A] Review of the Specific Plan, conceptual design plans and preliminary grading plans by the Design Review Board at a noticed public hearing and recommendation to the City Council for action.
[DRB 4A] Additional Design Review Board meeting(s) if needed for recommendation to City Council.
[PC 3A] Planning Commission review and recommendation to City Council on the EIR certification and approval of the Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment (as applicable).
[CC 1A] Noticed public hearing and action on EIR, Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment by City Council. If no public vote is required (non-Measure B project), the Council would also take action on all required discretionary permits. Discretionary permits would be conditioned for those projects requiring a Measure B vote.
[VOTE A] Public vote required for Measure B Specific Plans only.
[LCPA 3A] Review and approval of LCPA by California Coastal Commission. Note that an action by the Coastal Commission to conditionally certify the LCPA will require additional public hearings of the City Council to consider and adopt any required modifications necessary for final certification.
9 June 19, 2017 Item 11 CITY OF DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
DATE ADOPTED: 112 PROCESSING SPECIFIC PLANS BY RESOLUTION: PAGES: 4 OF 4
SEQUENTIAL PROCESSING (OPTION -B)
[DRB 2B] Story poles are to be placed on the development site for consideration of proposed structural massing and location by the Design Review Board in step DRB 3B.
[DRB 3B] Review of the Specific Plan, conceptual design plans and preliminary grading plans by the Design Review Board at a noticed public hearing and recommendation to the City Council for action on the Specific Plan design related elements (building height, massing and location only).
[DRB 4B] Additional Design Review Board meeting(s) if needed for recommendation to City Council.
[PC 3B] Planning Commission review and recommendation to City Council on the EIR certification and on the Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment.
[CC 1B] Noticed public hearing and action on CEQA documents, Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment by City Council, as needed, for approval, conditional approval, or denial.
[VOTE B] Public vote required for Measure B Specific Plans only.
[CPP 2B] The applicant is required to conduct a public outreach meeting in conformance with the “Project Proposal Meeting” provisions of DMMC Section 23.08.068 (A-1-b) “Citizens’ Participation Program”, which includes the placement of story poles, and availability of DRB-level design plans, 3D modeling of the proposed development, and photo simulations of the project to illustrate community/neighborhood compatibility.
[DRB 5B] Submittal of necessary discretionary Development Permit Applications (DRB, CDP, LC, CUP, or others as appropriate).
[DRB 6B] Design Review Board meeting and public hearing to review and conditionally approve the architectural plans (DRB) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The DRB approvals/permit entitlements are subject to appeal to the City Council and will not be effective until the Specific Plan is approved by the City Council and unconditionally certified by the Coastal Commission.
[LCPA 3B] Review and approval of LCPA by California Coastal Commission if needed. Note that an action by the Coastal Commission to conditionally certify the LCPA will require additional public hearings of the City Council to consider and adopt any required modifications necessary for final certification.
Exhibit A – Diagram for “Combined” Specific Plan Processing
10 June 19, 2017 Item 11
CONCURRENT PROCESS EXHIBIT A
Legislative Actions Discretionary Actions Specific Discretionary APPLICATION Plan/Project Permit Description Applications
[SP 1, 2] [DRB 2A]
CEQA Initiation Specific Plan Design CPP #1 & Scoping Documents DATA COLLECTION Initial Public Scoping by Outreach [SP 3] Applicant [CEQA 1, 2] [LCPA 1] [CPP 1]
DRB CEQA Planning Additional Draft Specific Workshop(s) Technical Commission Applicant Studies Plan Workshop Outreach [DRB 1] [CEQA 3] SYNTHESIS Draft CEQA CPP #2 Document Modeling [SP 5] Story Poles [CEQA 3] [PC 1] [LCPA 2] [SP 4] [DRB 2A] [CPP 2A]
Public Planning Review Commission of Draft Workshop [CEQA 4]
Response to REVIEW Comments [PC 2] Public Review REVIEW DRB Hearing [CEQA 5] Planning Final CEQA Commission Document Hearing Review
[CEQA 5] [PC 3A] [DRB 3A, 4A]
APPROVAL City Council Hearing California Coastal Commission
11 [CC 1A] June 19, 2017 [LCPA 3A] Item 11 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Kathleen A. Garcia, Planning and Community Development Director Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Authorization of the Specific Plan Process for the Proposed Del Mar Resort Project
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution, authorizing the Specific Plan process and its extended community outreach process for the Del Mar Resort project.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Del Mar Beach Resort, LLC, the developers of the properties commonly known as North Bluff at the southwest corner of Border Avenue and Camino del Mar (APNs: 298-241- 06, 07; 298-241-34, 29; 298-241-35, 36; 298-241-06, 07; 299-030-15), have indicated their desire to develop a resort project on the properties. The properties are currently in residential zones (R1-14 and R1-40). In discussions with the project applicant, staff has outlined a proposed process for land use modifications necessary to accommodate resort development, including legislative changes and discretionary permits.
The legislative changes necessary for such a development include: 1) a Community (General Plan) amendment (GPA); 2) a new zoning map designation (Rezone); and 3) a Local Coastal Program amendment (LCPA) to assign a resort use designation, rather than the Residential Zone designations on the LCP Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinance Maps. The three legislative actions listed above require action by the Planning Commission and the City Council, as well as Coastal Commission review of the LCPAs at noticed public hearings. These legislative acts would be subject to environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
In addition to the legislative changes, the project would also require discretionary actions. The proposed construction would be subject to receipt of a Design Review Permit (DRB) and a Land Conservation (LC) Permit, each issued by the Design Review Board at a noticed Public Hearing. In addition, the project is located in the Bluff, Slope ______City Council Action:
1 June 19, 2017 Item 12 City Council Staff Report Del Mar Resort Specific Plan Process Page 2 of 3 and Canyon Overlay Zones and would also require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The site is located within the Coastal Commission Appeals Zone, and the City’s final action on the CDP would be appealable to the Coastal Commission. As with the legislative actions, the discretionary permits and authorizations would be subject to environmental review per CEQA.
Specific Plan Approach for Processing Land Use Modifications There are two alternative approaches for processing the three legislative changes required for land use modifications. A sequential process for the legislative actions would initially create a new zoning Chapter in the Municipal Code, which could not contain any project-specific deviations, if needed, or project-specific public benefits. Following final approval of the three legislative actions, applications could be submitted for the necessary discretionary development permits. This process does not allow for the balance of project specific public benefits to be assessed with the legislative action.
As an alternative to the sequential method for the review of the legislative and discretionary acts described above, the overall development proposal could be reviewed and processed under an instrument known as a Specific Plan. Del Mar initiated a similar type of process with the Watermark project currently underway and has used the specific plan process on other major development projects.
The preparation of a Specific Plan is regulated by Government Code §65450. The Specific Plan would encompass the legislative actions to assign a new Community Plan, Zoning Map and LCP designation to the properties, along with accompanying regulatory development parameters and the public benefits that would be derived from the project. The applicant would be responsible for preparing the Specific Plan.
The formal approvals on the Specific Plan would involve a review by the Planning Commission which would make a recommendation to the City Council, by resolution. The City Council would review the document and take action by ordinance to amend the Community Plan and by resolution to amend the LCP. The action on the LCP would include direction to forward it to the Coastal Commission for review and certification. Preliminary DRB discretionary review would occur during the Specific Plan process.
The applicant has elected to concurrently process the discretionary review permits, including the DRB permit along with the Specific Plan legislative changes. As such, the DRB would make a recommendation to the City Council and the legislative and discretionary permits would be approved concurrently by the City Council.
It is estimated that this process, once initiated, will take between 24 and 30 months for City entitlements with an additional year or more for Coastal Commission approvals.
2 June 19, 2017 Item 12 City Council Staff Report Del Mar Resort Specific Plan Process Page 3 of 3
Community Participation The Specific Plan process, pursuant to Government Code §65351, requires that opportunities for the involvement of citizens, public agencies, public utilities, civic education, and other community groups must be provided. The applicant has proposed additional public outreach beyond that required by the City of Del Mar (Attachment B). In addition to the Citizens’ Participation Program (CPP) per the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC), the applicant is proposing to:
1. Develop and maintain an interactive website with project information 2. Create a list serve for interested parties 3. Conduct informal meetings with neighbors and stakeholders 4. Conduct three public workshops in addition to the CPP
In addition to the public hearings, Planning Commission and Design Review Board interim presentations are proposed to elicit early feedback during the process. The formal approvals will be maintained, with Planning Commission, Design Review and City Council hearings at the process conclusion. The final action of Local Coastal Program Amendment rests with the Coastal Commission.
Staff and the applicant concur that a Specific Plan process with the stated community participation program would have greater community benefit than a standard zoning change and request City Council’s direction, acceptance, or modification of the stated Specific Plan process through the adoption of the attached resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The costs of the Specific Plan, its associated discretionary permits, CEQA documentation and the community participation program are borne by the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Proposed Resolution Attachment B – Applicant’s Correspondence (June 8, 2017) regarding additional community outreach
3 June 19, 2017 Item 12 RESOLUTION NO. 2017 - ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING THE USE OF A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE PROCESSING OF A PROPOSED RESORT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT BORDER AVENUE AND CAMINO DEL MAR (APNs: 298-241-06, 07; 298-241-34, 29; 298-241-35, 36; 298-241-06, 07; 299-030-15)
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar has received an application from Del Mar Beach Resort LLC (“Applicant”) for a proposed resort development at the properties located at the southwest corner of Border Avenue and Camino Del Mar within the City of Del Mar (APNs: 298-241-06, 07; 298-241-34, 29; 298-241-35, 36; 298-241-06, 07; 299-030-15) (“Properties”); and
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to rezone the Properties from R1-14 and R1-40 Zones to a new visitor-serving zone in order to develop a resort development; and
WHEREAS, implementation of such project would require both legislative changes (Community Plan Amendment, new zoning map designation, and Local Coastal Program Amendment) and discretionary actions (not limited to Design Review Permit, Land Conservation Permit, permits per the Bluff, Slope and Canyon Overlay Zone and a Coastal Development Permit); and
WHEREAS, the legislative and discretionary actions would be subject to environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of using a sequential method of a zoning code amendment to accomplish the legislative actions versus a comprehensive Specific Plan process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the benefits of a Specific Plan process to comprehensively address and define the legislative and discretionary actions as well as the community benefits offered by such a project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the benefits of a Specific Plan process to adequately address the adjacent North Bluff Preserve public property and its interface with the private development; and
WHEREAS, at the City Council’s June 19, 2017 meeting, a process for preparing concurrent Specific Plans and Discretionary permits has been reviewed and accepted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, at the City Council’s June 19, 2017 meeting, a process for conducting additional public outreach in connection with processing the Specific Plan as
4 June 19, 2017 Item 12 Resolution No. 2017 - _____ Page 2 presented by the project applicant in its June 8, 2017 correspondence (Attached B to the Staff Report) has been reviewed and accepted by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, that the Specific Plan process with additional community participation is hereby affirmed to proceed upon receipt of a project application.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that staff is hereby directed to proceed with the applicant to undertake the following process:
1. Preparation by the applicant of a Specific Plan for the Properties, subject to Government Code §65450 and City of Del Mar City Council Policy #112 to encompass the legislative actions to assign a new Community Plan, Zoning Map and Local Coastal Program designations along with accompanying regulatory development parameters and accompanying CEQA documentation.
2. Preparation of the necessary discretionary permit reviews through Design Review and Planning Commission actions in a concurrent process with the Specific Plan.
3. Preparation of the necessary actions to amend the Local Coastal Program by the California Coastal Commission.
4. A Specific Plan and discretionary permit process which will include: a. The implementation of the Citizens Participation Program per the Del Mar Municipal Code; b. Three public workshops for community engagement; c. Planning Commission and Design Review Board interim presentations and review; and d. Public hearings at the Planning Commission, Design Review Board and City Council.
5. Additional community participation as proposed by the applicant in correspondence dated June 8, 2017, to include an interactive website, a list- serve for interested parties, and outreach meetings with neighbors and stakeholders.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 19th day of June, 2017.
______Terry Sinnott, Mayor
5 June 19, 2017 Item 12 Resolution No. 2017 - _____ Page 3
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF DEL MAR
I, ASHLEY JONES, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2017-_____, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 19th day of June, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______Ashley Jones, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk City of Del Mar
6 June 19, 2017 Item 12 7 June 19, 2017 Item 12 8 June 19, 2017 Item 12
June 13, 2017
Concrete for the third and final section of the podium deck/roof of the parking garage was poured on Friday, June 2nd. Additionally, the 11-foot eastern and southern concrete architectural walls for the Town Hall building have also been poured, as well as the two-foot perimeter curb walls for the Town Hall. Steel framing for the Town Hall building will begin to be installed this week, with wood framing and beams being installed staring next week.
The two-foot curb walls for the City Hall building are being framed starting this week, with steel framing Photo above shows concrete east and south walls of Town Hall. beginning within about two weeks.
Above: Looking southeast from northwest corner of the plaza toward the future Town Hall on southeast corner of the site.
Rebar framing for the planters, stairway, and ramp on the Below: Tree well planter in the plaza near front door of City Hall eastside of the Plaza along Camino del Mar.
Work Item Scheduled Completion
November 2016 Construction of west side block wall (Targeting completion of final section by July 2017)
Completion of podium level Complete concrete
City Hall/Town Hall “dry-in” October 2017
Project construction completion April 2018 1 June 19, 2017 Item 13 Estimated Move-In May/June 2018 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Scott W. Huth, City Manager Initiated by: Councilmembers Dwight Worden and Sherryl Parks Prepared by: Kristen M. Crane, Assistant City Manager
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Guidelines for Use of the Community Room at the L’Auberge Hotel
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Consider adoption of the Guidelines for Use of the Community Room at the L’Auberge Hotel per the Specific Plan (Attachment A), including the associated Application For Use Of Community Meeting Room At L’auberge Hotel (Attachment B) and the recommended approach for coordinating scheduling and prioritizing requests for use of this benefit.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
In 1987, a Specific Plan was adopted by the voters of Del Mar pursuant to the Downtown Initiative (Measure B) authorizing development of the L’Auberge Hotel (then called the Del Mar Hotel). Part of that Specific Plan calls for certain public benefits to be provided. One of those benefits is public use of a community room at the Hotel, up to twelve times per year.
Council members Worden and Parks, acting as an informal subcommittee of the City Council, worked with L’Auberge (“Hotel”) to develop guidelines to implement this public benefit. Their work included:
Holding a series of meetings with L’Auberge management to understand the Hotel’s needs and to gather input; Meeting with Del Mar non-profit leaders to solicit their input and make sure they are aware of this benefit, and that it is structured in a way that meets their needs; Preparing multiple drafts of the Guidelines and room reservation application incorporating the input of the involved stakeholders; and Reviewing drafts with City staff to gather input.
______City Council Action:
1 June 19, 2017 Item 14 City Council Staff Report Guidelines for Use of the Community Room at the L’Auberge Hotel June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 3
Proposed Guidelines for Use of the Community Room
The proposed Guidelines are included with this report as Attachment A. Some key points of the Guidelines are:
Del Mar non-profits, the City, and City advisory committees are eligible for the benefit; The L’Auberge has agreed to the following accommodations which are set forth in the Guidelines: . Waived meeting space rental fee ($750-$2,500 value); . Waived set-up fee for basic set up ($500-$1,000 value); . Complimentary valet parking for the first 20 cars per event ($300 value); . Discounted $10 per car valet parking will apply for additional vehicles; . Allow outside non-alcoholic food and beverage (F&B) without charge, however if set up and hotel utensils are required, there will be an additional fee; . Provide a 15% discount should L’Auberge F&B be ordered; . Allow outside audio-visual (AV) without charge. Set-up fees may apply if L’Auberge labor is required; . Provide a 5% discount for AV should L’Auberge AV be ordered; and . Existing AV in Boardroom provided at no charge. Labor fees will apply if required.
Revisions were made to the Guidelines at the request of L’Auberge after the final draft was circulated to the stakeholders. The original draft Guidelines specified that a room reservation could not be changed or canceled by L’Auberge less than seven days prior to the scheduled event. As revised, the Guidelines provide that the assigned room can be changed within that final seven day period if necessary to accommodate L’Auberge business needs, but still cannot be canceled.
Reservations and Scheduling
One issue to address is how to prioritize requests to use this benefit. Our recommendation is that there be an open period for requests from November through December 15 of each year. All requests must be submitted during this window. The City shall then review and allocate them for the following calendar year. Prioritization would be per the Guidelines, based on City, then City advisory committees, then Del Mar non-profits (generally once per year, or more if all 12 opportunities are not utilized). If the quantity of requests exceeds 12, staff would work with the Hotel to see if the additional requests could be accommodated and/or select the requests based on a random lottery.
2 June 19, 2017 Item 14 City Council Staff Report Guidelines for Use of the Community Room at the L’Auberge Hotel June 19, 2017 Page 3 of 3
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with approving the recommended action. This would be a new program to be implemented and coordinated by City staff as part of on- going City operations in coordination with the hotel, estimated to require approximately 20- 30 hours/year of staff time cumulatively, including the administration of the annual open request period and scheduling/coordination during the remainder of the year.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
There is no direct environmental impact associated with approving the recommended action.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Guidelines for Use of the Community Room at L’Auberge Hotel per the Specific Plan
Attachment B - Draft Application for Use of Community Meeting Room at L’Auberge Hotel
Attachment C - Description of Meeting Rooms
3 June 19, 2017 Item 14 GUIDELINES FOR USE OF THE COMMUNITY ROOM AT THE L’AUBERGE HOTEL PER THE SPECIFIC PLAN
These guidelines are intended to implement the requirement of the Del Mar Hotel (now L’Auberge) Specific Plan at page 54 which provides that the hotel will, as a public benefit, provide “A multi-purpose room (community use twelve times per year). Procedures for use to be determined by the City council.” These guidelines may be revised by the city council from time to time after consultation with L’Auberge Management.
1. Coordination with L’Auberge. The city council shall designate a city representative to administer and implement these guidelines. The L’Auberge shall also designate a representative with whom the city shall coordinate in scheduling and implementing these guidelines. 2. The Following Del Mar city and non-profit organizations are eligible to use the community room benefit at the L’Auberge: a. City and city advisory committees b. Del Mar Foundation c. Del Mar Community Connections d. Del Mar Friends of the Library e. Del Mar Friends of the Powerhouse f. Del Mar Village Association g. Del Mar Historical Society h. Del Mar Garden Club 3. Application. A request to utilize the community room pursuant to these guidelines shall be filed with the city clerk on the form attached as Exhibit A. 4. Scheduling. a. Dates and Times. The applicant shall specify the desired dates and times to use the community room. It is recommended that applicants request alternate dates and times to increase the chance of availability. b. Single or Recurring Events. Generally, it is expected that most uses will be for a single event. However, applications for recurring events are acceptable, but must be described in the application. c. Time Limits. Unless special arrangements are made with the city and confirmed with L’Auberge, the general time limit for use of the community room will be no more than 4 hours per reservation. d. Scheduling Limits. The use of this benefit is limited to a total of 12 times per calendar year. L’Auberge shall have the right, on a case by case basis, to expand complimentary usage beyond the 12 official uses by the city and can work outside these guidelines to do so. e. Confirming with L’Auberge. Once the city representative has tentatively approved an application for use of the community room, the city representative shall contact the L’Auberge representative to confirm availability on the hotel’s end. If the hotel
4 June 19, 2017 Item 14 representative confirms that space is available for the date and time requested, the hotel will tentatively hold the space for that date and time. f. L’Auberge Reserved Rights. It is understood that L’Auberge has the right to move the tentatively reserved space from one meeting room location to another within the hotel property for its business purposes up to the date of the event. Up to seven (7) calendar days prior to the event the L’Auberge shall also have the right to change dates, cooperating with the city and the applicant as to a substitute date, where the L’Auberge’s business needs make it impossible to provide an appropriate on-site meeting room on the originally requested date. The L’Auberge shall not cancel or change the date of a reservation within seven (7) calendar days of the event, and prior to said seven (7) days, shall not cancel an event without the consent of the city, although it may be relocated. When the L’Auberge reschedules an event or changes the room location as authorized by these guidelines, the applicant need not submit a new application. g. Benefits Provided by L’Auberge Upon Confirmation of the Reservation: i. Waived meeting space rental fee ($750-$2,500 value) ii. Waived set up fee for basic set up ($500-$1,000 value) iii. Complimentary valet parking for the first 20 cars per event ($300 value) iv. Discounted $10 per car valet parking will apply for additional vehicles v. Allow outside non-alcoholic food and beverage (F&B) without charge, however if set up and hotel utensils are required, there will be an additional fee. vi. Provide a 15% discount should L’Auberge F&B be ordered. vii. Allow outside audio visual (AV) without charge; set up fees may apply if L’Auberge labor is required viii. Provide a 5% discount for AV should L’Auberge AV be ordered ix. Existing AV in Boardroom provided at no charge. Labor fees will apply if required h. Priorities. As a general rule the city and its advisory committees shall have first priority, and the listed Del Mar non-profits second priority. The city shall make the final determination on all scheduling priorities and conflicts. 5. Allowed Uses. Meetings and gatherings are allowed. If admission is to be charged permission must be received in advance from the city. Events and activities that detract from or disrupt ongoing L’Auberge business activities are not allowed. 6. Reservations are non-transferable. If an organization cannot for any reason use the reserved room, it shall notify the city as far in advance as practical, and that reservation may be reassigned or returned to the availability pool by the city. Reservations are not transferable other than to return them to the city. 7. Facilities Available. Attached is a brief description of the rooms and amenities available for reservation pursuant to these guidelines. Those interested in reserving a community room are encouraged to review these descriptions and file their application accordingly.
5 June 19, 2017 Item 14 APPLICATION FOR USE OF COMMUNITY MEETING ROOM AT L’AUBERGE HOTEL
Name of Applicant: ______1. The following Del Mar non-profit community organizations are pre-approved for use of the Community Room at the L’Auberge. Please check the organization for which you are applying. a. ___Del Mar Foundation b. ___Del Mar Community Connections c. ___Del Mar Friends of the Library d. ___Del Mar Friends of the Powerhouse e. ___Del Mar Historical Society f. ___Del Mar Garden Club g. ___ Del Mar Village Association 2. Applicant’s contact information: a. Name:______b. Email: ______c. Phone:______3. Describe the activities applicant proposes for the community room: ______4. Please provide the following specifics about your request: a. What are the dates you prefer (please list three alternates, in order of preference): ______b. How many people are expected to attend: ______c. What is the proposed time for the event (note, absent special permission events are limited to a maximum of four hours): ______d. Do you request audio visual or other equipment/facilities: ______e. Do you plan to serve food or beverages ( you can bring in light food and non-alcoholic drinks, provided you clean up, or you can contact the L’Auberge and engage its catering service): ______f. How do you prefer the room be configured: i. Tables with chairs—workshop format ii. Theater style seating iii. Other, please describe: ______g. Do you have a room preference? A brief description of the rooms is attached. h. Do you plan to charge admission? ____YES; _____NO. If yes, state the amount $_____ and purpose to which the funds will be applied. Note: City approval is required to charge admission. I confirm I have read and agree to abide by the Guidelines attached hereto.
Applicants signature: ______Date: ______
6 June 19, 2017 Item 14 capacity chart eight H ollow-square eiling lassroom onference eception Room Square Feet W L x C C Theatre U-Shape H C Banquet R
Platinum Ballroom H 2,496 64’x39’ 9’ 150 300 65 72 60 200 250
Platinum Terrace I ------40 60
Emerald Ballroom B 1,344 44’x32’ 8’ 60 90 30 28 34 100 120
Emerald Terrace C 646 17’x38’ ------40 50
Library L 850 34’x25’ 8’ 39 78 30 30 28 50 60
Sapphire Room D 665 35’x19’ 8’ 36 72 34 34 22 40 50
Jade Room F 504 28’x18’ 8’ 24 56 20 20 20 30 35
Boardroom M 676 26’x26’ 8’ - - - - 15 15 20
Pacific Terrace K 5,016 66’x76’ ------300 400
Sunset Terrace G 2,522 97’x26’ ------130 200
Ocean Terrace N 352 12’x28’ ------24 40
Amphitheatre 1 ,474 67’x22’ ------70 120 (breakfast & lunch only) A
Seagrove Park P ------199 199
Powerhouse ------120 150 Community Center O
Powerhouse Park Q ------199 199
7 June 19, 2017 Item 14 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Dwight Worden, Deputy Mayor Ellie Haviland, Councilmember
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Proposed Regulation of the Sale of Dogs, Cats, and Rabbits in Del Mar
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council discuss and direct staff to work with the City Attorney to finalize an ordinance for City Council consideration regulating the sale of dogs, cats, and rabbits in the City of Del Mar.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Much has been written and documented about the negative aspects of puppy, kitty, and rabbit mills (Attachment A). These operations raise large numbers of animals, often in deplorable conditions, for sale to retail pet stores. Retail pet store customers often have no idea of the conditions in which their future pet was bred and birthed. Currently, these mills are only minimally regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Ultimately, improved national regulation through the USDA, or state regulation, to ensure that all breeders treat their animals humanely may be the solution. In the interim, it falls to cities to fill the gap. Currently, there are mill operations, some local, some out of the area or out of state, supplying retail stores in San Diego County. As these operations surface in a local city, a ban like the one proposed for Del Mar usually results due to public outcry and much local controversy. These mills then often move their operations and/or sales to another city. Eventually, as other cities shut down these operations one or more may find its way to Del Mar. We feel it is best to address this possibility in advance.
It is proposed that the City of Del Mar adopt an ordinance that would address these issues by prohibiting the retail sale of dogs, cats and rabbits through pet stores in Del Mar, except for rescue animals. Legitimate breeders selling from their own locations would be unaffected. The ordinance would not apply to activities at the Fairgrounds. Dexter’s Deli, Del Mar’s one existing pet store, does not, and never has, sold retail dogs, cats, or rabbits and is very supportive of the proposed action (Attachment B).
______City Council Action:
1 June 19, 2017 Item 15 City Council Staff Report Proposed Regulation of the Sale of Dogs, Cats, and Rabbits in Del Mar June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 2
Similar ordinances have already been passed by many other jurisdictions including the cities of Encinitas, Solana Beach, Oceanside, and San Diego (Attachment C). One Federal District Court (trial court) lawsuit was filed in Chula Vista by a pet store challenging Chula Vista’s ordinance, but that case was ordered dismissed and Chula Vista recovered its attorney fees.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
This is not a project as defined by CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Educational Materials Regarding Puppy, Kitty, and Rabbit Mills Attachment B – Letter of Support from Dexter’s Deli Attachment C – List of Jurisdictions with Similar Ordinances as of February 2017
2 June 19, 2017 Item 15 Differences in behavioral characteristics between dogs obtained as puppies SMALL ANIMALS from pet stores and those obtained from noncommercial breeders
Franklin D. McMillan, DVM, DACVIM; James A. Serpell, PhD; Deborah L. Duffy, PhD; Elmabrok Masaoud, PhD; Ian R. Dohoo, DVM, PhD
Objective—To compare the owner-reported prevalence of behavioral characteristics in dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores with that of dogs obtained as puppies from noncommercial breeders. Design—Cross-sectional study. Animals—Dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores (n = 413) and breeder-obtained dogs (5,657). Procedures—Behavioral evaluations were obtained from a large convenience sample of current dog owners with the online version of the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Re- search Questionnaire, which uses ordinal scales to rate either the intensity or frequency of the dogs’ behavior. Hierarchic linear and logistic regression models were used to analyze the effects of source of acquisition on behavioral outcomes when various confounding and intervening variables were controlled for. Results—Pet store–derived dogs received significantly less favorable scores than did breeder-obtained dogs on 12 of 14 of the behavioral variables measured; pet store dogs did not score more favorably than breeder dogs in any behavioral category. Compared with dogs obtained as puppies from noncommercial breeders, dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores had significantly greater aggression toward human family members, unfamil- iar people, and other dogs; greater fear of other dogs and nonsocial stimuli; and greater separation-related problems and house soiling. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Obtaining dogs from pet stores versus noncommer- cial breeders represented a significant risk factor for the development of a wide range of un- desirable behavioral characteristics. Until the causes of the unfavorable differences detected in this group of dogs can be specifically identified and remedied, the authors cannot recom- mend that puppies be obtained from pet stores. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013;242:1359–1363)
t has long been an article of faith among veterinarians ABBREVIATIONS Iand canine professionals that dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores have a higher prevalence of health and be- C-BARQ Canine Behavioral Assessment havioral problems.1 However, there has been a dearth of and Research Questionnaire empirical studies to support this notion. In a retrospective CBE Commercial breeding establishment survey of the owners of 737 adult dogs, Jagoea found that NCB Noncommercial breeder dogs obtained from pet shops had a significantly higher prevalence of owner-directed (dominance-type) aggres- by owners in a convenience sample of 413 companion sion and social fears (fear of strangers, children, and unfa- dogs, of which 47 were obtained from pet stores. Re- miliar dogs) than did dogs from 5 other sources: breeders, sults indicated that dogs purchased from pet shops or animal shelters, friends or relatives, found or rescued off shelters were considered by their owners to be more the streets, and home bred (ie, bred and reared in the cur- unfriendly or aggressive than were dogs purchased from rent owner’s home).2 However, the sample size of pet store breeders and significantly more nervous than dogs bred dogs in that studya was small (n = 20). by the present owner. However, by using broadly de- Bennett and Rohlf3 investigated the frequency of fined behavioral subscales rather than discrete behav- potential problematic behavior patterns as reported iors, the researchers were not able to ascertain whether pet shop dogs had specific problematic behaviors more From the Best Friends Animal Society, 5001 Angel Canyon Rd, Kanab, frequently than did dogs from other sources. UT 84741 (McMillan); the Department of Clinical Studies-Phila- Mugford4 reported analyzing a sample of 1,864 delphia, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylva- dogs with various behavioral problems and determined nia, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (Serpell, Duffy); and the Department that “only 10% of purebred dogs obtained directly from of Health Management, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PE C1A 4P3, Canada breeders presented separation-related problems, where- (Masaoud, Dohoo). as 55% of purebred dogs originating from so-called Supported by a grant from the Animal Welfare Trust. ‘puppy farms’ or ‘puppy mills’ present such problems.” Address correspondence to Dr. McMillan ([email protected]). Sample sizes and the way in which it was determined
JAVMA, Vol 242, No. 10, May 15, 2013 Scientific Reports 1359 3 June 19, 2017 Item 15 that the dogs came from puppy farms or puppy mills the dog’s current age at the time the survey was com- were not reported. pleted, whether there were other dogs living in the Some inconsistent findings have also been reported. same household, and whether the dog was used for Pierantoni et al5 compared owner-reported behaviors be- specific working or recreational roles, including breed- tween 70 adult dogs separated from their litters at 30 to ing or showing, field trials or hunting, other sports 40 days of age and 70 adult dogs separated from their (eg, agility, racing, or sledding), and working roles
SMALL ANIMALS SMALL litters at 2 months of age. Their analysis included the (eg, search and rescue, service, or sheep herding). To source of the dog classified into 3 categories: breeder, pet obtain information on the source from which the dog shop, or friend or relative. The researchers found no sig- was acquired, owners were also asked to respond to the nificant association between the source of the dog and the question, “where did you acquire this dog?” Possible behavioral categories examined. In a study of the efficacy responses included the following: bred him/her myself; of a dog-appeasing pheromone in reducing stress associ- from a breeder; from a shelter or rescue group; from a ated with social isolation in puppies recently acquired neighbor, friend, or relative; bought from a pet store; from pet stores, Gaultier et al6 noted that their data did adopted as a stray; and other. Consistent with the 2 pre- not seem to support the hypothesis that puppies from vious studies3,a that offered pet-owning participants the pet stores constitute a special, at-risk population for the choice of breeder as the source of the dog, the question development of behavioral problems. The researchers re- in the C-BARQ regarding the source of the dog does not ported that the puppies in that study6 (n = 66) did not define the term breeder. appear to disturb their owners any more than those in a previous study by Taylor and Mills7 involving puppies Sample—The online C-BARQ was advertised acquired from local pedigree dog breeders. However, the originally via an article in the newsmagazine of the Vet- breeders in the latter study7 included a semicommercial erinary Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and breeder and at least 1 puppy mill.b by notices sent to Philadelphia-area veterinary clinics Most puppies sold by pet stores in the United and the top 20 US breed clubs, as determined on the States are purchased from brokers, who may themselves basis of American Kennel Club registrations. Availabil- be breeders but overwhelmingly acquire their puppies ity of the survey then spread via word of mouth. No from high-volume breeding facilities, or CBEs, located geographic limitations were applied, and participation throughout the United States.8 Conditions in the CBEs, included residents of the United States as well as other which supply tens of thousands of puppies to retail countries. A subset of these data consisting entirely of pet stores each year, vary widely. Conditions in CBEs pet dogs whose owners reported obtaining them either range from modern, clean, and well-kept to squalid, from breeders (n = 5,657) or pet stores (413) was used noxious, and gravely detrimental to animal health and for analysis. Breeder-obtained dogs were selected as the welfare.9–11 comparison group for the following reasons: age at the The purpose of the study reported here was to eval- time of acquisition would most closely match pet store– uate the hypothesis that dogs obtained as puppies from obtained dogs; for the most part, breeder-obtained dogs pet stores would be reported to have an increased prev- are purebred as are those from pet stores; and the life alence of behavioral problems, compared with dogs ob- history of the dog prior to purchase in breeder-obtained tained as puppies from NCBs. puppies is relatively standardized, thereby reducing the amount of environmental variability among the dogs of this group. These assumptions apply to the United Materials and Methods States and may have less validity in other countries. Data collection—Behavioral evaluations of the Statistical analysis—Two-level hierarchic linear or dogs were obtained by use of the online version of the logistic regression models were used to analyze the data C-BARQ, a standardized survey instrument with es- on behavioral measures.16 The outcome variables (at- tablished reliability and validity characteristics.12 The tachment and attention seeking, chasing, trainability, C-BARQ is designed to provide quantitative assessments excitability, and energy) in the hierarchic linear model of a wide array of behavioral characteristics of dogs and were treated as normally distributed continuous vari- has been widely used as a research tool for comparing ables. All other behavioral variables were dichotomized behavior in different dog populations.13–15 The question- (eg, 0 or > 0) because they were typically highly skewed naire consists of 100 items that ask respondents to in- and it was impossible to identify a suitable transfor- dicate on a series of 5-point ordinal rating scales their mation method to normalize their distribution. These dogs’ typical responses to a variety of everyday situations were analyzed with 2-level mixed logistic models. Both during the recent past. The scales rate either the intensity types of model aimed to assess the relationship between (aggression, fear, and excitability subscales) or frequency source of acquisition (eg, pet store vs breeder) and be- (all remaining subscales and miscellaneous items) of the havior while controlling for various confounding vari- behaviors, with a score of 0 indicating the absence of the ables (other dogs in household, working or recreational behavior and a score of 4 indicating the most intense or roles, sex, and body weight) or intervening variables frequent form of the behavior. The C-BARQ currently (neutered vs sexually intact and age at the time of eval- comprises 14 behavioral factors or subscales and a fur- uation). All possible 2-way interactions between source ther 22 miscellaneous stand-alone items. Higher scores of acquisition and confounding and intervening vari- are generally less favorable for all items and subscales, ables were explored and accounted for in the modeling with the exception of trainability, for which higher scores process. Nonsignificant confounding and intervening are more desirable. Owners were also asked to indicate variables and interaction effects were removed from the
1360 Scientific Reports JAVMA, Vol 242, No. 10, May 15, 2013 4 June 19, 2017 Item 15 model. Breed was also included in both models as a ran- and nonsocial stimuli, separation-related problems, and dom effect to account for clustering of dogs at the breed touch sensitivity. In addition, they were somewhat more SMALL ANIMALS level. Linear and logistic models were fit via restricted excitable, energetic, and attention seeking and generally and full maximum likelihood estimation procedures. less trainable, although this was only true for dogs that The analysis was performed with statistical software17 did not participate in working or recreational activities. by use of subject-specific models.c,d For all compari- The only C-BARQ subscales that were not significantly sons, a value of P < 0.05 was considered significant. different between pet store and breeder-derived dogs were chasing and stranger-directed fear. In addition, pet Results store–obtained dogs had a range of miscellaneous behav- ioral problems at significantly higher frequencies than According to the results of the multiple regression did those acquired from breeders (eg, escaping from the analyses, dogs acquired from pet stores differed signifi- home, sexual mounting of people and objects, and most cantly from those acquired from breeders on 12 of 14 of forms of house-soiling). the C-BARQ behavioral subscales. In no category did pet store dogs have a more desirable score than breeder dogs Discussion (Tables 1 and 2). The strongest effects were observed in relation to aggressive behavior. For example, sexu- Results of this study supported the view that dogs ally intact pet store dogs were 3 times as likely to have obtained as puppies from pet stores are more likely to owner-directed aggression as were sexually intact dogs develop behavioral problems as adults, compared with acquired from breeders, and pet store dogs were near- dogs obtained from NCBs. The retrospective nature of ly twice as likely to have aggression toward unfamiliar the data used in this analysis did not permit determina- dogs (dog-directed aggression). Pet store dogs were also tions of causality. However, there are several potential 30% to 60% more likely to have stranger-directed aggres- explanations for the differences between pet store and sion, aggression to other household dogs, fear of dogs NCB dogs.
Table 1—Results of linear regression models comparing behavioral variables in dogs obtained from pet stores versus dogs obtained from NCBs.
Other variables Variable controlled Predictor Effect 95% CI P value Excitability 1,2,3,4,6 PS 0.204 0.12 to 0.29 < 0.001 Energy 1,2,3,4,6 PS 0.109 0.004 to 0.21 0.043 Chasing PS 0.002 –0.13 to 0.10 0.769 Attachment and 1,2,3,4,5,6 PS 0.204 0.12 to 0.29 < 0.001 attention seeking Trainability 1,2,3,4,5,6 PS–Not working dog –0.195 –0.26 to –0.13 < 0.001 PS– Working dog 0.098 –0.07 to 0.27 0.262
PS = Acquired from pet store. Other variables controlled were as follows: 1 = other dogs, 2 = dogs with working or recreational roles, 3 = sex, 4 = weight, 5 = neutered, 6 = age at time of evaluation (nonsignificant intervening variables [those variables that intervene the relationship between variable and predictor] were removed from the analyses).
Table 2—Results of logistic regression models comparing behavioral variables in dogs obtained from pet stores versus dogs obtained from NCBs.
Other variables Variable controlled Predictor OR 95% CI P value Separation-related behavior 1,2,3,4,5,6 PS 1.58 1.19–2.11 0.002 Owner-directed aggression 1,2,3,4,5,6 PS–Not neutered 3.13 1.87–5.23 < 0.001 1,2,3,4,5,6 PS–Neutered 1.54 1.16–2.06 0.003 Stranger-directed aggression 1,2,3,4,5,6 PS 1.59 1.18–2.16 0.003 Nonsocial fear 1,2,3,4,5 PS 1.44 1.01–2.07 0.047 Dog rivalry 1,2,3,4,6 PS 1.35 1.05–1.74 0.021 Dog-directed fear 1,2,3,4,5 PS 1.33 1.03–1.71 0.030 Dog-directed aggression 1,2,3,4,5,6 PS 1.96 1.44–2.67 < 0.001 Touch sensitivity 1,2,3,4,5,6 PS 1.58 1.18–2.11 0.002 Escapes from home or yard 1,2,3,4,5,6 PS 4.14 1.75–9.83 0.001 Rolls in odorous material PS 0.86 0.67–1.09 0.214 Coprophagia 1.08 0.86–1.36 0.502 Chews objects 1.07 0.84–1.36 0.590 Mounts objects or people 1,2,3,4,5 1.39 1.1–1.75 0.006 Urinates against objects 1,2,3,4,5,6 PS 1.77 1.32–2.39 < 0.001 or furnishings Submissive urination 1,2,3,4,5,6 PS 1.53 1.13–2.07 0.007 Urinates when left alone 1,2,3,4,5,6 PS 1.96 1.52–1.52 < 0.001 Defecates when left alone 1,2,3,4,5 PS 1.68 1.31–2.16 < 0.001 See Table 1 for key.
JAVMA, Vol 242, No. 10, May 15, 2013 Scientific Reports 1361 5 June 19, 2017 Item 15 The formative stages of the puppy’s life in the CBE from an NCB. The importance of training in the devel- are periods where stress may exert an impact on brain opment of problem behaviors was recently elucidated in development. Although no studies on sources of stress the study3 of the relationship of potentially problematic in CBEs or their potential effects on the well-being of the behaviors with other variables. The researchers found dogs have been published, sources of stress have been in- that for the 5 behavioral subscales, the strongest predic- vestigated in dogs living in confinement in kennels,18–21 tor for scoring undesirably in 3 of the 5 subscales was 22,23 24,25 SMALL ANIMALS SMALL animal shelters, and laboratories. Similar stressors the level of training the dog received. The present study have been documented in the CBE environment,10 and it did not attempt to collect demographic or background is therefore reasonable to suggest that the effects applied information on the dog owners; therefore, the degree to also to the dogs in the present study, despite some differ- which such factors may have contributed to the find- ences in background, housing, and husbandry. Specific ings could not be assessed. An additional owner-related factors that have been determined to be associated with consideration is that it is possible that people who buy stress in dogs living in confined environments include puppies from pet stores simply report potentially prob- spatial restriction,18,19,23 extreme temperatures,9,26 aver- lematic behaviors more readily than do others, irrespec- sive interactions with kennel staff,26,27 lack of perceived tive of the dog’s actual behavior. control or the capacity to avoid or regulate exposure to The data support the notion that dogs obtained as aversive stimuli,20–23 and limited access to positive hu- puppies from pet stores have substantial adverse behav- man and conspecific social interactions.18,24,25 A recent ioral differences, compared with dogs obtained from study11 on the mental health of dogs formerly used as NCBs. Taken individually, however, the specific factors breeding stock in CBEs found severe and long-lasting ad- that differ between the 2 groups are not readily attrib- verse effects in dogs living in this type of environment, utable to a single definitive explanation. For example, offering evidence of the magnitude of stressors in CBEs. stranger-directed aggression may be attributable to inad- The stressors in the CBE environment may have equate socialization, maltreatment by humans, genetic acted at 2 stages of the developing puppies’ lives: the factors, and prenatal stress. Taken collectively, no single prenatal period and the first 8 weeks after birth. A large explanatory factor appears capable of accounting for the body of research in humans and other animals has con- differences between the 2 groups. For example, although vincingly determined that prenatal stress (ie, stress ex- inadequate socialization may explain increased aggres- perienced by a pregnant female) causes alterations to sion, the most prominent emotional consequence of in- the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis of the develop- sufficient socialization is fear,27,39 and whereas aggression ing fetus that may manifest later in life as an impaired toward humans (owners and unfamiliar people) was in- ability to cope with stress,22 abnormal social behav- creased, fear toward humans was not. ior,28,29 and increased emotionality and fear-related be- There were a number of limitations to the present havior.30 All of these outcomes are consistent with the study. The sample of dog owners was self-selected and differences detected in pet store– versus NCB-obtained therefore a potential source of bias. The question in the dogs (ie, increased aggression, fear of dogs and nonso- C-BARQ regarding the source of the dogs did not de- cial stimuli, and excitability). Substantial evidence in fine breeder, leaving the participants to define the term humans and other animals indicates that stressful ex- for themselves. Accordingly, a breeder source could periences in early life may have extensive and enduring have indicated either type of NCB (hobby breeder or effects with strong correlations to later development of backyard breeder), and the level and type of care differ behavioral abnormalities and psychopathologic abnor- between the 2 types. These differences are presumably malities.31–35 In dogs, Fox and Stelzner36 detected a short minor in comparison to the differences between NCBs period at approximately 8 weeks of age when puppies are and CBEs. It is also conceivable that the source of some hypersensitive to distressing psychological or physical dogs specified by the owner as breeder was a CBE; how- stimuli and during which a single unpleasant experience ever, it is reasonable to conclude that there would be no could result in long-term aversive or abnormal effects. overlap between breeder and pet store categories (ie, no Transport-related stress was suggested by both Mugford4 owner with a dog coming from a pet store would select and Gaultier et al6 to be a potentially critical factor in the breeder as a source, and no owner with a dog coming early lives of puppies from CBEs as they are shipped to pet from a breeder would select pet store as a source). stores throughout North America. Mugford,4 Serpell and Results of the present study indicated that com- Jagoe,2 and Bennett and Rohlf3 have each suggested that a pared with dogs obtained as puppies from NCBs, dogs reason for pet store and CBE puppies to have a high preva- obtained as puppies from pet stores had significantly lence of behavioral problems later in life is inadequate ear- greater aggression toward human family members, un- ly socialization. In addition, genetic influences may play familiar people, and other dogs; fear of other dogs and a role in the differences between pet store and NCB dogs, nonsocial stimuli; separation-related problems; and because a genetic basis for behavioral traits in dogs is con- urination and defecation problems in the home. On al- sistent with findings observed in dogs of the present study, most all behavioral variables measured, pet store dogs including fear, aggression, emotional reactivity, and non- received less favorable scores than breeder-obtained specific alterations in temperament and personality.27,37,38 dogs. The diversity of behavioral differences between The reported differences in the 2 groups of dogs pet store–obtained and breeder-obtained dogs suggests in the present study could be attributable to a number a multifactorial cause and, accordingly, a multifactorial of owner-related factors. It is possible that people who approach to correction; however, the data did not per- buy puppies from pet shops may use different degrees mit determination of the specific contributory factors or methods of training than people who buy puppies and the degree of influence they exerted. In addition,
1362 Scientific Reports JAVMA, Vol 242, No. 10, May 15, 2013 6 June 19, 2017 Item 15 because we did not compare the 2 groups of dogs in 15. Van den Berg SM, Heuven HCM, Van den Berg L, et al. Evalu- this study with other sources of dogs, the results should ation of the C-BARQ as a measure of stranger-directed ag- SMALL ANIMALS gression in three common dog breeds. Appl Anim Behav Sci not be interpreted as an endorsement of any particular 2010;124:136–141. source of dogs. On the basis of these findings combined 16. Dohoo I, Martin W, Stryhn H. Veterinary epidemiologic research. with earlier findings regarding pet store–obtained dogs, 2nd ed. Charlottetown, PE, Canada: VER Inc, 2009. until the causes of the unfavorable differences detected 17. StataCorp. Stata 11 base reference manual. College Station, Tex: in this group of dogs can be specifically identified and Stata Press, 2009;242–278, 306–355. remedied, we cannot recommend that puppies be ob- 18. Beerda B, Schilder MB, van Hooff JA, et al. Chronic stress in tained from pet stores. dogs subjected to social and spatial restriction. I. Behavioral re- sponses. Physiol Behav 1999;66:233–242. 19. Beerda B, Schilder MB, Bernadina W, et al. Chronic stress in a. Jagoe JA. Behaviour problems in the domestic dog: a retrospective dogs subjected to social and spatial restriction. II. Hormonal and prospective study to identify factors influencing their develop- and immunological response. Physiol Behav 1999;66:243–254. ment. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Eng- 20. Stephen JM, Ledger RA. An audit of behavioral indicators of land, 1994. poor welfare in kenneled dogs in the United Kingdom. J Appl b. Taylor K, Senior Science Advisor, Secretariat to the Interna- Anim Welf Sci 2005;8:79–96. tional Council for Animal Protection in Pharmaceutical Pro- 21. Taylor KD, Mills DS. The effect of the kennel environment on grames (ICAPPP), British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection canine welfare: a critical review of experimental studies. Anim (BUAV), 16a Crane Grove, London, England: Personal commu- Welf 2007;16:435–447. nication, 2011. 22. Tuber DS, Miller DD, Caris KA, et al. Dogs in animal shel- c. xtmixed, Stata Statistical Software, release 11, StataCorp, College ters: problems, suggestions, and needed expertise. Psychol Sci Station, Tex. 1999;10:379–386. d. xtmelogit, Stata Statistical Software, release 11, StataCorp, College 23. Wells DL, Graham L, Hepper PG. The influence of length of Station, Tex. time in a rescue shelter on the behavior of kennelled dogs. Anim Welf 2002;11:317–325. References 24. Hughes HC, Campbell S, Kenney C. The effects of cage size and pair housing on exercise of Beagle dogs. Lab Anim Sci 1. Fumarola AJ. With best friends like us who needs enemies? The 1989;39:302–305. phenomenon of the puppy mill, the failure of legal regimes to 25. Hubrecht RC. A comparison of social and environmental en- manage it, and the positive prospects of animal rights. Buffalo richment methods for laboratory housed dogs. Appl Anim Behav Environ Law J 1999;6:253–289. Sci 1993;37:345–361. 2. Serpell J, Jagoe JA. Early experience and the development of be- 26. Morgan KN, Tromborg CT. Sources of stress in captivity. Appl havior. In: Serpell J, ed. The domestic dog: its evolution, behavior Anim Behav Sci 2007;102:262–302. and interactions with people. Cambridge, England: Cambridge 27. Scott JP, Fuller JL. Genetics and the social behavior of the dog. University Press, 1995;79–102. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. 3. Bennett PC, Rohlf VI. Owner-companion dog interactions: rela- 28. Braastad BO. Effects of prenatal stress on behavior of offspring tionships between demographic variables, potentially problem- of laboratory and farmed mammals. Appl Anim Behav Sci atic behaviors, training engagement and shared activities. Appl 1998;61:159–180. Anim Behav Sci 2007;102:65–84. 29. Clarke AS, Schneider ML. Prenatal stress has long-term effects 4. Mugford RA. Canine behavioral therapy. In: Serpell J, ed. The do- on behavioral responses to stress in juvenile rhesus monkeys. mestic dog: its evolution, behavior and interactions with people. Cam- Dev Psychobiol 1993;26:293–304. bridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1995;139–152. 30. Lehmann J, Stöhr T, Feldon J. Long-term effects of prenatal stress 5. Pierantoni L, Albertini M, Pirrone F. Prevalence of owner- experience and postnatal maternal separation on emotionality reported behaviors in dogs separated from the litter at two dif- and attentional processes. Behav Brain Res 2000;107:133–144. ferent ages. Vet Rec 2011;169:468–474. 31. Edwards VJ, Holden GW, Felitti VJ, et al. Relationship between 6. Gaultier E, Bonnafous L, Vienet-Legue D, et al. Efficacy of dog- multiple forms of childhood maltreatment and adult mental appeasing pheromone in reducing stress associated with social health in community respondents: results from the adverse child- isolation in newly adopted puppies. Vet Rec 2008;163:73–80. hood experiences study. Am J Psychiatry 2003;160:1453–1460. 7. Taylor K, Mills DS. A placebo-controlled study to investigate 32. Ladd CO, Huot RL, Thrivikraman KV, et al. Long-term behav- the effect of dog appeasing pheromone and other environmen- ioral and neuroendocrine adaptations to adverse early experi- tal and management factors on the reports of disturbance and ence. In: Mayer EA, Saper CB, eds. Progress in brain research: the house soiling during the night in recently adopted puppies (Ca- biological basis for mind body interactions. Amsterdam: Elsevier, nis familiaris). Appl Anim Behav Sci 2007;105:358–368. 2000;81–103. 8. Hunte Corp. Available at: www.huntecorp.com. Accessed Jun 5, 33. Gunnar M, Quevedo K. The neurobiology of stress and develop- 2011. ment. Annu Rev Psychol 2007;58:145–173. 9. USDA. Final rules: animal welfare; 9 CFR parts 1 and 2. Avail- 34. Tanapat P, Hastings NB, Rydel TA, et al. Exposure to fox odor able at: www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/Legislat/awafin.shtml. Ac- inhibits cell proliferation in the hippocampus of adult rats via cessed Jun 4, 2011. an adrenal hormone-dependent mechanism. J Comp Neurol 10. USDA. Animal welfare reports and electronic freedom of informa- 2001;437:496–504. tion frequent requests. Available at: www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_ 35. Dettling AC, Feldon J, Pryce CR. Early deprivation and behav- welfare/efoia. Accessed Feb 8, 2012. ioral and physiological responses to separation/novelty in the 11. McMillan FD, Duffy DL, Serpell JA. Mental health of dogs for- marmoset. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2002;73:259–269. merly used as ‘breeding stock’ in commercial breeding establish- 36. Fox MW, Stelzner D. Behavioral effects of differential early ex- ments. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2011;135:86–94. perience in the dog. Anim Behav 1966;14:273–281. 12. Hsu Y, Serpell JA. Development and validation of a question- 37. Saetre P, Strandberg E, Sundgren PE, et al. The genetic contribu- naire for measuring behavior and temperament traits in pet tion to canine personality. Genes Brain Behav 2006;5:240–248. dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;223:1293–1300. 38. Svartberg K. Breed-typical behavior in dogs—historical remnants 13. Serpell JA, Hsu Y. Effects of breed, sex, and neuter status on or recent constructs? Appl Anim Behav Sci 2006;96:293–313. trainability in dogs. Anthrozoos 2005;18:196–207. 39. Horwitz DF, Neilson JC. Blackwell’s five-minute veterinary con- 14. Duffy DL, Hsu Y, Serpell JA. Breed differences in canine aggres- sult clinical companion—canine and feline behavior. Ames, Iowa: sion. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008;114:441–460. Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
JAVMA, Vol 242, No. 10, May 15, 2013 Scientific Reports 1363 7 June 19, 2017 Item 15
AKC Breeder Code of Ethics re: Pet Store Puppies
If one visits the website of the American Kennel Club (AKC), one of the oldest and most respected breed club registries in the world, one can access the Breeder Code of Ethics on any of the websites listed in their national parent club directory for AKC-recognized breeds.* One of the most common provisos is that breeders must agree never to sell their puppies to pet stores.
Below are several examples. ______
Airedale Terrier Club of America (airedale.org) Code of Ethics: In sale/placement transactions, we endeavor to refuse to sell an Airedale Terrier of any age to pet dealers, catalog houses, or any other commercial sources of distribution.
Alaskan Malamute Club of America, Inc. (alaskanmalamute.org) Code of Ethics: No member shall knowingly be involved in the sale/placement of puppies/dogs through retail or wholesale outlets, mail order businesses, dog dealers/agents/brokers, or act as a finder for such operations.
American Bloodhound Club (bloodhounds.org) Code of Ethics: As a member of the American Bloodhound Club: I agree not to engage in the practice of providing any Bloodhound to any individual, commercial wholesaler, or retailer for the purpose of resale.
American Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club, Inc. (ackcsc.org) General Code of Conduct: I will not: 1. Knowingly falsify a pedigree, health screening or breeding information. 2. Sell Cavaliers to pet shops, brokers or third party dealers. 3. Supply or sell Cavaliers for auctions, raffles, flea markets or any other such enterprise. 4. Knowingly sell to unethical breeders, or sell to persons whose intention is resale. 5. Purchase any Cavalier or any litter for resale either to an individual or a commercial establishment.
American Fox Terrier Club (aftc.org) Code of Ethics: Under no condition shall dogs be sold to pet dealers or any other source of commercial distribution.
8 June 19, 2017 Item 15 American Whippet Club, Inc. (americanwhippetclub.net) Code of Ethics: No member of this club shall engage in the wholesaling of litters of Whippet puppies, or the sale of breeding stock or individuals to pet shops or other commercial sources of distribution.
Basset Hound Club of America (basset-bhca.com) Breeder Code of Ethical Conduct: No member of this club shall engage in the wholesaling of litters or the selling of breeding stock to commercial sales operations.
American Maltese Association, Inc. (americanmaltese.org) Member Code of Ethics: I will not knowingly deal with dog wholesalers, commercial retailers, brokers or unethical dog breeders, nor supply dogs for raffles, "give away" prizes or other such projects.
American Miniature Schnauzer Club, Inc. (amsc.us) Code of Ethics: The breeder will not sell or dispose of any dog through pet shops, wholesalers, commercial dealers or paid agents.
American Pomeranian Club, Inc. (americanpomeranianclub.org) Code of Ethics: I will not sell my puppies to pet shops or commercial pet mill establishments, nor will I donate puppies for raffles or auctions.
American Spaniel Club, Inc. (asc-cockerspaniel.org) Code of Ethics: Breeders shall refrain from selling puppies to pet shops either outright or on consignment; refrain from supplying puppies for auctions, raffles, or other such enterprises; refrain from selling to persons whose intention to resell is known or suspected; refrain from breeding litters primarily for the pet market.
Australian Cattle Dog Club of America (acdca.org) Breeder Code of Ethics: As an ACDCA Code of Ethics Breeder, I agree that no puppies will be knowingly sold to franchised commercial facilities, puppy brokers, puppy mills or agents thereof.
Boston Terrier Club of America, Inc. (bostonterrierclubofamerica.org) Code of Ethics: I will sell no Boston Terrier to a commercial facility, puppy broker, pet shop, puppy mill or their agent.
Bulldog Club of America (bulldogclubofamerica.org) Breeder’s Code of Ethics: Responsible breeders refuse to sell or recommend breeders who do not conform to the ideals and obligations expressed in this Code and shall not engage in wholesaling litters or in individual sales or consignments of pups or adults to pet shops, dealers, catalog houses or other commercial establishments, nor shall they be donated or given as prizes in contests, raffles, or fund- raising events, no matter how charitable.
9 June 19, 2017 Item 15 Chihuahua Club of America, Inc. (chihuahuaclubofamerica.com) Code of Ethics: I pledge to be responsible for all Chihuahuas that I have produced for their entire life- time by never buying, selling or trading my/our Chihuahuas to research laboratories, pet stores, or to auctions nor placing them in rescue groups.
Chinese Shar-Pei Club of America, Inc. (cspca.com) Breeders Code of Conduct: I agree to never sell or give any puppy or dog to pet stores either on consignment or outright.
Collie Club of America, Inc. (collieclubofamerica.org) Code of Ethics: No member shall knowingly sell or place, trade or give any Collie of any age to pet dealers, catalog houses, or other commercial sources; nor shall Collies be given as prizes, auctioned, or exploited to the detriment of the breed.
Dachshund Club of America, Inc. (dachshund-dca.org) Code of Ethics: To never supply a Dachshund to pet shops, commercial brokers or dealers, raffles or similar projects.
Dalmatian Club of America, Inc. (thedca.org) Ethical Guidelines: I hereby pledge to ensure that puppies and adults produced by my brood bitch or stud dog are never knowingly sold or consigned to pet stores, wholesalers, or commercial dealers.
French Bull Dog Club of America (frenchbulldogclub.org) Code of Ethics and Sportsmanship: As a member of the French Bull Dog Club of America, I will not sell a French Bulldog to any!commercial facility, puppy brokers, pet shop, puppy mill or agent thereof.
German Shepherd Dog Club of America (gsdca.org) Club Code of Conduct: No GSD will be sold to wholesalers or retail stores for the purpose of resale. Breeders Code: I hereby pledge to refuse to sell or recommend breeders who do not conform to the ideals and obligations expressed in this Code and refuse all sales to dog wholesalers and retailers.
Golden Retriever Club of America (grca.org) Responsibilities as a Breeder: Members should not sell dogs at auction, or to brokers or commercial dealers.
Greyhound Club of America (greyhoundcluboramericainc.org) Ethical Standards: Breeders shall not knowingly sell or consign puppies or adult dogs to pet stores, puppy brokers or other commercial dealers.
Havanese Club of America (havanese.org) Code of Ethics: No Havanese will be sold to pet dealers, pet stores, pet wholesalers, or pet brokers either singly or in litter lots.
10 June 19, 2017 Item 15 Miniature Pinscher Club of America, Inc. (minpin.org) Code of Ethics: No Miniature Pinscher shall be sold to commercial facilities; research laboratories; pet shops; brokers who purchase litter lots or individuals for re-sale to pet shops or other commercial facilities, puppy mills or their agents.
Newfoundland Club of America, Inc. (ncanewfs.org) Ethics Guide: Responsibilities of Members: To refuse to sell Newfoundland dogs to any pet shop, or any wholesale dealer in dogs, or knowingly to sell or aid or abet the sale of any Newfoundland to a person or agent who will sell the animal through a pet shop.
Old English Sheepdog Club of America, Inc. (oldenglishsheepdogclubofamerica.org) Code of Ethics: Puppies may not be sold from any temporary marketplace or transient headquarters, no litters purchased or taken on consignment for resale, nor dogs wholesaled to pet shops, auctions, dealers, contest sponsors, raffles, etc.
Papillon Club of America, Inc. (papillonclub.org) Code of Ethics: No member of the Papillon Club of America will sell at wholesale or to retail outlets, brokers, pet shops, mail order houses, or businesses of similar commercial enterprise, or donate a dog to be offered as a prize.
Portugese Water Dog Club of America, Inc. (pwdca.org) Section 1 All PWDCA Members shall: Not sell, place or consign any Portuguese Water Dog to a commercial facility, business or agent thereof.
Pug Dog Club of America, Inc. (pugs.org) Code of Ethics: No member shall EVER sell or donate dogs for auctions or raffles, or to pet shops, catalog houses, brokers or for resale purposes.
Rhodesian Ridgeback Club of the United States (rrcus.org) Code of Ethics: Members will not knowingly furnish puppies or adult dogs for wholesale, pet shops, puppy brokers, commercial facilities, guard dog businesses or agents thereof, or dispose of them as “Give away” prizes or auction items; neither will they sell puppies to nor breed to dogs owned by those whom they have reason to believe may do so.
Samoyed Club of America, Inc. (samoyedclubofamerica.org) Code of Ethics: The SCA member does not sell, consign, or transfer puppies, or adults to pet shops, wholesale dealers, contest sponsors, or anyone who is known to degrade the Samoyed breed or purebred dogs, or to individuals contemplating breeding and/or sale to the aforementioned.
Scottish Terrier Club of America (stca.biz) Code of Ethics: Not knowingly sell a Scottish Terrier of any age to a pet shop, catalog house, laboratory or any wholesale dealer in dogs (a dealer being a person who regularly buys dogs for sale at profit), or to any person who sells to any of the above.
11 June 19, 2017 Item 15 Siberian Husky Club of America, Inc. (shca.org) Code of Ethics: I pledge that I will refuse to deal with dog wholesalers or to sell puppies or dogs to pet shops, and I will include in all stud contracts an agreement to be signed by the owner of the bitch that no puppies resulting from the mating will be wholesaled or sold to pet shops.
Skye Terrier Club of America (clubs.akc.org/skye) Code of Ethics: To refrain from knowingly selling, trading, or giving Skye Terriers or providing stud service to a commercial breeder, pet shop, research laboratory or any person known to be unethical in his/her dealings in purebred dogs.
Spinone Club of America (spinoneclubofamerica.com) Code of Conduct: Members will not sell, transfer or consign a dog to pet shops, unethical breeders, or other commercial ventures including lotteries, raffles or auctions.
Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America (sbtca.com) Code of Ethics: Litters shall not be sold to a person en-bloc, to commercial sources, or for purposes of resale.
St. Bernard Club of America, Inc. (saintbernardclub.org) Guidelines and Statement of Policy: No member shall buy or sell St. Bernards through commercial pet outlets, nor buy or sell in litter lots, nor sell to persons whose activities tend to degrade the Breed.
Tibetan Terrier Club of America, Inc. (ttca-online.org) Guidelines for Responsible Breeders: A responsible breeder does not sell or consign Tibetan Terriers to pet shops or other commercial dealers, nor does he breed his animals to their animals.
Weimaraner Club of America (weimaranerclubofamerica.org) Code of Ethics: The owner/breeder shall not breed, sell or consign puppies or adults to pet shops or other commercial dealers.
* http://www.akc.org/clubs/search/index.cfm?action=national&display=on
12 June 19, 2017 Item 15 Executive Summary: Scientific studies of dogs and puppies from commercial dog-breeding establishments (puppy mills)
BACKGROUND Commercial breeding establishments, or puppy mills, are large-scale facilities where dogs are confined in small enclosures for their entire reproductive lives with little to no exercise or positive human contact. The sole purpose of such facilities is to mass-produce puppies to sell them for profit through retail pet stores and via the Internet.
SYNOPSIS In two large-scale studies of dogs from high-volume commercial breeding establishments (one study focusing on the adult breeding dogs and the other on the puppies sold through pet stores), the evidence showed conclusively that these breeding facilities are highly injurious to both groups of dogs, resulting in severe, extensive and long- term harm to the behavioral and psychological well-being of the dogs.
Study 1: The adult breeding dogs WHAT THE STUDY LOOKED AT This study compared a wide array of psychological and behavioral characteristics of 1,169 dogs formerly kept for breeding purposes in commercial breeding establishments with pet dogs owned by members of the general public.
RESEARCHERS Franklin D. McMillan, DVM, Best Friends Animal Society Deborah L. Duffy, PhD, University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine James A. Serpell, PhD, University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine
THE PUBLISHED PAPER Mental health of dogs formerly used as ‘breeding stock’ in commercial breeding establishments. FD McMillan, DL Duffy, JA Serpell. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2011; 135: 86-94.
WHAT THE STUDY FOUND • The results showed a broad range of abnormal behavioral and psychological characteristics in the former breeding dogs from large-scale commercial breeding establishments, including significantly elevated levels of fears and phobias; pronounced compulsive and repetitive behaviors, such as spinning in tight circles and pacing; house soiling; and a heightened sensitivity to being touched and picked up. • The psychological harm demonstrated in these dogs is severe and long-lasting. Much of the harm is irreparable and will remain a continued source of suffering for years after the dogs leave the breeding facility, in some cases for the entire lifetime of the dog.
13 June 19, 2017 Item 15 CONCLUSIONS • Current laws at both the national and state levels are not based on current scientific knowledge of animal psychology, quality of life, suffering, and welfare, and are thus inadequate to protect dogs from the psychological harm resulting from living in commercial breeding establishments. • Legislation to adequately protect the welfare of dogs in confinement needs to be updated to reflect current scientific knowledge.
To obtain a copy of the published study, contact Dr. Frank McMillan ([email protected]).
Study 2: The puppies WHAT THE STUDY LOOKED AT This study compared the psychological and behavioral characteristics of 431 adult dogs who were purchased as puppies from pet stores with adult dogs purchased as puppies from small-scale, private breeders.
RESEARCHERS Franklin D. McMillan, DVM, Best Friends Animal Society James A. Serpell, PhD, University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine Deborah L. Duffy, PhD, University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine Elmabrok Masaoud, PhD, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island Ian Dohoo, DVM, PhD, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island
THE PUBLISHED PAPER Differences in behavioral characteristics between dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores and those obtained from noncommercial breeders. FD McMillan, JA Serpell, DL Duffy, E Masaoud, IR Dohoo. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 2013; 242: 1359-1363.
WHAT THE STUDY FOUND • Dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores received significantly less favorable scores than breeder- obtained dogs on most behavioral variables measured. Compared with dogs obtained as puppies from noncommercial breeders, dogs from pet stores had significantly greater aggression toward human family members, unfamiliar people and other dogs; greater fear of other dogs and typical life events; and greater separation-related problems and house soiling. • For no behavior evaluated in the study did pet store dogs score more favorably than noncommercial breeder dogs. • The chances of a dog developing serious behavior problems is much higher for dogs purchased as puppies from pet stores, as compared to dogs obtained from small, noncommercial breeders.
CONCLUSIONS • On the basis of these findings, combined with findings from earlier small-scale studies of dogs obtained from pet stores, until the causes of the unfavorable differences detected in this group of dogs can be specifically identified and remedied, the authors of this study withhold any recommendation that puppies be obtained from pet stores. 14 June 19, 2017 Item 15 2 • Dogs sold by pet stores are misrepresented to consumers as a high-quality product, because the data now shows that consumers are not receiving what they believe they are paying for. The increased risk of behavior problems that pet store customers face as their dog matures includes aggression issues, which pose a significant risk of human injury. Consumer protective legislation is urgently needed in this area. • Legislation to improve the conditions in the large-scale commercial breeding facilities supplying puppies to pet stores is needed to assure that the puppies are not at any increased risk of maturing into adult dogs with serious behavior problems.
To obtain a copy of the published study, contact Dr. Frank McMillan ([email protected]).
Overall Conclusions
• Current laws provide inadequate protection against harm to breeding dogs and puppies associated with commercial breeding establishments. • Consumers purchasing puppies from pet stores are unknowingly assuming a risk of difficult and serious behavior problems in their dogs, including dog behavior that can endanger their own safety. • If dogs are to be bred to produce puppies for sale, all of the dogs and puppies should be assured a decent quality of life based on the most current scientific research.
For More Information
For more about Best Friends Animal Society, go to bestfriends.org. To learn about Best Friends’ puppy mill initiatives and what you can do to help, visit puppymills.bestfriends.org.
15 June 19, 2017 Item 15 3 Not such a onderful W Life
Parker was about eight years old when he was rescued from a West Virginia puppy mill. Although his early years weren’t what any dog deserves, Parker was adopted and now has a wonderful home of his own.
very year at this time, families across the country look forward to the tradition puppy mills of enjoying that timeless holiday classic, Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life. And will cease to while we revel in this heartwarming tale of human compassion and salvation, exist if people we are likely not thinking about the plight of the hundreds of thousands of dogs in puppy mills. But at no other time of year should these dogs be more top of mind. After all, ’tis stop buying the season of the often-requested Christmas gift of a puppy. what they’re And yet, for that puppy under the tree to materialize, we must consider the countless dogs selling at any given moment living in cramped and often filthy cages, breeding continuously in order to produce as many puppies as possible for the retail pet trade. While Americans dig deep into By Elizabeth Oreck their pockets to purchase new toys, treats, sweaters or cozy pet beds as holiday gifts for their
16 June 19, 2017 Item 15 30 BEST FRIENDS MAGAZINE November/December 2013 BEST FRIENDS MAGAZINE November/December 2013 31 beloved furry companions, dogs living in mills receive no such It is believed that there are approximately gifts. Not even the opportunity to go for a walk or experience a 10,000 licensed and unlicensed puppy mills in the kind human touch. U.S., mostly concentrated in the Midwest, which Puppy mills are in business to supply pet stores and online combined produce an estimated two million retailers, and, as is the case with most retail, the holidays are the puppies per year. It’s profoundly ironic that the most profitable time of year. Puppy sellers capitalize on parents’ number of puppies born in mills is roughly equal to anticipation of the joy on their child’s face when he or she receives the number of dogs being killed in U.S. shelters each that adorable puppy wrapped in a big red bow on Christmas year. And it begs the question: Why do we continue morning. But that gift comes at a cost that far exceeds the dollar to manufacture dogs in mills when so many dogs amount on the price tag, and it is a price paid every day by breeder who already exist are being destroyed every day, dogs on the puppy production line. simply because there aren’t enough people adopting them? The answer, of course, is profit. And those What is a puppy mill, anyway? who typically make the largest profit are the retailers, A puppy mill is a high-volume commercial dog-breeding opera- who buy puppies at a low cost and then resell them tion in which profit and maximum production take priority over the at a high markup. health and welfare of the animals. Puppies bred in these factory-like Pet stores purchase settings are regarded as nothing more than a cash crop commodity, Confetti puppies from mills and despite the poor conditions in which the breeder dogs are puppy mill survivor and wholesale brokers forced to live, puppy mills are still legal in every state. because no responsible Although commercial dog breeders who sell puppies wholesale breeder would ever sell There is no requirement to pet stores and distributors are licensed and regulated by the U.S. Department to a pet store. This basic of Agriculture, the minimum required standards of care do little to protect dogs tenet can be found in that the dogs ever be and nothing to ensure responsible, quality breeding. The dogs can be confined every reputable breeder’s for years at a time, reduced to lives of constant breeding in dirty, stacked, wire- code of ethics, including let out of those cages, bottomed cages that are required to be only six inches larger than the dog on those of the parent breed all sides, and with few, if any, opportunities to play, be walked, or receive basic clubs of the American even for a moment, to grooming or veterinary care. There is no requirement that the dogs ever be let Kennel Club. And even Meeha puppy mill survivor stand on solid ground out of those cages, even for a moment, to stand on solid ground or experience if they were inclined to the sun on their backs. When they are no longer able to produce, they are usually sell to pet stores, the high or experience the sun discarded or destroyed. cost of breeding responsibly means that a pet store could These are the parents of the puppies who are sold online or shipped to pet never afford to buy puppies from a reputable breeder, on their backs. stores, where unsuspecting buyers are not informed of the backgrounds of these because the profit margin would be significantly less than it is when they buy animals, nor the conditions under which they were bred. There are frequent from mills or brokers. The retail reality is that the less it costs to manufacture a reports of these puppies having congenital or communicable diseases, which cause product, the greater the opportunity for markup — and profit. heartache and expense for those who purchased them with the mistaken belief that they were buying a healthy pet from the best source possible. So, this is not Why puppy mills continue to exist just an animal welfare issue; it’s a consumer protection issue, too. With all that we know about the terrible conditions of these facilities and the Tragically, when the cost of caring for a sick puppy becomes more than the unethical breeding that occurs to produce a substandard quality of dog purely for buyer can manage, it is not uncommon for that puppy to be surrendered to an profit, why do we still have puppy mills in this country? Because people are buying overcrowded, taxpayer-subsidized shelter. Not all communities have puppy mills, what the mills are producing. It is the most fundamental of economic principles: but nearly every community has some byproduct of puppy mills — either a pet supply and demand. As long as there is a market for a product, that product will store that imports puppies from out-of-state mills or a shelter that takes in more continue to be produced, no matter how over- dogs than they can adopt out. In short, the puppy mill problem impacts all of us. saturated the market becomes. There is, however, reason to be optimistic. When Best Friends launched its puppy mill It’s profoundly initiatives in 2008, there were more than 6,000 ironic that the USDA-licensed commercial dog breeders. Today, that number is closer to 2,000. One of number of the reasons for the decline is that the tradi- tional puppy mill industry is becoming more puppies born in prohibitive and less profitable, due to increased state and local regulations, greater media expo- mills is roughly sure and public awareness, and a struggling national economy that makes it more difficult equal to the for consumers to pay top dollar for a new puppy. This doesn’t mean, however, that substan- number of dogs dard breeding is necessarily in decline. Back- yard breeding is still a prevailing problem, dogs being killed in U.S. Elizabeth Oreck comforts a are being imported into the U.S. legally and puppy mill survivor. shelters each year. illegally, many breeders are simply continuing 17 WJune 19, 2017 Item 15 32 BEST FRIENDS MAGAZINE November/December 2013 BEST FRIENDS MAGAZINE November/December 2013 33 Breed-specific rescue What it comes down to breed without a USDA license, groups and online commercial property-manage- to is this: The puppy and a lot of selling is now being ment companies have recently conducted online. adoption databases like embraced this concept by imple- mill problem belongs Petfinder.com make it menting policies to lease space only to all of us, and so Pup e-commerce to pet stores that operate under the Internet puppy buying and easy to find exactly what adoption model. does the solution. selling is a relatively recent phenom- you’re looking for. Cities throughout North Amer enon. And despite the obvious risks ica (e.g., Los Angeles, San Diego that come with purchasing anything and Toronto) are also getting on online — let alone a living, sentient board by passing ordinances to Miles being — there is no denying that we’ve evolved into a point-and-click culture. ban the sale of commercially bred puppy mill survivor Unfortunately, that form of convenient consumerism is how more and more dogs, cats and rabbits in pet stores, people are bringing pets into their homes. unless they come from shelters or Unscrupulous puppy sellers exploit the opportunity to hide behind attractive rescue groups. By cutting off the websites and slick catalogs that feature stock photos of adorable puppies frolicking Tootsie supply of milled puppies being in fields or napping in wicker baskets. Consumers who receive these puppies puppy mill survivor imported into the community, Chester puppy mill survivor shipped directly to their door never see the true conditions of the breeding facili- they are addressing the puppy ties. They also have no way of knowing whether the puppy they purchase will be mill problem from the retail end, while increasing adoption opportunities for Ponder healthy, or anything like what they thought they were buying, thus elevating the pets in local shelters. And, since many dogs in shelters are cast-offs from people puppy mill survivor risk of consumer fraud. It’s a game of retail Russian roulette, in which the odds who purchased them in pet stores or online, banning retail sales helps reduce the favor the seller. number of animals who enter shelters and, consequently, the number being killed (currently more than 9,000 per day) in our nation’s shelters. What about reputable breeders? So, we’re heading in the right direction. We are witnessing a cultural shift in As an organization committed to reaching a day when every pet will have the way that we think about companion animals and how we choose to bring a loving home, it goes without saying that Best Friends encourages everyone them into our homes. Adoption is becoming much more common, legislators who is looking to bring a pet into the family to choose adoption over purchase. are recognizing the need to pass better regulations for dog breeders and retailers, Although we recognize that there are caring and reputable private breeders who and there is more awareness than ever about the harsh realities of puppy mills. breed responsibly and ethically, it’s difficult for us to endorse any kind of breeding As people share their knowledge and take action in their own communities, we while so many animals are dying in shelters. are steadily moving the needle in a more compassionate direction. There are adoptable dogs of every breed, age, size and personality available What it comes down to is this: The puppy mill problem belongs to all of us, throughout the U.S. Breed-specific rescue groups and online adoption databases and so does the solution. The ability to put this cruel industry in the past is in our like Petfinder.com make it easy to find exactly what you’re looking for. Adopting collective hands. We have the power to set positive examples through our consumer may require a little more effort, but what it lacks in convenience it makes up for decisions. We have the power to teach our kids — and each other — compassion in the knowledge that you’ve saved a life. And for parents set on the idea of giving for animals. We have the power to create changes for the better. We have the power a puppy as a gift, why not consider the gift of a promise to adopt? Making the to save lives. Working together, we can reach a time when puppies will no longer adoption of a new pet a family decision gives every family member a part in the be mass-produced, adoption will be the first choice for those looking to bring a process and ensures that it will be the best match for all. pet into the family, and there will be no more homeless pets. We’re on the right track. We can save them all. After all, every dog deserves a wonderful life. Solving the problem We’ve made a lot of progress in the fight against puppy mills, but we still have more work to do, as puppies continue to be mass-produced in a manner that most animal-loving, compassionate individuals find abhorrent. The solu- tion to the problem is simple: If we stop The solution to the buying what the mills are producing, ZZ Top things you can do to help stop puppy mills: problem is simple: there will be no reason for them to puppy mill survivor continue producing, and eventually If we stop buying they will cease to exist. We need to Always adopt your pets. stop supporting pet retailers that sell 1 what the mills are commercially bred puppies, because Don’t ever buy a puppy online or from a pet store. producing, there will any money spent in those stores contrib- 2 utes to perpetuating the cycle of puppy Support legislation that regulates and reduces breeding of animals. be no reason for them mill cruelty. 3 Fortunately, there is a more humane Elect animal-friendly political candidates. to continue producing, alternative. Pet stores that offer animals 4 and eventually they will for adoption relieve the burden on shel- Spread the word about the cruelty of puppy mills and the joys of pet adoption. ters and rescue groups by getting home- 5 cease to exist. less pets into retail settings, where they have a greater chance of being seen by the public. It’s an increasingly popular model and a win-win for both the For more things you can do to help stop puppy mills, community and the animals. Several visit 10puppymills.bestfriends.org and click on “Puppy Mill Resource Library” 18 June 19, 2017 Item 15 W34 BEST FRIENDS MAGAZINE November/December 2013 BEST FRIENDS MAGAZINE November/December 2013 35 19 June 19, 2017 Item 15
Retail Pet Sales Bans Enacted in North America (Links to ordinances available at bestfriends.org/puppymills) (1-24-17)
ARIZONA Phoenix, AZ – Enacted December 2013; effective January 2014 Tempe, AZ – Enacted February 2016; effective May 2016
CALIFORNIA South Lake Tahoe, CA – Enacted April 2009; effective May 2011 West Hollywood, CA – Enacted February 2010; effective March 2010 Hermosa Beach, CA – Enacted March 2010; effective April 2010 Turlock, CA – Enacted May 2010; effective June 2010 Glendale, CA – Enacted August 2011; effective August 2012 Irvine, CA – Enacted October 2011; effective immediately Dana Point, CA – Enacted February 2012; effective immediately Chula Vista, CA – Enacted March 2012; effective April 2012 Laguna Beach, CA – Enacted May 2012; effective immediately Aliso Viejo, CA – Enacted May 2012; effective immediately Huntington Beach, CA – Enacted June 2012; effective June 2014 Los Angeles, CA – Enacted October 2012; effective June 2013 Burbank, CA – Enacted February 2013; effective August 2013 Rancho Mirage, CA – Enacted February 2013; effective March 2013 San Diego, CA – Enacted July 2013; effective September 2013 Ventura County, CA – Enacted December 2013; effective December 2014 Chino Hills, CA – Enacted October 2014; effective November 2014 Oceanside, CA – Enacted January 2015; effective September 2015 Long Beach, CA – Enacted March 2015; effective October 2015 Garden Grove, CA – Enacted March 2015; effective March 2016
20 June 19, 2017 Item 15
Encinitas, CA – Enacted July 2015; effective immediately Beverly Hills, CA – Enacted August 2015; effective September 2015 Vista, CA – Enacted September 2015; effective October 2015 Palm Springs, CA – Enacted October 2015; effective immediately San Marcos, CA – Enacted January 2016; effective February 2016 Cathedral City, CA – Enacted January 2016; effective February 2016 Truckee, CA – Enacted February 2016; effective immediately Indio, CA – Enacted April 2016; effective immediately La Quinta, CA – Enacted April 2016; effective May 2016 Carlsbad, CA – Enacted May 2016; effective June 2016 Colton, CA – Enacted June 2016; effective July 2016 Solana Beach, CA – Enacted July 2016; effective immediately
COLORADO Fountain, CO – Enacted May 2011; effective May 2011
FLORIDA Flagler Beach, FL – Enacted June 2009; effective immediately Lake Worth, FL – Enacted February 2011; effective February 2011 Coral Gables, FL (applies to dogs only) Opa-Locka, FL (applies to dogs only) North Bay Village, FL (applies to dogs only) Hallandale Beach, FL – Enacted April 2012; effective immediately Margate, FL – Enacted October 2013; effective immediately Pinecrest, FL – Enacted October 2013; effective immediately Palmetto Bay, FL – Enacted December 2013; effective immediately Coconut Creek, FL – Enacted January 2014; effective immediately Wellington, FL – Enacted January 2014; effective immediately Surfside, FL – Enacted February 2014; effective immediately
21 June 19, 2017 Item 15
Aventura, FL – Enacted March 2014; effective immediately Wilton Manors, FL – Enacted March 2014; effective immediately Greenacres, FL – Enacted April 2014; effective immediately North Lauderdale, FL – Enacted April 2014; effective immediately Bay Harbor Islands, FL – Enacted April 2014; effective immediately Pompano Beach, FL – Enacted May 2104; effective immediately North Miami Beach, FL – Enacted May 2014; effective immediately Miami Beach, FL – Enacted May 2014; effective January 2015 Bal Harbour Village, FL – Enacted May 2014; effective immediately Sunny Isles Beach, FL – Enacted May 2014; effective immediately Dania Beach, FL – Enacted June 2014; effective immediately Palm Beach Gardens, FL – Enacted July 2014; effective immediately Juno Beach, FL – Enacted July 2014; effective immediately Cutler Bay, FL – Enacted August 2014; effective immediately North Palm Beach, FL – Enacted August 2014; effective immediately Hypoluxo, FL – Enacted September 2014; effective immediately Jupiter, FL - Enacted October 2014; effective immediately Homestead, FL – Enacted October 2014; effective immediately Tamarac, FL – Enacted December 2014; effective immediately Palm Beach, FL – Enacted January 2015; effective immediately North Miami, FL – Enacted April 2015; effective immediately Lauderhill, FL – Enacted April 2015; effective immediately Fernandina Beach, FL – Enacted July 2015; effective immediately Jacksonville Beach, FL – Enacted August 2015; effective immediately Deerfield Beach, FL – Enacted November 2015; effective May 2016 West Melbourne, FL – Enacted November 2015; effective immediately Casselberry, FL – Enacted November 2015; effective immediately Neptune Beach, FL – Enacted January 2016; effective February 2016 Sarasota County, FL – Enacted January 2016; effective January 2017
22 June 19, 2017 Item 15
South Miami, FL – Enacted January 2016; effective immediately Delray Beach, FL – Enacted March 2016; effective immediately Hollywood, CA – Enacted June 2016; effective December 2016 St. Petersburg, FL – Enacted July 2016; effective immediately Key West, FL – Enacted August 2016; effective immediately Miramar, FL – Enacted August 2016; effective immediately Palm Beach County, FL – Enacted September 2016; effective November 2016 Safety Harbor, FL – Enacted November 2016; effective immediately
ILLINOIS Waukegan, IL – Enacted June 2012; effective immediately Chicago, IL – Enacted March 2014; effective March 2015 Cook County, IL – Enacted April 2014; effective October 2014 Warrenville, IL – Enacted February 2016; effective immediately
MAINE Portland, ME – Enacted September 2016; effective immediately
MARYLAND Montgomery County, MD – Enacted March 2015; effective June 2015
MASSACHUSETTS Boston, MA – Enacted March 2016; effective immediately
MICHIGAN Eastpointe, MI – Enacted September 2015; effective January 2016 Memphis, MI – Enacted September 2015; effective immediately Fraser, MI – Enacted December 2015; effective immediately
23 June 19, 2017 Item 15
NEVADA Las Vegas, NV – Enacted January 2016; effective January 2018 Mesquite, NV – Enacted May 2016; effective June 2016 North Las Vegas, NV – Enacted December 2016; effective immediately
NEW JERSEY Point Pleasant, NJ – Enacted May 2012; effective immediately Brick, NJ – Enacted July 2012; effective immediately Manasquan, NJ – Enacted September 2012; effective immediately Point Pleasant Beach, NJ – Enacted October 2012; effective immediately Hoboken, NJ – Enacted May 2013; effective immediately Oceanport, NJ – Enacted August 2013; effective immediately North Brunswick, NJ – Enacted October 2013; effective November 2013 Randolph, NJ – Enacted September 2014; effective immediately Camden County, NJ – Enacted September 2015; effective immediately Voorhees, NJ – Enacted October 2015; effective immediately Brooklawn, NJ – Enacted October 2015; effective immediately Audubon, NJ – Enacted October 2015; effective immediately Waterford, NJ – Enacted October 2015; effective January 2016 Cherry Hill, NJ – Enacted November 2015; effective immediately Merchantville, NJ – Enacted November 2015; effective immediately Runnemede, NJ – Enacted December 2015; effective March 2016 Somerdale, NJ – Enacted December 2015; effective March 2016 Laurel Springs, NJ – Enacted December 2015; effective March 2016 Oaklyn, NJ – Enacted December 2015; effective immediately Westville, NJ – Enacted December 2015; effective March 2016 Haddon Heights, NJ – Enacted December 2015; effective March 2016 Gloucester Township, NJ – Enacted December 2015; effective January 2016 Glassboro, NJ – Enacted December 2015; effective March 2016
24 June 19, 2017 Item 15
Magnolia, NJ – Enacted December 2015; effective March 2016 Bellmawr, NJ – Enacted January 2016; effective immediately Berlin Township, NJ – Enacted February 2016; effective May 2016 Clementon, NJ – Enacted March 2016; effective June 2016 Pine Hill, NJ – Enacted March 2016; effective immediately Haddon Township, NJ – Enacted March 2016; effective immediately Winslow, NJ – Enacted March 2016; effective immediately Jackson, NJ – Enacted March 2016; effective immediately Collingswood, NJ – Enacted April 2016; effective immediately Audubon Park, NJ – Enacted April 2016; effective immediately Mount Ephraim, NJ – Enacted April 2016; effective immediately Barrington, NJ – Enacted April 2016; effective immediately Berlin Borough, NJ – Enacted April 2016; effective immediately East Brunswick, NJ – Enacted April 2016; effective May 2016 Gloucester City, NJ – Enacted April 2006; effective July 2016 Chesilhurst, NJ – Enacted May 2016; effective August 2016 Greenwich, NJ – Enacted May 2016; effective June 2016 West Deptford, NJ – Enacted May 2016; effective immediately Pennsauken, NJ – Enacted May 2016; effective immediately Beverly, NJ – Enacted May 2016; effective immediately Clayton, NJ – Enacted May 2016; effective August 2016 Mantua, NJ – Enacted May 2016; effective immediately Washington, NJ – Enacted May 2016; effective June 2016 Gibbsboro, NJ – Enacted June 2016; effective September 2016 Little Ferry, NJ – Enacted June 2016; effective September 2016 Wyckoff, NJ – Enacted June 2016; effective immediately Lindenwold, NJ – Enacted June 2016; effective immediately Hackensack, NJ – Enacted June 2016; effective September 2016 Bordentown, NJ – Enacted June 2016; effective immediately
25 June 19, 2017 Item 15
Hi-Nella, NJ – Enacted June 2016; effective September 2016 Mount Holly, NJ – Enacted July 2016; effective October 2016 Pitman, NJ – Enacted July 2016; effective October 2016 Camden City, NJ – Enacted July 2016; effective August 2016 Maywood, NJ – Enacted July 2016; effective immediately East Rutherford, NJ – Enacted July 2016; effective October 2016 Union City, NJ – Enacted July 2016; effective immediately Glen Rock, NJ – Enacted July 2016; effective October 2016 Woodlynne, NJ – Enacted July 2016; effective October 2016 Woodcliff Lake, NJ – Enacted August 2016; effective immediately Saddle Brook, NJ – Enacted August 2016; effective November 2016 Upper Saddle River, NJ – Enacted September 2016; effective immediately Eatontown, NJ – Enacted September 2016; effective December 2016 Swedesboro, NJ – Enacted September 2016; effective December 2016 Ridgefield, NJ – Enacted September 2016; effective December 2016 Fanwood, NJ – Enacted September 2016; effective immediately Fairview, NJ – Enacted September 2016; effective December 2016 Wallington, NJ – Enacted September 2016; effective immediately New Milford, NJ – Enacted September 2016; effective immediately Hamilton, NJ – Enacted September 2016; effective October 2016 Ridgewood, NJ – Enacted October 2016; effective November 2016 Edgewater, NJ – Enacted October 2016; effective January 2016 Woodbury Heights, NJ – Enacted October 2016; effective immediately Marlboro, NJ – Enacted October 2016; effective January 2017 Fair Lawn, NJ – Enacted October 2016; effective immediately Ocean, NJ – Enacted October 2016; effective November 2016 North Arlington, NJ – Enacted November 2016; effective immediately Watchung, NJ – Enacted November 2016; effective immediately
26 June 19, 2017 Item 15
Frenchtown, NJ – Enacted December 2016; effective March 2017 Palisades Park, NJ – Enacted December 2016; effective immediately
NEW MEXICO Albuquerque, NM – Enacted June 2006; effective August 2007
NEW YORK Mamaroneck Village, NY – Enacted February 2016; effective immediately Mount Pleasant, NY – Enacted March 2016; effective immediately Yorktown, NY – Enacted July 2016; effective immediately Rye Brook, NY – Enacted August 2016; effective immediately Port Chester, NY – Enacted October 2016; effective immediately
OHIO Toledo, OH – Enacted December 2013; effective January 2014 Grove City, OH – Enacted March 2016; effective January 2017
PENNSYLVANIA Pittsburgh, PA – Enacted December 2015; effective June 2016 Philadelphia, PA – Enacted April 2016; effective July 2016
RHODE ISLAND East Providence, RI – Enacted June 2014; effective immediately
TEXAS El Paso, TX – Enacted October 2010; effective January 2011 Austin, TX – Enacted December 2010; effective December 2010
27 June 19, 2017 Item 15
UTAH Salt Lake County, UT – Enacted October 2015; effective immediately
CANADA Richmond, British Columbia – Enacted November 2010; effective April 2011 Toronto, Ontario – Enacted September 2011, effective September 2012 Rosemont-La Petite Patrie, Quebec – Enacted December 2011; effective immediately Mississauga, Ontario – Enacted July 2012; effective January 2013 New Westminster, British Columbia – Enacted November 2012; effective immediately Kingston, Ontario – Enacted August 2013; effective November 2013 Vaughan, Ontario – Enacted April 2014; effective immediately Hudson, Quebec – Enacted September 2014; effective immediately Waterloo, Ontario – Enacted September 2014; effective January 2015 Mount Royal, Quebec – Enacted May 2015; effective immediately Oakville, Ontario – Enacted November 2015; effective immediately Beaconsfield, Quebec – Enacted December 2015; effective immediately Ottawa, Ontario – Enacted April 2016; effective immediately Cambridge, Ontario – Enacted October 2016; effective immediately
28 June 19, 2017 Item 15 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Ashley Jones, Administrative Services Director Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager
DATE: June19,2017
SUBJECT: Designation of Voting Delegate and Voting Delegate Alternate(s) to the League of California Cities 2017 Annual Conference
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council appoint a voting delegate to represent the City of Del Mar at the League of California Cities 2017 Annual Conference in Sacramento, California.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Each year, the League of California Cities holds an Annual Conference and Business Meeting at which time membership takes action on League resolutions. In order for the City of Del Mar to vote on League resolutions, the City must appoint a voting delegate, by Council action. The Council may additionally appoint up to two alternate voting delegates.
The City Council must designate a voting delegate, and any alternate(s), to represent the City at the League’s 2017 Annual Conference and Business Meeting, and submit this information to the League no later than September 1, 2017. The 2017 League of California Cities Conference will take place in Sacramento from September 13 through September 15, 2017. The Business Meeting will take place on Friday, September 15.
Last year, the City Council appointed then Mayor Sherryl Parks as the primary voting delegate for the 2016 Annual League of California Cities Conference and Business Meeting, which was held in Long Beach, California. Don Mosier and Dwight Worden were appointed as voting delegate alternates.
FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds are available in the proposed City Council 2017-18 meeting/travel budget to cover registration, lodging, and travel costs for one representative to attend this out of area conference.
______City Council Action:
1 June 19, 2017 Item 16 City Council Staff Report Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate(s) to the 2017 League Annual Conference June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
There are no environmental impacts associated with this recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - League of California Cities Request for Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternate(s)
2 June 19, 2017 Item 16 RËGffiIVgM
r\,ffii I ;i 2tTr
or*.f no ¡n i, i i^lYt,il #åå, o.0,. 1400 K street' tJil5,'::ï.:;riffi['Ê":,1tïT3r:3iiå L E AG U E" oF cAL.lF()ll.N lA www.cacities.org N CITIES
Council Action Advised by July 3l'2017 i|lf.ay3,2017
TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks
RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTARNATES League of California Cities Annual Conference - September L3 - 15, Sacramento
The Leagu e's 2017 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 13 - 15 in Sacramento. An importarit part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (during General Assemblyj, scheduled for 12:30 p.m. on Friday, September 15, atthe Sacramento Convention Center. et tnis meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy.
In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting delegate. Your city may also appoint up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote in the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity.
Please complete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to the Leagueos office no later than Friday, September lr2017. This witl allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference.
Please note the following procedures that are intended to ensure the integrity of the voting process at the Annual Business Meeting.
Council Required. Consistent with League bylaws, a city's voting delegate o Action by 'When and up totwo alternates rnust be designated by the city council. completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a cop)¡ of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken. or have your citv clerk or mayor sigrr the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and altemates must be done by city council action and cannot be ãccomplished b.'¿ individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.
o Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to afiðnd the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they mãy register for Friday only. To register for the conference, please go to our website: www.cacities.org. Inorder to cast a vote, at least one voter must be present at the
3 June 19, 2017 Item 16 Business Meeting and in possession of the voting delegate card. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking np the voting delegate card at the Voting Delegate Desk. This will enable tñem to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during the Business Meeting.
a Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but onlybetween the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.
o Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission to this area will belimited to those individuals with a special sticker on their nÍÌme badge identifuing thern as a voting delegate or altemate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, they must sign inãt the Voting Delegate Desk and obtain the special sticker on their badges.
The Voting Delegate Desk, located in the conference registration area of the Sacramento 'Wednesday, Convention Center, will be open at the following times: September 13, 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.; Thursday, September 14,7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.; and Friday, september 15,7:30 a.m.- Noon. The Voting Delegate Desk will also be open at the Business Meeting on Friday, but will be closed during roll calls and voting.
The voting procedures that will be used atthe conference are attached to this memo. please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city's voting delegate and alternates.
Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to the League office by Friday, September 1. If you have questions, please call Carly Shelby at (916) 6s8-8279.
Attachments: a Annual Conference Voting Procedures o Voting Delegate/Alternate Form
4 June 19, 2017 Item 16 Annual Conference Voting Procedures
1 One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy.
2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two altemates; these individuals are identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the League Credentials Committee.
Ja Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card atthe Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and altemates must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the Business Meeting.
4 Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city's voting card by providing a signature to the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.
5 Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card maybe transferred freely befween the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate or altemate.
6. VotÍng Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identiffing them as a voting delegate or alternate.
7 Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting.
5 June 19, 2017 Item 16 LEAGUE' OF CALIFORN IA GITY: N CITIES 2017 ANNUAL CONFERENCE VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM PleasecompletethisformandreturnittotheLeagueofficebyFriday'@ Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one votins delesate and un to two alternates.
In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting (General Assembly), voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attachthe council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternatìve, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the council.
Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate atea at the Annual Business Meeting. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be obtained only at the Voting Delegate Desk.
1. VOTING DELEGATE
Name:
Title:
2. VOTING DELEGATE. ALTNRNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE
N Name Title:
PLEASE ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES.
OR ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate(s).
Name E-mail
Mayor or City Phone (circle one) (signature) Date:
Please complete and return bv Fridav. September 1.2017
League of California Cities FAX: (916) 6s8-8240 ATTN: Carly Shetby E-mail : [email protected] 1400 K Street,4th Floor (et6) 6s8-827e Sacramento, CA 95814 6 June 19, 2017 Item 16 City of Del Mar
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Teresa S. McBroome, Director of Finance/Treasurer Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting the Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget and City Council Priorities and Amending the Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget; Resolution Adopting the Compensation Plans for the Management and Professional, General, Seasonal Employees, and Firefighters for Fiscal Years 2017-2018; Resolution Establishing the Fixed Charge Assessments for Bonded Indebtedness for Fiscal Year 2017-2018; Resolution Establishing the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2017-2018; and Resolution Approving the Statement of Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2017-2018
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the proposed resolutions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Proposed Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget was presented to the City Council on May 5 and May 6, 2017, during which the City Council conducted public workshops. Public input was received from community groups and the public. The City Council also considered and discussed the operational budget including the Community Support Program funding requests, department budget requests and equipment requests funded by the Equipment Replacement Reserve, proposed new additional budget requests, unfunded budget requests, pension management strategies, presentation of the 30-year Financial Forecast, and a presentation on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City Council’s goals and priorities were also presented and discussed.
At the May 15th Council meeting, staff summarized the feedback received during the May 5th and 6th workshops, and requested feedback on the unfunded items. The City Council also held further discussions at the June 5th Council meeting on their goals and
______City Council Action:
1 June 19, 2017 Item 17 City Council Staff Report Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 8 priorities. Feedback from both of these meetings has been incorporated into the proposed budget.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The two-year budget is a balanced budget and results in a General Fund Contingency Reserve of 19.04 percent with an ending fund balance of $2,612,406 in Fiscal Year 2017-2018 and $2,738,979, or 19.89 percent in Fiscal Year 2018-2019, which meets the Council’s policy of a minimum level of 10 percent. The Finnell Plan is an internal City policy which limits expenditure growth and is achieved primarily due to the revenue growth from the passage of Measure Q which is an additional one percent sales tax measure and is projected to be $1.8 million in revenue the first year and $1.854 in the second year of the budget. The proposed contingency reserve also includes funding for the General Fund Capital Improvement Program. The beginning estimated fund balance of the Capital Reserve fund on July 1, 2017 is $938,878 and the estimated ending fund balance on June 30, 2019 is $373,878. Historically, the savings from the General Fund budget has added approximately $800,000 to $1,200,000 each year to this reserve.
The projected General Fund Contingency balance also includes transfers to the designated funds in the General Fund such as the Pension Reserve, Self-Insurance Reserve, and the Equipment Replacement Fund, required transfers to the Special Revenue funds, CIP Fund for CIP projects, and a transfer to the CIP Fund for the debt service payment on the City Hall/Town Hall project.
The proposed resolution reflects the Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget of $26.7 million and $24.5 million, respectively, which are composed of the General Governmental Funds, i.e. General Fund, Gas Tax Fund, Open Space Fund, Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund, Regional Communication Fund, Grants Fund, Housing Fund, AB 939 Fund, PEG Fee Fund, Wildfire Protection Bond Debt Fund and the Capital Improvement Funds of $2.3 million and $0.6 million, respectively; the Enterprise Funds, i.e. Water, Wastewater and Clean Water Funds of $8.4 million and $8.1 million, respectively; and the Internal Service Fund, i.e. Workers’ Compensation Fund of $300,000 and $316,800, respectively. (Attachment “B”)
The proposed two-year budget was prepared with the following salary and benefit adjustments:
• General Employees - Contract expires on December 31, 2018. The compensation plan includes a Council-approved 3.0 percent increase effective January 1, 2018. For budget purposes, a 3.0 percent cost-of-living adjustment increase is included for each of the next two fiscal years.
2 June 19, 2017 Item 17 City Council Staff Report Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget June 19, 2017 Page 3 of 8
• Unrepresented Professional Employees - The compensation plan includes a Council-approved 3.0 percent increase effective January 1, 2018, Pay for Performance Program for certain supervisory professional employees, and for budget purposes, the 3.0 percent cost-of-living adjustment increase is included for each of the following two calendar years.
• Management Employees - The compensation plan includes a 3.0 percent increase effective January 1, 2018, a Council-approved Pay for Performance Program and vacation payout, and for budget purposes, an increase of 3.0 percent as a cost-of-living adjustment for each of the following two calendar years.
• Miscellaneous, Part-Time, Temporary, and Hourly Employees - The compensation plan includes a 3.0 percent increase for cost-of-living adjustments, and effective January 1, 2018, an increase of the minimum wage to $11.00 per hour. For budget purposes, the 3.0 percent cost-of-living adjustment increase is included for each of the following two calendar years.
• Fire Employees - Contract expires on June 30, 2017, and is currently under negotiation. The proposed budget includes a 3.0 percent increase for cost-of- living adjustments for each of the fiscal years for budgeting purposes only. Once an agreement is met, staff will return with a budget request, if needed.
The resolution for the current compensation plans and this budget includes funding for two new full-time employees and resources for part-time assistance (contractual or in- house using part-time staff). The Facilities Lead Worker/Specialist position and Administrative Assistant position are being requested on a permanent basis, while resources for enhancing communications/community outreach/public education efforts would be provided using part-time assistance (either with an in-house part-time professional employee or using a contract) to establish a pilot program (funding in the proposed budget for $50,000 in the first year only). A description of the vision for these resources and how they would be used is included as Attachment G. Council has the following options in regards to the new full-time positions (Facilities Lead Worker/Specialist and Administrative Assistant) being requested:
1. Approve the budget with the proposed funding for two new full-time permanent positions as staff is recommending; or 2. Approve the budget with the proposed funding for two new full-time positions on a temporary basis; or 3. Do not approve the funding for the two full-time positions. If Council selects this option, the Council’s work plan of priority projects will be adjusted to reflect the projects that will not be completed. (Attachment “A”).
3 June 19, 2017 Item 17 City Council Staff Report Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget June 19, 2017 Page 4 of 8
Attached is the list of City Council priority projects recommended for Fiscal Year 2017- 2018 (Attachment “A”). This list was last discussed with the City Council on June 5, 2017. If the City Council approves the recommended additional resources identified above and below, the work plan of special projects would consist of the projects listed on pages 1-4 of Attachment A, along with projects 46-50 and 56 listed at the top of page 5. If the City Council does not approve the additional recommended resources, the work plan of special projects will include projects 1 through 39, with work on projects 40, 42-49, and 56 on a time-permitting basis or as projects above the City Manager’s Department red line are completed.
The Proposed Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Budget presented to the City Council at the Budget Workshops have been adjusted to reflect the unfunded requests presented during the workshops. Other adjustments to the proposed budgets were made to reflect items approved by the City Council during the May 15, 2017 and June 5, 2017 Council meetings. The adjusted items are as follows:
Budget Adjustments FY 2017-2018 FY 2018-2019 Amount Amount Administrative Assistant II (Planning 80%/City $ 71,960 $ 73,870 Manager 20%) Facilities Lead Worker/Specialist for Public Works 96,420 98,490 (90%) Public Information Officer or Consultant (Pilot 50,000 - Program) Additional Law Enforcement Services 50,000 50,000 Community Choice Feasibility Study 35,000 - Adjustment to the Sheriff’s Contract 1 38,400 40704 Additional Contract Services/As-Needed Part-Time 50,000 - Staff 1 Community Enhancements - Breeders’ Cup 15,000 - Preparation 1 Total Adjustments to the General Fund $ 406,780 $ 263,064
1 Note that these adjustments are new additions and include an adjustment to the Sheriff’s contract for Redflex red light enforcement that was implemented in the current year to allow the Detective to be used for or traded off for additional law enforcement support to Del Mar. Revenues from this program cover all enforcement and program costs, and provide approximately $40,000 towards other Enforcement needs. Other adjustments are for additional contract services/as-needed part-time staff to work towards the Council’s goals and priorities, and community enhancements for the Breeders’ Cup. Improvements are related to preparing for the Breeders’ Cup and generally beautifying the City for all residents and visitors to enjoy after the Breeders. Cup. The improvements will include additional landscaping in Downtown; general repairs and painting; and funds for decorative planting pots, wayfinding signage, and replacement of deteriorated street furnishings. Additionally, staff is proposing to use AB
4 June 19, 2017 Item 17 City Council Staff Report Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget June 19, 2017 Page 5 of 8
939 recycling funds for replacement and cleaning of the Downtown trash/recycling receptacles.
The two-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as presented during the workshops is funded in the budget and includes the Citywide Landscape Improvements, Annual Storm Drain Improvements, Citywide Roadway Maintenance, Major Facilities Maintenance, 10th/11th Street Right of Way Improvements, City Hall Streetscape Improvements, TV Studio Equipment for City Hall/Town Hall project, CDM Bridge over San Dieguito, and City Facilities ADA Improvements projects. The TV Studio Equipment for the City Hall/ Town Hall project is being funded by a transfer of $600,000 from the CIP reserve. Future receipts from the PEG Fee Fund will reimburse the CIP reserve.
The final General Fund Contingency for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 is estimated to be 19.04 percent and 19.89 percent at the end of Fiscal Year 2018-2019. This is within the City Council’s policy of maintaining a contingency of 10 percent to 20 percent. The projected ending balance in the General Fund for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 is $6.1 million and includes the Contingency balance of $2.6 million, Self-Insurance of $0.30 million, Measure Q 1% Sales Tax of $1.9 million, Pension Reserve of $0.5 million, Leave Liability of $0.08 million, and Equipment Replacement Reserve of $0.7 million. The projected ending balance in the General Fund for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 is $8.4 million and includes the Contingency balance of $2.7 million, Self-Insurance of $0.30 million, Measure Q 1% Sales Tax of $3.7 million, Pension Reserve of $1.0 million, Leave Liability of $0.08 million, and Equipment Replacement Reserve of $0.6 million.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Each year, the City Council is required to approve the following resolutions:
1) Fixed charge assessments for bonded indebtedness;
2) Establishment of the Appropriations Limit; and
3) The Statement of Investment Policy.
Assessments for Bonded Indebtedness
The City must annually set forth those assessments necessary to cover the cost of the bonded indebtedness for the fiscal year. Once the rates are set, the County of San Diego is notified of those taxes and assessments so they can place them on the property tax roll. The City of Del Mar currently has two tax amounts to be included on the tax rolls:
5 June 19, 2017 Item 17 City Council Staff Report Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget June 19, 2017 Page 6 of 8
1. Seawall Construction Assessment District 99-1 and Ocean View/Pines Assessment District 2005-01: For Assessment District amounts, the assessments to each of the property owners are set forth in the assessment closing documents. There may be some years where adjustments based on changes in boundaries, lot splits or interest earned by assessment funds occur. For each assessment parcel number (APN) in the Seawall Construction Assessment District the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 assessment is $92,434 as contained in Exhibit “A” of the Resolution (Attachment “D”). The Ocean View/Pines Assessment District 2005-01 Fiscal Year 2017-2018 assessment is $52,094. Section 10204(f) of the Streets and Highways Code permits assessments to include an annual per-parcel administrative cost recovery not to exceed $163 per year, adjusted annually by the local Consumer Price Index. The assessment is included in Exhibit “B” of the Resolution (Attachment “D”). The City has calculated its administrative costs at $158 per parcel for the Seawall Construction and $71 per parcel for Ocean View/Pines, which are included in both of the assessments.
2. The Ocean View/Pines Assessment District 2005-01: This District was formed in May 2005 to provide for undergrounding of utilities in the Ocean View/Pines area, and only applies to parcels within this district.
Appropriations Limit
Article XIII-B of the California State Constitution places limits on the amount of revenue that can be spent by all entities of government. It is the responsibility of the City to calculate the annual appropriations limit. The previous fiscal year's limit is increased by a factor calculated by changes in population and inflation. Cities may choose an inflation factor, which is either the change in the California Per Capita Personal Income (CCPI) or the local assessment roll change due to non-residential construction. The population factor option is either the growth rate in the City or the County. The choice of each of these factors is an annual election.
Amounts for the change in non-residential new construction become available at the end of the current fiscal year. When calculating the appropriations limit for the new fiscal year, the previous year’s calculation is reviewed by using the non-residential new construction figures currently available. If the City experienced a large amount of non- residential new construction during the previous fiscal year, the appropriations limit could be significantly affected. The City experienced immaterial non-residential new construction in Fiscal Year 2016–2017, so there was no material impact on the estimated appropriations limit. Therefore, it is not necessary to amend the appropriations limit for Fiscal Year 2017-2018.
The law provides for voter approval of an override that will allow cities to exceed their appropriation limit. In November 1992, Del Mar voters approved an override measure
6 June 19, 2017 Item 17 City Council Staff Report Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget June 19, 2017 Page 7 of 8 allowing the appropriations limit to equal the revenues from proceeds of taxes. This measure was effective for four fiscal years and ended in Fiscal Year 1995-1996. Since then, the City has not required a voter-approved override.
For Fiscal Year 2017-2018, the estimated proceeds of tax ($13,290,848) is below the estimated appropriations limit of $26,121,190 by $12,830,342. The City’s appropriations limit is high enough; therefore, there will be no need to return to voters for an override in the foreseeable future.
Cities are required to complete an appropriations calculation for each fiscal year. The City’s auditors are required to review and approve the appropriations calculation as part of their audit of the City.
Analysis: The following analysis provides the figures for the estimate of the appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 2017-2018.
INFLATION OPTION FACTOR
CCPI 1.0369 Change in Non-Residential Construction 1.0000
POPULATION OPTION
Del Mar 1.0056 San Diego County 1.0092
Using the factors for the change in CCPI and the change in population for the County of San Diego, which will give the optimum increase; the percent to be applied to the appropriations limit for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 is 1.0369 x 1.0092 = 1.0464. This factor applied to the appropriations limit for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 of $24,961,969 sets the estimated appropriations limit for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 at $26,121,190.
Investment Policy
The City Council, pursuant to Title 5, Division 2, Part 1 of the Government Code of the State of California, is authorized to invest City monies and is authorized to delegate this authority to the City Treasurer. Annual statements of investment policy and quarterly updates to the legislative body are optional per California Government Code Section 53646. However, it is good practice for the Council to review and approve the Statement of Investment Policy and to continue to delegate the investment authority to the Treasurer. This practice is critical to promoting transparency in the investment process.
7 June 19, 2017 Item 17 City Council Staff Report Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget June 19, 2017 Page 8 of 8
The Statement of Investment Policy provides guidance in making prudent investments of the City’s funds and establishes goals and limitations to ensure their safety. After review, there is only one recommended change to the Policy for Fiscal Year 2017-2018. This change is reflected in Section XI Authorized Investments for Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), and changes the amount permitted to invest by the State from $40 million to $50 million. While the current investment climate continues to impact the investment alternatives available to the City, the Policy’s emphasis remains focused on safety and liquidity.
The Council should continue to delegate the investment authority to the Treasurer. The Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 is attached as Exhibit “A” of the Resolution (Attachment “F”).
INPUT/RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY BOARDS AND/OR CITIZENS’ COMMITTEES:
The Finance Committee was presented with the Draft Proposed Fiscal Years 2017- 2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget at their meeting on April 25, 2017 and May 23, 2017.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A City Council Priorities for Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019
Attachment B Resolution Adopting Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget and City Council Priorities; and Amending Fiscal Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Operating and Capital Budget
Attachment C Resolution Adopting the Compensation Plans for the Management and Professional, General, Seasonal Employees, and Firefighters for Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019
Attachment D Resolution Establishing the Fixed Charge Assessments for Bonded Indebtedness for Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Attachment E Resolution Establishing the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2017- 2018
Attachment F Resolution Approving the Statement of Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Attachment G Overview of Additional Requested Staff Support
8 June 19, 2017 Item 17 City Council Goals and Priorities Work Plan - Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Color Code: RED Cells/Rows = Breaking Points in Staff Capacity for City Manager's Office and Planning Department Compared to Required Hours for Special Projects (without Administrative Assistant Support)
PURPLE Cells/Rows = Adjusted Breaking Point in Staff Capacity for City Manager's Office and Planning Department Staff with Administrative Assistant Support
Budget Year 1 - Total Estimated Hours - July 1, 2017-June 30, 2018 Updated: June 13, 2017
Estimated Time from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 (Hours) Estimated Combined Quantity of Hours Contributed by Each Department Project Total Staff Hours for Project Offensive/ Community State Law Must Do/ Work Plan Item / Project Major Minor Defensive Now In Queue Future Description Completion Proactive Driven Required Committed City Administrative Community Public through June 30, 2018 Manager's Finance Planning Services Services Works Office
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)
Complete Construction of City Hall
1 Project Management and Administration Budget Management 0 0 105 100 0 0 205 Construction Management Ongoing management of the project throughout construction 0 0 753 0 32 60 845 Neighbor Communication 0 0 117 0 22 0 139
Operations Plan/Policy needs to be developed prior to occupancy of the building per Adoption of the Operations Plan/Policy 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 requirement of the EIR.
Compliance with CEQA and the certified mitigation and monitoring program through construction. CEQA(EIR) Mitigation and Monitoring 12 0 80 8 40 0 140 Resolution of legal action. X X X X Includes addendum for addressing egress onto 10th Street.
Includes purchase and installation of specialized equipment for the building, such as Procurement Process for Specialized Equipment and audio/visual, security system, solar panels, electric vehicle chargers, kitchen 90 0 150 30 20 20 310 Furnishings equipment, and wayfinding directional signage for campus.
City Hall Donation/Fundraising Program Implementation of a limited donation/fundraising program per City Council direction 0 0 20 0 0 0 20
Policies/Protocols/Logistics for Facility Rentals and Planning for and setting up a system for operations for renting and scheduling the 35 40 50 15 15 15 170 Reservations facility consistent with the Operations Manual.
Non-City Hall Capital Improvement Projects
As-needed maintenance improvements and repairs of City facilities.
Funds are included in each fiscal year for major facility maintenance and repair 2 Major Facility Maintenance (Reoccuring Annual) 0 10 12 4 20 40 86 projects, as well as minor facility additions. X X X
Estimated required hours reflect required amounts per year.
Library Rehabilitation - Needs Assessment and Maintenance Complete a comprehensive assessment of all facility needs, including roofing, 3 0 0 4 20 40 0 64 Repairs shingles, gutters, paving, painting, and drainage improvements. X X
Develop a scope of work for an initial feasibility study and implementation plan. Hire a consultant to assist with developing this scope of work. RFP process for a consultant to actually complete the feasibility study and detailed implementation plan. The feasibility study/implementation plan would address topics such as priortization criteria, 4 Citywide Utility Undergrounding project phasing, coordination with other necessary underground utility work, include a 10 0 40 20 20 150 240 X X X X community outreach process, identify funding models.
Quantity of hours listed is just for developing the scope of work and preparing an RFP to hire a consultant to complete the feasibility study/implementation plan.
Develop a master plan for redevelopment of the Shores property into a Park. Process will now look at the concept of a shared-use approach with the Winston School. Shores Park Master Plan 5 0 0 500 0 80 20 600 (Master Planning effort only; construction is not funded) Once a master plan concept is selected, environmental analysis will be required to X X X X determine if a full EIR is necessary. Next steps would then include preparation of construction drawings.
Tennis Court Fencing, Drainage Ditch, and Park Landscaping New epoxy coated chain link fencing, cover drainage ditch and funding for park 6 0 0 8 0 0 80 88 Improvements landscaping enhancements. X X 1 X
Drought tolerant landscaping enhancements to City entrances, arterials and areas of high visibility. 7 Landscaping Enhancements - Citywide 0 0 8 0 12 120 140 X X 1 X Landscape architect is developing a Citywide plan for relandcaping medians on CDM, the Jimmy Durante/Via de la Valle "triangle," and the roundabout.
New drainage infrastructure to address flooding-prone areas. Constructed in conjunction with roadway projects. 9 Annual Storm Drain Improvements 0 0 2 0 4 30 36 X Estimated required hours reflects required amount of time per year.
10 TransNet Annual Street Maintenance Citywide Roadway Rehabilitation 0 0 2 0 0 8 10 X
Engineering design and environmental processing of roadway, sidewalk, pedestrian access, curb & gutter improvements on Camino del Mar from 9th to 15th Street. Roadway & Sidewalk Improvements #1 - Downtown (9th to 11 15th Street) - Design Develop a plan for improving the Downtown streetscape, which includes roadway 20 0 300 0 140 180 640 X X X X X (AKA Downtown Streetscape Project) improvements, bicycle and pedestrian mobility, disabled access ramps, and aesthetic improvements, such as street furniture and pedestrian lighting. Involves a planning effort, design, and engineering work.
Updated: 6/13/2017 Page 1 of 5
9 June 19, 2017 Item 17 City Council Goals and Priorities Work Plan - Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Color Code: RED Cells/Rows = Breaking Points in Staff Capacity for City Manager's Office and Planning Department Compared to Required Hours for Special Projects (without Administrative Assistant Support)
PURPLE Cells/Rows = Adjusted Breaking Point in Staff Capacity for City Manager's Office and Planning Department Staff with Administrative Assistant Support
Budget Year 1 - Total Estimated Hours - July 1, 2017-June 30, 2018 Updated: June 13, 2017
Estimated Time from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 (Hours) Estimated Combined Quantity of Hours Contributed by Each Department Project Total Staff Hours for Project Offensive/ Community State Law Must Do/ Work Plan Item / Project Major Minor Defensive Now In Queue Future Description Completion Proactive Driven Required Committed City Administrative Community Public through June 30, 2018 Manager's Finance Planning Services Services Works Office Seismic upgrade replacement/retrofit
12 CDM Bridge over San Dieguito River Design work for the Camino Del Mar San Dieguito Lagoon bridge for seismic 0 0 20 0 20 200 240 X X X retrofitting. Largely funded by CalTrans/Federal Highway Administration.
Roadway, sidewalk, pedestrian access, curb & gutter improvements on Camino del Mar from 4th Street to Carmel Valley Road.
Roadway & Sidewalk Improvements #5 - Camino del Mar This project is currently in the design and public input phase. Includes intersection 13 0 0 10 0 6 220 236 (Carmel Valley to 4th) improvements at 4th Street/CDM and Carmel Valley Road/CDM, and a multi-use X X X X pedestrian path.
Based on approval in FY 2017.
Residential Roadway Rehabilitation
14 Annual Citywide Roadway Maintenance Rehabilitation or repaving of sections of the City's asphalt roadways based on a 0 0 20 0 0 300 320 X X X X systematic review of conditions, in coordination with (or after) necessary underground water/wastewater utility work based on existing infrastructure conditions
Wastewater collection infrastructure upgrades and rehabilitation.
Bi-Annual Utility Improvements / Wastewater Pipeline Rehabilitation of sections of the City's wastewater/sewer pipe infrastructure prioritized 15 0 0 20 0 0 600 620 Rehabilitation - City Wide based on a systematic review and video inspections of current conditions. X
Tentative pending Wastewater Fund funding availability for capital projects.
Improvements at 21st Street Wastewater Pump Station to address sand intrusion, 16 21st Street Pump Station Wet Well Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 minor upgrades. X X
17 Bi-Annual Utility Improvements Water infrastructure upgrades and rehabilitation. 0 0 10 0 0 40 50 X x
Extension of the recycled water piping along the City's arterials. Phase 1 expanded recycled water system infrastructure to the north-end of Camino Del Mar. Future 18 Recycled Water Infrastructure Expansion phases for evaluation would be expansion of the system further south to serve the 0 0 7 0 0 200 207 X X Camino Del Mar medians, City Hall, and the Shores Park, as well as Seagrove Park and Powerhouse Park.
Non-CIP Projects
Planning Department Policy-Related Projects
This work plan item is related to the efforts of the Ad-hoc Design Review Process Design Review Ordinance Process Committee Committee. 19 0 0 20 0 60 0 80 (Staff Support and Pursuit of Developing Recommendations) X X Does not include staff time/resources for individual projects.
As recommended by the Ad-Hoc Development Review Process Committee, this project entails development of Design Guidelines to improve the City of Del Mar's development review processes, influence the preservation of neighborhood and Development of Design Guidelines and Related Municipal community character, minimize adverse impacts to neighboring properties and to 20 0 0 5 0 250 0 255 Code Amendments provide objective predictability in the discretionary review of development applications. X X
A consultant will be used for this project. Staff will manage the consultant and the process.
As recommended by the Ad-Hoc Development Review Process Committee, this project entails development of a database to track Design Review process decisions and actions to improve the City of Del Mar's development review processes, influence 21 Creation of a Design Review Database 0 0 0 0 90 0 90 the preservation of neighborhood and community character, minimize adverse impacts X X to neighboring properties and to provide objective predictability in the discretionary review of development applications. Temporary Use Permit -- Modification of the Del Mar Municipal Code to allow for temporary uses on private 22 0 0 14 0 16 0 30 Code Change to Create a TUP Process property that are different from the allowed zoning. X X 23 Short-Term Rentals Pursue policy direction of the City Council regarding short-term rentals. 0 0 120 0 300 0 420 X X X X X X Fee Studies
Water and Recycle Water Rate study to review the costs for providing water and recycle water services. The 24 8 0 60 24 0 24 116 Rate Study outcome of the study would to put together a new rate schedule for the next 5 years. X X
Rate study to review the costs for providing Stormwater services. The outcome of the 25 Storm Water Fee Study 8 0 20 12 0 24 64 study would to put together a new rate schedule for the next 5 years. X X
Rate study to review the costs for providing Wastewater services. The outcome of the 26 Wastewater Fee Study 8 0 40 14 0 24 86 study would to put together a new rate schedule for the next 5 years. X X
27 Housing Nexus Fee Study Explore implementation of an affordable housing development impact fee. 0 0 8 0 60 0 68 X X
Review and update all of the City's fees, including Planning process fees, based on a proportional share of cost of service (to be set by City Council). 28 Citywide Fee Review Study 20 40 40 20 140 40 300 X X X Will require review with the Finance Committee and by City Council.
Updated: 6/13/2017 Page 2 of 5
10 June 19, 2017 Item 17 City Council Goals and Priorities Work Plan - Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Color Code: RED Cells/Rows = Breaking Points in Staff Capacity for City Manager's Office and Planning Department Compared to Required Hours for Special Projects (without Administrative Assistant Support)
PURPLE Cells/Rows = Adjusted Breaking Point in Staff Capacity for City Manager's Office and Planning Department Staff with Administrative Assistant Support
Budget Year 1 - Total Estimated Hours - July 1, 2017-June 30, 2018 Updated: June 13, 2017
Estimated Time from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 (Hours) Estimated Combined Quantity of Hours Contributed by Each Department Project Total Staff Hours for Project Offensive/ Community State Law Must Do/ Work Plan Item / Project Major Minor Defensive Now In Queue Future Description Completion Proactive Driven Required Committed City Administrative Community Public through June 30, 2018 Manager's Finance Planning Services Services Works Office Housing
Implement the Housing Element certified by the City of Del Mar in 2013, which 29 Housing Element Implementation 0 0 40 0 400 0 440 includes 42 remaining actions. X X X X
Housing Element Implementation - 30 Development of a work plan to realize 22 affordable housing units in five years. 0 0 40 0 140 0 180 "22 units in 5 years" target program X X
Rail Issues
The purpose of this project is to work with the North County Transit District (NCTD) to NCTD Rail Trail and develop a rail crossing and trails along the bluffs and rights-of-way. 31 0 0 40 0 140 40 220 Safe Pedestrian Crossings x X x X Involves working with SANDAG and the California Public Utilities Commission.
Environmental Programs / Sustainability Initiatives Sea Level Rise Study - Phase 2 study of the effects of sea level rise in Del Mar, funded by a grant by the 32 0 0 30 0 500 20 550 Completion of Phase 1 through Phase 2 California Coastal Commission. X X X Operational/Management This project involves evaluating and analyzing the option of starting a Police Department and reporting back to the City Council. Implementation study report presented to the City Council on April 3, 2017. Per City Council direction, the next step is a public outreach process to engage the community in discussing this topic and providing input. 35 Law Enforcement Options 20 0 110 20 0 0 150 X x The quantity of staff hours listed reflects preparation for two Q & A workshops (one in June 2017) and a report to the City Council after the topic has been discussed and vetted by the community. Does not include any additional community outreach or a community survey.
Steps for implementation of the sales tax increase are in progress under management by the Finance Department. A public education process will also be necessary for City businesses and Fairgrounds' event merchants. The next step will be developing a plan for how the City wants to prioritize and plan Measure Q Transactions & Use Tax - how future revenue from the sales tax increase will be spent. 36 Next Steps for Implementation and Prioritization Effort for 0 0 5 5 0 0 10 X 1 Funds Potential projects to fund might include: utility undergrounding, Downtown Streetscape project, roadway improvements, and/or Shores Park master plan implementation/redevelopment.Determine what the citizen oversight committee will be, what their role will be, and how it will work.
In prepration for Breeders' Cup in November 2017 at the Del Mar Racetrack, efforts include coordinating with the Breeders' Cup, Del Mar Thoroughbred Club, and the Del Mar Village Association on four concepts (e.g. fiberglass artistic horses, countdown 37 Breeders' Cup Preparation 0 60 70 0 0 70 200 clock, banners, and Barn at the Beach). Additionally, City effort will entail preparing Operational from a public safety and operations standpoint, including staffing, signage, traffic control, and community clean-up in preparation for the event and during the event.
X = Recommend for Second Priority
Digitization of the Del Mar Municipal Code and the Community Plan for publication on the City's web site. Currently, these documents are only available as PDFs. Project Digitization and Codification of the Del Mar Municipal Code 38 also includes review for consistency and creating links between different sections to 80 0 10 0 0 0 90 and the Community Plan Operational X simplify future updates for consistency. The Community Plan is not available as a Word document and is not searchable.
As recommended by the Climate Action Plan toward achieving the CAP's target of Climate Action Plan Implementation - 100% renewable energy for Del Mar by 2035, implement a Community Choice Energy 39 0 0 180 0 0 0 180 X Exploration of Community Choice Energy/Aggregation program. This entails exploring different models, completing a feasiblity study, and X X X X evaluating potential partnerships for doing so.
City Manager's Office Capacity Line - Without Administrative Assistant Support
The City's current Local Coastal Program (LCP) does not cover the Fairgrounds. The concept for this project would be to develop an LCP amendment in partnership with 40 Fairgrounds Local Coastal Permit Amendment 0 0 80 0 450 0 530 X the 22nd DAA to address the types of uses and activities that could occur at the X X X X Fairgrounds, consistent with the community.
AB 1826 requires the implementation of an organics/food waste recycling program for commercial establishments. The law phases implementation. Currently, the infrastructure (e.g. a facility for food waste recycling) is not currently available in the region. Del Mar has contracted with Solana Center to explore implementation of a Establishment of Organics Recycling Program Required by 41 food waste recycling programs with local restaurants, including implementation of a 0 0 220 0 0 0 220 AB 1826 X X X possible pilot program. Del Mar is also working with other agencies in the region to explore possibilities for collaboration. This project also ties into the Climate Action Plan "Zero Waste" goal which is a separate item listed on the City Council list of goals and priorities.
As recommended by the Ad-Hoc Development Review Process Committee, this project entails development of Zoning and Design Review Code amendments to improve the City of Del Mar's development review processes, influence the 42 Zoning/Design Review Code Amendments 0 0 15 0 344 0 359 X preservation of neighborhood and community character, minimize adverse impacts to X X X neighboring properties and to provide objective predictability in the discretionary review of development applications.
Updated: 6/13/2017 Page 3 of 5
11 June 19, 2017 Item 17 City Council Goals and Priorities Work Plan - Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Color Code: RED Cells/Rows = Breaking Points in Staff Capacity for City Manager's Office and Planning Department Compared to Required Hours for Special Projects (without Administrative Assistant Support)
PURPLE Cells/Rows = Adjusted Breaking Point in Staff Capacity for City Manager's Office and Planning Department Staff with Administrative Assistant Support
Budget Year 1 - Total Estimated Hours - July 1, 2017-June 30, 2018 Updated: June 13, 2017
Estimated Time from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 (Hours) Estimated Combined Quantity of Hours Contributed by Each Department Project Total Staff Hours for Project Offensive/ Community State Law Must Do/ Work Plan Item / Project Major Minor Defensive Now In Queue Future Description Completion Proactive Driven Required Committed City Administrative Community Public through June 30, 2018 Manager's Finance Planning Services Services Works Office
City Manager's Office Capacity Line - WITH Administrative Assistant Support
The City Council adopted the Public Art Policy at their meeting on May 15, 2017. The policy establishes a two-year pilot program. The program will include art on public and private property. It will be implemented as a five-year pilot program, with the first two years focusing on art donated to the City or purchased with donated funds. After two 43 Public Art Policy years, if the program is successful, the community can decide whether to expand the 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 X X X effort using other funding sources. Estimate for staff hours includes implementation, such as forming a committee, staffing a committee, developing administrative tools needed to run the program, and working through the required steps related to accepting/installing pieces of art.
The purpose of this study would be to analyze the impact of new development on the City's infrastructure and services and to calculate the financial value of the impact. This study would not cover wastewater, water and housing impacts, which are being separately studied. 44 Development Impact Fee Study 20 0 40 40 240 40 380 X X X This item is staff initiated; it is a special project with long-term important implications that will require significant staff time and is important for good fiscal management. It should be completed in tandem with the other fee studies. Potential development impact fees could include parklands/trails, traffic, parking, and public art.
As recommended by the Climate Action Plan, develop and adopt a "Complete Streets" Climate Action Plan Implementation - 45 policy which speaks to streets that promote pedestrian and bicycle mobility, as well as 0 0 130 0 240 80 450 Complete Streets/Green Streets Policy X X X include capture of storm water.
Budget Year 1 - Total Estimated Hours - July 1, 2017-June 30, 2018
Total Estimated Required Hours for Special Projects per Department 331 150 3,620 332 3,841 2,745 11,019 (CIP and Non-CIP)
Quantity of Positions Available to Work on Special Projects 2 2 4 2 6 3.5 19.5
Hours Available per Department to Work on Special Projects 865 865 3,014 865 4,431 4,325 14,365 (Based on 25% of 1,730 hours per fiscal year per FTE)
Sufficient Available Hours? Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
Updated: 6/13/2017 Page 4 of 5
12 June 19, 2017 Item 17 City Council Goals and Priorities Work Plan - Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Color Code: RED Cells/Rows = Breaking Points in Staff Capacity for City Manager's Office and Planning Department Compared to Required Hours for Special Projects (without Administrative Assistant Support)
PURPLE Cells/Rows = Adjusted Breaking Point in Staff Capacity for City Manager's Office and Planning Department Staff with Administrative Assistant Support
Budget Year 1 - Total Estimated Hours - July 1, 2017-June 30, 2018 Updated: June 13, 2017
Estimated Time from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 (Hours) Estimated Combined Quantity of Hours Contributed by Each Department Project Total Staff Hours for Project Offensive/ Community State Law Must Do/ Work Plan Item / Project Major Minor Defensive Now In Queue Future Description Completion Proactive Driven Required Committed City Administrative Community Public through June 30, 2018 Manager's Finance Planning Services Services Works Office
Insufficient Staff Capacity in Fiscal Year 2017-2018 - Defer to Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Council did not evaluate this group of projects using these criteria. Work with SANDAG, NCTD, and the region to look at long-term options for removing Work with NCTD/SANDAG on Long-Term Placement of the 46 the rail lines for the bluff, including the necessary feasibility analysis studies, 0 0 150 0 TBD 0 150 Rail Lines X environmental review and cost evaluations.
47 Community Conversations Meetings Hold a series of six Community Conversations neighborhood meetings during the year. 0 0 32 0 0 0 32
Study Ways to Improve Communication between City Study ways to improve communication betweeen City government (staff and Council) 48 40 0 40 0 0 0 80 X Government (staff and City Council) and the Community and the community. Various changes to the Del Mar Municipal Code. This item pertains to a proactive, 49 DMMC Code Updates (except as required) methodical review of the entire Municipal Code to identify and make necessary 0 0 7 0 80 0 87 X updates. Near-term zoning review/update for the North Commercial zone (complete by the end 50 North Commercial Zoning Review 20 0 20 0 400 0 440 of 2017), to be followed by a longer-term (5+ years) Specific Plan project.
Planning Department Capacity Line - Without Administrative Assistant Support
Rezone of Commercial and Professional Commercial to 51 20 0 40 0 2000 0 2060 Mixed Use (13th to 8th Streets)
Planning Department Capacity Line - WITH Administrative Assistant Support
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Would require hiring a consultant to look at a comprehensive Citywide bicycle and 52 0 0 100 0 1800 20 1920 (Circulation Element) pedestrian mobility plan for circulation through Del Mar.
This topic has been discussed as a priority of the Sustainability Advisory Board. Staff has encouraged the SAB to seek voluntary participation by restaurants to discontinue using styrofoam; it is estimated that approximately three local restaurants currently use styrofoam. 53 Consideration of Implementing a Styrofoam Ban 3 0 120 0 0 0 123 This project would entail developing a draft ordinance, coordinating with the Business Support Advisory Committee, legal review of the draft ordinance, administrative steps to seek Council approval of the ordinance, public outreach to the effected businesses, ongoing communication with effected businesses, and an ongoing monitoring/enforcement program.
Digitizing paper records and organizing into a electronic records management system. This project involves assessing the current inventory of records in storage, identifying 54 Document Conversion/Records Management what needs to be kept and stored electronically, digitizing historic paper records 450 Unknown 100 0 1200 Unknown 1750 currently kept in off-site storage, and destroying records consistently with the City's Records Retention Policy.
This project would require an RFP to select a consultant to conduct the survey, staff reports to award a contract, process for determining the content for the survey, 55 Consider Update of Community Survey 16 4 160 4 4 4 192 working with the consultant to get the survey set-up, administration before/during/after the survey, public education, analyzing results, follow-up, etc.
City Council to review most recent past elections and update the ethics pledge and its 56 Election Ethics importance to Del Mar. Proposed changes/improvements would be discussed and 40 0 40 0 0 0 80 X implemented. Assemble a City Council subcommittee to work on this.
Develop an app for residents to take a picture of a pothole and to report it to the City 57 Pothole Portal for repair, with the ability to communicate to residents on the progress of repairing the 60 0 4 0 0 60 124 issue.
Climate Action Plan Implementation - As recommended by the Climate Action Plan, consider making Tier 1 of the California 58 0 0 90 0 140 0 230 Green Building Codes Green Building Code mandatory.
Develop a Zero Waste Policy/Program for the City that includes organics/food waste Climate Action Plan Implementation - 59 recycling, construction and demolition recycling, and other types of programs to reduce 0 60 460 0 240 80 840 Development of a Zero Waste Policy/Program solid waste.
Updated: 6/13/2017 Page 5 of 5
13 June 19, 2017 Item 17 RESOLUTION 2017-______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEARS 2017-2018 AND 2018- 2019 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET AND CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEARS 2015-2016 AND 2016-2017 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2017 and May 6, 2017, the City Council of the City of Del Mar held Budget Workshops to review the recommendations for the Fiscal Years 2017- 2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been presented with and has reviewed the Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget along with additional recommendations and appropriations setting the levels of reserves and transfers in and transfers out between funds, and other related expenditures; and
WHEREAS, the City Council gives authorization to the City Manager to approve the purchase of equipment from the Equipment Replacement Fund for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 that has been included in the Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget and item and appropriation are as follows:
Truck – Fire $61,000 Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus – Fire 30,000 Truck – Public Works 27,000 North Beach Lifeguard Tower Repair 14,000 800 MHz Radios – Community Services 15,000 Inflatable Rescue Boat and Engine – Community Services 27,000 ATV – Community Services 7,000 Vehicle – Lifeguard 37,160
WHEREAS, the City Council has been presented with and reviewed the City Council Priorities, and is approving the City Council Priorities for Fiscal Years 2017- 2018 and 2018-2019.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, that the above recitals are true and correct.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budget is approved and adopted as shown on Exhibit “A” to the resolution; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager has the authority to move appropriations between programs as long as the total dollars do not exceed that approved by the City Council.
14 June 19, 2017 Item 17 Resolution No. 2017-_____ Page 2 of 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 19th day of June 2017.
______TERRY SINNOTT, Mayor City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______LESLIE E. DEVANEY, City Attorney City of Del Mar
15 June 19, 2017 Item 17 Resolution No. 2017-_____ Page 3 of 3
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF DEL MAR
I, ASHLEY JONES, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution 2017-______, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 19th day of June 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______ASHLEY JONES, Administrative Services Director/ City Clerk City of Del Mar
16 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEAR 2017 - 2018 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET RESERVE SUMMARIES
ESTIMATED O & M CIP PROJECTED RESERVE BEG. BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES IN (OUT) ENDING BALANCE TITLE JULY 1, 2017 FY 2018 FY 2018 FY 2018 FY 2018 FY 2018 JUNE 30, 2018
GENERAL FUND
CONTINGENCY 19.04% $ 4,012,227 $ 15,335,620 $ (12,584,890) $ - $ 769,029 $ (4,919,580) $ 2,612,406
RESTRICTED: SELF-INSURANCE 246,750 - (25,000) - 78,250 - 300,000
DESIGNATED: ENCUMBRANCES ------DISTRICT TAX (MEASURE Q) 75,000 1,800,000 - - - - 1,875,000 SIDEWALK CAFÉS - 4,590 (4,590) - - - - PENSION RESERVE 105,194 - - - 422,500 - 527,694 LEAVE LIABILITY 82,000 - - - - - 82,000 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 807,086 - (197,640) - 50,000 - 659,446
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 5,328,257 17,140,210 (12,812,120) - 1,319,779 (4,919,580) 6,056,546
GAS TAX FUND
CONTINGENCY - 124,380 (517,090) - 392,710 - - ENCUMBRANCES ------124,380 (517,090) - 392,710 - -
OPEN SPACE FUND
CONTINGENCY - 375,020 (898,400) (200,000) 723,380 - - ASSIGNED OR COMMITTED: ENCUMBRANCES ------OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION 120,388 - - - - - 120,388 TREE RESERVE 35,357 750 - - - - 36,107
TOTAL OPEN SPACE FUND 155,745 375,770 (898,400) (200,000) 723,380 - 156,495
SUPPLEMENTAL LAW FUND - 100,000 (190,930) - 90,930 - -
REGIONAL COMMUNICATION FUND 10,500 45,000 (34,500) - - - 21,000
GRANTS 48,399 19,370 (19,370) - - - 48,399
HOUSING 331,336 50,600 (92,660) - - - 289,276
AB 939 184,556 52,000 (71,510) - - - 165,046
17 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEAR 2017 - 2018 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET RESERVE SUMMARIES
ESTIMATED O & M CIP PROJECTED RESERVE BEG. BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES IN (OUT) ENDING BALANCE TITLE JULY 1, 2017 FY 2018 FY 2018 FY 2018 FY 2018 FY 2018 JUNE 30, 2018
PEG FEE FUND 137,029 50,000 (18,000) - - (169,029) -
WILDFIRE PROTECTION BOND DEBT 96,396 - - - - - 96,396
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
CONTINGENCY - 15,000 - (2,140,790) 2,125,790 - - ENCUMBRANCES ------DEBT SERVICE - - (910,760) - 910,760 - - RESERVE FOR CAPITAL 938,878 - - - - (600,000) 338,878 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 938,878 15,000 (910,760) (2,140,790) 3,036,550 (600,000) 338,878
TRANSNET II FUND 4,186 - - - - - 4,186
RTCIP FUND 17 - - - - - 17
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL 7,235,299 17,972,330 (15,565,340) (2,340,790) 5,563,349 (5,688,609) 7,176,239
WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND 441,552 263,000 (300,000) - - - 404,552
WATER FUND
NET POSITION 190,358 2,954,900 (3,124,280) - 100,000 (110,500) 10,478 ADVANCE TO GENERAL FUND - - -
RESTRICTED: BOND SECURITY ------CONTRIBUTED CAPITAL 4,028,272 - - - - - 4,028,272 WILDFIRE PROTECTION ------
DESIGNATED: ENCUMBRANCES ------SELF-INSURANCE 50,000 - (5,000) - - - 45,000 RATE STABILIZATION 150,000 - - - - (100,000) 50,000 CAPITAL REPLACEMENT 376,008 - - (150,000) - - 226,008 NET PENSION LIABILITY (885,359) - - - - - (885,359) PENSION RESERVE 71,664 - - - 110,500 - 182,164 OPERATING RESERVE 67,508 - - - - - 67,508 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 200,000 - (24,850) - - - 175,150 UTILITY PLANT IN SERVICE 7,216,407 - (400,000) - - - 6,816,407
TOTAL WATER FUND 11,464,858 2,954,900 (3,554,130) (150,000) 210,500 (210,500) 10,715,628
18 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEAR 2017 - 2018 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET RESERVE SUMMARIES
ESTIMATED O & M CIP PROJECTED RESERVE BEG. BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES IN (OUT) ENDING BALANCE TITLE JULY 1, 2017 FY 2018 FY 2018 FY 2018 FY 2018 FY 2018 JUNE 30, 2018
CLEANWATER FUND
NET POSITION - 480,550 (605,810) - 125,260 - - ENCUMBRANCES ------TOTAL CLEAN WATER FUND - 480,550 (605,810) - 125,260 - -
WASTEWATER FUND
NET POSITION 244,036 3,291,400 (3,038,830) - - (307,000) 189,606
RESTRICTED: IBANK RESERVE 228,828 - - - - - 228,828 CONTRIBUTED CAPITAL 650,814 - - - - - 650,814 LOAN RESERVE - STATE REVOLVING 431,779 - - - - - 431,779
DESIGNATED: ENCUMBRANCES ------SELF-INSURANCE 50,000 (40,000) - 40,000 50,000 CAPITAL REPLACEMENT 250,000 - - (400,000) 150,000 - - NET PENSION LIABILITY (890,045) - - - - - (890,045) PENSION RESREVE 72,229 - - - 117,000 189,229 OPERATING RESERVE 110,000 - - - - - 110,000 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 150,000 - (24,850) - - - 125,150 UTILITY PLANT IN SERVICE 8,317,406 - (590,000) - - - 7,727,406 RATE STABILIZATION 230,000 - - - - - 230,000 TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND 9,845,047 3,291,400 (3,693,680) (400,000) 307,000 (307,000) 9,042,767
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 21,309,905 6,726,850 (7,853,620) (550,000) 642,760 (517,500) 19,758,395
TOTAL - ALL FUNDS 28,986,756 24,962,180 (23,718,960) (2,890,790) 6,206,109 (6,206,109) 27,339,186
19 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEAR 2018 - 2019 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET RESERVE SUMMARIES
ESTIMATED O & M CIP PROJECTED RESERVE BEG. BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES IN (OUT) ENDING BALANCE TITLE JULY 1, 2018 FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2019 JUNE 30, 2019
GENERAL FUND
CONTINGENCY 19.89% $ 2,612,406 $ 15,897,020 $ (12,672,710) $ - $ 35,000 $ (3,132,740) $ 2,738,976
RESTRICTED: SELF-INSURANCE 300,000 - (25,000) - 25,000 - 300,000
DESIGNATED: ENCUMBRANCES ------DISTRICT TAX (MEASURE Q) 1,875,000 1,854,000 - - - - 3,729,000 SIDEWALK CAFÉS - 4,680 (4,680) - - - - PERS RESERVE 527,694 - - - 422,500 - 950,194 LEAVE LIABILITY 82,000 - - - - - 82,000 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 659,446 - (137,970) - 100,000 - 621,476
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 6,056,546 17,755,700 (12,840,360) - 582,500 (3,132,740) 8,421,646
GAS TAX FUND
CONTINGENCY - 174,870 (507,270) - 332,400 - - ENCUMBRANCES ------174,870 (507,270) - 332,400 - -
OPEN SPACE FUND
CONTINGENCY - 375,810 (906,500) - 530,690 - - ASSIGNED OR COMMITTED: ENCUMBRANCES ------OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION 120,388 - - - - - 120,388 TREE RESERVE 36,107 750 - - - - 36,857
TOTAL OPEN SPACE FUND 156,495 376,560 (906,500) - 530,690 - 157,245
SUPPLEMENTAL LAW FUND - 100,000 (199,160) - 99,160 - -
REGIONAL COMMUNICATION FUND 21,000 45,000 (34,500) - - - 31,500
GRANTS 48,399 19,370 (19,370) - - - 48,399
HOUSING 289,276 50,600 (92,660) - - - 247,216
AB 939 165,046 52,000 (71,510) - - - 145,536
20 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEAR 2018 - 2019 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET RESERVE SUMMARIES
ESTIMATED O & M CIP PROJECTED RESERVE BEG. BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES IN (OUT) ENDING BALANCE TITLE JULY 1, 2018 FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2019 JUNE 30, 2019
PEG FEE FUND - 50,000 (15,000) - - (35,000) -
WILDFIRE PROTECTION BOND DEBT 96,396 - - - - - 96,396
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
CONTINGENCY - 15,000 - (560,000) 545,000 - - ENCUMBRANCES ------DEBT SERVICE (909,550) 909,550 - RESERVE FOR CAPITAL 338,878 - - - 35,000 - 373,878 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 338,878 15,000 (909,550) (560,000) 1,489,550 - 373,878
TRANSNET II FUND 4,186 - - - - - 4,186
RTCIP FUND 17 - - - - - 17
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL 7,176,239 18,639,100 (15,595,880) (560,000) 3,034,300 (3,167,740) 9,526,019
WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND 404,552 275,000 (316,800) - - - 362,752
WATER FUND
NET POSITION 10,478 3,127,570 (3,339,730) - 320,000 (110,500) 7,818 ADVANCE TO GENERAL FUND - - -
RESTRICTED: BOND SECURITY ------CONTRIBUTED CAPITAL 4,028,272 - - - - - 4,028,272 WILDFIRE PROTECTION ------
DESIGNATED: ENCUMBRANCES ------SELF-INSURANCE 45,000 - (5,000) - - - 40,000 RATE STABILIZATION 50,000 - - - - (50,000) - CAPITAL REPLACEMENT 226,008 - - - - (120,000) 106,008 NET PENSION LIABILITY (885,359) (885,359) PENSION RESERVE 182,164 110,500 292,664 OPERATING RESERVE 67,508 - - - - - 67,508 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 175,150 - (9,450) - - (150,000) 15,700 UTILITY PLANT IN SERVICE 6,816,407 - (400,000) - - - 6,416,407
TOTAL WATER FUND 10,715,628 3,127,570 (3,730,280) - 430,500 (430,500) 10,089,018
21 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEAR 2018 - 2019 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET RESERVE SUMMARIES
ESTIMATED O & M CIP PROJECTED RESERVE BEG. BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES IN (OUT) ENDING BALANCE TITLE JULY 1, 2018 FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2019 JUNE 30, 2019
CLEANWATER FUND
NET POSITION - 494,770 (628,210) - 133,440 - - ENCUMBRANCES ------TOTAL CLEAN WATER FUND - 494,770 (628,210) - 133,440 - -
WASTEWATER FUND
NET POSITION 189,606 3,353,870 (3,056,900) - - (117,000) 369,576
RESTRICTED: BOND SECURITY 228,828 - - - - - 228,828 CONTRIBUTED CAPITAL 650,814 - - - - - 650,814 LOAN RESERVE - STATE REVOLVING 431,779 - - - - - 431,779
DESIGNATED: ENCUMBRANCES ------SELF-INSURANCE 50,000 (40,000) - - 10,000 CAPITAL REPLACEMENT ------NET PENSION LIABILITY (890,045) (890,045) PENSION RESERVE 189,229 117,000 306,229 OPERATING RESERVE 110,000 - - - - - 110,000 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 125,150 (9,450) 115,700 UTILITY PLANT IN SERVICE 7,727,406 - (590,000) - - - 7,137,406 RATE STABILIZATION 230,000 - - - - - 230,000 TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND 9,042,767 3,353,870 (3,696,350) - 117,000 (117,000) 8,700,287
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 19,758,395 6,976,210 (8,054,840) - 680,940 (547,500) 18,789,305
TOTAL - ALL FUNDS 27,339,186 25,890,310 (23,967,520) (560,000) 3,715,240 (3,715,240) 28,678,076
22 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2018 AND 2018-2019 ADOPTED OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET REVENUE SUMMARIES
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED SOURCE OF FUNDS 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
GENERAL FUND TAXES PROPERTY TAX 4,481,237 4,787,517 5,000,000 5,145,000 5,319,300 5,585,270 VLF IN LIEU OF PROPERTY TAX 479,574 510,004 545,240 545,239 572,500 601,130 SALES AND USE TAX 1,529,361 1,871,826 2,200,000 2,222,234 2,296,000 2,394,880 SALES TAX IN LIEU OF PROPERTY TAX 468,918 460,696 - - - - DISTRICT SALES TAX - - 250,000 250,000 1,800,000 1,854,000 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 2,444,275 2,477,541 2,401,800 2,392,000 2,453,920 2,503,000 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 140,325 213,200 208,000 213,380 217,650 FRANCHISE TAX 367,471 369,525 305,410 344,000 325,000 325,000 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX 208,898 226,508 214,230 240,000 232,300 234,620 REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX 135,516 156,315 130,050 140,000 140,000 140,000 TOTAL 10,115,250 11,000,257 11,259,930 11,486,473 13,352,400 13,855,550
LICENSES & PERMITS
LICENSES & PERMITS 16,985 12,024 17,000 24,830 24,000 24,000 JUNIOR LIFEGUARD 47,502 49,926 47,240 48,000 48,960 49,940 PARKING PERMITS 22,425 22,400 19,500 19,500 20,400 20,810 TOTAL 86,912 84,350 83,740 92,330 93,360 94,750
FINES & FORFEITURES MOVING VIOLATIONS/VEHICLE CODE FINES 16,986 46,703 35,000 50,000 45,000 45,000 PENALTIES 5,994 18,102 6,000 8,900 8,600 8,600 PARKING VIOLATIONS 455,972 351,813 340,000 320,000 360,000 380,000 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS 9,400 16,200 8,000 11,000 12,000 12,000 RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT 144,907 146,547 140,000 141,000 140,000 160,000 TOTAL 633,259 579,365 529,000 530,900 565,600 605,600
REVENUE FROM USE OF ASSETS INV EARN-GENERAL 35,263 96,292 20,390 50,000 25,250 25,500 SIDEWALK CAFÉ USER FEE 4,380 7,993 5,500 5,015 4,590 4,680 RENTAL INCOME 178,272 159,308 159,140 160,000 160,730 162,340 PARKING METER INCOME 823,770 803,137 810,000 740,000 918,100 927,280
TOTAL 1,041,685 1,066,730 995,030 955,015 1,108,670 1,119,800
23 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2018 AND 2018-2019 ADOPTED OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET REVENUE SUMMARIES
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED SOURCE OF FUNDS 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEE 1,910 1,710 1,980 1,915 - - PUBLIC SAFETY AUGMENTATION FUND 73,653 73,624 74,370 69,000 75,110 75,860 HOMEOWNER EXEMPT 36,940 36,683 36,420 36,420 37,150 37,890 STATE MANDATED COST REIMB 124,416 3,847 5,000 - 3,000 3,000 CONTRACT SOLANA BEACH 16,950 15,750 19,500 17,000 16,700 16,700 ON-TRACK PARIMUTUEL 43,760 33,667 2,460 2,459 12,460 2,460 OFF-TRACK PARIMUTUEL 25,642 19,617 21,000 21,000 22,000 22,000 SOLID WASTE 19,135 20,231 20,160 19,880 22,220 22,440 TOTAL 342,406 205,129 180,890 167,674 188,640 180,350
CHARGES - PLANNING SERVICES PLANNING SERVICES 460,318 415,483 410,000 440,000 440,000 460,000 ENGINEERING SERVICES 103,016 84,636 155,960 105,000 110,000 115,000 BUILDING SERVICES 302,915 307,097 366,020 410,000 380,000 390,000 TOTAL 866,249 807,216 931,980 955,000 930,000 965,000
OTHER REVENUE SOURCES PARKING IN-LIEU FEE 18,257 27,439 38,000 38,510 38,500 38,500 SALE OF PROPERTY 24,000 30,702 - 10,646 - - ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE 623,838 668,630 694,620 694,620 808,540 841,650 NUISANCE ALARM REIMBURSEMENT 2,975 4,345 3,960 5,000 4,500 4,500 WORKER'S COMP REIMBURSEMENT 88,806 - - 2,743 - - EXPENDITURE REIMBURSEMENT 80,079 40,273 - 19,008 - - MISCELLANEOUS 208,022 102,919 72,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 TOTAL 1,045,977 874,308 808,580 870,527 901,540 934,650
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 14,131,738 14,617,355 14,789,150 15,057,919 17,140,210 17,755,700
24 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2018 AND 2018-2019 ADOPTED OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET REVENUE SUMMARIES
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED SOURCE OF FUNDS 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
LIBRARY FUND ------
GAS TAX FUND 135,308 93,887 91,900 91,100 124,380 174,870
OPEN SPACE FUND
CONSTRUCTION TAX 21,764 9,463 16,650 14,450 10,710 10,820 PERMITS/PARK AND COMMUNITY CENTER 289,275 266,040 224,670 240,000 250,000 250,000 SURF CAMP PERMITS 73,429 67,061 71,080 65,000 65,000 65,000 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 419 851 790 1,000 2,020 2,040 ON-TRACK PARIMUTUEL 29,173 22,445 1,640 1,639 1,670 1,700 OFF-TRACK PARIMUTUEL 17,095 13,078 14,000 12,500 14,000 14,000 CONTRIBUTIONS 26,100 13,612 70,000 70,000 - - TREE MITIGATION - - 3,000 750 750 750 MISCELLANEOUS 142,350 350,768 40,800 40,000 31,620 32,250 TOTAL OPEN SPACE FUND 599,605 743,318 442,630 445,339 375,770 376,560
SUPPLEMENTAL LAW FUND 120,848 129,324 100,000 129,300 100,000 100,000
REGIONAL COMMUNICATION 44,286 44,287 45,000 44,000 45,000 45,000
GRANTS FUND INVESTMENT EARNINGS 98 266 - 170 - - STATE - 70,825 - - - - FEDERAL 499 8,930 40,400 19,370 19,370 19,370 LOCAL 24,136 23,950 24,260 21,100 - -
TOTAL GRANTS FUND 24,733 103,971 64,660 40,640 19,370 19,370
HOUSING FUND 49,819 13,969 51,210 50,200 50,600 50,600
AB 939 51,885 53,502 50,000 52,000 52,000 52,000
PEG FEE FUND 32,266 34,475 30,000 47,000 50,000 50,000
WILDFIRE PROTECTION DEBT FUND 9,449 1,088 - 900 - -
25 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2018 AND 2018-2019 ADOPTED OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET REVENUE SUMMARIES
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED SOURCE OF FUNDS 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
STATE GRANTS - - - - - FEDERAL GRANTS 347,508 489,908 335,288 110,500 15,000 15,000 LOCAL GRANTS 90,000 - - - - - INVESTMENT EARNINGS 15,901 22,947 - 10,000 - - CONTRIBUTIONS - CIVIC CENTER PROJ - - - 7,464 - - LOAN PROCEEDS - 15,845,443 15,845,443 - - MISCELLANEOUS 183,720 792,057 - 175,338 - -
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 637,129 1,304,912 16,180,731 16,148,745 15,000 15,000
TRANSNET FUND 2,517,007 1,541,814 512,703 597,000 - -
RTCIP FUND 24 51 - - - -
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS 18,354,097 18,681,953 32,357,984 31,692,643 17,972,330 18,639,100
WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND
SERVICE CHARGES 176,566 185,415 238,800 208,000 257,000 269,000 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 4,062 8,202 5,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 MISCELLANEOUS 22,625 - - 3,306 - - TOTAL WORKERS' COMPENSATION 203,253 193,617 243,800 217,306 263,000 275,000
26 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2018 AND 2018-2019 ADOPTED OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET REVENUE SUMMARIES
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED SOURCE OF FUNDS 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
WATER UTILITY FUND
PENALTIES 10,703 12,479 8,600 13,000 11,000 11,000 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 19,455 13,750 14,600 6,000 3,000 3,000 WATER SALES 1,654,665 1,493,860 1,450,000 1,619,000 1,590,000 1,685,400 READY TO SERVE CHARGE 1,082,790 1,146,429 1,189,700 1,200,000 1,287,900 1,365,170 WATER CONNECTION FEES - 29,694 10,000 24,000 18,000 18,000 BACKFLOW DEVICE FEES - 14,503 10,000 12,086 10,000 10,000 MISCELLANEOUS 81,695 291,208 403,519 410,305 35,000 35,000 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 2,849,308 3,001,923 3,086,419 3,284,391 2,954,900 3,127,570
CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
PENALTIES 1,901 2,160 1,500 2,300 1,500 1,500 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS 1,300 1,100 - 300 - - SERVICE CHARGE 404,836 417,128 400,000 440,300 474,050 488,270 STATE GRANTS 5,000 5,011 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 TOTAL CLEAN WATER PROGRAM 413,037 425,399 406,500 447,900 480,550 494,770
WASTEWATER FUND
PENALTIES 12,728 14,717 9,620 15,000 13,000 13,000 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 8,321 22,725 5,300 9,000 6,000 6,000 SERVICE CHARGES 1,328,076 1,361,735 1,400,000 1,390,000 1,419,840 1,448,240 USAGE CHARGES 1,765,775 1,637,411 1,596,000 1,550,000 1,703,560 1,737,630 SEWER INCLUSION FEES 41,883 54,770 32,000 45,100 32,000 32,000 MISCELLANEOUS 495,236 174,292 72,000 142,607 72,000 72,000 CITY OF SAN DIEGO 36,772 - 45,000 - 45,000 45,000 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 3,688,791 3,265,650 3,159,920 3,151,707 3,291,400 3,353,870
LOAN PROCEEDS - - 2,230,993 2,230,993 - -
TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND 3,688,791 3,265,650 5,390,913 5,382,700 3,291,400 3,353,870
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 6,951,136 6,692,972 8,883,832 9,114,991 6,726,850 6,976,210
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 25,508,486 25,568,542 41,485,616 41,024,940 24,962,180 25,890,310
27 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2018 AND 2018-2019 ADOPTED OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET EXPENDITURE SUMMARIES
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED DEPARTMENT 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
GENERAL FUND
GENERAL GOVERNMENT CITY COUNCIL 75,307 78,135 79,140 85,520 82,540 81,040 LEGAL SERVICES 451,078 472,156 632,200 667,000 432,200 432,200 CITY MANAGER 670,270 818,897 779,210 784,800 915,420 851,840 HUMAN RESOURCES 147,865 169,619 165,060 165,800 207,890 210,990 CITY CLERK 256,339 253,005 304,480 204,760 265,030 288,100 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 337,667 372,313 421,155 404,640 425,930 429,530 FINANCE SERVICES 654,614 706,650 919,730 883,320 775,840 794,680 RISK MANAGEMENT 116,456 112,572 129,830 122,000 155,700 168,090 PLANNING SERVICES 648,267 771,589 1,296,190 1,152,420 1,241,740 1,281,290 CODE ENFORCEMENT 67,915 71,820 78,190 76,750 110,850 114,590 BUILDING SERVICES 286,398 285,010 333,470 336,470 323,470 323,470 TOTAL 3,712,176 4,111,766 5,138,655 4,883,480 4,936,610 4,975,820
PUBLIC SAFETY PATROL AND TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 2,001,877 2,128,003 2,402,685 2,197,300 2,392,440 2,528,610 LIFEGUARD SERVICES 1,034,956 1,032,225 1,012,820 1,055,400 1,094,010 1,134,610 PARKING ENFORCEMENT 477,096 455,756 502,970 506,180 644,280 647,450 FIRE PROTECTION 1,840,727 1,772,468 2,006,740 1,922,390 2,008,250 2,148,480 HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT 13,545 14,633 16,350 15,650 16,880 16,930 SOLID WASTE 3,445 3,024 7,000 4,000 7,000 7,000 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 2,983 9,673 10,510 9,690 4,510 4,510 TOTAL 5,374,629 5,415,782 5,959,075 5,710,610 6,167,370 6,487,590
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING SERVICES 211,334 191,786 194,000 288,000 194,000 194,000 STORM WATER 72,741 80,192 97,220 84,450 98,190 100,650 FACILITIES 73,112 77,155 77,420 77,200 127,010 135,090 TOTAL 357,187 349,133 368,640 449,650 419,200 429,740
28 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2018 AND 2018-2019 ADOPTED OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET EXPENDITURE SUMMARIES
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED DEPARTMENT 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
NON-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNITY SUPPORT 75,651 217,599 289,800 284,250 296,230 300,500 TV STUDIO 78,580 77,954 81,740 78,220 82,910 89,380 CITY MEMBERSHIPS 68,390 69,946 77,510 73,035 77,520 77,520 CITY HALL - GENERAL 111,476 141,154 133,590 114,850 121,640 122,840 DEBT SERVICE 12,159 - - - - - SPECIAL PROJECTS 48,140 65,490 377,425 300,000 513,000 219,000 TOTAL 394,396 572,143 960,065 850,355 1,091,300 809,240
TOTAL GENERAL FUND BEFORE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 9,838,388 10,448,824 12,426,435 11,894,095 12,614,480 12,702,390
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT RESERVE 93,960 64,484 68,100 9,600 197,640 137,970 TOTAL 93,960 64,484 68,100 9,600 197,640 137,970
TOTAL GENERAL FUND INCLUDING EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 9,932,348 10,513,308 12,494,535 11,903,695 12,812,120 12,840,360
LIBRARY FUND 9,015 11,634 13,200 14,400 - -
GAS TAX FUND
STREET MAINTENANCE 78,504 104,868 132,140 121,010 157,020 153,240 STREET LIGHTS/SIGNS 129,082 131,879 102,530 99,630 144,540 137,440 STREET LANDSCAPING 202,985 184,822 208,680 205,680 215,530 216,590 TOTAL GAX TAX FUND 410,571 421,569 443,350 426,320 517,090 507,270
29 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2018 AND 2018-2019 ADOPTED OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET EXPENDITURE SUMMARIES
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED DEPARTMENT 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
OPEN SPACE FUND
POWERHOUSE OPERATIONS 333,023 399,435 326,930 401,500 345,680 354,050 BEACH MAINTENANCE 258,406 298,502 299,330 280,520 318,370 318,290 PARK MAINTENANCE 205,504 205,555 209,910 216,080 234,350 234,160 TOTAL OPEN SPACE FUND 796,933 903,492 836,170 898,100 898,400 906,500
SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUND 186,002 210,681 190,610 194,850 190,930 199,160
REGIONAL COMMUNICATION FUND 32,487 55,820 34,500 39,200 34,500 34,500
GRANTS FUND 53,535 89,357 40,170 - 19,370 19,370
HOUSING FUND 122,434 87,945 117,000 97,100 92,660 92,660
AB 939 3,291 24,304 50,000 45,500 71,510 71,510
PEG FEE FUND - 260 127,000 137,000 18,000 15,000
WILDFIRE PROTECTION BOND DEBT FUND 174,737 - - - - -
TOTAL GENERAL O&M FUNDS 11,721,353 12,318,370 14,346,535 13,772,785 14,654,580 14,686,330
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
OPEN SPACE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 168,272 511,041 449,283 367,628 200,000 - GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 826,044 4,511,256 19,763,072 19,849,877 2,140,790 560,000 DEBT SERVICE-CITY HALL - - 350,000 349,080 910,760 909,550 TRANSNET II CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 1,657,699 1,435,967 512,703 597,000 - - RTCIP FUND - 4,489 - - - - TOTAL GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS 2,652,015 6,462,753 21,075,058 21,163,585 3,251,550 1,469,550
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS 14,373,368 18,781,123 35,421,593 34,936,370 17,906,130 16,155,880
WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND 350,117 155,746 283,860 259,500 300,000 316,800
30 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2018 AND 2018-2019 ADOPTED OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET EXPENDITURE SUMMARIES
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED DEPARTMENT 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
WATER FUND
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 1,474,041 1,563,817 1,537,480 1,528,390 1,673,730 1,699,670 RISK MANAGEMENT 60,708 55,092 65,420 65,420 65,420 65,420 RAW WATER SUPPLY 1,221,332 1,215,349 1,300,000 1,280,000 1,470,540 1,588,040 TREATMENT/DELIVERY 469,956 279,752 303,810 323,810 344,440 377,150 TOTAL WATER FUND O&M 3,226,037 3,114,010 3,206,710 3,197,620 3,554,130 3,730,280 WATER CAP IMPROVEMENT 521,423 514,359 796,010 796,010 150,000 -
TOTAL WATER FUND 3,747,460 3,628,369 4,002,720 3,993,630 3,704,130 3,730,280
CLEAN WATER FUND
PLANNING 32,699 39,782 47,300 47,900 53,360 55,770 CODE ENFORCEMENT 22,418 24,243 25,290 24,840 26,400 27,550 CLEAN WATER MANAGEMENT 248,487 220,639 284,250 283,750 268,000 284,250 PUBLIC WORKS 136,147 180,510 223,770 209,250 258,050 260,640 TOTAL CLEAN WATER FUND 439,751 465,174 580,610 565,740 605,810 628,210
WASTEWATER FUND
RISK MANAGEMENT 102,050 141,252 104,420 104,420 104,420 104,420 WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION 643,293 218,070 196,130 160,000 104,400 110,520 WASTEWATER TREATMENT 291,752 214,612 563,000 760,000 839,120 879,190 DEBT SERVICE 782,542 808,456 582,370 - 572,420 573,560 WASTEWATER PROGRAM 1,758,368 1,829,847 1,873,550 1,860,790 2,073,320 2,028,660 TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND O&M 3,578,005 3,212,237 3,319,470 2,885,210 3,693,680 3,696,350 WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 401,658 1,429,308 2,555,191 2,555,191 400,000 -
TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND 3,979,663 4,641,545 5,874,661 5,440,401 4,093,680 3,696,350
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 8,166,874 8,735,088 10,457,991 9,999,771 8,403,620 8,054,840
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 22,890,359 27,671,957 46,163,444 45,195,641 26,609,750 24,527,520
31 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2018 AND 2018-2019 EXPENDITURE DETAIL
FUND: 21 OPEN SPACE FUND
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROPOSED PROPOSED ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
CAPITAL PROJECTS 21-6539-5900 POWERHOUSE BATHROOM REHABILITATION 11,180 157,576 85,000 87,615 - - 21-6533-5900 CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS - 19,170 80,830 80,830 200,000 - 21-6544-5900 NORTH BEACH BOARDWALK - - 85,000 730 - - 21-6545-5900 RIVERPATH EXTENSION 103,381 297,312 109,148 109,148 - - 21-6817-5900 SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN 53,711 36,983 89,305 89,305 - - TOTAL OPEN SPACE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 168,272 511,041 449,283 367,628 200,000 -
32 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2018 AND 2018-2019 EXPENDITURE DETAIL
FUND: 40 GENERAL FUND
ACTUAL ACTUAL AMENDED PROJECTED PROPOSED PROPOSED ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 40-6100-5900 ANNUAL STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT 14,332 15,667 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 40-6101-5900 CITYWIDE ROADWAY MAINTENANCE 44,368 593,286 780,000 780,000 430,000 430,000 40-6107-5900 COURT STREET PARALLEL PARKING - - 50,188 50,188 - - 40-6110-5900 COAST BLVD PED & ACCESSIBILITY IMP 28,196 166,166 53,224 53,224 - - 40-6308-5900 NCTD PARKING LOT PROJECT 22,567 7,832 5,598 5,598 - - 40-6410-5900 CITY HALL DEVELOPMENT 265,414 1,376,236 16,203,793 16,203,793 - - 40-6414-5900 UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING - - 25,000 25,000 - - 40-6420-5900 TRASH/RECYCLING RECEPTACLES 29,874 284 22,340 2,920 - - 40-6422-5900 CITY HALL RELOCATION - 95,505 354,494 354,494 - - 40-6434-5900 LIFEGUARD TOWERS REHABILITATION - 20,155 22,345 22,345 - - 40-6439-5900 POWERHOUSE INDOOR BATHROOM REHAB - 1,528 13,472 13,472 - - 40-6445-5900 TORREY PINES BRIDGE 320,299 461,963 300,000 300,000 - - 40-6451-5900 PAID PARKING EXPANSION - - 100,000 50,738 - - 40-6454-5900 MAJOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 49,363 15,555 73,227 73,227 100,000 100,000 40-6455-5900 LIBRARY A/C UNIT - 9,529 20,471 39,416 - - 40-6459-5900 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN - - 27,100 27,100 - - 40-6505-5900 ROADWAY & SIDEWALKS-SEGMENT #5 - - 920,500 920,500 - - 40-6509-5900 2008/09 STREET RESURFACING - - 330,431 330,431 - - 40-6520-5900 DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE-BREEDERS' CUP - - - - 15,000 - 40-6512-5900 SAN DIEGUITO INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT 69 - 249,569 249,569 - - 40-6508-5900 10TH/11TH ST RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENTS - - - 136,542 150,000 - 40-6510-5900 CITY HALL STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS - - - - 515,970 - 40-6423-5900 TV STUDIO EQUIPMENT CITY HALL/TOWN HALL - - - - 769,820 - 40-6608-5900 TENNIS COURT DRAINAGE DITCH - 1,597 98,403 98,403 - - 40-6630-5900 CDM BRIDGE OVER SAN DIEGUITO - LOCAL 6,497 - 60,000 60,000 130,000 - 40-6631-5900 CDM BRIDGE OVER SAN DIEGUITO - FEDERAL 20,719 3,050 22,917 22,917 - - 40-6854-5900 CITY FACILITIES ADA IMPROVEMENTS - 69,925 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 TOTAL GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 826,044 4,511,256 19,763,072 19,849,877 2,140,790 560,000
33 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2018 AND 2018-2019 EXPENDITURE DETAIL
FUND: 44 TRANSNET FUND
ACTUAL ACTUAL AMENDED PROJECTED PROPOSED PROPOSED ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 44-6500-5900 ROADWAY & SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS - - 512,703 597,000 - - 44-6501-5900 - DOWNTOWN (9TH-15TH STREET) 4,241 21,365 - - - - 44-6502-5900 - JIMMY DURANTE (PLAZA-SAN DIEGUITO) 1,417,084 8,578 - - - - 44-6503-5900 - BEACH COLONY (COAST-RIVER BRIDGE) ------44-6504-5900 - CAMINO DEL MAR (4TH-9TH STREET) 472 - - - - - 44-6505-5900 - CAMINO DEL MAR (CARMEL VALLEY-4TH) 472 6,114 - - - - 44-6506-5900 - VIA DE LA VALLE 83,201 1,000,932 - - - - 44-6507-5900 - JIMMY DURANTE (SAN DIEGUITO-VDLV) 471 - - - - - 44-6508-5900 - NORTH BEACH (RIVERBRIDGE-VDLV) 31,396 328,713 - - - - 44-6509-5900 SAN DIEGUITO INTERSECTION TRAFFIC IMPRV 119,520 69,942 - - - - TOTAL TRANSNET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1,657,699 1,435,967 512,703 597,000 - -
34 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2018 AND 2018-2019 EXPENDITURE DETAIL
FUND: 51 WATER FUND
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROPOSED PROPOSED ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 51-6101-5900 SIDEWALK, STREET & DRAINAGE - 57,980 111,020 111,020 - - 51-6806-5900 BI-ANNUAL WATER IMPROVEMENTS - - 314,000 314,000 150,000 - 51-6511-5900 BI- ANNUAL UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 515,000 - - - - - 51-6880-5900 COST OF SERVICE STUDY 6,423 - - - - - 51-6917-5900 RECYCLED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE - 456,379 18,621 18,621 - - 51-6918-5900 SB RECYCLED WATER INFRAST - - 352,369 352,369 - - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 521,423 514,359 796,010 796,010 150,000 -
35 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FISCAL YEARS 2017-2018 AND 2018-2019 EXPENDITURE DETAIL
FUND: 57 WASTEWATER FUND
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PROPOSED PROPOSED ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 57-6880-5900 COST OF SERVICE STUDY 6,423 - - 57-6906-5900 BI-ANNUAL UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 153,925 125,301 324,198 324,198 400,000 - 57-6914-5900 TRI-ANNUAL HERBICIDE PROGRAM 62,375 - - - - - 57-6917-5900 2014 WASTEWATER PIPELINE PROJECT 178,935 959,691 851,689 851,689 - - 57-6921-5900 CITYWIDE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCT - 344,316 1,379,304 1,379,304 - - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 401,658 1,429,308 2,555,191 2,555,191 400,000 -
36 June 19, 2017 Item 17 RESOLUTION NO. 2017 - _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE COMPENSATION PLANS FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL, GENERAL AND SEASONAL EMPLOYEES, AND FIREFIGHTERS
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2014, the City Council of the City of Del Mar adopted Resolution 2014-24, amending the compensation plans for Firefighter employees; and
WHEREAS, the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City of Del Mar and the Firefighter employees expires on June 30, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Firefighter employees are currently under negotiation and will return to the City Council at a later date once an agreement has been reached; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Del Mar and the Del Mar City Employees Association, employees covered under the MOU received 3% cost of living increase (COLA) effective January 2, 2017 and an additional 3% cost of living increase (COLA) effective December 29, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to also provide unrepresented Del Mar employees with a 3% salary increase effective January 2, 2017 and an additional 3% salary increase effective December 29, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the State Minimum Wage in California will increase from $10.50 to $11.00 effective January 1, 2018; and
WHEREAS, due to the increase in compensation for minimum wage positions exceeds the 3% salary increase will not receive the proposed COLA increase; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been presented with and has reviewed the compensation plans for Management and Professional, General, Seasonal, and Firefighter employees for inclusion in the Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Operating and Capital Budgets.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, that the above recitals are true and correct.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve and adopt the proposed compensation plan for the Management and Professional, General, Seasonal, and Firefighter employees as shown in Exhibit “A”.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, this 19th day of June 2017.
37 June 19, 2017 Item 17
______TERRY SINNOTT, Mayor City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______LESLIE E. DEVANEY, City Attorney City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF DEL MAR
I, ASHLEY JONES, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution 2017-____, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California at a Regular Meeting held the 19th day of June 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ______ASHLEY JONES, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk City of Del Mar
38 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2, 2017
POSITION # AUTHORIZED RANGE ANNUAL SALARY
Assistant City Manager 1 M900 133,125.85 - 177,366.00
Administrative Services Director 1 M850 108,826.71 - 158,362.50 Chief Lifeguard & Community Services Director 1 M850 108,826.71 - 158,362.50 Director of Finance/Treasurer 1 M850 108,826.71 - 158,362.50 Management Services Director Unfunded M850 108,826.71 - 158,362.50 Planning & Community Development Director 1 M850 108,826.71 - 158,362.50 Public Works Director 1 M850 108,826.71 - 158,362.50
Accounting Manager/City Treasurer Unfunded M800 94,628.94 - 124,161.38 Assistant to the City Manager Unfunded M800 94,628.94 - 124,161.38 Clean Water Manager Unfunded M800 94,628.94 - 124,161.38 Deputy Chief Lifeguard & Deputy Community Services Director 1 M800 94,628.94 - 124,161.38 Deputy Public Works Director 1 M800 94,628.94 - 124,161.38 Planning Manager/Principal Planner 1 M800 94,628.94 - 124,161.38
Environmental Sustainability/Special Projects Director M850 108,826.71 - 158,362.50 1 Environmental Sustainability/Special Projects Manager M800 94,628.94 - 124,161.38
Finance Officer 1 M780 86,566.05 - 113,582.17
Information Technology Manager I PFP274 74,413.56 - 97,637.04 1 Information Technology Manager II PFP287 84,689.57 - 111,120.06
Maintenance Superintendent I PFP269 70,801.94 - 92,898.30 1 Maintenance Superintendent II PFP276 75,909.26 - 99,599.55
Senior Planner 2 P274 74,413.56 - 97,637.04 Senior Accountant Unfunded PFP274 74,413.56 - 97,637.04
Senior Management Analyst* PFP274 74,413.56 - 97,637.04 Associate Management Analyst* P259 64,096.09 - 84,099.61 3 Management Analyst* P244 55,209.13 - 72,439.15 Assistant Management Analyst* P233 49,485.25 - 64,928.93
Park Ranger 1 PFP264 67,365.62 - 88,389.53
Associate Planner 2 P259 64,096.09 - 84,099.61 Lifeguard Lieutenant 1 PFP259 64,096.09 - 84,099.61
Parking Enforcement Lieutenant 1 PFP 254 58,046.58 - 76,162.16
Facilities Specialist 1 P249 58,025.34 - 76,134.28
Assistant Planner I P229 47,554.35 - 62,395.42 1 Assistant Planner II P244 55,209.13 - 72,439.15
*M (Management) Series Positions and those designated with an asterisk are confidential/At-Will.
Monthly Mileage Allowance for Department Heads and Managers Required to Use Their Personal Vehicle for City Business is $400/month
Monthly Cell Phone Allowance for Employees Required to Carry a Phone: Assistant City Manager $90 Department Heads, Managers $50 Designated Community Services Staff $40 Code Enforcement Officer $40 Lifeguard Lieutenant $40 Parking Enforcement Lieutenant $40
Annual Management Leave: Administrative Services Director 104 hours Assistant City Manager 104 hours Chief Lifeguard & Community Services Director 104 hours Deputy Chief Lifeguard & Deputy Community Services Director 104 hours Deputy Public Works Director 104 hours Director of Finance/Treasurer 104 hours Environmental Sustainability/Special Projects Manager/Director 104 hours Finance Officer 104 hours Management Analyst Senior/Associate/Assistant 104 hours Planning Director 104 hours Planning Manager/Principal Planner 104 hours Public Works Director 104 hours 39 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018
EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 29, 2017
POSITION # AUTHORIZED RANGE ANNUAL SALARY
Assistant City Manager 1 M900 137,119.63 - 182,686.98
Administrative Services Director 1 M850 112,091.51 - 163,113.38 Chief Lifeguard & Community Services Director 1 M850 112,091.51 - 163,113.38 Director of Finance/Treasurer 1 M850 112,091.51 - 163,113.38 Management Services Director Unfunded M850 112,091.51 - 163,113.38 Planning & Community Development Director 1 M850 112,091.51 - 163,113.38 Public Works Director 1 M850 112,091.51 - 163,113.38
Accounting Manager/City Treasurer Unfunded M800 97,467.81 - 127,886.22 Assistant to the City Manager Unfunded M800 97,467.81 - 127,886.22 Clean Water Manager Unfunded M800 97,467.81 - 127,886.22 Deputy Chief Lifeguard & Deputy Community Services Director 1 M800 97,467.81 - 127,886.22 Deputy Public Works Director 1 M800 97,467.81 - 127,886.22 Planning Manager/Principal Planner 1 M800 97,467.81 - 127,886.22
Environmental Sustainability/Special Projects Director M850 112,091.51 - 163,113.38 1 Environmental Sustainability/Special Projects Manager M800 97,467.81 - 127,886.22
Finance Officer 1 M780 89,163.03 - 116,989.64
Information Technology Manager I PFP274 76,645.97 - 100,566.15 1 Information Technology Manager II PFP287 87,230.26 - 114,453.66
Maintenance Superintendent I PFP269 72,926.00 - 95,685.25 1 Maintenance Superintendent II PFP276 78,186.54 - 102,587.54
Senior Planner 2 P274 76,645.97 - 100,566.15 Senior Accountant Unfunded PFP274 76,645.97 - 100,566.15
Senior Management Analyst* PFP274 76,645.97 - 100,566.15 Associate Management Analyst* P259 66,018.96 - 86,622.59 3 Management Analyst* P244 56,865.39 - 74,612.32 Assistant Management Analyst* P233 50,969.80 - 66,876.79
Park Ranger 1 PFP264 69,386.59 - 91,041.22
Associate Planner 2 P259 66,018.97 - 86,622.60 Lifeguard Lieutenant 1 PFP259 66,018.97 - 86,622.60
Parking Enforcement Lieutenant 1 PFP 254 59,787.98 - 78,447.02
Facilities Specialist 1 P249 59,766.10 - 78,418.30
Assistant Planner I P229 48,980.98 - 64,267.29 1 Assistant Planner II P244 56,865.39 - 74,612.32
*M (Management) Series Positions and those designated with an asterisk are confidential/At-Will.
Monthly Mileage Allowance for Department Heads and Managers Required to Use Their Personal Vehicle for City Business is $400/month
Monthly Cell Phone Allowance for Employees Required to Carry a Phone: Assistant City Manager $90 Department Heads, Managers $50 Designated Community Services Staff $40 Code Enforcement Officer $40 Lifeguard Lieutenant $40 Parking Enforcement Lieutenant $40
Annual Management Leave: Administrative Services Director 104 hours Assistant City Manager 104 hours Assistant to the City Manager 104 hours Chief Lifeguard & Community Services Director 104 hours Deputy Chief Lifeguard & Deputy Community Services Director 104 hours Deputy Public Works Director 104 hours Director of Finance/Treasurer 104 hours Environmental Sustainability/Special Project Manager/Director 104 hours Finance Officer 104 hours Management Analyst Senior/Associate/Assistant 104 hours Planning Director 104 hours Planning Manager/Principal Planner 104 hours Public Works Director 104 hours 40 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR GENERAL EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2, 2017 # POSITION AUTHORIZED RANGE ANNUAL SALARY
* Cross Connection Utility Specialist II G145 55,644.44 - 67,636.16 1 Cross Connection Utility Specialist I G133 49,381.60 - 60,023.64
* Pump Operator/Mechanic II G145 55,644.44 - 67,636.16 1 Pump Operator/Mechanic I G133 49,381.60 - 60,023.64
* Code Enforcement Officer II 1 G145 55,644.44 - 67,636.16
Deputy City Clerk Unfunded G138 51,900.56 - 63,085.46
** Network Systems Technician II G138 51,900.56 - 63,085.46 1 ** Network Systems Technician I G123 44,704.50 - 54,338.61
Accounting Technician II G128 46,984.89 - 57,110.42 2 Accounting Technician I G123 44,704.50 - 54,338.61
Senior Parking Enforcement Officer G128 46,984.89 - 57,110.42 2 Parking Enforcement Officer G107 38,124.94 - 46,341.11
Administrative Assistant II G128 46,984.89 - 57,110.42 4 Administrative Assistant I G123 44,704.50 - 54,338.61
Project Assistant 1 G128 46,984.89 - 57,110.42
Utility/Landscape Specialist 1 G128 46,984.89 - 57,110.42
Utility Worker II G123 44,704.50 - 54,338.61 5 Utility Worker I G112 40,069.69 - 48,704.95
Fire Dispatcher Unfunded G123 44,704.50 - 54,338.61
Planning Technician Unfunded G118 42,534.79 - 51,701.31
Facilities Coordinator 1 G117 42,113.65 - 51,189.41
Lifeguard/Community Services Specialis Unfunded LG112 42,062.91 - 51,127.73
Senior Lifeguard 2 LG107 40,021.42 - 48,646.28
Office Specialist Unfunded G102 36,274.57 - 44,091.98 Receptionist 1 G102 36,274.57 - 44,091.98
* These positions receive a cell phone allowance of $40 per month.
** This position receives a cell phone/personal data assistant/internet allowance of $150 per month. (This is a promotional position and only one of the two positions is authorized at any given time.)
41 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR GENERAL EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018
EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 29, 2017 # POSITION AUTHORIZED RANGE ANNUAL SALARY
* Cross Connection Utility Specialist II G145 57,313.67 - 69,665.13 1 Cross Connection Utility Specialist I G133 50,862.98 - 61,824.27
* Pump Operator/Mechanic II G145 57,313.67 - 69,665.13 1 Pump Operator/Mechanic I G133 50,862.98 - 61,824.27
* Code Enforcement Officer II 1 G145 57,313.67 - 69,665.13
Deputy City Clerk Unfunded G138 53,457.50 - 64,977.94
** Network Systems Technician II G138 53,457.50 - 64,977.94 1 ** Network Systems Technician I G123 46,045.60 - 55,968.71
Accounting Technician II G128 48,394.39 - 58,823.69 2 Accounting Technician I G123 46,045.60 - 55,968.71
Senior Parking Enforcement Officer G128 48,394.39 - 58,823.69 2 Parking Enforcement Officer G107 39,268.67 - 47,731.32
Administrative Assistant II G128 48,394.39 - 58,823.69 4 Administrative Assistant I G123 46,045.60 - 55,968.71
Project Assistant 1 G128 48,394.39 - 58,823.69
Utility/Landscape Specialist 1 G128 48,394.39 - 58,823.69
Utility Worker II G123 46,045.60 - 55,968.71 5 Utility Worker I G112 41,271.77 - 50,166.10
Fire Dispatcher Unfunded G123 46,045.60 - 55,968.71
Planning Technician Unfunded G118 43,810.81 - 53,252.31
Facilities Coordinator 1 G117 43,377.04 - 52,725.06
Lifeguard/Community Services Specialis Unfunded LG112 43,324.79 - 52,661.55
Senior Lifeguard 2 LG107 41,222.05 - 50,105.66
Office Specialist Unfunded G102 37,362.79 - 45,414.71 Receptionist 1 G102 37,362.79 - 45,414.71
* These positions receive a cell phone allowance of $40 per month.
** This position receives a cell phone/personal data assistant/internet allowance of $150 per month. (This is a promotional position and only one of the two positions is authorized at any given time.)
42 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FIREFIGHTERS COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018
EFFECTIVE JULY 4, 2016 POSITION RANGE ANNUAL SALARY
Fire Fighter F452 54,199.45 - 71,114.37
Fire Fighter/Paramedic F462 59,869.90 - 78,554.49
Fire Engineer F462 59,869.90 - 78,554.49
Fire Captain F479 70,904.21 - 93,032.46
43 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2, 2017 3%
RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM ANNUAL Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually SALARY RANGE
M 750 36.536 2,922.88 6,332.90 75,994.81 47.938 3,835.07 8,309.31 99,711.77 75,994.81 - 99,711.77
M 780 41.618 3,329.46 7,213.84 86,566.05 54.607 4,368.54 9,465.18 113,582.17 86,566.05 - 113,582.17
M 800 45.495 3,639.57 7,885.75 94,628.94 59.693 4,775.44 10,346.78 124,161.38 94,628.94 - 124,161.38
M 850 52.321 4,185.64 9,068.89 108,826.71 76.136 6,090.87 13,196.88 158,362.50 108,826.71 - 158,362.50
M 900 64.003 5,120.23 11,093.82 133,125.85 85.272 6,821.77 14,780.50 177,366.00 133,125.85 - 177,366.00
44 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 29, 2017 3%
RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM ANNUAL Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually SALARY RANGE
M 750 37.632 3,010.56 6,522.89 78,274.65 49.377 3,950.12 8,558.59 102,703.12 78,274.65 - 102,703.12
M 780 42.867 3,429.35 7,430.25 89,163.03 56.245 4,499.60 9,749.14 116,989.64 89,163.03 - 116,989.64
M 800 46.860 3,748.76 8,122.32 97,467.81 61.484 4,918.70 10,657.19 127,886.22 97,467.81 - 127,886.22
M 850 53.890 4,311.21 9,340.96 112,091.51 78.420 6,273.59 13,592.78 163,113.38 112,091.51 - 163,113.38
M 900 65.923 5,273.83 11,426.64 137,119.63 87.830 7,026.42 15,223.92 182,686.98 137,119.63 - 182,686.98
45 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE PAY FOR PERFORMANCE EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2, 2017 3%
RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM ANNUAL Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually SALARY RANGE
PFP 254 27.907 2,232.56 4,837.21 58,046.58 36.616 2,929.31 6,346.85 76,162.16 58,046.58 - 76,162.16
PFP 259 30.815 2,465.23 5,341.34 64,096.09 40.433 3,234.60 7,008.30 84,099.61 64,096.09 - 84,099.61
PFP 264 32.387 2,590.99 5,613.80 67,365.62 42.495 3,399.60 7,365.79 88,389.53 67,365.62 - 88,389.53
PFP 269 34.039 2,723.15 5,900.16 70,801.94 44.663 3,573.01 7,741.52 92,898.30 70,801.94 - 92,898.30
PFP 274 35.776 2,862.06 6,201.13 74,413.56 46.941 3,755.27 8,136.42 97,637.04 74,413.56 - 97,637.04
PFP 276 36.495 2,919.59 6,325.77 75,909.26 47.884 3,830.75 8,299.96 99,599.55 75,909.26 - 99,599.55
PFP 287 40.716 3,257.29 7,057.46 84,689.57 53.423 4,273.85 9,260.00 111,120.06 84,689.57 - 111,120.06
46 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE PAY FOR PERFORMANCE EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 29, 2017 3%
RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM ANNUAL Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually SALARY RANGE
PFP 254 28.744 2,299.54 4,982.33 59,787.98 37.715 3,017.19 6,537.25 78,447.02 59,787.98 - 78,447.02
PFP 259 31.740 2,539.19 5,501.58 66,018.97 41.645 3,331.64 7,218.55 86,622.60 66,018.97 - 86,622.60
PFP 264 33.359 2,668.71 5,782.22 69,386.59 43.770 3,501.59 7,586.77 91,041.22 69,386.59 - 91,041.22
PFP 269 35.061 2,804.85 6,077.17 72,926.00 46.003 3,680.20 7,973.77 95,685.25 72,926.00 - 95,685.25
PFP 274 36.849 2,947.92 6,387.16 76,645.97 48.349 3,867.93 8,380.51 100,566.15 76,645.97 - 100,566.15
PFP 276 37.590 3,007.17 6,515.54 78,186.54 49.321 3,945.67 8,548.96 102,587.54 78,186.54 - 102,587.54
PFP 287 41.938 3,355.01 7,269.19 87,230.26 55.026 4,402.06 9,537.81 114,453.66 87,230.26 - 114,453.66
47 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE: JANUARY 2, 2017 Salary increase: 3.0%
STEP A STEP B STEP C RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
P 229 22.863 1,829.01 3,962.86 47,554.35 23.434 1,874.74 4,061.93 48,743.21 24.020 1,921.61 4,163.48 49,961.79 P 233 23.791 1,903.28 4,123.77 49,485.25 24.386 1,950.86 4,226.87 50,722.38 24.995 1,999.63 4,332.54 51,990.44 P 244 26.543 2,123.43 4,600.76 55,209.13 27.206 2,176.51 4,715.78 56,589.36 27.887 2,230.93 4,833.67 58,004.09 P 249 27.897 2,231.74 4,835.45 58,025.34 28.594 2,287.54 4,956.33 59,475.97 29.309 2,344.73 5,080.24 60,962.87 P 259 30.815 2,465.23 5,341.34 64,096.09 31.586 2,526.87 5,474.87 65,698.49 32.375 2,590.04 5,611.75 67,340.95 P 264 32.387 2,590.99 5,613.80 67,365.62 33.197 2,655.76 5,754.15 69,049.76 34.027 2,722.15 5,898.00 70,776.00 P 269 34.039 2,723.15 5,900.16 70,801.94 34.890 2,791.23 6,047.67 72,571.99 35.763 2,861.01 6,198.86 74,386.29 P 274 35.776 2,862.06 6,201.13 74,413.55 36.670 2,933.61 6,356.16 76,273.89 37.587 3,006.95 6,515.06 78,180.74 P 276 36.495 2,919.59 6,325.77 75,909.27 37.407 2,992.58 6,483.92 77,807.00 38.342 3,067.39 6,646.01 79,752.17 P 287 40.716 3,257.29 7,057.46 84,689.57 41.734 3,338.72 7,233.90 86,806.81 42.777 3,422.19 7,414.75 88,976.98
48 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE: JANUARY 2, 2017 Salary increase:
STEP D STEP E STEP F RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
P 229 24.621 1,969.65 4,267.57 51,210.83 25.236 2,018.89 4,374.26 52,491.10 25.867 2,069.36 4,483.62 53,803.38 P 233 25.620 2,049.62 4,440.85 53,290.20 26.261 2,100.86 4,551.87 54,622.46 26.917 2,153.39 4,665.67 55,988.02 P 244 28.584 2,286.70 4,954.52 59,454.19 29.298 2,343.87 5,078.38 60,940.54 30.031 2,402.46 5,205.34 62,464.05 P 249 30.042 2,403.34 5,207.25 62,486.94 30.793 2,463.43 5,337.43 64,049.11 31.563 2,525.01 5,470.86 65,650.34 P 259 33.185 2,654.79 5,752.04 69,024.47 34.014 2,721.16 5,895.84 70,750.08 34.865 2,789.19 6,043.24 72,518.83 P 264 34.878 2,790.21 6,045.45 72,545.40 35.750 2,859.96 6,196.59 74,359.04 36.643 2,931.46 6,351.50 76,218.02 P 269 36.657 2,932.54 6,353.83 76,245.95 37.573 3,005.85 6,512.68 78,152.10 38.512 3,081.00 6,675.49 80,105.90 P 274 38.527 3,082.13 6,677.94 80,135.26 39.490 3,159.18 6,844.89 82,138.64 40.477 3,238.16 7,016.01 84,192.11 P 276 39.301 3,144.08 6,812.16 81,745.97 40.283 3,222.68 6,982.47 83,789.62 41.291 3,303.24 7,157.03 85,884.36 P 287 43.847 3,507.75 7,600.12 91,201.40 44.943 3,595.44 7,790.12 93,481.43 46.067 3,685.33 7,984.87 95,818.47
49 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE: JANUARY 2, 2017 Salary increase:
STEP G STEP H STEP I RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
P 229 26.514 2,121.09 4,595.71 55,148.46 27.177 2,174.12 4,710.60 56,527.17 27.856 2,228.48 4,828.36 57,940.35 P 233 27.590 2,207.22 4,782.31 57,387.72 28.280 2,262.40 4,901.87 58,822.41 28.987 2,318.96 5,024.41 60,292.97 P 244 30.782 2,462.53 5,335.47 64,025.65 31.551 2,524.09 5,468.86 65,626.29 32.340 2,587.19 5,605.58 67,266.95 P 249 32.352 2,588.14 5,607.63 67,291.60 33.161 2,652.84 5,747.82 68,973.89 33.990 2,719.16 5,891.52 70,698.24 P 259 35.736 2,858.92 6,194.32 74,331.80 36.630 2,930.39 6,349.18 76,190.10 37.546 3,003.65 6,507.90 78,094.85 P 264 37.559 3,004.75 6,510.29 78,123.47 38.498 3,079.87 6,673.05 80,076.56 39.461 3,156.86 6,839.87 82,078.47 P 269 39.475 3,158.02 6,842.38 82,108.55 40.462 3,236.97 7,013.44 84,161.26 41.474 3,317.90 7,188.77 86,265.29 P 274 41.489 3,319.11 7,191.41 86,296.91 42.526 3,402.09 7,371.19 88,454.33 43.589 3,487.14 7,555.47 90,665.69 P 276 42.323 3,385.83 7,335.96 88,031.47 43.381 3,470.47 7,519.36 90,232.26 44.465 3,557.23 7,707.34 92,488.07 P 287 47.218 3,777.46 8,184.49 98,213.93 48.399 3,871.90 8,389.11 100,669.28 49.609 3,968.69 8,598.83 103,186.01
50 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE: JANUARY 2, 2017 Salary increase:
STEP J STEP K STEP L RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
P 229 28.552 2,284.19 4,949.07 59,388.86 29.266 2,341.29 5,072.80 60,873.58 29.998 2,399.82 5,199.62 62,395.42 P 233 29.712 2,376.93 5,150.02 61,800.29 30.454 2,436.36 5,278.78 63,345.30 31.216 2,497.27 5,410.74 64,928.93 P 244 33.148 2,651.87 5,745.72 68,948.62 33.977 2,718.17 5,889.36 70,672.34 34.827 2,786.12 6,036.60 72,439.15 P 249 34.839 2,787.14 6,038.81 72,465.70 35.710 2,856.82 6,189.78 74,277.34 36.603 2,928.24 6,344.52 76,134.28 P 259 38.484 3,078.74 6,670.60 80,047.22 39.446 3,155.71 6,837.37 82,048.40 40.433 3,234.60 7,008.30 84,099.61 P 264 40.447 3,235.79 7,010.87 84,130.43 41.459 3,316.68 7,186.14 86,233.69 42.495 3,399.60 7,365.79 88,389.53 P 269 42.511 3,400.84 7,368.49 88,421.92 43.573 3,485.86 7,552.71 90,632.47 44.663 3,573.01 7,741.52 92,898.28 P 274 44.679 3,574.32 7,744.36 92,932.33 45.796 3,663.68 7,937.97 95,255.64 46.941 3,755.27 8,136.42 97,637.03 P 276 45.577 3,646.16 7,900.02 94,800.27 46.716 3,737.32 8,097.52 97,170.28 47.884 3,830.75 8,299.96 99,599.54 P 287 50.849 4,067.91 8,813.81 105,765.66 52.120 4,169.61 9,034.15 108,409.80 53.423 4,273.85 9,260.00 111,120.05
51 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE: JANUARY 2, 2017 Salary increase: ANNUAL SALARY RANGE RANGE
P 229 47,554.35 - 62,395.42 P 233 49,485.25 - 64,928.93 P 244 55,209.13 - 72,439.15 P 249 58,025.34 - 76,134.28 P 259 64,096.09 - 84,099.61 P 264 67,365.62 - 88,389.53 P 269 70,801.94 - 92,898.28 P 274 74,413.55 - 97,637.03 P 276 75,909.27 - 99,599.54 P 287 84,689.57 - 111,120.05
52 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE: DECEMBER 29, 2017 Salary increase: 3.0%
STEP A STEP B STEP C RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
P 229 23.549 1,883.88 4,081.75 48,980.98 24.137 1,930.98 4,183.79 50,205.50 24.741 1,979.26 4,288.39 51,460.64 P 233 24.505 1,960.38 4,247.48 50,969.80 25.117 2,009.39 4,353.67 52,244.05 25.745 2,059.62 4,462.51 53,550.15 P 244 27.339 2,187.13 4,738.78 56,865.39 28.023 2,241.81 4,857.25 58,287.02 28.723 2,297.85 4,978.68 59,744.20 P 249 28.734 2,298.70 4,980.51 59,766.10 29.452 2,356.16 5,105.02 61,260.25 30.188 2,415.07 5,232.65 62,791.76 P 259 31.740 2,539.19 5,501.58 66,018.96 32.533 2,602.67 5,639.12 67,669.43 33.347 2,667.74 5,780.10 69,361.17 P 264 33.359 2,668.72 5,782.22 69,386.60 34.193 2,735.43 5,926.77 71,121.26 35.048 2,803.82 6,074.94 72,899.29 P 269 35.061 2,804.85 6,077.17 72,925.99 35.937 2,874.97 6,229.10 74,749.14 36.836 2,946.84 6,384.82 76,617.87 P 274 36.849 2,947.92 6,387.16 76,645.96 37.770 3,021.62 6,546.84 78,562.11 38.715 3,097.16 6,710.51 80,526.16 P 276 37.590 3,007.17 6,515.55 78,186.54 38.529 3,082.35 6,678.43 80,141.20 39.493 3,159.41 6,845.39 82,144.73 P 287 41.938 3,355.01 7,269.19 87,230.23 42.986 3,438.88 7,450.92 89,410.99 44.061 3,524.86 7,637.19 91,646.26
53 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE: DECEMBER 29, 2017 Salary increase:
STEP D STEP E STEP F RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
P 229 25.359 2,028.74 4,395.60 52,747.16 25.993 2,079.46 4,505.49 54,065.84 26.643 2,131.44 4,618.12 55,417.49 P 233 26.389 2,111.11 4,574.08 54,888.90 27.049 2,163.89 4,688.43 56,261.12 27.725 2,217.99 4,805.64 57,667.65 P 244 29.441 2,355.30 5,103.15 61,237.80 30.177 2,414.18 5,230.73 62,768.75 30.932 2,474.54 5,361.50 64,337.97 P 249 30.943 2,475.44 5,363.46 64,361.55 31.717 2,537.33 5,497.55 65,970.59 32.510 2,600.76 5,634.99 67,619.85 P 259 34.180 2,734.43 5,924.60 71,095.20 35.035 2,802.79 6,072.72 72,872.58 35.911 2,872.86 6,224.53 74,694.39 P 264 35.924 2,873.91 6,226.81 74,721.77 36.822 2,945.76 6,382.48 76,589.81 37.743 3,019.41 6,542.05 78,504.56 P 269 37.756 3,020.51 6,544.44 78,533.32 38.700 3,096.03 6,708.05 80,496.65 39.668 3,173.43 6,875.76 82,509.07 P 274 39.682 3,174.59 6,878.28 82,539.31 40.674 3,253.95 7,050.23 84,602.79 41.691 3,335.30 7,226.49 86,717.86 P 276 40.480 3,238.40 7,016.53 84,198.35 41.492 3,319.36 7,191.94 86,303.31 42.529 3,402.34 7,371.74 88,460.89 P 287 45.162 3,612.98 7,828.12 93,937.42 46.291 3,703.30 8,023.82 96,285.86 47.449 3,795.89 8,224.42 98,693.01
54 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE: DECEMBER 29, 2017 Salary increase:
STEP G STEP H STEP I RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
P 229 27.309 2,184.73 4,733.58 56,802.93 27.992 2,239.35 4,851.92 58,223.00 28.692 2,295.33 4,973.21 59,678.57 P 233 28.418 2,273.44 4,925.78 59,109.34 29.128 2,330.27 5,048.92 60,587.07 29.857 2,388.53 5,175.15 62,101.75 P 244 31.705 2,536.40 5,495.54 65,946.42 32.498 2,599.81 5,632.92 67,595.08 33.310 2,664.81 5,773.75 69,284.96 P 249 33.322 2,665.78 5,775.86 69,310.35 34.155 2,732.43 5,920.26 71,043.11 35.009 2,800.74 6,068.27 72,819.19 P 259 36.809 2,944.68 6,380.15 76,561.75 37.729 3,018.30 6,539.65 78,475.79 38.672 3,093.76 6,703.14 80,437.68 P 264 38.686 3,094.89 6,705.60 80,467.17 39.653 3,172.26 6,873.24 82,478.85 40.645 3,251.57 7,045.07 84,540.82 P 269 40.660 3,252.76 7,047.65 84,571.80 41.676 3,334.08 7,223.84 86,686.10 42.718 3,417.43 7,404.44 88,853.25 P 274 42.734 3,418.69 7,407.15 88,885.81 43.802 3,504.15 7,592.33 91,107.96 44.897 3,591.76 7,782.14 93,385.66 P 276 43.593 3,487.40 7,556.03 90,672.41 44.682 3,574.59 7,744.94 92,939.22 45.799 3,663.95 7,938.56 95,262.70 P 287 48.635 3,890.78 8,430.03 101,160.34 49.851 3,988.05 8,640.78 103,689.35 51.097 4,087.75 8,856.80 106,281.58
55 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE: DECEMBER 29, 2017 Salary increase:
STEP J STEP K STEP L RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
P 229 29.409 2,352.71 5,097.54 61,170.53 30.144 2,411.53 5,224.98 62,699.79 30.898 2,471.82 5,355.61 64,267.29 P 233 30.603 2,448.24 5,304.52 63,654.29 31.368 2,509.45 5,437.14 65,245.65 32.152 2,572.18 5,573.07 66,876.79 P 244 34.143 2,731.43 5,918.09 71,017.08 34.996 2,799.71 6,066.04 72,792.51 35.871 2,869.70 6,217.69 74,612.32 P 249 35.884 2,870.76 6,219.97 74,639.67 36.782 2,942.53 6,375.47 76,505.66 37.701 3,016.09 6,534.86 78,418.30 P 259 39.639 3,171.10 6,870.72 82,448.62 40.630 3,250.38 7,042.49 84,509.84 41.645 3,331.64 7,218.55 86,622.59 P 264 41.661 3,332.86 7,221.20 86,654.34 42.702 3,416.18 7,401.73 88,820.70 43.770 3,501.59 7,586.77 91,041.21 P 269 43.786 3,502.87 7,589.55 91,074.58 44.881 3,590.44 7,779.29 93,351.44 46.003 3,680.20 7,973.77 95,685.23 P 274 46.019 3,681.55 7,976.69 95,720.30 47.170 3,773.59 8,176.11 98,113.31 48.349 3,867.93 8,380.51 100,566.14 P 276 46.944 3,755.55 8,137.02 97,644.27 48.118 3,849.44 8,340.45 100,085.38 49.321 3,945.67 8,548.96 102,587.52 P 287 52.374 4,189.95 9,078.22 108,938.62 53.684 4,294.70 9,305.17 111,662.09 55.026 4,402.06 9,537.80 114,453.65
56 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE: DECEMBER 29, 2017 Salary increase: ANNUAL SALARY RANGE RANGE
P 229 48,980.98 - 64,267.29 P 233 50,969.80 - 66,876.79 P 244 56,865.39 - 74,612.32 P 249 59,766.10 - 78,418.30 P 259 66,018.96 - 86,622.59 P 264 69,386.60 - 91,041.21 P 269 72,925.99 - 95,685.23 P 274 76,645.96 - 100,566.14 P 276 78,186.54 - 102,587.52 P 287 87,230.23 - 114,453.65
57 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE FOR GENERAL EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE: JANUARY 2, 2017 Salary increase: 3.0%
STEP A STEP B STEP C RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
G 102 17.440 1,395.18 3,022.88 36,274.57 18.312 1,464.93 3,174.03 38,088.30 19.227 1,538.18 3,332.73 39,992.72 G 117 20.247 1,619.76 3,509.47 42,113.65 21.259 1,700.74 3,684.94 44,219.33 22.322 1,785.78 3,869.19 46,430.30 G 118 20.449 1,635.95 3,544.57 42,534.79 21.472 1,717.75 3,721.79 44,661.53 22.545 1,803.64 3,907.88 46,894.61 G 123 21.493 1,719.40 3,725.38 44,704.50 22.567 1,805.37 3,911.64 46,939.73 23.696 1,895.64 4,107.23 49,286.72 G 128 22.589 1,807.11 3,915.41 46,984.89 23.718 1,897.47 4,111.18 49,334.13 24.904 1,992.34 4,316.74 51,800.84 G 133 23.741 1,899.29 4,115.13 49,381.60 24.928 1,994.26 4,320.89 51,850.68 26.175 2,093.97 4,536.93 54,443.21 G 138 24.952 1,996.18 4,325.05 51,900.56 26.200 2,095.98 4,541.30 54,495.59 27.510 2,200.78 4,768.36 57,220.37 G 145 26.752 2,140.17 4,637.04 55,644.44 28.090 2,247.18 4,868.89 58,426.66 29.494 2,359.54 5,112.33 61,347.99
58 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE: JANUARY 2, 2017 Salary increase: ANNUAL STEP D STEP E SALARY RANGE RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
G 102 20.189 1,615.09 3,499.36 41,992.36 21.198 1,695.85 3,674.33 44,091.98 36,274.57 - 44,091.98 G 117 23.438 1,875.07 4,062.65 48,751.82 24.610 1,968.82 4,265.78 51,189.41 42,113.65 - 51,189.41 G 118 23.673 1,893.82 4,103.28 49,239.34 24.856 1,988.51 4,308.44 51,701.31 42,534.79 - 51,701.31 G 123 24.880 1,990.43 4,312.59 51,751.06 26.124 2,089.95 4,528.22 54,338.61 44,704.50 - 54,338.61 G 128 26.149 2,091.96 4,532.57 54,390.88 27.457 2,196.55 4,759.20 57,110.42 46,984.89 - 57,110.42 G 133 27.483 2,198.67 4,763.78 57,165.37 28.858 2,308.60 5,001.97 60,023.64 49,381.60 - 60,023.64 G 138 28.885 2,310.82 5,006.78 60,081.39 30.330 2,426.36 5,257.12 63,085.46 51,900.56 - 63,085.46 G 145 30.969 2,477.52 5,367.95 64,415.39 32.517 2,601.39 5,636.35 67,636.16 55,644.44 - 67,636.16
59 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE FOR GENERAL EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE: DECEMBER 29, 2017 Salary increase: 3.0%
STEP A STEP B STEP C RANGE Hourly Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
G 102 17.963 18.861 1,508.88 3,269.24 39,230.93 19.804 1,584.33 3,432.71 41,192.48 G 117 20.854 21.897 1,751.77 3,795.49 45,545.89 22.992 1,839.35 3,985.27 47,823.18 G 118 21.063 22.116 1,769.28 3,833.45 46,001.35 23.222 1,857.75 4,025.12 48,301.42 G 123 22.137 23.244 1,859.53 4,028.99 48,347.88 24.406 1,952.51 4,230.44 50,765.27 G 128 23.267 24.430 1,954.39 4,234.51 50,814.11 25.651 2,052.11 4,446.24 53,354.82 G 133 24.453 25.676 2,054.08 4,450.51 53,406.13 26.960 2,156.79 4,673.04 56,076.44 G 138 25.701 26.986 2,158.86 4,677.53 56,130.38 28.335 2,266.80 4,911.41 58,936.90 G 145 27.555 28.932 2,314.59 5,014.95 60,179.35 30.379 2,430.32 5,265.69 63,188.32
60 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE: DECEMBER 29, 2017 Salary increase: ANNUAL STEP D STEP E SALARY RANGE RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
G 102 20.794 1,663.54 3,604.34 43,252.10 21.834 1,746.72 3,784.56 45,414.71 37,362.79 - 45,414.71 G 117 24.142 1,931.32 4,184.53 50,214.34 25.349 2,027.89 4,393.76 52,725.06 43,377.04 - 52,725.06 G 118 24.383 1,950.63 4,226.37 50,716.49 25.602 2,048.17 4,437.69 53,252.31 43,810.81 - 53,252.31 G 123 25.627 2,050.14 4,441.96 53,303.53 26.908 2,152.64 4,664.06 55,968.71 46,045.60 - 55,968.71 G 128 26.934 2,154.71 4,668.55 56,022.56 28.281 2,262.45 4,901.97 58,823.69 48,394.39 - 58,823.69 G 133 28.308 2,264.63 4,906.69 58,880.26 29.723 2,377.86 5,152.02 61,824.27 50,862.98 - 61,824.27 G 138 29.752 2,380.14 5,156.98 61,883.75 31.239 2,499.15 5,414.83 64,977.94 53,457.50 - 64,977.94 G 145 31.898 2,551.84 5,528.98 66,347.74 33.493 2,679.43 5,805.43 69,665.13 57,313.67 - 69,665.13
61 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE FOR LIFEGUARD GENERAL EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE: DECEMBER 29, 2017 Salary increase: 3.0%
STEP A STEP B STEP C RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
LG 107 19.241 1,539.29 3,335.12 40,021.42 20.203 1,616.25 3,501.87 42,022.49 21.213 1,697.06 3,676.97 44,123.61 LG 112 20.223 1,617.80 3,505.24 42,062.91 21.234 1,698.69 3,680.51 44,166.06 22.295 1,783.63 3,864.53 46,374.36
62 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE: DECEMBER 29, 2017 Salary increase: ANNUAL STEP D STEP E SALARY RANGE RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
LG 107 22.274 1,781.92 3,860.82 46,329.79 23.388 1,871.01 4,053.86 48,646.28 40,021.42 - 48,646.28 LG 112 23.410 1,872.81 4,057.76 48,693.08 24.581 1,966.45 4,260.64 51,127.73 42,062.91 - 51,127.73
63 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE FOR LIFEGUARD GENERAL EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE:
Salary increase: 3.0%
STEP A STEP B STEP C RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
LG 107 19.818 1,585.46 3,435.17 41,222.05 20.809 1,664.74 3,606.93 43,283.15 21.850 1,747.97 3,787.28 45,447.31 LG 112 20.829 1,666.34 3,610.40 43,324.79 21.871 1,749.66 3,790.92 45,491.03 22.964 1,837.14 3,980.47 47,765.58
64 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE:
Salary increase: ANNUAL STEP D STEP E SALARY RANGE RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
LG 107 22.942 1,835.37 3,976.64 47,719.68 24.089 1,927.14 4,175.47 50,105.66 41,222.05 - 50,105.66 LG 112 24.112 1,928.99 4,179.49 50,153.86 25.318 2,025.44 4,388.46 52,661.55 43,324.79 - 52,661.55
65 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR SALARY SCHEDULE FOR FIRE EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE JULY 4, 2016
Salary increase 0.0%
STEP A STEP B STEP C RANGE Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually
F 452 18.61 2,084.59 4,516.62 54,199.45 19.08 2,136.71 4,629.54 55,554.43 19.55 2,190.13 4,745.27 56,943.29 F 462 20.56 2,302.69 4,989.16 59,869.90 21.07 2,360.26 5,113.89 61,366.64 21.60 2,419.26 5,241.73 62,900.81 F 479 24.35 2,727.09 5,908.68 70,904.21 24.96 2,795.26 6,056.40 72,676.81 25.58 2,865.14 6,207.81 74,493.73
STEP D STEP E STEP F Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Annually Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Yearly Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Yearly
F 452 20.04 2,244.88 4,863.91 58,366.88 20.54 2,301.00 4,985.50 59,826.05 21.06 2,358.53 5,110.14 61,321.70 F 462 22.14 2,479.74 5,372.78 64,473.33 22.69 2,541.74 5,507.10 66,085.16 23.26 2,605.28 5,644.77 67,737.29 F 479 26.22 2,936.77 6,363.01 76,356.07 26.88 3,010.19 6,522.08 78,264.97 27.55 3,085.45 6,685.13 80,221.60
STEP G STEP H STEP I Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Yearly Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Yearly Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Yearly
F 452 21.58 2,417.49 5,237.90 62,854.74 22.12 2,477.93 5,368.84 64,426.11 22.68 2,539.88 5,503.06 66,036.76 F 462 23.84 2,670.41 5,785.89 69,430.72 24.44 2,737.17 5,930.54 71,166.49 25.05 2,805.60 6,078.80 72,945.65 F 479 28.24 3,162.58 6,852.26 82,227.14 28.94 3,241.65 7,023.57 84,282.82 29.67 3,322.69 7,199.16 86,389.89
STEP J STEP K STEP L Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Yearly Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Yearly Hourly Bi-Weekly Monthly Yearly
F 452 23.24 2,603.37 5,640.64 67,687.68 23.83 2,668.46 5,781.66 69,379.87 24.42 2,735.17 5,926.20 71,114.37 F 462 25.68 2,875.74 6,230.77 74,769.29 26.32 2,947.64 6,386.54 76,638.53 26.98 3,021.33 6,546.21 78,554.49 F 479 30.41 3,405.77 7,379.14 88,549.63 31.17 3,490.90 7,563.61 90,763.38 31.95 3,578.17 7,752.71 93,032.46
SALARY RANGE
F 452 54,199.45 - 71,114.37 F 462 59,869.90 - 78,554.49 F 479 70,904.21 - 93,032.46
66 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR MISCELLANEOUS, PART-TIME, TEMPORARY AND HOURLY EMPLOYEES
HOURLY RATES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2017
POSITION TITLE Grade A B C D E F G H I J K L
Student Lifeguard * 706 10.50 10.76 11.03 11.31 11.59 11.88 12.18 12.48 12.79 13.11 13.44 13.78
Seasonal Lifeguard I * 702 13.16 13.49 13.83 14.18 14.53 14.89 15.27 15.65 16.04 16.44 16.85 17.27
Seasonal Lifeguard II * 709 15.17 15.55 15.94 16.34 16.75 17.17 17.59 18.03 18.49 18.95 19.42 19.91
Seasonal Lifeguard III * 710 18.12 18.57 19.03 19.51 20.00 20.50 21.01 21.54 22.07 22.63 23.19 23.77
Seasonal Worker I * 703 11.04 11.32 11.60 11.89 12.19 12.49 12.80 13.12 13.45 13.79 14.13 14.49
Seasonal Worker II * 704 12.75 13.07 13.40 13.73 14.08 14.43 14.79 15.16 15.54 15.92 16.32 16.73
Seasonal Worker III * 713 15.23 15.61 16.00 16.41 16.82 17.24 17.67 18.11 18.56 19.02 19.50 19.99
Minutes Clerk I/Clerical Asst/Planning 700 10.56 10.82 11.09 11.37 11.65 11.94 12.24 12.55 12.86 13.18 13.51 13.85
Minutes Clerk II 712 14.78 15.15 15.53 15.92 16.31 16.72 17.14 17.57 18.01 18.46 18.92 19.39
On-Call Clerical/Secretarial Aide 708 11.29 11.57 11.86 12.16 12.46 12.77 13.09 13.42 13.75 14.10 14.45 14.81
Code Enforcement Clerk 712 14.78 15.15 15.53 15.92 16.31 16.72 17.14 17.57 18.01 18.46 18.92 19.39
Intern I 700 10.56 10.82 11.09 11.37 11.65 11.94 12.24 12.55 12.86 13.18 13.51 13.85
Intern II 701 13.78 14.13 14.48 14.84 15.21 15.59 15.98 16.38 16.79 17.21 17.64 18.08
The positions listed below are currently inactive, but remain on the salary schedule in the event that the City wishes to fund the positions. Student Firefighters 600 10.50
Student Paramedics 600 12.10
Call Firefighters 601 10.50
Drill/Fire 5.00 PER DRILL
Callback/Fire 10.00 PER CALL
*Employees in these positions will receive one and a half times (1.5x) their normal hourly rate for all hours worked on the following holidays: Memorial Day (last Monday in May), Independence Day (July 4), and Labor Day (1st Monday in September).
67 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR MISCELLANEOUS, PART-TIME, TEMPORARY AND HOURLY EMPLOYEES
HOURLY RATES EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 29, 2017
POSITION TITLE Grade A B C D E F G H I J K L
Student Lifeguard * 706 11.00 11.28 11.56 11.85 12.14 12.45 12.76 13.08 13.40 13.74 14.08 14.43
Seasonal Lifeguard I * 702 13.55 13.89 14.24 14.60 14.96 15.34 15.72 16.11 16.52 16.93 17.35 17.79
Seasonal Lifeguard II * 709 15.63 16.02 16.42 16.83 17.25 17.68 18.12 18.57 19.04 19.51 20.00 20.50
Seasonal Lifeguard III * 710 18.66 19.13 19.61 20.10 20.60 21.12 21.64 22.19 22.74 23.31 23.89 24.49
Seasonal Worker I * 703 11.37 11.66 11.95 12.25 12.55 12.87 13.19 13.52 13.85 14.20 14.56 14.92
Seasonal Worker II * 704 13.13 13.46 13.80 14.14 14.50 14.86 15.23 15.61 16.00 16.40 16.81 17.23
Seasonal Worker III * 713 15.69 16.08 16.48 16.89 17.32 17.75 18.19 18.65 19.11 19.59 20.08 20.58
Minutes Clerk I/Clerical Asst/Planning 700 11.00 11.28 11.56 11.85 12.14 12.45 12.76 13.08 13.40 13.74 14.08 14.43
Minutes Clerk II 712 15.22 15.60 15.99 16.39 16.80 17.22 17.65 18.10 18.55 19.01 19.49 19.97
On-Call Clerical/Secretarial Aide 708 11.63 11.92 12.22 12.52 12.84 13.16 13.49 13.82 14.17 14.52 14.89 15.26
Code Enforcement Clerk 712 15.22 15.60 15.99 16.39 16.80 17.22 17.65 18.10 18.55 19.01 19.49 19.97
Intern I 700 11.00 11.28 11.56 11.85 12.14 12.45 12.76 13.08 13.40 13.74 14.08 14.43
Intern II 701 14.19 14.55 14.91 15.28 15.67 16.06 16.46 16.87 17.29 17.73 18.17 18.62
The positions listed below are currently inactive, but remain on the salary schedule in the event that the City wishes to fund the positions. Student Firefighters 600 11.00
Student Paramedics 600 12.46
Call Firefighters 601 11.00
Drill/Fire 5.00 PER DRILL
Callback/Fire 10.00 PER CALL
*Employees in these positions will receive one and a half times (1.5x) their normal hourly rate for all hours worked on the following holidays: Memorial Day (last Monday in May), Independence Day (July 4), and Labor Day (1st Monday in September).
68 June 19, 2017 Item 17
RESOLUTION NO. 2017 - _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE FIXED CHARGE ASSESSMENTS FOR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018
WHEREAS, a Special Assessment District No. 93-1 was created in 1993 for the purpose of financing for seawall improvements on certain property owners with homes on the beach; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 1999, as a result of favorable interest rate conditions within the municipal bond market, a reassessment of parcels within the Special Assessment District No. 93-1 was initiated, a refund of outstanding Improvement Bonds was made, and a Special Assessment District No. 99-1 was created; and
WHEREAS, a Special Assessment District No. 2005-01 was created in 2005 for the purpose of financing the conversion of certain overhead electric and communications facilities to underground locations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that whereby Special Assessment District 99-1 (Seawall Construction) and Special Assessment District 2005-01 (Ocean View/Pines) require a flat charge assessment to be raised for bonded indebtedness, City Council hereby approves the flat charge assessments for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 as shown on Exhibits “A” and “B” to this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 19th day of June 2017.
______TERRY SINNOTT, Mayor City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______LESLIE E. DEVANEY, City Attorney City of Del Mar
69 June 19, 2017 Item 17 Resolution No. 2017-____ Page 2 of 2
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF DEL MAR
I, ASHLEY JONES, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution 2017-______, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 19th day of June 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
______ASHLEY JONES, Administrative Services Director/ City Clerk City of Del Mar
70 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR FIXED CHARGE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION) EXHIBIT A
City or District: City of Del Mar Submitted By: Teresa S. McBroome Type of Assessment: Seawall Construction Director of Finance/Treasurer Fund Number: 602206 E-mail: [email protected] Code: 1 Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Telephone No: (858) 755-9354
For State Roll Only Auditor's Parcel Number Undivided City Admin. Total Tax Rate Assessee Use Book Page Parcel Interest Amount Fee Reduction Assessment Area Number Only
299 137 12-00$ 9,192.22 $ 157.82 $ (1,590.08) $ 7,759.96 299 136 02-00$ 6,434.56 $ 157.82 $ (1,113.06) $ 5,479.32 299 136 03-00$ 6,434.56 $ 157.82 $ (1,113.06) $ 5,479.32 299 136 04-00$ 6,927.76 $ 157.82 $ (1,198.38) $ 5,887.20 299 136 05-00$ 6,927.76 $ 157.82 $ (1,198.38) $ 5,887.20 299 136 06-00$ 6,740.92 $ 157.82 $ (1,166.06) $ 5,732.68 299 136 08-00$ 6,434.56 $ 157.82 $ (1,113.06) $ 5,479.32 299 136 09-00$ 6,434.56 $ 157.82 $ (1,113.06) $ 5,479.32 299 136 10-00$ 7,353.76 $ 157.82 $ (1,272.06) $ 6,239.52 299 136 11-00$ 6,434.56 $ 157.82 $ (1,113.06) $ 5,479.32 299 146 01-00$ 6,434.56 $ 157.82 $ (1,113.06) $ 5,479.32 299 146 02-00$ 6,925.78 $ 157.82 $ (1,198.04) $ 5,885.56 299 146 05-00$ 6,434.56 $ 157.82 $ (1,113.06) $ 5,479.32 299 146 30-00$ 10,368.50 $ 157.82 $ (1,793.58) $ 8,732.74 299 146 31-00$ 9,426.38 $ 157.82 $ (1,630.58) $ 7,953.62
$ 108,905.00 $ 2,367.30 $ (18,838.58) $ 92,433.72
71 June 19, 2017 Item 17 EXHIBIT B
CITY OF DEL MAR FIXED CHARGE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (OCEAN VIEW/PINES)
City or District: City of Del Mar Submitted By: Teresa S. McBroome Assessment District No. 2005-01 (Ocean View/Pines) Director of Finance/Treasurer
Type of Assessment: Utility Undergrounding E-mail Address: [email protected] Fund Number: 6022-07 Code: 1 Telephone No: (858) 755-9354 Fiscal Year 2017-2018
For State Roll Only Auditor's Parcel Number Undivided City Admin. Total Tax Rate Assessee Use Book Page Parcel Interest Amount Fee Reduction Assessment Area Number Only
301 021 01-00$ 841.84 71.10 (62.64)$ 850.30 301 021 02-00 1,122.82 71.10 (83.56) 1,110.36 301 021 03-00 2,066.52 71.10 (153.80) 1,983.82 301 021 05-00 3,460.85 71.10 (257.55) 3,274.40 301 021 06-00 2,623.18 71.10 (195.22) 2,499.06 301 021 10-00 1,207.65 71.10 (89.87) 1,188.88 301 022 01-00 1,652.99 71.10 (123.01) 1,601.08 301 022 02-00 699.82 71.10 (52.08) 718.84 301 023 03-00 1,064.51 71.10 (79.23) 1,056.38 301 023 05-00 1,043.30 71.10 (77.64) 1,036.76 301 023 10-00 708.40 71.10 (52.72) 726.78 301 023 13-00 681.90 71.10 (50.76) 702.24 301 023 14-00 628.89 71.10 (46.81) 653.18 301 023 20-00 465.54 71.10 (34.64) 502.00 301 023 22-00 2,204.36 71.10 (164.04) 2,111.42 301 023 26-00 1,016.79 71.10 (75.67) 1,012.22 301 024 02-00 1,674.20 71.10 (124.60) 1,620.70 301 024 03-00 1,546.96 71.10 (115.12) 1,502.94 301 024 04-00 1,446.23 71.10 (107.63) 1,409.70 301 024 05-00 1,000.89 71.10 (74.47) 997.52 301 024 06-00 1,737.82 71.10 (129.32) 1,679.60 301 024 07-00 1,451.53 71.10 (108.03) 1,414.60 301 024 09-00 1,801.44 71.10 (134.06) 1,738.48 301 024 12-00 1,027.40 71.10 (76.46) 1,022.04 301 024 17-00 1,080.41 71.10 (80.39) 1,071.12 301 024 18-00 1,425.02 71.10 (106.06) 1,390.06 301 024 19-00 1,292.48 71.10 (96.18) 1,267.40 301 024 21-00 1,186.45 71.10 (88.29) 1,169.26 301 024 22-00 2,607.28 71.10 (194.02) 2,484.36 301 024 24-00 1,329.59 71.10 (98.95) 1,301.74 301 024 26-00 2,347.51 71.10 (174.69) 2,243.92 301 024 29-00 1,992.30 71.10 (148.26) 1,915.14 301 024 37-00 1,112.22 71.10 (82.76) 1,100.56 301 024 38-00 355.16 71.10 (26.44) 399.82 301 024 43-00 1,451.53 71.10 (108.01) 1,414.62 301 025 07-00 957.59 71.10 (71.25) 957.44 301 025 10-00 1,106.03 71.10 (82.31) 1,094.82 301 025 11-00 894.86 71.10 (66.58) 899.38 301 033 29-00 514.14 71.10 (38.26) 546.98 301 033 34-00 381.60 71.10 (28.40) 424.30
$ 53,210.00 $ 2,844.00 $ (3,959.78) $ 52,094.22
72 June 19, 2017 Item 17
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018.
WHEREAS, Constitutional Article XIII-B (Propositions 4 and 111) places an appropriations limitation on State and Local Government; and
WHEREAS, this appropriations limitation is based on proceeds of taxes adjusted annually from the base Fiscal Year 1986-1987 by either the population growth factor for the City of Del Mar or for the County of San Diego, and by either the change in the California Per Capita Personal Income or the change in Non-Residential Construction for the City of Del Mar; and
WHEREAS, the City has received inflation and population data from the State Department of Finance to calculate the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Appropriations Limit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Del Mar wishes to select those options providing the greatest ratio of change as shown below:
Change in California Per County Population Capita Personal Income Change (inflation factor) (population factor) Factor 1.0369 1.0092 1.0464
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the appropriations limit be established at $26,121,190 and that the City Council does hereby adopt the annual appropriations limitation for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, and selects the options for calculation using the population growth of the County of San Diego and the change in Non- Residential New Construction.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 19th day of June 2017.
TERRY SINNOTT, Mayor City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______LESLIE E. DEVANEY, City Attorney City of Del Mar
73 June 19, 2017 Item 17 Resolution No. 2017-_____ Page 2 of 2
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF DEL MAR
I, ASHLEY JONES, Administrative Director/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution 2017-______, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 19th day of June 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ASHLEY JONES, Administrative Services Director/ City Clerk City of Del Mar
74 June 19, 2017 Item 17 RESOLUTION 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018, AND DELEGATING THE AUTHORITY TO INVEST CITY FUNDS TO THE TREASURER
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, pursuant to Title 5, Division 2, Part 1 of the Government Code of the State of California, is authorized to invest City funds more particularly set out in Section 53601 of said Code; and
WHEREAS, the investment policy reflects a change in Section XI Authorized Investments for Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), which changes the amount permitted to invest by the State from $40 million to $50 million as allowed by the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Section 53607 of the Government Code is authorized to delegate said authority to the Treasurer; and
WHEREAS, it is good practice for the City Council to review the Statement of Investment Policy as more particularly set out in Section 53646 of said Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, that the above recitals are true and correct.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Del Mar does hereby authorize the Treasurer to invest City funds and adopt the Statement of Investment Policy as attached in Exhibit A of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 19th day of June 2017.
______TERRY SINNOTT, Mayor City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney City of Del Mar
75 June 19, 2017 Item 17 Resolution No. 2017- Page 2 of 2
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF DEL MAR
I, ASHLEY JONES, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution 2017-______, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 19th day of June 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
______ASHLEY JONES, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk City of Del Mar
76 June 19, 2017 Item 17 CITY OF DEL MAR INVESTMENT POLICY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018
I. INTRODUCTION
This statement is to provide guidance regarding the prudent investment of the cash of the City of Del Mar, and to establish the goals and limitations of investments suitable to ensuring the safety of the City’s funds. The ultimate goal is to protect these funds while enhancing the economic status of the City of Del Mar.
Responsibility for the investing of the idle cash and trust funds of the City resides with the City Treasurer. The investment policies and practices of the City Treasurer of the City of Del Mar are based on limitations placed on it by governing legislative bodies. These policies have three primary goals:
1. To assure compliance with all Federal, State, and Local laws governing the investment of monies under the control of the City Treasurer.
2. To protect the principal monies entrusted to this organization.
3. To generate the market rate of return which is defined as the average return on a one-year Treasury Bill.
II. SCOPE
This policy provides guidelines for investing idle cash for all funds under the direct authority of the City with the exception of retirement funds, deferred compensation funds, and those monies from unexpended bond proceeds that are under the direction of a trustee. This investment policy applies to all financial assets of the City of Del Mar. These funds are accounted for in the City of Del Mar’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and include the General Fund and General Governmental Funds, Special Revenue Funds, Capital Projects Funds, Enterprise Funds, and Trust and Agency Funds.
III. PRUDENCE
Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived.
The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the “prudent person” standard and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall
77 June 19, 2017 Item 17 portfolio. Investment officers acting in accordance with written procedures and the investment policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security’s credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments.
IV. OBJECTIVES
Safety: Safety of principal is the primary objective of the City of Del Mar and is the single most important factor in governing the investment decisions of the City Treasurer. Each investment transaction shall be made considering the potential for capital losses in an effort to limit such losses, whether from institution default, broker-dealer default, or erosion of market value of securities. The City Treasurer shall evaluate each potential investment, seeking quality in both issuer and in underlying security or collateral. The use of diversification of the portfolio will assist to reduce market risk and possible principal loss. To help mitigate against market risk due to fluctuations in interest rates, this policy provides limits on the portfolio maturity.
Liquidity: Second only to safety is the need to maintain liquidity in the portfolio to meet the anticipated cash needs of the City, and to ensure that money is always readily available. This percentage specifically shall be reviewed on an annual basis. Since not all cash needs can be anticipated, the City Treasurer will only invest in instruments with an active secondary market.
Yield: Once the basic requirements of safety and liquidity are met, the City’s fund shall be designed to attain a market-average rate of return through economic cycles. Market-average rate of return is defined as the average return on one-year Treasury bills.
V. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
The authority for investing idle cash resides with the City Treasurer by direction of the City Council. The Treasurer may delegate such responsibilities, as recording of investment purchases and sales and recording of investment activity, to the Senior Accountant and Accounting Technician, or other City officials as authorized by resolution of the City Council, as is necessary to maintain adequate internal controls as described in the following section.
78 June 19, 2017 Item 17 VI. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
All City officials involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity in violation of Government Code Section 1090 and the Political Reform Act (Government Code 8100 et seq.).
Section 1090 of the Government Code prohibits City officials from “making” a contract in which the official is financially interested. Under the Political Reform Act, a City official is disqualified from making, participating in making, or using his or her official position to influence the making, of a governmental decision in which it is reasonably foreseeable the decision could materially affect the official’s economic interest, in a manner distinguishable from its effect on the public generally.
VII. INTERNAL CONTROLS
A system of internal controls shall be in place to prevent losses of public funds arising from fraud or employee error. Such controls deemed most important are the separation of responsibilities for investment purchases from the recording of investment activity, custodial safekeeping, written confirmation of investment transactions, and established criteria for broker relationships. The annual financial audit will include a comprehensive review of the portfolio, accounting procedures for security transactions, and compliance with the investment policy.
VIII. REPORTING
Under provision of Section 53646 of the California Government Code, the City Treasurer shall render a quarterly report to the City Council showing the type of investment institution, date of maturity, amount of deposit, current market value for all securities as provided by our safekeeping institution, rate of interest, and such other data that may be required by the City Council. This report shall also include a schedule of maturity by type of security.
The report must also include a statement that the investment portfolio complies with this policy, or a statement as to the manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance.
The report also must include a statement noting the ability of the City to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money shall, or may, not be available.
IX. SAFEKEEPING OF SECURITIES
To protect against potential losses caused by collapse of individual securities dealers, all securities owned by the City shall be kept in safekeeping with “perfected interest” by a third party bank trust department acting as agent for the
79 June 19, 2017 Item 17 City under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and by the City. All securities will be received and delivered using standard delivery versus payment procedures.
X. QUALIFIED DEALERS AND INSTITUTIONS
The City shall transact business only with banks, savings and loans, and registered investment securities dealers. The purchase by the City of any investment, other than those purchased directly from the issuer, shall be purchased either from an institution licensed by the State as a broker-dealer, as defined in Section 25004 of the Corporation Code, who is a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, or a member of a federally regulated securities exchange, a national or state-chartered bank, a federal or state association (as defined by Section 5102 of the Financial Code), or a brokerage firm designated as a primary government dealer by the Federal Reserve Bank. The City Treasurer shall investigate all institutions that wish to do business with the City in order to determine if they are adequately capitalized and agree to abide by the conditions set forth in the City’s Investment Policy.
XI. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
The City of Del Mar has a fiduciary responsibility to the residents of the community to protect the assets of the City and to invest and manage those funds wisely. These investment decisions shall be governed under Government Code sections 53600 through 53609 under which those making investments on its behalf are deemed to act in a fiduciary capacity.
The City shall not knowingly make any investments in any institution, company, corporation, subsidiary or affiliate that practices or supports directly or indirectly through its actions discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, creed, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual preference, or physical disability.
Within these limitations, the following investments are authorized:
United States Treasury Bills, Notes and Bonds or those for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for payment of principal and interest with remaining maturities of five years or less. There shall be no limit on the percentage of the portfolio invested in these instruments. The purchase of zero coupon Treasuries is not permitted.
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). The State investment fund is maintained for the benefit of local agencies. The City may invest in this fund up to the amount permitted by the State, which is currently $50 million.
80 June 19, 2017 Item 17 San Diego County Treasurer’s Pooled Investment Fund. This is a local government investment pool managed by the San Diego County Treasurer-Tax Collector’s office. The City may invest in this fund up to 30 percent of its portfolio. The fund must be rated “AA” or better by a nationally recognized rating service.
Collateralized Certificates of Deposit. Certificates of Deposit of up to $250,000 that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Deposits are permitted in national banks or savings and loan institutions. The deposit may not exceed the total of the paid up capital and surplus of a depository and the depository must maintain securities with a market value at least 10 percent in excess of the City’s deposit to be placed in a collateralized account.
Government Agencies including Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA); the Federal Farm Credit Bank System (FFC); the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC); Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA); and other United States agency obligations with maturities of five years or less. There shall be no limit on the percentage of the portfolio invested in these instruments.
Commercial Paper ranked P1 and A1 not to exceed 270 days maturity, issued by a domestic corporation with assets in excess of $500,000,000, with an A or better rating as provided by Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s. The portfolio may contain no more than 5 percent from a specific corporation.
Medium Term Corporate Notes with a maximum maturity of five years issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States. Notes must be rated “A” or better by a nationally recognized rating service. Corporate notes may not exceed 30 percent of the investment portfolio.
Repurchase Agreements. The City may invest in repurchase agreements with banks and primary dealers with which the City has entered into a master repurchase contract, which specifies terms and conditions of repurchase agreements and are fully collateralized by delivery to an independent third party. Eligible securities are negotiable certificates of deposit, eligible banker’s acceptances, or securities that are direct obligations of the Federal government. Reverse repurchase instruments are not permitted.
Mutual Funds. The City may invest in Mutual Funds invested primarily in U.S. Treasury Securities.
Supranationals: The City may invest in United States dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally
81 June 19, 2017 Item 17 guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, or Inter-American Development Bank. Securities must be eligible for purchase and sale within the United States and have a minimum ration of “AA” as rated by Moody’s Investors Service, Standard and Poor’s, or Fitch Ratings. Maximum maturity is limited to five years. Maximum portfolio exposure is limited to 15 percent and single-issuer holdings to no more than five percent per issuer.
The City, under no circumstances, may borrow funds for the purpose of leverage in the purchase of securities. The purchase of derivatives, as provided for in Government Code Section 53601.6, is expressly prohibited under the terms of this Investment Policy.
XII. INTERFUND LOANS
If deemed to be in the best interest of the City, the City Council may from time to time authorize the Treasurer to make loans from one City fund to another. The fund receiving the loan proceeds must pay at least the interest rate that the fund providing the loan would have received on the funds borrowed. The City Council may direct the Treasurer to pay an interest rate greater than what the fund providing the borrowed funds would have earned had it retained the funds. The term of any such loan shall not exceed five (5) years.
XIII. MAXIMUM MATURITIES
Every effort will be made to match investment maturities to cash flow needs. Matching maturities with cash flow dates will reduce the need to sell securities prior to maturity, thus reducing market risk. Unless matched to a specific requirement, no more than 60 percent of the portfolio may be invested with maturities greater than two and a half years. No investment may be made with a maturity greater than five years.
IXX. OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
The City Council may establish an investment oversight committee, which will meet quarterly to review the portfolio, the investment policy, and the City’s current investment strategy. This committee will act in a review capacity. Members of the committee shall consist of the City Manager (or designee), the Assistant City Manager, and a member of the City Council as a representative. The Oversight Committee may also obtain an advisor with expertise in financial management.
82 June 19, 2017 Item 17 Overview of Additional Requested Staff Support
The proposed budget for Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 includes four proposed resources which would add additional capacity for general operations and to help further advance the City Council’s Goals and Priority Projects and meet the associated timelines.
Administrative Assistant
This position would be shared between the Planning Department (80%) and the City Manager’s Department (20%). Currently, there is no administrative support for either of these two departments, which share the most responsibility for completing the overall list of City Council special projects.
While an Administrative Assistant would not be responsible for independently managing special projects, this individual would add capacity for all of those employees who do manage special projects who are otherwise completing the necessary administrative duties themselves. It is estimated that this position would yield an additional 1015 hours of capacity for the Planning Department and City Manager’s departments to apply toward City Council special projects.
Within the Planning Department, the Administrative Assistant would coordinate tasks such as data and records management; department mailings; data entry for TrakIt (the City’s electronic permit management system); agendas, minutes and noticing for the Planning Commission and Design Review Board; deposit reconciliation; bill payment and preparation of purchase orders; and other general administrative and clerical duties, including scheduling meetings, as needed. These tasks are currently being completed by professional staff within the Planning Department
Within the City Manager’s Office, the Administrative Assistant would assist with data and records management; coordination of agendas and minutes for the three committees staffed by the City Manager’s Department (Business Support Advisory Committee, Shores Advisory Committee, Sustainability Advisory Board); tasks related to contract administration; preparation and distribution of correspondence; City Council support; and completion of general administrative tasks. These tasks are currently being completed by professional staff within the City Manager’s Department.
The cost for salary and benefits for the Administrative Assistant position is
83approximately $72,000/year. June 19, 2017 Item 17 Communications/Community Outreach/Public Education
Staff proposes to include $50,000 in the budget to provide resources to enhance the City’s communications, community outreach, and public education efforts. Options for providing this service could be through a limited contract with a consulting firm or a part-time in-house professional staff position.
This resource is proposed in response to feedback from the community and the City Council that the City needs to enhance its communications efforts. While staff recommends exploring this topic more closely with the City Council and the community to understand more specifically what the interests and opportunities for improvement are, adding resources to provide professional communications would enhance service levels, while also leveraging capacity of professional staff who manage special projects.
Examples of efforts that could be completed using this resource include:
Developing a more proactive communications effort that comprehensively describes the City’s efforts in certain areas, as opposed to more “reactionary” efforts to publicize news alerts about what will affect people in their commute, neighborhood, etc. For example, communicating about the City’s proactive effort to evaluate the conditions of underground utility systems and to plan necessary work in coordination with roadway rehabilitation efforts identified by the pavement management system.
Comprehensively describing the City’s cumulative budgetary investment in visitor services and the Downtown area.
Developing and distributing electronic newsletters using the existing CivicSend software regarding significant City projects, similar to the newsletter which has been distributed several times on the Shores Park Master Plan.
Through the dedication of resources in this area, we could develop and implement a comprehensive, proactive communications program and develop a suite of tools and provide training to employees to help them recognize opportunities for proactive communications.
With the inclusion of $50,000 in the budget for the next two fiscal years, staff will evaluate options for most-efficiently achieving this goal.
Though difficult to quantify the exact amount of hours of capacity it would add in staff’s ability to achieve the City Council work plan, adding this resource will contribute to staff’s ability to effectively manage and communicate on their projects. Currently, individual project managers are responsible for developing and implementing their own public outreach efforts for their projects. 84 June 19, 2017 Item 17
Facilities Lead Worker/Specialist for Public Works
The proposed budget includes a new position within the Public Works Department to enhance the Department’s ability to manage the City’s facility maintenance program. The position will lead the needs assessment of current municipal facilities while also managing all facility maintenance contracts. Major Facility Maintenance capital improvements projects, and the day-to-day operations of the Department’s seasonal and utility staff assigned to facilities and beach maintenance. This position would also oversee weekend maintenance activity.
The cost for salary and benefits for the Administrative Assistant position is approximately $80,000/year.
As Needed Professional/Contractual Support
Staff also recommends including $50,000 in the budget for Fiscal Years 2017-2018 for limited additional part-time professional staff resources and/or contractual services to be used on an as-needed basis. Within the past two years, using part-time retired annuitants and/or small scale professional services contracts to work on special projects on an ad-hoc basis has proven valuable, efficient, and cost effective.
85 June 19, 2017 Item 17 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Kathleen A. Garcia, Planning and Community Development Director Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager Prepared by Tracy Elliot Yawn, Planning Manager
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Policy Direction for the Regulation of Short Term Rentals (Part 1 of 2 – Scheduled Meetings)
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the City Council consider the options presented and provide policy direction for the development of a preferred ordinance for Short Term Rental (STR) establishments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On April 17, 2017, the City Council determined that STRs are not an allowed use in the R1-40, R1-14, R1-10, R1-10B, R1-5, R1-5B, RM-East RM-West, RM-Central, RM-South and R-2 Zones; however, that they are allowed in the RC Zone (Attachment A, City Council Resolution 2017-29). Subsequently, on May 1, 2017 and then continued to May 6, 2017, the City Council provided additional policy direction to staff regarding STR type uses that should be considered as allowed or conditionally allowed within Del Mar’s residential zones when developing future regulations. There was an attempt to balance the interests and concerns raised in prior hearings and to provide several options for residents. Other discussion included permitting process, fees, enforcement and an amortization process, and the City Council requested that staff return with some additional options for policy discussion.
This item will continue the City Council discussion involving three options for uses similar to STR’s and STR uses with a possible regulatory framework. Staff is before you today to begin one of two meetings scheduled for Council’s direction on the possible three options identified and the regulatory framework for STRs (potential amendments).
______City Council Action:
1 June 19, 2017 Item 18 City Council Staff Report Short Term Rentals June19, 2017 Page 2 of 10
These meetings will include the following discussion items:
1. Clarifying and refining new definitions of STR use types and similar uses that are not considered STR’s; and 2. Discuss the range of options for streamlining the process for potentially allowed uses that are considered residentially compatible (including Home Exchanges) and certain STR’s that are considered residentially compatible; and 3. Discussing Regulatory Framework involving a Code Amendment and Local Coastal Amendment Process; and 4. Review and Discuss Permit process for an administrative permit, and discretionary; and 5. Establishes an amortization period for uses made nonconforming by the code changes including grandfathered uses; and 6. Identifying possible exceptions –Timeshares, and Specific Plans with separate zoning regulations, and other unique circumstances such as residentially zoned properties within the visitor serving areas (downtown).
It is the goal to cover Items 1 – 3 in the first of the two scheduled meetings. Items 4, 5 and 6 will be covered in the next Council meeting on July 17, 2017.
ANALYSIS: Background For several years, the City of Del Mar has been discussing Short Term Rentals (STRs) identified through reports, letters, memos, workshops and public testimony, including clarifying ambiguities in the existing regulations of the Municipal Code. As an initial step in addressing STRs, the Council adopted a STR moratorium on the establishment of these uses last April 2016. After ongoing meetings and discussions, in January 2017, the City Council directed staff to obtain an “Interpretation” of the code in accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) section 30.01.020 in order to determine whether Short Term Rentals (STRs) were an allowed use within Del Mar’s Residential Zones. An interpretation of the current code provisions relevant to STRs was necessary in order to clarify many questions, provide certainty as to what is permitted within Residential Zones of the City and to establish a baseline for any proposed new code regulations.
The Planning Commission’s decision of February 14, 2017, that “STRs were not defined in the Zoning Code and no interpretation could be made,” was appealed to the City Council for a decision on the matter. On March 20, 2017, the City Council voted to hear the appeal and on April 17, 2017, held a noticed public hearing on Interpretation no. I17-001. After deliberation, the City Council determined that STRs
2 June 19, 2017 Item 18 City Council Staff Report Short Term Rentals June19, 2017 Page 3 of 10 are not an allowed use in the R1-40, R1-14, R1-10, R1-10B, R1-5, R1-5B, RM-East RM-West, RM-Central, RM-South and R-2 Zones; however, that they are allowed in the RC Zone (Attachment A, City Council Resolution 2017-29).
Residential Zones:
Short Term Rentals (STRs) is a common term associated with the rental of a residential dwelling or residential accessory structure in a residential zone for fewer than 30 days catering to customers who are not dwelling in the residence on a permanent or regular basis, but utilizing it for vacation, transient, or temporary occupancy. It has been determined by Del Mar’s City Council that a Short Term Rental of a dwelling unit is not permitted within any residential zones except for the RC zone (Interpretation I17-001).
During the Interpretation process, the City undertook a comprehensive review of the existing residential zones. The City currently does not have any definitions or regulations for Short Term Rentals (STRs). At the May 1 and May 6 Council meetings, several different types of STRs and similar uses were identified and evaluated, and approaches in how to permit and regulate specific types of Short Term Rentals were discussed. As the first important step towards developing new code regulations, the City Council provided policy direction on the types of uses that were thought to be compatible in residential zones Home Sharing and Home swapping/exchanging. City Council also provided policy direction on STR use types that could be considered within the residential zones with limitations identified (i.e. owner occupied home rentals and/or whole home rentals/limited/seasonal), and eligible housing types (single and multi-family development, accessory structures, etc.). These STR use types, once defined within the code, could be permitted under certain limited residential use requirements for residential zones, and any permitted accessory structures that may be rented (Attachment B, Del Mar’s Residential zones and uses chart). The Del Mar Residential Zones and Uses identified within DMMC, Chapter 30, could identify STRs (use types specified) as a limited permitted use. This could identify those STRs that are consistent with the Community Plan and compatible with the residential neighborhoods. Any proposed changes to the code would require a Municipal Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment.
Other DMMC Considerations: There are several sections of the DMMC that address residential uses, and transient uses. These may be types of uses, or areas that should not be subject to STR regulations when considering new regulations. These types of considerations will be evaluated and discussed more specifically in the next meeting to be held on this Council Discussion item (July 17, 2017).
3 June 19, 2017 Item 18 City Council Staff Report Short Term Rentals June19, 2017 Page 4 of 10
DMMC Chapter 3, the Tax Code, does specifically define transient uses, and addresses specific types of uses that may be subject to Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) when it meets certain criteria; and Timeshares; and Other – Residential zones within Visitor-serving areas
Required Amendments:
Any new regulations would require a DMMC Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA). The Code Amendment would be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing and a recommendation forwarded to the City Council. More specifically, the City will have to prepare Code Amendments that addresses the following:
Codify a definition of short term rentals (including identified types) Expressly allow STRs as a limited use with specific permits (i.e. Administrative and Discretionary process). - Possible permit requirements further outlined within the Discussion portion of this Report. Any new Ordinance provisions would need to amend the non-conforming structures and use section of the Municipal Code in order to specify how non-conforming STRs and related issues are treated assuming that an amortization process would be developed.
CEQA assessment
Approval of LCPA by California Coastal Commission is required.
The DMMC does not currently address any type of Short Term Rental within Residential Zones. By defining this use, and the activities that compose it, the City will have a complete description of what types of STRs (commercial use), if any, are acceptable within residential neighborhoods. Proposed amendments would provide the necessary new and revised definitions and the zoning regulations for short term rentals by establishing the permitting and operational standards.
It is anticipated that the DMMC Amendment and LCP Amendment process could take between 12 – 14 months depending on the time the item could be scheduled and approved by the California Coastal Commission and any revisions reviewed and approved by City Council (Attachment C, Draft Timeline).
Defining STR Use Types:
At the previous City Council meeting, a distinction was made between home sharing with the owner on site, limited whole house rentals and home exchange/house swapping where an owner trades places with a homeowner in another location. Home
4 June 19, 2017 Item 18 City Council Staff Report Short Term Rentals June19, 2017 Page 5 of 10
Exchange is also known as Home Trade, and Home Swap, where a homeowner trades houses (without an exchange of money) with a homeowner in another location for a finite period. Home Exchange should be a defined and permitted use within the Residential zones (not considered an STR). The following types of Short Term uses and descriptions are summarized based on previous meetings, and included in this report for additional policy discussion and confirmation:
What STRs should be allowed?
Short-term rentals (STRs) could be organized into the following three categories as described below:
Type 1. Home Sharing (up to 14 days, 21 days or 30 days): Home sharing is an accessory use within a dwelling unit where the primary resident resides in the dwelling unit while providing accommodations to guests for compensation. Regulations and an annual permit could be required through an administrative process. The City Council should provide policy direction on the annual time limit.
Type 2. Whole Home -Limited Vacation Rental (up to 14 days, 21 days or 30 days): A Whole Home Limited Vacation Rental is a dwelling unit that is occupied as a whole by transients for compensation for fewer than thirty consecutive days or not more than 2 or 3 times per year. Regulations and annual permit could be required through an administrative process. The City Council should provide policy direction on the time limit and frequency.
Type 3. Whole Home - Seasonal Vacation Rental (June – September): A Whole Home – Seasonal Vacation Rental is a dwelling unit that is occupied as a whole by transients for compensation for fewer than thirty consecutive days during the entire summer season. If a vacation rental owner is interested in renting their whole home more frequently than the Types 1-2, and specifically during the Seasonal summer months (Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day weekend), the property owner could be required to be permitted through a discretionary review process. The City Council should provide policy direction on the number of days, frequency in use, and allowed zones.
Where should STRs be permitted?
Identify Residential zones and types: The City Council could define where certain types of STRs could be allowed either by zone or by use types. The zones would be the residential zones per the DMMC (R1-40, R1-14, R1-10, R1-10B, R1-5, R1-5B, RM-East RM-West, RM-Central, RM-South and R-2 Zones). STRs could be permitted as a limited use within any zone, including single family (R1 zones) or multi-family (RM and R-2 zones) with required conditions of approval. Residential types within the zones would
5 June 19, 2017 Item 18 City Council Staff Report Short Term Rentals June19, 2017 Page 6 of 10 include single family, multifamily, accessory structures/Second Dwelling Units, Accessory Dwelling Units and Exceptions (i.e.Timeshares):
Dwelling unit types:
Single multi-family uses could be primarily considered in the development of new regulations. For single family units (SF) the owner could occupy the unit and/or rent the unit as a whole to tenants (short term) with limitations and/or seasonally. Multiple dwelling unit zones and uses could allow STRs which includes apartments and condominiums. However, it may be limited due to current definitions within the Municipal Code Chapter 3, which requires multi-family types of development with (3) three or more units that are occupied by transient users to be considered a Hotel use and subject to TOT. Accessory Structures (residential zones) – could potentially allow as an STR with any new regulations. Secondary Dwelling Units and Accessory Dwelling units that are not dedicated as affordable units could be allowed to be used as an STR. Timeshares: Del Mar has legally permitted Time Shares (Wavecrest, L’Auberge) legally permitted through development agreements or an adopted Specific Plan. Permitted Timeshares should not be subject to STR regulations. These units are already owned by multiple property owners.
Additional Questions/Discussion for City Council: Is City Council interested in restricting the total number of STRs within community neighborhoods? Should there be a limit of how many transient occupants can rent at once (i.e. 2 persons per bedroom). Are there other areas to be considered such as unique visitor serving areas in downtown area that are zoned for residential uses?
How should we regulate STRs:
Possible Use Regulations: Based upon previous discussions at the City Council, the following describes several items that could be required for any approved types of STR uses. Operational Standards, a set of procedures, could be required for regulating and monitoring STRs for all STR Use Types that require an annual permit, a resident’s agreement (referenced to within the permit) and required monitoring by the designated local contact:
6 June 19, 2017 Item 18 City Council Staff Report Short Term Rentals June19, 2017 Page 7 of 10
1. Annual Permit (establishment of registration process, development of database, identifies fees):
The administrative Annual Permit for STRs could be required for Use Types 1, 2 and 3 (described above) for tracking and monitoring purposes. It is recommended that STRs be subject to use regulations and that the permit would be valid for 12 months. The annual permit, approved with conditions, is also an important component of regulating STRs and provides an effective tool to enforce the regulations, and to easily update permit requirements for STRs without processing Municipal Code and LCPA amendments (Attachment D, Example of City of San Clemente’s permit application for Short Term Vacation Rentals).
It is recommended that a fee be required to assist in the program costs and enforcement process. The Planning Department could also develop a database to track and monitor the number of permits issued within the City’s census tracks/planning districts. A map and list of approved permits could also be made accessible to the public on the City’s website.
2. Residents Agreement: The resident agreements are intended to serve as an information tool and guide for occupants of a whole home or home sharing use. The agreements could provide information on local noise ordinance regulations, parking restrictions, rules for trash and recyclable containment and disposal, including information regarding the remedies available to the City to address and enforce violations of these rules. The agreement would also include a “good neighbor policy,” reminding the guests to be respectful of the surrounding neighborhood. A copy of this agreement shall be provided to guests prior to their occupancy of the unit. The resident’s agreement language would be standardized and incorporated into the annual permit application.
3. The Local Contact: The local contact is a designated person who would remain available during the use of a property as a STR (home sharing or whole home) to monitor the location and respond concerns related to any potential nuisance activities including noise, trash and debris, illegal parking, etc. The contact information for the local contact would be provided on the occupancy agreement, annual permit and could be posted in a designated location of the City’s website.
7 June 19, 2017 Item 18 City Council Staff Report Short Term Rentals June19, 2017 Page 8 of 10
Council Worksheet summary -Regulatory Framework Options (Attachment E):
The attached working chart has been provided that will serve as a worksheet at this hearing in order to discuss and receive additional direction from City Council on the Framework regulations outlined above. The following summarizes the worksheet and describes the three options staff has prepared for home sharing use and three options for whole home uses (with different time limitations). An annual permit, an occupancy agreement, and a local contact are options for all STR uses.
Home Exchange – It is recommended that these should not be required to be regulated, but would be permitted as an allowed use within residential zones (since the City Council has made a preliminary determination that they are not an STR and are therefore, compatible with the residential zones).
Worksheet:
1. Home Sharing (limited use) : Allowed in specified residential zones: Option 1 (up to 14 days permitted per calendar year) Option 2 (up to 21 days permitted per calendar year) Option 3 (up to 30 days permitted per calendar year)
Frequency -Total days throughout the year or -Cumulative
This option could allow whole home rentals with limitations: An STR permit (administrative process) Resident agreement An identified local contact or not needed Residential zoning – all zones or other
2. Whole Home –Limited Vacation Rental (limited use) : Option 1 (up to 14 days permitted per calendar year) Option 2 (up to 21 days permitted per calendar year) Option 3 (up to 30 days permitted per calendar year)
Frequency -Total days throughout the year or -Cumulative
This option could allow whole home rentals with limitations: An STR permit (administrative process) Resident agreement
8 June 19, 2017 Item 18 City Council Staff Report Short Term Rentals June19, 2017 Page 9 of 10
An identified local contact. Residential Zoning – all zones or other
3. Whole Home –Seasonal (limited use) : Option 1 (up to 30 days permitted per calendar year-administrative) Option 2 (up to 60 days permitted per calendar year - Discretionary) Option 3 (up to 90 days permitted per calendar year- Discretionary)
Frequency -Total days throughout the year or -Cumulative This option could allow whole home rentals with limitations:
An STR permit (administrative process and/or discretionary) Resident agreement An identified local contact. Residential Zoning – all zones or other
CONCLUSION: Planning Department staff requests that the City Council consider the options being presented today and provide policy direction on the development of a preferred ordinance that would be forwarded to the City Council for consideration after a recommendation is received by Planning Commission and public input is received. Once the City Council provides policy direction on the regulation of short-term rentals, staff will develop possible enforcement approaches and funding options. A second meeting for further discussion is scheduled on the July 17, 2017 Council agenda, and will involve further discussion on the permitting process, associated fees, and the enforcement program, amortization period; nonconforming uses/grandfathered uses and any exceptions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Policy Discussion is not considered to be a “project” under the California Quality Act (CEQA), therefore, no CEQA review or documentation is required at this stage. Future actions may be subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT: Other than the demand on staff resources and the cost of legal services, there is no other fiscal impact to the City associated with this process.
9 June 19, 2017 Item 18 City Council Staff Report Short Term Rentals June19, 2017 Page 10 of 10
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A- City Council Resolution No. 2017-29 Attachment B- Del Mar’s Residential Zones and Uses Chart Attachment C-Draft Timeline Attachment D- Example of City of San Clemente’s permit application for STRs. Attachment E- Council Worksheet on Process
10 June 19, 2017 Item 18 11 June 19, 2017 Item 18 12 June 19, 2017 Item 18 13 June 19, 2017 Item 18 14 June 19, 2017 Item 18 DEL MAR RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND USES TABLE
Zoning Proposed Short Term Rental (STR) Description Allowable Uses (Existing Code) Accessory Use Limitations (Existing Code) Designation Regulations
One Second Dwelling Unit; accessory living quarters; Very low density One single-family residence on each the renting of not more than one room to not more than R1-40 Allowed with limitations (STR Permit) residential building site. one person, or the providing of table board to one person, or both.
One Second Dwelling Unit; accessory living quarters; Modified low density One single-family residence on each the renting of not more than one room to not more than R1-14 Allowed with limitations (STR Permit) residential building site. one person, or the providing of table board to one person, or both.
One Second Dwelling Unit; accessory living quarters; Low density One-single-family residence on each the renting of not more than one room to not more than R1-10 Allowed with limitations (STR Permit) residential building site. one person, or the providing of table board to one person, or both.
One Second Dwelling Unit; accessory living quarters; Low density One single-family residence on each the renting of not more than one room to not more than R1-10B Allowed with limitations (STR Permit) residential-beach. building site. one person, or the providing of table board to one person or both.
Medium density Accessory living quarters; the renting of not more than One single-family residence on each R1-5 single-family one room to not more than one person, or the providing Allowed with limitations (STR Permit) building site. residential of table board to one person, or both.
Medium density Accessory living quarters; the renting of not more than One single-family residence on each R1-5B single-family one room to not more than one person, or the providing Allowed with limitations (STR Permit) building site. residential-beach of table board to one person, or both.
For each unit, the renting of not more than one room to Medium Density A one-family dwelling, two-family (duplex) not more than one person, or the providing of table RM-East Single-Mixed dwelling or two single-family dwellings on Allowed with limitations (restricted to two units) board to one person, or both; accessory living quarters Residential-East each building site. (with restrictions).
For each unit, the renting of not more than one room to Medium Density A one-family dwelling, two-family (duplex) not more than one person, or the providing of table RM-West Mixed Residential- dwelling or two single-family dwellings on Allowed with limitations (restricted to two units) board to one person, or both; accessory living quarters West each building site. (with restrictions).
For each unit, the renting of not more than one room to Medium Density A one-family dwelling, two-family (duplex) not more than one person, or the providing of table RM-Central Mixed Residential- dwelling or two single-family dwellings on Allowed with limitations (restricted to two units) board to one person, or both; accessory living quarters Central each building site. (with restrictions).
A one-family dwelling, two-family (duplex) For each unit, the renting of not more than one room to Medium Density dwelling, two single-family dwellings or a not more than one person, or the providing of table RM-South Mixed Residential- multi-family dwelling (three units+) on each Allowed with limitations (restricted to two units) board to one person, or both; accessory living quarters South building site; boardinghouses and (with restrictions). lodginghouses
A one-family dwelling, two-family (duplex) Accessory living quarters; the renting of not more than High Density Mixed R2 dwelling or two single-family dwellings on one room to not more than one person, or the providing Allowed with limitations (restricted to two units) Residential each building site. of table board to one person, or both.
15 June 19, 2017 Item 18 City of Del Mar Short Term Rentals Proposed Timeline for Development & Review of Regulations
6/19/2017 —City Council Policy Discussion - #1
7/17/2017 — City Council Policy Discussion - #2
7/2017 — 8/2017 — Staff prepares Draft Ordinance/Regulations with Report for Planning Commission (PC) Hearing
9/12/2017 — PC Hearing - Draft Ordinance recommendation
9/18 — 9/22 — Staff prepares Final Ordinance /Regulations for Council
October 2, 2017 — City Council 1st Reading
October 16, 2017 — City Council 2nd Reading
October 17,2017 — Submit LCPA application to CCC
December 13-15 (CCC Hearing in Central CA) — Goal First meeting in 2018 – Alternative
Feb-March Council meeting –review and accept revisions
February 2017 — Moratorium Expiration Date/Interpretation stands
June 2018– Return to Coastal Commission for certification
16 June 19, 2017 Item 18 17 June 19, 2017 Item 18 18 June 19, 2017 Item 18 Permit Process- Home Share
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 O (up to 14 days/calendar year) (Up to 21 days/calendar year) (Up to 29 days/calendar year)
Frequency – Frequency – Frequency – o None o None o None o Cumulative o Cumulative o Cumulative o Other (i.e o Other (i.e 3 o Other (i.e 4 twice/yr times/yr times/yr
Zoning – Zoning – Zoning – o All res. zones o All res. zones o All res. zones o Other o Other o Other
Permit type – Permit type – Permit type – o No permit o No permit o No permit o Administrative o Administrative o Administrative Permit Permit Permit
Other tools – Other tools – Other tools – o Residents o Residents o Residents Agreement Agreement Agreement o Local Contact o Local Contact o Local Contact o Other o Other o Other suggestions suggestions suggestions
19 June 19, 2017 Item 18 Permit Process- Whole Home/Limited Rental Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 (up to 14 days/calendar year) (Up to 21 days/calendar year) (Up to 29 days/calendar year)
Frequency – Frequency – Frequency – o None o None o None o Cumulative o Cumulative o Cumulative o Other (i.e o Other (i.e 3 o Other (i.e 4 twice/yr times/yr times/yr
Zoning – Zoning – Zoning – o All res. zones o All res. zones o All res. zones o Other o Other o Other
Permit type – Permit type – Permit type – o No permit o No permit o No permit o Administrative o Administrative o Administrative Permit Permit Permit o Discretionary o Discretionary o Discretionary
Other tools – Other tools – Other tools – o Residents o Residents o Residents Agreement Agreement Agreement o Local Contact o Local Contact o Local Contact o Other o Other o Other suggestions suggestions suggestions
20 June 19, 2017 Item 18 Permit Process- Whole Home/Seasonal (summer months and/or holidays) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 (up to 29 days/calendar year) (Up to 60 days/calendar year) (Up to 90 days/calendar year)
Frequency – Frequency – Frequency – o None o None o None o Cumulative o Cumulative o Cumulative o Other (i.e o Other (i.e less o Other (i.e less twice/yr) 30 days- than 30 days- multiple times) multiple times Zoning – Zoning – Zoning – o All res. zones o All res. zones o All res. zones o Other o Other o Other o Permit type – Permit type – Permit type – o No permit o No permit o No permit o Administrative o Administrative o Administrative Permit Permit Permit o Discretionary o Discretionary o Discretionary Other tools – Other tools – Other tools – o Residents o Residents o Residents Agreement Agreement Agreement o Local Contact o Local Contact o Local Contact o Other o Other o Other suggestions suggestions suggestions
21 June 19, 2017 Item 18 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Scott W. Huth, City Manager
DATE: June 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Amendment to the Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the amended Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report and provide direction on next steps.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On April 3, 2017, the City Council received the Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report. Staff has updated the Police Department Feasibility Report to correct a budgetary error which was recently found and also to reflect forthcoming actual costs for the City’s law enforcement contract with the Sheriff’s Department for Fiscal Year 2017- 2018 and adjustments for the City’s internal operational costs for the new fiscal year. The amended (red lined) Police Department Feasibility Report is provided as Attachment A.
Staff also completed additional research on staffing structures for small cities with police departments. Based on this research, we were able to incorporate two staffing options into the report, Option A and Option B. The concept of two staffing options had previously been contemplated by the Finance Committee. Option A is a more streamlined staffing allotment which counts on a lot of officers multi-tasking, which is consistent with a small town, low crime, small department model which is seen in many small California cities with their own Police Department. The Option B staffing level is developed based on segmenting responsibilities to specific positions for traffic, detective work and evidence, and records work. It is presumed that if Del Mar wishes to move forward with its own Police Department, the new Police Chief can more specifically determine the proper sizing and roles of the staff. Research has indicated that there are a lot of opportunities to also use reserve officers and volunteers to provide significant support to the Police Department which would further benefit the program while reducing costs that would be associated with only using full-time staff.
______City Council Action:
1 June 19, 2017 Item 19 City Council Staff Report Amendment to the DMPD Feasibility Report June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 2
Additional materials from other cities regarding their police department staffing are being included as an attachment J within the revised Police Department Feasibility Report.
Included with this agenda report is a redlined version of the Police Department Feasibility Report highlighting the changes (Attachment A). It will be posted to the City web site with the changes incorporated following the City Council meeting on June 19th.
Per City Council direction, there will be a more in-depth question and answer discussion regarding the feasibility report at the City Council meeting on July 10, 2017.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment A – Amended DMPD Feasibility Report
2 June 19, 2017 Item 19 An Analysis of the Feasibility of Starting a Police Department in the City of Del Mar and DELMARPOLICE a Review of Other Law Enforcement Options Previously DEPARTMENT Studied, including Services Provided by FEASIBILITY REPORT the San Diego County Sheriff’ City of Del Mar Office
March 28, 2017June 19, 2017
3 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Acknowledgements
This report was put together by a team effort and in some cases parts of this report were developed over several months. A special thanks goes out to past Assistant City Manager Mark Delin whose work with the Finance Committee and me provided a good foundation for this report; Dan Singer, City Manager (in transition), for helping to write portions of the report and for providing peer review; Mark Ochenduszko, retired City Manager, for his editing and peer review; Jon Froomin, Police Chief for the City of Coronado, for his editing and consultation; Lou Scanlon, Retired Police Chief for Coronado and Assistant Police Chief for San Diego, for expert consultation; John Maryon, Sheriff’s Department Captain, and his staff for their consultation and contributions with providing accurate information related to Sheriff’s Department operations; and our City Manager’s Department team of Assistant City Manager Kristen Crane and Senior Management Analyst Rachel Beld. Finally, Sarah Krietor, Management Analyst, who worked diligently to pull this entire report together.
These professionals, and in some cases subject matter experts, provided unbiased input and consultation to help me formulate this report. The conclusions and the representations in the report are my own and are not to be construed as their recommendations.
A special thanks to the Finance Committee and their Sheriff’s Department Ad-hoc Committee of Jim Benedict, Barry Entous, and Glen Sherman for their work with Ralph Andersen and Associates on their evaluation of law enforcement services and alternatives. The Finance Committee and City Council Liaisons Al Corti (former Councilmember) and Mayor Terry Sinnott have been working on this item since 2013 in an effort to improve law enforcement services.
Scott W. Huth City Manager
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 1
4 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Contents Executive Summary...... 33 Introduction ...... 55 Chapter l ...... 77 1) Costs of Sheriff Services ...... 77 2) Response Times...... 88 3) Lack of Patrol Presence...... 1010 4) Frequent Turnover of Sheriff’s Deputies and Management...... 1111 Chapter 2 ...... 1212 Report 1. “Evaluation of Law Enforcement Services, November 2013” (Available on City website). 1212 Report 2. Evaluation of the Park Ranger Program, October 2015 ...... 1515 Report 3. Evaluation of Law Enforcement Options, October 2015...... 1717 Report 4. Update of Costs for Stand Alone Police Department, October 2015...... 1818 Chapter 3 ...... 1919 San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Services...... 1919 Del Mar’s Code Enforcement Program...... 2121 Lifeguards...... 2222 Parking Enforcement ...... 2323 Ranger Program...... 2424 Options for Expanding Existing Services with the Sheriff...... 2626 Options Del Mar may provide to Augment Existing Sheriff and Ranger Services...... 2929 Chapter 4 ...... 3131 Del Mar Police Department Option...... 3131 Local Police Department Staffing Levels...... 3333 Police Department Service Areas...... 4039 Cost of Stand Alone Police Services Department...... 4342 Annual Operating Costs (Attachment F)...... 4342 Start-up Costs (Attachment G)...... 4645 Del Mar Police Department Implementation Plan...... 4947 Conclusion...... 5251
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 2
5 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Executive Summary
Since 2013, the City of Del Mar has been examining police and public safety services and options aimed at responding to a number of concerns and complaints related to existing service levels. The focus of these reviews have been to address four primary areas of concern: 1) the cost of Sheriff services and the cost of expanding said service 2) response times, especially to Priority 3 & 4 calls for service; 3) the lack of Patrol Presence in Del Mar; and 4) the frequent turnover of Sheriff’s Deputies and Management. While the frequency and intensity of police calls for service (CSF’s) in Del Mar are relatively small, on a per-capita basis they are quite high, especially for such a small community. This is attributable to the activity associated with the Del Mar Fairgrounds (about 1/3 of all service calls), and the visitor/tourist activities largely the result of the popularity of Del Mar as a destination spot. Indeed it is estimated that as many as 3 million visitors a year come to the City, primarily driven by the Fairgrounds/Racetrack and Del Mar’s beaches. These activities increase the need for traffic and parking enforcement and for park and beach enforcement at levels which would otherwise be unnecessary for a community of just over 4200 people. Said another way, while Del Mar may not need more police to become a safer city, we do require a more tailored level of service than most similar sized communities would.
As a result, over the past four years the City has worked with outside consultants and the City’s Finance Committee to study these circumstances, discuss options with the Sheriff Department, and form recommendations which are now the basis for this report.
The report is divided into four chapters and an introduction and conclusion. Chapter 1 provides a brief overview of the four service challenges articulated above. Chapter 2 reviews the work and findings of the service studies undertaken by consultants Ralph Andersen & Associates. These studies looked at existing Sheriff Services, the Park Ranger program, and costs and solutions to augment the Sheriff Department contract with other options that Del Mar could provide including a City Patrol Service model and an expanded Ranger Program. Their report concluded that although the Sheriff’s Department Costs of services was compatible with other Cities of similar size to Del Mar and that the other eight cities that contract with the San Diego County Sheriff are under the same contract and pay the same contract costs as Del Mar; there are concerns that Del Mar is not getting the value of what we are paying for. Specifically the reports confirmed that response times are slower than what one would expect, Del Mar’s law enforcement resources are performing duties outside of the Community significantly more than resources coming into the Community and that there is a lack of presence in the Community and due to a high turnover in staff (reassignments) there is a lack of continuity with the Community. The Consultant also recommended that it was important
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 3
6 June 19, 2017 Item 19 that the Ranger Program have Law Enforcement management oversite and that the Ranger also needed additional administrative and field support. This support and over site cannot be covered by the Sheriff’s Department
Chapter 3 looks at existing Sheriff Services and expanding on those services, including the costs and opportunities associated with each added Sheriff service. This chapter looked at existing law enforcement services (Sheriff, Ranger, Parking and Code Enforcement and Lifeguards) and costs, options to expand existing Sheriff Services, and options Del Mar may provide to augment existing Sheriff and Ranger Services. In each case, however, the service options do not fully address the concerns of reduced response times, increased costs or of greater community continuity and presence. As a result, Ralph Andersen and City Staff studied the opportunity for the City to establish its own full-service Police Department.
This option is fully studied and addressed in Chapter 4 and includes more conclusive cost estimates of a Del Mar Police Department and related start-up, facility and personnel and equipment expenditures. These costs include the legal and contract costs necessary to establish a new department; the salary and staffing and training required for personnel to be “ready to go” on the first day of a transition; new equipment expenses; and of course a facility. The report presents two staffing options A and B. Option A is a more streamline staffing allotment which counts on a lot of officers multi- tasking which is consistent with a small town, low crime, small department model which is seen in many small California Cities with their own Police Department. Option B staffing level is developed based on segmenting most responsibilities to specific positions for traffic, detective work and evidence and records work. It is presumed that if Del Mar wishes to move forward with its own Police Department the new Police Chief can more specifically determine the proper sizing and rolls of the staff. Research has indicated that there are a lot of opportunities to also use reserves and volunteers to provide significant support to the Police Department which would further benefit the Program while reducing costs that would be associated by only using full-time staff.
The Ralph Andersen study coupled with in-depth analysis by City staff and outside independent review have concluded that a Del Mar Police Department is not only feasible, but may be the only way to truly address the four primary areas of concern identified above. A stand-alone Police Department which incorporates the City’s existing Ranger Program and Parking Enforcement efforts would allow for a community- based policing model that provides Del Mar with continuity, better response times and additional staff at a reduced annual cost as further articulated in this report.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 4
7 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this report will be to review and address the following items:
1) Identify and briefly explain the key factors motivating the City to undertake the four year effort to look at options to enhance law enforcement services;
2) Briefly summarize the previous four reports authored by Ralph Andersen & Associates (RAA) that analyzed current Sheriff’s Department services, evaluated other law enforcement options, and reviewed the City of Del Mar’s Ranger Program;
3) Discuss options for expanding services with the Sheriff’s Department and options that the City evaluated to augment the Sheriff’s Department services; and
4) Describe the Del Mar Police Department option including benefits and risks associated with this option, identify opportunities within the City’s organization for efficiencies related to this proposal, and identify annual costs and startup costs, as well as a proposed implementation plan.
Background:
In June 2011, the City Council passed a resolution expanding the number of members of the Finance Committee and requested that the Committee review the City’s long-term Sheriff Contract obligations, and to provide recommendations to the City Council regarding strategies for reducing future costs. During this review, there were a number of questions and observations regarding service; as a result, the Finance Committee and staff felt it would be useful to have an independent consultant review. In January 2013, the City Council authorized funding for a study to evaluate the Sheriff Contract costs and to explore alternative service models. In November 2013, the selected contractor, Ralph Andersen & Associates, completed the law enforcement study and presented it to the City Council. The study concluded that the City of Del Mar was receiving good value in the Sheriff’s contract compared to other small cities. However, there were a number of areas where the study indicated the Sheriff could improve service (communications, response time, presence in the community and continuity of Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 5
8 June 19, 2017 Item 19 staff assigned to Del Mar) and identified a need for additional review to seek further potential for improvement. Areas to be addressed include Detective’s time allocation. The study also specifically analyzed the costs (labor, benefits, equipment and facilities) associated with starting a police department to provide comparable service. The study stopped short of evaluating other options for expanding Sheriff Services or that the City could provide to augment existing Sheriff and Ranger services.
In 2014, City staff, the City Attorney, and the Finance Committee worked on vetting options that could enhance law enforcement services, correct concerns with response times, improve law enforcement visibility and presence in the community, and address the frequent turnover of sheriff staff. The result of that effort led to requesting Ralph Andersen & Associates to perform a more detailed review of law enforcement service options. In 2015, Ralph Andersen & Associates (RAA) was tasked with preparing three reports: “Analysis of Park Ranger Program,” “Evaluation of Law Enforcement Options,” and “Update of Costs for Stand Alone Police Department”. In 2016, after reviewing these reports and listening to feedback and recommendations from the Finance Committee, City Council liaisons and staff, the City Council agreed with the idea of preparing an Implementation Plan. This “Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report” is that implementation plan. Due to the complexity of this issue, the number of consultant and staff reports prepared covering the review of law enforcement services and potential options; staff has provided a summary of law enforcement services and activity, and a summary of RAA’s reports for the reader’s benefit. Ralph Andersen & Associates’ four reports are available on the City’s web site at: http://www.delmar.ca.us/605/Law-Enforcement
It is important to note that the Sheriff’s Department staff, Del Mar’s Park Ranger, and the Parking Enforcement staff that serve Del Mar are a highly professional staff and serve the Del Mar community very well. This report is not about staff performance, but about the service model and the limitations of the services that the Sheriff’s Department and the City of Del Mar provide based on the current service methodology. This report also addresses opportunities to enhance these services.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 6
9 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Chapter l
Why Did the City Undertake Review of Law Enforcement Services?
Concerns about law enforcement services (primarily focused on costs and response times), within Del Mar date back to before 2003. In 2003, the City started the Ranger Program (armed law enforcement officer) to provide lower cost patrol services (compared to Sheriff Patrol) in the beach area, parks, San Dieguito Lagoon and other open spaces. When Del Mar made this decision in 2003 it in essence, started a one officer Police Department with full law enforcement authority and all that comes with that for these areas. More recently (2012), while reviewing the Sheriff’s Contract service costs, additional questions were raised about response times, lack of sheriff patrol presence, and the frequent turnover of Sheriff’s Deputies and management staff servicing Del Mar. Below is a summary of these four service concerns:
1) Costs of Sheriff Services: The current contract cost totals $2,110,685 in Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Costs have risen steadily at an average of 4% annually over the last 5 years - as a result of inflation and higher personnel costs (including pension funding increases). The New Sheriff Contract starting July 2017 is projected to cost Del Mar $2,312,567. The Sheriff Contract will increase 6% in the second year, 5.5% in third year, 5% in the forth year and 4.5% in the fifth year The Sheriff’s Department is constantly looking at ways to ensure the contract cities are paying their fully burdened costs associated with the services they receive. On the surface, this is to be expected and fair and the consultant’s studies have shown that Del Mar’s sheriff’s costs are comparable with other California Cities of similar size (See Ralph Andersen Report Chapter 2). Del Mar pays the same costs per service component that all nine contract cities pay to the San Diego County Sheriff Department. However when you consider these costs together with other concerns and additional cost of $190,610 930 for the Del Mar Ranger Program to augment the Sheriff’s services, the lack of flexibility in adjusting the Sheriff’s staffing and service model and/or costs to what the City is actually receiving, the overall cost of Del Mar’s law enforcement service becomes a concern. For example, the City is required to pay for a minimum level of services. The requirement includes paying for a full time detective which despite the fact the City generally only needs a half time detective. It is also clear that the City’s single 24/7 deputy spends a significant amount of time, estimated at approximately 25%, responding to calls for service outside of Del Mar. This is exclusive of the Sheriff services the City receives from Solana Beach, Encinitas and the unincorporated area that comes into Del Mar to provide necessary deputy “back-up” response.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 7
10 June 19, 2017 Item 19 2) Response Times: Ralph Andersen’s 2013 report and staff’s review of the response time data provided by the Sheriff, although similar to other response times for Sheriff contract cities, should be significantly faster if one takes into account Del Mar’s low service call volume, its small 2 square mile service area, and the fact that approximately 50% of the Deputy’s time is available to be doing “preventive patrol.” Residents and Staff also have an expectation of more responsive police services. A recent travel time survey performed within the posted speed limits over multiple trips from one end of the City limits of Del Mar to the other end, and another trip survey from the most remote parts of Del Mar indicated an average travel time of 5 minutes and 23 seconds (See Attachment A). Therefore, if a deputy is not on a call or helping a customer then one would expect response times to average between 4 and 6 minutes in Del Mar. The Sheriff’s response times are summarized in Table I and ll. These tables show the response times for priority 1, 2, 3, and 4 calls significantly higher than the anticipated 4 to 6 minute average. For reference, the County Sheriff uses a numeric priority coding system for calls for service, from 0 – 7. For purposes of most relevant Del Mar calls, those codes are consolidated to involve priority calls from numbers 1-4. Generally, these calls can be defined as follows with a complete code breakdown provided as Attachment B: Priority 1: serious accident, airplane crash, SWAT alert, or a major disaster. These crimes are limited and unusual. Priority 2: bomb found, homicide, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, residential burglary, grand theft, chemical spill, looting, explosion, railroad hazard, assault with a deadly weapon and numerous other serious crimes. These are usually serious felonies in progress. Priority 3: reckless driving, hit and run (no injuries), minor injury accident, DUI, arson, report of a death. Priority 4: loud parties, prowler, vandalism, petty theft, trespass, alarm activation, welfare check, disturbance (argument, family disturbance, group disturbance, juveniles, etc.). These are also calls wherein a suspect is not at the scene and there isn’t a risk of harm. In Table l, for each priority level call the response time is broken down into the time taken from the time the call is received to the time the call is dispatched, and then from when the deputy receives the call from dispatch until the officer arrives at the scene.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 8
11 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Table l Del Mar Response Times June – August 2013 (in minutes) Number of Received – Dispatch – Total Response Priority Calls Dispatch Arrive Time 1 8 0.6 13.6 14.2 2 477 1.4 8.3 9.7 3 286 4.0 9.7 13.3 4 193 21.3 34.3 55.1 Note: The discrepancy in total response times for priority calls 3 and 4 after adding received- dispatch and dispatch-arrive is unknown, perhaps involving overlap between these two numbers. These numbers reflect the actual times reported by the Sheriff and it is assumed that total response times for all four priority calls is correct. Table II shows the response times for 2014 both as a mean and median average. Table ll Del Mar Response Times January-December 2014 (in minutes) Number of Average Response Median Response Priority Calls Time Time * 1 14 9.0 8.0 2 270 11.2 10.3 3 828 16.8 14.0 4 535 47.6 29.5 *Note: Median is based on calls received between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014
These slow response times present a confusing result since staff’s travel time survey indicates 5 minutes and 2 seconds to get from one end of the City to the other driving at the posted speed without the use of lights and siren. Del Mar has a dedicated 24/7 Patrol Deputy, and a low level of calls for service. Taking into account that a Deputy could be anywhere in the City and could and does travel to many calls (especially priority 1, 2, and some 3 calls) with lights and siren traveling above the posted speed limit, and in many cases, with a clear roadway, one would expect the average response times to be significantly lower (closer to five minutes). The only reasonable conclusion that may be drawn for these actual response times is that the Del Mar Deputy is unavailable and most likely outside of the City. It is important to note that the actual response times call into question whether Del Mar is receiving its contracted one officer 24/7 level of service.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 9
12 June 19, 2017 Item 19 3) Lack of Patrol Presence: Del Mar is a small city of two square miles and residents, businesses and City staff has expressed a concern that the Sheriff doesn’t have a presence in the community and that it would appear that from time-to-time the Sheriff Patrol officer is not actually in the Community. It is understandable that if the City only has one 24/7 deputy and one 40 hour per week traffic deputy, there are going to be times when they are in court, taking someone to jail or at the Encinitas Sheriff’s Station for booking. Furthermore, the City’s deputies start and end each shift in Encinitas. Frequently, Del Mar’s deputy will back up the Solana Beach deputy, Encinitas, or the Rancho Santa Fe deputy. Prior to 2010, the Sheriff credited back to the contract cities the “net” difference of the deputy’s time on “calls for service” (CFS) serving other areas and other area deputy’s time coming into your city on CFS. This credit was referred to as the “beat factor”. Del Mar’s ‘beat factor” prior to 2010 indicated approximately 25% of the time the Del Mar Deputy was on Calls for Service in other communities more than other deputies were in Del Mar for CFS. Table lll shows that Del Mar’s deputy in 2014 responded to 43% of CFS outside of Del Mar, 47% of the CFS in 2015 outside Del Mar, and 39% of CFS in 2016 in other Communities. This situation explains the lack of patrol presence in the City. If on Del Mar deputies are on CFS outside the city 43% of their CFS and this accounts for a fair amount of their patrol time then it is clear Del Mar has limited patrol presence. Furthermore, it also explains the longer than expected response times shown in Tables I & II.
Table III Calls for Service 2014- 2016 Del Mar Patrol Deputy (unit 21) Number of Calls for Service Number of Calls for Service Includes Del Mar Del Mar NOT Included Encinitas 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 Community Camp Pendleton 5 1 5 1 Del Mar (City) 1175 1315 1297 Encinitas (City) 208 387 241 208 387 241 North Coastal Uninc 1 1 Rancho Santa Fe 226 300 191 226 300 191 Solana Beach (City) 447 479 394 447 479 394 Grand Total 2062 2482 2123 887 1167 826
% Calls outside of 43% 47% 39% Del Mar
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 10
13 June 19, 2017 Item 19 4) Frequent Turnover of Sheriff’s Deputies and Management: The Sheriff staff that provide services to Del Mar are constantly turning over. In the last 5 years, we have had 4 Captains. The North Coastal Station Captain is in effect the Chief of Police for Del Mar. Normally, Police Chiefs are in their positions for well over 5 years in our region. We also see frequent turnover at all levels. The Sheriff’s Department rotates their management staff to different service areas to provide training and diversify work experiences. This is an excellent strategy for the development of sheriff staff. This turnover results in the lack of continuity in managing this service as well as integrating law enforcement staff in with our other city departments. This also leads to lack of familiarity with the community and most importantly, does not result in effective community policing which is based on building relationships with staff, businesses and residents.
The above mentioned key factors are important measures of the law enforcement services that the community receives from the Sheriff’s Department. These key factors would not be acceptable if found in our other City provided services and it is for these reasons the City working with the Finance Committee, and Ralph Andersen & Associates initiated a review of law enforcement services.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 11
14 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Chapter 2
Summary of the Ralph Andersen & Associates (RAA) Four Reports on Law Enforcement Options:
Over the past four years, the City of Del Mar has contracted with Ralph Andersen & Associates (RAA) to conduct a number of studies aimed at evaluating local law enforcement needs, services and challenges. Taken together, these studies have helped to identify concerns raised in the community, provided comparative data and analysis of the levels of law enforcement services provided in Del Mar, and evaluated alternatives to the current Sheriff’s Department contract. These studies formed the building blocks that influenced the City and the Finance Committee to continue to evaluate the Del Mar Police Department concept. A summary of these studies is provided below. It is highly recommended interested persons read the four reports from Ralph Andersen and Associates.
Report 1. “Evaluation of Law Enforcement Services, November 2013” (Available on City website) Report 1 was to evaluate the law enforcement of the City of Del Mar. The study included an analysis of the law enforcement contract with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department in terms of its cost and adequacy of service to the community. In addition, the study analyzed other options for providing police services such as the City establishing its own stand-alone police department. The feasibility of either creating a Joint Powers Authority with other jurisdictions, a special district, or contracting with another city to provide police services were also examined.
Ralph Andersen reviewed financial and operational data including: the City’s budget, City staff reports, the existing contract with the Sheriff, calls for service and crime statistics for Del Mar (including violent crimes and property crimes). The report looked at the issues of cost reduction as well as improved service levels.
The study concluded that the City could create a stand-alone police department that would provide a service level higher than what is currently being received. This would involve improved staffing including having officers available in town on a 24/7 basis, providing for better response times to calls for service and improved coordination with the lifeguards, parking enforcement, fire and other City services. The public would have better access to police services since there would be a police facility in town, (more accessible than the Sheriff’s Encinitas Station). While the cost for this service was
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 12
15 June 19, 2017 Item 19 determined to be somewhat higher than the Sheriff’s contract, over the long term the City would be able to better control law enforcement costs.
The consultant made 11 recommendations for improving service. Staff has worked closely with the Sheriff on implementing these recommendations and most have been successfully implemented. The recommendations that were not acted upon were focused on the use of the detective and deputies/CSO (the Sheriff has not been flexible on these recommendations).
Some of the notable service improvements that have been realized include: obtaining more regular data from the Sheriff, adding information on public safety services to the City’s website, placing City Seals on vehicles serving the City, improving radio communications between agencies, coordinating training opportunities for the Ranger, and coordinating sheriff and ranger enforcement efforts.
Sheriff Service in 2013:
The Consultant concluded that “the general level of services supplied by the Sheriff is satisfactory based on the services that the Sheriff provides the other Contract Cities, but there are opportunities to strengthen certain service issues perceived by some as inadequate. There is obvious frustration among some Del Mar residents over the lack of flexibility in tailoring law enforcement services to the specific needs of the community…there is limited flexibility in reducing or reallocating resources since Del Mar only pays for the minimum services”. The Consultant found that there were service issues related to response times, presence in the community, community outreach, contract flexibility, and communication”. An example of one such issue the Consultant found is that “in terms of high priority calls (priority 2 calls), the average response time reported during June-August 2013 (9.7 minutes) exceeds the goal of other law enforcement agencies of eight minutes. It greatly exceeds the actual practice in other suburban law enforcement agencies, including other Sheriff’s Departments, of a response for high priority calls of 5 minutes or less”. Solana Beach and Encinitas had very similar response times to Del Mar for Priority 1 & 2 calls. The consultant concluded that these longer response times could be influenced by both the need for Del Mar’s deputy to wait for backup comes from outside the City of Del Mar and or that Del Mar’s deputy is out of the City of Del Mar.
The consultant analysis of time allocation of patrol deputies by calls for service (CFS), administrative time, and Preventative Patrol indicated that an average of 18% of the Deputy’s time is spent on Calls for Service (well below the 33% industry standard or the averages of other San Diego cities), The 18% of the deputy’s time spent on CFS is indicative of Del Mar’s low call volume. The consultant indicated that 29.5% of the deputy’s time was spent on Administrative duties (close to 33% industry standard) and
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 13
16 June 19, 2017 Item 19 52.5% of the Deputy’s time was spent on preventive patrol or unallocated time (well above the industry standard). See Table IV, below. Therefore, based on the low number of calls for service one would expect that Del Mar’s response times should be lower than surrounding communities (which it is not) and with half of the Deputy’s scheduled time unallocated or used for Preventive Patrol that the deputies would have a high visibility in the community (which is not the case).
Table lV Allocation of Patrol Deputies by CFS, Administrative Time, and Preventative Patrol (Allocated Time) Day Shift Night Shift Ideal Standard CFS 22% 14% 33% Admin. Time (report writing, briefing, etc.) 31% 28% 33% Preventative Patrol 47% 58% 33%
Cost of Service:
The Consultant concluded that the services provided by the Sheriff’s Department are “cost effective” and that the costs are reasonable and comparable to other similar size California Cities (see Table V). It is also important to note that as a percentage of the City’s overall General Fund budget, Del Mar’s percentage was the lowest of these same Cities. Del Mar’s costs for the sheriff’s staff and other services are allocated using the same formula for nine contract Cities.
The per capita cost for basic police services in Del Mar seems high compared to neighboring coastal cities. As shown in Table Vl, “Per Capita Cost of Police Services Among Del Mar’s Four Coastal Neighboring Cities,” Del Mar’s per capita law enforcement expense is much higher than its neighboring cities even though its cost for these services as a percent of its General Fund expenditures is lower. The per capita comparison of cities is not always a useful metric because of the City’s small population, and with a demand for police services driven by beach visitation of 1.6 – 2.2 million annually, and significant visitation during the Del Mar Fair and the horse racing season. On the other hand, this is a metric that many people understand and therefore find useful. It is also important to note these comparisons are of only Sheriff costs and do not include the Ranger program and Parking Enforcement costs.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 14
17 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Table V Cost of Police Services as a Percentage of the General Fund Budget Among Eight Small, Tourist Oriented California Cities Law Contract/ General Fund Enforcement % Law Enf. Budget/ City Population Stand Alone Budget (2012- Budget Gen. Fund Budget Dept. 13) (2012-13) DEL MAR 4,161 CONTRACT $ 9,685,920 $1,785,436 18.43 Avalon 3,728 Contract $6,294,688 $1,335,220 21.21 Carmel 3,722 StandAlone $14,300,000 $3,100,000 21.68 IndianWells 4,958 Contract $12,366,453 $3,648,522 29.95 Ojai 7,461 Contract $7,476,798 $2,929,885 39.19 PismoBeach 7,655 StandAlone $15,356,907 $5,376,723 35.01 Ross 2,415 StandAlone $5,615,316 $1,366,877 24.34 Sausalito 7,061 StandAlone $13,638,127 $4,420,640 32.41 Solvang 5,245 Contract $6,284,331 $1,648,628 26.23
Table Vl The Per Capita Cost of Police Services Among Del Mar’s Four Coastal Neighboring Cities Per Capita City Population Police Budget Expense Del Mar 4,161 $1,785,436 $429.09 Solana Beach 12,867 3,077,200 239.15 Encinitas 59,518 12,395,058 208.26 Carlsbad 105,328 27,900,000 264.89 Oceanside 167,986 51,359,864 305.74
As mentioned above, this report concluded with a number of recommendations that the City has implemented or attempted to implement. On January 21, 2014 and June 16, 2014 the City Council discussed the status of the City’s and Sheriff’s efforts to address the recommendations in the 2013 RAA Report described above.
Report 2. Evaluation of the Park Ranger Program, October 2015 This Report focused on evaluating the City’s Park Ranger program, which began in July 2003 in response to dissatisfaction expressed by residents over the services received by the Sheriff’s Department for beach and park-related contacts. Over the years, the Park Ranger program has grown into a full-service peace officer position with limited administrative support. In addition, the Del Mar Municipal Code (Chapter 1.10.010A) designates the ranger position as an “Enforcement Officer” with the authority to enforce the Municipal Code through the issuance of administrative citations.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 15
18 June 19, 2017 Item 19 The RAA report set out to evaluate the current Park Ranger program, including a review of the goals and objectives of the program, an analysis of the work and performance of the program, and a review of the costs, benefits and risks associated with the program. The report concluded that Del Mar is fortunate to have a long-standing and well trained Park Ranger. It was also clear that the Park Ranger has taken on the significant tasks of being a one person Law Enforcement Department. The amount of time spent covering all of the administrative aspects of running a law enforcement department with a single employee with no law enforcement management, supervision, or oversight was and is a daunting task and results in considerable risk to the Ranger and the City.
The consultants created a series of recommendations that they indicate should be implemented should the City Council desire to retain a Park Ranger program. These recommendations are summarized below:
1. Reduce the scope of the program to focus more on minor offenses and remove authorization to carry lethal weapons. If there is a desire to continue to have the Ranger be armed, there needs to be proper supervision from an experienced law enforcement manager to oversee the program; 2. Create specific jurisdictional guidelines for the program; 3. Develop a records management policy; 4. Establish a written training plan including reevaluation of the breadth of skills maintained by the incumbent; and 5. Improve communications and relationships with the Sheriff to improve intelligence sharing, knowledge of current in-progress law enforcement events and Park Ranger and officer safety through appropriate backup.
Management Comments on Specific Recommendations:
The City Manager Department staff, working with the Ranger and the City Attorney have addressed Recommendations #2 and #3 and are continuing to improve training opportunities and policies and procedures for the Ranger as part of addressing Recommendation #4. Staff has made progress on Recommendation #5 but additional efforts are required. Communications and relationships have improved. Regarding Recommendation #1, management did concur that the Ranger position could provide significantly more hours of public service if the Ranger would focus on more minor offenses such as underage drinking, violation of the City's alcohol regulations, illegal camping, illegal parties, animal regulations, and parking violations. Further, the Ranger was directed to limit his duties to the parks, beaches, open spaces, and the roads and parking areas immediately adjacent to those areas.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 16
19 June 19, 2017 Item 19 City Management does not concur with the recommendation to remove authorization to carry a lethal weapon. The initial decision to arm the Park Ranger was made based upon his need to make traffic stops, which were cited as one of the most dangerous of law enforcement activities. While the report indicates that traffic stops would very rarely be within the appropriate activities of the Park Ranger, staff believes that his being armed provides necessary protection while carrying out duties on the beach and in City parks. The Ranger performs many duties alone and can be exposed to safety risks so being armed provides personal safety and an air of authority in dealing with people who are violating the law. There are a significant number of visitors using City beaches and parks and there is a need to have that level of authority and security in these areas.
The findings and recommendations in this report are not only extremely important to the Ranger’s safety but are also important to the City to ensure that we are running this program safely and in a prudent manner. Since this report, the Ranger program has been transferred to be supervised under the City Manager. If the City wishes to maintain this program it will need to address the need for law enforcement management/supervision, and officer safety backup, and “on duty dispatch” coverage. These items will be addressed in Chapter 3. The Ranger Report is available on the City Website.
Report 3. Evaluation of Law Enforcement Options, October 2015 Ralph Andersen’s evaluation of law enforcement options for the City focused on four expressed concerns. These included: 1) the cost of Sheriff services, 2) response times, particularly to Priority Level 3 and 4 calls,3) a lack of patrol presence in the community, and 4) frequent turnover of Sheriff’s personnel in Del Mar. The study assessed these concerns through a series of interviews and input from the City Attorney and then analyzed options available. The evaluation concluded that the most important goals were to reduce response times and increase patrol visibility. The study helped to identify certain limitations placed on the City given the current contract relationship with the Sheriff’s Department yet found few viable alternatives, other than the establishment of a Del Mar police department. One alternative was based on “if the City’s highest priority goal is to reduce the response time to priority 3 and 4 calls when there is no suspect, the only feasible alternative is to implement the option of adding a new Community Services Officer to the contract with the County Sheriff’s Department.” This is the only alternative that the Consultant evaluated that would meet this objective, “since all of the other alternatives involved City personnel” and the Sheriff’s Department has confirmed that they will not dispatch responders to these types of calls.”
If the City’s most important goal is to increase patrol visibility and a sense of safety in the community, the consultant recommended that the City implement “Option 1B hiring
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 17
20 June 19, 2017 Item 19 two or more part-time Del Mar Community Services Officers”. These employees may be used to implement proactive municipal code enforcement. This option is further reviewed by staff in Chapter 3, “Options” section of this Feasibility Study.
Report 4. Update of Costs for Stand Alone Police Department, October 2015 This in-depth analysis focused on the one-time and on-going costs of establishing and maintaining a stand-alone Del Mar Police Department. The analysis formed the basis by which a local police department could be considered, including staffing levels, overhead considerations, equipment, liability, training and facility requirements. Other than the one-time start-up costs of establishing a local Police Department, the study concluded that the ongoing costs of a stand-alone Police Department would not be that much greater than the City’s combined costs for the Sheriff, Park Ranger and parking enforcement programs.
One-time start-up costs for recruitment, transition and capital purchases were estimated to be approximately $1.2 million. Rough costs of designing and constructing a new standalone police facility were estimated to be between $2.2 million and $3.2 million, not including land costs. Staff has continued to analyze these costs and will review the current costs in Chapter 4 “Police Department Options” in this Feasibility Study.
Summary
These four RAA reports, the Finance Committee review, and the staff reports and discussions at City Council meetings over the last four years have brought forth a lot of information as well as questions regarding the Law Enforcement Services that Del Mar currently provides, options to enhance current services, as well as the option to start a City operated Police Department. The next Chapter will summarize current Law Enforcement Services through the Sheriff, Del Mar Ranger, Parking Enforcement, Code Enforcement, and Lifeguard programs, and will analyze options to enhance those current services.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 18
21 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Chapter 3
Summary of Del Mar’s existing Law Enforcement Services, and options for expanding existing services with the Sheriff and options that Del Mar may provide to augment the existing services with the Sheriff.
The previous two Chapters identified service and costs factors and the Ralph Andersen & Associates Reports evaluated the existing programs and put forth some options to correct the Key Factors identified. This Chapter will describe Del Mar’s existing Law Enforcement Services, and options for expanding existing services with the Sheriff and options that Del Mar may provide to augment the existing services with the Sheriff. First is a description of our Law Enforcement Services.
Existing Services
Current Law Enforcement Services are described as follows: Sheriff Services (Citywide) City operated: Code Enforcement Program City operated: Lifeguard Program (Beach area and very limited authority) City operated: Parking Enforcement Program (Citywide) City operated: Park Ranger Program (Full authority for beaches, parks, open space, and the adjacent roads and parking areas)
San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Services The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department provides law enforcement services by contract to the City of Del Mar. The current five-year contract is a single document entered into between the County and all of the nine cities that contract for the service. The agreement outlines the services provided to each of the nine contract cities, including Del Mar. The total level of direct staffing paid for by the City is 9.344 80 Full- Time Equivalent (FTE) positions. This is depicted in the chart below.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 19
22 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Contracted Full Time Equivalent Positions Sheriff Positions (Sworn) FTEs Captain 0.09 Lieutenant (s) 0.19 Sergeant (s) 0.746* Officer/Deputy 5.32 Traffic Officer/Deputy 1.268 Detective 1 Reserves/960 Deputy 0.46 Total Sworn Staff 8.6149.074
Sheriff Positions (Non-Sworn) FTEs Admin Sec II 0.09 Admin Sec. I 0.09 Office Assistant 0.28 Senior Office Assistant 0.09 Property & Evidence Spec I 0.09 Crime & Intelligence Analyst 0.09 Total Civilian Staff 0.73
Total Staff 9.34480 *0.746 FTE = .453 Sergeant Patrol, .091 Sergeant Patrol, .091 Sergeant Relief, .111 Detective Sergeant Patrol Deputies are assigned to the City of Del Mar which is divided into six sections, known as “beats,” with the Fairgrounds being one beat, and the other five sections allocated to the remainder of Del Mar. Deputies work what is referred to as a standard 12 hour shift (See Attachment C). The Sheriff’s station is located within the City of Encinitas and therefore necessitates travel time to/from Del Mar at the beginning and end of each shift as well as for report writing, bookings, briefings and gathering and submitting of evidence. The City does provide office space for the Sheriff Deputies in City Hall. This space can be used for report writing and research. The City’s Traffic Deputy works a four-day week enabling traffic enforcement each Thursday through Sunday (instead of a seven-day a week traffic officer which is required in the County’s standard service contract). With that exception, the contract mandates minimum staffing levels, such as requiring a 24/7 Patrol Deputy and one Detective.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 20
23 June 19, 2017 Item 19 By contracting with a large law enforcement agency, the City benefits from various regional capabilities and economies of scale of the Sheriff’s Department including the ability to respond to major emergencies or events. The Department has substantial investigative resources in the case of a major investigation. Other services offered include: coordination with U.S. Border Patrol (Homeland Security), crime prevention, juvenile intervention, communications, and information technology support. In addition, supervisory positions can be shared with other cities or with the unincorporated area. There is increased depth and experience with a larger organization and generally the sharing of resources and liabilities result in lower costs when spread over the nine service contracts.
Certain services, of course, are provided to all cities whether they contract with the Sheriff or not, such as Special Weapons & Tactics (SWAT), aerial support (ASTREA), search and rescue, fire/rescue helicopter, and the crime lab (See Attachment D). The Sheriff Contract Services are estimated to cost the City in FY 2016 2017- 2018$2,110,685312,567. Current Status: The Sheriff Model of providing services works well for cities with average CFS volume and many law enforcement needs. For a unique city like Del Mar with low CFS and low crime, the model is not very flexible. For example, Del Mar is required to pay for a detective that despite the fact data shows the community only requires a 50% F.T.E. The City has no control over keeping deputies in Del Mar and although the City benefits when we need more back up support or coverage, Del Mar clearly is subsidizing other communities. The City is contracting for the lowest service level that is allowed under the Sheriff’s Contract. The Call for Service response times are high for a community our size although similar to other contract cities. Sheriff personnel turnover is very high which affects the Sheriff’s ability to connect with staff and the community.
Del Mar’s Code Enforcement Program
The Code Enforcement function is carried out by a single individual located in the Planning and Community Development Department. The job description delineates the duties as follows:
Code Enforcement Officer II: This position provides information on municipal and county adopted codes, performs field inspections and enforces municipal code provisions (such as animal regulations, business license, and operations permits) and land use laws pertaining to public welfare, safety, public nuisance, property maintenance and structure design. This position must have a good working knowledge of Del Mar ordinances to be able to explain regulations relating to municipal code provisions including zoning, land use, planning, design review, Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 21
24 June 19, 2017 Item 19 disabled access and related codes to the public; and performs related work as assigned.
The Code Enforcement Officer does not provide what is commonly considered law enforcement services (Penal Code enforcement); however, this positon works closely with law enforcement to enforce Municipal Codes. One of the most common interactions is with noise complaints dealing with businesses. This officer can also issue citations for infractions dealing with smoking in public, violation of animal control regulations and other similar municipal code violations. Other than continuing the support of the Sheriff, ranger or a future police department option, this program is not anticipated to change. Some of the options for supporting law enforcement services may benefit our Code Enforcement efforts.
Current Status: The program is adequately staffed and resourced to complete its mission.
Lifeguards
The City’s lifeguards are based in the Beach Safety Center, and also man the 25th Street lifeguard tower and several portable towers which are put in place during the busy summer season. They are responsible for public safety on the beach, from performing rescues and administering medical aid, to the enforcement of beach safety and use ordinances. The Lifeguard Department also maintains a swift water rescue team, cliff rescue team and dive team. Lifeguards are also capable of providing a limited amount of law enforcement support with their boats. All five of the permanent staff can issue citations for municipal code and ordinance violations, including parking. There are several part-time lifeguards that work for the Department. When Lifeguards are on duty, they work closely with the ranger relaying calls for service and in certain situations provide un-armed back up support for activities on the beach. Other than continuing to support of the sheriff, ranger or a future police department option, this program is not anticipated to change. Some of the options for supporting law enforcement services may benefit our Beach Enforcement efforts.
Current Status: The program is adequately staffed and resourced to complete its mission.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 22
25 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Parking Enforcement
The Parking Enforcement Program operates out of the Community Services Department and is based at the Beach Safety Center. There are three full-time positions, and the program is supplemented by seasonal staff during the busy summer season.
The job descriptions for the three full-time positions describe their duties as follows:
(1) Parking Enforcement Lieutenant – Under general direction, plans, organizes, trains and supervises parking enforcement staff; enforces state, city and county motor vehicle, parking and animal laws, ordinances, codes and regulations; interacts with the public regarding enforcement issues and other general information matters; organizes and supervises installation, maintenance, inspection and repair of parking enforcement equipment, such as meters, parking machines and signs; and performs related duties as assigned.
(1) Senior Parking Enforcement Officer – Journey level parking enforcement officer position – enforces parking regulations and maintains and services parking meter equipment. Under general supervision, enforces city, state and county motor vehicle, parking and animal control laws, ordinances, codes and regulations; interacts with the public in regard to enforcement issues and general information matters; services and maintains parking enforcement equipment, such as meters, parking machines and signs; and performs related duties as assigned.
(1) Parking Enforcement Officer I – Entry level parking enforcement officer position – enforces parking regulations and maintains and services parking meter equipment. Similar responsibilities as above, but requires additional supervision.
The parking program has one vehicle and two electric bicycles. Staff is equipped with radios. The estimated cost of the Parking enforcement Program in FY 2016 2017-2018 is $502,970644,280. These Officers can also issue citations for infractions dealing with smoking in public, violation of animal control regulations and other similar municipal code violations. The Parking Enforcement Officers work closely with the Sheriff on parking related issues. The RAA studies include several references regarding how Parking Enforcement Officers could serve an expanded role to provide support to the Ranger Program and a future Police Department Option. In many Law Enforcement Agencies, parking enforcement responsibilities are performed by Community Services Officers who can also perform other law enforcement functions.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 23
26 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Current Status: The program is adequately staffed and resourced to complete its mission.
PROGRAM: PARKING ENFORCEMENT ACCT #01-5632
This program funds enforcement of parking regulations. It includes the installation, maintenance, and collection of parking control devices.
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017
Employee Services 346,931$ 346,033$ 382,770$ Maintenance & Operations 49,334 43,608 37,200 Contractual Services 80,831 63,577 80,000 (1) Debt Service - - - Capital Outlay - 2,537 3,000
GRAND TOTAL 477,096$ 455,755$ 502,970$
POSITIONS (FTE) 3.0 3.0 3.0 (1) Includes the City's cost to contract with the Phoenix Company to process parking citations, the annual service agreement to maintain the Pay and Display machines as well as the administration costs for the credit card transaction fees for the meters.
Ranger Program
The Ranger Program is carried out by a single individual. The incumbent is trained and designated as a sworn peace officer serving the beaches and parks within the City of Del Mar. The Ranger performs enforcement of the City’s Municipal Code and applicable State laws, and performs patrol duties by vehicle, and foot; issues citations; writes reports; makes physical arrests for misdemeanors, felonies, and warrants; performs search and rescue activities, including detecting and rescuing persons or vessels in distress; provides emergency medical care in our parks and beaches. The Park Ranger is POST certified and is armed. He has an office at City Hall which he shares with the Sheriff. For all intents and purposes, the Ranger Program is a police department of one. There are two Park Ranger vehicles in black and white color schemes equipped with light bars and radios as well as a bicycle. The estimated FY 2016 2017-2018 cost for this Program is $190,610930.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 24
27 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Current Status: The RAA study on the Ranger Program identified several issues and made several recommendations to improve the program. Many of the recommendations are either completed or currently underway. The most significant recommendations dealing with law enforcement supervision and backup/coverage have yet to be dealt with due to the review process that is currently underway with this report.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 25
28 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Options for Expanding Existing Services with the Sheriff
Augmenting Sheriff Department Services (Community Services Officer, Traffic Deputy, COPS Deputy and Patrol Deputy) Responding to the community’s desire to see improved response times, a greater local presence, and enhanced service levels, one option would be to augment law enforcement services within the structure of the existing services provided by the Sheriff’s contract. The Sheriff can provide additional services via the Contract. The aim of this approach would be to reduce response times and create a greater local law enforcement and community-oriented presence. Community Services Officer (CSO), Traffic Patrol Officer, Special Purpose Officer (COPS) and Patrol Deputy are four positions that have been identified to help achieve these goals. Each position is described and would result in additional annual expenses to the City.
Community Services Officer (CSO) A Community Services Officer is a non-sworn law enforcement position designed to augment front-line services provided by sworn, armed deputies. A CSO is able to respond to Priority 4 calls where an armed officer is not required. In addition, a CSO can be utilized to take reports (thereby relieving patrol officers with this often time- consuming task), review red traffic signal camera tickets (at a much lower expense then having a detective or deputy perform this function), assist with traffic control and special events, conduct parking enforcement, collect crime evidence, and serve subpoenas and summons. One advantage of adding a CSO is that it would be dedicated to the Del Mar community and would allow patrol officers to be more responsive to higher priority incidents, presumably helping to improve response times. Del Mar is the only contract city in San Diego County without a CSO position. As a non-sworn officer, the costs associated with adding a CSO are much lower than with a sworn position yet they can handle a wide variety of tasks from parking enforcement, handling non-emergency calls, and public relations. Estimated Annual 2017-2018 Cost: $135,304141,161
Traffic Patrol Officer In response to community concerns the City added a dedicated traffic deputy who is on motorcycle patrol in the City. Del Mar currently pays for a 1.268 full-time equivalent position in order to make up for vacation, sick and training days. The City could enhance this traffic enforcement service by adding another full-time position (1 FTE). Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 26
29 June 19, 2017 Item 19 The City’s current Traffic Deputy generally works a Thursday-Sunday shift, so adding a second deputy would allow for more complete weekly coverage and availability for traffic stops and enforcement, special events, traffic control, and response related to vehicle accidents. This position would also be dedicated to Del Mar and would enhance the local police presence and, to a limited extent, response times. During the times that the traffic deputy is on duty, the deputy could provide backup to the patrol deputy in an emergency but normally the traffic deputy does not respond to non-traffic calls for service which can limit the impact of such a specialized position. Estimated Annual Cost: $294,555289,146 (not including revenues brought in through enhanced ticket writing)
Special Purpose Officer – Community Oriented Policing (COP) or Patrol Deputy A Special Purpose Officer is a sworn deputy dedicated to a specific area of need or specialization. For Del Mar, adding a COP position would dramatically increase the local law enforcement presence by having the officer work closely with the business community and residents on crime-related incidents and crime prevention. A COP could assist with special events and special initiatives, including foot patrol where desired or needed. They could work closely with the City’s Ranger. COP deputies generally do not respond to calls for service. Estimated Annual Cost: $256,285268,266
Patrol Deputy A Patrol Deputy is a sworn officer engaged in the day to day patrol of the community. Adding another deputy would improve response times assuming the deputy would be in the community more frequently than the current service level where the City has only one deputy. This additional position would also allow the City to increase its law enforcement presence and visibility. Estimated Annual Cost: $256,285268,266
In evaluating the Sheriff contract options, it is important to analyze how these options will positively affect response times, increase presence in the community to be a crime deterrent, as well as provide community-oriented policing and establish relationships and continuity with staff and the community. One also needs to understand that the City already spends money on resources from the Sheriff that are seen as subsidizing other Sheriff’s Department service areas. It would appear that the CSO option is the only option that Del Mar could count on being in the community and not directed elsewhere. Although the COPS Deputy and/or a Patrol Deputy appear to be a good option, the City
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 27
30 June 19, 2017 Item 19 would need to have assurances that either would remain in Del Mar and not respond to CFS outside of Del Mar. It is staff’s understanding that the Sheriff will not provide that commitment.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 28
31 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Options Del Mar may provide to Augment Existing Sheriff and Ranger Services
Del Mar Patrol / CSO
This option is a hybrid between a parking enforcement officer and a code enforcement officer. This position would be available to enforce and follow up on parking violations and towing of vehicles, Noise complaints, non-crime calls, municipal code violations and residential service calls un related to police activity. It is thought that in a limited manner this position could be patrolling the City providing additional City official presence albeit not a police presence. This position would be a civilian un-armed position. The RAA Report on “Evaluation of Law Enforcement Options” 2015 was thoroughly reviewed by Staff, City Attorney and the Finance Committee members and it was generally concluded that the Study Option(s) 1A,1B,1C Del Mar Creating a Community Services Officer and Option 2 Del Mar Patrol would be marginally effective due to not being able to be dispatched by the Sheriff Department and not having the ability to support the Sheriff Department with report writing and follow up on minor Priority 3 and 4 calls It is shown, for the purposes of understanding how the City could attempt to put a service model together similar to the Rancho Santa Fe Patrol but not armed with a weapon Attachment E “Summary Table of Law Enforcement Options, Costs, and Coverage” shows how the Del Mar Patrol/Community Service Officer Options do not compare favorably to the other options.
Ranger Program
The RAA Report on the Ranger Program in 2015 identified the need for law enforcement management/supervision as well as the need for backup on CFS and support with the administrative functions of the program. If the City is to maintain the Ranger Program and remain with the Sheriff, it is necessary for the Ranger Program to expand to include a manager with law enforcement background and additional support staff. Staff has developed one option “Expanded Ranger Program” to cover the Ranger program specific needs as well as another option, “Consolidated Enforcement” to consolidate the Ranger program specific needs with the Code Enforcement and Parking Enforcement programs.
Expanded Ranger Program Option: This program would hire a law enforcement manager part-time and part-time administrative and field support as a reserve ranger or a community service officer. These additions would resolve the concern identified in the consultant’s report and the City Manager’s concern of lack of law enforcement management over the Ranger Program. This option would increase Ranger patrol
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 29
32 June 19, 2017 Item 19 coverage in the parks, beaches, and open space area. The estimated cost for this increase in both management and support staff is approximately $170,000 for the first year.
Del Mar Consolidated Enforcement Option: This option would hire a full-time law enforcement manager (Captain/Lieutenant level) and part-time administrative support staff. The intention would be to have this position manage the Sheriff Contract, Ranger, Code Enforcement, and Parking Enforcement programs. Further, this option would consolidate these programs to best meet the needs of the City to accomplish all of the goals of all of these programs. This would allow the City to utilize its resources more efficiently as suggested in the RAA studies. The estimated annual cost for this increase in staff is approximately $250,000. Attachment E “Summary Table of Law Enforcement Options, Costs, and Coverage” shows how these two options compare to the other options. It is important to note that under these two options, the Ranger powers are still focused on the beach and parks, not the City as a whole. It is anticipated that the manager over these programs would be a sworn Ranger Supervisor and would spend a significant amount of time in the field thus expanding our Ranger services to cover the beaches and parks.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 30
33 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Chapter 4
Del Mar Police Department Option
The general duties of a Police Department include patrol, traffic enforcement, investigations/detective services, miscellaneous enforcement, dispatch (contracted service) and administration (records management, property, and evidence).
The establishment of a stand-alone Del Mar Police Department creates a number of opportunities and challenges for the City. The 2013 Ralph Andersen study, three additional 2015 Ralph Andersen studies (referenced in this report), and numerous additional service reviews have formed the basis for this report and analysis. The consultant determined that a Del Mar Police Department was a feasible option for the City. It provides the advantages of increased visibility, increased communication and feedback, consistency of personnel to help build better connections between law enforcement and the community, and shorter response times due to the increased staffing of police officers that will be located in Del Mar at all times, unless transporting prisoners or providing mutual aid in emergency situations. It also provides the advantages of better city control, accountability, commitment, and the ability to use resources for cross coverage.
Starting a Police Department is a difficult undertaking. There are several concerns that come into play that are typically raised by the public as well as staff to vet out when evaluating this option. The concerns or items include: community safety, service coverage, officer safety, costs, liability, facility needs and location, employee issues, and complaints and lawsuits, to name a few. That being said, it is important that the reader understand that Del Mar is not starting from scratch. In fact, Del Mar has had a one person police department with the Del Mar Ranger Program since 2003. The Ranger handles all aspects of law enforcement on Del Mar beaches, parks and open space. The Ranger is an armed, sworn peace officer similar to a municipal police officer or a Sheriff Deputy. The Ranger works in concert with the Sheriff’s Department which covers law enforcement duties in the rest of the City and provides support when needed by the Ranger or when the Ranger is not on duty to the beaches, parks and open space areas in Del Mar.
The key benefits of establishing a stand-alone police department are the following: Greatly enhanced police presence with a local identity and local police station Reduced response times (see Table VIl); Local control over law enforcement priorities, levels of service, and policies;
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 31
34 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Consistency of staffing (much less turnover); Greater community-based policing; Correcting supervision and support issues for the existing Park Ranger Program (savings $170,000); Integration of the parking enforcement program into the Police Department Option to realize service and costs efficiencies; Greater coordination with the City’s other safety services, including: Fire, Lifeguards, and Code Enforcement; and The ability to design and provide police services consistent with the community culture and needs.
Table VII New Police Department Estimate Response Times And Sheriff 2014 Data Sheriff Department Del Mar Police Department Average Response Median Average Est. Average Response Priority Time Response Time Time 1 9.6 8.0 5.0 2 12.5 10.3 5.0 3 15.4 14.0 7.0 4 45.0 29.5 8.0
Police are usually some of a City’s most visible employees who provide for community safety and assist in establishing the City’s quality of life. Local police services can more easily ebb and flow with the priorities and demands of the City in a manner which is consistent with the community’s character and desires. A stand-alone police department also comes with risks and challenges, including: A limited staffing pool (compared to the Sheriff) which could pose challenges when employees are not available or separate from employment (each position becomes more critical) ; Less specialization and depth when compared to the Sheriff’s Department; Potential risk and liability that, although covered by the City’s insurance, would still be time consuming for a small agency to handle and potentially costly compared to the Sheriff Department; and One-time and capital costs for the establishment of new department facilities and equipment.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 32
35 June 19, 2017 Item 19 In addition, a transition period and its associated costs would be required, including developing a police facility and hiring staff in advance of the department becoming operational.
Local Police Department Staffing Levels In order to provide adequate full-service law enforcement coverage for Del Mar, it is proposed that staffing levels exceed that of the current Sheriff’s Department contract (9.344 80 FTEs) combined with Del Mar’s Ranger and Parking Enforcement staff (4 6.5 FTEs) for a total of 13.3416.30 compared to the Del Mar Police Department proposed staffing of 13 11 sworn officers and five 4 civilian positions for a total of 18 15 FTEs under staffing Option A and 13 sworn officers and 5 civilian positions for a total of 18 FTEs under staffing option B. It is also important to note that on the surface this structure looks top heavy with the ratio of supervisors to patrol officers 1 to 1 or 1 to 2 and having a Chief and a Captain for a small town like Del Mar, but with four shifts you need that Sergeant supervision and the complexity of working with the Fairgrounds, San Diego and the Sheriff (providing a certain level of service to the Fairgrounds and along the railroad right of way) we will want the experience that we would be getting in these higher positions. It is entirely possible that if Del Mar starts its own police department that this structure could be reevaluated. It is also important to note that all sworn officers from the Captain Chief (from time to time) and below will be working in the field thus ensuring that we provide responsive service and have a significant presence in the Community. It is proposed that the full-time sworn staff include: 1 Police Chief 1 Police Captain (or Lieutenant) 4 Patrol Sergeants (for 24/7 supervision and back-up) 5 Patrol Officers; 1 Detective; (Staffing Option B only) 1 Traffic Officer; which could also work patrol as needed (Staffing Option B) 1 Full-time equivalent Reserve component.
The following are descriptions of the positions identified above: Sworn Staff Police Chief The Police Chief would be responsible for overall management of the Police Department staff and programs. This includes recommending police service programs, policies, and needs to the City Manager and City Council, developing programs
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 33
36 June 19, 2017 Item 19 consistent with City policies and public safety priorities, and coordinating operations and administration of the Police Department both internally and with other City Departments. This would also include department budget oversight, Internal Affairs, and recruitment and hiring. It is envisioned that all sworn officers will participate in field service including the Chief (as time permits). This is similar to all Del Mar departments.
Police Captain The Police CaptainThe Chief would be responsible sergeants and the detective as well as the Administrative Analyst. for managing the sworn law enforcement employees including the patrol sergeants, the patrol officers, the detective, the traffic officer, and the reserve officer; would serve as the Acting Police Chief in the absence of the Chief; would be responsible for department personnel and grant administration; and would assist in managing non-sworn administrative staff. The Police Captain Chief would also be responsible for developing Problem Oriented Policing (POP) and Community Oriented Policing (COP) strategies and programs.
Patrol Sergeants Patrol Sergeants report to the Police Captain Chief and are responsible for Watch administration and command oversight of patrol service while working patrol in the field. Patrol Sergeants are also responsible for coordinating community based relationships, identifying neighborhood issues, and developing plans to address these issues. In addition, Sergeants will have ancillary responsibilities for investigations occurring on their shift and various department programs including traffic enforcement, crime prevention, training, and other administrative programs as well as supervising the Patrol staff and the CSOs, Reserves and Seasonal staff.
Patrol Officers Patrol Officers’ core responsibilities would include patrolling the City to discover and prevent crime, enforcing traffic and other laws, responding to calls for service in protection of life and property, serving as a liaison to the public, preparing various reports, appearing in court, assisting in booking, processing and transporting prisoners, and other duties as assigned.
Detective The Detective would be responsible for managing investigations, including background investigations for new hirers, special enforcement, and crime analysis. The Detective would also provide coverage for patrol officers and would directly supervise the Records/Evidence Technician.
Traffic Officer
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 34
37 June 19, 2017 Item 19 The Traffic Officer’s primary responsibility would be enforcing of traffic laws, conducting traffic stops, coordinating traffic enforcement for special events, and responding to vehicle accidents. This position will also provide more flexibility for staffing and patrol coverage
Reserve Officer The Reserve Officer would perform a variety of duties dependent on the level of certification they hold. Standard duties for the Reserve Officer would include prisoner transportation, special events, and traffic enforcement. The Reserve Officer would provide backfill for patrol, bike patrol, and support for special events. A Reserve Program is vital to the FTE Patrol relief factor, and allows the Department to self-sustain with their in house staff to handle special events and minimize overtime.
This Both Staffing Options A and B model will provide comprehensive public safety services with adequate back-up, supervision and staff for day to day operations. With Option B providing more capacity and flexibility to staff special events and other peaks in work load without depending on reserves or more call back staff working on overtime.. It would provide for officer safety and mitigate potential liability issues. All sworn staff will perform patrol duties including the Chief (as time allows) and Captain as needed. This is consistent with the Del Mar small town “hands on service model” that we provide in our other Departments and what is occurring in many small towns in California. The Police Chief would serve as the department head, reporting to the City Manager. The Sergeant(s), and would be the Watch Commander on those their shift days and from time to time would be acting Chief as needed. the Captain is off. The Police Captain would serve as Acting Chief when the Chief is off and the Watch Commander during the day or evening as assigned. Both positions would also have administrative duties, but would be supported with non-sworn staff as identified below. It should also be noted that the Chief and Commander are FLSA exempt; therefore, they are not eligible for overtime. The four Patrol Sergeants would provide day, evening and midnight shift supervisory coverage. It is envisioned that the Sergeants would be “working Sergeants” and would be in the field on patrol. The five Police officers would work day, evening, and midnight shifts. The Traffic Officer would work traffic enforcement five days a week, and could also backfill patrol, if required. Non-Sworn Staff It is proposed that the department be supported with civilian/non-sworn staff which could include:
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 35
38 June 19, 2017 Item 19 2 Community Services Officers (I & II) 1 Records/Evidence Technician 1 Administrative Analyst Part-time labor support as needed
The following are descriptions of the positions identified above:
Community Services Officers (CSO) The Community Services Officers (CSO) would be non-sworn members of the Police Department who are used to respond to low priority (priority 4) calls such as non-injury traffic incidents, property crimes, and review of red light camera tickets. CSOs could also provide support for Patrol Officers in report writing, traffic control activities, and parking violation enforcement, and special events. Administratively CSO would work on community outreach programs and respond to general inquiries from the public.
Records/Evidence Technician The Records and Evidence Technician’s primary responsibility would be to receive, document, store, and ensure proper custody and control of physical evidence/ property in the custody of the department. Will work with officers to process police reports into the records management system; prepare cases with the Detective for the DA. The Records Technician would also assist with the departments clerical and administrative duties as needed.
Administrative Analyst The Administrative Analyst would provide support to the Chief and Captain for scheduling sworn employee trainings, equipment maintenance, department budget monitoring, and coordinating purchasing activities. The Administrative Analyst would be responsible for the department’s records management, phone coverage, receiving the public at the counter, assisting the Captain and Chief in preparing and filling monthly Department of Justice reports, and other administrative work. Respond to public records requests. When the employee in this position is not on duty, other police staff will support this role.
Part-time Labor Support As-Needed Part-time labor would provide clerical and administrative support to department programs, staff, and the public. It is envisioned that there will still be a need for part- time parking enforcement staff.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 36
39 June 19, 2017 Item 19 T R A H C L A N O I T A Z I N A G R O
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 37
40 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Staffing Configuration
StaffingConfiguration -Staffing Option A Staff originally developed two staffing options based on feedback from the Financing Committee and did not feel comfortable enough bringing forward the streamlined option until staff had enough time to research it further. Since presenting the Feasibility Report in April 2017, staff has had more time to research Cities in California with their own Police Department. Attachment J summarizes the research on small town Police Departments. After studying the service levels and costs of other small police departments, it is clear that Del Mar may be adequately served by a leaner staffing plan, similar to the average staffing levels found in the research. Such an option was also first studied by the Ralph Andersen & Associates Report in 2013. This research revealed that many Cities have a more streamlined staffing model wherein staff are performing multiple functions that would normally be segmented out to dedicated positions in larger Departments. Option A is designed to model this more streamline staffing approach. Attachment I describes a common small police department consisting of 11 sworn personnel with 4 civilian support positions. This option would not include a dedicated Detective or dedicated Traffic Officer. It is assumed in a leaner department that collateral duties are shared amongst sergeants and officers, such that they are conducting traffic and limited parking enforcement while on duty and working detective services for their cases.
With a total staffing level of 15 FTE’s, this option would have an annual cost (not including start-up expenses) of $2,489,721
Staffing Option B
A more comprehensive Del Mar police department would consist of 13 sworn personnel and 5 civilian staff, which adds back in the Detective and Traffic Officer positions and a Records Technician, see Option B of Attachment I. This option brings total staffing to 18 FTE’s. This option would provide the City with greater resources for large events, traffic enforcement, and follow up to more serious crimes. This approach would have an annual cost (not including start-up expenses) of $2,871,935, just slightly less than the current costs of law enforcement services
Under both options, the public would have better access to police services since there would be a police facility in town, which would be much more accessible than the
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 38
41 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Sheriff’s Encinitas Station and would considerable lower response times and the arrival of backup services.
It should be noted that these costs and service levels represent a best assessment for Del Mar. Ultimately a new Police Chief would require the time, tools and support to be able to create a police force that best responds to the needs and desires of the community, thus these assumptions are subject to change. That said we don’t envision that the resource need would exceed Option B.
Shift Configuration and Staffing
As noted above, this model ensures 24/7 patrol staffing, with supervision, which exceeds the City’s current service levels. It is proposed that the Patrol Staff be on a “12” hour shift similar to the Sheriff coverage that we currently receive (See Attachment C). Other staff would be on a combination of 8, 10 and 12 hour shift/schedule based on operational needs determined by management. The City would maintain a detective and support staff as well as traffic control via a dedicated traffic officer. Patrol officers and sergeants would also cover the city’s beach and park areas as well as take on other enforcement duties as needed. This model works to provide comprehensive public safety services with adequate back-up, supervision and staff for special events and other peaks in work load. All sworn staff will perform patrol duties including the Chief and Captain as needed and as time allows. Recruitment and Retention In the region, one of the challenges for law enforcement agencies is recruitment and retention, which means recruiting new top quality employees and retaining them over a long-term duration. Many law enforcement agencies, in San Diego County and beyond have indicated that attracting and retaining top quality candidates for law enforcement positions can be difficult. This is particularly true for entry level police officer positions, more so than the management level positions, which tend to be more stable. However, in the last 10-15 years, with the phenomenon of the aging baby boomers retiring, there has also been an exodus in the higher rank management positions.
Recruiting and retaining top quality staff is a priority for the City of Del Mar for all of its job classifications and would be particularly important for a Police Department as well. Retention would be important because the City would not want to be a “training ground” for police officers using the City of Del Mar as their first career step.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 39
42 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Management positions, such as Police Chief, Captain, and Lieutenants, tend to remain in a position for at least five years.
To address the challenge of recruitment and retention of more entry-level police officers, the Del Mar Police Department would offer two advantages:
1) Professional Growth Opportunities - As a smaller municipal police department, Del Mar would offer its Police Department workforce a variety of work on a wide range of law enforcement-related topics versus being assigned to one specific area exclusively. For example, in larger police departments, a more entry-level police officer might just be assigned to be a patrol officer, whereas in Del Mar, because of low call volume, in addition being a patrol officer, they would also work in other areas of law enforcement. This kind of diverse work experience would be appealing to many potential candidates as a professional learning experience and skill developing opportunity.
2) Competitive Salaries - The City of Del Mar’s compensation philosophy is to pay employees close to the median in the region for like job classifications. This means that the salary scale for Del Mar Police Department positions would be competitive with other Police Departments in the region.
Del Mar has the potential to recruit employees from other non PERS agencies and, particularly where there may be individuals who would like to work in a smaller organizational setting where they have an opportunity to work on a more diverse array of law enforcement responsibilities. In addition Del Mar may be able to attract individuals who are age eligible to retire from other local law enforcement agencies (which are not PERS agencies) and yet are young enough that they would still be interested in working for the Del Mar Police Department (for example, someone who is age 50 and could retire from SDPD or the Sheriff’s Department). Police Department Service Areas
Existing Services Integrated into Police Department As noted above, one of the primary benefits of a local police department is the integration of existing services, including parking enforcement and the Park Ranger. The City currently invests significant resources into these two programs, which would be folded into a local police function based on the model identified above. The parking enforcement personnel would become community services officers and the park ranger
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 40
43 June 19, 2017 Item 19 would be re-classified in one of the sworn positions. This would reduce overall City law enforcement costs as shown in Attachment E. It would be expected that Sergeant and Patrol Officers include in their daily duties the active patrol of Del Mar’s beaches, parks and public spaces. In addition, Patrol Officers and the Traffic Officer would have responsibility for both moving and parking violations and would work alongside the Community Service Officers to enforce local traffic laws, parking laws and codes. This should be a reasonable expectation based on Del Mar’s low “calls for service”.
Police Department Required Services
The Del Mar Police Department will be required to provide a base level of services. These services in general include: patrol, traffic enforcement, investigation, dispatch, crime prevention, and police administration. Attachment E identifies specific services that would be covered “in house” by Del Mar Police Department.
It is important to understand that if Del Mar decides to create a Police Department it will need to staff and provide resources to cover its policing needs. The list of services that Del Mar needs to cover are identified in Attachment D.
Mutual Aid
The State of California has defined mutual aid as a program whereby voluntary aid and assistance is given from one jurisdiction to another when the needed resources of a particular agency exceed its capacity to respond to an incident1. Such services are available in the City of Del Mar through both a Regional Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Operational Agreement with San Diego County and through Federal and State Mutual Aid and Disaster Assistance Policies and guidelines.2
It should be noted, however, that these agreements are limited in their scope to those defined as a “probable or imminent threat to life or property resulting from local peril, local emergency, local disaster, or civil disturbance, or a duly proclaimed ‘state of extreme emergency’ or ‘state of disaster.’”3 The Del Mar Municipal Code also defines
1 California Government Code, Sections 8550,8569, 8615 through 8619 2 See FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy: DAP9523.6 3 County of San Diego Regional Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Operational Agreement
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 41
44 June 19, 2017 Item 19 the conditions under which a “local emergency” may exist and how one is to be declared.1
Mutual aid is clearly designed for circumstances beyond that of day-to-day law enforcement or fire protection services and should not be relied upon to satisfy a shortage or deficiency in local public safety services. Were Del Mar to establish its own police department, regional mutual aid or cooperative agreements could be developed to share resources or back up resources when local law enforcement events necessitate the need for additional assistance. Similarly, Del Mar would need to enter into mutual aid agreements with other agencies to provide resources should the need exist elsewhere in the region or state.
Regional Services
Certain services are provided by the County of San Diego to local jurisdictions, irrespective of having a local police department or a contract with the County Sheriff’s Department. Such services are generally provided as a matter of practice and without charge to the local jurisdiction within the County. These services include such items as: helicopter air support, regional crime labs, search and rescue, special enforcement detail (such as SWAT or a bomb unit), property and evidence analysis, and Automated Latent Printing.2 In addition, the County also provides Coroner and District Attorney Services. Such regional services are not guaranteed, however, and are generally provided based on availability to local jurisdictions. If the City establishes its own police department, regional services such as those identified above may be viewed as a low priority by the Sheriff Department and/or result in additional costs to the City. See Attachment D for listing of specific regional services offered by the Sheriff to all Police Departments.
Services Covered by Contracting Out
The City found that for certain services it is more cost efficient to contract with other agencies or service providers to cover Del Mar’s needs. The most significant of these services is dispatch services. The City has held preliminary dialogue with San Diego State University (SDSU) Police Department to provide dispatch services. Basic 911
1 Del Mar Municipal Code, Section 2.52.020 2 See Agreement Between the City of Del Mar, the County of San Diego, and the San Diego County Sheriff, Section II.D
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 42
45 June 19, 2017 Item 19 dispatch service has been estimated at approximately $106,000 a year with full dispatch service and records management being estimated at $250,000 per year. The City of Del Mar would contract out legal services through the City Attorney. In addition, risk management, communication repairs, and firing range use will also be contracted out. A detailed list of suggested contracted services is identified in Attachment D.
Services Required by the Fairgrounds
The City is required to provide a base level of police services to the Fairgrounds within our City limits. The base level is established by what the City had in place in 1986 with the Sheriff. This requirement was part of the legislation that established sharing of the “handle” a portion of the betting revenue at the Fairgrounds. In general the City would provide day to day basic police coverage as we currently do and the Fairgrounds would pay for additional services for special events. The Fairgrounds uses a variety of sources to help with security and the Sheriff (through a separate contract with the Fairgrounds) provide law enforcement services for special events. It is possible that if Del Mar were to have its own Police Department it is possible that the Fairgrounds may want to contract for additional services. This situation could help to offset Department costs. Cost of Stand Alone Police Services Department
Staff has analyzed potential costs associated with the formation of a Police Department, including ongoing annual operational costs and initial start-up costs. The following is a review of annual operational costs. Examples of ongoing operational costs include labor/staffing (e.g., salaries, benefits, pension, overtime, workers’ compensation); annual maintenance of equipment and vehicles; services and supplies; training; insurance; and legal services. These costs have been identified using 20162017 estimated values. Another potential ongoing operational cost would be a facility lease if the City opted to lease a modular facility or finance constructing a new facility (or expanding the existing law enforcement areas in the new City Hall).
Annual Operating Costs (Attachment F)
Labor/Staffing The proposed Police Department under Staffing Option A would utilize 19 15 full time equivalent employees including both sworn officers (14 11 FTE) and civilian staff (5 4 FTE). Under Staffing Option B, the Department would utilize 18 full time equivalent employees including both sworn officers (13 FTE) and civilian staff (5 FTE). Labor and
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 43
46 June 19, 2017 Item 19 staffing also includes the cost of ongoing training, CalPERS, health insurance, disability insurance and workers compensation insurance.
A newly established police function will fall under the new pension reform regulations, known as PEPRA and/or the City of Del Mar’s Pension reform second tear retirement benefit. Currently the City of Del Mar is obligated under our contract with the Sheriff to pay for pension costs associated with the Sheriff staff that provide services to Del Mar. Pension liability exists for the City with or without its own Police Department. It is fair to assume that in no event would the City’s pension obligations be greater than the amounts currently provided to the County Sheriff on a per-employee basis. Under PEPRA and Del Mar’s Pension Reform Second Tear, new opportunities exist for the City to contain its pension costs should a Del Mar Police Department be established.
Other Labor-related Costs Overtime Overtime costs estimated at approximately $110,000 annually, are required to provide adequate staffing levels for special events, to allow for employee vacations and other paid leave needs as well as coverage for staff training when our staffing model does not cover these needs with regular time coverage.
Workers’ Compensation Due to the nature of the job, it is expected that there will be a level of activity in workers’ compensation claims consistent with other agency experience levels. The City is self- insured up to $125,000 for each claim and has coverage up to $50 million. The cost projection includes $63,816 in workers’ compensation premiums to pay for excess workers’ compensation coverage. The projection also includes funding for the workers’ compensation fund which is used to pay for actual claims activity. These costs are included in the benefit costs and are calculated as a percentage of salary.
Services, Supplies, Equipment and Space Ongoing costs under this category include uniforms, dues/memberships, utilities, radios and telephones (cellular and landline), office supplies, printing, and equipment maintenance. In addition, outside labor (vehicle detailing, found property appraisals) and equipment supplies such as evidence kits, photographic, breathalyzer, and ammunition. Vehicle maintenance, gas, and oil are also represented in this category.
Contract Services Contractual services include complimentary but required, services such as Department of Justice on-line services, drug testing for recruitments and for suspects, and ARJIS for vehicle and registration information as well as criminal information and a significant
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 44
47 June 19, 2017 Item 19 amount of contracting resources for the parking Pay and Display Machines and meters. . Contracts may also include regular operational items including janitorial services and copier needs. These items total just over $137,000303,820
Liability Insurance and Legal Services
Liability Insurance There are potential liability costs that are inherent in a Police Department. These include claims for liability, property damage, and civil rights, which are common in law enforcement. In order to estimate costs, claims expenditures from the Sheriff’s Department were obtained for Del Mar and the other contract cities in the County. Claims against Sheriff for activity in Del Mar were $85,261 over the last 20 years which averages to $4,263 per year. Compared to the other cities in the County that the Sheriff contracts with, some agencies had larger impacts, however, the City’s crime profile is low in terms of being a smaller city, having low activity, and low calls of service. Solana Beach, for example, the Sheriff experienced expenditures of $46,171 over the last 20 years. The City is expected to have some exposure similar to any other law enforcement agency, but to put it in perspective, the City’s crime rate is lower with lower calls of service.
Additionally, the City’s Ranger Program has been in place for 14 years and there have not been any claims against the City. This is due to the policies and procedure that are in place, following best management practices, training, professionalism and diligence of our Ranger and good fortune.
The City has liability insurance coverage up to $50 million. The projection includes $31,908 in insurance premiums for liability and $2,462 in property insurance for coverage of a police station and police vehicles. The cost projection also includes $30,000 in claims expenditures which will be used to cover any claims activity. Any unspent amounts will be set aside in a reserve to fund the City’s self-insured retention and a legal reserve contingency fund.
Legal Services (provided through the City Attorney’s Office) Legal services are projected at approximately $54,000 and include daily operational items and do not include litigation for liability claims or civil rights claims. These would be covered under our Liability coverage and our claims reserve fund.
Dispatch Services The City has been in discussions with SDSU Police Department to provide dispatch services to our City. We have received estimates that range between $106,000 for dispatch only services to $253,000 for full services including records management.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 45
48 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Since we are yet to determine our direction with these services we are proposing to use the base services. These services are estimated to cost approximately $106,000 annually.
Facility The potential lease costs if the City were to lease a temporary modular building is estimated at $54,000 a year based on a five year lease. If the City were to finance the building of a police station the estimated annual finance costs for an I-Bank Loan (same loan used to build City Hall) would be approximately $72,000 per million dollars loaned. Therefore based on the estimated costs of construction ranging between $1,070,576 and $2,375,134 (based on which option is selected) the projected annual financing payment would range between approximately $72,000 and $171,000. For budgeting purposes, the estimated financing costs is $72,000 each year.
Savings There are savings related to operating an independent Police Department. Funds which will help to offset costs include savings from the County COPPS grant, as well as money not spent on the City’s Ranger Program and Parking Programs as they would be absorbed into the new Department. The Sheriff’s Department currently retains a percentage of vehicle code fines paid. These funds would be wholly kept by the City as would traffic signal violation revenues. Overall, these savings represent nearly an $840,000 offset, thus reducing the annual cost for the Department.The City would also avoid the costs identified for providing management and support for the Ranger Program which is estimated at $170,000.
Projected Annual Costs Taking the above mentioned items into account the projected annual costs for the proposed Police Department Staffing Option A is $2,489,721 and Staffing Option B is $2,871,935option is $2,339,615 (See Attachment F).
Start-up Costs (Attachment G)
Start-up costs include the initial costs for all necessary aspects of forming a police department. These would generally be one-time, up-front costs. Some of these are for capital purchases, such as vehicles, uniforms and safety equipment, computers, office equipment, an automated records management system, and legal services. Another start-up cost would be for a facility to house the police department, which could include construction of a new facility or acquisition, tenant improvements, and site work for a leased modular building. In addition, another component of initial start-up costs would be staffing for the start-up transition period.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 46
49 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Initial Staffing Start-up transition period staffing (the period of time prior to the official police department launch date), which would include the cost for recruitment, testing, and background checks for the individuals who would be part of the transition team prior to their employment, as well as the salary and benefit costs for those positions during the transition period. During the transition period, these individuals would be tasked with all responsibilities associated with preparing for launch of the police department, such as writing all the policies and procedures; recruitment, testing, and background checks for the new police officers and other personnel; acquisition of all equipment and vehicles; and setting-up the ARJIS system; and establishing any other contractual services as necessary. The estimated cost for this portion of the start-up is approximately $450,000 plus $37,000 for recruitment costs.
Capital Purchases Some capital purchases would be required to start the stand-alone department. It is estimated that seven sedans, one motorcycle, one quad and several bicycles would be needed for a cost of approximately $250,000. It is possible that the vehicle number could be reduced by one or two by using existing Ranger and Parking Enforcement Vehicles. New uniforms and safety equipment would be required at a cost of about $118,000. These costs include uniforms, weapons, badges, duty belts, handcuffs, batons, body armor, Tasers, handheld radios, gas masks, helmets, shoes, and raingear for all sworn officers. New computers and office equipment would also be required. Automated records management software and legal services would be needed in this initial phase, as well, and would allow for collaboration with the Automated Regional Justice Information Services (ARJIS) and the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). Legal services provide the ability to enter fingerprints for ID purposes into the State database. It is expected that $35,000 of this expense will be reimbursed through the local RAN (Remote Access Network Board) which distributes funds received from a surcharge to DMV registration renewals which is used to aid in the identification of people.
Facility Costs The cost to either construct a new facility or acquire and improve an already existing facility would be required. There are several options with varying costs related to physically housing the new Department. As part of studying the feasibility of starting a police department, Aharoni Facilities Consulting, LLC (Project Manager for the City Hall construction project) was asked to review the space needs for the proposed police
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 47
50 June 19, 2017 Item 19 department and to provide options for constructing both a permanent facility and a temporary facility (for a 5-10 year period).
Attachment H, prepared by Aharoni Facilities Consultants, identifies three facility options and cost estimates for each. The options include:
Construction of a stand-alone new police facility at a location to be determined (approximately 4,046 square feet and 10 secured parking spaces; estimated $2,375,134)
Integration of a policy facility in the new City Hall site (approximately 2,700 square feet; estimated $1,070,576) and
A temporary leased modular building that could be placed on an undetermined site owned or controlled by the City for five to ten years (approximately 3,840 square feet; $320,000 for initial set-up/installation costs and $4,500/month for a lease, which equates to an estimated $270,000 over five years and $480,000 over ten years).
While the initial costs for constructing a stand-alone facility are greater, there is thereafter no ongoing annual lease payment. However, the city would likely experience costs associated with financing the construction of the facility.
The concept of leasing and retrofitting commercial space was evaluated, however because of the significant cost associated with retrofitting commercial space to meet the required security specifications necessary for a police department combined with the financial aspect of leasing space versus investing in a capital facility that the City would own and control, that alternative is not recommended for further consideration.
Summary of the Costs Analysis Because the City’s investment in Park Ranger and Parking Enforcement services are in addition to the annual contract with the Sheriff’s Department, Del Mar’s total law enforcement annual cost for FY 2016 2017 is estimated at $2,704,2652,923,847. The estimated 2016 2017 (annual) costs for the Del Mar Police Department (not including the one-time start-up costs) is $2,339,615 is $2,489,721 under Staffing Option A and $2,871,935 under Staffing Option B.. These figures would indicate an estimated first year savings ranging between approximately $52,000 (Option B) and $434,000 (option A)$364,650 savings if the City were to go to its own Police Department Attachment I. If the City were to add law enforcement management and support services to the Ranger Program as the RAA study suggested, this savings would range be closer to $220,000
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 48
51 June 19, 2017 Item 19 and $500600,000. With one-time start-up costs and capital cost ranging between approximately $2 million and $3 million dollars, it is estimated that the annual savings could recover the projected start-up costs 5 to 7 years. Additionally, if the City were to use low-interest financing to pay for the capital investment cost instead of spending money in a temporary modular setup the financing costs would be covered in the annual budget leaving approximately $1,100,000 in remaining startup cost. It wouldn’t take that many years to recover these costs in the projected savings (2 to 3 years).
Del Mar Police Department Implementation Plan If the City Council has an interest in further exploring community support for establishing a Del Mar Police Department and ultimately to move forward, it is recommended the following steps occur:
1. Determine community support through community meetings, focus groups, scientific polling, or through an election if needed a. Determine goals for the department in terms of response times to the various types of calls, presence in the Community and crime stats.
2. Conduct a comprehensive study of staffing needs based upon initial Ralph Andersen & Associates staff recommendations, staff’s analysis, and historic calls for service and response times to determine what level of staffing will be required to achieve the performance goals desired including the following: a. Evaluate number of single person and two-person response calls, and the amount of time in which no officer may be available if staffed at the two- person level; b. Evaluate prisoner transport time; c. Evaluate typical vacation, training, sick leave, disability leave, and turnover to create staffing levels which achieve the desired balance of regular time and overtime; and d. Develop performance metrics.
3. Develop funding plan to provide for a one-year start-up period while continuing service from the Sheriff.
4. Form a Committee of Law Enforcement Professional and Community members that can be a resource to the City Manager in the process of implementation.
5. Recruit a Police Chief a. Determine whether a professional executive recruiter should be involved b. Determine the type of experience and background that is needed c. Recruit advertise the position Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 49
52 June 19, 2017 Item 19 d. Negotiate employment contract
6. City organizational analysis – integrating a large new department into the City structure will create significant new demands in the following areas. This has been anticipated in this feasibility study however these are the areas that would need to be closely monitored: a. Human resources required to recruit, train and retain the additional police department staff, as well as to conduct labor negotiations b. Claims/risk management resources c. New health care contracts d. Additional information technology staff hours e. Additional purchasing staff hours f. Vehicle maintenance contract impacts g. Integration of Ranger and Parking Enforcement Program
7. Revisit cost projections for the new department and make necessary overall City budget recommendations to accommodate the any demands on the City indirect departments that were not anticipated.
8. Create operating framework for new police department a. Develop department mission statement and strategic plan b. Develop organizational structure c. Conduct market analysis for police officer positions and develop job descriptions and pay ranges for each position. d. Develop police policies and procedures, e.g. pursuit, use of force, arrest processing, professional conduct, evidence custody and control, internal investigations, etc. e. Develop report forms for incidents, arrests, investigations, field contacts, traffic citations f. Create department logo and identity color scheme for uniforms.
9. Craft interagency agreements for mutual aid and cooperation. a. Jail, prisoner transport and booking fees b. Obtain FBI recognition of new department c. Create dispatch agreement with SDSU PD if this is still available.
10.Develop Hiring Plan & Retention Plan a. Develop sequence and schedule for filling positions b. Develop minimum qualifications and certifications – recommendation to hire trained and experienced officers to minimize start-up costs and time
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 50
53 June 19, 2017 Item 19 c. Develop fringe benefit package d. Determine work hours and work shifts e. Determine how overtime should be paid f. Determine how employees can be best retained through competitive compensation, benefits and working conditions.
11.Facility and Space Selection a. Determine whether existing City Hall site or another property can house the new Department b. Community outreach for new location c. Building architecture, security, construction and design d. Determine lay out of lockable interview rooms (no cells or lock-up facilities will be provided) e. Analysis of noise and traffic f. ADA accessibility g. Secure spaces for evidence storage and for vehicle parking, and fireproof record storage
12.Purchasing a. Analysis of vehicle purchasing or leasing b. Equip vehicles for radios, light bars, computers, weapons and prisoner transport c. Bicycle patrols desired? ATVs for beach use? d. Guns, Tasers, ammunition, uniforms e. Records management system (if not available through SDSU dispatch)
The startup costs projection anticipated staffing resources to implement this plan except for the public outreach portion of this project. This should be evaluated if the City wishes to proceed.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 51
54 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Conclusion
As a small, relatively rural, community, Del Mar can best be described as a friendly, neighborly community where residents choose to live due to the quality of life and physical beauty of the town. Services in Del Mar are appropriately scaled with staff that takes personal pride and ownership in keeping the community clean, beautiful and safe; responding to visitors and residents in a professional, timely and courteous manner as much as possible. While County Sheriff services in Del Mar have worked to keep the city safe, if the community ultimately wants a department that has the same level of familiarity, involvement, and approachability as other City departments, including our Park Ranger, Lifeguards, Public Works and Fire Departments, then a Del Mar Police Department is one of the few ways of achieving that desire. As significantly, increased personnel and supervision and services under the Police Department model will certainly result in greatly reduced response times (as articulated in this report), greater continuity, and increased community involvement.
When measured by population, Del Mar’s crime rates (according to the FBI crime index), are the highest in all of San Diego County1. While the total number of crimes are some of the lowest in the County and Del Mar is fortunate to have few, if any, violent crimes on an annualized basis, the simple reality is that to remain a safe and well- patrolled community, a significant law enforcement presence is required, especially one who's service model reflects the community's needs, such as a community policing model.
Simply defined, “community policing” is a system of allocating police personnel to particular areas so that they become familiar with the local inhabitants of that area. More specifically, it is an approach and philosophy that supports the use of problem- solving and partnerships to proactively address public safety issues. To be effective, a community policing model requires law enforcement personnel who have longevity and the capacity to not just “patrol” the city, but “serve” the city. This is achieved through relationship building, public appearances, collaboration and communication with the organization and the businesses and residents of the community. This enables greater input and feedback and problem solving and works to establish trust and familiarity with law enforcement personnel.
Achieving this level of relationship and familiarity with Sheriff Department personnel simply isn’t sustainable because of frequent rotations within the Department. Their
1 SANDAG 2016 Mid-Year “Crime in the San Diego Region” Report
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 52
55 June 19, 2017 Item 19 model adequately serves the City of Del Mar from a safety and resource perspective, but falls short of achieving a more consistent and flexible law enforcement presence.
A community-based policing model would allow for foot patrol, event staffing, and park and beach coverage that is more characteristic of a small-town community.
Based on the information that was analyzed in the Ralph Andersen reports in 2013 and 2015 and the analysis performed by City staff over the past four years on law enforcement alternatives, it is apparent that starting a new full service Del Mar Police Department is feasible.
Not only is the option of forming a Del Mar Police Department feasible, but the cost analysis shows that the annual expense would be less than what the City currently pays for all of its law enforcement services, with the exception of the start-up costs. If the City were to finance the capital investment necessary for the start-up costs, the savings the City would realize annually in operational costs would pay off the non-capital facility investment for the start-up costs over an approximate 5-year period or sooner depending on which facility option is selected.
Additionally, a Del Mar Police Department option would enhance law enforcement service levels in several ways. It is anticipated that average call response times would be reduced to five minutes for priority 1 & 2 calls, 7 minutes for priority 3 calls and 8 minutes for priority 4 calls, except for when multiple calls are received at once and it is necessary for the calls to be queued. However, based on current data, that would be a rarity.
Although the Sheriff’s Department model provides adequate general overall coverage, it is limited in Del Mar in that it yields longer response times than if the City were to have its own Police Department and is below best practice standards. Data shows that the Del Mar patrol deputy is responding to 40% or more calls that are outside of the City limits; the historical beat factor showed the Del Mar deputy was responding to calls outside of the City 25% of the time more than the other deputies coming into Del Mar. To be clear, on average our Deputy(s) is responding to 25% of their calls for service in communities that are not paying us for that service (Del Mar is subsidizing other Communities). The dynamic of our Deputy responding to 40% of their calls outside of Del Mar leads to longer response times in Del Mar and also impacts the law enforcement presence in the community because now when our deputy is out of town it takes longer for a cover Deputy to reach Del Mar from their location (Solana Beach, Encinitas).
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 53
56 June 19, 2017 Item 19 In addition to shorter response times, other benefits of Del Mar having its own police department include:
Greater law enforcement presence and visibility of police officers in Del Mar because they would generally not be leaving the City to respond to calls in other jurisdictions;
Greater consistency of staff for the long-term duration, especially in management, compared to the high turnover rate in the Sheriff’s Department;
Greater local control to redirect resources to law enforcement needs as necessary;
Provide a management solution for the City’s Ranger Program; and
At the same or less cost than the current Sheriff’s Department model, provides the City with greater law enforcement control than currently exists;
The employees of the Department will have a greater connection to the community, increasing their sense of “ownership”.
Make Del Mar a safer place to live and visit.
A Del Mar Police Department doesn't come about without some uncertainty, however. While staff has worked to provide realistic and conservative assumptions about such matters as pension obligations, liability, and risk, it should be understood that future unforeseen activity could alter these assumptions. The simple increase in that many full-time employees has related liabilities and obligations over the long-term. Fundamentally, the decision is not so much a financial one as it is a policy question about control, policing priorities, response times, community character, and continuity of service.
For the benefit of the reader, a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis is included to facilitate the discussion related to the benefits of the police department.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 54
57 June 19, 2017 Item 19 SWOT Analysis – Del Mar Police Department An at-a-glance summary of the strengths and weaknesses of a Del Mar Police Department model are provided below in the form of a SWOT analysis. A SWOT analysis assesses the strengths and weaknesses of a proposal along with the opportunities and potential threats which may exist. The assumptions below were derived from the numerous Ralph Andersen and staff studies. Strengths: Weaknesses: More visible community presence City is managing more staff More “boots on the ground” Won’t have the depth of experience Resources stay in town that comes with the Sheriff’s Faster response times Department Establishment of a local May not have immediate access to office/station mutual aid resources during a large Greater cost controls or significant event as we would Better integration with other Del Mar with being with the large Sheriff services and departments Department Better able to meet community Challenges in maintaining needs and cater to the community staffing/recruitment (similar to all with more tailored services law enforcement agencies Use of a community based policing model Improved emergency preparedness Less staff turnover and greater familiarity with the community Paying for the service we get as opposed to subsidizing other Cities
Opportunities: Threats: Provide additional support to Fire, Direct exposure to liability claims EMS and Lifeguards during Direct exposure to Workers Comp emergency calls claims Establishing a full-time police chief Uncertainty with the PERS pension as a coordinator of local law exposure and lack of local control enforcement resources and as a local spokesperson Coordinate emergency response efforts Start a Volunteer Patrol program (integrated with CERT) Build up Neighborhood Watch and other local public safety initiatives Provide better service for less costs.
Del Mar Police Department Feasibility Report | - March 28, 2017 55
58 June 19, 2017 Item 19
ATTACHMENT A
SURVEY OF TRAVEL TIMES WITHIN DEL MAR
Code 3 Emergency Response Time’s within the City of Del Mar
The following emergency response times were recorded on February 25, 2017 between the hours of 3PM-6PM by Adam Chase in unit DM1. The weather was partly sunny, the road surface was dry, and traffic that was light to moderate. The posted traffic speed limits were observed, the average speed was 35 MPH. The California Vehicle Code allows emergency response vehicles to drive 15 MPH over the posted speed limit – this was not done during this exercise.
Northbound from San Diego 1) Carmel Valley/CDM to Via De La Valle/Jimmy Durante = 4 minutes 40 seconds 2) Nob/Ocean to Via De La Valle/Jimmy Durante = 5 minutes 7 seconds 3) Nob/Ocean to CDM/Via De La Valle = 5 minutes 10 seconds 4) Nob/Ocean to San Dieguito/Racetrack View Drive = 5 minutes 2 seconds 5) Carmel Valley/CDM to 15th Street = 2 minutes 16 seconds
Southbound from Solana Beach 1) I-5/Via De La Valle (Jimmy Durante) to Carmel Valley/CDM = 4 minutes 58 seconds 2) CDM/Via De La Valle to Carmel Valley/CDM = 5 minutes 12 seconds 3) I-5/Via De La Valle to CDM/Via De La Valle = 1 minutes 43 seconds 4) I-5/Via De La Valle to 15th St. = 2 minutes 15 seconds 5) I-5/Via De La Valle to Highway 101 to Carmel Valley/CDM = 6 minutes 55 seconds
Average Time Calculation: Northbound trips 1-4 and Southbound trips 1-2 Average time is 5 minutes and 2 seconds
59 June 19, 2017 Item 19 TYPE CODE PRIORITY LIST
Event Type Description Event IPS Priority Event Type Description Event IPS Priority Officer Needs Help 1199 0 Assault w/Intent to 220 2 Foot Pursuit FP 0 Driving Under the Influence 23153 2 with Injury Traffic Pursuit TP 0 Battery, Undefined 242 2 Unit Emergency UE 0 Assault w/a Deadly 245 2 Cover, Code 3 1088C 1 Shooting at a 246 2 Building/Occupied Vehicle Accident, Serious 1180 1 Rape 261 2 Accident, Serious Dept. 1180D 1 Child Abuse/Neglect 273 2 Accident, No Detail 1183 1 Spousal Abuse 2735 2 Accident, No Detail 1183D 1 Sex Crime Against Child 288 2 Airplane Crash AIRC 1 Food Tampering 347 2 Blood Run BLOOD 1 Elder/Dependent Abuse 368 2 Swat Alert C10 1 Disturbance, Fight 415FI 2 Swat Staging C11 1 Threat with a Weapon 417 2 Swat Callout, Other C11O 1 Burglary, Undefined 459 2 Disaster DISAST 1 Burglary, Commercial 459C 2 DOC Activation DOC 1 Burglary, Hot Prowl 459H 2 Stolen Vehicle 10851 2 Burglary, Residential 459R 2 Stolen Target Vehicle 10851TV 2 Burglary, School 459SC 2 Cover, No Code 1088/COV 2 Burglary, Vehicle 459V 2 Bomb Threat 1089 2 Theft, Grand 487 2 Bomb Device Found 1089D 2 Psycho, Violent 5150V 2 Bomb Threat, Other 1089O 2 Annoy/Molest a Minor 6476 2 Incomplete Phone Call 1130 2 911 DV Cellular 911DV 2 Incomplete Wireless 1130W 2 Code Blue/Cab or Bus BLUE 2 Call for Help 1131 2 High Risk Warrant C12 2 Possession of Dangerous 11350 2 Dive Team Request -SED C14/DIV 2 Possession of Drugs for 11351 2 Emergency Traffic ET 2 Possible Suicide Attempt 1145 2 Explosion EXPLO 2 Injured Person 1147 2 Found Juvenile FNDJ 2 Chemical Spill 1155 2 Hazardous Materials HAZMAT 2 Person Down 118 2 Drug Manufacturing LAB 2 Possession of Illegal 12020 2 Looting LOOT 2 Carrying a Concealed 12025 2 Missing Juvenile MISJ 2 Homicide 187 2 Missing Person At Risk MISPAR 2 Hit and Run, Injury 20001 2 Officer Involved Shooting OIS 2 Kidnap 207 2 Report, Kidnap R207 2 Kidnap for Ransom 209 2 Report, Kidnap for R209 2 Robbery, General 211 2 Riot RIOT 2 Robbery, Armed 211A 2 Railroad Hazard RRHAZ 2 Robbery, Panic Alarm 211PA 2 Report of Death 1146 3 Robbery, Silent Alarm 211SA 2 Accident, Minor Injuries 1181 3 Robbery, Strong Arm 211ST 2 Accident, Minor Injuries 1181D 3
60 June 19, 2017 Item 19
Event Type Description Event IPS Priority Event Type Description Event IPS Priority Carjacking 215 2 Burglary, Resident Silent 459RS 4 Hit and Run, Property 20002 3 Burglary, School Audible 459SCA 4 Reckless Driving 23103 3 Burglary, School Silent 459SCS 4 Driving Under the Influence 23152 3 Burglary, Vehicle Audible 459VA 4 Child Stealing-Court Order 278 3 Burglary, Vehicle Silent 459VS 4 Arson 451 3 Forgery 470/FORG 4 Under Influence 647F 3 Theft, Undefined 484 4 Drag Racing DRAG 3 Till Tap 484T 4 Escape Prisoner ESCAPE 3 Theft, Petty 488 4 Located Juvenile LOCJ 3 Shoplift 488S 4 Mountain Rescue MTRESC 3 Possession of Stolen 496 4 Mutual Aid Requested, Law Enforcement MUTAID 3 Embezzlement 503 4 Prisoner 1016 4 Psycho 5150 4 Tampering with a Vehicle 10852 4 Extortion 519 4 Incomplete Phone Call, Pay 1130P 4 Defrauding an Innkeeper 537 4 Traffic Stop 1149/T 4 Vandalism 594 4 Subject Stop 1151/51 4 Vandalism, Vehicle 594V 4 Under the Influence of 11550 4 Trespass 602 4 Prowler 117 4 Trespass, Vehicle 602V 4 Fire 1171 4 Prostitution 647B 4 Exhibition of Speed 23109 4 Phone Threat of Violence 653T 4 Throwing Objects at Moving 23110 4 Suspicious Person, Armed ASUSP 4 Assault 240 4 Confidential CONF 4 Child Concealing-No Court 277 4 Hazardous Situation HAZARD 4 Indecent Exposure 314 4 Industrial Accident INDAC 4 Disturbance, General 415 4 Located Person LOCP 4 Disturbance, Argument 415A 4 Missing Person MISP 4 Disturbance, Customer 415C 4 Runaway Juvenile RJ 4 Disturbance, Family 415FA 4 Senior Welfare Check RUOK 4 Disturbance, Group 415G 4 Stalking STALK 4 Disturbance, Juveniles 415J 4 Suspicious Circumstances SUSC 4 Disturbance, Labor 415L 4 Suspicious Person SUSP 4 Disturbance, Pyrotechnics 415P 4 Swift Water Rescue SWR 4 Disturbance, Smoke 415SM 4 Tarasoft TARA 4 Verbal Threat by 422 4 TKO Compliance Check TKOC 4 Hate Crime 4226 4 TKO Fourth Waiver TKOF 4 Arson, Other Agency 451O 4 TKO 72 Hour Release TKOR 4 Burglary, Commercial 459CA 4 Traffic Hazard TRAFH/T 4 Burglary, Commercial Silent 459CS 4 Temporary Restraining TRO 4 Burglary, Residential 459RA 4 Unknown Trouble UNKTR 4
61 June 19, 2017 Item 19
Event Type Description Event Type IPS Priority Event Type Description Event Type IPS Priority Welfare Check WELCK 4 Theft of Services 498 6 Telephone Call, Urgent 1021U 5 Threatening/Obscene/Annoyi 653M 6 Dangerous Person Alert 1035 5 Attempt to Contact ATC 6 Animal Bite 1114 5 BOL BOL 6 Possession of Marijuana 11357 5 Commercial Vehicle Info COMVEH 6 Cultivating Marijuana 11358/CM 5 Deliver a Message DELM 6 Coroner's Case 1144 5 Lost Animal LSTA 6 Discharge a Firearm 116 5 Miscellaneous Police Call MISC 6 Leak (gas, water, sewer) 1160 5 Ordinance Violation ORDVIO 6 Signal Malfunction 1166 5 Off Road Violation ORV 6 Accident, Non-Injury 1182 5 Preserve the Peace PRES 6 Accident, Non-Injury Dept. 1182D 5 Report, Arson R451 6 Traffic Control 1184 5 Report, Arson Other agency R451O 6 Contributing to Delinquency 272 5 Smoking in Prohibited SMOKE 6 Cruelty to Animals 597 5 Suspicious Vehicle SUSV 6 Begging 647C 5 Warrant Service WARR 6 Assistance Needed ASST 5 Return to Station 1019 7 Bar Check BC 5 Telephone Call 1021 7 Stakeout C5 5 Out of Service 107 7 Stay Out of Area C6 5 Embezzlement, Vehicle 10855 7 Illegal Camping CAMP 5 Report 1110 7 Dog Team Request DOGT 5 Animal, Injured 1112 7 Attempt to Contact, EATC 5 Animal, Dead 1113 7 Fraud FRAUD 5 Abandoned Vehicle ABNDV/1124 7 Found Runaway Juvenile FRJ 5 Transport 1148/TR 7 Report, Stolen Vehicle R10851 5 Tow Truck Request 1185 7 Report, Possible Suicide R1145 5 Special Detail 1186 7 Report, Carjacking R215 5 Abandoned Property ABNDP 7 Report, Assault to Commit R220 5 Aerial Support ASTREA 7 Report, Rape R261 5 Eating C7/EAT 7 Report, Child Abuse R273 5 Restroom C8 7 Report, Sex crime Against a R288 5 Community Relations COMR 7 Report, Elder/Dependent R368 5 COPPS Project COPPS 7 Recovered Stolen Vehicle RSV 5 COPTER1 Call COPERT1 Search and Rescue SAR 5 Court CRT 7 Illegal Vendor VEND 5 Illegal Dumping DUMP 7 Meet 1087/87 6 Evidence Processing EVID 7 Ballgame in the Street 1115 6 Extra Patrol EXTRA/XP 7 Security Check 1153 6 Found Animal FNDA 7 Citizens Assist 1188 6 Found Narcotics FNDN 7 Gambling 330 6 Found Property FNDP/FPROP 7
62 June 19, 2017 Item 19
Event Type Description Event Type IPS Priority Disturbance, Dog 415D 6 Disturbance, Noise 415N 6 Disturbance, Party 415PA 6 Disturbance, Vehicle 415V 6 Foot Patrol FOOTP 7 Follow Up FU 7 Information INFO 7 Lab Technician LABT 7 Lost Property LSTP/LPROP 7 Out of Car OC 7 Out of County OOC 7 Illegal Parking PARK 7 Problem Oriented POP 7 Report Writing RPWR 7 Skate Boarding SKATE 7 Traffic Assignment TRAFA 7 Test Call TEST 7 Vin Verification VIN 7 All Other Report Calls Varies 7 Administrative Duties ADM/AD 9 Run Plate for Info TAG 9 Training TRNG 9 Vehicle Service VSER 9
63 June 19, 2017 Item 19 DEL MAR DEPLOYMENTS PATROL 30-May 31-May 1-Jun 2-Jun 3-Jun 4-Jun 5-Jun 6-Jun 7-Jun 8-Jun 9-Jun 10-Jun 11-Jun 12-Jun UNIT HRS Fri1 Sat1 Sun1 Mon1 Tue1 Wed1 Thu1 Fri2 Sat2 Sun2 Mon2 Tue2 Wed2 Thu2 21P1A 0600-1830 12.5 10.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 21P1A 0600-1830 10.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 21P1A 0600-1830 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 10.0 12.5 21P1C 1800-0630 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 10.0 TRAFFIC 30-May 31-May 1-Jun 2-Jun 3-Jun 4-Jun 5-Jun 6-Jun 7-Jun 8-Jun 9-Jun 10-Jun 11-Jun 12-Jun UNIT HRS Fri1 Sat1 Sun1 Mon1 Tue1 Wed1 Thu1 Fri2 Sat2 Sun2 Mon2 Tue2 Wed2 Thu2 21T1A 1100-2130 10.5 11.0 10.5 10.5 10.5 11.0 10.5 10.5
64 June 19, 2017 Item 19 LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
Sheriff Contract Regional Services Services Services Notes Services (Current Provided by the Provided by Del Contracted Services Services) Sheriff to All Police Mar Police out by Del Departments Department Mar 1. Patrol ü ü 2. Traffic ü ü a. Accident ü ü b. Commercial Enforcement ü 3. Community Service Officers ü ü 4. Investigations ü ü a. Homicide ü ü b. Area investigations ü ü c. Vice ü ü d. Narcotics ü ü e. Auto Theft ü ü f. Juvenile ü ü g. Sex Crimes ü ü 5. Crime Prevention ü ü 6. Juvenile Intervention ü ü 7. Child Abuse ü ü 8. SWAT/special Enforcement ü ü a. Mobile Command Post ü ü b. Armored Cars ü ü c. Specialized Firearms ü ü d. Specialists in Hostage Rescue ü ü 9. Underwater Search and Recovery ü ü ü a. Boats ü ü b. Contaminated Water Diving Equipment ü ü c. Swift Water Rescue ü ü d. Evidence Recovery ü ü 10. Crime Analysis ü ü 11. Arson and Explosives ü ü 12. Fraud/forgery ü ü 13. Vice Detail ü Aerial Support to Regional Enforcement 14. Agencies (ASTREA) ü ü Crime Laboratory (testing is regional, but 15. collection and other process is not) ü ü 16. Street Drug Investigations Unit ü 17. Street Gang Investigations Unit ü 18. Communications Center ü ü Radio Amateur Communications 19. Emergency System Coordinator (RACES) ü ü 20. Licensing ü ü Licensing investigations (ABC, CCW, Good 21. Guy 290, message) ü ü 22. Records ü ü 23. Training ü ü a. Basic Academy ü ü b. In-service Training ü ü c.CSO Training ü ü d. Management/executive Training ü ü 24. Canine Coordinator and Training ü 25. Criminal Intelligence ü ü 26. Internal Affairs ü ü 27. Law Enforcement Reserve Coordinator ü ü Volunteer Coordinator- Explorers, RSVP, 28. Station, Bi-lingual ü ü 29. Vehicle Coordinator ü ü a. Maintenance ü ü b. Cleaning ü ü c. Fuel ü ü d. Repair ü ü e. Pursuit Tracking ü ü f. Accident Tracking ü ü 30. Liability and Claims ü ü a. Attorney Specializing in ü ü b. Risk Management Unit ü ü 31. Administration ü ü Mutual Aid Ready Platoon/disturbance 32. (MAP) ü Emergency Response Activation Team 33. (ERAT) ü 34. Emergency Operations Center (EOC) ü ü 35. Data Services (computers, etc.) ü ü
65 June 19,1 2017 Item 19 LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
Sheriff Contract Regional Services Services Services Notes Services (Current Provided by the Provided by Del Contracted Services Services) Sheriff to All Police Mar Police out by Del Departments Department Mar 36. Telephone System ü ü a. Repair ü ü b. Installation ü ü Intergovernmental Affairs and Legislative 37. Analyst ü ü Legal Affairs (Legal Update, Civil Services, 38. Etc.) ü ü 39. Public Affairs Office (PAO) ü ü 40. Video Production Unit (VPU) ü 41. Personnel Division ü ü Drug Awareness Resistance Education 42. (DARE) ü ü 43. School Liaison Deputies ü 44. Task Forces ü a. Narcotics Task Force (NTF) ü b. No Co Gang Task Force (NCGTF) ü c. Regional Auto Theft Task Force (RATT) ü d. Juvenile Gang Enforcement Task Force ü e(JUDGE).Psychia tric Emergency Response Team (PERT) ü 45. Victim Witness Liaison ü 46. Weapons Training Unit ü ü a. Ranges ü ü b. Armory ü ü c. Weapons Repair ü ü d. Special Weapons ü ü 47. Property Evidence Unit ü ü ü a. Warehouse Storage ü ü b. Bicycle Storage ü ü c. Disposal of Hazardous Evidence ü ü d. Sale and/or conversion of Excess Property ü ü 48. Domestic Violence Unity ü 49. Youth and Family Services Detail ü 50. Child Abuse ü ü 51. Automated Latent Printing Unit ü ü 52. Polygraph Unit ü ü 53. Forensic Services Unit ü ü SUN/ARJIS/LEADS/CLETS/NCIC liaison 54. (computer system) ü ü 55. Emergency Planning Unit ü ü 56. International Liaison ü 57. Labor Relations Unit ü ü 58. Court Liaison Deputy ü ü Chemical testing Contract - Nurses/gci 59. Machines ü ü 60. Chaplin Program ü 61. Fugitive Investigations ü 62. Budget Unit ü ü 63. Payroll Unit ü ü 64. Financial Services ü ü a. Accounting ü ü b. Travel ü ü c. Subpoena ü ü d. Purchasing ü ü e. Supply ü ü 65. Planning and Research Unit ü ü 66. Background Investigations ü ü ü 67. Career Path Unit/promotional exams ü ü 68. Off Road Enforcement ü ü 69. Search and Rescue ü ü ü 70. Peer Support Unit ü 71. Psychiatric Support Unit ü 72. Employee Assistance Program ü ü 73. Hostage Negotiations Unit ü ü Civil Service Commission/hearing/board of 74. right ü 75. Union negotiation attorney ü ü ü 76. Citizen Law Enforcement Review Board ü Handicapped Services (deaf phones, wheel 77. chair accessible, etc.) ü ü 78. COPS Coordinator ü
66 June 19,2 2017 Item 19 LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
Sheriff Contract Regional Services Services Services Notes Services (Current Provided by the Provided by Del Contracted Services Services) Sheriff to All Police Mar Police out by Del Departments Department Mar 79. Asset Forfeiture Manager ü ü 80. Building Maintenance ü ü 81. Fire/Rescue Helicopter ü ü
67 June 19,3 2017 Item 19 ATTACHMENT E
Summary Table of Law Enforcement Options, Costs, and Coverage
Sheriff Options - Increasing Services Through our Existing Contract Added City Service OptionsDel Mar to Support Sheriff Del Mar Police Department Options Patrol One Option One: One Option Two: One Del Mar Officer 8 a.m. - Ranger with One Ranger with One Patrol One Del Mar 12 p.m. Part-Time One Full-Time Sworn Officer 8 a.m. - Patrol One Summers & Manager and Part- Manager and One Added COPS Del Mar 12 p.m. daily Officer 8 a.m. - Weekends Time Part-Time Admin Del Mar Police Del Mar Police Deputy or Added Traffic & Patrol Two Permanent 12 p.m. daily Only Off Reserve/CSO for Support Department Department Sheriff Added CSO Added Traffic Patrol Deputy CSO Officers 24-7 Staff Seasonal Staff Season Support Staffing Option A Staffing Option B Urgent Calls Hot Calls x x x x P&B (4) P&B x x Minor Crime Calls x x x x P&B P&B x x Burglar Alarms x x x x x x Medical Aid/Rescue x x x x x x x x x x x x x Traffic Speed x x x x x Stop Violations x x x x x Bikes x x x x x Parking/Towing x x x x x x x P&B P&B x x
Non-Urgent Calls Parties x x x x x (1) x (1) x (1) x (1) P&B P&B x x Noise x x x x x x x x x P&B P&B x x Crime Reporting x x x x x P&B P&B x x Non-Crime Calls x x x x x x x x x P&B P&B x x Code Violations x x x x x x x x x x x Residential Service Calls/Reports x x x x x x x x x x x Dog/Animal Control x x x x x x x x x P&B P&B x x Reliability Factor
Consistency of Staffing, Relationships with Residents x x x x x x P&B P&B x x
Can Be Sure Assigned Resources Stay in Del Mar x x x x x x x x P&B P&B x x P&B = Limited to Parks and Beach Sheriff/Police Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) 9.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 11.80 9.80 9.80 9.80 9.80 9.80 9.80 15.00 18.00 Other options Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) 10.00 4.00 4.00 TBD 2.00 2.00
Base Sheriff Contract Cost, if Applicable $ 2,312,567 $ 2,312,567 $ 2,312,567 $ 2,312,567 $ 2,312,567 $ 2,312,567 $ 2,312,567 $ 2,312,567 $ 2,312,567 $ 2,312,567 $ 2,312,567 Community Services Officer (40 hour) $ 141,161 $ 141,161 Traffic Deputy $ 289,146 $ 289,146 COPs Deputy (Community Oriented Policing) 40 hours $ 268,266 Salaries/Benefits - Staff n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 827,341 $ 343,673 $ 279,276 $ 137,645 $ 170,000 $ 250,000 $ 2,775,721 $ 3,157,935 Total $ 2,312,567 $ 2,453,728 $ 2,601,713 $ 2,580,833 $ 2,742,874 $ 3,139,908 $ 2,656,240 $ 2,591,843 $ 2,450,212 $ 2,482,567 $ 2,562,567 $ 2,775,721 $ 3,157,935
Total Safety Program Cost, Including City Safety Services Subtotal Safety Costs $ 2,312,567 $ 2,453,728 $ 2,601,713 $ 2,580,833 $ 2,742,874 $ 3,139,908 $ 2,656,240 $ 2,591,843 $ 2,450,212 $ 2,482,567 $ 2,562,567 $ 2,775,721 $ 3,157,935 City Park Ranger Program 1 FTE 190,930 190,930 190,930 190,930 190,930 190,930 190,930 190,930 190,930 190,930 190,930 City Parking Program 5.5 FTE 644,280 644,280 644,280 644,280 644,280 408,985 (2) 477,942 (3) 477,942 (3) 644,280 644,280 644,280 RedFlex Signal Enforcement 62,070 62,070 62,070 62,070 62,070 62,070 62,070 62,070 62,070 62,070 62,070 COPs Grant (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) Less Vehicle Code Fine Revenue (Sheriff) (186,000) (186,000) (186,000) (186,000) (186,000) (186,000) (186,000) (186,000) (186,000) (186,000) (186,000) (186,000) (186,000) City Ranger and Parking FTE 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 4.50 5.50 5.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 Total $ 2,923,847 $ 3,065,008 $ 3,212,993 $ 3,192,113 $ 3,354,154 $ 3,515,893 $ 3,101,182 $ 3,036,785 $ 3,061,492 $ 3,093,847 $ 3,173,847 $ 2,489,721 $ 2,871,935
TOTAL FTE 16.30 17.30 17.30 17.30 18.30 24.30 19.30 19.30 TBD 18.30 18.30 15.00 18.00 (1) For Officer Safety - Two respondents are desired for party and noise disturbance calls (2) Transfer of Two Parking Enforcement to Patrol with Seasonal Parking Budget (3)Transfer of One FTE of Parking to Patrol with Seasonal Parking Budget (4) P&B = Limited to Parks and Beach
68 June 19, 2017 Item 19 POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS BUDGET: STAFFING OPTION A & B
CalPERS Rates (Need to get determination from CalPERS for new PD) 13.656% (A) Monthly Healthcare $ 1,271 (B) CalPERS Rates (based on PEPRA Safety Plan) 12.1% (A) CalPERS Rates for Non-Sworn (based on PEPRA) 6.25% (A) CalPERS Rates for CSO (based on Misc. 1st Tier Plan) 24.24% (A) Workers Comp for Sworn (based upon Adam Chase rates) ($/100 salary) $ 7.00 (C) Workers Comp for Nonsworn (based upon budget salary schedule) $ 0.70 PARS Rate for Part-time and Seasonal 3% Del Mar Police Department Budget DMPD Budget STAFFING STAFFING PERS/ Life OPTION A OPTION B SwornOfficers Salary PARS Health w/c disability Insurance Training TOTALEACH Units TOTAL Units TOTAL Chief $ 185,630 $ 25,350 $ 15,252 $ 12,994 $ 1,931 $ 130 $ 2,000 $ 243,286 1 $ 243,286 1 $ 243,286 Patrol Sergeant $ 109,496 $ 14,953 $ 15,252 $ 7,665 $ 1,139 $ 130 $ 2,000 $ 150,634 4 602,537 4 $ 602,537 Patrol Deputy $ 86,589 $ 10,477 $ 15,252 $ 6,061 $ 901 $ 130 $ 2,000 $ 121,410 5 607,050 (D) 5 $ 607,050 Traffic Deputy $ 86,589 $ 20,989 $ 15,252 $ 6,061 $ 901 $ 130 $ 2,000 $ 131,922 0 - 1 $ 131,922 Detective $ 109,496 $ 14,953 $ 15,252 $ 7,665 $ 1,139 $ 130 $ 2,000 $ 150,634 0 - 1 $ 150,634 Reserves (2 Half-time Reserves) $ 52,000 $ 7,101 $ - $ 3,640 $ 541 $ - $ 500 $ 63,782 1 63,782 1 $ 63,782 Sub-Total Sworn Officers 11 1,516,655 13 1,799,212 $ - Civilian/non-sworn Staff $ - Community Services Officer I $ 54,084 $ 13,110 $ 15,252 $ 379 $ 562 $ 130 $ 1,000 $ 84,517 1 84,517 1 $ 84,517 Community Services Officer II $ 73,944 $ 17,924 $ 15,252 $ 518 $ 769 $ 130 $ 1,000 $ 109,537 1 109,537 1 $ 109,537 Evidence and Records Tech. $ 72,713 $ 8,798 $ 15,252 $ 509 $ 756 $ 130 $ 1,500 $ 99,658 0 - 1 $ 99,658 Administrative Analyst $ 80,734 $ 5,046 $ 15,252 $ 565 $ 840 $ 130 $ 500 $ 103,067 1 103,067 1 $ 103,067 Part-Time Labor Support (CSO, Event Security) $ 35,000 $ 1,050 $ - $ 245 $ 364 $ - $ 500 $ 37,159 1 37,159 1 $ 37,159 Sub-Total Civilian Staff 4 334,279 5 433,938
Total Salaries and Benefits 15 $ 1,850,935 18 $ 2,233,149
Other Labor-Related Overtime 110,000 (E) Liability and Property Insurance premium 34,370 (G) Liability Claims 30,000 Workers Comp. excess premium 63,816 (G) Training Included Above Services, Supplies, Equipment and Space Uniforms 18,000 (F) Dues/Memberships/Documents and Publications 2,400 Utilities 13,000 (H) Telephone (cellular and landline) 12,000 Radios 1,100 Office Supplies & Postage 2,000 Printing 4,000 Equipment Maintenance 3,000 Outside Labor (vehicle detailing, found property appraisals, etc.) 5,000 Contractual Services (copier, janitorial, ARJIS, DOJ, drug testing, Parking meters, Signal enforcement Redflex) 303,820 Legal Services 54,000 Dispatch 106,000 (I) Equipment Supplies (evidence kits, photographic, breathalyzer, ammo) 13,000 Community Activities 3,000 Vehicle Maintenance 15,000 Vehicle Gas and Oil 35,000 Capital Reoccurring 25,000 Police Station Lease/financing 71,280 Total Other Labor-Related $ 2,775,721 $ 3,157,935
Less COPS Grant (100,000) Less Vehicle Code Fine Revenue (186,000) Less Parking Enforcement Fines -
Net Del Mar Police Department Operational Cost $ 2,489,721 $ 2,871,935
Notes: (A) Added additional CalPERS tiers and changed % rates based on the position CalPERS police plan undetermined, so used Fire's FY 2017-2018 normal cost Classic Tier 2 rate of 13.656% for Chief, Captain, Sergeant, and the detective CalPERS police plan undetermined, so used Fire's FY 2017-2018 normal cost PEPRA rate of 12.1% for Patrol Deputy and Traffic Deputy Since Parking Officers are currently working for the City, used Misc. Classic Tier 1 rate of 24.24% (which includes normal cost and unfunded liability) for CSOs and Parking For Administrative Assistant, used Misc. PEPRA rate of 6.25%
(B) Changed the monthly health care amount from $1,100 to $1,175 per employee
(C) Workers' comp rates changed to current budget (FY 2016-2017) for Parking staff, Park Ranger, and Police staff, which is $7 for every $100 of payroll
(D) 1 of the 5 Patrol Officers will be rotated into investigations/traffic
(E) Overtime is based on employees taking approximately two weeks of vacation and two weeks for sick and training for a total of four weeks which is approximately 1,760 hours per year. This was calculated at an average overtime rate of $63 per hour with a result of $110,000 per year.
(F) Uniforms were calculated based on parking enforcement average of $1,000 per employee and 18 employees.
(G) Liability insurance, property, and workers' comp insurance premiums were from the City's insurance broker.
(H) Utilities changed based on City Hall's cost of $26,000 per year and allocating half to the Police Department.
(I) Dispatch cost is a preliminary quote. This quote is only dispatch and not CAD and Records.
69 June 19, 2017 Item 19 DRAFT Projected Cost of the Transition Budget Del Mar Police Department (moving into City Hall) PERSONNEL RECRUITING/HIRING COSTS Recruit/Test/Background Check/Hire Police Chief $ 10,000 (a) Recruit/Test/Background Check/Hire Police Captain $ 3,500 (b) Recruit/Test/Background Check/Hire Detective $ 3,500 Recruit/Test/Background Check/Hire Rest of Staff (12 x $1,500) $ 18,000 (c) Miscellaneous Cost for Human Resources to Process Employees $ 2,000 SUBTOTAL HIRING EXPENSE $ 3 7,000 TRANSITION PERIOD SALARY COSTS Police Chief (5 months) $ 104,715 Police Commander (3 months) $ 53,349 Police Detectives (5 months) $ 65,540 Police Sergeants (2 months x 4) $ 103,264 Police/Traffic Officers (6 weeks x 5) $ 81,731 Administrative Analyst (5 months) $ 42,465 SUBTOTAL SALARIES/BENEFITS $ 451,064 START-UP CAPITAL EXPENSES Vehicles - Initial Purchase $ 251,407 (d) Purchase Uniforms/Safety Equipment $ 118,000 (Sworn - 14 x $10,000 + Non-Sworn - 3 x $2,000) (e) Automated Records Management System $ 125,000 (f) Legal Services $ 78,750 (g) Copy and Fax Machine + Computers $ 30,300 (h) SUBTOTAL CAPITAL START-UP $ 603,457 MODIFICATIONS TO THE NEW CITY HALL BUILDING TO ADD POLICE DEPARTMENT $ 1,070,576 SUBTOTAL - CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDING $ 1,070,576 TOTAL START-UP COSTS PAYGO (CASH) $ 2,162,097
TOTAL START-UP COSTS Finance Construction $ 2,162,097 Footnotes: (a) Assumes consultant recruitment assistance. (b) Interview panel support, background check, polygraph, medical tests. (c) Assumes that Detective will perform background investigations. (d) Still evaluating this cost. Potential purchase of: 3 unmarked sedans for Chief, Commander, and 1 Detective; 3 marked utility vehicles for patrol; 1 marked sedan w/o exterior light bar for traffic; motorcycle; quad; and bicycles.
(e) $8,000 x 14. Includes uniform, weapon, badge, duty belt, handcuffs, baton, body armor, taser, handheld radio, gas mask, helmet, shoes, raingear. Plus 3 x $2,000 for CSO. (f) In-house law enforcement software and hardware, including desk top and laptop computers for a small agency; connection to ARJIS ($1,500/month); CLETS ($105/mo. For each user). ARJIS is the Automated Regional Justice Information System, which integrates more than 6,000 workstations among 71 local, State and Federal agencies in San Diego and Imperial Counties. CLETS is the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System which provides police agencies with access to various crime databases.
(g) Provides ability to enter fingerprints for ID purposes into State database. This expense ($35,000) likely will be reimbursed through the local RAN (Remote Access Network) Board which distributes funds received from a surcharge to DMV registration renewals which is used for technology which aids identification of people such as (h) $6,000 for copy machine; $300 for laser fax machine; 12 computers at $2,000 each 70 June 19, 2017 Item 19 MEMO
Date: March 28,2017 From Eitan Aharoni, AIA / Aharoni Facilities Consulting, LLC To: Kristine Crane, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Preliminary Analysis - Alternative Locations and Costs for a Police Department Facility for the City of Del Mar
The City is studying the feasibility of starting its own Police Department. As part of this review I was asked to provide a preliminary analysis of three options for a Police Facility:
A. A Stand-alone new permanent facility to be placed on an undetermined site owned or controlled by the City. B. A police facility integrated into the new Civic Center complex, utilizing portion of future expansion area "B" , and re-purposing spaces in the garage structure to interview suspects prior to transport to jail. C. A temporary facility consisting of leased modular, to be placed on an undetermined site owned or controlled by the City, for a period of 5-10 years.
The space needs for the facility were prevíously studied and determined to require around 4,000 SF, as detailed in Exhibit A. The purpose of this analysis is to assist the City in its assessment of the feasibility of this project. A more defined program needs should be developed as the options are further scrutinized.
OPTION A - Stand-alone Essential Services Facility (See Exhibit A) Using a similar space program as previously developed for a stand-alone new permanent facility with a total floor area of 4,046 SF, approximately 10 parking spaces, and fully enclosed and secured site, is estimated at 52,375,t34. This cost includes Design, construction, Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E).
OPTION B - lntegrated Essential Services Facility at the new City Hall site (See Exhibit B) A space program was developed by the undersigned based on space availability at the Garage Level, coupled with expansion opportunity on the main level (Expansion area B). Total net area for a combination of expansion and repurposing is estimated al 2,700 SF. Cost is estimated at 51,070,576. This plan capitalizes on the fact that the City Hall already has a Police component housing the Ranger and Sheriff Deputy offices and associated parking for 3 patrol vehicles and Ranger storage. Furthermore the plan also counts on shared common areas such as conference rooms, bathrooms, breakrooms, copy rooms, parking, etc.
OPTION C - Leased modular offices -temporary, Non-Essential Services Facility (See Exhibit C) Costs for leasing a3,840 SF with built in basic rooms was obtained from a reputable Vendor. Direct costs by the City for delivery, setup, adaptation, Site Design and Construction, plus soft costs and FF&E and parking were added as direct City costs, as follows: Totalfor 5-Yr plan = SZZO,OOO. [City direct cost = 5450,000, plus total lease payments = $270,000], Totalfor 1-0-Yr plan=S930,000. [City direct cost = 5450,000, plus total lease payments = 5480,000].
1.
71 June 19, 2017 Item 19 coNcLUsroNs/REcoMMEN DATIONS
Option A-This option may be the most desired from a functional perspective, since designing a new facility from scratch would offer an optimal design for a self-contained facility with enhanced security and expansion capability. However, from a financial perspective, this option is the most expensive. Other constraints may add delays and costs due to the following'
The City does not have a site readily available to receive such a structure. For comparison purposes, the cost estimate was based on a theoretical site. One existing location which comes to mind is the Public Works lot. However this area is extensively restricted by environmental regulations; being in a flood zone and flood area. Approval of an essential facility on this site is questionable, but certainly will involve additional expenditures.
Option B - This option to share the police facility with the new City Hall is most cost efficient for several reasons. The law enforcement functions of the Ranger and Sheriff Deputy are already part of the overall scope and design of the City Hall complex. Space was already assigned to these officers. ln addition, excess parking spaces in the parking structure can be enclosed and re-purposed fortransitional detention of prisoners and for related functions that need to be segregated from the general public. The balance of the needed space for police offices can be constructed on the (already) set aside "ExpansionAreaB". ThisareaisontheupperdeckonthesouthsideoftheCityHall buildingproper, and already has understructure to support the new addition. This site already has allthe utility services available for the expansion.
Being geographically centrally located, this site offers optimal and preferred response time.
Option C - Thís option would have similar functional advantages as for Option A, but also the same constraints of lack of available proper site. Moreover, this option by its nature will be a temporary one, and certainly not qualify as an essential structure by code.
This option may be considered as an interim solution, should the City desire to initiate its own Police Department very soon, while it commences plans for a permanent facility for occupancy in a pre- determined timeframe.
TIME FRAMES - ALL SITES
Option A - Occupancy could take place approximately 2.5 years after engaging the Design teams, and assuming environmental requirements are concurrent with no major site issues, Option B - Occupancy could occur approximately L year and 9 months after start. Option C - Occupancy could take place approximately 1 year after start, assuming concurrent resolution of environmental and site issues.
Eitan Aharoni, AIA
roni Facil s Consu ng, LLC
Encl: Attachments
2
72 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Note: This table is applicable to a Police Facility on a theoretical site with optimal site conditions Del Mar Police Facility Space Needs EXHIBIT A FUNCTION Subtotal SQ FEET Dimensions Comments Public Lobby 190 Sitting Area 100 10'X10' Public ADA Restroom 90 10'X9' Administration 464 Chief Office 162 9'X18' Commander Office 121 11'X11' Admin, Analyst 121 11'X11' Storage Room/Closet 60 6'X10' Screening/Interviews 288 Intake Counter 144 12'X12' Lockable Interview Room 144 12'X12' Property & Eveidence 373 Evidence Room w/lockers 132 12'X11' Work area: packaging/CSI 121 11'X11' Armory 120 12'X10' Investigations 256 Detective Office/2 Desks 256 16'X16' Interview Room X 2 0 0 Use training Rm Patrol 1091 Briefing & Training Room 420 21'X20' Report Writing Room & Forms Area 144 12'X12' Locker Room Men 0 0 Use Bathrooms Mens' Bathroom/Lockers 255 17'X15' Women's Bathroom/Lockers 272 17'X16' Breakroom 195 Employee Lounge 195 13'X15' Storage 380 Misc. Office Storage 100 10'X10' Misc. Large Item Storage 100 10'X10' Janitorial Storage 80 8'X10' Reduced Utility Room 100 10'X10' Subtotal 3237 Circulation @ 25% 809.25 Grand Total 4046.25
Est bldg. cost @ $381.1/SqFt $1,542,026 Construction 381.1 Site Improvements est/SF Grading/Drainage 30000 Paving and parking (10 spaces) 25000 Signage, striping, fencing 10000 Site/offsite utilities (50') 200000
FF&E Allowance 20000 SubTotal 1827026 Soft Costs @ 30% 548108 Grand Total $2,375,134 587
Exclusions: Prepare EIR/NOE…, public meetings Any special EIR Const. requirements offsite Coastal Permit and processing, legal Assuming 6/2018 start (no further escalation) Overview: Estimate was based for a theoretical flat site Tie ins to street within 50' of bldg. Optimal soils conditions (no export or import) No environmental restrictions or conditions Estimate produced for high level strategic planning purposes
3/13/2017 EA
73 June 19, 2017 Item 19 NOTE: This table applicable to a Police Facility located at the new City Hall site. New Repurposed Shared This plan has a reduced total new construction area since it relies on the Police Construction space in Spaces or Department using existing shared spaces with City Hall, such as Conference rooms, at City Hall Garage level existing Bathrooms, Copy room, circulation, etc. level Del Mar Police Facility Space Needs EXHIBIT B FUNCTION Subtotal SQ FEET Dimensions Comments Public Lobby 190 Sitting Area 100 10'X10' 100 Public ADA Restroom 90 10'X9' 90 Administration 464 Chief Office 162 9'X18' 162 Commander Office 121 11'X11' 121 Admin, Analyst 121 11'X11' 121 Storage Room/Closet 60 6'X10' 60 Screening/Interview 288 Intake Counter 144 12'X12' 144 Lockable Interview Room 144 12'X12' 144 Property & Eveidence 373 Evidence Room w/lockers 132 12'X11' 132 Work area: packaging/CSI 121 11'X11' 121 Armory 120 12'X10' 120 Investigations 256 Detective Office/2 Desks 256 16'X16' 256 Interview Room X 2 0 0 Use training Rm Patrol 1091 Briefing & Training Room 420 21'X20' 420 Report Writing Room & Forms Area 144 12'X12' 144 Locker Room Men 0 0 Use Bathrooms Mens' Bathroom/Lockers 255 17'X15' 255 Women's Bathroom/Lockers 272 17'X16' 272 Breakroom 195 Employee Lounge 195 13'X15' 195 Storage 380 Misc. Office Storage 100 10'X10' 100 Misc. Large Item Storage 100 10'X10' 100 Janitorial Storage 80 8'X10' Reduced 80 Utility Room 100 10'X10' 100 Subtotal 3237 890 1093 1254 Circulation @ 25% 809.25 223 383 Grand Total 4046.25 1113 1476 Repurpose/ New const. Remodel Est bldg. cost @ $287.6/SqFt $803,520 total SF Site Improvements 2700 1200 1500 SF (rounded) Grading/Drainage 0 297.6 Cost/SF used Paving and parking (10 spaces) existing Signage, striping, fencing existing Site/offsite utilities (50') existing
FF&E Allowance 20000 SubTotal 823520 Soft Costs @ 30% 247056 Grand Total $1,070,576 397 per SF Exclusions: Prepare EIR/NOE…, public meetings Any special EIR Const. requirements offsite Coastal Permit and processing, legal Assuming 6/2018 start (no further escalation) Overview: No environmental restrictions or conditions Estimate produced for high level strategic planning purposes 3/13/2017 EA
74 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Note: This table is applicable to a temporary 3,840 SF Modular Police Facility consisting of 8 conversion units (96'x40' footprint) Del Mar Police Facility Space Needs - Modulars EXHIBIT C Comments SITE IMPROVEMENTS Grading, drainage 20,000 Paving and parking (10 spaces) 25,000 Signage, striping, fencing 10,000 Site/offsite utilities 200,000 Sbtotal 255,000 255,000 MODULAR Delivery/Install/Knockdown 61,000 TI Upgrades (Hardening) 16,000 Specialties Upgrades (IT, Sec., Comm.) 24,000 Subtotal 101,000 101,000 SOFT COST Site Design and Permitting coord 14,000 Permits (not incl Impact fees) 8,000 Soils, Geo, SWPP, Inspections 12,000 FF&E (allowance) 20,000 Const/Project Management 40,000 Subtotal 94,000 94,000 TOTAL Upon Occupancy 450,000 450,000
ANNUAL LEASE duration per Mo 60 Mo 120 Mo 5-Yr Lease 4,500 $270,000 cost 1Yr=54,000 10-Yr Lease 4,000 $480,000
GRAND TOTAL at - 5YR $720,000 at -10YR $930,000
Exclusions: Prepare EIR/NOE… Any special EIR Const. requirements offsite Coastal Permit and processing, legal Assuming 2017 purchase/Occupancy (no escalation) Additional interior walls @$65/LF Overview: Estimate was based for a theoretical flat site Tie ins to street within 50' of Modular Optimal soils conditions (no export or import) No environmental restrictions or conditions Estimate produced for high level strategic planning purposes 3/13/2017 EA
75 June 19, 2017 Item 19 CITY OF DEL MAR DATA DATE: 3/72/2077 PROPOSED NEW POLICE FACILITY HIGH LEVEL STRATEGIC PLANNING CONSTRUCTION BUDGET STUDY
oPTtoN "A" OPTION "8" cosr OPTION "A" cosT oPTtoN "8" ITEM cst PER TOTALS BY PER TOTALS BY NO. Dtv DESCRIPTION 5F cst DtvtstoN REMARKS SF csl DrvrsroN REMARKS 4,046.00 AREA 2,700.00 AREA
7 02 00 00 Ex¡st¡ng Condit¡ons 7 03 00 00 Building Concrete 5 zt.sz S 112.600.18 S t4.62 5 39,474.00 lncls- Coring/repairs/5" slabs 3 05 00 00 Meta ls S 6.s1 s 26,339.46 S s.68 s 15,336.00 4 06 00 00 Wood and Plastics S zg.tz 5 160,707.rz S 3s.90 5 96,930.00 5 07 00 00 Thermal/Moisture Prot. $ rs.aq 5 80,272.64 Stand¡ng Seam Mtl/TPO/lnsul S 19.48 s 37,869.L2 Standing Seam Mtl/TPO/lnsul 6 08 00 00 Openi ngs S t+.os S s9,273.90 S rr.ag S 31,941.00 Garage lvl std. finish shell 7 09 00 00 F¡n ishes S 36.ss 5 147,881.30 lncl. Security reinf. walls/clgs S 32.6s S 88,1ss.oo lncl. Security reinf. walls/clgs 8 10 00 00 Specialt¡es 5 :.rz S 12.82s.82 lncl. lockers and cages 5 t.tt s 8,559.00 lncl. lockers and cases 9 11 00 00 Equ¡pment 5 4.30 S u.413.98 Detention Area S 6.4s 5 17,415.00 Detention Area q-gq 10 12 00 00 Furnishings 5 5 tg,gat.z+ FF&E S s.ss 5 r+,+¿s.oo FF&E 11 14 00 00 Conveying Systems s 5 5 s Potent¡el need?? g,tsq.+z T2 21 00 00 F¡re Protect¡on 5 z-zt S lncl. design/engineering 5 z.z't s 6,729.OO lncl. design/engineerins 13 22 00 00 Plumbing S 8.4s S 34,188.70 S 8.4s s 22,815.00 14 23 00 00 HVAC S 13.6s 5 ss,zz7.go S tq.zs 5 38,475.00 15 26 00 00 Electr¡cal S z¡.ss S 96,497.10 lncl. low voltage/securitv s 18.48 5 49,896.00 lncl. low voltage/secur¡tv fb 27 00 00 lncluded in Div. 16 00 00 s 5 17 28 00 00 lncluded in Div. 16 00 00 Þ 5 18 31 00 00 Earthwork @ 14,378 5F S¡te 5 t.zq 5 46,092.24 Basis 1/3 acre flat site s 19 32 00 00 Ext. lmpr. Pave, Fence, Access, Signage 5 a.zs S 82,soo.oo Basis 10,000 SF +/- s 20 33 00 00 Utilities S 43.6so.oo 50 LF to POC + 150 LF storm s Subtotal 217.22 s L,OO4,642.OO S 178.s8 S 467,439.12 72 Contractor General Condit¡ons S 225,500.00 10mos(22dayslmoX$1,025 s 180,400.00 8 mos (22dayslmo X 51,025 23 Subtotal $ go¿.0¿ 5 7,z3o,74z.oo S 239.94 5 647,839.t2 24 7.50% Contractor Fee S 92,250.65 s 48,587.93 25 L.OO% Liability lns. 5 ß,224.03 s 6,964.27 26 LO.00% Construction Contingency 5 ßo,qaq.zo 5 46,743.91 Subtotal s 354.94 5 1,436,090.88 5 277.83 5 750,135.24 2A 1.50% Payment/Performance Bond S 21,s4r36 s 77,252.O3 29 Subtotal S 360.27 5 r,4s7,632.24 5 282.00 s 767,387.27 30 8.00% Proportionate Sa les Tax/Mat'l 5 lzlqs.sq 5 14,958.05 31 Subtotal s 368.21 5 r,489,780.79 5 287.s4 5 776,345.32 32 3s0% Escalation Factor 6/2018 Start 5 s2,142.33 S 27,t72-09
33 Total Preliminary Budget s 381.10 $ L,s4L,923.r2 s 297.60 s 8o3,sD.4o
NOTES 7 Preliminary budget based on narrative descriptions for Options "A" & "8" 7 Assumptions for site work over-ex 1 foot below bottom of lowest footing Soil conditions will not require structural import 4 Option "4" & "8" buildings with¡n public view to be architectura¡ly acceptable 5 Detention equipment, devices and structural to be secure and reìnforced 6 Glazing and doors between public and operational areas laminate blast- proof
PAGE 1 OF 1 76 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Williame Scotsman, lnc. Your Williams Scotsman Representative Contract Number:731 527 WILLIAMS 6753 Camino Maquiladora Cory Purvis Revision: 1 San Diego, CA 921 54-7 529 Phone: (619)710{468 Ext. Date: March 02,2017 Fax:619-710{968 SCOTSMAN Email: capurvis@willscot,com Toll Free: 800-782-1500 An A|-G!EGO SCOTSMAN Company úO ffl.{)
Lease Lessee: Contact: Shlp To Address: City of Del Mar Public Vlbrks Dep Eitan Aharoni 2240 Jimmy Durante Blvd 2240 Jimmy Durante Blvd DEL MAR, CA, 92014 Del Mar, California, 92014 Del Mar, CÊ'92014 Phone: (619) 549-0204 Fax: (858) 259-2749 Delivery Date(on or abouf): 7t3t20't7
E-mail : [email protected]
Rental Pric¡ng Per Month Quantlty Prlco Extended SM4496 (40'box size) Unit Number: 'l $3,080.00 $3,080.00 Prop Damage \ åiuer (11112) I $70.00 $560.00 ADA/IBC Ramp - 30'& Under 1 $250.00 $250.00 Steps - OSHA Aluminum Rental 1 $20.00 $20.00
Window/Door Security Bundle - 40+ 1 $17.00 $17.00 General Liability - Allen lnsurance 1 $76.00 $76.00 Data Hub Rental I $40.00 $320.00 Minimum Lease Term: 60 Months Total Monthly Building Charges: $3,080.00 Other Monthly Charges: $1,243.00 Total Rental Charges Per Month: $4,323.00 Dellvery & Inatallation CA Transport Delivery Fee I $100.00 $800.00 Ramp-Delivery&Setup 1 $3,541.43 $3,541.43 Tiedowns into asphalt 80 $'t'17.22 $9,377.60 Block and Level 1 $16,500.00 $16,500.00 Delivery Freight I $388.89 $3,11't.12 Wood skirting 272 s23.73 $6,454.56 Total Delivery & lnstallation Gharges: $39,784.71 Final Rsturn Charges' CA Transport Return Fee I $100.00 $800.00 ïiedown-Asphalt Removal 80 $40.50 $3,240.00 Skirt¡ng Removal - Vlbod LF 272 $5.33 $1,449.76 Ramp - Knockdown & Return 'l $2,571.43 $2,571.43 Teardown 1 $10,061.43 $10,061.43 Return Freight I $388.89 $3,111.12 Due On Final lnvoace* $2't,233.74 Total Charger lncludlng ( 60 ) Month Rêntal, Dellvery, ln¡tallatlon E Retum*: S320,398.45
Summary of Charges
Model: Tra¡ler UANTITY: 1 Charges for (1) Building(s):
Additional Services: For your convenience, we also recommend the fullowing ¡tems (not ¡ncluded in this Agreement)
Rêcommended ltemg Billing Frequency Otv Price Extended
Premium Office Package Monthly 11 $r 8.00 $198.00
Premium ConËrence Package Monthly 1 $27.00 $27.00
Executive Office Package Monthly 11 $36.00 $396.00
Executive ConÊrence Package Monthly 1 $54.00 $54.00
77 June 19, 2017 Item 19 Contract Number:731 938 Williams Scotsman, lnc. Your W¡lliams Scotsman Representative Revieion: I 6753 Camino Maquiladora Cory Purvis WILLIAMS Date: March 03,20'17 San Diego, CA 92154-7 529 Phone: (619)710{468 Ext' Fax:619-710{968 SCOTSMAN Emall: [email protected] Toll Free: 800-782.1500 An ALGECO SCOTSMAN ComPanY l'7-O ryn'{)
Lease Sh¡p To Address: LesSeel Gontact: City of Del Mar Public V\brks DeP Eitan Aharoni DEL MAR, CA, 92014 2240 Jimmy Durante Blvd 2240 JimW Durante Blvd Del Mar, California, 92014 Del Mar, CA, 92014 Phone: (619) 549-0204 Fax: (858) 259-2749 Delivery Date(on or about): 71il20,17
E-mail: [email protected]
Prlce Extendod Rental Prlc¡nq Per Month Quantlty ,| $2,680.00 $2,680.00 SM4496 (40'box size) Unit Number: I $70.00 $560.00 Prop Damage \ hiver (11/12) ,| $250.00 $250.00 ADA/IBC Ramp - 30'& Under 1 $20.00 $20.00 Steps - OSHA Aluminum Rental 1 $17.00 $17.00 Window/Door Security Bundle - 40+ 1 $76.00 $76.00 General Liabili$ - Allen lnsurance I $40.00 $320.00 Data Hub Rental Total Monthly Building Charges: $2,680.00 Minimum Lease Term: 120 Months Other MonthlY Charges: $1,243.00 Total Rental Charses Per Month: $3,923.00 & ln3tallation I $100.00 $800.00 CA Transport Delivery Fee ,| $3,541 .43 $3,541 .43 Ramp-Del¡very&Setup 80 $117.22 $9,377.60 Tiedowns into asphalt I $16,500.00 $16,500.00 Block and Level I $388.89 $3,111.12 Delivery Freight 272 $23.73 $6,454.56 Wood skirting Total Del¡very & lnstallation Charqes: $39,784.71
FInal Return Chame3* I $ 100.00 $800.00 CA Transport Return Fee 80 $40.50 $3,240.00 T¡edown-Asphalt Removal 272 $5.33 $1 ,449.76 Skirting Removal - Vlbod LF 1 92,571.43 s2,571.43 Ramp - Knockdown & Return 1 $10,061.43 $10,061.43 Teardown I $388.89 $3,111.12 Return Freight Due On F¡nal lnvo¡ce*: $2'l,233.74 $531,778.45 Total cherqæ lncludlng ( 120 ) Month Delivorv. lnstellatlon & Return*:
Summary of Chargeg Charges for (1) Building(s) Model: Trailer ,778.45
(not in this Aoreement) Additional Services : For your convenience, we also recommend the bllowing items included
Price Extended Recommended ltems Billlng Frequency atv
11 $10.80 $1 18.80 Premium Off¡ce Package Monthly
1 $16.20 $16.20 Premium ConËrence Package Monthly 11 $21.60 $237.60 Executive Office Package Monthly
1 $32.40 $32.40 Executive ConÞrence Package Monthly
78 June 19, 2017 Item 19 City of Del Mar Police Staffing Summary
Sheriff's Del Mar Police Del Mar Police Contract Option A Option B Sworn Positions FTEs FTEs FTEs Chief 1.00 1.00 Captain 0.09 Lieutenant 0.19 Sergeant (s) 0.75 4.00 4.00 Officer/Deputy 5.32 5.00 5.00 Traffic Officer/Deputy 1.27 1.00 Detective 1.00 1.00 Reserves\960 Deputy 0.46 1.00 1.00 Total Sworn Staff 9.074 11.00 13.00 Civilian Positions Admin. Sec II 0.09 Admin. Sec I 0.09 Office Assistant 0.28 Senior Office Assistant 0.09 Prop. & Evidence Spec. I 0.09 Crime & Intelligence Analyst 0.09 CSO l 1.00 1.00 CSO ll 1.00 1.00 Evidence/Records Tech. 1.00 Admin. Analyst 1.00 1.00 Part-time Staff 1.00 1.00 Total Civilian Staff 0.73 4.00 5.00 Other Staffing Costs Direct Staff Costs $ 1,555,412 $ - $ - Overtime 75,000 110,000 110,000 Station Support Staff 122,539 - - Ancillary Support 267,609 - - Management Support 82,790 - - Supply, Space,Liability, Vehicles 209,217 - - Total Sheriff/Police Staff 9.804 15.00 18.00 Total Sheriff/ Police Costs $ 2,312,567 $ 2,775,721 $ 3,157,935 Other Costs/Funding Ranger Program $ 190,930 Redflex Signal Enforcement $ 62,070 City Parking Program $ 644,280 GOP Grant $ (100,000) $ (100,000) $ (100,000) Less Vehicle Code Fine Revenue $ (186,000) $ (186,000) $ (186,000) Total Costs $ 2,923,847 $ 2,489,721 $ 2,871,935 FTEs for City Ranger and Parking 6.5 0.00 0.00 Total Staff 16.30 15.00 18.00
79 June 19, 2017 Item 19 2015 City Population Rankings California Cities Ranked by 1/1/2015 Total Population Total Total Total Approximate Staff Rank City Population Sworn Staff Staff Police Budget Breakdown
411 Ione 6,763 1 Police Chief; 5 Police Officers; 1 7 9 $627,600.00 Reserve Officer 1 Police Chief; 2 Sergeants; 5 414 Willows 6,206 8 11 $1,560,000.00 Police Officers 1 Police Chief; 1 Lieutenant; 2 415 Colusa 6,191 Sergeants; 5 Police Officers; 1 9 11 $1,300,000.00 Detective 1 Chief, 1 Lieutenant, 2 Sergeants, 416 St Helena 6,065 1 Corporal, 7 officers, .75 CSO, 4 12 18 $3,200,000.00 dispathers 1 Police Chief, 3 Sergeants, 1 418 Fowler 5,957 $1,639,048.62 Detective, 7 Police Officers; 4 12 17 Reserve Officers 1 Police Chief; 1 Sergeant; 8 Police Officers; 1 Code 419 Gustine 5,618 Enforcement/Animal Control 11 13 $1,900,000.00 Officer
423 Williams 5,316 1 Chief, 2 Sergeants, 2 Detectives, 12 14 $2,070,925.00 7 Officers, 1 Tech, 1 PS Manager 1 Police Chief; 2 Sergeants; 8 Police Officers; 5 Dispatchers; 1 424 Calistoga 5,261 Dispatch Supervisor; 2 Parking 11 18 $2,426,073.00 Enforcement Officers 427 Dos Palos 5,023 1 Chief, 1 Lieutenant, 2 Sergeants, 430 Willits 4,902 7.25 Officers, 1 CSO, 5.3 11.25 18.4 $2,103,012.00 Dispathers,1 Admin
1 Police Chief; 1 Lieutenant;2Sergeants; 10 Police 431 Sonora 4,879 Officers; 1 Communications- Records Supervisor; 5 Dispatch- 14 20 $3,285,958.00 Records Specialists; 1 Police Chief; 1 Lieutenant; 2 Sergeants; 6 Police Officers; 1 Detective; 1 Police Records Supervisor; 1 Police Evidence 432 Lakeport 4,699 Technician; 1 Police Records Assistant; 1 Reserve Officer; 1 Police Chaplain; 5 Police 13 21 $1,800,000.00 Volunteers 1Chief, 1 Captain, 1 Sergeant, 4 433 Jackson 4,586 Officers, 5 Reserves, 7 13 $1,567,026.00 1clerk/dispatcher 1 Police Chief; 1 Commander; 3 Sergeants; 11 Patrol Officers; 1 434 Brisbane 4,541 Community Service Officer; 1 16 18 $3,500,000.00 Records Clerk 436 Del Mar 4,238
1 Police Chief; 1 Lieutenant; 5 Dispatchers; 1 Support Services 438 Bishop 3,881 Manager; 1 Crime Scene Investigator; 2 Front Office Clerks; 2 level 1 Reserve Officers; 1 level II 12 24 $3,261,465.00 Reserve Officer 1 Chief, 1 Sergeannt, 5 Officers, 1 440 Angels City 3,811 7 9 $1,655,351.00 Reserve, 1 Tech 1Director, 1 Commander, 3 Carmel-By-The- 441 3,747 Sergeants, 2 Corporals, 8.72 Sea 15.72 25.72 $3,928,927.00 officers, 4 CSOs, 6 PSOs 1 Chief, 1 Sergeant, 1 Corporal, 5 443 Wheatland 3,437 officers, 1 Admin, 2 reserves 8 11 $932,100.00 Officers
444 Mount Shasta 3,394 1 Chief, 1 Lieutenant, 1 Sergeant, 8 14 $700,000.00 5 Officers, 5 Dispatchers
445 Rio Dell 3,372 1 Police Chief; 1 Sergeant; 3 Police 5 6 $683,000.00 Officers 1 Police Chief; 2 Sergeants; 6 Police Officers; 1 full time and 2 part time Community Service 446 Nevada City 3,194 Officers; 1 Police Service Assistant; 6 Reserve Officers; 1 K9 10 19 $1,700,000.00 officer
1 Police Chief; 1 Sergeant; 5 Police 448 Alturas 2,723 Officers; 1 Reserve Officer; 1 Receptionist/Dispatcher; 1 Animal 8 11 $865,000.00 Control Officer
1 Chief, 2 Sergeants, 2 Corporals, 449 Weed 2,699 1, Investigator, 4 Officers, 1 9 17 $1,200,000.00 Admin Clerk, 4 shared dispatchers
450 Ross 2,493 8 8 $1,500,000.00 1 Chief, 2 Sergeants, 5 Officers 1 Chief, 1 sergeant, 3 officers, 1 451 Sutter Creek 2,457 5 6 $968,000.00 reserve 452 Westmorland 2,333 7 7 $600,000.00 1 Police Chief; 1 secretary; 2 453 Belvedere 2,121 7 8 $1,682,000.00 sergeants; 4 police officers
1 Police Chief; 3 Sergeants; 2 459 Biggs 1,746 Detectives; 8 Patrol Officers; 1 Animal Control Officer; 4 14 25 $3,000,000.00 Dispatchers; 6 Reserve Officers 460 Del Rey Oaks 1,660 6 6 1 Chief, 1 Sergeant, 4 officers
80 June 19, 2017 Item 19 2015 City Population Rankings
California Cities Ranked by 1/1/2015 Total Population Total Law Rank City County Population Enforcement 354 Fortuna Humboldt 12,032 PD 355 Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 11,928 PD 356 Los Alamitos Orange 11,779 PD 357 Kingsburg Fresno 11,711 PD 358 Healdsburg Sonoma 11,687 PD 359 SignalHill LosAngeles 11,585 PD 360 Hillsborough SanMateo 11,420 PD 361 Clayton ContraCosta 11,288 PD 362 Mendota Fresno 11,211 PD 363 Sierra Madre Los Angeles 11,133 PD 364 Piedmont Alameda 11,113 PD 366 Farmersville Tulare 10,908 PD 368 Newman Stanislaus 10,753 PD 369 Placerville El Dorado 10,673 PD 370 Exeter Tulare 10,572 PD 371 Emeryville Alameda 10,570 PD 372 Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 10,284 PD 373 Anderson Shasta 10,269 PD 374 Capitola Santa Cruz 10,052 PD 377 Taft Kern 9,456 PD 378 Orange Cove Fresno 9,358 PD 379 Tiburon Marin 9,200 PD 380 Cloverdale Sonoma 8,708 PD
384 Mammoth Lakes Mono 8,410 PD 385 Gonzales Monterey 8,357 PD 387 Los Altos Hills Santa Clara 8,341 PD 389 Rio Vista Solano 8,193 PD 390 Yreka Siskiyou 7,849 PD 391 Orland Glenn 7,814 PD 392 Firebaugh Fresno 7,779 PD 393 Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo 7,711 PD 394 Woodlake Tulare 7,702 PD 395 Corning Tehama 7,638 PD 396 Fairfax Marin 7,634 PD 398 Sebastopol Sonoma 7,507 PD 399 Calipatria Imperial 7,466 PD 400 Escalon San Joaquin 7,413 PD 401 Cotati Sonoma 7,346 PD 402 Fort Bragg Mendocino 7,343 PD 403 Sausalito Marin 7,300 PD 405 Guadalupe Santa Barbara 7,205 PD
81 June 19, 2017 Item 19 2015 City Population Rankings
California Cities Ranked by 1/1/2015 Total Population Total Law Rank City County Population Enforcement 406 Winters Yolo 6,954 PD 407 Atherton San Mateo 6,935 PD 408 Crescent City Del Norte 6,889 PD 409 Huron Fresno 6,817 PD 410 Gridley Butte 6,780 PD 411 Ione Amador 6,763 PD 413 Holtville Imperial 6,246 PD 414 Willows Glenn 6,206 PD 415 Colusa Colusa 6,191 PD 416 St Helena Napa 6,065 PD 418 Fowler Fresno 5,957 PD 419 Gustine Merced 5,618 PD
422 La Habra Heights Los Angeles 5,439 PD 423 Williams Colusa 5,316 PD 424 Calistoga Napa 5,261 PD 427 Dos Palos Merced 5,023 PD 430 Willits Mendocino 4,902 PD 431 Sonora Tuolumne 4,879 PD 432 Lakeport Lake 4,699 PD 433 Jackson Amador 4,586 PD 434 Brisbane San Mateo 4,541 PD 436 Del Mar San Diego 4,238 SD 437 San Joaquin Fresno 4,041 PD 438 Bishop Inyo 3,881 PD 440 Angels City Calaveras 3,811 PD Carmel-By-The- 441 Monterey 3,747 Sea PD 442 Monte Sereno Santa Clara 3,451 PD 443 Wheatland Yuba 3,437 PD 444 Mount Shasta Siskiyou 3,394 PD 445 Rio Dell Humboldt 3,372 PD 446 Nevada City Nevada 3,194 PD 448 Alturas Modoc 2,723 PD 449 Weed Siskiyou 2,699 PD 450 Ross Marin 2,493 PD 451 Sutter Creek Amador 2,457 PD 452 Westmorland Imperial 2,333 PD 453 Belvedere Marin 2,121 PD 459 Biggs Butte 1,746 PD 460 Del Rey Oaks Monterey 1,660 PD 462 Colma San Mateo 1,480 PD
82 June 19, 2017 Item 19 2015 City Population Rankings
California Cities Ranked by 1/1/2015 Total Population Total Law Rank City County Population Enforcement 463 Irwindale Los Angeles 1,473 PD 465 Ferndale Humboldt 1,369 PD 469 Tulelake Siskiyou 1,013 PD 473 Etna Siskiyou 741 PD 480 Sand City Monterey 362 PD 482 Vernon Los Angeles 123 PD
83 June 19, 2017 Item 19