City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 06/18/2007 Item Number: A-1
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion and Presentation of Proposed Financial Options for
City Council’s Consideration and Authorization to Seek Professional Services to
Implement the Financial Options.
Contact Person/Dept.: Marlee Chang,
City Controller
Phone Number: (310) 253-6011
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification:
Master Notification (06/14/07)
Department Approval:
Marlee Chang (06/14/07)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Iker) (06/14/07)
City Controller Approval:
Marlee Chang (6/14/07)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (06/14/07)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to:
A. Place a measure on the April 2008 ballot to modernize the City’s Utility Users
Tax Ordinance at the existing rate of 11%.
B. Continue to work with the Budget & Finance Subcommittee to develop strategies
to address deferred maintenance.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On March 5, 2007, staff presented the Comprehensive Financial Plan (Plan) and a list
of financial options for City Council’s consideration. During the meeting, the City
Council received the report of the City’s long-term financial condition and discussed a
number of financial options. The forecasts included in the Plan revealed that, in the
next few years, the projected financial disparity between the on-going revenues and
the on-going expenditures will continue to grow. The Plan is a useful tool and helped
to identify the magnitude of this disparity early enough to allow the City to take
appropriate actions to stabilize the City’s finances.
In accordance with the City Council’s direction, the City Manager has already begun to
implement a number of recognized best management practices, including updating the
City’s fees and charges, reviewing the City’s financial policies, assessing operational
procedures and processes, and implementing staff efficiency.
The major issues addressed in the Plan were:
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
• Level I Funding Needs – Immediate funding needs to allow, at minimum,
annual CPI (Consumer Price Index) increases for department’s operating and
maintenance budget. For the three fiscal years preceding 2007-08, no CPI
increases were built into the departments’ annual budget. Since many
contracts and other operational costs have increased by a factor equal to or
greater than CPI, this resulted in many departments being under-funded for
their operating budget. Level I funding is needed to restore CPI increases and
reflect the true departmental operation funding needs for the future fiscal years.
• Level II Funding Needs – In addition to Level I funding needs, Level II funding
needs would allow the operating departments to maintain the existing level of
services to our community. The City experienced several years of cut backs
and/or restricted spending, and now has reached a point of difficulty in
managing its operations with the same level of funding.
• Level III Funding Needs – This identifies the level of funding needing for the
City to provide optimal services to our community.
• Deferred Maintenance Funding Needs - It is prudent for the City to develop a
strategy to address the immediate and on-going deferred maintenance for City
streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, facilities, and parks. Under-
funding the annual needs and further deferring the maintenance will essentially
burden the future generation and continue to escalate costs. The following
chart illustrates the magnitude of the City’s deferred maintenance funding
needs to: 1) restore each area to good/excellent condition, and 2) maintain the
current condition.
Description
Immediate Repair Cost
to Restore to Good-
Excellent Condition
Approx. Annual Cost
to Maintain Current
Condition ($2007)
Street Paving* $20,500,000 $2,700,000
Asphalt Streets $13,400,000
Concrete Streets 7,100,000
City Facilities*
(e.g. City Hall, Police Station, etc.)
4,015,000
856,000
Parks & Park Facilities*
1,023,000
298,500
Street Lights
10,630,000
864,000
Curb & Gutter
(R
eplacement & Maintenance)
4,500,000
80,000
TOTAL $40,668,000$4,798,500
*Figures per a study prepared by a consultant. City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Staff will continue to work with the City Council Budget & Finance
Subcommittee to develop funding strategies for deferred maintenance issues
and present a number of options to the full Council in the near future. Some
preliminary options that have been discussed include:
? Issue a General Obligation Bond to address all, or a portion, of the
immediate deferred maintenance needs; debt service and on-going
maintenance needs to be paid using funds that would normally be
appropriated for Capital Projects that address deferred maintenance
piecemeal (requires voter approval);
? Issue a Certificate of Participation to address all, or a portion, of the
immediate deferred maintenance needs; debt service and on-going
maintenance needs to be paid using funds that would normally be
appropriated for Capital Projects that address deferred maintenance
piecemeal (does not require voter approval);
? Leverage Redevelopment Agency Funds by maximizing the use of either
RDA bond funds or Tax Increment funds to address large deferred
maintenance issues within Redevelopment Project Areas; and/or
? Create Assessment Districts either Citywide or in certain areas of the City to
create a dedicated funding source for specific deferred maintenance issues
(e.g. streets assessment district or landscape and streetlight assessment
district).
• Set Aside Funding for Unfunded Liabilities - This includes pension benefits,
retiree medical benefits, and workers’ compensation future liability. GASB 45
(Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 45) is an
accounting requirement that generally requires state and local governmental
employers to report the annual cost of Other Post Employment Benefits
(OPEB), which includes retiree medical benefits. There is no funding
requirement at this time; however, according to preliminary estimates, within
five years, the City’s cost for this expenditure will double from $3.1 million to
$6.2 million. Staff is currently researching options for funding this obligation,
including participating in a CalPERS irrevocable trust fund program being set
up specifically to fund OPEB. The proposed budget included an allocation of
$100,000 for Designated for future retiree medical cost for City Council’s
consideration.
Tonight, staff brings back more information related to the financial options that were
selected by the City Council on March 5, 2007. Those financial options are as follows:
1. Initiate a ballot measure to modernize the City’s Utility User’s Tax (see
Attachment 1); City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
2. Increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from 12% to 13% (see
Attachment 2);
3. Create Fire Suppression Assessment District (see Attachment 3);
4. Create Community Facilities District (see Attachment 4);
a. Paramedic Services;
b. Safety Salary Initiative;
5. Create City-wide Landscape and Streetlight Benefit Assessment District
(see Attachment 5);
6. Create City-wide Street Assessment District (see Attachment 6);
7. Review Parking Rates City-wide (see Attachment 7);
8. Evaluate the feasibility of various options for healthcare cost containment
including researching various healthcare providers; explore the possibility of
implementation of a two-tier employee benefit system (i.e. cafeteria plan
that is not precluded by CalPers) prior to the next MOU negotiations
(requires future research and analysis) (see Attachment 8); and/or
9. Explore photovoltaic/solar energy options (see Attachment 9);
NOTE: Implementation of any of the above items that require voter approval will take
approximately 9-12 months of lead time for staff to complete all necessary research
and preparation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The following fiscal impacts identify the initial cost of implementing each
recommendation:
Options 1: This option requires voter approval at a general election and will have
associated consultant contract costs ranging from approximately $100,000 to
$150,000 (depending on the number of ballot measures and also the scope of the
consultant services) for an attorney and/or elections consultant to assist the City with
the process.
Options 2: This option requires voter approval at a general election and will have
associated consultant contract costs ranging from approximately $100,000 to
$150,000 (depending on the number of ballot measures and also the scope of the
consultant services) for an attorney and/or elections consultant to assist the City with
the process.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Options 3 – 6: These options deal with special assessments/taxes levied on affected
property owners’ taxes and will have associated consultant costs for polling, public
education, and preparing the appropriate financial and engineering reports. These
services can range from $50,000 to $100,000, depending on the scope of the
activities.
Option 7: Staff will begin to develop a citywide parking strategy, including a potential
increase of parking meter rates in various parts of the City. There will need to be
additional staff time to continue this research. The associated revenue increase is
unknown at this time.
Option 8: Staff has already begun researching various options for healthcare cost
containment solutions. There will need to be additional staff time to continue this
research as well as some consultation costs for insurance plan experts, actuarial
studies, etc. More research by the Personnel Department is needed before cost
savings can be projected.
Option 9: Consultation costs to explore various solar power opportunities on City
Facilities are approximately $30,000. The results of the consultant’s study will identify
potential cost savings/revenue generation opportunities.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Transient Occupancy Tax
Attachment 2: Utility Users Tax
Attachment 3: Fire Suppression Assessment District
Attachment 4: Community Facilities District
Attachment 5: Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District
Attachment 6: Streets Assessment District
Attachment 7: Review Parking Strategy, including Parking Meter Rates
Attachment 8: Healthcare Cost Containment Solutions
Attachment 9: Photovoltaic/Solar Energy Options
Attachment 10: Calendar for General Municipal Election, April 8, 2008
Attachment 11: Summary Sheet from DRAFT Facility Assessment Study
Attachment 12: Summary Sheet from DRAFT Parks Assessment Study
Attachment 13: Summary Sheet from Pavement Management Master Plan
Attachment 14: Streetlight Replacement and Annual Maintenance Needs
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1. Discuss and direct staff to pursue financial options as recommended by staff
and authorize staff to seek professional services to implement the financial
options;
Or
2. Discuss and direct staff to pursue other financial options approved by the City
Council.
MEETING DATE: 6/18/07
AGENDA ITEM:
Discussion and Presentation of Proposed Financial Options for City
Council's Consideration and Authorization to Seek Professional Services
to Implement the Financial Options.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Utility Users Tax 1 — 2
2. Transient Occupancy Tax 3 — 4
3. Fire Suppression Assessment District 5 — 6
4. Community Facilities District 7-8
5. Landscape and Lighting Assessment District 9-10
6. Streets Assessment District 1 1 — 12
7. Citywide Parking Strategy 13
8. Healthcare Cost Containment Solutions 14
9. Photovoltaic/Solar Energy Options 15 — 16
10. Calendar for General Municipal Election, April 8, 2008 17
11. Summary Sheet from DRAFT Facility Assessment Study 18 — 19
12. Summary Sheet from DRAFT Parks Assessment Study 20
13. Summary Sheet from Pavement Master Plan 21
14. Summary Sheet for Streetlight Replacement 22Attachment 1
Title: Modernize Utility Users Tax [option 11
Description:
Currently, there are a number of pending legal challenges which, depending on how they
are decided, could call into question the City's ability to continue collecting the
telecommunications portion of the UUT as it currently exists.
For example, like many California cities, Culver City's UUT ordinance formerly defined
the telecommunications tax base as that portion of a telephone bill subject to the Federal
Excise Tax (FET) on telephone communications. Until May 2006, the IRS had followed
a policy of imposing the FET on telephone service charges based on either time OR
distance. However, as a result of a number of legal challenges, the IRS announced that it
would no longer impose the FET on telephone service charges unless those charges are
based on both time AND distance. Had the City chosen to follow the new IRS approach,
it would have had a significant fiscal impact as most cell phone charges, which make up
approximately 75% of the City's telecommunications revenues, are based solely on time.
2006-07 Budgeted UUT Revenues:
Electricity $5,408,000
Gas 1,300,000
Water 876,000
Telecommunications* 5,200,000
Cable TV 596,000
TOTAL* $13,380,000
*Approximately $4 million of this amount in jeopardy
Accordingly, the City amended its ordinance to clarify that it did not wish to adopt the
IRS' new interpretation, but rather wished to continue to impose the UUT as it had
historically been imposed. Many other cities chose to protect their UUT revenue by
adopting similar amendments. Lawsuits have now been filed in a few such jurisdictions
challenging the ability of local governments to continue to apply the former IRS
approach.
Also, rapid changes in telecommunication technology have caused some gaps in what our
UUT ordinance reaches. The definitions in the current ordinance are based upon the
technology that existed at the time of adoption, which was more than 30 years ago.
Current technology, billing practices and market coverage have all changed dramatically
in the interim and are expected to continue to change. If the City's UUT ordinance is not
amended, significant new or emerging markets may escape taxation. Consequently, in
addition to a potential loss of revenue, failing to amend the current ordinance would
result in newer technologies escaping taxation while older technologies fulfilling similar
or identical functions continue to be taxed.
Based on these changes in technology and pending and threatening legal challenges to the
continued collection of the telecommunications portion of the UUT, staff recommends
that the City Council consider adopting a modernized UUT ordinance. A modernized
UUT ordinance would eliminate the legal risks to our current UUT and would broaden
the reach of the City's UUT by taxing modern telecommunication technologies notAttachment 1
reached by the current UUT ordinance and eliminating the uncertainty created by the
IRS' May 2006 announcement. Broadening the reach of the City's UUT may also
present an opportunity to reduce the overall UUT rate while UUT collections remain the
same or, perhaps, even increase.
However, due to the negative impact that the solar and sustainable cities initiatives may
have on UUT revenue receipts (due to a potential decrease in energy consumption), staff
does not recommend reducing the UUT tax rate at this time.
If the City Council decides to modernize the City's UUT ordinance, Prop. 218 requires
that such a measure be approved by a majority of the voters (50% + 1) at a general
election or, if the City Council can make a finding of emergency, at a special election.
It should be noted that, if voters do not pass a modernized UUT measure, the existing
UUT would remain in place and should be preserved.
Pros:
• If measure passes, modernizes the City's current UUT ordinance to include new
technology
• If measure passes, pre-empts loss of revenue and costly legal challenges
• If measure passes, confirms resident support for the current UUT
Cons:
• If no action is taken, the City may be subject to costly legal challenges and could
lose revenue
• If no action is taken, the City may need to replace lost revenue with a new tax,
which could be extremely difficult to get passed by voters
• If measure fails, will have the same issues as if no action is taken
• If measure fails, it would likely make future voter approval of an amendment to
the UUT more difficult to obtain
Timeline:
To get this measure on the April 2008 ballot, staff needs to begin the process
immediately. Prior to the December deadline to call the election, staff needs time to
conduct research, analyze the existing revenue, and prepare a number of required
documents.
1. December 18 — Suggested last day for Council to Call Election for Ballot
Measures
2. January 1 — Suggested last day to file arguments
3. January 11 — Suggested last day to file rebuttal arguments
4. January 11 — Last day to call election for Ballot Measures
5. April 8 — Election dayAttachment 2
Title: Increase Transient Occupancy Tax option 21
Description:
The Culver City Municipal Code authorizes the City to levy a tax for the privilege of
occupying lodgings on a transient basis. The current Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
rate is 12%. An increase in TOT would slightly increase the taxes that area hotel
customers would pay to stay in Culver City. For example, assuming an average hotel is
$125 per night, not including taxes, the current 12% TOT rate adds $15 in tax. A 1%
increase to the TOT would add another $1.25, for a total of $16.25 in taxes for a $125
hotel room. Many nearby cities have increased their TOT rates over the last three years,
as noted below.
West Side Cities Current TOT rates:
Culver City: 12%
Beverly Hills: 14%
Los Angeles: 14%
Santa Monica: 14%
West I lollywood: 14%
Additionally, some cities share their TOT revenue with the local tourist organization or
Chamber of Commerce. For example, Beverly Hills contributes approximately one
seventh (1/7) of their TOT revenues to support the promotion of tourism through the
Visitors Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce's Retail Council, and the Rodeo Drive
Merchants Association's Walk of Style. West Hollywood also allocates 12.5% to the
General Fund and 1.5% to the West Hollywood Visitors and Convention Bureau.
If the Council decides to increase the TOT and dedicate a portion of the revenues for a
certain use or to a certain organization, it would require super majority (67%) approval
by registered voters at a general election.
If the Council decided to increase the TOT without dedicating a portion of the revenues
for a certain use or to a certain organization, it would require majority (50% + 1)
approval by registered voters at a general election.
Increasing the TOT from 12% to 13% would generate an additional $180,000 to
$200,000 per year in TOT revenuesl.
Pros:
• Does not directly impact residents
• Will bring Culver City in line with other West-side cities
• Will increase revenue collections from future hotel development
Cons:
• Could potentially have a negative impact on the City's hotel occupancy rate
This estimate is based on the City's current supply of rooms. There are proposed developments
in the Washington/National area that could greatly increase this estimate if the developments
materialize as currently proposed.Attachment 2
Timeline:
To get this measure on the April 2008 ballot, staff needs to begin the process
immediately. Prior to the December deadline to call the election, staff needs time to
conduct research, analyze the existing revenue, and prepare a number of required
documents.
1. December 18 — Suggested last day for Council to Call Election for Ballot
Measures
2. January 1 — Suggested last day to file arguments
3. January 11 — Suggested last day to file rebuttal arguments
4. January 11 — Last day to call election for Ballot Measures
5. April 8 — Election dayAttachment 3
Title: Fire Suppression Assessment District option
31
Description:
A Fire Suppression Assessment District is an assessment that is used to fund tire
suppression services, including personnel and equipment costs. A Fire Suppression
Assessment District cannot be used to fund emergency medical services or the
construction and maintenance of fire facilities.
Additionally, all funds received from a Fire Suppression Assessment District must be
used for fire suppression activities only and cannot be used for general purposes.
However, a Fire Suppression Assessment District would create a dedicated revenue
stream for Fire expenditures and could free up General Fund monies to use for other
purposes. This practice has been a controversial issue for some cities as voters tend to
expect that the funds provide an enhanced level of emergency services.
Voting for a Fire Suppression Assessment District is by mail-in ballot and requires
approval by a majority (50% + 1) of returned ballots. All property owners within the
boundaries of the district are eligible to vote.
Pros:
• Property owners determine outcome
o Analysis identifies a direct benefit to property owners
o Easy for property owners to understand
• Relatively Simple Election
o Simple Majority approval
o Mail in ballot, no general election requirement
o Equitable tabulation of ballots: one dollar = one vote
• Provides a stable ongoing funding source
• May have positive effect on current Class 1 ISO rating
• Fire service benefits real property
o Protect value of structures and improvements
o Protect life and safety of intended occupants
o Lower the cost of property fire insurance
o Contain spread of fire incidents
Cons:
• Statutory limitations on what may be funded
• Must conduct a study to make a special benefit finding
o General benefit may not be funded
• Annual legislative action required for most assessmentsAttachment 3
Timeline:
The total implementation time for the City-wide Fire Suppression Assessment District
would take approximately 9-12 months.
1. Determine the Districts visions/goals
a. Assess the needs of constituents
b. Polling
2. Conduct Feasibility Analysis/Engineering Report
a. This is the legal basis for the assessment
b. Determine the districts boundaries and identify all benefited parcels within
the district
c. Identify key projects/goals that will be accomplished
d. Estimate project costs
e. Specify the annual cost to each property
f. Identify the benefit formula that will be used to determine each property's
share of the cost (FSADs are often based on risk classification)
3. Ballot Proceeding
a. Mail a detailed notice of public hearing and ballot no less than 45 days
prior to the public hearing
b. Hold a public hearing
c. Returned ballots weighted according to the proportional financial
obligation of the affected property ($1 = 1 vote); majority approval needed
4. Enactment Procedure
a. Draft and adopt resolutions creating the assessment district
b. Once assessment is formalized, County will begin to collect on the next
property tax billAttachment 4
Title: Community Facilities District [option 41
Background:
At the City Council meeting of March 5, 2007, two options Council directed staff to
research further were a Paramedic Assessment District and a Safety Salary Initiative
Assessment District.
After talking to the City's consultants, it was determined that an assessment district
would not be legally appropriate to fund either of these options; however, in the case of a
Paramedic Assessment District, a Community Facilities District (CFD) may be used to
achieve similar goals.
With regard to the Safety Salary Initiative, the basic idea was that whenever the salary
initiative increases were higher than CPI, an assessment or tax would be levied on
property owners to fund the difference. After research by staff, it was found that this
would be very complicated, and therefore costly to implement. Additionally, there may
be some potential legal issues with this approach unless there is a clearly identifiable
benefit nexus between the salary initiative increases and service levels (i.e. as Police
salaries increase, so does the service level). The consultants that staff talked with are not
aware of a similar financing method in other California cities. Therefore, staff does not
recommend pursuing the salary initiative assessment option at this time.
Description:
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows the funding of the construction
or acquisition of real or tangible property with a useful life of five years or more such as
streets, sewer, etc. It also allows financing of police and fire services to accommodate
the growing needs of the area.
A CFD may be used to finance police and fire protection services, including personnel
costs, only to the extent that they are provided in addition to those provided in the CFD
area before the CFD was created. A CFD is a special tax levied annually on each parcel.
Voting for a CFD is done by mail-in ballot and requires approval by a super majority
(67%) of returned ballots. All registered voters within the boundaries of the district are
eligible to vote.
Pros:
• Limited restrictions on election timing
• Flexible tax classes and tax structure
• Can fund a wider array of public safety service costs
Cons:
• Additional tax burden to property owners
• Need super majority approvalAttachment 4
Timeline:
Total time to implement: 9-12 months
1. Adopt goals and policies
2. Petition to fbrm district
3. Determine needs (maintenance & service costs, cash flow, etc.)
4. Develop Special Tax Methodology
o Tax rates and classes, triggers and timing
o Annual inflator, exemptions, discounts
o Appeals process, sunset or teini clauses
5. Resolution of Intention
o Describes boundaries, name, facilities, services
o Set time and place for public hearing
o Establish voting procedures
6. Prepare CFD report
o Describe facilities/services and cost
o Include RMA and map
7. Hold public hearing to consider formation of CFD
8. Resolution of Formation
o Authorizes levy of special tax
o Approves facilities and services
o Sets election
9. Hold election
o Two-thirds vote required
10. Certify election results
11. Enact ordinance to levy tax
12. Record notice of special tax lien
13. Annual district administrationAttachment 5
Title: Landscape, Lighting and Tree Maintenance District [Option 5]
Description:
A Landscape, Lighting, and Tree Maintenance Assessment District is an assessment that
could fund landscape, parks and median maintenance throughout the City; maintenance
and potential installation of new streetlights; and increase the City's tree-trimming
schedule from five to four years.
The 1972 Act - Landscaping and Lighting District allows for the foiniation of this type of
assessment district. Some items allowed to be financed under this Act are installation
and/or maintenance and servicing of any combination of the following:
• The installation or planting of landscaping
• Statuary, fountains, and other ornamental structures
• Public lighting facilities including traffic signals
• Park and recreation facilities
• Open space
• Community center, auditorium or hall (Streets & Highways Code Section
22525)
Voting for a Landscape and Lighting District is by mail-in ballot and requires approval
by a majority (50% + 1) of returned ballots. All property owners within the boundaries
of the district are eligible to vote.
Pros:
• Property owners determine outcome
o Analysis identifies a direct benefit to property owners
o Easy for property owners to understand
• Relatively Simple Election
o Simple Majority approval
o Mail in ballot, no general election requirement
o Equitable tabulation of ballots: one dollar = one vote
• Provides a stable ongoing funding source
Cons:
• Statutory limitations on what may be funded
• Must conduct a study to make a special benefit finding
o General benefit may not be funded
• Annual legislative action required for most assessmentsAttachment 5
Timeline:
The total implementation time for a City-wide assessment district would take
approximately 9-12 months.
1. Determine the District's visions/goals
a. Assess the needs of constituents
b. Polling
2. Conduct Feasibility Analysis/Engineering Report
a. This is the legal basis for the assessment
b. Determine the district's boundaries and identify all parcels within the
district
c. Identify key projects/goals that will be accomplished
d. Estimate project costs
e. Specify the annual cost to each property
f. Identify the benefit formula that will be used to determine each property's
share of the cost
3. Ballot Proceeding
a. Mail a detailed notice of public hearing and ballot no less than 45 days
prior to the public hearing
b. Hold a public hearing
c. Returned ballots weighted according to the proportional financial
obligation of the affected property ($1 = 1 vote); majority approval needed
4. Enactment Procedure
a. Draft and adopt resolutions creating the assessment district
b. Once assessment is formalized, County will begin to collect on the next
property tax billAttachment 6
Title: Street Assessment District [option 6]
Description:
A Street Assessment District is an assessment that would be used to fund street paving,
repair and maintenance. The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets and Highways
Code Section 10000) allows for the formation of this type of assessment district. The
Improvement Act of 1915 (Streets and Highways Code Section 8500), in conjunction
with the 1913 Act, allows for the issuance of bonds to fund street paving or repaving,
grading or regrading.
The assessment district would fund street repaving by issuing a bond, with the properties
in the assessment district responsible for funding the debt service on an annual basis.
Voting for a Street Assessment District is by mail-in ballot and requires approval by a
majority (50% + 1) of returned ballots. All property owners within the boundaries of the
district are eligible to vote.
Pros:
• Property owners determine outcome
o Analysis identifies a direct benefit to property owners
o Easy for property owners to understand
• Relatively Simple Election
o Simple Majority approval
o Mail in ballot, no general election requirement
o Equitable tabulation of ballots: one dollar = one vote
• Provides a stable ongoing funding source
Cons:
• Statutory limitations on what may be funded
• Must conduct a study to make a special benefit finding
o General benefit may not be funded
• Annual legislative action required for most assessments
• Reorganization of Public Works would be needed to free up staff to work on
paving projectsAttachment 6
Timeline:
The total implementation time for a City-wide assessment district would take
approximately 9-12 months.
I. Determine the Districts visions/goals
a. Assess the needs of constituents
b. Polling
2. If polling determines support for Street Assessment District, and City Council
gives direction to proceed, begin process to issue Bonds
a. Process would take approximate 60 — 90 days
b. Will run concurrently with process of Assessment District
3. Conduct Feasibility Analysis/Engineering Report
a. This is the legal basis for the assessment
b. Determine the districts boundaries and identify all parcels within the
district
c. Identify key projects/goals that will be accomplished
d. Estimate project costs
e. Specify the annual cost to each property
f. Identify the benefit formula that will be used to determine each property's
share of the cost
4. Ballot Proceeding
a. Mail a detailed notice of public hearing and ballot no less than 45 days
prior to the public hearing
b. Hold a public hearing
c. Returned ballots weighted according to the proportional financial
obligation of the affected property ($1 1 vote); majority approval needed
5. Enactment Procedure
a. Draft and adopt resolutions creating the assessment district
b. Once assessment is formalized, County will begin to collect on the next
property tax billAttachment 7
Title: City-wide Parking Strategy [option 7]
Description:
Currently, the Redevelopment Agency is conducting a study on parking meter rates and
parking structures to develop a comprehensive parking strategy in downtown Culver
City.
The proposed Phase Two of this project is to further discuss and research parking as an
economic development tool. This citywide strategy may include increasing parking
meter rates in other areas of the City (beyond downtown) and researching options such as
the installation of additional electronic meters which make data collection and analysis
much simpler. These meters download information into a device which can then be
uploaded to a computer to develop reports. This will enable staff to make more informed
decisions, and analyze parking trends, etc.
Pros
• Takes an action of City Council only to increase parking meter rates
o Done by Resolution
o Currently very low rate compared to surrounding cities
• Increasing rate not governed by Prop 218
• Analysis and collection of revenues would be easier with new parking meter
heads
Cons
• Rate increase could discourage people from shopping in Culver City
? Not a significant increase of revenue
Timeline
Replacement of parking meters would most likely be done in phases and take between 8
to 12 months to complete entire City. Increase in Parking Meter Rate could be
implemented 30 days from City Council action.Attachment 8
Title: Healthcare Cost Containment Solutions [Option 81
Description:
Medical insurance costs are projected to continue to increase for the next couple of years
at least. To address this, the City needs to either find a steady revenue source to fund the
increasing cost or find a solution to contain the cost. It is recommended that the City
creates a dedicated team (Healthcare Benefits Committee) to focus on the issue and
explore all feasible resolutions. This Healthcare Benefits Committee should include the
Personnel Director, Chief Financial Officer, and one representative from each bargaining
group.
The goal of the committee is to research and share information regarding various feasible
options of affordable and flexible healthcare coverage for City employees through a joint
collaborative effort. The anticipated timeline for this process is six to nine months. The
findings and recommended solutions will be presented to the City Council for
consideration. It is hoped that this inclusive process will provide solutions to the health
care cost issues and any agreed upon solutions can be incorporated into the next MOU
negotiations, which start in June 2008. Some possible options include, but are not limited
to:
• Implementation of a two-tier employee benefit system (i.e. cafeteria plan
that is not precluded by CalPers);
• Explore the possibility of leaving CalPERS for another comparable
healthcare provider;
• Implement a cap on the dollar amount that the City will pay; and/or
• Increase the employee's share of the cost.
Pros:
• The goal is to come up with viable options for the City to continue to provide its
employees competitive healthcare benefit and maintain financial stability.
Cons:
• The implementation of this program will require further research, analysis and
cooperation with our six (6) bargaining groups.
Timeline:
The City will be creating a task force in July/August 2007 to explore these options and
others.Attachment 9
Title: Photovoltaic/Solar Energy Initiative (Option 91
Description:
Photovoltaic (PV) energy is a solar power technology that uses solar cells or solar
photovoltaic arrays to convert energy from the sun into electricity. Solar powered pocket
calculators are an example of a common everyday use of this technology.
Solar arrays are increasingly incorporated into new domestic and industrial buildings as a
principal or ancillary source of electrical power. Typically, an array is incorporated into
the roof or walls of a new building or can be retrofitted into existing buildings. An array
can also be located separately from the building and connected by cable to supply power
for the building.
To date, staff has taken a number of steps to encourage "green" development and inform
the public on "green" initiatives. Voluntary green building guides have been added to the
handout bins in the Building & Safety division; a green building report was presented to
City Council in February 2005; a solar presentation was given to the Planning
Commission in June 2005; and a solar discussion was brought to City Council in
February 2006.
The Building & Safety division is currently working to develop a Solar Initiative for City
Council's consideration, which would require a one kilowatt solar photovoltaic system
per 10,000 square feet of new multifamily or commercial construction (existing buildings
and remodels would be exempt from this requirement). Additionally, Community
Development and Public Works staff will be touring the City of Santa Monica's solar
projects and begin exploring possible uses for solar energy on City facilities and City
owned property.
The proposed 2007-08 Capital Projects budget includes a request for $30,000 to fund a
study to identify potential opportunities to use solar power on City facilities and property
as well as initial investment and capital costs, and financing possibilities associated with
each opportunity. Please note that the Solar Initiative can move forward without the need
for a consultant. The consultant is only to assess opportunities on City facilities and
properties.
Pros:
• City will continue to be a leader in environmentally friendly policies
• Solar power is a long lasting source of energy that can be used almost anywhere
and creates no pollution
Cons:
• Costly initial investment as most types of solar cells require a large area to
achieve average efficiency
• An increase in use of solar energy in the community would result in a decrease in
the City's UUT revenuesAttachment 9
Timeline:
If money is approved in the 2007-08 C1P budget to retain the services of a consultant,
staff will need 2-4 months go through the RFP process and secure a qualified fiuiii. The
time to complete the study will need to be determined based on the responses to the RFP.Municipal Elections
Genera/ Municipal Election
April 8, 2008
Laws in effect in 2007
(Calendar laws updated 101912006)
28 Last Day to Post Notice of Precinct Board Members
(30 days after Assuming Last Day to File Statement of Economic Interests
Office)
Last Day to File Campaign Expenditure StatementsSemi-Annual Statement
No Later Than May 6
May 14 to June 1
July 31
October 19 -172 Suggested Last Day to File Petitions Regarding Measure
December 3 -127
Suggested Last Day for Council to Adopt Resolutions
December 3 to December 17 -127 -113
Election Official to Publish Notice of Election - Candidates
December 10 -120 Last Day to Adopt Regulations for Candidates Statements
December 17 to January 11 -113 -88
Filing Period for Nomination Papers and Candidate's Statements
Or January 14 -85 (if city is closed on Friday)
December 18 -112 Suggested Last Day to Call Election For Ballot Measures
December 19 -111 Suggested Last Day to Post Notice of Deadline for Filing Arguments
January 1 -98
Suggested Last Day to File Arguments / Must Be 14 days after Council calls Election
January 11 -88 Suggested Last Day to File Rebuttal Arguments /10 Days after Arguments
January 11 -88
Last Day to Call Election For Ballot Measures
January 11 or January 14 -88 -85
Last Day to File Nomination Papers
January 16 -83
Last Day to File Nomination Papers—Extended Filing Period
January 16 -83
Last Day to Withdraw Measure(s) from Ballot
January 17 -82
Secretary of State to Determine Order of Names on Ballot
January 24 -75
Time to Cancel Election — Insufficient Candidates
January 31 semi-annual
Last Day to File Campaign Expenditure Statements - Semi-Annual Statement
February 7 -61
Last Day to Submit Precinct Consolidations to County
February 7 -61
Suggested Last Day to Designate Polling Places
February 7 -61 Suggested Last Day To Request Postage Check for Mailing of Sample Ballot Pamphlets
February 11 to March 25 -57 -14 Filing Period for Write--in Candidate
February 28 -40
Last Day to File Campaign Expenditure Statements - 1st Pre-election Statement
January 31
Last Day to File Campaign Expenditure Statements - Semi-Annual Statement
March 10 -29
Last Day to Designate Polling Places & Appoint Precinct Board Members
March 10 -29
First Day to Mail out Permanent Absent Voter Ballots
March 10 to April 1 -29 _7 Voters May Request AbsenteeNote by Mall Ballots with Regular Applications
March 18 -21
Last Day to Mail Sample Ballots and Polling Place Notices
March 24 -15
Last Day to Register to Vote
March 25 -14
Last Day to File for Write—in Candidate
March 25 -14
Last Day to Prepare List of Precincts with Multi-lingual Precinct Board Members
March 27 -12
Last Day to File Campaign Expenditure Statements - 2nd Pre-election Statement
March 28 -11
Suggested Last Day to Post Notice — Absentee Canvass
March 29 -10
Publish Notice of Central Counting Place
March 29 -10
First Day to Process ReturnedNoted Absent Voter Ballots
April 1
Last Day to Submit Report on Measures to Secretary of State
April 1 -7
Last Day for Election Official to Publish Notice of Nominees
April 1 -7
Last Day to Publish Notice of Polling Places
April 1 -7
Last Day to Post Notice of Polling Places & Precinct Board Members
April 2 to April 8 -6
Emergency/Late Absent Voting Period
April 7 -1
Last Day for Council to Adopt Procedures to Resolve Tie Vote
April 8 ELECTION DAY
April 8
Last Day to Receive Absent Voter Ballots
April 8
Election Official to Canvass Absent Voter Ballots
No Later Than May 2 24
Election Official to Canvass the Retums & Conduct Manual Tally
No Later Than May 2 24
Declaration of the Results
April 14 to May 2
(At same meeting as Reorganize Council and Choose Mayor and Mayor Pro Tern
Declaration of Results and
Installation)
Date(s) E minus
Ito
E minus] Action
(R10;25/2006)
Prepared by Martin + Chapman Co.
www.martinchapman.comSUMMARY OF FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORTS-DRAFT
FACILITY ROUTINE COSTS IMMEDIATE REPAIR COSTS RESERVE COST ESTIMATE* REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATE
City Hall $ 26,700 $ 936,600 $ 45,150 $ 30,590,000
Public Works Maintenance Yard $ 21,000 $ 22,800 $ 63,500 $ 5,030,000
Fire Station 1 $ 33,500 $ 123,175 $ 14,470 $ 5,800,000
Fire Station 2 $ 19,000 $ 434,100 $ 2,500 $ 4,170,000
Fire Training Yard $ 14,500 $ 2,500 $ 4,525 $ 900,000
Police Facility $ 20,300 $ 145,975 $ 29,793 $ 9,030,000
Transportation $ 44,200 $ 603,300 $ 56,075 $ 19,640,000
Ince Parking Structure $ 15,800 $ - $ 50,019 $ 21,110,000
Cardiff Parking Structure $ 14,960 $ 500 $ 29,000 $ 9,930,000
Watseka Parking Structure $
14,780 $ - $ 60,583 $ 8,610,000
Ivy Sub Station $ 13,300 $ 12,800 $ 24,870 $ 2,120,000
Veteran's Memorial Building $ 23,300 $ 1,705,000 $ 18,900 $ 25,760,000
Senior Center $ 17,750 $ $ 10,050 $ 8,180,000
Teen Center $ 17,750 $ 5,000 $ 19,220 $ 2,060,000
Municipal Plunge $ 12,300 $ 4,000 $ 13,640 $ 3,720,000
Transfer Station $ 20,800 $ 6,075 $ 5,337 $ 1,340,000
Braddock Pump Station $ 6,400 $ 3,000 $ 4,638 $
Bristol Pump Station $ 5,650 $ 5,000 $ 3,911 $
Fox Hills Pump Station $ 7,150 $ $ 3,661 $
Hayden Pump Station $ 4,450 $ - $ 6,600 $
Jasmine Pump Station $ 7,150 $ - $ 3,265 $
Mesmer Pump Station $ 8,650 $ $
4,689 $
Overland Pump Station $ 8,650 $ 2,000 $ 3,868 $
TOTAL $
378,040 $ 4,011,825 $ 478,264 $ 157,990,000
*Uninflated Average Reserve Requirement Per YearLONG TERM REPLACEMENT FORECAST COST-DRAFT
FACILITY 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TOTAL
City Hail $ $ $ 130,000 $ $ 115,250 $ 11,250 5 - $ 175,000 $ 20,000 $ $ 451,500
Public Works Maintenance Yard S $ 69,450 $ 60,000 $ - $ 462,750 $ - $ - $ - $ 7,800 5 35000 $ 635,000
Fire Station 1 S $ 50,000 $ 8,900 $ $ - $ 52,000 $ - $ 33,800 $ 144,700
Fire Station 2 5 19,500 $ $ $ 1,000 $ 4,500 $ 25,000
Fire Training Yard $ 3,750 $ 8,500 $ 5,050 $ 8,000 $ 7,450 $ $ $ - S S 12,500 $ 45,250
Police Facility $ $ 32,400 $ 4,050 $ - $ 38,275 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 S 25,000 $ 123,200 $ 297,925
Transportation $ $ 18,000 $ 84,000 $ - $ 72,250 $ 158,500 $ $ 15,000 $ 3,000 S 210,000 $ 560,750
Ince Parking Structure $ - $ 3,945 $ $ 492,300 $ $ - $
S 3,945 5 500,190
Cardiff Parking Structure $ 2,000 $ $ 283,500 $ - $ $ 5 2,000 $ $ S 2,500 $ 290,000
Watseka Parking Structure $ 1,665 $ 300,000 S $ 2,500 $ $ $ 1,665 $ $ 300,000 $ 605,830
Ivy Sub Station $ $ 5,100 S 12,500 $ $ 231,100 $ $ $ 5
$ 248,700
Veteran's Memorial Building $ - $ - 5 6,000 $ $ 50,000 $ $ $ $ 5 133.000 $ 189,000
Senior Center $ - S $ $ $ 15,000 5 85,500 5 $ $ 5 5 100,500
Teen Center $ - S $ 69,000 $ $ S $ 93,200 $ $ 5 30,000 5 192,200
Municipal Plunge $ - S $ $ $ 14,800 5 5 $ 93,600 $ $ 28,000 $ 136,400
Transfer Station $ 5 40,225 $ 7,500 5 4,750 $ 900 $ $ $ $ $ $ 53,375
BraddocK Pump Station $ - $ $ 5 2,380 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 13,000 5 13,000 $ 13,000 $ 46,380
Bristol Pump Station 5 - $ - $ 2,500 $ 5,610 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 5 13,000 $ 13,000 $ $ 39,110
Fox Hills Pump Station $ $ 5,610 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ $ 13,000 $ 13,000 $ $ 36,610
Hayden Pump Station - $ 35,000 $ 5 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 13,000 $ 13,000 $ $ 66,000
Jasmine Pump Station $ $ $ $ 1,650 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $
S 13,000 $ 13,000 $ $ 32,650
Mesmer Pump Station S $ - $ 5 15,890 $ 15,500 $ 15,500 $ $ $ $ $ 46,890
Overland Pump Station $ - $ - $ - 5 20,680 $ 2,500 $ 15,500 $ - S - $ - $ $ 38,680
Annual Reserve Requirement (uninflated) $ 26,915 $ 558,675 $ 673;000 $ 71,015 $ 1,039,275 $ 868,050 $ 134,865 $ 373,600 $ 120,800 $ 916,445 $ 4,782,640
Inflation Rate Factor (5.0%) 1.0000 1.0500 1.1025 1.1576 1.2155 1.2763 1.3401 1.4071 1.4775 1.5514
Annual Reserve Requirement
(inflated-5.0%)
$ 26,915 $ 586,609 $ 741,983 $ 82,207 $ 1,263,239 $ 1,107,892 $ 180,733 $ 525,693 $ 178,482 $ 1,421,773 $ 6,115,524
Average Annual Reserve .5 478,264
Requirement (uninflated)
Average Annual Reserve $ 611,552
Requirement (inflated)PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY OF FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORTS
Park Routine Costs Immediate Repair Costs Replacement Reserve Cost Insurance Replacement Cost *
Blair Hills- Option 1 $10,426 , $35,058 $8,067 $81,700
Blair Hills- Option 2 - $137,275 $7,039 -
Blanco $14,769 $39,422 $10,672 $141,300
Carlson $4,509 $4,224 $0 $114,000
Culver City Park $50,345 $113,903 $1,267 $393,960
Culver West Alexander $13,083 $15,065 $2,868 $774,860
El Marino- Option 1 $22,957 $120,379 $1,745 $244,380-
El Marino- Option 2 - $213,304 $1,323 -
Fox Hills $23,535 $55,191 $2,266 $263,100
Syd Kronenthal- Short Term $29,302 $78,141 $23,906 $811,500
Syd Kronenthal- Long Term - - -
Lindberg $25,110 $178,105 $9,010 $443,800
Tellefson $2,033 $21,119 $2,745 $106,700
Veterans Memorial ' $4,065 $11,968 $27,455 $276,200
TOTALS $200,134 $1,023,154 $98,363 $3,651,500|1010|* Without Depreciation Factor
- These numbers may change substantially after the two conceptual master plans are completed. (June 2007)me
n* |1010|Pavement Summary
System Budget Needs
Most Cost Effective — June 2007
Type of work Total projects Total cost Center lane
miles
2 inch Grind and Overlay 214 $9,400,000 27.2 miles
Reconstruction 11 $1,190,000 1.0 miles
Slurry Seal 62 $400,000 7.5 miles
Concrete Streets
(spot repairs)
27 $7,100,000 1.9 miles
Crack seal, spot repair,
patching
283 $2,400,000 38 miles
Total 597 $20,500,000 75.6 miles
120.7 center lane miles in the City.
Concrete — 30 years design life is industry standard however it can last much
longer if heavy traffic loads are not allowed on it.
Pavement — 20 years design life is industry standard however it can vary and
depends on traffic loads, utility cuts, and wet weather.
Concrete is rated differently than asphalt. PCI of 83 is considered average.
PCI of 75 is the threshold for replacement.
Current Network Pavement Condition Index is 72 for concrete and asphalt.
System requires minimum $2,700,000 to maintain backlog of $20,500,000.
Assumption: If no backlog, within 5 years, 15 to 20% of streets will need a slurry
seal.DATE: 6/13/2007
TO: Marlee Chang, City Controller
FROM: Charles Herbertson, Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Street Light Coversion and On-going Maintenance Co s
Pi
9Z CITY
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Currently there are a total of 3,162 street lights in the City inventory. Of this
amount, 2099 have been coverted to multiple circuits and 1063 (33%) are still on
the high voltage series circuits. The cost to covert these remaining 1,063 series
lights to multiple circuits is calculated as follows:
1,063 lights X $10,000/light = $10,630,000
Currently the annual cost of maintaining the overall street light system is
estimated as follows:
Energy Costs:
$ 410,000
Maintenance Costs:
$ 454,000
Total Annual Costs: $ 864,000
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD CULVER CITY, CA 90232-0507