LA MESA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022, 6:00 p.m.
Location: City Council Chambers, 8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California
Elected
Officials:
Mayor Mark Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Jack Shu
Councilmember Bill Baber
Councilmember Laura Lothian
Councilmember Colin Parent
City Treasurer Eldon Vogt
Staff: City Manager Greg Humora
City Attorney Glenn Sabine
City Clerk Megan Wiegelman
In-Person/Virtual Hybrid City Council Meeting Pursuant to AB 361 (Government Code Section 54953(e)(1)-(2))
The City Council meeting may be viewed in-person or live on Cox Cable Channel 24 (within La Mesa City limits), AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 (in the San Diego Region),the City’s website (www.cityoflamesa.us), Facebook Live (www.facebook.com/lamesaca) or using the following Zoom Webinar options:
The public may view the meeting live using the following remote options:
Teleconference Meeting Webinar
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84472650722
Telephone (Audio only)
(669) 900-6833 or (253) 215-8782 Webinar ID: 844 7265 0722 Copy and paste the webinar link into your internet browser if the webinar link does not work directly from the agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
In-Person comments during the meeting: Join us for the City Council meeting at the time and location specified on this agenda to make your comments. , please complete a “Request to Speak” card and submit it to the Council Hostess. When the Mayor calls your name, step to the podium and state your name for the record. Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes.
•
Zoom Audio Comments: To provide oral public comments during the meeting, join the Zoom meeting by computer, mobile phone, or dial in number. On Zoom video conference by computer or mobile phone, use the “Raise Hand” feature. This will notify the moderator that you wish to speak during a specific item on the agenda or during non-agenda Public Comment. Members of the public will not be shown on video but will be able to speak when called upon. If joining the meeting using the Zoom dial-in number, you may raise your hand by pressing *9. Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes. No further comments will be entertained after the Mayor closes public comment. •
How to submit eComments: eComments are available once an agenda is published.
Locate the meeting in "upcoming meetings" and click the comment bubble icon. Click on the item you wish to comment on. eComments can be submitted when the agenda is published and until 24 hours prior to the meeting. eComments are limited to 500 words. eComments may be viewed by the City Council and members of the public following the close of the eComment submission period (24 hours prior to the meeting). Email your comment to [email protected] if you have difficulty submitting an eComment. eComments will not be read aloud as a regular meeting item; however any member of the Council or member of the public may do so during their respective comment time. •
Citizens who wish to make an audio/visual presentation pertaining to an item on the agenda, or during Public Comments, should contact the City Clerk’s office at 619.667.1120, no later than 5:00 p.m., the Thursday prior to the meeting day. Advance notification will ensure compatibility with City equipment and allow Council meeting presentations to progress smoothly and in a consistent and equitable manner. Please note that all presentations/digital materials are considered part of the maximum time limit provided to speakers.
Agenda reports for items on this agenda are available for public review at the City Clerk's Office, 8130 Allison Avenue, during normal business hours.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office, 8130 Allison Avenue, during normal business hours.
ACCESSIBILITY: The City of La Mesa encourages the participation of disabled individuals in the
services, activities and programs provided by the City. Individuals with disabilities, who require reasonable accommodation in order to participate in the City Council meetings, should contact the City’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator, Rida Freeman, Director of Administrative Services, 48 hours prior to the meeting at 619.667.1175, fax 619.667.1163, or [email protected].
Hearing assisted devices are available for the hearing impaired. A City staff member is available to provide these devices upon entry to City Council meetings, commission meetings or public hearings held in the City Council Chambers. A photo i.d. or signature will be required to secure a device for the meeting.
Pages
1. CALL TO ORDER
1.1. INVOCATION - COUNCILMEMBER BABER
1.2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
3. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
4. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS
5. PRESENTATIONS
5.1. PROCLAIMING APRIL 2022 AS VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION MONTH
5.2. PROCLAIMING MAY 2022 AS BIKE MONTH
6. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
NOTE: In accordance with state law, an item not scheduled on the agenda may be brought forward by the general public for comment; however, the City Council will not be able to discuss or take any action on the item at this meeting.
If appropriate, the item will be referred to Staff or placed on a future agenda.
8. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES
9. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
9.1. INTERVIEW OF APPLICANT FOR AN UNSCHEDULED VACANCY ON
THE COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD
8 Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman
9.2. INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS FOR UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES ON
THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
11 Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman
10. BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
10.1. RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO FILL THE
UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES ON THE YOUTH ADVISORY
COMMISSION
14 Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman
Recommended Motion:
The Mayor make the appointments to fill the vacancies, with the approval of the Council, and adopt Resolution confirming the appointments.
11. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 11.1 through 11.9)
The Consent Calendar includes items considered to be routine. Unless discussion is requested by members of the Council or audience, all Consent Calendar items may be approved by one motion.
Recommended Motion:
Approve Consent Calendar Items 11.1 through 11.9.
11.1. APPROVAL OF MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT
OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Recommended Motion:
Approve.
11.2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, AND MARCH 8, 2022
18 Recommended Motion:
Approve.
11.3. RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, AS AMENDED BY ASSEMBLY BILL 361,
AND RE-AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUED USE OF VIRTUAL
AND/OR HYBRID MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES
BEGINNING MAY 1, 2022 THROUGH MAY 31, 2022
30 Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman
11.4. QUARTERLY COMMUNICATIONS REPORT: JANUARY TO MARCH 2022
34 Staff Reference: Mr. Tomaino
Recommended Motion:
Receive and file.
11.5. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER AND APPROPRIATION OF
FUNDS FROM THE UNALLOCATED FUND RESERVES ACCOUNT
TO THE CITY ATTORNEY’S PROFESSIONAL AND SPECIALIZED
SERVICES ACCOUNT FOR LEGAL EXPENSES
47 Staff Reference: Mr. Humora
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
11.6. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) ANNUAL
ADJUSTMENT TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTCIP) DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE
50 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SANDAG ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT
TO THE RTCIP DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO COMPLY WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF SANDAG COMMISSION ORDINANCE 04-
01 AND TRANSNET EXTENSION ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE
PLAN
Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
11.7. QUIMBY ACT PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE AND PARK
ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE
55 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINDINGS FOR THE QUIMBY ACT
PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE AND PARK ACQUISITION
AND IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001 AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS FOR PROJECTS OUTLINED IN THE PARKS MASTER PLAN
Staff Reference: Mr. Dedmon
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
11.8. RESOLUTION REJECTING BID NO. 22-12, HIGHWOOD PARK
COURT RESURFACING PROJECT
60 Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
11.9. RESOLUTION AWARDING CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO NV5 INC.
FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR GROSSMONT
CENTER DRIVE BRIDGE REHABILITATION AND WIDENING
PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $118,118.95
63 Staff Reference: Mr. Throne
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
12. ORDINANCE: FIRST READING
12.1. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF LA MESA APPROVING THE LA MESA POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY
106
Staff Reference: Chief Sweeney
Recommended Motion:
Approve the introduction and first reading of the Ordinance.
13. HEARINGS
13.1. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REVISING THE QUIMBY ACT
PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE AND PARK ACQUISITION
AND IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF THE PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
UPDATE STUDY (2022 STUDY)
129
Staff Reference: Mr. Dedmon
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
13.2. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FEE SCHEDULE
TO BE CHARGED BY VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2022-2023
159
Staff Reference: Mr. Dedmon
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
13.3. CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 AND A
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022
280
Staff Reference: Mr. Kusiak
Recommended Motion:
(1) Adopt Resolution adopting the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan for the CDBG Program and authorizing submittal to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and (2) Adopt Resolution approving a substantial amendment to the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan for the CDBG Program and authorizing submittal to HUD.
14. COUNCIL INITIATED
14.1. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF ON
PROVIDING A REGULAR REPORT OF PERMIT AND
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY FOR REVIEW BY THE CITY COUNCIL
AND PUBLIC - COUNCILMEMBER LOTHIAN
340
15. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)
16. AB 1234 REPORTS (GC 53232.3 (d))
17. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
18. ADJOURNMENT
DATE: April 26, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, CMC, City Clerk MW
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: INTERVIEW OF APPLICANT FOR AN UNSCHEDULED VACANCY ON
THE COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD
Attached is a copy of the application from a citizen who wishes to be considered for appointment to fill an unscheduled vacancy on the Community Police Oversight Board.
The applicant has been invited to attend the meeting and make a brief presentation describing their qualifications and interest in serving on the Board.
The applicant will be called forward for their interview by the City Clerk. After the presentation you may ask questions of the applicant, if you wish.
The appointment will be made at the City Council meeting on May 10th.
Attachment
Community Police Oversight Board: 1 position – two-year term One position will fill the unexpired term of Brandon Kertson whose term expires December 31, 2022 and represents the La Mesa Faith Based Community.
Members shall be resident electors of the City of La Mesa and are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code.
First Appointed Terms
Reverend Christian DeMent
THE APPLICATION IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
DATE: April 26, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, CMC, City Clerk MW
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS FOR UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES ON
THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
Attached are applications from citizens who wish to be considered for appointment to fill the unscheduled vacancies on the Environmental Sustainability Commission. The applicants have been invited to attend the meeting and make a brief three-minute presentation describing their qualifications and interest in serving on the Commission.
The applicants will be called forward for their interviews by the City Clerk. After each presentation you may ask questions of the applicants, if you wish.
The appointments will be made at the City Council meeting on May 10th.
Attachment
Environmental Sustainability Commission: 2 positions – four-year term One position will fill the unexpired term of Eugenie Budnik whose term expires June 30, 2023, and represents the youth population (Y).
One position will fill the unexpired term of Richard McDonald whose term expires June 30, 2023, and represents the professional category (P).
One member shall be a resident of the City of La Mesa and shall have professional experience related to environmental sustainability. One member shall reside within the City of La Mesa or attend school in the City and shall not be more than 21 years of age at the time of appointment.
First Appointed Number of Terms
Mary Nooristani (P)
Shaelen Taylor (Y)
THE APPLICATIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
DATE: April 26, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, CMC, City Clerk MW
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF APPLICANTS TO FILL VACANCIES ON THE
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
On April 12th, the City Council interviewed applicants who were interested in being appointed to fill vacancies on the City’s Youth Advisory Commission. At the Council meeting on April 26th, the Mayor will make the appointments with the approval of the City Council.
Attached is a brief description of the requirements, the number of openings, and the names of each applicant seeking to be appointed.
Staff recommends the City Council appoint members to fill the vacancies and adopt the attached resolution confirming the appointments.
Attachments
Youth Advisory Commission: 3 positions – two-year terms One appointee will fill the position with the term expiring September 30, 2023; one appointee will fill the position vacated by Grant Jordan whose term expires September 30, 2022; one appointee will fill the alternate position with term expiring September 30, 2023.
Members must be between the ages of 13 and 20 years and reside within the City of La Mesa or attend school in the City.
First Appointed Number of Terms
Zaida Dannelly
Mustafa Dost
Dylan White
APPLICATIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA APPOINTING
MEMBERS TO THE YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
___________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, positions on the City of La Mesa Youth Advisory Commission have been vacated; and
WHEREAS, the list of persons below have been recommended to the City Council for appointment to said City of La Mesa Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the following are hereby appointed as members of the City of La Mesa Youth Advisory Commission, with their terms to commence after the oath or affirmation of allegiance for public officers or employees is executed as required by Article XX, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of California, and to expire on the dates stated below, or until their successors are appointed and qualified:
Youth Advisory Commission: 3 appointments
Zaida Dannelly is appointed for term ending September 30, 2023 Mustafa Dost is appointed for term ending September 30, 2022 Dylan White is appointed as an Alternate Member for term ending September 30, 2023
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 26th day of April 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2022- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
1 La Mesa City Council
Minutes of a Regular Meeting
Date:
Location:
February 22, 2022, 6:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California
Present: Mayor Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Shu
Councilmember Baber
Councilmember Lothian
Councilmember Parent
Staff: City Manager Humora
Assistant City Manager Tomaino
City Attorney Sabine
City Clerk Wiegelman
This meeting was conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with Government Code Section 54953, as amended by Assembly Bill 361, in relation to the COVID-19 State of Emergency and recommended social distancing measures. _____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City Council minutes are prepared and ordered to correspond to the City Council Agenda. Agenda Items can be taken out of order during the meeting.
The Agenda Items were considered in the order presented.
Mayor Arapostathis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1.1 INVOCATION - COUNCILMEMBER LOTHIAN
1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
2 3. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS
The Mayor, Council and staff made announcements and reported on various events taking place in the City. No action was taken.
4. PRESENTATIONS
4.1 SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY POWER RESIDENTIAL ENROLLMENT
UPDATE PRESENTATION
Councilmember Baber provided opening comments and introduced San Diego Community Power ("SDCP") Chief Operations Officer ("COO") Cody Hooven and Director of External Affairs Rita De la Fuente.
SDCP COO Cody Hooven and Director of External Affairs Rita De la Fuente provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding SDCP and the upcoming enrollment of La Mesa residents, highlighting SDCP's values and successes in 2021, the enrollment schedule, SDCP's renewable energy options, how SDCP compares to San Diego Gas & Electric ("SDG&E"), how to read the SDCP's customer bill, and SDCP's marketing and community outreach efforts.
Council questions and comments ensued.
David Harris, SDCP Community Advisory Committee, spoke in support of SDCP and encouraged residents to opt up to one hundred percent clean energy.
Dianne Osterling inquired about the impact SDCP will have on residents with solar power.
Following Council questions and comments, no action was taken.
4.2 2022 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WORK PLANS
COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND VETERANS COMMISSION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD
MOBILITY COMMISSION
Community Relations and Veterans Commission Chair Dennis Sharp presented the Commission's 2022 Work Plan.
3 Historic Preservation Commission Chair Carmen Pauli presented the Commission's 2022 Work Plan.
Youth Advisory Commission Chair Maya Sellers presented the Commission's 2022 Work Plan.
Community Services Commission Chair Matt Bohan presented the Commission's 2022 Work Plan.
Community Police Oversight Board Chair Janet Castanos presented the Board's 2022 Work Plan.
Mobility Commission Chair Mike Calandra presented the Commission's 2022 Work Plan.
Following Council questions and comments, no action was taken.
4.3 POLICE CHIEF'S QUARTERLY OPERATIONS REPORT
Chief Sweeney presented the crime statistics for quarter ending December 31, 2021, explained the statistics in the various crime categories, and highlighted recently solved cases. Chief Sweeney also spoke regarding the number of calls for service received this year, the Department’s proactive operations and strategic enforcement, and the many community outreach programs in which the Department was involved.
5. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
Will Senn spoke on Consent Calendar Item 9.6 and requested the Council reverse the decision to deny Project 2017-31 (CUP 17-18; Senn).
Ryan spoke regarding the homeless issue near Highway 94 and Massachusetts Avenue.
Mary Davis spoke on returning to in-person meetings.
Megan spoke regarding the homeless issue near Highway 94 and Massachusetts Avenue.
Whitney Hodges spoke on Consent Calendar Item 9.6 and requested the Council reverse the decision to deny Project 2017-31 (CUP 17-18; Senn).
4 7. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES
There were no conflict of interest disclosures.
8. BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
8.1 RESOLUTION APPOINTING A MEMBER TO FILL AN UNSCHEDULED
VACANCY ON THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Mayor Arapostathis nominated Jose "Tony" Garcia for appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission.
Resolution No. 2022-012
Moved by Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded by Councilmember Baber
Approve the appointment of Jose "Tony" Garcia to the Historic Preservation Commission and adopt the Resolution confirming the appointment.
Yes (4): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Shu, Councilmember Baber, and Councilmember Parent
Absent (1): Councilmember Lothian
Approved (4 to 0)
8.2 RESOLUTION APPOINTING AND/OR REAPPOINTING MEMBERS TO
THE CITY'S COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD
Mayor Arapostathis nominated the following individuals for appointment and/or reappointment to the City’s Community Police Oversight Board:
Patricia Dillard, Police Beat 1 Resident Representative Leroy Johnson, Police Beat 2 Resident Representative
Caitlin Tiffany, Police Beat 3 Resident Representative
Daniel Walkup, Police Beat 4 Resident Representative
Michaela Blackmon, Advocate for People Experiencing Homelessness, Substance Abuse, Mental Health or Other Social Issues Representative Resolution No. 2022-013
Moved by Mayor Arapostathis
Seconded by Councilmember Baber
5 Approve the appointment of Daniel Walkup and Michaela Blackmon and the reappointment of Patricia Dillard, Leroy Johnson, and Caitlin Tiffany to the Community Police Oversight Board and adopt the Resolution confirming the appointments.
Yes (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Shu, Councilmember Baber, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Parent
Approved (5 to 0)
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 9.1 through 9.6)
Moved by Councilmember Baber
Seconded by Mayor Arapostathis
Approve Consent Calendar Items 9.1 through 9.5.
Yes (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Shu, Councilmember Baber, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Parent
Approved (5 to 0)
9.1 APPROVAL OF MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF
ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Approve.
9.2 RECEIVE AND FILE THE COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD
ANNUAL REPORT
Receive and file.
9.3 RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE HELIX CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
COMMISSION
Resolution No. 2022-014
Adopt Resolution.
6 9.4 RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE UNAPPROPRIATED PUBLIC
EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL (PEG) FUNDS TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 BUDGET FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY ROOM AUDIO-VISUAL UPGRADE PROJECT
Resolution No. 2022-015
Adopt Resolution.
9.5 RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THE EMERGENCY
REPLACEMENT OF THE LA MESA MUNICIPAL POOL HEATER FROM
GENERAL FUND RESERVES AND RATIFY THE CITY MANAGER'S
APPROVAL OF AN EMERGENCY PURCHASE ORDER
Resolution No. 2022-016
Adopt Resolution.
9.6 RESOLUTION DENYING PROJECT 2017-31 (CUP 17-88; SENN) RESOLUTION DENYING PROJECT 2017-31 (CUP 17-88; SENN), A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CANNABIS USE AT 7901
HILLSIDE DRIVE, APN 470-200-27-00 IN THE C-D-MU (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL - URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY - MIXED USE OVERLAY)
ZONE, THUS UPHOLDING THE APPEAL FILED BY CASA
Councilmember Baber and Councilmember Parent stated they would be voting against the motion to adopt the Resolution denying Project 2017-31 (CUP 17-88; Senn), thus upholding the appeal filed by CASA because it was inconsistent with La Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 24.23 (Measure U).
Resolution No. 2022-017
Moved by Vice Mayor Shu
Seconded by Councilmember Lothian
Adopt Resolution.
Yes (3): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Shu, and Councilmember Lothian
No (2): Councilmember Baber, and Councilmember Parent
Approved (3 to 2)
7 10. STAFF REPORT
10.1 DISCUSSION REGARDING RETURNING TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS; AND
POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, AS AMENDED
BY ASSEMBLY BILL 361, AND RE-AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUED
USE OF VIRTUAL MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF LA MESA FOR THE 30-DAY PERIOD BEGINNING MARCH 1, 2022 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2022
City Clerk Wiegelman provided an update on the state and county requirements for holding in-person meetings and reviewed the protocols implemented by neighboring cities in San Diego County for in-person meetings. City Clerk Wiegelman explained what was required to ensure a smooth transition to in-person or hybrid meetings and stated staff anticipated the changes would be implemented by the April 12, 2022, City Council meeting.
Council questions and comments ensued.
Dianne Osterling spoke in support of holding hybrid meetings of the legislative bodies.
Susan Wayne submitted a comment in support of continuing to permit virtual public comment after returning to in-person meetings.
Resolution No. 2022-018
Moved by Councilmember Parent
Seconded by Mayor Arapostathis
(1) Adopt the Resolution making findings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953, as amended by Assembly Bill 361, and re-authorizing the continued use of virtual meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of La Mesa for the 30-day period beginning March 1, 2022 through March 31, 2022; (2) Return to in-person/hybrid meetings of the legislative bodies beginning Tuesday, April 12, 2022; and (3) Authorize the City Manager to return the meetings of the legislative bodies to fully virtual if and when there is an indoor mask mandate in place.
Yes (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Shu, Councilmember Baber, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Parent
Approved (5 to 0)
8 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)
The Mayor and Council reported on various outside boards, commissions and committee meetings they attended. No action was taken.
12. AB 1234 REPORTS (GC 53232.3 (d))
There were no reports.
13. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
There were no remarks.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Baber announced he would not be running for re-election in 2022.
Mayor Arapostathis adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
_________________________
City Clerk
1 La Mesa City Council
Minutes of a Regular Meeting
Date:
Location:
March 8, 2022, 6:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California
Present: Mayor Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Shu
Councilmember Baber
Councilmember Lothian
Councilmember Parent
Staff: City Manager Humora
Assistant City Manager Tomaino
City Attorney Sabine
City Clerk Wiegelman
This meeting was conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with Government Code Section 54953, as amended by Assembly Bill 361, in relation to the COVID-19 State of Emergency and recommended social distancing measures. _____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City Council minutes are prepared and ordered to correspond to the City Council Agenda. Agenda Items can be taken out of order during the meeting.
The Agenda Items were considered in the order presented.
Mayor Arapostathis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1.1 INVOCATION - MAYOR ARAPOSTATHIS
1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
There were no comments.
2 3. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS
The Mayor, Council and staff made announcements and reported on various events taking place in the City. No action was taken.
4. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
There were no comments.
6. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES
There were no conflict of interest disclosures.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 7.1 through 7.4)
Mayor Arapostathis called a recess at 6:05 p.m. to allow staff to fix a technical issue.
The meeting reconvened at 6:28 p.m. with all members present.
Moved by Councilmember Baber
Seconded by Vice Mayor Shu
Approve Consent Calendar Items 7.1 through 7.4.
Yes (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Shu, Councilmember Baber, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Parent
Approved (5 to 0)
7.1 APPROVAL OF MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF
ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Approve.
7.2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022
Approve.
7.3 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022
Approve.
3 7.4 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID NO. 22-08, CITYWIDE PEDESTRIAN
SIGNAL AND PUSHBUTTON UPGRADE PROJECT, AND AWARDING
A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO YUNEX LLC
Resolution No. 2022-019
Adopt Resolution.
8. ORDINANCE: FIRST READING
8.1 SENATE BILL 1383 SHORT-LIVED CLIMATE POLLUTANTS:
ORGANIC WASTE RECOVERY ORDINANCE
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF LA MESA ADDING A NEW LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 7.30 MANDATORY ORGANICS RECYCLING AND EDIBLE
FOOD RECOVERY; AND, AMENDING CHAPTER 7.20 REFUSE
COLLECTION AND CHAPTER 7.22 MANDATORY RECYCLING TO
COMPLY WITH SENATE BILL NO. 1383
Environment Manager Ego provided an overview of the requirements of Senate Bill 1383 Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: Organic Waste Reductions ("SB 1383") and summarized the proposed SB 1383 Ordinance. Environment Manager Ego reviewed the education and outreach plan for the implementation of the proposed Ordinance.
Council questions and comments ensued.
Moved by Councilmember Parent
Seconded by Vice Mayor Shu
Approve the introduction and first reading of the Ordinance.
Yes (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Shu, Councilmember Baber, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Parent
Approved (5 to 0)
9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)
The Mayor and Council reported on various outside boards, commissions and committee meetings they attended. No action was taken.
4 10. AB 1234 REPORTS (GC 53232.3 (d))
There were no reports.
11. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
There were no remarks.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Arapostathis adjourned the meeting at 6:57 p.m.
_________________________
City Clerk
DATE: April 26, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, City Clerk MW
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, AS AMENDED BY ASSEMBLY
BILL 361, AND AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUED USE OF VIRTUAL
AND/OR HYBRID MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF LA MESA FOR THE 30-DAY PERIOD B
The City Council, Board and Commission meetings returned to in-person meetings on April 12, 2022. On February 22, 2022, it was the consensus of the Council to permit hybrid meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of La Mesa. A city may meet remotely or use a combination of in-person/virtual (hybrid) platform under AB 361 during a declared state of emergency by the Governor via Government Code § 54953(e) et seq. The attached Resolution (Attachment A) would need to be adopted by Council to allow for hybrid meetings, in which Councilmembers and/or Board and Commission Members may choose to continue to attend meetings virtually while still allowing the public to attend in-person.
On September 28, 2021, the City Council was apprised of the latest Assembly Bill No. 361 (AB 361) signed by Governor Newsom allowing legislative bodies to continue to utilize remote/virtual platforms for meetings as long as one of the following three criteria was met:
State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; or
For the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the state of emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; or
The City Council has previously determined, by majority vote, that, as a result of the state of emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
Based on the above criteria, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-115 to allow continued remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of La
Mesa for the month of October 2021 at its September 28, 2021 meeting. Subsequently, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2021-129, 2021-153, 2022-006, and 2022- 018, to allow continued remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of La Mesa for the months of November and December 2021 and January, February, and March 2022. Similarly, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-020 to allow hybrid meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of La Mesa for April 2022.
To continue meeting based on the parameters set forth in AB 361, the City Council must adopt subsequent resolutions each month prior to the expiration date of the previously adopted resolutions requesting the same. The adoption of the proposed Resolution is required to allow the City’s legislative bodies to hold hybrid meetings in which Councilmembers, Board Members, and Commissioners may choose to continue to participate virtually. Staff recommends adopting the attached draft resolution this evening to allow the hybrid meeting option for the month of May.
Attachment: A. Draft Resolution
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, AS
AMENDED BY ASSEMBLY BILL 361, AND RE-AUTHORIZING THE
CONTINUED USE OF VIRTUAL AND/OR HYBRID MEETINGS OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF LA MESA FOR THE 30-DAY PERIOD BEGINNING MAY 1, 2022 THROUGH MAY 31, 2022
WHEREAS, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor issued Executive Order Nos. N-08-21, N-25-20 and N-29-20, which suspended certain provisions of the Ralph M.
Brown Act to allow legislative bodies to conduct public meetings without strict compliance with the teleconferencing provisions of the Brown Act;
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 361, which was signed into law on September 16, 2021, amended Government Code section 54953, to provide relief from the teleconferencing provisions of the Brown Act under certain circumstances provided the legislative body makes certain findings;
WHEREAS, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor proclaimed a state of emergency on March 4, 2020, in accordance with the section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act, and the state of emergency remains in effect; and WHEREAS, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the California Department of Health and County of San Diego Public Health Services continue to recommended measures to promote social distancing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa as follows:
1. That the Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the previously declared and existing state of emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic;
2. That the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members of the Council to meet safely in person, and further that local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing;
3. That the legislative bodies of the City may continue to conduct public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e); and
4. That the Council will reconsider the above findings within 30-days of this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 26th day of April 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2022- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
DATE: April 26, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Greg Humora, City Manager
VIA: Carlo Tomaino, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Quarterly Communications Report
_________________________________________________________________________________ The City Council adopted the 2021-2023 Community Engagement Plan in response to community feedback regarding the City’s engagement efforts. The Community Engagement Plan prioritizes specific communication goals and programs designed to enable the City to better communicate with residents and the business community. The City’s enhanced communication efforts include newsletters, regular social media updates, video presentations, and other planned activities.
The City Manager’s Update provides updates regarding projects, programs, events, and other City-related news of interest. The City Manager’s Update is published every two weeks and is received by approximately 4,000 subscribers. The City also publishes an Economic Development Newsletter to over 2,000 subscribers regarding programs offered by the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development, the Small Business Administration, Small Business Development Center, the La Mesa Chamber of Commerce, and the La Mesa Village Association.
Earlier this year the City also launched the Mayor’s Minute video series highlighting City news, events, and updates. Staff is currently finalizing the second Mayor’s Minute video along with a segment on the Homeless Outreach and Mobile Engagement Program. The City will continue producing this video series, along with additional focused video segments, to broaden opportunities to share information with the community.
To measure performance outcomes associated with the implementation of the communications program, the City Manager’s Office tracks certain metrics and social media statistics. The attached report includes a narrative summary of activities along with data metrics from January to March of 2022. Staff will continue implementing the Community Engagement Plan Staff and providing quarterly reports to the City Council.
A. Quarterly Communications Report: January to March 2022
01 | QUARTERLY REPORT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
Facebook and Instagram Metrics and Analytics................................
Twitter Metrics and Analytics............................................................................
Social Media Campaigns......................................................................................
Goals..............................................................................................................................................
Overview.....................................................................................................................................
Digital Publications............................................................................................................
Social Media Assets
Mayor's Minute......................................................................................................................
Newsroom and News Desk.........................................................................................
Website Metrics....................................................................................................................
Questions................................................................................................................................... 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
PAGE
02| QUARTERLY REPORT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
Establish City Manager's Office as central contact for communications and implement consistent branding across City departments.
Hire a full-time position dedicated to communications that will implement the Community Engagement Plan (CEP).
Expand engagement capacity & opportunities via simulcasting, live streaming, hosting town halls, and establishing leadership academy.
Continue leveraging social media to promote local businesses and La Mesa as a destination for regional shopping and business development.
Leverage social media to amplify City efforts and develop targeted social media campaigns. Increase subscribers to digital newsletters and social media followers.
Upgrade existing technology capabilities to support ongoing communication efforts including the Emergency Operations Center.
Review and update operating protocols for the City's Crisis and Emergency Communication.
Continue providing accurate and timely updates to community and press. Amplify positive stories about community and accomplishments.
Increase the frequency and relevance of communications with residents, businesses and community stakeholders, as well as with staff.
COMPLETED
03 | QUARTERLY REPORT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
The highlights shared in this quarterly
report will provide an overview of first
quarter accomplishments toward
enhancing community engagement,
the methods for increasing the City's
engagement and reach to residents
and other stakeholders, and new
campaigns to promote the Homeless
Outreach and Mobile Engagement
(HOME) Program, SeeClickFix, and
outreach to the business community,
including a monthly business spotlight.
The City now regularly publishes two
digital, external facing newsletters - the
biweekly City Manager Update and the
monthly Economic Development
Newsletter. Implementation of new
initiatives are underway, including the
Mayor's Minute video series, the La
Mesa Leadership Academy, a Crisis
Communications Plan and targeted
social media campaigns.
Since La Mesa City Council adopted the
2021-2023 Community Engagement Plan
(CEP) on January 26, 2021, the City
Manager's Office (CMO) has been
strategically implementing the nine (9)
goals identified in the CEP.
In terms of accomplishments, since
inception of the plan, the CMO is now
the central point of contact for all
communications after hiring a new fulltime Communications Manager. The CMO has made significant strides in
implementing the plan's goals.
During the unprecedented events of
2020, cities had to reimagine the role
of communications in the public
sector. The significance of the role of
communications and in responsible
governance became more evident and
at times crucial to health and safety.
As the City has made significant strides
in delivering on a customer service
"culture of yes," timely communications
to stakeholders underscores the need
for an effective CEP and related efforts
to amplify the work being done at City
Hall and overall responsiveness to
residents' issues and concerns.
OVERVIEW
04| QUARTERLY REPORT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
The City Manager Update is a biweekly, public
facing publication designed to keep residents and
other stakeholders engaged and informed.
During the reporting period, this digital publication
has experienced recording-breaking average open
rates of over 40%, when the industry average is
roughly 25-30%.
DIGITAL
PUBLICATIONS
Quarterly Metrics
January 14 & 28: 43% avg. open rate
February 11 & 25: 44% avg. open rate
March 11 & 25: 42.5% avg. open rate
The Economic Development eNewsletter is a
monthly digital publication designed to keep
business owners and other stakeholders
informed of available resources and other
important updates. During the reporting
period, this digital publication also has
experienced recording-breaking average open
rates of over 40%, when the industry average is
roughly 25-30%.
t
o
t
al s
u
b
s
c
rib
e
r
s: 3,7
0 0
Quarterly Metrics
January 17: 40% open rate
February 21: 45% open rate
March 21: 44% open rate
05| QUARTERLY REPORT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
FACEBOOK &
ANALYTICS
Facebook and Instagram metrics focus on demographics and how to target content for followers. With the most frequency, the City of La Mesa official social media assets are reaching women, ages 35-44, living in La Mesa and San Diego. Over seventy-two percent (72%) of the followers on these platforms are an older subset of the Millennials and the younger Generation Xers. As a metric, this is useful in designing and implementing content for the plan.
72.6% women
27.4% men
Ages 35-44 largest audience
Instagram Metrics & Analytics
Followers: 3,197
Demographics
Top Countries reached by La
Mesa's Instagram content: United
States, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan
72.9% women
27.1% men
Ages 35-44 largest audience
Facebook Metrics & Analytics
Followers: 3,833
Demographics
Top countries reached by La Mesa's
Facebook content: United States, Mexico,
Canada, Guam, Japan, Myanmar, Pakistan,
Turkey, and United Kingdom
S
o
cial M
e
dia
A
s
s
e
t
s
06| QUARTERLY REPORT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
ANALYTICS
The total Twitter followers is 4,114 on the City of La Mesa's official account.
Comparing the first quarter of 2021 with the first quarter of 2022, the City of La Mesa's official Twitter social media asset has shown some improvement in the important analytics provided by the platform. For context, the industry standard is one tweet and one new follower per workday (or at least three tweets and three new followers per week) for a total of 48- 60 tweets and new followers per quarter. We increased in both tweets and new followers. being on target with the industry standards.
S
o
cial M
e
dia
A
s
s
e
t
s
Metrics
Tweets
Tweet impressions
Profile Visits
Mentions
New Followers
Jan-Mar 2021
9 28,523
2,155
239
28 Jan-Mar 2022
54 27,289
2,987
129
80
SeeClickFix is a tool to resolve constituent issues such as tackling illegal dumping, graffiti abatement, and other neighborhood issues.
The successes of the HOME Program to house the unsheltered population in La Mesa.
Launch of the new Love 'em and Leash 'em Campaign in partnership with the San Diego Humane Society to raise awareness of using a leash on pets for public safety.
Starting in February, new monthly Business of the Month spotlights to encourage residents to dine, shop and explore locally.
Don't Make It Easy Public Safety Campaign to raise awareness of practical safety habits to tackle vehicle larceny.
During the reporting period, the City of La Mesa executed multiple social media campaigns on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to amplify the City's efforts in support of the Community Engagement Plan goals.
The following were targeted social media campaigns:
07| QUARTERLY REPORT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
SOCIAL MEDIA
CAMPAIGNS
08| QUARTERLY REPORT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
MAYOR'S
MINUTE
The City of La Mesa has secured the expertise of a dynamic videographer to produce ten (10) professional grade community engagement videos on a variety of topics. During the reporting period, the CMO completed Episodes 1 & 2 of the Mayor's Minute and filmed an update for the HOME Program. Mayor's Minute Episode 2 and the HOME video will be published during the second quarter.
The goal of these videos is to foster ongoing community engagement and keep residents informed of the accomplishments at City Hall. The City will continue producing videos on focused topics.
09| QUARTERLY REPORT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
In support of the City's ongoing efforts to
increase responsiveness to residents and the
media, the Communications Manager created a
News Desk and NewsRoom.
The News Desk serves as a central point-ofcontact for all media inquiries and resident issues that are not resolved by See Click Fix, city
departments or other local agencies. The News
Desk is regularly monitored. Based on initial
feedback, as residents learn of the News Desk,
many have expressed satisfaction with the
responsiveness.
NEWSROOM &
NEWS DESK
The NewsRoom serves as a central
repository for all communications
related collateral materials, including
the Community Engagement Plan,
media releases, digital newsletters and
Mayor's Minute Videos.
The goal of the NewsRoom is to make
it easier for residents, stakeholders, and
media professionals to access these
news collaterals. There has been
improved media coverage and more
contacts to the News Desk as ongoing
relationships with the media are
cultivated.
Having these two tools lay the foundation for a structured communications protocol for the City of La Mesa. The City now has a structured way to manage communications and engage all stakeholders, as well as a central repository for information.
10| QUARTERLY REPORT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
The City of La Mesa's website is a landing place where residents can learn about City departments and services, resources, City Council meetings, and a myriad of other useful information. Communication through any government website is the first line of defense in an emergency or crisis situation. Suffice it to say, the website is one of the City's most important tools for community engagement. During the reporting period, the City modified the landing page to have important content “above the digital fold” to help residents navigate the landing page without excessive scrolling.
As the nation evolved from a pandemic to endemic approach to handling the public health crisis, the decline in website visits represent some return to normalcy. This is a good indicator for the recovery of our residents, increased resocialization and more needs being met with less reliance on government.
W
E
B
S
I
T
E
M
E
T
R
I
C
S
&
A
N
AYT
I
C
S
W
E
B
S
I
T
E
M
E
T
R
I
C
S
&
A
N
AYT
I
C
S
Website Metrics
Total Visits
Returning Visits
Page Views
Average visit duration
Searches
Downloads
La Mesa Official Website
Collier Park Renovations Project
Police Department
Top 3 Pages Visited 1st Qtr '22
1st Quarter '22
22,756
4,192
29,628
2 mins, 24s
1,522
25,335
Questions? Contact us at [email protected]
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 26, 2022
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER AND
APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM THE
UNALLOCATED FUND RESERVES ACCOUNT TO
THE CITY ATTORNEY’S PROFESSIONAL AND
SPECIALIZED SERVICES ACCOUNT FOR LEGAL
EXPENSES
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing an appropriation from unallocated reserves to the General Fund for the cost of legal expenses? Recommendation:
Adopt the Resolution authorizing the transfer and appropriation of unallocated fund reserves to the General Fund for legal expenses.
Fiscal Impact:
The additional funding necessary would be transferred from the unallocated reserves. A transfer and appropriation of an amount not-to-exceed $50,000 from unallocated reserves (101-3900) to the City Attorney’s professional services account (1200-6430) is necessary for legal expenses. Of this amount, currently $46,853.21 has been used for legal expenses related to litigation and is being reimbursed by the parties’ legal counsel.
BACKGROUND:
The City Attorney provides legal advice and support to the City. The Attorney also represents the City in litigation, drafts ordinances and resolutions, and reviews City
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: 2 of 2
contracts and agreements. There is current litigation that requires an additional $50,000 to cover the cost of legal counsel for the remainder of FY 22. The City will be reimbursed for costs related to this litigation.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A), authorizing an appropriation from unallocated reserves to the General Fund for the cost of legal expenses.
Respectfully submitted by:
____________________
Greg Humora
City Manager
Attachments: A. Resolution
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING TRANSFER AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
FROM THE UNALLOCATED FUND RESERVES ACCOUNT TO THE CITY
ATTORNEY’S PROFESSIONAL AND SPECIALIZED SERVICES ACCOUNT
FOR LEGAL EXPENSES
________________________________________________________________ BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the City Council authorizes transfer and appropriation of funds from Unallocated Fund Reserves account to the City Attorney’s Professional and Specialized Services Account in the amount of $50,000 to cover the cost of additional legal expenses due to ongoing litigation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 26th day of April 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2022- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, CITY CLERK
(SEAL OF CITY)
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 26, 2022
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SAN DIEGO
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG)
ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT TO THE REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (RTCIP) DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO
COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SANDAG
COMMISSION ORDINANCE 04-01 AND TRANSNET
EXTENSION ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City Council approve the resolution adopting the San Diego Association of Governments annual adjustment to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program development impact fee for fiscal year 2022/2023? Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution adopting the San Diego Association of Governments annual adjustment to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program development impact fee for fiscal year 2022/2023.
Fiscal Impact:
The current fee is $2,635.50. Effective July 1, 2022, the City would collect $2,668.21 per dwelling unit from exactions imposed on private development for each new residence constructed in La Mesa. If the City does not comply with the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) adjustments, La Mesa may lose its TransNet funding for improvements to local roads for the following fiscal year.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: 2 of 3
City’s Strategic Goals:
Effective and efficient traffic circulation and transportation BACKGROUND:
The TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, also known as SANDAG Commission Ordinance 04-01, requires that each local agency in San Diego County contribute exactions from private sector development to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) for each newly constructed residential unit beginning July 1, 2008. The purpose of the program is to ensure that new development directly invests in the region’s transportation system to offset the negative impacts of growth on congestion and mobility.
In compliance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan and the RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2008-2791 on May 13, 2008, establishing the City’s residential traffic impact mitigation fee program and authorizing the collection of RTCIP fees. Revenue collected through the residential traffic impact mitigation fee program must be used on the regional arterial streets in La Mesa to construct transportation improvements such as new or widened roadways, turning lanes, traffic signal coordination, bike lanes, sidewalks and other transportation improvements.
The regional transportation system is comprised of streets that create vital links through communities to freeways. This system of streets is defined as the Regional Arterial System. The following La Mesa streets are classified as regional arterials: 70th Street, El Cajon Boulevard, Fletcher Parkway, Grossmont Center Drive, Jackson Drive, La Mesa Boulevard from the eastern intersection with University Avenue to I-8, Lake Murray Boulevard, Massachusetts Avenue, Spring Street, and University Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
The Transnet Extension Ordinance requires that the RTCIP fee charged by local jurisdictions be adjusted every year on July 1 to ensure the RTCIP retains its purchasing power to improve the regional arterial system. The adjustment shall not exceed the percentage increase set forth in the construction cost index published by the Engineering News Record or similar cost of construction index. In no event, however, shall the increase be less than two percent per year.
SANDAG staff has evaluated construction cost trends and relevant indices and based on this analysis a 2.0 percent fee adjustment was approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors at its February 26, 2021 meeting, raising the minimum RTCIP exaction from $2,635.50 to $2,668.21 effective July 1, 2022.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: 3 of 3
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve SANDAG’s annual adjustment to the development impact fee for the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program, setting the fee at $2,668.21 to be collected for each newly constructed residential unit for fiscal year 2022/2023.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael W. Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Attachments: A. Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA ADOPTING
THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) ANNUAL
ADJUSTMENT TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTCIP) DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SANDAG COMMISSION ORDINANCE 04-01
AND TRANSNET EXTENSION ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN
WHEREAS, SANDAG Commission Ordinance 04-01 and the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan requires that each local agency in San Diego County contribute exactions from the private sector to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) for each newly constructed residential housing unit;
WHEREAS, said exactions are intended to ensure that future development contributes its proportional share of the funding needed to pay for the Regional Arterial System and related regional transportation facility improvements as defined in the SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan;
WHEREAS, SANDAG commissioned the RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study to assist local agencies in complying with the legal requirements governing development impact fees in California; WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2008-2791 establishes a residential traffic impact mitigation fee program for the City of La Mesa in compliance with the requirements of SANDAG Commission Ordinance 04-01, the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan and the RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study;
WHEREAS, any revenue collected by the City of La Mesa through the residential traffic impact mitigation fee program must be used on the Regional Arterial System to construct transportation improvements such as new or widened arterial roadways, turning lanes, traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements;
WHEREAS, the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan requires that the amount collected by each local agency be increased on July 1 of each year; WHEREAS, the amount of the increase shall not exceed the percentage increase set forth in the Engineering Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record or similar cost of construction index and in no event shall the increase be less than two percent per year; WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2021-039 sets the residential traffic impact mitigation fee beginning July 1, 2021 at two thousand six hundred thirty-five dollars and fifty cents ($2,635.50), for newly constructed residential housing units, in compliance with the SANDAG RTCIP Fee Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved a 2.0 percent increase to the residential traffic impact mitigation fee raising the fee to two thousand six hundred eighty-eight dollars and twenty-one cents ($2,688.21) at their meeting held on February 25, 2022.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the that the amount of the traffic impact mitigation fee effective July 1, 2022 shall be two thousand six hundred eighty-eight dollars and twenty-one cents ($2,688.21).
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 26th day of April 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2022- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the Findings for the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee as required in California
Government Code Section 66001 and appropriating
funds for projects outlined in the Parks Master Plan
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office
SUMMARY:
Issue:
Does the City Council approve the findings for the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee as required in California Government Code Section 66001 and should the City Council appropriate funds for projects outlined in the Parks Master Plan? Recommendation:
Staff recommends that City Council approve a resolution approving the findings for the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee as required in California Government Code Section 66001 and appropriate funds for projects outlined in the Parks Master Plan.
Fiscal Impact:
Pursuant to the City Council’s adoption of the resolution, staff would program $83,777 into the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for projects outlined in the Parks Master Plan.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: 2 of 3
`
BACKGROUND:
On April 12, 2005, the City Council accepted and approved a report from MuniFinancial establishing a municipal code ordinance (Chapter 9.20) to add two park development impact fees; 1) The Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee; and 2) The Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee. Impact fees provide a source of one-time funding related to the development of new single and multi-family residential developments. The purpose of the funds is to ensure that new developments offset the projected cost of building park facilities. The fees were based on population and growth projections, facility standards, the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth, and total cost of facilities per unit of development. The use of the fees must be tied to new park amenities in existing parks or acquisition of park land and cannot be used for park maintenance. The City appropriates funds each year as part of the Capital Improvement Program. The current fees for single and multi-family developments are as follows:
Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee (for subdivisions only) Single Family $3,882
Multi Family $2,815
Park Improvement Impact Fee
Single Family $1,559
Multi Family $1,130
DISCUSSION:
On June 12, 2012, the City Council approved the Parks Master Plan. The adopted Parks Master Plan recommended adding amenities to the City’s ten community and neighborhood parks and is the basis for the use of Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fees. Park In-lieu and Park Impact Fees are collected by the City at building permit issuance. Since the last report in April 2021, the City collected $83,777 from Park Acquisition and Improvement Fees from residential developments. The City has not collected revenue from Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fees as no subdivision development applications were received. The City’s impact fee waiver policy provides for park development impact fees to be waived for projects that contain 100% affordable housing units. None of the projects that paid Park Impact Fees since April 2021 contained 100% affordable units; therefore, the fee waiver policy did not apply this fiscal year.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: 3 of 3
CONCLUSION:
Section 66001 of the California Government Code requires that the findings and the Capital Improvement Plan be adopted annually by a Resolution of the governing body for the use of Park In-Lieu and Park Impact Fees. Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 2022-____ to support the findings for the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee as required by California Government Code Section 66001. Staff also recommends appropriating $83,777 for projects as outlined in the Parks Master Plan.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________
Greg Humora Carlo Tomaino
City Manager Assistant City Manager
____________________
Lyn Dedmon
Senior Management Analyst
Attachment “A” - Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA APPROVING
THE FINDINGS FOR THE QUIMBY ACT PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE
AND PARK ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001 AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS FOR PROJECTS OUTLINED IN THE PARKS MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, Section 66001 of the California Government Code requires that the capital improvement plan be annually adopted by a resolution of the governing body and every five years the City approve the findings with respect to that portion of the account that is unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted;
WHEREAS, Section 9.20.030 of the La Mesa Municipal Code outlines the use of Park In-Lieu and Impact Fees;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Mesa did hold a public meeting on April 26, 2022 to consider the Capital Improvement Program projects paid for with Park In-Lieu and Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did receive and consider a staff report to approve the findings as required by California Government Code Section 66001 and appropriate funds for the recommended Park In-Lieu and Impact Fee project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of La Mesa hereby finds the following:
1. The foregoing findings of fact and determinations are true and hereby made a part hereof.
2. The City Council resolves to approve and appropriate funds for projects as outlined in the Parks Master Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 26
th day of April 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2022- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
Megan Wiegelman, City Clerk
(Seal of the City)
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 26, 2022
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION REJECTING BID NO. 22-12, HIGHWOOD
PARK COURT RESURFACING PROJECT
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City of La Mesa reject Bid No. 22-12, Highwood Park Court Resurfacing Project?
Recommendation:
Adopt the attached resolution rejecting Bid No. 22-12, Highwood Park Court Resurfacing Project.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact with this action.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Enhanced recreation and quality of life opportunities BACKGROUND:
With the anticipated court renovations at Collier Park, Highwood Park was selected as a successor location to provide pickleball and tennis until improvements are completed at Collier Park.
The Highwood Park Court Resurfacing Project involves renovating three existing courts with new court surfacing, fencing, striping, and netting. The court resurfacing project is intended to bridge the time until Collier Park improvements are completed.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: of 3
DISCUSSION:
On March 18, 2022, a notice inviting bids was advertised and the bid documents were downloaded by two prime contractors. The basis of contract award was for the lowest responsive bid.
On April 5, 2022, one bid was received electronically. The bidder was Fordyce Construction with a total bid amount of $167,941. The engineer’s estimate for this bid was $160,000.
During review of the bid submittal, it was determined that the bid was not responsive.
The bidder indicated that the portion of work by their subcontractors exceeded 50 percent of the contract price. This invalidates their bid pursuant to Section 3-2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, which requires the Contractor to perform, with its own organization, work amounting to at least 50 percent of the contract price.
To proceed ahead therefore, the City Council is required to reject all bids in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 20166. Staff will refine the scope of the project to avoid this situation and re-advertise the project as soon as practicable.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends rejecting Bid No. 22-12, Highwood Park Court Resurfacing Project and re-advertising the project.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Attachments: A Resolution – Rejection of Bid
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
REJECTING BID NO. 22-12, HIGHWOOD PARK COURT RESURFACING
PROJECT
WHEREAS, The City advertised a notice inviting bids on March 18, 2022; WHEREAS, the City received one bid on the bid opening day of April 5, 2022; WHEREAS, the lowest bid was for $167,941;
WHEREAS, the lowest bid was deemed not responsive, due to subcontractor portion of work exceeding 50 percent of contract work;
WHEREAS, The City Council is authorized under the Public Contract Code Section 20166, at its discretion, to reject all bids; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends rejecting the bid in the best interest of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that:
The bid for Bid 22-12, Highwood Park Court Resurfacing Project, is rejected by the City Council.
Said bid is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Staff is directed to revise and re-advertise the project as soon as practicable.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 26th day of April 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2022-_ , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Resolution Awarding Change Order No. 3 to NV5 Inc. for Additional Engineering Design Services for Grossmont
Center Drive Bridge Rehabilitation and Widening Project ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:
Issue:
Should the City of La Mesa award Change Order No. 3 to NV5 Inc. for additional engineering design services for Grossmont Center Drive Bridge Rehabilitation and Widening Project in the amount of $118,118.95.?
Recommendation:
Adopt the attached resolution awarding Change Order No. 3 to NV5 Inc. for additional engineering design services for Grossmont Center Drive Bridge Rehabilitation and Widening Project in the amount of $118,118.95.
Fiscal Impact:
Funds for the project are available in Capital Improvement Project accounts 30214AOT-6830 and 302217FT-6830. No general fund money will be used for the additional engineering design services.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Revitalize neighborhoods and corridors
Continue to improve high quality municipal services
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: 2 of 3
BACKGROUND:
In April 2013, the City was awarded Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Bridge Program (HBP) grant funding, administered by Caltrans, to review the feasibility and engineering aspects of rehabilitating and widening the Grossmont Center Drive Bridge to install sidewalks, install bike lanes, enhance safety and extend the service life of the bridge. During preliminary design it was determined that the bridge needed to be widened to meet current standards and construct bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the bridge. In March 2017, additional design funds were approved by Caltrans.
On March 13, 2018, the City’s Climate Action Plan was adopted that includes a transportation element encouraging use of other modes of transportation. This project is consistent with that goal.
On September 25, 2018, the City of La Mesa approved a resolution adopting a Vision Zero Plan. The plan’s goal is to eliminate deaths and injuries as a result of vehicular accidents. To that end, the plan allows implementation of certain tools including safe and complete streets design criteria. This project is also consistent with the goals of the Vision Zero Plan.
In April 2021, the City was awarded additional HBP funds to a total of $1,050,000 (less local matching funds of $120,434) to complete the final design and right of way acquisition for the bridge. The right of way phase includes obtaining railroad clearance from MTS/SD&AE Railroad, whose facilities are spanned by the bridge.
In September 2020, a Request for Qualifications was issued for final design of the Grossmont Center Drive Bridge Widening and Rehabilitation Project. Based on experience and qualifications, the firm of NV5 Inc. was the top-ranked consultant selected by staff, and the scope and fee for design of the project was negotiated.
At its meeting of January 12, 2021 the City Council approved Resolution 2021-004 awarding design services for the Grossmont Center Drive Bridge Rehabilitation and Widening Project to NV5, Inc. in the amount of $211,189.90, with authorization for the Mayor to execute amendments for an additional amount of up to $437,610.17. On October 19, 2021, Contract Change Order No. 1 was issued to NV5, Inc. take the design services from 60% to100%. The total authorized contract amount as of that date was $648,800.07.
A Caltrans audit disclosed a discrepancy in the overhead rate and that the direct expenses for the project should be included in the original Council authorization.
Contract Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $27,377.18 was approved by the City Manager.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: 3 of 3
DISCUSSION:
As the design has progressed, the project’s impacts to existing railroad facilities have been discussed with MTS staff. Of particular concern is the overhead catenary system (OCS), which provides traction power for the San Diego Trolley. The bridge widening would extend over two poles supporting this system impeding maintenance and future replacement of these poles. City staff has reached a tentative agreement with MTS to support the catenary wires from the bridge structure and remove the existing poles, which would require additional specialized design services.
Also, further design has indicated that at the intersection of Fletcher Parkway and Grossmont Center Drive the southeast curb return needs to be reconstructed, which in turn affects the traffic signal poles at this location. Additional design services will be necessary for a traffic signal modification at this intersection.
NV5 Inc. has provided a proposal for the additional design services needed to address the catenary relocations and the traffic signal modification in the amount of $118,118.95. If these services are authorized, the total contract amount would increase from $676,177.25 to $794,296.20.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, awarding Change Order No. 3 to NV5, Inc. for the additional design services required for the Grossmont Center Drive Bridge Rehabilitation and Widening Project in the amount of $118,118.95.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael W. Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. Proposal
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA
AWARDING CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO NV5 INC. FOR ENGINEERING
DESIGN SERVICES FOR GROSSMONT CENTER DRIVE BRIDGE
REHABILITATION AND WIDENING PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa continues to improve high quality municipal services; WHEREAS, Grossmont Center Drive Bridge (GCDB) is classified as “functionally obsolete” for not meeting current standards;
WHEREAS, the City has received grant funding from Caltrans through the Highway Bridge Program (HBP) and Active Transportation Program (ATP) to rehabilitate and widen the bridge in accordance with current standards;
WHEREAS, Caltrans has programmed the grant funds over multiple years of HBP and ATP funding cycles and total funding for the design will be released in phases; WHEREAS, the City has budgeted and will use local transportation funds as the match for grant funding;
WHEREAS, NV5 Inc. was selected and awarded a design contract on January 12, 2021 based on their experience and qualifications; and
WHEREAS, additional engineering design services are required based on the need to remove or relocate MTS catenary facilities in close proximity to the bridge and to modify the traffic signal at Fletcher Parkway and Grossmont Center Drive; and WHEREAS, a scope of work and fee for the additional required professional engineering services was negotiated with NV5 Inc.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a change order with NV5 Inc. to provide additional professional engineering services for the Grossmont Center Drive Bridge Rehabilitation and Widening Project in the amount of $118,118.95.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 26
th day of April 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2022-_______, duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
15092 Avenue of Science, Suite 200 | San Diego, CA 92128 | www.NV5.com | Office 858.385.0500 | Fax 858.385.0400
CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE - INFRASTRUCTURE - ENERGY - PROGRAM MANAGEMENT - ENVIRONMENTAL March 3 2022
Mr. Phil Kern, P.E.
Engineering Project Manager
City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
Subject: Amendment Request for Grossmont Center Drive Bridge Rehabilitation and Widening Federal Aid Project No. BRLS-5207(036)
Dear Mr. Kern:
Pursuant our meeting with MTS on January 19, 2022, it was determined and agreed upon that the existing catenary poles on the southwest side of the existing bridge will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed bridge widening. While this will greatly facilitate the construction of the proposed widening, it has also triggered the need to expand our scope of work to include the level of effort required to develop a viable concept for re-attaching the catenary cables. Our subconsultant Jacobs, has provided a proposal (scope and fee attached) to perform the required services.
Furthermore, now that we have completed our 30% Design, it has become clear that the traffic signal pole located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection between Fletcher Parkway and Grossmont Center Drive will need to be relocated. Our subconsultant Chen Ryan Associates is also requesting an amendment to cover the additional level of effort required to perform this service, since that specific pole was originally excluded from the scope.
NV5 is requesting a nominal increase to cover the additional effort in project management, additional coordination and meetings, project administration, and updating the project schedule. Attached, you will find the following:
1. NV5's 10-H1 which includes our subconsultants' cost
2. Jacobs' 10-H1 along with their 10-K Indirect Cost Certification and Caltrans' Acceptance ID# FYE2020
3. Jacobs' proposed scope of work
4. Chen Ryan's 10-H1 along with their certified FAR 2020
5. Chen Ryan's proposed scope of work
The total amendment request is for One Hundred Eighteen Thousand One Hundred Eighteen Dollars and Ninety Five ($118,118.95). Please feel free to contact us with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
NV5
Jack L. Abcarius, PE Carmen C. Kasner, PE
Associate/Project Manager Regional Managing Director
Amendment to Project Number: 227521-0001020.00
CITY OF LA MESA COST PROPOSAL Exhibit 10-H1 Page 1 of 4 Grossmont Center Drive Bridge
Prime Consultant Subconsultant 2nd Tier Sub
Consultant NV5, Inc.
Project No. Contract No. TBD Date 25-Feb-22
DIRECT LABOR
Hours Hourly Rates Total
Project Manager* $98.09 $2,746.59 28
Assistant Project Manager* $81.71 $1,307.36 16
$63.54 $508.32 8
$59.01 $472.08 8
$5,034.35 60
LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs $5,034.35
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see page 2 for sample) $90.62 c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)] $5,124.97
FRINGE BENEFITS
d) Fringe Benefits (Rate: 16.54% ) e) Total Fringe Benefits [(c) x (d)] $847.67
INDIRECT COSTS
f) Overhead (Rate: 54.27% ) g) Overhead [(c) x (f)] $2,781.32 h) General and Administrative (Rate: 67.34% ) i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)] $3,451.15 j) Total Indirect Costs [(e) + (g) + (i)] $7,080.14
FIXED FEE (Profit)
q) (Rate: 10.00% ) k) TOTAL FIXED PROFIT [(c) + (j)] x (q)] $1,220.51 l) OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC)
Description Unit(s) Unit Cost Total
Mileage 200 Miles $0.585 $117.00
$0.00
l) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $117.00
m) Subconsultants:
Subconsultant 1: Jacobs $88,396.91 74.84%
Subconsultant 2: Chen Ryan Associates, Inc. (DBE) $16,179.42 13.70% Subconsultant 3: Tri-County Drilling (DBE) 0.00%
Subconsultant 4: Estrada Landplanning (DBE) 0.00%
m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANT'S COSTS $104,576.33
n) Total Other Direct Costs Including Subconsultants [(l) + (m)] $104,693.33 TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)] $118,118.95
NOTES:
1 Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked with two asterisks (**). All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles.
Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.
2 The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with the consultant's annual accounting period and established by a cognizant agency or accepted by Caltrans. 3 Anticipated salary increases calculation (page 2) must accompany.
Chris Krier
Senior Engineer* Phillip Reuss
Senior Bridge Engineer*
Classification/Title Name
Jack Abcarius
Darab Bouzarjomehri
LPP 15-01 Page 69 of 341 January 14, 2015
CITY OF LA MESA COST PROPOSAL Exhibit 10-H1 Page 2 of 4 Grossmont Center Drive Bridge
Prime Consultant Subconsultant 2nd Tier Sub
Consultant NV5, Inc.
Project No. Contract No. TBD Date 25-Feb-22
1. Calculate Average Hourly Rate for 1st year of the contract (Direct Labor Subtotal divided by total hours) Direct Labor
Subtotal Avg Hourly 2 Year Contract
per Cost
Proposal Rate Duration
$5,034.35 = $83.91 Year 1 Avg Hourly Rate
2. Calculate hourly rate for all years (Increase the Average Hourly Rate for a year by proposed escalation %) Avg Hourly Rate
Year 1 $83.91 + = $86.42 Year 2 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 2 $86.42 + = $89.02 Year 3 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 3 $89.02 + = $91.69 Year 4 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 4 $91.69 + = $94.44 Year 5 Avg Hourly Rate
3. Calculate estimated hours per year (Multiply estimate % each year by total hours) Estimated % Total Hours
Completed Each
Year per Year
Year 1 40.00% * = 24.0 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 60.00% * = 36.0 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total 100% = 60.0
4. Calculate Total Costs including Escalation (Multiply Average Hourly Rate by the number of hours) Avg Hourly Rate
(calculated above)
Year 1 $83.91 * = $2,013.74 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 $86.42 * = $3,111.23 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 $89.02 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 $91.69 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 $94.44 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 5
= $5,124.97
= $5,034.35
= $90.62 Transfer to Page 1
NOTES:
1 This is not the only way to estimate salary increases. Other methods will be accepted if they indicate the % increase, the # of years of the contract, and a breakdown of the labor to be performed each year. 2 An estimation that is based on direct labor multiplied by salary increase % multiplied by the # of years is not acceptable. (i.e. $250,000 x 3% x 5 yrs = $37,500 is not an acceptable methodology) 3 This assumes that one year will be worked at the rate on the cost proposal before salary increases are granted. 4 Calculations for anticipated salary escalation must be provided.
60.0 Total Hours
per Cost Proposal
60 Proposed Escalation
3%
3%
3%
3%
Total Hours
per Cost Proposal
60.0 60.0
60.0 60.0
Total
0 Total Direct Labor Cost with Escalation
Direct Labor Subtotal before Escalation
Estimated total of Direct Labor Salary Increase
Cost per Year
(calculated above)
24 36
0 0
Estimated hours
LPP 15-01 Page 70 of 341 January 14, 2015
CITY OF LA MESA Page 3 of 4
Grossmont Center Drive Bridge
Certification of Direct Costs:
1. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP)
2. Terms and conditions of the contract
3. 4.
5. 6.
Prime Consultant or Subconsultant Certifying:
Name: Carmen Kasner Title *:
Regional
Managing Director
Signature :
Date of Certification
(mm/dd/yyyy): 2/25/2022
Email: [email protected] Phone Number: (858) 385-2130 Address:
List services the consultant is providing under the proposed contract:
1. Civil Engineering (Surveying, Roadway, Traffic, SWPPP)
2. Structural Engineering (Bridge Design & Retrofit)
3. Geotechnical Engineering
4. Environmental Permitting (if necessary)
Title 23 United States Code Section 112 - Letting of Contracts *An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant’s or subconsultant’s organization at a level no lower than a Vice President or a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information utilized to establish the cost proposal for the contract.
I, the undersigned, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that all direct costs identified on the cost proposal(s) in this contract are actual, reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the contract in accordance with the contract terms and the following requirements:
23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172 - Procurement, Management, and Administration ofEngineering and Design Related Service 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures
48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 9904 - Cost Accounting Standards Board (when applicable)
All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in compliance with applicable federal and state requirements.
Costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement.
Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency approved or Caltrans accepted Indirect Cost Rate(s).
15092 Avenue of Science, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92128
CITY OF LA MESA
GROSSMONT CENTER DRIVE BRIDGE
SCOPE OF WORK - ESTIMATED HOURS WORKSHEET
$256.97 $214.05 $166.45 $154.59
Staff Name Jack
Abcarius
Darab
Bouzarjomehri
Chris
Krier
Phillip
Reuss
Staff Classification
Project Manager*Assistant Project Manager*Senior Bridge Engineer*Senior Engineer* 28 16 8 8 60 $13,188.23 $0.00
0 0.1 Project Coordination & Meetings 16 12 8 8 44 $9,248.41
0.2 Quality Assurance & Quality Control 8 8 $2,055.74
0.3 Project Administration 4 4 $1,027.87
0.4 Schedule 4 4 $856.21
Addt'l Project Management Services
TOTAL HOURSTOTAL FULLY LOADED LABOR COST PER TASKSUBCONSULTANT COSTS Fully Loaded Hourly Rate (Direct Labor, overhead, and profit) TASKS SubTask
No.
TOTAL HOURS FOR PROJECT
COST PROPOSAL Exhibit 10-H1 Page 1 of 4
Prime Consultant Subconsultant 2nd Tier Sub
Consultant
Project No. RFQ: 21-04 Contract No. TBD Date 11-Feb-22
DIRECT LABOR
Hours Hourly Rates Total
Sr. Technical Advisor 14 $123.96 1,735
Project Manager 30 $64.35 1,931
OCS Lead 68 $133.30 9,064
OCS Sr Engineer Design 164 $81.18 13,314
OCS Engineer 104 $58.47 6,081
CADD OCS 124 $50.00 6,200
- -
- -
- -
$38,324.74 504
LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs $38,324.74
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see page 2 for sample) $0.00 c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)] $38,324.74
FRINGE BENEFITS
d) Fringe Benefits (Rate: 30.98% ) e) Total Fringe Benefits [(c) x (d)] $11,873.00
INDIRECT COSTS Page 2 of 6
f) Overhead (use and occupancy rate) (Rate: 23.96% ) g) Overhead [(c) x (f)] $9,182.61 h) General and Administrative (Rate: 54.40% ) i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)] $20,848.66 j) Total Indirect Costs [(e) + (g) + (i)] $41,904.27
FIXED FEE (Profit)
q) (Rate: 10.00% ) k) TOTAL FIXED PROFIT [(c) + (j)] x (q)] $8,022.90 l) OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC)
Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
Day $0.00
LS $0.00
LS $0.00
250 Miles $0.580 $145.00
l) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $145.00
m) Subconsultants: Name
Subconsultant 1: 0.00%
Subconsultant 2: (DBE) 0.00%
Subconsultant 3: (DBE) 0.00%
Subconsultant 4: (DBE) 0.00%
m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANT'S COSTS $0.00
n) Total Other Direct Costs Including Subconsultants [(l) + (m)] $145.00 TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)] $88,396.91
NOTES:
1 Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked with two asterisks (**). All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles.
Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.
2 The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with the consultant's annual accounting period and established by a cognizant agency or accepted by Caltrans. 3 Anticipated salary increases calculation (page 2) must accompany.
Boring Fees/Hot Patching
Lab Testing (Enviro. & Geo.)
Mileage
Mehrnaz Thompson
Anthony Zeloyle
Chuanming Zhang
TBD
City of La Mesa
City of La Mesa - Grossmont Center Drive Bridge Rehabilitation and Widening Jacobs
Utility Clearance/Traffic Control
Classification/Title Name
Patrick Nelson
Michael Boraks
COST PROPOSAL Exhibit 10-H1 Page 2 of 4
Prime Consultant Subconsultant 2nd Tier Sub
Consultant Jacobs
Project No. Contract No. TBD Date 11-Feb-22
1. Calculate Average Hourly Rate for 1st year of the contract (Direct Labor Subtotal divided by total hours) Direct Labor
Subtotal Avg Hourly 5 Year Contract
per Cost
Proposal Rate Duration
$38,324.74 = $76.04 Year 1 Avg Hourly Rate
2. Calculate hourly rate for all years (Increase the Average Hourly Rate for a year by proposed escalation %) Avg Hourly Rate
Year 1 $76.04 + = $78.32 Year 2 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 2 $78.32 + = $80.67 Year 3 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 3 $80.67 + = $83.09 Year 4 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 4 $83.09 + = $85.58 Year 5 Avg Hourly Rate
3. Calculate estimated hours per year (Multiply estimate % each year by total hours) Estimated % Total Hours
Completed Each Year per Year
Year 1 100.00% * = 504.0 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 0.00% * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 0.00% * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 0.00% * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 0.00% * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total 100% = 504.0
4. Calculate Total Costs including Escalation (Multiply Average Hourly Rate by the number of hours) Avg Hourly Rate
(calculated above)
Year 1 $76.04 * = $38,324.74 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 $78.32 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 $80.67 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 $83.09 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 $85.58 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 5
= $38,324.74
= $38,324.74
= $0.00 Transfer to Page 1
NOTES:
1 This is not the only way to estimate salary increases. Other methods will be accepted if they indicate the % increase, the # of years of the contract, and a breakdown of the labor to be performed each year. 2 An estimation that is based on direct labor multiplied by salary increase % multiplied by the # of years is not acceptable. (i.e. $250,000 x 3% x 5 yrs = $37,500 is not an acceptable methodology) 3 This assumes that one year will be worked at the rate on the cost proposal before salary increases are granted. 4 Calculations for anticipated salary escalation must be provided. 3%
3%
3%
Total Hours
per Cost Proposal
Estimated total of Direct Labor Salary Increase
Cost per Year (calculated above)
504
0 0
0 Estimated hours
City of La Mesa
City of La Mesa - Grossmont Center Drive Bridge Rehabilitation and Widening 0 Total Direct Labor Cost with Escalation
Direct Labor Subtotal before Escalation
504.0
504.0
504.0
504.0
Total
504.0
Total Hours
per Cost Proposal
504
Proposed Escalation
3%
City of La Mesa Page 3 of 4
City of La Mesa Grossmont Center Drive Bridge Rehabilitation and Widening Certification of Direct Costs:
I, the undersigned, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that all direct costs identified on the cost proposal(s) in this contract are actual, reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the contract in accordance with the contract terms and the following requirements:
1. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP)
Z. Terms and conditions of the contract
Title 23 United States Code Section 112 - Letting of Contracts 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles
3. 4.
and Procedures
23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172- Procurement, Management, and Administration ofEngineering and Design Related Service
5. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 9904 Cost Accounting Standards Board (when applicable)
6. All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in compliance with applicable federal and state requirements. Costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement. Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency approved or Caltrans accepted Indirect Cost Rate(s).
Prime Consultant or Subconsultant Certifying:
Name Hany Haroun Title: Vice President
Date of Certification
Signature (mm/dd/yyyy): 2/11/2022
Email [email protected] Phone Number: (949) 375-0309 Address: 401 B Street, Suite 1560, San Diego, CA 92101
An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant's or subconsultant's organization at a level no loweer than a Vice President or a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information utilized to establish the cost proposal for the contract List services the consultant is providing under the proposed contract:
Base Service SDMTS Permit and Plan Approval Processing and Coordination Base Service GO 88-B preparation and processing
This Change OCS Relocation Design Services
CITY OF LA MESA
GROSSMONT CENTER DRIVE BRIDGE
SCOPE OF WORK - ESTIMATED HOURS WORKSHEET
$285.45 $148.18 $306.96 $186.94 $134.64 $115.14
Staff Name Michael Boraks Mehrnaz
Thompson Anthony Zeloyle Patrick Nelson Chuanming Zhang TBD Staff Classification Sr. Technical Advisor Project Manager OCS Lead OCS Sr Engineer Design OCS Engineer CADD OCS 14 30 68 164 104 124 504 $88,251.91
1.7 OCS Relocation Design 4 10 25 55 35 40 169 $29,896.91
2.11 OCS Relocation Design 4 8 18 45 30 40 145 $24,909.29
3.1 OCS Relocation Design 4 8 18 50 30 30 140 $24,692.60
4.12 OCS Relocation Design 2 4 7 14 9 14 50 $8,753.11
Bidding and Construction Support PHASES/TASKSSubTask
No.
TOTAL HOURS FOR PROJECT TOTAL FULLY LOADED LABOR COST PER TASK Fully Loaded Hourly Rate (Direct Labor, overhead, and profit) TOTAL HOURS Optional Services
Phase 1 - 30% Design
Phase 3 - 90% Design
Phase 2 - 60% Design
Phase 4 - Final Plans, Specifications & Estimates
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-K
Consultant Annual Certification of Indirect Costs and Financial Management System
March 2018
EXHIBIT10-KCONSULTANTANNUALCERTIFICATION OF
INDIRECTCOSTS AND FINANCIALMANAGEMENTSYSTEM
(Note: If a Safe Harbor Indirect Cost Rate is approved, this form is not required.) Consultant’s Full Legal Name:
Important: Consultant means the individual or consultant providing engineering and design related services as a party of a contract with a recipient or sub-recipient of Federal assistance. Therefore, the Indirect Cost Rate(s) shall not be combined with its parent company or subsidiaries.
Indirect Cost Rate:
Combined Rate % OR
Home Office Rate % and Field Office Rate (if applicable) % Facilities Capital Cost of Money % (if applicable)
Fiscal period *
* Fiscal period is annual one year applicable accounting period that the Indirect Cost Rate was developed (not the contract period). The Indirect Cost Rate is based on the consultant’s one-year applicable accounting period for which financial statements are regularly prepared by the consultant.
I have reviewed the proposal to establish an Indirect Cost Rate(s) for the fiscal period as specified above and have determined to the best of my knowledge and belief that:
x All costs included in the cost proposal to establish the indirect cost rate(s) are allowable in accordance with the cost principles of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 48, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter 1, Part 31 (48 CFR Part 31); x The cost proposal does not include any costs which are expressly unallowable under the cost principles of 48 CFR Part 31;
x The accounting treatment and billing of prevailing wage delta costs are consistent with our prevailing wage policy as either direct labor, indirect costs, or other direct costs on all federallyfunded A&E Consultant Contracts. x All known material transactions or events that have occurred subsequent to year-end affecting the consultant’s ownership, organization, and indirect cost rates have been disclosed as of the date of this certification.
I am providing the required and applicable documents as instructed on Exhibit 10-A.
Financial Management System:
Our labor charging, job costing, and accounting systems meet the standards for financial reporting, accounting records, and internal control adequate to demonstrate that costs claimed have been incurred, appropriately accounted for, are allocable to the contract, and comply with the federal requirements as set forth in Title 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 112(b)(2); 48 CFR Part 31.201-2(d); 23 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 172.11(a)(2); and all applicable state and federal rules and regulations.
Our financial management system has the following attributes:
x Account numbers identifying allowable direct, indirect, and unallowable cost accounts; x Ability to accumulate and segregate allowable direct, indirect, and unallowable costs into separate cost NA NA 09/28/2019 - 10/02/2020 Buildings and Infrastructure Americas and Affiliated Operating Units A Business Unit of Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 109.34 85.38
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-K
Consultant Annual Certification of Indirect Costs and Financial Management System
March 2018
accounts;
x Ability to accumulate and segregate allowable direct costs by project, contract and type of cost; x Internal controls to maintain integrity of financial management system; x Ability to account and record costs consistently and to ensure costs billed are in compliance with FAR; x Ability to ensure and demonstrate costs billed reconcile to general ledgers and job costing system; and x Ability to ensure costs are in compliance with contract terms and federal and state requirement Cost Reimbursements on Contracts:
I also understand that failure to comply with 48 CFR Part 16.301-3 or knowingly charge unallowable costs to Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP) contracts may result in possible penalties and sanctions as provided by the following:
x Sanctions and Penalties - 23 CFR Part 172.11(c)(4)
x False Claims Act - Title 31 U.S.C. Sections 3729-3733 x Statements or entries generally - Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 x Major Fraud Act - Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1031
All A&E Contract Information:
x Total participation amount $___________________ on all State and FAHP contracts for Architectural & Engineering services that the consultant received in the last three fiscal periods. x The number of states in which the consultant does business is . x Years of consultant’s experience with 48 CFR Part 31 is . x Audit history of the consultant’s current and prior years (if applicable) I, the undersigned, certify all of the above to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I have reviewed the Indirect Cost Rate Schedule to determine that any costs which are expressly unallowable under the Federal cost principles have been removed and comply with Title 23 U.S.C. Section 112(b)(2), 48 CFR Part 31, 23 CFR Part 172, and all applicable state and federal rules and regulations. I also certify that I understand that all documentation of compliance must be retained by the consultant. I hereby acknowledge that costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement and must be returned to Caltrans.
Name**: _ Title**:
Signature:
Email**:
Date of Certification (mm/dd/yyyy):
Phone Number**:
**An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant’s or subconsultant’s organization at a level no lower than a Vice President, a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information used to establish the indirect cost rate.
Note: Both prime and subconsultants as parties of a contract must complete their own Exhibit 10-K forms.
Caltrans will not process local agency’s invoices until a complete Exhibit 10-K form is accepted and approved by Caltrans Audits and Investigations.
Distribution: 1) Original - Local Agency Project File
2) Copy - Consultant
3) Copy - Caltrans Audits and Investigations
܆ Cognizant ICR Audit ܆ Local Gov’t ICR Audit ڧ Caltrans ICR Audit ܆
x
CPA ICR Audit ܆ Federal Gov’t ICR Audit
>30 >25 Ginny O'Hara Vice President,Controller - BI Americas [email protected] 12.046 B 303-771-0900 03/26/2021
1 Carleton, Tracy Y.
From: Kaur, Simranjot@DOT <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 3:40 PM
To: Lukas, Larry - Pasadena
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: CALTRANS Approval ID# for Jacobs Hello Larry,
Thank you for reaching out. As you may know for #07A5109 the contract was initially cancelled as of 6/22/2021; however, we received notice that we can resume our review now.
During that time, Jacobs was a subconsultant on Contract #04A6172 with a proposed ICR for FYE 2020. This contract was issued 7/15/2021with an accepted ID # D2021-0814 and Home Office ICR:
109.34% and Field Office ICR 85.38%. We will be using this CT ID # and accepted ICR for Contract #07A5109.
Hope this helps!
Simranjot Kaur
Associate Management Auditor
[email protected] | ig.dot.ca.gov
Office: (916) 323-7961
Independent Office of Audits and Investigations
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
From: Lukas, Larry - Pasadena <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 3:27 PM
To: Kaur, Simranjot@DOT <[email protected]>
Subject: CALTRANS Approval ID# for Jacobs
EXTERNAL EMAIL. Links/attachments may not be safe.
2 Hopefully you are doing well. We have a critical opportunity on project where the Solana Transportation Authority is the customer. Our prime contractor (WMH) is needing our CALTRANS ICR Approval ID# to enable us to move forward on the project. I understand you were reviewing our ICRs related to another project -- 07A5109.
Can you provide me an update on our Approval ID# for FY 2020’s ICR? If there is any way we can expedite the process just let me know, thanks.
Sent from Mail for Windows
NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
401 B Street
Suite 1560
San Diego, CA 92101
T +1.619.321.3600
www.jacobs.com
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
February 08, 2022
Attention: Jack Abcarius
NV5, Inc.
15092 Avenue of Science, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92128
Project Name: City of La Mesa - Grossmont Center Drive Bridge Rehabilitation and Widening Jacobs Project Number: W9Y32800
Subject: Proposed Scope and Fee for OCS pole
Dear Jack
As requested, attached is our proposal for the OCS / Bridge clearance conflict resolution design.
Based on our team’s discussion with SDMTS on 1/19/2022, SDMTS agreed that removing the conflicting poles and mounting the OCS to the bridge would be acceptable. Attached are the scope of services and fee proposal to perform the additional design work.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please reach out to me.
Yours sincerely
Michael Boraks, PE
Rail Transit Business Leader, Southern California
(949) 566-3481
[email protected]
Attachments: Scope of Work and Form 10-H1 Allocated Fee
February 08, 2022
Subject: Proposed Scope and Fee for OCS pole
2 Scope of Work for Overhead Catenary System (OCS)
Relocation Design
4. Preliminary Engineering for OCS Relocation
4.1 Data Gathering and Design Initiation
4.1.1 Obtain survey data, topographic and cadastral mapping, proposed bridge widening and additional background files for the proposed bridge widening project.
4.1.2 Research and find existing as-built drawings and information for the existing OCS traction power along this segment of the Orange Line, and conduit runs for communications backbone/feed from the existing in-station system to the existing in-station catenary poles next to the bridge.
4.1.3 Obtain additional information as may be available from SDMTS Staff and Maintenance forces regarding the existing conditions that will be affected by the project or the approach to resolving the physical conflict of the bridge and OCS Poles.
4.1.4 Review data, verify dimensions and physical (surveyed) location of the existing and proposed bridge beams (horizontal and vertical location, profile, and dimensions of beams)
4.2 Develop Conceptual Design (30%)
4.2.1 Using the data gathered, develop a conceptual design for a bracket/brace/connection system to attach OCS to the bridge and allowing for support of the overhead messenger and contact wire along with the existing aerial communication cables.
4.2.2 Coordinate connection points for both sets of wires with the Bridge Engineer. Develop rough detail of connections (assumes connection at web).
4.2.3 Coordinate with SDMTS for relocation of lightening arrestors to another pole, or potentially on bridge.
4.2.4 Coordinate with SDMTS for disposition of communication cable relocation from the southerly OCS pole or keep the existing OCS Pole and reduce its height (cut pole and recap) to a point just above the existing communication cable bracket.
4.2.5 Develop 30% level construction drawings for proposed attachment of OCS to the existing bridge.
4.2.6 Develop a 30% design level of completion “engineers estimate” of construction costs for the relocation/modification construction.
4.2.7 QC, review, recover, compile and submit drawings for review by SDMTS
4.2.8 Review and respond to SDMTS review comments. Participate in comment review meeting.
Resolve any outstanding design approach issues prior to advancing to 60% design level of completion.
It is assumed that the 30% design will be submitted independent of the bridge design to allow for this element of the project to catch up to the rest of the project design.
February 08, 2022
Subject: Proposed Scope and Fee for OCS pole
3 5. Final Design
Upon resolving the 30% design comments, Jacobs will advance the design to 60%, 90% and Final Design (Issue for Bidding) submittal packages. Work includes:
5.1 Finalize design of bracket/brace/connection to bridge. Provide loading to Bridge Engineer. Bridge Engineer to design connections (load transfer to existing beam).
5.2 Detail bracket/brace/connection including OCS bracket to support messenger & contact wires. This work includes development of maximum displacement requirements for the OCS bracket (sway bracket) for thermal expansion, of the wires, etc.
5.3 Complete development of design details, for poles, brackets, lightening arrestor relocation
5.4 Prepare construction staging and phasing plans for the OCS modification construction work. It is assumed the relocation of the OCS will precede the Bridge widening effort.
5.5 Prepare project specifications for OCS modifications. (assumes CSI Master Format style)
5.6 QC, review, recover, compile and submit drawings prior to each submittal for review by SDMTS
5.7 Review and respond to SDMTS review comments after 60% and 90% reviews.
Participate in comment review meeting. Resolve any outstanding design approach issues prior to advancing to the next design level of completion.
5.8 Submit final bid documents (plans, specifications, engineers estimate) Assumptions: Bid support and construction support services are not included but can be added later as additional services. These services are all additional services to the base services already contracted for. Platform related civil, architectural, or electrical design is not anticipated or included. Record drawings for the existing improvements to be modified in this design effort are available and will be provided by SDMTS and Jacobs will rely on these documents and information. Changes or addition of grounding of the existing bridge shall be a coordinated design effort between Jacobs and NV5.
CITY OF LA MESA COST PROPOSAL Exhibit 10-H1 Page 1
Grossmont Center Drive Bridge
Prime Consultant Subconsultant 2nd Tier Sub
Consultant Chen Ryan Associates
Project No. 2021.05.05 Contract No. TBD Date 1-Mar-22
DIRECT LABOR
Hours Hourly Rates Total
Principal 5 $79.83 $399.13
Senior Engineer 40 $60.77 $2,430.80
60 $35.02 $2,101.20
- $0.00
- $0.00
105 $4,931.13
LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs $4,931.13
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see page 2 for sample) $0.00 c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)] $4,931.13
FRINGE BENEFITS
d) Fringe Benefits (Rate: 102.03% ) e) Total Fringe Benefits [(c) x (d)] $5,031.23
Project Engineer Laura Hernandez
Classification/Title Name
Matthew Capuzzi
Tomo Takahashi
INDIRECT COSTS Page 2
f) Overhead (Rate: 96.25% ) g) Overhead [(c) x (f)] $4,746.21 h) General and Administrative (Rate: 0.00% ) i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)] $0.00 j) Total Indirect Costs [(e) + (g) + (i)] $9,777.43
FIXED FEE (Profit)
q) (Rate: 10.00% ) k) TOTAL FIXED PROFIT [(c) + (j)] x (q)] $1,470.86 l) OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC)
Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
Equipment Rental and Supplies
Mileage Costs 0 Miles $0.56 $0.00
Permit Fees 0 LS $0.00
Plan Sheets 0 LS $0.00
l) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $0.00
m) Subconsultants:
Subconsultant 1: 0.00%
Subconsultant 2: (DBE) 0.00%
Subconsultant 3: (DBE) 0.00%
Subconsultant 4: (DBE) 0.00%
m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANT'S COSTS $0.00
n) Total Other Direct Costs Including Subconsultants [(l) + (m)] $0.00 TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)] $16,179.42
NOTES:
1 Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked with two asterisks (**). All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles.
Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.
2 The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with the consultant's annual accounting period and established by a cognizant agency or accepted by Caltrans. 3 Anticipated salary increases calculation (page 2) must accompany.
CITY OF LA MESA COST PROPOSAL Exhibit 10-H1 Page 3
Grossmont Center Drive Bridge
Prime Consultant Subconsultant 2nd Tier Sub
Consultant Chen Ryan Associates
Project No. 2021.05.05 Contract No. TBD Date 1-Mar-22
1. Calculate Average Hourly Rate for 1st year of the contract (Direct Labor Subtotal divided by total hours) Direct Labor
Subtotal Avg Hourly 2 Year Contract
per Cost
Proposal Rate Duration
$4,931.13 = $46.96 Year 1 Avg Hourly Rate
2. Calculate hourly rate for all years (Increase the Average Hourly Rate for a year by proposed escalation %) Avg Hourly Rate
Year 1 $46.96 + = $46.96 Year 2 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 2 $46.96 + = $48.37 Year 3 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 3 $48.37 + = $49.82 Year 4 Avg Hourly Rate
Year 4 $49.82 + = $51.32 Year 5 Avg Hourly Rate
3. Calculate estimated hours per year (Multiply estimate % each year by total hours) Estimated % Total Hours
Completed Each
Year per Year
Year 1 100.00% * = 105.0 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 * = 0.0 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total 100% = 105.0
4. Calculate Total Costs including Escalation (Multiply Average Hourly Rate by the number of hours) Avg Hourly Rate
(calculated above)
Year 1 $46.96 * = $4,931.13 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 $48.37 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 $49.82 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 $51.32 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 * = $0.00 Estimated Hours Year 5
= $4,931.13
= $4,931.13
= $0.00 Transfer to Page 1
NOTES:
1 This is not the only way to estimate salary increases. Other methods will be accepted if they indicate the % increase, the # of years of the contract, and a breakdown of the labor to be performed each year. 2 An estimation that is based on direct labor multiplied by salary increase % multiplied by the # of years is not acceptable. (i.e. $250,000 x 3% x 5 yrs = $37,500 is not an acceptable methodology) 3 This assumes that one year will be worked at the rate on the cost proposal before salary increases are granted. 4 Calculations for anticipated salary escalation must be provided.
Total Direct Labor Cost with Escalation
Direct Labor Subtotal before Escalation
Estimated total of Direct Labor Salary Increase
Cost per Year (calculated above)
105
0 0
0 Estimated hours
105.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
Total
105.0
Total Hours
per Cost Proposal
105
Proposed Escalation
0%
3%
3%
3%
Total Hours
per Cost Proposal
CITY OF LA MESA Page 4
Grossmont Center Drive Bridge
Certification of Direct Costs:
1. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP)
2. Terms and conditions of the contract
3. 4.
5. 6.
Prime Consultant or Subconsultant Certifying:
Name: Matthew Capuzzi Title *: Principal
Signature :
Date of Certification
(mm/dd/yyyy): 3/1/2022
Email: [email protected] Phone Number: (619) 795-6086 Address:
List services the consultant is providing under the proposed contract:
1 Traffic Engineering
2 Striping and Signing Plans
3 Signal Modification Plans
4 Lighting Plans
5 Construction Staging Plans
Title 23 United States Code Section 112 - Letting of Contracts *An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant’s or subconsultant’s organization at a level no lower than a Vice President or a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information utilized to establish the cost proposal for the contract.
I, the undersigned, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that all direct costs identified on the cost proposal(s) in this contract are actual, reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the contract in accordance with the contract terms and the following requirements:
23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172 - Procurement, Management, and Administration ofEngineering and Design Related Service 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures
48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 9904 - Cost Accounting Standards Board (when applicable)
All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in compliance with applicable federal and state requirements.
Costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement.
Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency approved or Caltrans accepted Indirect Cost Rate(s).
3900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310, San Diego, CA 92103
CITY OF LA MESA
GROSSMONT CENTER DRIVE BRIDGE
SCOPE OF WORK - ESTIMATED HOURS WORKSHEET
$261.91 $199.39 $114.90 $0.00 $0.00
Staff Name Matthew
Capuzzi
Tomo
Takahashi
Laura
Hernandez 0 0
Staff Classification
PrincipalSenior EngineerProject Engineer00
5 40 60 0 0 105 $16,179.42
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
1.2 Traffic Signal Mod (Fletcher Pkwy/Grossmont Center Dr) (1 Sheet) 2 15 22 39 $6,042.57 0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
TASKS
SubTask
No.
TOTAL HOURS FOR PROJECT
PHASE 1 - 30% Design
TOTAL FULLY LOADED LABORCOST PER TASK
Fully Loaded Hourly Rate (Direct Labor, overhead, and profit)
TOTAL HOURS
PHASE 2 - 60% Design
CITY OF LA MESA
GROSSMONT CENTER DRIVE BRIDGE
SCOPE OF WORK - ESTIMATED HOURS WORKSHEET
$261.91 $199.39 $114.90 $0.00 $0.00
Staff Name Matthew
Capuzzi
Tomo
Takahashi
Laura
Hernandez 0 0
Staff Classification
PrincipalSenior EngineerProject Engineer00
5 40 60 0 0 105 $16,179.42
TASKS
SubTask
No.
TOTAL HOURS FOR PROJECT
TOTAL FULLY LOADED LABORCOST PER TASK
Fully Loaded Hourly Rate (Direct Labor, overhead, and profit)
TOTAL HOURS
1.3 Traffic Signal Mod (Fletcher Pkwy/Grossmont Center Dr) (1 Sheet) 2 15 22 39 $6,042.57 0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
1.4 Traffic Signal Mod (Fletcher Pkwy/Grossmont Center Dr) (1 Sheet) 1 10 16 27 $4,094.28 0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
0 $0.00
Optional Services
PHASE 4 - 100% Design
PHASE 3 - 90% Design
Chen Ryan Associates, Inc.
(dba CR Associates)
Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead Year Ended December 31, 2020
with Independent Auditor’s Report
Chen Ryan Associates, Inc.
(dba CR Associates)
Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead Year Ended December 31, 2020
with Independent Auditor’s Report
Chen Ryan Associates, Inc.
(dba CR Associates)
Table of Contents
PAGE
Independent Auditor’s Report on Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead 1
Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead 3 Notes to the Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead 4 Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 8
Schedule I - Information on Expenses Disallowed on the Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead 10
1 Independent Auditor’s Report on Statement of
Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead
The Board of Directors
Chen Ryan Associates, Inc.
(dba CR Associates)
Report on the Statement
We have audited the accompanying Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead (the Statement) of Chen Ryan Associates, Inc., doing business as CR Associates, (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2020, and the related notes to the Statement.
Management’s Responsibility for the Statement
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the Statement in accordance with the basis of accounting practices prescribed by Part 31 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
Management is also responsible for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the Statement that is free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Statement based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the financial standards contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 2016 Uniform Audit and Accounting Guide. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the Statement is free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the Statement. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the Statement, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the Company’s preparation and fair presentation of the Statement to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control.
Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the Statement.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.
2 Opinion
In our opinion, the Statement referred to above, presents fairly, in all material respects, the direct labor, fringe benefits and general overhead of Chen Ryan Associates, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2020, on the basis of accounting described in Note 2 to the Statement.
Basis of Accounting
We draw attention to Note 2, which describes the basis of accounting. As described in Note 2, the Statement was prepared by the Company on the basis of accounting prescribed by Part 31 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which is the basis of accounting other than accounting principles generally accepted in the Unites States of America. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
Restriction on Use
Our report is intended solely for the information and use of the Company and government agencies or other customers related to contracts employing FAR cost principles and is not intended and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued a report dated February 23, 2022, on our consideration of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as it relates to the Statement and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, and contracts, including provisions of the applicable sections of FAR Part 31. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.
Glendale, California
February 23, 2022
Chen Ryan Associates, Inc.
(dba CR Associates)
Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead Year ended December 31, 2020
See independent auditor’s report on statement of direct labor, fringe benefits and general overhead and notes to the statement of direct labor, fringe benefits and general overhead 3 Total Unallowable Allowable
Description Costs Costs * Costs
Direct Labor
Direct labor $ 1,614,080 $ - $ 1,614,080
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR $ 1,614,080 $ - $ 1,614,080
Fringe Benefits
PTO, holiday and bereavement $ 185,414 $ - $ 185,414
Bonus payments FAR 31.205-6 1,018,500 (112,810) 905,690 Group insurance 179,954 - 179,954
Employee benefits 112,272 - 112,272
Payroll taxes 263,499 - 263,499
Total Fringe Benefits 1,759,639 (112,810) 1,646,829
General Overhead
Indirect labor 1,054,433 - 1,054,433
Office supplies and expenses FAR 31.205-8 80,880 (7,269) 73,611 Dues and subscriptions 51,062 - 51,062
Mailings, printing and reproductions 22,392 - 22,392
Meals FAR 31.205-14; 31.205-51 10,559 (7,846) 2,713
Rent - facilities 155,660 - 155,660
Utilities 21,429 - 21,429
Professional services FAR 31.205-15 96,491 (30) 96,461
Vehicle and travel 15,348 - 15,348
Business Insurance 50,576 - 50,576
Credit card and bank charges FAR 31.205-20 66 (66) -
Other expenses 1,852 - 1,852
Professional development/training 8,058 - 8,058
Marketing and business development FAR 31.205-1 280 (280) - Total General Overhead 1,569,086 (15,491) 1,553,595
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS AND GENERAL OVERHEAD $ 3,328,725 $ (128,301) $ 3,200,424 Indirect Cost Rate as a Percentage of Direct Labor
Fringe Benefits Rate (fringe benefits / direct labor) 102.03% General Overhead Rate (general overhead / direct labor) 96.25% Total 198.28%
* Refer to Schedule I for additional information on expenses disallowed Primary FAR Reference
Company-Wide
Chen Ryan Associates, Inc.
(dba CR Associates)
Notes to the Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead Year ended December 31, 2020
4 NOTE 1 COMPANY BACKGROUND
Chen Ryan Associates, Inc., doing business as CR Associates, (the Company), established in 2011, is a privately-owned Subchapter C corporation with offices located in San Diego and Los Angeles, California. The Company is a multi-disciplined professional consulting firm that provides services to public and private sector clients.
NOTE 2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Basis of Accounting
The Company prepares its overhead schedule, which support the Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits, and General Overhead (the Statement), based on accounting practices prescribed by Part 31 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) codified under Chapter 1 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Accordingly, the Statement is not intended to, or purport to, present the results of operations of the Company in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The Company maintains its accounting records on the accrual basis method of accounting for financial reporting and the cash basis method of accounting for income tax purposes. The accompanying Statement has been prepared on the accrual basis.
Job Cost Accounting System
The Company maintains and utilizes a job-order cost accounting system that accounts for all direct costs (direct labor and other costs that can be identified specifically with a project or final cost objective), on a consistent basis. The Company also maintains a general ledger in which direct and indirect costs are separated and accumulated which allows for the periodic reconciliation of the job costs to the general ledger.
Distribution of Direct Labor Costs
The Company distributes labor costs to direct projects for all employee classifications based on actual time incurred.
Direct Costs
The Company's method of estimating costs for pricing purposes during the proposal process is consistent with the accumulation and reporting of costs under its job cost system. The Statement excludes these direct and reimbursable costs from the overhead rate cost calculation.
Use of Estimates
The preparation of the Statement in conformity with Part 31 of the FAR requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts of expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Chen Ryan Associates, Inc.
(dba CR Associates)
Notes to the Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead Year ended December 31, 2020
5 NOTE 3 LABOR RELATED COSTS
Executives/Highly Compensated Employees
The cost principles used in the evaluation of the Company's compensation for FAR overhead rate purposes are the allowability and reasonableness criteria contained in FAR 31.201-3, Determining Reasonableness, and FAR 31.205-6, Compensation for Personal Services. In determining the reasonableness of total compensation, the factors that are important to consider include conformity with compensation practices of other firms:
i. of the same size;
ii. in the same industry; and,
iii. in the same geographic area.
Bonuses and incentive compensation are allowable provided the:
i. awards are paid or accrued under an agreement entered into in good faith between the contractor and the employees before the services are rendered or pursuant to an established plan or policy followed by the contractor so consistently as to imply, in effect, an agreement to make such payment, and
ii. basis for the award is supported.
The Company performed an analysis of executive compensation using Architectural and Engineering industry executive compensation surveys and the Benchmark Compensation Amount as determined by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Section 808(b) of Public Law 105-85 or the limit of $555,000 established by Public Law 113-67. For the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company disallowed $112,810 of executive compensation in excess of amounts deemed allowable and reasonable for FAR overhead rate purposes.
Expressly Unallowable Compensation
For the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company did not pay any unallowable forms of compensation or compensation for unallowable activities.
Paid Overtime
Non-exempt employees are eligible for overtime if they work more than 8 hours in one workday or 40 hours in one workweek. Non-exempt employees are paid for overtime at time and a half or as otherwise required by law. Overtime pay, including applicable overtime premium, is recorded as direct or indirect based on what the employee was doing when the 40 hours per week was exceeded.
Uncompensated Overtime
The Company utilizes the salary variance method for purposes of allocating labor for certain salaried employees. The Company computes a standard labor rate based on the salary paid and the employee's total standard hours expected to be worked. The Company then applies this rate to all cost objectives worked on during the period, including paid absences and indirect activities, to distribute the salary costs.
Chen Ryan Associates, Inc.
(dba CR Associates)
Notes to the Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead Year ended December 31, 2020
6 NOTE 4 BENEFITS
Paid Time Off
The Company uses a "Paid Time Off” (PTO) policy to allow for vacation, sick and holiday leave. The Company accrues PTO as it is earned. The maximum amount of PTO that may be accrued and accumulated at any one time is based on the employee's length of service. Upon termination, an employee is paid the unused vacation days but not accrued sick time.
Retirement Plan
The Company sponsors a discretionary 401(k) plan which meets the requirement of FAR
31.205.06(j). Under the program, the Company provides a matching contribution of up to 5% of the eligible employees’ gross salary as additional contribution to the 401(k) Plan.
The Company match 401(k) contribution totaled $94,312 for the year ended December 31, 2020.
NOTE 5 OPERATING LEASE COMMITMENTS
The Company leases certain facilities from non-related parties. Allowable rent expense under these arrangements amounted to $155,660 for the year ended December 31, 2020.
NOTE 6 OVERHEAD RATE STRUCTURE
The following tabulation summarizes the allowable overhead rate incurred by the Company for the year ended December 31, 2020. All costs are allocated based on Direct Labor cost.
Description Company-Wide
Fringe Benefit Rate 102.03%
General Overhead Rate 96.25%
198.28%
The Company used subcontractors whose direct labor costs of $1,377,334 were not included in the direct labor base amount in the calculation of the above fringe benefit and general overhead rates.
Chen Ryan Associates, Inc.
(dba CR Associates)
Notes to the Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead Year ended December 31, 2020
7 NOTE 7 IMPACT OF THE CORONAVIRUS ON THE COMPANY’S OPERATIONS On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus outbreak a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” and on March 10, 2020, declared it to be a pandemic. The coronavirus and actions taken to mitigate it have had and are expected to continue to have an adverse impact on the economies and financial markets of many countries including the geographical area where the Company operates in the United States.
As of and for the year ended December 31, 2020, management believes that, because of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan that was granted, the coronavirus outbreak did not have a material impact on the Company’s overall profitability.
NOTE 8 SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
The Company has evaluated events or transactions that occurred subsequent to the Statement date through February 23, 2022, the date the accompanying Statement was available to be issued, for potential recognition or disclosure in the Statement and determined that no subsequent events require disclosure in or adjustment to the accompanying Statement.
8 Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead
Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards The Board of Directors
Chen Ryan Associates, Inc.
(dba CR Associates)
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 2016 Uniform Audit and Accounting Guide, the Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead (the Statement) of Chen Ryan Associates, Inc., doing business as CR Associates, (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2020, and the related notes to the Statement, and have issued our report thereon dated February 23, 2022.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the Statement, we considered the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the Statement, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the Company’s Statement will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit, we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
9 Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Company’s Statement is free from material misstatement, we performed tests of the Company’s compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, including provisions of the applicable sections of Part 31 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the Statement. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the Company’s internal control and compliance. This report is intended solely for the use and information of the Company and government agencies or other customers related to contracts employing the cost principles of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and should not be used for any other purpose.
Glendale, California
February 23, 2022
Chen Ryan Associates, Inc.
(dba CR Associates)
Schedule I
Information on Expenses Disallowed on the
Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead Year ended December 31, 2020
10 FAR 31.205-6 Executive compensation
Executive compensation in excess of amounts deemed allowable and reasonable in accordance with the Architectural and Engineering industry executive compensation surveys and the Benchmark Compensation Amount as determined by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Section 808(b) of Public Law 105-85 were disallowed.
FAR 31.205-8 Contributions or donations
Included in the Office Supplies and Expense amount were donations and contribution made by the Company totaling $7,269. This was voluntarily removed by the Company. Contributions or donations, including cash, property and services, regardless of recipient, are unallowable.
FAR 31.205-14 Entertainment costs
Costs to entertain customers and employees are not allowable.
FAR 31.205-51 Costs of alcoholic beverages
Costs of alcoholic beverages are unallowable.
FAR 31.205-15 Fines, penalties, and mischarging costs
Included in the Professional Services amount were late penalty charges totaling $30. This was voluntarily removed by the Company. Costs of fines and penalties, resulting from violations of, or failure of the contractor to comply with, Federal, State, or local laws and regulations, are unallowable.
FAR 31.205-20 Interest and other financial costs
Interest on borrowings and other financing charges are unallowable.
FAR 31.205-1 Public relations and advertising costs
Public relations and advertising costs including the applicable portion of salaries, travel, and fringe benefits of employees engaged in these functions and activities are unallowable.
www.vasquezcpa.com
Vasquez & Company LLP has over 50 years of experience in performing audit, accounting & consulting services for all types of nonprofit organizations, for-profit companies, governmental entities and publicly traded companies. Vasquez is a member of the RSM US Alliance. RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each are separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit rsmus.com/about us for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM™ logo is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.
655 N Central Avenue, Suite 1550 • Glendale, California 91203-1437 • Ph. (213) 873-1700 • Fax (213) 873-1777
March 1, 2022
Mr. Jack Abcarius
NV5
15092 Avenue of Science, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92128
Re: Grossmont Center Drive Bridge (Proposed Project)
Dear Mr. Abcarius,
CR Associates (CRA) [formerly Chen Ryan Associates, Inc.] is pleased to submit this letter proposal to NV5 (the “Client”) to provide professional engineering services related to Traffic Engineering Services for Grossmont Center Drive Bridge (the “Proposed Project”) for the City of La Mesa.
Project Understanding
The Proposed Project will extend improvements to the intersection of Grossmont Center Drive & Fletcher Parkway.
CRA will prepare a Traffic Signal Modification Plan (20’ scale) for the modification of the traffic signal at the following intersection:
Grossmont Center Drive & Fletcher Parkway
The traffic signal design will depict features such as pole type and placement, conduit and pull box layout, conductor information, controller information, utility service connection point(s), and other relevant information needed to depict the design. The traffic signal plan will also provide an empty conduit for a future fiber optic line that is to connect to the signal at Grossmont Center Drive & Center Drive.
CRA will also revise the technical specifications and the Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) for the additional traffic signal modification as needed.
Scope of Services
Task 1 - Project Meetings, Coordination and Construction Documents Task 1.2 - 60% Submittal
Traffic Signal Modification Plan (Grossmont Center Drive & Fletcher Parkway) OPCC
Task 1.3 - 90% Submittal
Traffic Signal Modification Plan (Grossmont Center Drive & Fletcher Parkway) OPCC
Technical Specifications
Task 1.4 - 100% Submittal
Traffic Signal Modification Plan (Grossmont Center Drive & Fletcher Parkway) OPCC
Technical Specifications
Additional Services
Any services not specifically described in the above scope, as well as any changes in the scope the Client requests, will be considered Additional Services and will be performed at our then hourly rate. Prior to commencing the Additional Services, Consultant shall obtain prior written approval from the Client.
Information Provided by Client
We shall be entitled to rely on the completeness and accuracy of information provided by the Client. The Client shall provide information requested by CRA during the project, this shall include:
As-builts
Franchise utility maps
Proposed project base files and title block
Project Schedule
We will provide our services as expeditiously as practicable to meet a mutually agreed upon schedule.
Compensation
CRA will perform the scope of services outlined below on a cost-plus fixed fee basis. Direct expenses will be invoiced at cost.
Task 1: Project Meetings, Coordination and Construction Documents - $16,179.42 Addendum to Task 1.2 (60% Submittal) - $6,042.57
Addendum to Task 1.3 (90% Submittal) - $6,042.57
Addendum to Task 1.4 (100% Submittal) - $4,094.28
Fees will be invoiced monthly based on services performed as of the invoice date. Payment will be due within 30 days of the date of the invoice.
We appreciate the opportunity to continue working with you.
Sincerely,
Matthew Capuzzi, P.E.
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Approving the Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Police
SUMMARY:
Issue:
Should the City Council introduce the First Reading of an ordinance approving the La Mesa Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy and Inventory? Recommendation:
Introduce the First Reading of an ordinance approving the La Mesa Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy and Inventory.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the staff recommendation.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Safe Community
BACKGROUND:
On September 30, 2021, the Governor of the State of California approved Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481) requiring all law enforcement agencies in the State of California to obtain approval of a “military equipment” use policy by the agency’s governing body (City Council) for the continued use of or acquisition of new “military equipment.” The Police Department is required to obtain City Council approval of the “military equipment” use policy by ordinance at a regular open meeting prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of “military equipment” as defined in AB 481.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: 2 of 4
The Police Department seeks City Council adoption of the ordinance approving the proposed Military Equipment Use Policy and Inventory to allow the Police Department to continue to use the vital equipment specified therein in compliance with AB 481.
DISCUSSION:
Items deemed to be “military equipment” by AB 481 are used as a component of overall best practices for police agencies throughout the country. These tools have been tested in the field, and are used by police agencies to enhance both citizen and officer safety.
Loss of the use of these items would jeopardize the welfare of community members and police officers alike.
The term “military equipment,” as used in AB 481, does not necessarily indicate equipment that is used by the military or is militaristic in nature. Pursuant to AB 481, items deemed to be “military equipment” include, but are not limited to, unmanned aerial or ground vehicles, armored vehicles, command and control vehicles, pepper balls, less lethal shotguns, less lethal 40mm projectile launchers, long range acoustic devices, and flashbangs. The Police Department is committed to using the most up to date tools and equipment to safeguard the citizens of La Mesa and ensure La Mesa continues to be a safe community.
The Police Department recognizes that the deployment of military equipment can have a significant and traumatizing impact on the community. These potential influences will be included in the decision-making process before approving the use of the equipment covered by the policy. The use of the equipment covered by the policy is subject to all other policies, regulations, and laws regarding the use of force.
Many of items deemed to be “military equipment” by AB 481 are in fact employed by the Police Department, and other police agencies across the country, in order to specifically reduce risk to community members. These items provide police officers with the ability to safely resolve volatile situations which otherwise might rise to the level of a lethal force encounter. To that end, the items at issue in this report, and accompanying Military Equipment Use Policy, also provide the Police Department’s peace officers with vital tools that facilitate compliance with its stringent use of force policy.
There is significant interest in ensuring that law enforcement continues to have access to equipment that will provide peace officers as many options as possible to safeguard lives, ensure safety, and protect civil liberties. The use of the tools identified in the attached use policy and inventory are vital to the Police Department’s mission and will continue to be strictly regulated through internal processes and oversight.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: 3 of 4
Adoption of the ordinance approving the proposed Military Equipment Use Policy achieves further transparency with regard to the Police Department’s use of “military equipment” as the type of equipment utilized by the Department, training required to use the equipment, and the situations in which the equipment will be deployed are now publicly available on the Police Department’s website.
The Police Department will submit a report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the specified equipment is available for use. Additionally, the Police Department will also make each annual report publicly available on the Police Department website for as long as the specified equipment is available for use.
The Police Department presented the proposed Military Equipment Use Policy and Inventory to the Community Police Oversight Board (CPOB) on April 20th, 2022.
Additions were made to the proposed policy based on CPOB members’ suggestions.
Any member of the public can register a question or concern regarding the use of “military equipment” by contacting the Police Department directly, or through the online complaint portal for the City of La Mesa Community Police Oversight Board (CPOB).
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends City Council introduce the First Reading of an ordinance approving the Police Department’s Military Equipment Policy and Inventory.
If approved, the ordinance would be scheduled for the May 10, 2022, City Council meeting for Second Reading and adoption.
STAFF REFERENCE: Captain Greg Runge
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: 4 of 4
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ _____R Sweeney_______________________ Greg Humora Ray Sweeney
City Manager Chief of Police
_____G Runge_______ ________________
Greg Runge
Police Captain
Attachments:
A. Draft Ordinance
B. Draft La Mesa Police Department Military Equipment Policy C. Draft La Mesa Police Department Military Equipment Inventory
ORDINANCE NO. 2022- XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA APPROVING THE LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT’S MILITARY EQUIPMENT
USE POLICY
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481 (creating Government Code Section 7070, et seq.), relating to use of military equipment by California law enforcement agencies;
WHEREAS, AB 481 seeks to provide transparency, oversight, and an opportunity for meaningful public input on decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used;
WHEREAS, the La Mesa Police Department is in possession of certain items of equipment that qualify under the broad definition of “military equipment” under AB 481; WHEREAS, AB 481 requires that a law enforcement agency possessing and using such qualifying equipment prepare a publicly released and written military equipment use policy document covering the inventory, description, purpose, use, acquisition, maintenance, fiscal impacts, procedures, training, oversight, and complaint process, applicable to the Department’s use of such equipment;
WHEREAS, the Policy and supporting information must be approved by the governing body by ordinance, and reviewed annually;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Mesa, having received the information required under AB 481 regarding the La Mesa Police Department’s use of “military equipment” as defined in said law, deems it to be in the best interest of the City to approve the Military Equipment Use Policy as set forth herein;
WHEREAS, this Ordinance will not be codified in the La Mesa Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds that the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby approves and adopts the following:
La Mesa Police Department Policy 706 – Military Equipment, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and Military Equipment Inventory, attached hereto as Exhibit “B,” which are hereby incorporated by reference.
(a) The City Council has made the following determinations:
(1) The military equipment inventoried and presented to the City Council is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety;
(2) This proposed military equipment use policy attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (“Policy”) will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties; (3) The equipment described in the Policy is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety (if any); and
(4) Prior military equipment use complied with the applicable equipment use policy (which included equipment now defined as military equipment) that was in effect at the time and any future use of items deemed military equipment will be fully compliant with the Policy approved by this Ordinance.
(b) The La Mesa Police Department has made the Policy available on the Police Department’s website for at least 30 days prior to the public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue and described in the Policy.
(c) The Policy was considered by the City Council as an agenda item in an open session of a regular meeting, noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, at which public comment was permitted.
(d) The Policy shall be made publicly available on the La Mesa Police Department’s website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. (e) The La Mesa Police Department shall submit an annual military equipment report to the City Council, containing the information required in Government Code Section 7072, and the City Council shall determine whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in (a)(1)-(4) above. (f) The City Council shall review this Ordinance, and vote on whether to renew it, on an annual basis at a regular meeting, in accordance with Government Code Section 7071(e)(2). (g) The City Council approves the use of the Policy and finds that it satisfies the requirements of Government Code Section 7070(d).
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its adoption and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published at least once in the East County Californian within 15 days of its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND READ at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 26th day of April 2022, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of said City Council held the 10th day of May 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
__________________________
MARK ARAPOSTATHIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
Attachments incorporated by reference:
1. Exhibit A – La Mesa Police Department Policy 706 – “Military Equipment”
2. Exhibit B – Military Equipment Inventory
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 2022- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited and that the same has been duly published according to law.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)
LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Policy Manual
***DRAFT*** Page 1 of 5
Policy
706
Military Equipment
706.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy establishes guidelines for the acquisition, funding, approval, use, and reporting of “military equipment”, as the term is defined in Government Code section 7070. This policy is provided to fulfill the obligations set forth in Assembly Bill No. 481. These obligations include, but are not limited to, seeking approval on specific items deemed to be military equipment and requirements related to compliance, annual reporting, and community engagement regarding these items.
706.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Pursuant to AB-481, the following definitions are applicable only to the Department’s current military equipment inventory and potential future military equipment acquisitions for operational needs.
“Governing body” means the La Mesa City Council and Mayor. “Military equipment” means the following:
1. Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles.
2. Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers.
3. High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, fiveton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached.
4. Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants.
5. Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units.
6. Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind.
7. Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
8. Firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
9. Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue service weapons.
LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
***DRAFT*** Page 2 of 5
10. Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles.
11. Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools.
12. Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
13. TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
14. Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
15. Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
“The Department” means the La Mesa Police Department.
“Military equipment use policy” refers to this Department Procedure and means a publicly released, written document governing the use of military equipment by the Department. “Law enforcement agency” means any of the following:
1. A police department, including the police department of a transit agency, school district, or any campus of the University of California, the California State University, or California Community Colleges.
2. A sheriff’s department.
3. A district attorney’s office.
4. A county probation department.
706.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the La Mesa Police Department that members of this Department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment. 706.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police should designate a member of the Department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
***DRAFT*** Page 3 of 5
(b) Identifying Department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of La Mesa Police Department (Government Code § 7071).
(e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:
1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.
2. Preparing for public questions regarding the Department’s funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the Department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.
706.4 MILITARY EQUPIMENT INVENTORY AND USAGE GUIDELINES The La Mesa Police Department retains and employs a variety of military equipment to assist in safely achieving the furtherance of its objective to maintain public safety.
The La Mesa Police Department recognizes that the deployment of military equipment can have a significant and traumatizing impact on the community. These potential influences should be included in the decision-making process before approving the use of the equipment covered by this policy. The use of the equipment covered by this policy is subject to all other policies, regulations, and laws regarding the use of force.
The La Mesa Police Department recognizes that critical incidents are unpredictable and can be very dynamic in nature. A variety of military equipment options can greatly assist incident commanders, officers, and specific units in bringing those incidents to a swift resolution in a safe manner. The use of military equipment is restricted for use only in certain instances. While this procedure is wide-ranging, it is not all inclusive. There may be instances wherein unpredictable critical incidents demand the need for incident commanders to authorize military equipment to be used in a manner not outlined within this procedure. In scrutinizing those particular instances, the judgment of the incident commander influenced by the totality of the circumstances, public safety, officer safety, civil rights, and information available at the time will be used.
LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
***DRAFT*** Page 4 of 5
It is incumbent upon incident commanders, supervisors, individual officers, and specific units to recognize the particular circumstances wherein military equipment should be employed to enhance the safety of the public and officers, and to bring a critical incident to a safe resolution.
The following are the various types, descriptions, and guidelines for usage of military equipment currently employed or anticipated to be employed by the La Mesa Police Department:
See Attachment 1
706.5 APPROVAL
(a) The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the Department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
1. Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a.
2. Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
3. Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
4. Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this Department.
5. Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
6. Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
7. Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above.
LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
***DRAFT*** Page 5 of 5
(b) When military equipment is of a consumable nature and the Department’s inventory becomes too low for operational purposes, the governing body authorizes the Department to acquire additional quantities of previously authorized military equipment to maintain availability for the Department’s needs. Acquisition of consumable military equipment shall be reflected in the Department’s annual report. (Government Code § 7072.) 706.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
On occasion, the Department may be required to assist other law enforcement agencies in a mutual aid request or support with day-to-day operational collaboration (i.e. pursuits, investigative unit assistance, joint law enforcement operations, etc.).
In certain mutual aid or operational collaboration circumstances, it may be necessary for sworn Department members to utilize military equipment in order to fulfill an assigned mission (i.e. SWAT requests, barricaded suspects in a vehicle, civil unrest, etc.). When sworn Department members utilize military equipment in instances of mutual aid or law enforcement collaboration, the following shall apply:
(a) Department members are required to adhere to the Department’s Military Equipment Procedure and all policies and procedures outlined within the La Mesa Police Department’s Policy Manual, regardless of operational jurisdiction. (b) Should the La Mesa Police Department request mutual aid from another law enforcement agency for assistance within the City of La Mesa pursuant to a mutual aid agreement, and military equipment is required during the course of the response, the assisting agency will be expected to adhere to their respective policies and procedures, particularly those governing the use of military equipment.
706.7 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the Department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in Department inventory. 706.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
La Mesa Police Department
Military Equipment Inventory
Item AB481 Category /
Description
Item Name Item Description Quantity Capabilities Cost per unit Purpose/Use Authorized Use/Training Required Expected Lifespan
Annual
Maintenance
Cost
1 Category 1 /
Unmanned Aerial &
Ground Vehicles
Skydio 2
Drone
The Skydio 2 is a commercialgrade UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) / Drone. This is a
battery powered, remote
operated vehicle.
2 Capable of providing live and
recorded video images
captured from aerial positions
during daylight hours only.
$1,418.09 To be deployed when its view would
assist officers or incident commanders
with tactical or other public safety and
life preservation missions.
Only authorized operators that have been fully
trained and acquire FAA certification are allowed
to pilot this vehicle. This item may be utilized
during training exercises.
5-10 Yrs $100-500
2 Category 1 /
Unmanned Aerial &
Ground Vehicles
Autel Drone The EVO II is a commercialgrade UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) / Drone. It is a
battery powered, remote
operated vehicle.
1 Capable of providing live and
recorded video images
captured from aerial positions.
Cameras are equipped with
night-vision and Forward
Looking Infrared (FLIR)
technology, allowing for use
during darkness.
$9,648.04 To be deployed when its view would
assist officers or incident commanders
with tactical or other public safety and
life preservation missions.
Only authorized operators that have been fully
trained and acquire FAA certification are allowed
to pilot this vehicle. This item may be utilized
during training exercises.
5-10 Yrs $100-500
3 Category 1 /
Unmanned Aerial &
Ground Vehicles
LT2-F Tactical
Support
Robot
Tactical Robot/Unmanned,
remotely piloted, powered
ground vehicle.
1 This equipment is a battery
powered, remote operated
device. Equipped with two
cameras and two-way radio
capabilities.
$28,000.00 Increases safety to the community and
officers by allowing operators to
remotely gain visual/audio data, deliver
crisis negotiations phones, open doors,
disrupt packages, and clear buildings
without putting an officer or civilian in
harm's way.
Only trained La Mesa Police operators are
allowed to use this robot. This item may be
utilized during training exercises.
Appr. 15 Yrs None / This robot
is near the end of
its lifespan and
will be phased
out when
significant repairs
are needed.
4 Category 1 /
Unmanned Aerial &
Ground Vehicles
Avatar Robot Tactical Robot/Unmanned,
remotely piloted, powered
ground vehicle.
1 This equipment is a battery
powered, remote operated
device. Equipped with two
cameras and two-way radio
capabilities.
$14,350.00 Increases safety to the community and
officers by allowing operators to
remotely gain visual/audio data, deliver
crisis negotiations phones, open doors,
disrupt packages, and clear buildings
without putting an officer or civilian in
harm's way.
Only trained La Mesa Police operators are
allowed to use this robot. This item may be
utilized during training exercises.
Appr. 15 Yrs None / This robot
is under warranty
and currently has
no associated
maintenance
costs.
5 Category 3 /
Wheeled Vehicle
with Breaching
Apparatus
Lenco
BearCat
The Lenco BearCat is an
armored vehicle designed to
provide protection during
rescues and tactical events.
1 Capable of transporting
personnel and equipment
while providing them with
armored protection from
gunfire. It is designed to
withstand multiple bullet
strikes from small arms fire as
well as low level explosions.
$297,367.00 To rescue police and civilian individuals
from dangerous scenes and move
personnel and / or resources in support
of tactical operations in which there is
reason to expect potential armed
resistance requiring protection. Also to
enhance officer and community safety,
improve scene containment and
stabilization, and assist in resolving
critical incidents.
Only La Mesa Police operators that have been
trained in the operation of the BearCat are
allowed to drive this vehicle. This item may be
utilized during training exercises.
20 Yrs $1500-2000
3/9/2022 Page 119 of 341 1 of 10
La Mesa Police Department
Military Equipment Inventory
Item AB481 Category /
Description
Item Name Item Description Quantity Capabilities Cost per unit Purpose/Use Authorized Use/Training Required Expected Lifespan
Annual
Maintenance
Cost
6 Category 5 /
Command and
Control Vehicles
Mobile
Command
Vehicle (MCV)
2014 Dodge Ram 3500
ProMaster
1 The Mobile Command Vehicle
is equipped with
communication and tactical
planning equipment and is
capable of being used as a
mobile operations command
and dispatch center. The
vehicle is also capable of
transporting personnel and
equipment to and from
incident scenes.
$100,000.00 This vehicle is used based on the
specific circumstances of a given critical
incident, large event, natural disaster or
community event that is taking place.
Only assigned personnel are allowed to drive and
operate the Mobile Command Vehicle. This item
may be utilized during training exercises.
20 Yrs $2,500
7 Category 7 /
Explosive Breaching
Apparatuses
Royal Arms
Tesar 2
Shotgun
Breaching
Rounds
Shotgun breaching rounds are
specialty shotgun shells
utilized for door breaching.
20 Designed to breach heavy
locks, dead-bolts, and hinges
mounted inside of doors.
$5.00 To defeat heavy locks, dead-bolts, and
hinges mounted inside of doors in as
little time as possible, lessening the risk
to the officers involved.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
are allowed to use the Tesar 2 round. Breaching
tools that are explosive in nature can be
deployed any time operators determine that it is
tactically necessary to safely complete a lawful
breaching, and then only when non-explosive
breaching methods are not practicable or safe.
Explosive breaching may only occur in the field
after authorization by the Incident Commander
or SRT Commander. This item may be utilized
during training exercises.
Until expended None
8 Category 7 /
Explosive Breaching
Apparatuses
CTS 2570
Shotgun
Breaching
Rounds
Shotgun breaching rounds are
specialty shotgun shells
utilized for door breaching.
69 Designed to breach heavy
locks, dead-bolts, and hinges
mounted inside of solid oak or
steel doors.
$4.14 To defeat heavy locks, dead-bolts, and
hinges mounted inside of doors in as
little time as possible, lessening the risk
to the officers involved.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
are allowed to use the CTS 2570 round.
Breaching tools that are explosive in nature can
be deployed any time operators determine that
it is tactically necessary to safely complete a
lawful breaching, and then only when nonexplosive breaching methods are not practicable or safe. Explosive breaching may only occur in
the field after authorization by the Incident
Commander or SRT Commander. This item may
be utilized during training exercises.
Until expended None
9 Category 10 /
Specialized Firearms
and Ammunition ( <
.50 cal )
Colt M-4 Rifle The carbine rifle is a
lightweight, air-cooled, gas
operated, magazine fed,
shoulder fired firearm,
designed for semi-automatic,
selective fire and is capable of
fully automatic fire.
14 The Colt M-4 is capable of
firing a .223 round.
$2,011.78 This rifle is only authorized for use by
specially trained La Mesa Police
operators in situations where lethal
force is authorized by law and
Department policy.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
are authorized to use this rifle. Required training
includes: CA POST certified rifle course, CA POST
certified SWAT training, and regular
qualifications as required by law and Department
policy. This item may be utilized during training
exercises.
No estimated
expiration / this
rifle is being
phased out and
will not be
repaired when it
becomes
unserviceable.
Replaced with
Item #10.
None /
Maintenance is
conducted by
Department staff.
3/9/2022 Page 120 of 341 2 of 10
La Mesa Police Department
Military Equipment Inventory
Item AB481 Category /
Description
Item Name Item Description Quantity Capabilities Cost per unit Purpose/Use Authorized Use/Training Required Expected Lifespan
Annual
Maintenance
Cost
10 Category 10 /
Specialized Firearms
and Ammunition ( <
.50 cal )
Daniel
Defense M-4
Rifle
The carbine rifle is a
lightweight, air-cooled, gas
operated, magazine fed,
shoulder fired firearm,
designed for semi-automatic,
selective fire and is capable of
fully automatic fire.
12 The Daniel Defense M-4 is
capable of firing a .223 bullet.
$2,795.84 This rifle is only authorized for use by
specially trained La Mesa Police
operators in situations where lethal
force is authorized by law and
Department policy.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
are authorized to use this rifle. Required training
includes: CA POST certified rifle course, CA POST
certified SWAT training, and regular
qualifications as required by law and Department
policy. This item may be utilized during training
exercises.
No estimated
expiration / the
rifle will need to
be replaced if
and when it
becomes
unserviceable.
None /
Maintenance is
conducted by
Department staff.
11 Category 10 /
Specialized Firearms
and Ammunition ( <
.50 cal )
Speer LE
Gold Dot
Ammunition
.223 Remington 62 grain
cartridge for duty rifles and
range training
34,000
rounds
The Speer LE Gold Dot
cartridge is ammunition
deployed during potential
lethal encounters at long
distances. This 62 grain
projectile is designed to
maintain accuracy at long
distances.
$0.58 To be used with all .223 caliber assault
rifle precision weapons to address a
threat with more precision and from
greater distances than a handgun. It is
only deployed in situations where lethal
force is authorized.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
are authorized to use this ammunition. Required
training includes: CA POST certified rifle course
or CA POST certified SWAT training, and regular
qualifications as required by law and Department
policy. This item may be utilized during training
exercises.
Until expended None
12 Category 10 /
Specialized Firearms
and Ammunition ( <
.50 cal )
Remington
.308 700 Rifle
The Remington .308 700 is a
bolt action single shot rifle.
4 The Remington 700 is capable
of firing a .308 bullet.
$800.00 To be used as a precision weapon to
address a threat with more precision
and/ or at greater distances than a
handgun. It is only fired in situations
where lethal force is authorized by law
and Department policy.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
are allowed to operate this weapon. Operators
must successfully complete the CA POST certified
Sniper Rifle Course as well as regular Department
presented training and qualifications as required
by law and Department policy. This item may be
utilized during training exercises.
Appr. 15 Yrs None /
Maintenance is
conducted by
Department staff.
13 Category 10 /
Specialized Firearms
and Ammunition ( <
.50 cal )
Hornady ELD
Match Tap
Precision
Ammunition
.308 Winchester 168 Grain
cartridge
2000
rounds
The Hornady .308 168 grain,
ELD Match Tap Precision
cartridge is ammunition
deployed during potential
lethal encounters at long
distances. This 168 grain
projectile is designed to
maintain accuracy at long
distances.
$0.98 To be used with the Remington .308
precision weapon to address a threat
with more precision and/ or greater
distances than a handgun, if present or
feasible. It is only deployed in
situations where lethal force is
authorized by law and Department
policy.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
are allowed to operate with this ammunition.
Operators must successfully complete the CA
POST certified Sniper Rifle Course as well as
regular Department presented training and
qualifications as required by law and Department
policy. This item may be utilized during training
exercises.
Until expended None
14 Category 10 /
Specialized Firearms
and Ammunition ( <
.50 cal )
Heckler and
Koch MP5 40
Cal.
This is a submachine gun
firearm. It is a lightweight,
magazine fed, shoulder fired
weapon, designed for semiautomatic, selective fire and is capable of fully automatic
fire.
5 The Heckler and Koch MP5 is
capable of firing a 40 cal.
bullet.
$1,700.00 This firearm is only authorized for use
by specially trained La Mesa Police
operators in situations where lethal
force is authorized by law and
Department policy.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
are authorized to use this weapon. Required
training includes: CA POST certified rifle course,
and regular qualifications as required by law and
Department policy. This item may be utilized
during training exercises.
No estimated
expiration /
these firearms
are no longer in
production as of
2001 and will not
be replaced
when it becomes
unserviceable.
None /
Maintenance is
conducted by
Department staff.
3/9/2022 Page 121 of 341 3 of 10
La Mesa Police Department
Military Equipment Inventory
Item AB481 Category /
Description
Item Name Item Description Quantity Capabilities Cost per unit Purpose/Use Authorized Use/Training Required Expected Lifespan
Annual
Maintenance
Cost
15 Category 10 /
Specialized Firearms
and Ammunition ( <
.50 cal )
Heckler and
Koch MP5
9mm
This is a submachine gun
firearm. It is a lightweight,
magazine fed, shoulder fired
weapon, designed for semiautomatic, selective fire and is capable of fully automatic
fire.
2 The Heckler and Koch MP5 is
capable of firing a 9mm bullet.
$1,700.00 This firearm is only authorized for use
by specially trained La Mesa Police
operators in situations where lethal
force is authorized by law and
Department policy.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
are authorized to use this weapon. Required
training includes: CA POST certified rifle course,
and regular qualifications as required by law and
Department policy. This item may be utilized
during training exercises.
No estimated
expiration /
these firearms
are no longer in
production as of
2001 and will not
be replaced
when it becomes
unserviceable.
None /
Maintenance is
conducted by
Department staff.
16 Category 10 /
Specialized Firearms
and Ammunition ( <
.50 cal )
Federal . 40
Cal.
Ammunition
40 Cal. 147 gain premium law
enforcement tactical
ammunition round
14,000
rounds
The Federal 40 Cal.
ammunition round is the La
Mesa Police Department's
primary .40 cal. duty
ammunition.
$0.31 To be used with Department issued
MP5 weapons to address a threat if
present or feasible. It is only deployed
in situations where lethal force is
authorized by law and Department
policy.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
are authorized to use this ammunition. Required
training includes regular qualifications as
required by law and Department policy. This item
may be utilized during training exercises.
Until expended None
17 Category 10 /
Specialized Firearms
and Ammunition ( <
.50 cal )
Federal 9mm
Ammunition
9mm 147 gain premium law
enforcement tactical
ammunition round
16,000
rounds
The Federal 9mm ammunition
round is the La Mesa Police
Department's primary .40 cal.
duty ammunition.
$0.31 To be used with Department issued
9mm handguns and MP5 weapons to
address a threat if present or feasible.
It is only deployed in situations where
lethal force is authorized by law and
Department policy.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
are authorized to use this ammunition. Required
training includes regular qualifications as
required by law and Department policy. This item
may be utilized during training exercises.
Until expended None
18 Category 12 / NoiseFlash Diversionary
Devices
CTS 7290
Flash Bang
A Noise Flash Diversionary
Device (NFDD) is a device that
creates a bright flash and loud
sound to temporarily divert
the attention of subjects in
the immediate area.
33 Capable of creating visual and
auditory distractions during
tactical operations which
allows for tactical advantage
during high-risk situations.
$48.00 NFDD's are used to distract and
temporarily disorient dangerous
suspects by overwhelming their senses
of vision and hearing. The distraction
allows officers to seize a moment of
opportunity to safely resolve critical
situations during high-risk tactical
operations.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
are authorized to deploy flashbang devices. This
item may be utilized during training exercises.
5 Yrs None
19 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
PepperBall
Tac 700
Launchers
A system that uses high
pressure air to deliver
projectiles from a specially
designed launcher (similar to
a paint ball delivery system).
9 Launches less lethal munitions
up to 150 feet. Munitions open
upon impact and can disperse
oleoresin capsicum (OC)
powder or water that cause
irritation upon contact or
inhalation. Other munitions
are simply projectiles utilized
as a less lethal impact tool.
$600.00 The PepperBall Launcher is a less lethal
use of force option that can de-escalate
situations and increase safety to the
public and officers by allowing officers
to use less lethal force from a distance.
Only La Mesa Police officers who are trained on
the use of the PepperBall Launcher are
authorized to deploy it. It is authorized for use
only in situations where the use of force is
authorized per Department policy, including but
not limited to: to subdue dangerous and/or
combative individuals to obtain a tactical
advantage; protection from vicious animals;
training exercises; and approved
demonstrations. The PepperBall Launcher may
only be deployed to disperse any unlawful
assembly, protest, or demonstration in strict
accordance with AB 48 and Department policy.
None $10
3/9/2022 Page 122 of 341 4 of 10
La Mesa Police Department
Military Equipment Inventory
Item AB481 Category /
Description
Item Name Item Description Quantity Capabilities Cost per unit Purpose/Use Authorized Use/Training Required Expected Lifespan
Annual
Maintenance
Cost
20 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
PepperBall
Live Projectile
The basic PepperBall
projectile containing 2% PAVA
(pelargonic acid vanillylamide)
irritant pepper powder
1545
rounds
Discharged from the
PepperBall launcher, the
projectile will break on impact
and release 2% PAVA
(pelargonic acid vanillylamide)
irritant pepper powder. It is
designed for direct impact and
area saturation, especially in
confined, interior spaces.
$2.28 The PepperBall Launcher is a less lethal
use of force option that can de-escalate
situations and increase safety to the
public and officers by allowing officers
to use less lethal force from a distance.
Only La Mesa Police officers who are trained on
the use of the PepperBall Launcher are
authorized to deploy it. It is authorized for use
only in situations where the use of force is
authorized per Department policy, including but
not limited to: to subdue dangerous and/or
combative individuals to obtain a tactical
advantage; protection from vicious animals;
training exercises; and approved
demonstrations. The PepperBall Launcher may
only be deployed to disperse any unlawful
assembly, protest, or demonstration in strict
accordance with AB 48 and Department policy.
1 Yr None
21 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
PepperBall
Inert
Projectile
This is a PepperBall practice /
training projectile.
1925
rounds
Discharged from the
PepperBall launcher, the
projectile will break on impact,
and is designed for training
purposes, or when chemical
exposure is not desired or
required. Inside is a non toxic
white power.
$0.27 The PepperBall Launcher is a less lethal
use of force option that can de-escalate
situations and increase safety to the
public and officers by allowing officers
to use less lethal force from a distance.
Only La Mesa Police officers who are trained on
the use of the PepperBall Launcher are
authorized to deploy it. It is authorized for use
only in situations where the use of force is
authorized per Department policy, including but
not limited to: to subdue dangerous and/or
combative individuals to obtain a tactical
advantage; protection from vicious animals;
training exercises; and approved
demonstrations. The PepperBall Launcher may
only be deployed to disperse any unlawful
assembly, protest, or demonstration in strict
accordance with AB 48 and Department policy.
1 Yr None
22 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
PepperBall
Glass Break
Rounds
This is a solid PepperBall
round specifically designed to
break glass windows.
~7 Discharged from the
PepperBall launcher, the
projectile is designed to break
glass windows from a safe
distance.
$2.70 This round is used for glass breaking
purposes only (not to apply force to
humans). This round allows officers to
safely break windows on vehicles and
buildings from a distance to gain
tactical access and line of sight.
Only La Mesa Police officers who are trained on
the use of the PepperBall Launcher are
authorized to deploy it. It is authorized for use
only in situations authorized per Department
policy. The PepperBall Launcher may only be
deployed to disperse any unlawful assembly,
protest, or demonstration in strict accordance
with AB 48 and Department policy.
Until expended None
3/9/2022 Page 123 of 341 5 of 10
La Mesa Police Department
Military Equipment Inventory
Item AB481 Category /
Description
Item Name Item Description Quantity Capabilities Cost per unit Purpose/Use Authorized Use/Training Required Expected Lifespan
Annual
Maintenance
Cost
23 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
PepperBall
Marking
Rounds
This PepperBall projectile
contains washable marking
paint
0 - may
be
purchase
d in the
future
Discharged from the
PepperBall launcher, the
projectile is designed to break
on impact and release
washable marking paint on the
target
$0.24 This round is used to mark subjects with
washable paint for later identification
when making physical contact with the
subject is not safe or feasible.
Only La Mesa Police officers who are trained on
the use of the PepperBall Launcher are
authorized to deploy it. It is authorized for use
only in situations where the use of force is
authorized per Department policy, including but
not limited to: to subdue dangerous and/or
combative individuals to obtain a tactical
advantage; protection from vicious animals;
training exercises; and approved
demonstrations. The PepperBall Launcher may
only be deployed to disperse any unlawful
assembly, protest, or demonstration in strict
accordance with AB 48 and Department policy.
Until expended None
24 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
Defense
Technologies
5099 MK-9
Magnum
Stream OC
(oleoresin
capsicum)
Aerosol
Sprayer
12 oz. Aerosol canister/ OC
Pepper Spray/ non-lethal tool.
8 Aerosol that is equipped with a
trigger handle and will deliver
short burst of OC at an
effective range of 18-20 feet.
OC is an inflammatory agent
which causes involuntary
closure of the eyes (open in 2-5
min) and respiratory
inflammation (subsides in
approximately 2 min.)
$49.95 A non lethal use of force option used to
limit the escalation of conflict and
safely resolve critical situations.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
who have received POST certification in the use
of chemical agents are authorized to use
chemical agents. Chemical agents may only be
deployed to disperse any unlawful assembly,
protest, or demonstration in strict accordance
with AB 48 and Department policy. Chemical
agents may also be used during training
exercises.
5 Yrs None
25 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
CTS 5440 OC
(oleoresin
capsicum)
Expulsion
Grenade
Pyrotechnic grenade/nonlethal tool. 29 Pyrotechnic grenade that discharges a high volume of OC
through multiple emission
ports designed mostly for
indoor use, but can be
deployed outside. OC is an
inflammatory agent which
causes involuntary closure of
the eyes (open in 2-5 min) and
respiratory inflammation
(subsides in approximately 2
min.)
$36.73 A non lethal use of force option used to
limit the escalation of conflict and
safely resolve critical situations.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
who have received POST certification in the use
of chemical agents are authorized to use
chemical agents. Chemical agents may only be
deployed to disperse any unlawful assembly,
protest, or demonstration in strict accordance
with AB 48 and Department policy. Chemical
agents may also be used during training
exercises.
None None
26 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
CTS 3440 OC
(oleoresin
capsicum)
37mm muzzle
blast
37MM OC Smoke Projectile/
non-lethal tool.
15 A short range OC cartridge
delivering a single munition.
Used outdoors, it will disperse
crowds, deny areas and
prevent violence. OC is an
inflammatory agent which
causes involuntary closure of
the eyes (open in 2-5 min) and
respiratory inflammation
(subsides in approximately 2
min.)
$8.98 A non lethal use of force option used to
limit the escalation of conflict and
safely resolve critical situations.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
who have received POST certification in the use
of chemical agents are authorized to use
chemical agents. Chemical agents may only be
deployed to disperse any unlawful assembly,
protest, or demonstration in strict accordance
with AB 48 and Department policy. Chemical
agents may also be used during training
exercises.
5 Yrs None
3/9/2022 Page 124 of 341 6 of 10
La Mesa Police Department
Military Equipment Inventory
Item AB481 Category /
Description
Item Name Item Description Quantity Capabilities Cost per unit Purpose/Use Authorized Use/Training Required Expected Lifespan
Annual
Maintenance
Cost
27 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
CTS 5230B CS
(2-
chlorobenzyli
dene
malononitrile
) Baffled
Canister
Grenade
Pyrotechnic grenade/nonlethal tool.90 Pyrotechnic grenade designed for indoor use delivering a
maximum amount of irritant
smoke throughout multiple
rooms with minimal risk of fire.
CS is an irritating agent and
lachrymator (irritates the eyes
and causes tears to flow).
$36.74 A non lethal use of force option used to
limit the escalation of conflict and
safely resolve critical situations.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
who have received POST certification in the use
of chemical agents are authorized to use
chemical agents. Chemical agents may only be
deployed to disperse any unlawful assembly,
protest, or demonstration in strict accordance
with AB 48 and Department policy. Chemical
agents may also be used during training
exercises.
5 Yrs None
28 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
CTS 6230 CS
(2-
chlorobenzyli
dene
malononitrile
) Cannister
Grenade
Pyrotechnic grenade/nonlethal tool.95 Pyrotechnic canister grenade emitting smoke through
multiple emission ports for 30
to 40 seconds. May be
launched or hand thrown. CS is
an irritating agent and
lachrymator (irritates the eyes
and causes tears to flow).
$26.50 A non lethal use of force option used to
limit the escalation of conflict and
safely resolve critical situations.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
who have received POST certification in the use
of chemical agents are authorized to use
chemical agents. Chemical agents may only be
deployed to disperse any unlawful assembly,
protest, or demonstration in strict accordance
with AB 48 and Department policy. Chemical
agents may also be used during training
exercises.
5 Yrs None
29 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
CTS 8230 CS
(2-
chlorobenzyli
dene
malononitrile
) Outdoor
Tactical
Grenade
The smallest diameter
burning grenade/ non-lethal
tool.
94 Specifically for outdoor use.
Can be hand thrown or
launched. CS is an irritating
agent and lachrymator
(irritates the eyes and causes
tears to flow).
$21.38 A non lethal use of force option used to
limit the escalation of conflict and
safely resolve critical situations.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
who have received POST certification in the use
of chemical agents are authorized to use
chemical agents. Chemical agents may only be
deployed to disperse any unlawful assembly,
protest, or demonstration in strict accordance
with AB 48 and Department policy. Chemical
agents may also be used during training
exercises.
5 Yrs None
30 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
CTS 2430 CS
(2-
chlorobenzyli
dene
malononitrile
) 12 gauge
powder
projecticle
12 gauge Shotgun Cartridge/
1.5 grams CS Powder
186 Powder or liquid filled, nonburning, fin-stabilized rounds designed to penetrate light to
intermediate barriers such as
windows and hollow core
doors. The projectiles break
upon impact and deliver agent
payloads of powder or liquid
throughout the adjacent target
area. CS is an irritating agent
and lachrymator (irritates the
eyes and causes tears to flow).
$9.00 A non lethal use of force option used to
limit the escalation of conflict and
safely resolve critical situations.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
who have received POST certification in the use
of chemical agents are authorized to use
chemical agents. Chemical agents may only be
deployed to disperse any unlawful assembly,
protest, or demonstration in strict accordance
with AB 48 and Department policy. Chemical
agents may also be used during training
exercises.
5 Yrs None
3/9/2022 Page 125 of 341 7 of 10
La Mesa Police Department
Military Equipment Inventory
Item AB481 Category /
Description
Item Name Item Description Quantity Capabilities Cost per unit Purpose/Use Authorized Use/Training Required Expected Lifespan
Annual
Maintenance
Cost
31 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
CTS 4431 CS
(2-
chlorobenzyli
dene
malononitrile
) 40mm
powder
projectile
40 MM projectile 6 grams CS
Powder Barricade
52 Kinetic Energy Munition used
as a less lethal use of force
option.
$29.00 A non lethal use of force option used to
limit the escalation of conflict and
safely resolve critical situations.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
who have received POST certification in the use
of chemical agents are authorized to use
chemical agents. Chemical agents may only be
deployed to disperse any unlawful assembly,
protest, or demonstration in strict accordance
with AB 48 and Department policy. Chemical
agents may also be used during training
exercises.
5 Yrs None
32 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
CTS 5230 CS
(2-
chlorobenzyli
dene
malononitrile
) canister
grendae
Pyrotechnic grenade/nonlethal tool.15 The largest diameter burning grenade that discharges a high
volume of smoke and chemical
agent through multiple
emission ports. Specifically for
outdoor use. Can be hand
thrown or launched. CS is an
irritating agent and
lachrymator (irritates the eyes
and causes tears to flow).
$35.00 A non lethal use of force option used to
limit the escalation of conflict and
safely resolve critical situations.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
who have received POST certification in the use
of chemical agents are authorized to use
chemical agents. Chemical agents may only be
deployed to disperse any unlawful assembly,
protest, or demonstration in strict accordance
with AB 48 and Department policy. Chemical
agents may also be used during training
exercises.
5 Yrs None
33 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
CTS 3230 CS
(2-
chlorobenzyli
dene
malononitrile
) 37mm short
range
cartridge
37MM CS Smoke Projectile/
non-lethal tool.
46 A short range CS cartridge
delivering a single munition.
Used outdoors, it will disperse
crowds, deny areas and
prevent violence. CS is an
irritating agent and
lachrymator (irritates the eyes
and causes tears to flow).
$8.98 A non lethal use of force option used to
limit the escalation of conflict and
safely resolve critical situations.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
who have received POST certification in the use
of chemical agents are authorized to use
chemical agents. Chemical agents may only be
deployed to disperse any unlawful assembly,
protest, or demonstration in strict accordance
with AB 48 and Department policy. Chemical
agents may also be used during training
exercises.
5 Yrs None
34 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
CTS 3430 CS
(2-
chlorobenzyli
dene
malononitrile
) 37mm
muzzle blast
37MM CS Smoke Projectile/
non-lethal tool.
33 A short range CS cartridge
delivering a single munition.
Used outdoors, it will disperse
crowds, deny areas and
prevent violence. CS is an
irritating agent and
lachrymator (irritates the eyes
and causes tears to flow).
$8.98 A non lethal use of force option used to
limit the escalation of conflict and
safely resolve critical situations.
Only specially trained La Mesa Police operators
who have received POST certification in the use
of chemical agents are authorized to use
chemical agents. Chemical agents may only be
deployed to disperse any unlawful assembly,
protest, or demonstration in strict accordance
with AB 48 and Department policy. Chemical
agents may also be used during training
exercises.
5 Yrs None
3/9/2022 Page 126 of 341 8 of 10
La Mesa Police Department
Military Equipment Inventory
Item AB481 Category /
Description
Item Name Item Description Quantity Capabilities Cost per unit Purpose/Use Authorized Use/Training Required Expected Lifespan
Annual
Maintenance
Cost
35 Category 12 / Tear
Gas & OC (Oleoresin
Capsicum)
Munitions
CTS 4630 CS
(2-
chlorobenzyli
dene
malononitrile
) 40mm
muzzle blast
40MM CS Smoke Projectile/
non-lethal tool.
17 A short range CS cartridge
delivering a single munition.
Used outdoors, it will disperse
crowds, deny areas and
prevent violence. CS is an
irritating agent and
lachrymator (irritates the eyes
and causes tears to flow).
$29.00 A non lethal use of force option used to
limit the escalation of conflict and
safely resolve critical situations.
LRADs can only be deployed in accordance with
all applicable laws and department policies
governing use of force and first amendment
events, and never as an acoustical weapon.
While the La Mesa Police Department does not
possess an LRAD, it is anticipated that one could
be borrowed from another agency for use at an
event in La Mesa, or during training exercises. In
such an event, only specially trained La Mesa
Special Response Team operators would be
authorized to deploy the LRAD.
5 Yrs None
36 Category 13 / Long
Range Acoustical
Devices
Long Range
Acoustic
Device
The LRAD system is a type of
Acoustic Hailing Device (AHD)
used to send public
announcement messages over
long distances.
*This item is included in the
event that the La Mesa Police
Department borrows and
operates an LRAD owned by
another agency.
0 LRAD systems produce much
higher sound levels (volume)
than normal loudspeakers or
megaphones and can send
public announcement
messages clearly over long
distances.
N/A The device is used as a public
announcement system to deliver
dispersal orders or other instructions to
unlawful assemblies or to deliver
critical emergency information (such as
evacuation instructions) to large
crowds.
LRADs can only be deployed in accordance with
all applicable laws and Department policies
governing use of force and first amendment
events, and never as an acoustical weapon.
While the La Mesa Police Department does not
possess an LRAD, it is anticipated that one could
be borrowed from another agency for use at an
event in La Mesa or during training exercises. In
such an event, only specially trained La Mesa
Special Response Team operators would be
authorized to deploy the LRAD.
N/A N/A
37 Category 14 /
Kinetic Energy
Weapons &
Munitions
40mm Less
Lethal
Launcher
The 40mm Projectile Launcher
is not a firearm. It is a lesslethal system that uses
smokeless powder to deliver
40mm projectiles from a safe
distance. It is a single
launcher, which allows the
operator to re-assess the
situation after every spent
munition.
6 The 40mm Less Lethal
Launcher is capable of firing
40mm Kinetic Energy
Munitions.
$1,000.00 The 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and
Kinetic Energy Munitions are a less
lethal use of force option.
Only trained La Mesa Police operators are
allowed to use the 40mm Less Lethal Launcher.
It is authorized for use only in situations where
the use of force is authorized per Department
policy, including but not limited to: to subdue
dangerous and/or combative individuals to
obtain a tactical advantage; protection from
vicious animals; training exercises; and approved
demonstrations. The 40mm Less Lethal Launcher
may only be deployed to disperse any unlawful
assembly, protest, or demonstration in strict
accordance with AB 48 and Department policy.
Appr. 15 Yrs None /
Maintenance is
conducted by
Department staff.
3/9/2022 Page 127 of 341 9 of 10
La Mesa Police Department
Military Equipment Inventory
Item AB481 Category /
Description
Item Name Item Description Quantity Capabilities Cost per unit Purpose/Use Authorized Use/Training Required Expected Lifespan
Annual
Maintenance
Cost
38 Category 14 /
Kinetic Energy
Weapons &
Munitions
4557 40MM
Foam Baton
A 40MM sponge baton rubber
foam impact round/ LessLethal
6 This 40MM sponge baton is a
stabilized rubber foam round
with a optimal range between
9.84 ft. to 98.4 ft.
$35.00 The Sponge Baton munition is used as a
Less-Lethal weapon designed to deescalate a potentially violent encounter.
Only trained La Mesa Police operators are
allowed to use the 40mm Less Lethal Launcher.
It is authorized for use only in situations where
the use of force is authorized per Department
policy, including but not limited to: to subdue
dangerous and/or combative individuals to
obtain a tactical advantage; protection from
vicious animals; training exercises; and approved
demonstrations. The 40mm Less Lethal Launcher
may only be deployed to disperse any unlawful
assembly, protest, or demonstration in strict
accordance with AB 48 and Department policy.
Until expended None
39 Category 14 /
Kinetic Energy
Weapons &
Munitions
Bean Bag
Shotgun
Remington 870 shotgun that
has been modified to fire less
lethal projectiles.
15 The Bean Bag Shotgun is
capable of firing a less lethal
projectile with an effective
range of approximately 5-20
yards.
$625.95 The Bean Bag Shotgun is a less lethal
use of force option.
Only La Mesa Police officers who are trained on
the use of the Bean Bag Shotgun are authorized
to deploy it. It is authorized for use only in
situations where the use of force is authorized
per Department policy, including but not limited
to: to subdue dangerous and/or combative
individuals to obtain a tactical advantage;
protection from vicious animals; training
exercises; and approved demonstrations. The
Bean Bag Shotgun may only be deployed to
disperse any unlawful assembly, protest, or
demonstration in strict accordance with AB 48
and Department policy.
None None
40 Category 14 /
Kinetic Energy
Weapons &
Munitions
CTS 2581
Super Sock
cartridge
An aerodynamic projectile
fired from a modified shotgun
that is a flexible tubular
material bag
525 The CTS Super Sock is a
transferred Kinetic Energy
Munition used as a less lethal
use of force option.
$7.10 The Bean Bag projectile is a less lethal
use of force option designed to be fired
at non-vital areas of the body to safely
gain pain compliance without placing
the subject or officer at risk of injujry
from physical contact.
Only La Mesa Police officers who are trained on
the use of the Bean Bag Shotgun are authorized
to deploy it. It is authorized for use only in
situations where the use of force is authorized
per Department policy, including but not limited
to: to subdue dangerous and/or combative
individuals to obtain a tactical advantage;
protection from vicious animals; training
exercises; and approved demonstrations. The
Bean Bag Shotgun may only be deployed to
disperse any unlawful assembly, protest, or
demonstration in strict accordance with AB 48
and Department policy.
Until expended None
3/9/2022 Page 128 of 341 10 of 10
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Resolution Revising the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee based on the findings and conclusions of the Park
Development Impact Fee Update Study (2022 Study).
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
SUMMARY:
Issue:
Should the City Council adopt a resolution revising the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee based on the findings and conclusions of the 2022 Study?
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that City Council approve a resolution revising the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee based on the findings and conclusions of the 2022 Study.
Fiscal Impact:
Subject to City Council direction to adopt the updated Park Development Impact Fees, the City would receive additional park improvements revenue dependent on future development activity.
BACKGROUND:
The City establishes Park In-lieu and Park Impact Fees under the authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.). The purpose of these fees is to ensure that new development pays its fair share of capital costs associated with growth. The City reviews and updates fee amounts periodically to ensure that public
Report to Mayor and Council Members
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: 2 of 6
amenities such as parks serve current and future generations of residents and businesses.
Park fees provide the City with necessary funding to make capital improvements at public parks that include play equipment, courts, facilities, and other needed improvements.
Section 9.20.060 of the La Mesa Municipal Code provides that a revision of the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Fee can be made by the City based on changes in the cost of land acquisition or park improvements (or both).
The City has not revised park fees since 2005. Since the last time the City adopted the current fee, costs associated with park improvements, including land acquisition and facility construction, have risen significantly. The City utilizes a variety of funding sources. such as grants, to provide funding for park projects. However, these grants are often competitive and are not a guaranteed funding source for the City. The proposed changes to park fees discussed below would provide funding more consistent with the current cost of park improvement costs.
DISCUSSION:
At the March 10, 2021, Community Services Commission meeting, staff from the Community Development Department provided a presentation to educate the commissioners regarding the park fees and how the City uses them to improve parks and accommodate growth. At the meeting, the Commission voted to recommend the City perform a study to review park in-lieu and park impact fees. At the April 27, 2021, Council meeting, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with a study of both fees to determine if a revision to the fees is necessary. Staff solicited bids from qualified consultants and selected Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to perform the study. In the following months, staff worked with Willdan to complete the Park Development Impact Fee Update Study (Study), which is included as Attachment A to this report.
As noted below, there are two types of park fees. The 1975 Quimby Act requires residential subdivision developers to mitigate the impacts of property improvements by setting aside land, donating conservation easements, or paying fees for park improvements. The Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee applies to infill development, which is the construction of additional housing into an already-approved subdivision or neighborhood.
Given the City’s limited opportunities for new subdivision development, the City is more likely to receive applications for infill development.
The 2022 Study performed by Willdan follows the same methodology as the study completed by MuniFinancial in 2005 when both fees were established. The 2022 Study uses population and growth projections, the City’s existing park development facility inventory and standards, and estimates of existing and new development costs for park facilities to determine fee amounts per unit of development. The 2022 Study recommends an increase in the fee amount for both fees assessed (per unit) on new development. The recommended fee amounts for single and multi-family developments are as follows:
Report to Mayor and Council Members
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: 3 of 6
Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee (for subdivisions only) Current Fee Recommended Fee
Single Family $3,882 $9,622
Multi Family $2,815 $7,544
Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee
Single Family $1,559 $5,092
Multi Family $1,130 $3,992
Figure A below shows a comparison of the City’s current and proposed park development impact fees for single family dwelling units compared to fees in six other cities. Figure B on the following page shows the same comparison for multi-family dwelling units. For subdivision development, both the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee are paid, therefore the current and recommended fee per dwelling unit graphed in yellow below includes both fees. All other “infill” development pays only the Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee graphed in green. As noted below, the City’s current park fees are toward the bottom of the list. The recommended amounts are more consistent with the average park impact fees for the cities listed in the analysis and would provide a level of funding more consistent with current costs to improve the City’s parks.
$858 $900 $1,559
$5,092 $5,441
$6,986
$8,476
$12,772 $13,797 $14,714
$17,989
$21,479
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
Figure A
Single Family Park Impact Fee Comparison per Dwelling Unit
Report to Mayor and Council Members
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: 4 of 6
With both park impact fees not having been updated since their adoption in 2005, the 2022 Study recommends a phased fee implementation for both fees. The manner in which park development impacts fees are assessed varies by jurisdiction.1 The table below shows the 2022 Study’s recommended five-year phased fee implementation for both fees.
1 Some cities assess one park impact fee to all developments and some assess a Quimby In-lieu fee only on subdivisions (per California Government Code 66477). The City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista assess fees by established districts based on where the development is proposed, therefore these cities are graphed with a ‘low” and “high” fee amount representing the district with the lowest park development impact fee and the district with the highest fee.
$639 $692 $1,130
$3,945 $3,992
$6,664
$7,727
$8,800
$10,241
$11,536
$13,968
$15,942
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
Figure B
Multi-family Family Park Impact Fee Comparison per Dwelling Unit
Report to Mayor and Council Members
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: 5 of 6
Five-Year Phased Fee Implementation
Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fe
Single Family $3,882 $5,030 $6,178 $7,326 $8,474 $9,622 Multi-family $2,815 $3,761 $4,707 $5,652 $6,598 $7,544
Park Acquisition & Improvement Impact Fee
Single Family $1,559 $2,266 $2,972 $3,679 $4,385 $5,092 Multi-family $1,130 $1,702 $2,275 $2,847 $3,420 $3,992
With a phased implementation, the fee increase amount each year is constant over the fiveyear timeframe. For example, the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee for single family development increases $1,148 per year until it reaches the recommended fee amount in Year 5. After the five-year phased implementation, the 2022 Study recommends adjusting each fee annually for inflation to keep the fees up-to-date. The 2022 Study recommends using the California Construction Cost Index. The index is based on data from the Engineering News Record and is aggregated and made available by the State of California. The fee amounts would be adjusted based on the change in the index compared to the index in the base year of the Study (2020). If a phased implementation is approved, Year 1 fee amounts would be added to the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Fee Schedule and subsequent year amounts would be added each year through Fiscal Year 2026-2027.
Annually thereafter, each fee would be adjusted using the California Construction Cost Index.
On April 13, 2022, the Community Services Commission received a presentation of the 2022 Study results. At the meeting, the Commission voted to support the recommendation of the 2022 Study but to recalculate the Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee to also include land acquisition costs, due primarily to future development in La Mesa being mainly infill development. This recommendation would increase the Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee to $12,211 per unit for single family and $9,575 for multi-family developments. The study conducted by MuniFinancial in 2005 when the fee was adopted does not factor in land acquisition cost. The 2022 Study also does not factor land acquisition into the fee calculation. The Commission also recommended the City Council review park development impact fees in the future to consider assessing them based on square footage per dwelling unit.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that City Council approve a resolution revising the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee based on the findings and conclusions of the 2022 Study.
Report to Mayor and Council Members
Date: April 26, 2022
Page: 6 of 6
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________
Greg Humora Carlo Tomaino
City Manager Assistant City Manager
____________________
Lyn Dedmon
Senior Management Analyst
Attachment A: Willdan Park Development Impact Fee Update Study Attachment B: City Council Resolution
CITY OF LA MESA
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
UPDATE
FINAL
APRIL 12, 2022
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
66 Franklin Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 300 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94607 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (888) 326-6864 Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
www.willdan.com
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 2 Background and Study Objectives 2
Public Facilities Financing in California 2
Organization of the Report 2
Facility Standards and Cost Allocation Approach 3
2. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................ 4 Use of Growth Projections for Impact Fees 4
Land Use Types 4
Growth Projections for City of La Mesa 4
Occupant Densities 5
3. PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES ................................................ 6 Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory 6
City of La Mesa Park Facilities Standards 7
Parkland Unit Costs 9
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 10
Parks Facilities Cost per Capita 10
Use of Fee Revenue 11
Fee Schedules 11
4. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS............................................................ 13 Compliance with AB 602 13
5. IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................... 16 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 16
Fee Implementation 16
Fee Accounting 17
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 17
6. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS.................................................. 18 Purpose of Fee 18
Use of Fee Revenues 18
Benefit Relationship 18
Burden Relationship 19
Proportionality 19
APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 20
2 1. Introduction
This report summarizes an analysis of the need for parks and recreation facilities and related capital improvements to support future development within the City of La Mesa through 2035. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of these facilities and improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a park development impact fee.
The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis of the City’s public facilities fee program all fall into the parks and recreation facilities category.
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. To fulfill this objective, public agencies should review and update their fee programs periodically to incorporate the best available information. The primary purpose of this report is to update fees that incorporate current park acquisition and development costs needed to maintain the City’s parkland standards and serve future growth.
The City adopts development impact fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein.
Depending on the characteristics of the development project, the City may use the Quimby Act to calculate impact fees. The Quimby Act allows a city to require developers to dedicate at least three acres and up to five acres per 1,000 residents, if the city’s existing park standard as of the last Census justifies the higher level.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; • Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “growth pays its own way.” This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide.
Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.
Organization of the Report
The determination of a development impact fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 3 Chapter 3 is devoted to documenting the maximum justified development impact fee for parks and recreation facilities based on maintaining the City’s current park standards.
Chapter 5 describes the fee implementation process. The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed development impact fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (codified in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025) are summarized in Chapter 6.
Facility Standards and Cost Allocation Approach
A facility standard is a policy that indicates the amount of facilities required to accommodate service demand. Examples of facility standards include building square feet per capita and park acres per capita. Standards also may be expressed in monetary terms such as the value of facilities per capita, or the value of improvements per acre or per capita. The adopted facility standard is a critical component in determining development’s need for new facilities and the amount of the fee. Standards determine new development’s fair share of planned facilities and ensure that new development maintains the City’s existing park infrastructure standards.
The parks and recreation facilities fees calculated in this report use an existing inventory demand standard translated into facility costs per capita to determine new development’s fair share of planned facility costs. A cost standard provides a reasonable method for converting disparate types of facilities, in this case parkland and special use recreational facilities, into a single measure of demand (capital cost per capita). The cost standard justified is based on the existing inventory of parks and recreation facilities. Under this approach, new development is required to fund new parkland and park facilities at the same level of service as existing residents have provided those same types of facilities to date.
4 2. Land Use Assumptions
This chapter describes the projections of growth used in this study. The existing service population in 2020 is used as the base year of the study and the planning horizon is the year 2035. This chapter also describes the sources of the unit costs for land and buildings used in this study.
Use of Growth Projections for Impact Fees
Estimates of the existing service population and projections of growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• The estimate of existing development in 2020 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • Estimates of total development in 2035 are used to determine the total amount of public facilities required to accommodate the future service population. • Estimates of existing and new development are used to allocate the fair share of total planned facility costs between existing and new development.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. • Single family: Detached and attached one-unit dwellings. • Multifamily: All attached multifamily dwellings including duplexes, apartments, and condominiums.
The City should have the discretion to impose the parks and recreation facilities fee based on the specific aspects of a proposed development regardless of zoning. The guideline to use is the probable occupant density of the development. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely matches the probable occupant density of the development.
Growth Projections for City of La Mesa
Park and recreation facilities in La Mesa primarily serve residents in the City of La Mesa.
Therefore, residents comprise the park and recreation facilities service population.
The base year for this study is the year 2020. The planning horizon is 2035. Resident growth between 2020 and 2035 comprises the growth increment in this analysis. The projection for 2035 is based on population projections provided by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Table 1 shows estimates of the growth in terms of residents between 2020 and 2035.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 5 Table 1: Parks Service Population
Residents
Census 2020 61,121
Growth (2020 - 2035) 5,378
Total (2035) 66,499
Sources: CA DOF, Table E-5, 2021; SANDAG 2050 Subregional Grow th Forecast; Willdan Financial Services.
Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee. The development impact fee is calculated for a development project based on dwelling units, while facility demand is based on population increases, so the fee schedule must convert population estimates to these measures of project size.
The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2. The residential density factors are based on data for La Mesa from the 2019 U.S. Census’ American Community Survey, the most recent data available. The factors are derived from Tables B25024 and B25033.
The total residents in each type of dwelling unit are divided by a count of each type of dwelling unit to determine the average occupants per dwelling unit.
Table 2: Occupant Density
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 2.64 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
Multifamily 2.07 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 5-Year American Community Survey, Tables B25024 and B25033; Willdan Financial Services.
6 3. Parks & Recreation Facilities
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new park and recreation facilities demanded by new development. This analysis documents two separate fees based on the Quimby Act and the Mitigation Fee Act. The City would collect the fee in-lieu of land dedication based on a standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents if the development was subject to the Quimby Act land dedication requirement. For subdivision development, the City collects both the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and the Park Acquisition and Development Impact Fee. For all other development (infill), the City collects only the Park Acquisition and Development Impact Fee. Fees for the improvement of parkland are calculated at the existing facility standard for all development. Under this approach, new development is required to fund parks at the same level as existing residents have provided those same types of facilities to date.
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory
The City of La Mesa maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the City. Table 3 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory. All facilities are located within the City limits.
The City has revised this inventory from the prior impact fee analysis based on the latest information available.
Table 3: Parkland Inventory
Developed
Acreage
Regional Parks
Harry Griffen Regional Park 53.00
Community Parks
MacArthur Park 22.22
Neighborhood Parks
Aztec Park 3.96
Jackson Park 3.68
Sunset Park 6.69
Briercrest 3.00
La Mesita Park/Junior Seau Sports Complex 12.85
Northmont Park 5.05
Highwood Park 8.00
Rolando Park 3.56
Sunshine Park 2.31
Vista La Mesa Park 2.74
Collier Park 7.70
Porter Park 0.83
Subtotal - Neighborhood Parks 60.37
Total - Developed Parkland 135.59
Source: City of La Mesa.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 7 Table 4 displays the City’s park building inventory. The estimates of buildings sizes and replacement costs were provided from the City’s most recent insurance valuation. The total replacement cost of these facilities is divided by the City’ existing park acreage to determine a building cost per acre assumption.
Table 4: Recreation Building Inventory
Description Address
Building
Square Feet
Replacement
Cost
Aztec Park Restrooms 7945 Morocco Dr. 560 $ 124,618
Briercrest Park Restrooms 9000 Wakarusa St. 834 159,791 City Hall 8130 Allison Ave. 14,998 3,178,948
City Hall Annex 1 8130 Allison Ave. 2,400 300,253
City Hall Annex 2 8130 Allison Ave. 960 126,079
Collier Park Restrooms 4401 Palm Ave. 1,288 124,731
Collier Park Storage Bldg. 4401 Palm Ave. 280 55,623
Community Center 4975 Memorial Dr. 11,631 2,323,027
Harry Griffen Regional Park Restrooms & Maintenance Facility 9550 Milden Street 1,152 176,645 Highwood Park Boys & Girls Club Facility 4200 Parks Ave. 3,840 455,661 Highwood Park Restrooms 4200 Parks Ave. 288 57,646
Jackson Park Restrooms 5870 Jackson Dr. 540 127,652
La Mesita Park/Junior Seau Sports Complex Restrooms 1 8855 Dallas St. 616 136,866 La Mesita Park/Junior Seau Sports Complex Restrooms 2 8855 Dallas St. 1,400 203,951 MacArthur Park Community Garden Building 5080 Memorial Dr. 1,152 166,215 MacArthur Park Restrooms 5080 Memorial Dr. 352 13,851
Nan Couts Cottage 5045 Memorial Dr. 2,220 382,733
Northmont Park Restrooms 6030 Severin Dr. 720 160,128
Pool Complex Building 5100 Memorial Dr. 11,653 1,414,065 Porter Hall Center 4910 Memorial Dr. 2,289 469,931
Recreation Center 4975 Memorial Dr. 7,380 1,210,788
Rolando Park Baseball Field Bldg. 1 6600 Vigo Dr. 234 46,072 Rolando Park Baseball Field Bldg. 2 6600 Vigo Dr. 288 30,453 Rolando Park Restrooms 6600 Vigo Dr. 528 14,382
Sunset Gymnasium 5540 Lake Pkwy. 5,200 844,348
Sunset Park Restrooms 5540 Lake Park Way 540 121,585
Sunshine Park Restrooms 4554 70th St. 672 152,374
Vista La Mesa Park Restrooms 3900 King St. 564 107,314
Total 74,579 $ 12,685,730
Developed Park Acres 135.59
Building Cost per Acre $ 93,559
Source: City of La Mesa.
City of La Mesa Park Facilities Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded parkland and park facilities. The most common measure in calculating new development’s demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act (using a city’s existing inventory of parkland and park facilities), or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.
1 In this case, the City will use the Mitigation Fee Act to impose park impact fees for land acquisition for development not occurring in subdivisions and will use the Quimby Act to 1 California Government Code §66477.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 8 require parkland dedication, or a fee in-lieu of dedication for development occurring in subdivisions.
Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not dictate use of a particular type or level of facility standard for development impact fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must not burden new development with any cost associated with facility deficiencies attributable to existing development.2 A simple and clearly defensible approach to calculating a facility standard is to use the City’s existing ratio of park acreage per 1,000 residents. Under this approach, new development is required to fund new parkland and park facilities at the same level as existing residents have provided those same types of facilities to date.
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to dedicate above the three-acre minimum if the jurisdiction’s existing park standard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).
The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction’s adopted general or specific plan standards.
The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on future approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and other multifamily development.
The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated.
The Quimby Act allows use of in-lieu fee revenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.
Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park improvements including recreation facilities, and rehabilitation of existing park and recreation facilities.
City of La Mesa Parkland and Park Facilities Standards
Table 5 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage per 1,000 residents based on the type of parkland. In total the City had an existing parkland standard of 2.22 acres per 1,000 residents as of the 2020 Census, which allows the City to assess at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents under the Quimby Act.
For development not subject to the Quimby Act, the fee analysis in this report will be based on maintaining a standard of 2.22 acres of park improvements per 1,000 residents as new development adds demand for parks in La Mesa.
2 See the Benefit and Burden findings in Chapter 5.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 9 Table 5: Park Facilities Level of Service Standards
Mitigation Fee
Act Standard1
Quimby Act
Standard2
Total - Improved Park Acreage 135.59 135.59
Service Population (Residents) 61,121 61,121
Level of Service Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 2.22 2.22 Policy Standard 3.00
1 Existing park standard.
Sources: Tables 1 and 3; Willdan Financial Services.
2 Park standard in 2020, as of the last Federal Census. Under the Quimby Act the City can require dedication or the payment of fees in-lieu of dedication at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents.
Parkland Unit Costs
Table 6 shows the estimated cost per acre for developing parkland, including land acquisition.
The land value assumption of $1.2 million per acre is based on an analysis of land sales comparisons since 2019 in La Mesa. The assumed cost of park improvements is based on a recent City CIP project and includes the typical improvements that the City would include in a standard park, but excludes special use facilities such as pools or recreation centers. Also included in the improvement cost assumption is the per-acre cost of vehicles, equipment, and park buildings.
In total it costs over $2 million to acquire and improve an acre of parkland in La Mesa.
Table 6: Parkland Unit Costs
Item
Cost
Per Acre
Land Acquisition1$1,191,000
Improvements
Park Buildings $ 93,559
Vehicles and Equipment 8,163
Standard Park Improvements2
750,000
Improvements Total $ 851,722
Total $2,042,722
1 Based on analysis of sales w ithin La Mesa in the last tw o years. 2 Based on assumed improvement cost of 1 acre park site.
Source: City of La Mesa; Tables 4 and A.1, Willdan Financial Services.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 10 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 7 shows the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the existing standard and park land acquisition at the Quimby standard, respectively. To achieve the standards by the planning horizon, new development must fund the acquisition of up to 16.13 parkland acres, and the improvement of 11.94 acres. Depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act, the cost total cost would range between $10.2 million and $29.4 million.
The fee revenue would be higher if all development occurred in subdivisions because then that development would fund land acquisition and park improvements. Infill development is only asked to fund park improvements under the Mitigation Fee Act. Since the exact amount of development that will be subject to the Quimby fees is unknown at this time, Table 7 presents the range of total facility costs that may be incurred depending on the amount of development occurring in subdivisions.
Table 7: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Calculation Parkland Improvements Total Range1
Parkland (charged under Quimby Act), Improvements (charged under Mitigation Fee Act) 2 Facility Standard (acres/1,000 residents) A 3.00 2.22
Resident Growth (2020-2035) B 5,378 5,378
Facility Needs (acres) C = (B / 1,000) x A 16.13 11.94
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 1,191,000 851,722
Total Cost of Parkland To Serve New Development E = C x D $ 19,210,830 $ 10,169,561 $ 29,380,391 Improvements - (charged under Mitigation Fee Act) 3
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 residents) F - 2.22
Resident Growth (2020-2035) G - 5,378
Facility Needs (acres) H = (G / 1,000) / F - 11.94
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ - 851,722
Total Cost of Parkland To Serve New Development I = H x D $ - $ 10,169,561 $ 10,169,561 Note: Totals rounded to the thousands.
Sources: Tables 1, 5 and 6.
2 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Quimby Act and pays the fee in-lieu of land dedication. The City can require the payment of the in-lieu fees for subdivisions containing less than 50 parcels. Subdivisions of 50 or more parcels can dedicate land, or pay a fee in lieu of land dedication. Parkland charged at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents; improvements charged at the existing standard.
3 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. Fee for park improvements is charged at the existing standard.
1 Values in this column show the range of the cost of parkland acquisition and development should all development be either subject to the Quimby Act, or to the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively.
Parks Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 8 shows the cost per capita of providing new park land acquisition and park facilities at the Quimby and Mitigation Fee Act standards, respectively. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of two fees:
• A Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication. This fee is payable by residential development occurring in subdivisions.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 11 • A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for parkland improvements. This fee is payable by all residential development. Development occurring in subdivisions pays this fee in addition to the Quimby fee in-lieu of land dedication.
Table 8: Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Improvements
Calculation Quimby Fee1Impact Fee2
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $ 1,191,000 $ 851,722
Existing Level of Service (acres per 1,000 residents) B 3.00 2.22 Total Cost Per 1,000 capita C = A x B $ 3,573,000 $ 1,890,800 Cost Per Resident D = C / 1,000 $ 3,573 $ 1,891
1 Fee in-lieu of land dedication applicable to subdivisions. 2 Mitigation Fee Act fee for park improvements applicable to all residential development.
Sources: Tables 6 and 7; Willdan Financial Services.
Land
Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use park facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park and recreation facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development.
Fee revenue collected under the Quimby Act can also be used to rehabilitate park facilities, in addition to acquiring new parkland.
Fee Schedules
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per resident basis for both land acquisition and improvements. These cost factors (shown in Table 8) are based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards.
Table 9 and Table 10 show the park facilities fee based on the minimum Quimby standard and the existing standard facility, respectively. The City would collect the fee based on only one of the two approaches as appropriate. The Quimby fee in-lieu of land dedication is applicable to development occurring in subdivisions at the Quimby standard. The park improvement fee charged under the Mitigation Fee Act is applicable to all residential development and is based on the City’s existing standard. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per dwelling unit.
The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 12 Table 9: Park Impact Fee Schedule – Quimby (Subdivisions) A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D
Cost Per Base Admin
Land Use Capita Density Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Single Family $ 3,573 2.64 $ 9,433 $ 189 $ 9,622
Multifamily 3,573 2.07 7,396 148 7,544
1 Persons per dw elling unit.
Sources: Tables 2 and 8; Willdan Financial Services.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Table 10: Park Impact Fee Schedule - Mitigation Fee Act (All Development)
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D
Cost Per Base Admin
Land Use Capita Density Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Single Family $ 1,891 2.64 $ 4,992 $ 100 $ 5,092
Multifamily 1,891 2.07 3,914 78 3,992
1 Persons per dw elling unit.
Sources: Tables 2 and 8; Willdan Financial Services.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
13 4. AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among other changes, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code, which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Three key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.
Compliance with AB 602
The following sections describe this study’s compliance with the new requirements of AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service
Since the park impact fees are calculated under the existing standard methodology, the resulting fees ensure that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service and do not fund a level of service that is higher than currently exists. The existing level service in terms of acres per 1,000 residents is calculated in Table 5.
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions
Table 11 reviews the key assumptions from the 2005 study and compares them to the assumptions used in this 2022 fee study. While the City’s parkland standard has decreased overtime, the cost to acquire and improve parkland has increased significantly, which has subsequently increased the resulting maximum justified park impact fees.
Table 11: Review of 2005 Study Assumptions
2005 Study 2022 Study
Existing Facility Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 2.41 2.22 Cost per Acre Land Acquisition $ 500,750 $ 1,191,000
Park Improvements $ 250,000 $ 851,722
Residents per Single Family Unit 2.53 2.64
Residents per Multifamily Unit 1.84 2.07
Sources: Park Facilities Fee Study, City of La Mesa, 2005; Tables 2, 5, and 6, Willdan Financial Services.
Table 12 displays annual park impact fee revenue collected between 2010 and 2020. The table also displays the average annual revenue during this time period.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 14 Table 12: Annual Park Impact
Fee Revenue
Year Fee Revenue
2010 $ 1,559
2011 3,118
2012 1,559
2013 6,236
2014 148,983
2015 269,206
2016 114,015
2017 14,465
2018 58,645
2019 238,859
2020 274,037
2021 1,559
2022 83,777
Total (2010 - 2022) $ 1,216,018
Annual Average $ 93,540
Source: City of La Mesa.
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised shown below in Table 13.
Planned facilities identified in this document are sourced from the City’s current adopted CIP.
Projects that are rehabbing or retrofitting existing facilities have been excluded from this list. Note that the projects shown in the CIP are not intended to be fully funded with park impact fee revenue; rather, they are capacity expanding projects that are eligible for park impact fee revenue. The exact amount of park impact fee revenue programmed to a given project will be determined annually though the City’s capital planning process.
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 15 Table 13: FY 2022 Parks Capital Improvement Plan
Account
Number Description
Reappropriation
Total
306042PF Waite Dr Park Design $ 19,740
306124PF Trail Fitness Equipment at La Mesita Park 15,000 306153PF La Mesita Park Improvements 31,380
306162PF Collier and Vista La Mesa Park Improvements 16 2,320 306171PF Collier Park Improvements 46,260
306181PF Collier and Vista La Mesa Park Improvements 18 6,560 306182PF MacArthur Park Improvements 18 4,820
306190CD Collier Park Improvements 19 122,350
306191PF Collier and MacArthur Park Improvements 125,530 306200CD Collier Park Phase II 20 375,130
306200PF Collier Park Phase II 20 337,870
306202GF MacArthur Park Master Plan 17,860
306210CD Collier Park Improvements 21 419,680
306210PF Collier Park Improvements 21 285,680
306220OT Prop 68 Per Capita - Collier Park Improvements 215,400 306221CD Collier Park Improvements 22 327,690
306222PF Collier Park Improvements 22 1,560
306223OT MacArthur Park EIR (SB 129 Sec 19.55) 150,000
306226OT Waite Drive Park Master Plan (SB 129 Sec 19.55) 100,000 306227OT Collier Park Phase II (SB 129 Sec 19.55) 230,000 306224GF Highwood Park Improvements 100,000
306225GF MacArthur Park Dog Park 25,000
Total $ 2,959,830
Source: La Mesa FY2022 Capital Improvement Program.
16 5. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council follow certain procedures including holding a public meeting. A fourteen-day mailed public notice is required for those registering for such notification. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public meeting. Legal counsel should inform the City of any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect; this procedure must also be followed for fee increases.
Fee Implementation
The City may consider different options to implement the maximum justified Quimby Fee and Mitigation Fee outlined in Table 9 and Table 10 that are based on the minimum Quimby standard and the City’s existing standard for park improvements. The recommended fees can be adopted by the La Mesa City Council via resolution at a Council meeting determined by the City. With both park facilities fees not having been updated since their adoption in 2005, a phased-in implementation is also an option. Table 14 shows what this implementation would look like over a five-year timeframe.
Table 14: Five-Year Phase in Fee Schedule
Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee
Single Family $ 3,882 $ 5,030 $ 6,178 $ 7,326 $ 8,474 $ 9,622 Multifamily 2,815 3,761 4,707 5,652 6,598 7,544
Park Improvement Impact Fee
Single Family $ 1,559 $ 2,266 $ 2,972 $ 3,679 $ 4,385 $ 5,092 Multifamily 1,130 1,702 2,275 2,847 3,420 3,992
Sources: City of La Mesa; Willdan Financial Services.
The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation annually at the conclusion of year five. Such adjustments will ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend the California Construction Cost Index (https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-DivisionResources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI) be used for adjusting fees for inflation. The California Construction Cost Index is based on data from the Engineering News Record and is aggregated and made available for free by the State of California. The fee amounts can be adjusted based on the change in the index compared to the index in the base year of this study (2020).
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 17 significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. Note that decreases in index value will result in decreases to fee amounts.
Fee Accounting
The City should deposit fee revenues into separate restricted fee accounts for each of the fee categories identified in this report. Fees collected for a given facility category should only be expended on new park facilities of that same category.
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City should commit all projected fee revenues and fund balances to specific projects in its Capital Improvements Program. These should represent the types of facilities needed to serve growth and described in this report. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues. The CIP also provides the documentation necessary for the City to hold funds in a project account for longer than five years if necessary to collect sufficient monies to complete a project.
The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City’s facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly.
18 6. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Fees are assessed and typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on new development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties).
To guide the imposition of facilities fees, the California State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code §§66000 – 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fees. The Act requires local agencies to document five statutory findings when adopting fees.
The five findings in the Act required for adoption of the maximum justified fees documented in this report are: 1) Purpose of fee, 2) Use of fee Revenues, 3) Benefit Relationship, 4) Burden Relationship, and 5) Proportionality. These required findings are each discussed below and are supported throughout this report.
Purpose of Fee
• Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).
We understand that it is the policy of the City that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to implement this policy by providing a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide capital facilities to new development.
Use of Fee Revenues
• Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).
Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City. Fees addressed in this report will be used to fund park and recreation facilities.
Descriptions of the planned facilities such as the total acreage and costs needed to maintain existing facility standards are included in Chapter 3 of this report. More thorough descriptions of certain planned facilities, including their specific location, if known at this time, are included in master plans, capital improvement plans, or other City planning documents or are available from City staff. The City may change the list of planned facilities to meet changing needs and circumstances of new development, as it deems necessary. The fees should be updated if these amendments result in a significant change in the fair share cost allocated to new development.
Planned facilities to be funded by the fees are described in the City of La Mesa Park Facilities Standards, or the Facility Needed to Accommodate New Development sections in Chapter 3 of this report.
Benefit Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act).
City of La Mesa Park Development Impact Fee Update Study 19 We expect the City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, and vehicles used to serve new development as described above under the “Use of Fee Revenues” finding. The City will keep fees in segregated accounts. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development paying the fees.
Burden Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).
Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For park facilities, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. The demand for parks facilities is based on residential population.
The standards used to identify facility needs are also used to determine if the planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the share of facilities associated with serving the existing service population.
Chapter 2, Land Use Assumptions, provides a description of how service population and growth projections are calculated. Facility standards are described in the City of La Mesa Park Facilities Standards section of Chapter 3.
Proportionality
• Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).
The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated service population that will be generated by the project. Fees for a specific project are based on the project’s number of dwelling units, by unit type. New development projects with greater numbers of units can result in a higher service population, resulting in higher fee revenue than projects with fewer units. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.
See Chapter 2, Land Use Assumptions for a description of how facility demand factors are determined for residential uses. See the Fee Schedule section of Chapter 3 for a presentation of the maximum justified facilities fees.
20 Appendix
Appendix Table A.1: Park Vehicles and Special Equipment Inventory Div Unit Make Model Year Cost
3108 342 VERMEER 1250 CHIPPER 1993 $ 19,770
3108 340 FREIGHTLINER TREE TRUCK 2014 121,650
3108 343 VERMEER BC1000XL BRUSH CHIPPER 2015 36,301
5150 556 TUCHE 300 GAL. TANK 1989 8,831
5150 308 HYDATEK PRESSURE WASHER - 18HP 1990 7,646
5150 595 DITCH WITCH TRAILER 2001 7,746
5150 520 FORD F150 2001 22,140
5150 519 CHEVROLET 1500 2001 18,034
5150 514 GMC SIERRA 1500 2004 15,231
5150 510 GMC SERRIA 1500 2004 15,231
5150 517 GMC SIERRA 1500-FF 2007 24,367
5150 503 CHEVROLET PK 2008 19,751
5150 504 CHEVROLET PK 2008 19,751
5150 502 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 1500 2008 18,733
5150 505 CHEVROLET PK 2008 19,751
5150 501 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 1500 2008 18,733
5150 541 CHEVROLET DUMP TRUCK 2009 39,849
5150 507 FORD F150 2011 20,172
5150 537 FREIGHTLINER M2106 DUMP BODY 2014 97,456
5150 512 FORD F-350 XL STANDARD CAB UTILITY 2015 40,770 5150 338 PETERBILT 367 DUMP 2016 165,030
5150 508 FORD F-350 2017 48,383
5150 509 FORD F-250 2017 29,183
5150 592 PJ MOWER TRAILER 2017 4,389
5150 593 PJ T6182 TRAILER 2019 7,968
5150 500 FORD F-150 CREW CAB 2020 28,748
5150 515 FORD F-150 REGULAR CAB 2020 29,656
5152 511 GMC SIERRA 1500 2004 15,231
5153 356 HOTSY WATER PRESSURE WASHER 2016 17,059
5150 561 TORO GROUND PRO 2000 2001 13,840
5150 162 DITCH WITCH DWIT2528 1030H 2001 7,746
5150 558 OLATH LAWN SWEEPER 1986 12,879
5150 553 MATE R MATIC TOPDRESSER 1997 7,088
5150 HYDROTEK PR3005 1990 7,646
5150 JOHN DEERE 210LJ 2008 78,968
5150 558 TORO GROUNDSMASTER 3280D 2015 25,323
5150 561 JOHN DEERE TE GATOR 2018 15,707
Total $1,106,760
Developed Park Acres 135.59
Vehicles and Equipment Cost per Acre. $ 8,163
Source: City of La Mesa.
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA REVISING
THE QUIMBY ACT PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE AND PARK
ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEE BASED ON THE FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY (2022 STUDY)
WHEREAS, the City imposes the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee under the authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act;
WHEREAS, the purpose of these fees is to ensure that new development pays its fair share of capital costs related to park development and improvements; WHEREAS, Section 9.20.030 of the La Mesa Municipal Code outlines the use of Park In-Lieu and Park Impact Fees;
WHEREAS, at the April 27, 2021, City Council meeting, the City Council authorized City staff to proceed with a study of both fees to determine if a revision to the fees is necessary;
WHEREAS, the City solicited bids from qualified consultants and selected Willdan Financial Services to perform the study;
WHEREAS, the study completed by Willdan justifies and warrants an increase to both fees that is phased in over a five-year timeframe to be adjusted annually thereafter using the California Construction Cost Index;
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby accept and approve the findings and conclusions of the Park Development Impact Fee Update Study (2022 Study); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Mesa did hold a public hearing on April 26, 2022 to consider revising the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of La Mesa hereby finds the following:
1. The foregoing findings of fact and determinations are true and hereby made a part hereof.
2. The City Council resolves to revise the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Park Acquisition and Improvement Impact Fee based on the recommendation of the 2022 Study, which is hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein; the 2022 Study, as of the effective date of this Resolution, shall be kept on file of the Office of the City Clerk.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 26
th day of April 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2022- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(Seal of the City)
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: April 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 ISSUING DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUMMARY:
Issue:
Should the City Council adopt a Resolution for an updated Fee Schedule for various City departments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023?
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution for an updated Fee Schedule for various City departments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
Fiscal Impact:
Revenue from user fees varies depending on the level of activity. This revenue is used to offset costs associated with providing specific fee-based services (e.g. a building permit or swimming lessons) that benefit specific individuals rather than the community at large. Updates to the Fee Schedule are set by City Council Cost Recovery Policy.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Maintain a financially sound and affordable city government.
BACKGROUND:
The City of La Mesa first conducted a Cost Allocation and User Fee Study in Fiscal Year 2003-2004 in an attempt to quantify the actual cost of providing certain services. Unlike general municipal services, user fees are for individuals and businesses that receive the direct benefit of a service and pay either a share or the full cost of providing that service.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
April 26, 2022
The scope of the study includes both a User Fee Study and a Cost Allocation Plan. In the study, fees are calculated by multiplying per-unit staff time estimates by hourly labor rates.
Operating expenses directly associated with specific services and the time support departments contribute for certain user fee activities is added into the analysis. The study adds the cost of support services (i.e., overhead costs) such as payroll, purchasing, custodial, and utility costs and uses a 3-year average of past revenue collected to calculate fees.
In 2004 the City Council adopted: 1) a Cost Recovery Policy; 2) Exceptions to the Cost Recovery Policy; 3) an Annual Update Process; and 4) the FY 2004-2005 List of Fees based on the findings in the 2004 User Fee Study. The City Council-adopted Annual Update Process calls for fees to be updated every year as part of the City budget process. A formal update of the City’s User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan is typically conducted in the even-numbered years (such as this one), with fees being adjusted based on the study results. In the odd-numbered years, fees are updated by the percent change in each relevant department or division budget (total budget or personnel budget only depending on how fee related costs are budgeted).
It should be noted that only General Fund and specific Wastewater program services provided to individual users directly funded by user fees were subject to review. Business License Fees are not part of the study as changes require voter approval. In addition, Parking Meter and Permit Rates, Park Development Impact Fees, and Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (“RTCIP”) Development Impact Fees are not included in the analysis. Parking Meter and Permit Rates were last adjusted in 2006; however, a review of parking program operations and revenues is an active item on the Parking Commission’s work plan in Fiscal Year 2022-2023. Sewer Connection Fees have been analyzed separately and are discussed later in this staff report. The RTCIP Development Impact Fee is a pass-through fee adopted by SANDAG that is included in a separate staff report for City Council’s consideration.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Fee Schedule is being presented for consideration by the City Council for adoption with the upcoming budget effective July 1, 2022. The List of Fees provided in Section 5 of Attachment B includes the proposed fees for FY 2022-2023 based on the analysis conducted by the financial consultant. The study adjusted fees (both up and down) based on changes to personnel, time allocations, resource costs, and changes in department functions and procedures since the last fee study. The following section of the report summarizes new fees, deleted fees, or other significant changes to the List of Fees (Attachment B).
The Fee Schedule contains six sections:
1. Resolution adopting the Fee Schedule
2. Cost Recovery Policy
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
April 26, 2022
3. Exceptions to the Cost Recovery Policy
4. Annual Update Process
5. List of Fees
6. Building Valuation Schedule
The List of Fees contained in the Fee Schedule provides a side-by-side comparison of the fees for FY 2021-2022 and the proposed fees for FY 2022-2023. For public noticing, the List of Fees was sent to representatives at the Building Industry Association of San Diego (BIA) and the San Diego Taxpayers Association. As of the completion of this report, staff has responded to questions from the BIA regarding the City’s annual update process (for user fees) and the Council meeting date that the Fee Schedule will be presented. The San Diego Taxpayers Association has not responded to the public notice.
Community Development – Building
The Building Valuation Schedule in Section 6 of the Fee Schedule is used to determine the building valuation for new construction, miscellaneous building projects, as well as alterations and additions to existing uses. This Schedule is used to calculate building fees which are related to estimated costs of construction. The Building Valuation Schedule in the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Fee Schedule is the current and most up-to-date schedule provided by the International Code Council (“ICC”), therefore no adjustments have been made.
The methodology to determine building permit and inspection fees compares revenues to costs and sets fees at the appropriate level to meet the goal of 100% cost recovery.
Because economic and development cycles can fluctuate greatly in short periods of time, the methodology uses a three-year average of revenues and costs to ensure fees do not change greatly, up or down, in response. At times, using the three-year average does not adequately mitigate large changes in fees, which occurred in this fee study cycle. To ensure that fee increases are reasonable and not burdensome to development, staff recommends that increases to building permit and inspection fees be capped at 10%.
Staff recommends adding an exception to the Cost Recovery Policy for the Building Fee Schedule to waive the first $2,000 of incurred City costs for accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) building permit applications to support ADU and JADU development. Staff believes this change will encourage residents to pursue ADU or JADU development and assist the City in meeting local and statewide housing goals.
Providing an incentive for ADU and JADU development is consistent with past Council action and direction regarding ADU regulations. Furthermore, the Housing Element of the General Plan includes a required program to incentivize such development.
No new building fees are proposed and no existing fees are being removed.
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
April 26, 2022
Community Development – Planning
The Community Development Department completed a minor reorganization in 2021 to better serve the community and meet the challenges presented to the department. The reorganization included reclassifying a senior planner position to a higher-level management position of Assistant Director of Community Development. The higher compensation level of the Assistant Director resulted in increased costs, and therefore increased fees. To mitigate the fee changes, staff suggest that any increase to planning fees be capped at 10%, with the exception of cannabis-related activities. It is recommended that cannabis fees be increased by the amount suggested in the fee study.
The environmental filing fees for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects on page 5-7 are being removed due to these fees being set by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. These fees are already included in the department’s list of fees provided to applicants for development projects involving CEQA compliance.
No new planning fees are proposed and no other existing fees are being removed.
Public Works – Engineering
A new Hydrology/Hydraulics/Drainage Report Review Fee is proposed on page 5-9 to account for staff time needed to review hydrology reports similar to the established Soil/Geotech Report Review Fee. No other new fees are proposed and no existing fees are being removed.
Public Works - Sewer Connection Fees
Sewer connection fees are one-time fees paid at the time of connection to the City’s sewer system and represent the reasonable cost of providing system capacity to new development connecting to existing facilities.
Collection of sewer connection fees is authorized in Municipal Code Section 17.04.03.
Connection fees are assessed on all new development and significant redevelopment where existing buildings are being replaced or where no sewer connection fee had been previously paid. The fee is calculated using the replacement value of the sewer collection system divided by the total number of sewer connections or equivalent dwelling units (EDUs). The replacement value is updated each year based on the annual change in the Construction Cost Index (CCI).
The proposed Sewer Connection Fee on page 5-10 was computed using the current replacement value of the sewer collection system ($175,961,491) divided by the number of connections (29,894). The resulting sewer connection fee is $5,886 per equivalent dwelling unit or $294 per plumbing fixture whichever is greater. The proposed fee increase is due to the increase in the sewer replacement value caused by the annual change in the Construction Cost Index (CCI). Connection fee revenue is used to fund sewer capital
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
April 26, 2022
improvements.
Community Services
Cost recovery objectives for Community Services programs and activities vary based on fee categories and market rate comparisons. The Department’s goal is to establish fees that keep its programs and services competitive in the local market while recovering 60 percent of the City’s cost per City Council policy. The City remains committed to providing critical programs at an affordable rate for youth and senior customers while charging a more equitable fee for programs where individuals receive the direct benefit of a service.
Fees for programs in the Community Services Department are set by the City and are not calculated by the User Fee Study. The User Fee Study analyses the department’s fees and determines how much of the City’s costs are recovered at current fee levels. Results of the User Fee Study indicate that, at proposed fee levels, the Department would recover 39 percent of its costs through user fee revenues in FY 2022-2023; however, based on volume of participation the total program revenue may increase or decrease. The City’s cost recovery policy calls for the Department to recover 60 percent of its costs through user fee revenue. Services and programs were significantly impacted during the pandemic which contributed to reduced cost recovery. A goal in FY 2022-2023 is to increase user participation by making minor modifications to fees such as adding hourly rental options for facilities to encourage usage and meet the City’s cost recovery policy while providing facilities and programs at an affordable level. Edits to the Community Services Department fees are as follows: