Agenda Item # 6.B.
event will occur at the Ioki Property over Labor Day weekend, with additional setup and breakdown dates.
• Setup: Friday, August 23 to Wednesday, August 28, 2024 • Event: Thursday, August 29 to Monday, September 2, 2024 • Breakdown: Tuesday, September 3 to Thursday, September 5, 2024 Event parking will occur at Malibu City Hall from Friday, August 30, through Monday, September 2. BGCM will be responsible for monitoring the lot and providing attendants.
This year, BGCM requested the Heathercliff Property to temporarily store empty carnival trailers. In previous years, these vehicles were parked on the North side of the Ioki property. Removing them from the Ioki property allows BGCM to have additional event space. BGCM will use the Heathercliff property from August 23 to September 5. Access to the property will be no more than twice a day and will not be used as general parking.
Staff analyzed and adjusted the fees associated with the BGCM rental to reflect 24-hour use. Previous billing varied from nine to twelve hours based on set-up, tear-down, and event hours. BGCM occupies the properties all day and night for fourteen days, which restricts the City and other organizations from using them during that time.
BGCM has requested that the City waive 100% of the facility use and staffing fees associated with the event.
Type Non-Profit Rate
Ioki Property $29,708
City Hall Parking Lot $8,120
Heathercliff Property* $29,708
Application and Staffing $1,228
Lot Clearance (weed removal) $5,000
Total $73,764
*New facility use request
Since 2019, Council has approved BGCM’s fee waiver request. In 2023, the approved fee waiver was $26,298.
All other fees associated with the event, including permit fees and a facility deposit, will be paid by BGCM and are not a part of the request.
ATTACHMENTS: BGCM Financial Statement
Boys & Girls Club of Malibu
January - December 2023
Total
Income
4000 Contributed Income
4010 Business Gifts 20,000.00 €
4020 Community Gifts 35,318.06 €
4030 Major Gifts 100,257.48 €
4050 Grants 804,317.01 €
4056 Social Entrepreneur Grant 57,230.64 €
4057 Malibu Public School Grant 151,015.20
4060 Board Leadership 11,889.00 €
4080 Events
4085 Malibu Marathon 84,690.14 €
4095 MCCO - Chili Cook Off 1,464,732.66 €
Total 4080 Events $ 1,549,422.80 €
Total 4000 Contributed Income $ 2,729,450.19 €
5200 Program Revenue
5180 Program Service Fee 2,500.29 €
5190 Youth Pass-Thru Scholarships 3,500.00 €
5210 Membership Dues - Teen Center 13,140.00 €
5211 Membership Dues- Malibu Elem 143,661.82 €
5213 Membership Dues - Webster 121,392.95 €
5215 Summer Membership Dues 48,949.34 €
5233 SMMUSD Contract Services 49,150.00 €
Total 5233 SMMUSD Contract Services $ 49,150.00 €
Total 5200 Program Revenue $ 382,294.40 €
Total Income $ 3,111,744.59 €
Gross Profit $ 3,111,744.59 €
Expenses
7200 Salaries & Related Expenses
7220 Salaries & Wages 1,269,261.11 €
7230 Pension Expense 58,075.76 €
7231 Pension Admin Fees Expense 857.50 €
Total 7230 Pension Expense $ 58,933.26 €
7241 Health & Dental Insurance 108,619.68 €
7250 Payroll Taxes 132,647.14 €
8521 Insurance - Workers Comp 63,217.92 €
Total 7200 Salaries & Related Expenses $ 1,632,679.11 € 7500 Contract Services 420.00 €
7510 Accounting 9,538.45 €
Attachment 1
7520 Audit Fees 18,300.00 €
7540 Professional & Technology 30,709.30 €
7541 Web Hosting & Maintenance 1,082.71 €
Total 7500 Contract Services $ 60,050.46 €
8100 Non-Personnel Expenses
8110 Supplies 5,075.74 €
8130 Telephone & Telecommunications 11,309.45 €
8140 Postage, Shipping, Delivery 4,609.72 €
8151 Van Expenses 214.00 €
8160 Program Supplies&Meals-TeenCtr 8,191.72 €
Total 8160 Program Supplies&Meals-TeenCtr $ 8,191.72 €
8161 Program Supplies-Malibu Elem 1,499.95 €
Equipment & Furniture 171.37 €
Total 8161 Program Supplies-Malibu Elem $ 1,671.32 €
8163 Program Supplies&Meals-Webster 4,797.16 €
Total 8163 Program Supplies&Meals-Webster $ 4,797.16 €
8166 Summer Program Expenses 2,939.62 €
Total 8166 Summer Program Expenses $ 2,939.62 €
8170 Printing & Copying 3,067.38 €
8171 Social Entrepreneur Grant 51,749.88 €
8172 Malibu Public School Grant 118,846.35 €
Total 8100 Non-Personnel Expenses $ 212,472.34 €
8200 Facility & Equipment Expenses
8220 Utilities & Janitorial 1,320.00 €
8240 Building Maintenance 5,134.58 €
Total 8200 Facility & Equipment Expenses $ 6,454.58 €
8300 Travel & Meeting Expenses 73.44 €
8310 Travel 10,054.34 €
8320 Conferences & Meetings 678.71 €
8330 Meals 5,832.84 €
8340 Board Related Expenses 4,446.09 €
Total 8300 Travel & Meeting Expenses $ 21,085.42 €
8500 Other Expenses
8520 Insurance - Other 27,708.91 €
8525 Dues & subscriptions 3,181.58 €
8530 Membership Dues - BGCA 18,458.00 €
8532 Licenses and Permits 317.00 €
8540 Staff Development 14,661.17 €
8560 Youth Scholarships Awarded 5,093.00 €
8591 Bank Charges & C.C. Fees 12,377.04 €
Total 8500 Other Expenses $ 81,796.70 €
Attachment 1
8600 Marketing & Advertising 83,059.78 €
8700 Fundraising Expense 1,330.00 €
8711 Community Gifts 1,298.25 €
8712 Major Gifts 8,878.62 €
8719 CCO - Chili Cook Off 809,764.30 €
8720 Malibu Marathon 2,594.38 €
Total 8700 Fundraising Expense $ 823,865.55 €
Total Expenses $ 2,921,463.94 €
Net Operating Income $ 190,280.65 €
Other Expenses
8571 Short-term Pass-thru -50,000.00 €
Total Other Expenses -$ 50,000.00 €
Net Other Income -$ 50,000.00 €
Net Income $ 140,280.65 €
Friday, Mar 22, 2024 12:38:49 PM GMT-7 - Cash Basis
Attachment 1
Agenda Item # 6.C.
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Rob DuBoux, Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: July 5, 2024 Meeting date: August 12, 2024 Subject: Civic Center Water Treatment Facility Phase 2 Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive an update on the Civic Center Water Treatment Facility (CCWTF) Phase 2 project.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project's design and engineering was included in previous fiscal years through a funding agreement with HRL Laboratories. The HRL agreement is fully encumbered. However, additional costs may be necessary to modify the design based on the revised Septic Prohibition Map. Staff will bring a funding recommendation to Council after the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board is approved and executed by all parties.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item supports the CCWTF Phase 2 priority identified in the Adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Priority Project List. Staff continue to work on ongoing projects and normal business while the FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Plan is finalized.
DISCUSSION: On November 5, 2009, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approved a resolution prohibiting the use of septic systems in the Malibu Civic Center Area. On September 21, 2010, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) approved the action taken by the RWQCB, thereby amending the State Basin Plan that included the septic prohibition. The State Basin Plan established certain dates by which properties in the Civic Center area were required to cease discharge and provided for a municipally owned wastewater treatment facility to be constructed. All properties within the Civic Center area were to be connected to the wastewater treatment facility.
On June 27, 2011, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the City, the RWQCB and SWRCD regarding the implementation of the Basin Plan City Council Meeting
08-12-24
Item
6.C.
Agenda Item # 6.C.
Amendment for the Civic Center Area Prohibition. The MOU created three separate implementation phases with specific deadlines.
MOU Amendment No. 1
The MOU was amended in December 2014 to extend certain dates, specifically for the implementation of Phase 1. Under the amended MOU, properties in Phase 1 of the Prohibition Area (primarily the commercial core of the Civic Center area) were required to connect to a centralized wastewater treatment facility by June 2017. Phase 2 properties (primarily residential) were required to connect to the centralized wastewater treatment facility by November 2022. The MOU includes a third phase that may be implemented but depends on the outcome of the first 2 phases.
MOU Amendment No. 2
During the design phase of Phase 1, it was discovered that specific dates included in the MOU required another modification to align with the project’s state funding. On January 11, 2017, the MOU was amended a second time with the following changes:
• Phase 1:
o Changed completion date from June 30, 2017, to September 30, 2018 • Phase 2:
o Changed completion date from November 5, 2022, to November 5, 2024 o Required that the City and the RWQCB meet by January 30, 2019, to review the schedule outlined for Phase 2
o Extended the deadlines for all milestones in Phase 2 by 2 years • Phase3:
o If Phase3 is necessary, extended the deadline for the completion of Phase3 by three years from 2025 to 2028
• Water Sampling:
o Required the City to conduct water quality monitoring, including baseline monitoring in both the wet season and dry season prior to startup of Phase 1 and semi-annually thereafter
o Required the City to submit a water monitoring and reporting program for water quality in the Malibu Lagoon and the ocean adjacent to Malibu Road by May 5, 2017
o Required the City to conduct water monitoring and reporting program for water quality in the Malibu Lagoon and the ocean adjacent to Malibu Road by November 5, 2017, or earlier if funding became available • Enforcement:
o Extended the date for the RWQCB to enforce all State policies, plans or regulations if an assessment district is not approved for Phase 2 from November 5, 2019, to November 5, 2021
All other terms and conditions of the MOU approved in 2011 and revised in 2014 remained the same.
Agenda Item # 6.C.
MOU Amendment No. 3
On November 22, 2021, the Council approved the third revision to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City, the RWQCB and SWRCD regarding the implementation of the Basin Plan Amendment for the Civic Center Area Prohibition. This amendment revised the deadline to form CCWTF Phase 2’s proposed assessment district from November 5, 2021, to June 30, 2022. All other terms and conditions remain the same.
The current MOU (including all amendments) stipulates that all the properties within the Phase 2 boundary shall be connected to the CCWTF by November 5, 2024. The MOU includes a third phase that may be implemented but depends on the first 2 phases. If there are reductions in bacteria and nitrogen in the Malibu Lagoon to the levels indicated in the MOU, then properties located Phase 3 could be excluded in the prohibition. Phase 3 has an implementation deadline of November 5, 2028.
CCWTF Phase 1
Phase 1's design was completed in June 2015 and construction was finished in September 2018. All Phase 1 properties were connected to the CCWTF before the MOU deadline of September 30, 2018. Phase 1 included the construction of the new CCWTF wastewater treatment facility and 32,000 linear feet of wastewater and recycled water lines. Phase 1 also included the construction of 2 wastewater pump stations, Bluffs Park, and Legacy Park and 2 injection wells on Malibu Road.
The wastewater treatment process at the CCWTF includes a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) system to process the wastewater. An MBR system treatment process includes a reduced footprint compared to conventional wastewater treatment systems and produces exceptional water quality capable of meeting the Regional Board’s stringent water quality requirements. The system allows for ease of expansion and configuration flexibility and reliable operation. The treatment process also includes an Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system that allows the treated wastewater to be used as recycled water. The treated and disinfected wastewater is then sent to the recycled water distribution system where the property owners within the prohibition zones can use the recycled water for irrigation.
Treated wastewater not used is sent to the injection wells on Malibu Road.
CCWTF Phase 2 Design
Shortly after the completion of the CCWTF Phase 1, the City started the design process of Phase 2. On April 8, 2019, the City entered into an agreement with HRL to provide funding for the design and engineering assessment of the CCWTF Phase 2. The agreement provides for HRL to fund the project design and the development of an assessment district and then be reimbursed after an assessment district for Phase 2 is formed and bonds are issued. If formation of an assessment district for Phase 2 is not successful, the agreement provides that HRL will have the opportunity to form its own
Agenda Item # 6.C.
assessment district and either apply the funds provided as a credit or be reimbursed by the City for costs incurred on the design for the entire Phase 2 project.
On August 12, 2019, Council approved a professional services agreement with Woodard and Curran (W&C) for the engineering design of the CCWTF Phase 2. W&C has been designing the Civic Center Water Treatment Facility upgrades necessary to accommodate the additional wastewater flow from the properties in Phase 2. These improvements include expanding the existing bioreactor structure, installing new membrane and disinfection units, and additional mechanical and electrical equipment to support the additional wastewater flow. W&C has also been designing the wastewater collection and recycled water system expansion. The current wastewater collection and recycled water lines will be extended to a portion of the Serra neighborhood, Malibu Colony, condominiums on Civic Center Way and to HRL Laboratories. The design of these systems is complete.
CCWTF Phase 2 Environmental Impact Report
On January 12, 2015, the Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which provided a project-level analysis of Phase 1. The EIR provided a programmatic-level analysis of Phases 2 and 3. A project-level CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) analysis of Phase 2 was completed and an addendum to the certified CEQA document was created. On February 1, 2021, the Planning Commission approved the addendum.
Since it has yet to be determined whether Phase3 will be required, no consideration was given to additional CEQA documentation for that phase. If Phase 3 is required, an additional CEQA analysis will be conducted.
CCWTF Phase 2 Funding
In December 2020, the City submitted a project application to the State Water Board for financial assistance under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (CWSRF). On May 3, 2021, the City was notified that the CCWTF Phase 2 was included on the State Water Board’s funding list under the CWSRF program.
The CWSRF provides agencies with low interest rate loans for wastewater projects. The CWSRF program has financing terms up to 30 years, no funding limits and the repayment begins one year after the completion of construction. The City used this financial assistance for Phase 1 and other State grants to finance the project.
Shortly after the City was notified that the CCWTF Phase 2 project was eligible for the CWSRF funding, the State Water Board began the project environmental review. The State Water Board reviewed the City’s EIR documents and a Historic Properties Identification Report (HPIR). During this review, the State Water Board determined that additional cultural resources soil investigations were needed within the project limits. In July 2022, the City discovered additional cultural resources along the proposed wastewater alignment in the Serra Retreat neighborhood.
Agenda Item # 6.C.
Modification of Phase 2
The cultural resource discovery in the Serra Retreat neighborhood resulted in a substantial delay in the Phase 2 design and implementation. Staff conducted several meetings with the Regional Board about the proposed wastewater collection system and recycled water system alignment and installation. Based upon the cultural resource findings located in the Serra Retreat neighborhood and the need to protect those resources, the City and the Regional Board agreed that the project cannot proceed as designed with the installation of a new pipeline within the Serra Retreat neighborhood.
Therefore, the Regional Board agreed to modify Phase 2.
The following are the proposed revisions to CCWTF Phase 2:
• Serra Retreat Neighborhood (see Revised Septic Prohibition Map) is to be removed from Phase 2 and will be included in Phase 3.
• Properties within the Serra Retreat Neighborhood will be required to upgrade their onsite wastewater systems rather than connecting into the CCWTF. • Properties along Malibu Road that were included in Phase 3 will be moved into Phase 2.
The proposed revisions do not increase the amount of wastewater flow for Phase 2 significantly.
MOU Amendment No. 4
Based upon the proposed revisions to Phase 2, the current MOU will modify the following deadlines:
• February 12, 2025 – Amendment No. 4 approval by both the Regional Board and the City.
• March 10, 2026 - Complete the redesign of Phase 2, addendum to the EIR and amendment to the project’s CDP (Coastal Development Permit). • May 29, 2026 – Receive construction bids.
• October 1, 2026 – Formation of Phase 2 assessment district. • March 2, 2027 – SRF Funding Agreement execution and beginning of construction. • July 24, 2028 – Completion of construction
• February 1, 2029 – Private wastewater laterals must connect to CCWTF • February 1, 2029 – January 31, 2030 – Water quality testing and reporting • December 31, 2032 – Phase 3 completion.
The Regional Board and the State Water Board are currently working on modification to the MOU with the above-mentioned deadlines. They anticipate both boards approving Amendment No. 4 by December 30, 2024. Once this occurs, staff will bring MOU Amendment No. 4 to Council for final approval. Additional funding will be required to
Agenda Item # 6.C.
modify the design based upon Phase 2 revisions. That request will be brought to Council’s attention when MOU Amendment No. 4 is brought to Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Revised Septic Prohibition Map
Legend
City of Malibu
Prohibition Area
Figure Exported: 6/20/2024 By: GHabil Using: \\woodardcurran.net\shared\Projects\RMC\LA\0127 Malibu, City of\0011295.00 Phase 2 Civic Center\00. Phase 2 & 3 Re-Eval\Rev. GIS Phase Maps\Prohibition Boundary\Prohibition Boundary.aprx Project #: 001295.00
Map Created: June 2024
6/20/2024
RWQCB Phase
RWQCB Prohibition Boundary
0 1,000 2,000
±
Feet
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3A
Phase 3B
Prohibition Boundary
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
CIVIC CENTER WAY
MALIBU RD
CROSS CREEK RD
WEBB WAY
STUART RANCH RD
MALIBU CANYON RD
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
MARIPOSA DE ORO ST
CROSS CREEK LN
MALIBU RD
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CROSS CREEK RD SERRA RD
SERRA RD
MALIBU CREST DR
HARBOR VISTA
MALIBU COLONY DR
MALIBU
LAGOON
MALIBU CREEK
HRL
LABORATORIES
MALIBU
KNOLLS
COAST VIEW
CITY
HALL CCWTF
MALIBU
BLUFFS PARK
PROPOSED
HOTEL
LEGACY
PARK CIVIC CENTER WAY
PALM CANYON LN
SERRA
RETREAT
SERRA
RETREAT
RESIDENCES
ADAMSON
HOUSE
SURFRIDER
BEACH
PEPPERDINE
UNIVERSITY
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
±
Attachment 1
Agenda Item # 6.D.
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Rob DuBoux, Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: July 9, 2024 Meeting date: August 12, 2024 Subject: Wastewater Allocation Modification
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 24-38 establishing criteria and a process for the transfer of wastewater capacity between properties served by the Civic Center Water Treatment Facility, Phase 1.
FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts associated with the proposed wastewater capacity transfer policy. The respective property owners seeking to transfer wastewater capacity will be responsible for any fees and payments.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item is part of the day-to-day operations identified in the Adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Priority Project List. Staff continue to work on ongoing projects and normal business while the FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Plan is finalized.
DISCUSSION:
Background – Septic System Prohibition
On November 5, 2009, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approved a resolution prohibiting the use of septic systems in the Malibu Civic Center Area. On September 21, 2010, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) approved the action taken by the RWQCB, thereby amending the State Basin Plan that includes the septic prohibition. The State Basin Plan established certain dates by which properties in the Civic Center area were required to cease septic system discharge and required a municipally owned wastewater treatment facility to be constructed. The State Basin Plan required those properties to connect their wastewater lines to the municipally owned wastewater treatment facility.
City Council Meeting
08-12-24
Item
6.D.
Agenda Item # 6.D.
On June 27, 2011, the Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City, the RWQCB and SWRCD regarding the implementation of the Basin Plan Amendment for the Civic Center Area Prohibition. The MOU identified three phases of the septic prohibition, along with completion dates for each phase. Phase I, comprised of the commercial properties within the Civic Center area, was completed in September 2018.
Project Financing
The City received financial assistance from the California Water Board under their Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and other State grants to finance Phase 1 of the Civic Center Water Treatment Facility (CCWTF). The CWSRF is a low-interest loan available for wastewater treatment projects that intend to improve water quality. The City was successful in receiving funding through the CWSRF program as well as two separate Clean Water grants. The CWSRF required the city to form an assessment district to repay the CWSRF low interest loan.
Assessment District
On January 25, 2016, the City formed Assessment District No. 2015-1 (Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility- Phase 1) (the “Assessment District”). The Assessment District assessed all the properties within its boundaries in accordance with the special benefits those properties received from being served by the CCWTF. Each of the properties was assessed (the “Assessments”) based on a calculation of its estimated wastewater flow and organic load as described in the Modified Engineer’s Report City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1 (Civic Center Wastewater Treatment FacilityPhase 1) (the “Engineer’s Report”). The wastewater flows and organic loads were calculated based upon the property’s total building area and type of usage. The Assessments represent each property’s proportionate share in the capacity of the Treatment Plant (“Capacity”) except for a certain amount of oversizing related to the wastewater collection and recycled water distribution system that was necessitated by the design of the Treatment Plant. The Assessments secure bonds (the “Bonds”), State grants, and the CWSRF loan financed the costs for CCWTF Phase 1.
Each property within the Assessment District cannot exceed their assessed wastewater flow and organic load. The assessments placed on each property limit the amount and type of development that can be built on the property because the total development cannot exceed their assessed wastewater flow and organic load. It also limits the ability of the property owners to change the type of development use. For example, a property cannot change from commercial retail to commercial restaurant because the commercial restaurant usage will result in a higher wastewater flow and organic load, and thus may exceed their assessed wastewater flow and organic load.
Since the completion of Phase 1, some of the property owners have expressed a desire to transfer some of their wastewater capacity to other properties within the Assessment
Agenda Item # 6.D.
District. Therefore, staff has developed a proposed policy and methodology for the transfer of Capacity among properties within the Assessment District to allow for changes in development plans within the Civic Center Area from those contemplated in the Engineer’s Report.
Proposed Wastewater Transfer Policy
If a property owner desires to sell or transfer Capacity (the “Transferor Property”) to another property (the “Transferee Property”), such Transferor Property shall comply with the following policy:
1. Initiation of Request: Transferor Property shall submit a written request to the City’s Public Works Director requesting such a transfer and identifying the Transferor Property and the amount of Capacity to be transferred (the “Transferred Capacity”).
The request shall also include existing allocated capacity for both the Transferor and Transferee Property.
2. Review of Request: The Public Works Director shall review the request and will only approve the request if the following conditions are met:
a. If Transferor’s property is undeveloped, the Transferor may transfer up to 40% of the transferor original wastewater allocation. A Transferor can make multiple transfer requests so long as the cumulative amount does not exceed 40% of their original wastewater allocation.
b. If Transferor’s property is developed, only that amount of unused wastewater capacity can be transferred to the Transferee’s property.
If the transfer request is beyond the amounts listed above, the Transferor must make that request to the City Council.
3. Payment of Wastewater Capacity Transfer Fee: If the above-mentioned conditions are met, the Transferor Property owner shall pay the City all costs associated with the transfer. These fees will include the costs of prepaying the associated Assessment pursuant to the Bonds and the CWSRF Loan (the “Prepayment Amount”). To effectuate such transfer, the Transferor Property shall be required to pay to the City the Prepayment Amount which the City shall use to prepay the Bonds and the CWSRF Loan, as applicable. The Transferor Property shall pay the City a fee to cover all City, Assessment Engineer, legal and trustee costs associated with calculating the cost of the prepayment of the Bonds and CWSRF Loan. This will be considered the Wastewater Capacity Transfer Fee.
4. Approval and Recording Notice: Once the Payment of Wastewater Capacity Transfer Fee is made, the City will formalize the transaction by:
Agenda Item # 6.D.
a. Recording a notice of discharge of the assessment amount on the transferor property indicating the prepayment of the assessment amount on the transferred capacity and the amount of capacity left after the transfer; and b. Record a notice of transferred capacity on the transferee property specifying the amount of transferred capacity and the new total capacity for the transferee property.
City’s Request for a Wastewater Transfer
The City is anticipating the transfer of its available wastewater allocation capacity from the Ioki Property (APN 4458-022-907) to the Los Angeles County parcel for the construction of the new Malibu Community Labor Exchange (MCLE) trailer and to Malibu Bluffs Park for the proposed Snack Shack and Skatepark Restroom.
The City currently owns APN 4458-022-907 (Ioki Property) and has been assigned a wastewater flow of 12,673.23 gallons per day. The proposed MCLE trailer, Snack Shack and Skatepark Restroom will generate approximately 1,500 gallons per day. If the City elects to transfer these amounts from its allocated wastewater capacity from Assessment No. 44, it will still possess 11,173 gallons per day of wastewater capacity remaining. This wastewater capacity transfer request will allow the City to assist MCLE with a new permanent office as well as keeping sufficient capacity for the City on any potential development at the Ioki Property.
Staff recommends adopting Resolution No. 24-38 establishing criteria and a process for the transfer of wastewater capacity between properties served by the Civic Center Water Treatment Facility, Phase 1.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. 24-38
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 24-38
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU
ESTABLISHING CRITERIA AND A PROCESS FOR THE TRANSFER OF
WASTEWATER CAPACITY BETWEEN PROPERTIES SERVED BY THE
CIVIC CENTER WATER TREATMENT FACILITY (CCWTF), PHASE 1
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order, and resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
A. The Malibu Civic Center Water Treatment Facility (CCWTF), located at 24000 Civic Center Way, is a centralized treatment facility that will treat, reuse, and/or dispose of wastewater flows from properties in the Malibu Civic Center area.
B. The project was to be developed in three phases. Phase One encompassed the construction of the treatment plant and the collection and distribution systems to nearby parcels. The treatment plant was designed and constructed with the ability to expand for Phases Two and Three which would include connecting various parcels in and around the Civic Center Area to the CCWTF and related infrastructure necessary for these additional parcels.
C. The CCWTF was developed pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Water Resources Control Board to prohibit discharges from onsite wastewater discharge systems (OWDS) in the Civic Center area, and to ban new OWDS, based on a phased schedule for the various parcels in the area.
D. Financing for the CCWTF was provided by bonds (Bonds) and a low interest loan from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF Loan). In order to finance the CCWTF, the City formed City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1 (Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility – Phase 1) (the “Assessment District”).
E. The Assessment District assessed all the properties within its boundaries in accordance with the special benefits those properties received from being served by the CCWTF. Each of the properties was assessed (Assessments) based on the calculation of its estimated wastewater flow and organic load as described in the Modified Engineer’s Report City of Malibu Assessment District No. 2015-1 (Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility – Phase 1) (Engineer’s Report). The Assessments were calculated based upon the actual and potential development area and type of use; residential, office, retail or restaurant.
F. The Assessments represent each property’s proportionate share of the capacity of the CCWTF. The Assessments secure bonds and a State Revolving Loan from the State Water Resources Control Board which financed the costs of the CCWTF.
G. The City desires to establish a policy and methodology for the transfer of wastewater capacity among properties with the Assessment District to allow for changes in development plans with the Civic Center area from those contemplated in the Resolution No. 24-38
_____________________
Engineer’s Report. The proposed changes will not increase the overall wastewater flow to the CCWTF. The intent is to transfer wastewater capacity allocations from one property to another.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby creates a program allowing for the transfer of wastewater capacity between properties served by the CCWTF subject to the requirements found in this resolution as well as any other City Council action or regulations promulgated by the City Manager or designee that are not inconsistent with the requirements found in this resolution.
A. Initiation of Request. On a form created by the City, the property owner of record shall submit a written request to the City’s Public Works Director, in a form approved by him/her, requesting the transfer of some of the property’s allocation of wastewater treatment capacity (Transfer Capacity) served by the CCWTF. At a minimum, this request shall include the identification of the transferor property, the identification of the transferee property, the existing allocated capacity for both the transferor and transferee properties and the amount of allocated capacity being requested to transfer.
B. Review of Request. Upon receipt of a request, the City’s Public Works Director shall review the Transfer Capacity request to ensure all required information is included in the application, the transferor property has sufficient capacity to support the transfer, and any additional information requested by the Public Works Director.
The Transferor can only transfer their wastewater allocations if the following conditions are met:
1. If Transferor’s property is undeveloped, the Transferor may transfer up to 40% of the transferor original wastewater allocation. A Transferor can make multiple transfer requests so long as the cumulative amount does not exceed 40% of their original wastewater allocation.
2. If Transferor’s property is developed, only that amount of unused wastewater capacity can be transferred to the Transferee’s property.
Any additional request amounts beyond the amounts listed above may be made to the City Council.
C. Payment of Wastewater Capacity Transfer Fee. The property owner of record for the property requesting the transfer (i.e., the transferor property) shall pay to the City all costs associated with calculating the cost of the Prepayment Amount and any related engineering, legal or City staff costs related to the requested transfer (Capacity Transfer Fee).
The City’s Public Works Director shall then engage with a consultant responsible for establishing the assessment amounts for the properties (or similar professional with the expertise required to make the required calculation) to calculate the Assessment associated with the proposed Transfer Capacity. This shall include the costs of prepaying the associated Assessments pursuant to the Bonds issued as well as the allocated cost to repay the low interest SRF Loan (collectively referred to as the “Prepayment Amount”). The property owner of record for the property requesting the transfer (i.e., the transferor property) shall Resolution No. 24-38
_____________________
pay to the City the entire Prepayment Amount to the City so that the City can prepay the portion of the Bonds and SRF Loan that was allocated for the amount of allocated capacity that is requested to be transferred.
D. Approval and Recording Notice. In the event all required fees and payments are made and the City’s Public Works Director determines that the requested transfer is consistent with this resolution then the transfer shall be approved and formalized via the following:
(i) record a notice of discharge of the assessment amount on the transferor property indicating the prepayment of the assessment amount on the transferred capacity and the amount of capacity left after the transfer; and
(ii) record a notice of transferred capacity on the transferee property specifying the amount of transferred capacity and the new total capacity for the transferee property.
E. Final Decision, Recordkeeping and Ongoing Charges. The decision by the City’s Public Works Director shall be final under this program and the City shall maintain an ongoing list and/or database of all properties serviced by the CCWTF and the amount of capacity allocated to each. Nothing in this Resolution shall have any impact on the ongoing monthly charges associated with the actual use of the CCWTF for the treatment of wastewater or the use of any recycled water produced by the CCWTF as established by the City.
SECTION 3. Environmental Review.
The Council finds that the adoption and implementation of this resolution is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this action may have a significant effect on the environment and section 15064(e) which exempts purely economic regulations.
SECTION 4. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 12th day of August 2024.
Resolution No. 24-38
_____________________
_____________________________
DOUG STEWART, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
Agenda Item # 6.E.
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Stewart and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Alexis Brown, Deputy City Manager
Reviewed by: Joseph Toney, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: July 20, 2024 Meeting date: August 12, 2024 Subject: Los Angeles County Governance Reform Package
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize Mayor to send letter of support regarding Los Angeles County Governance Reform Package proposed by Supervisor’s Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item is part of the day-to-day operations identified in the Adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Priority Project List. Staff continue to work on ongoing projects and normal business while the FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Plan is finalized.
DISCUSSION: On Wednesday, July 3, 2024, Supervisor Horvath and Supervisor Hahn held a press conference to introduce the Los Angeles County Governance Reform Package (“Package”). The Package seeks to amend the Los Angeles County Charter to improve the effectiveness, representative structure and transparency of the county’s current governance system. The proposed changes, as outlined in the attached fact sheet, include expanding the Board of Supervisors from 5 seats to 9, changing the county CEO position from appointed to elected, and creating an independent ethics commission. The Supervisors cited the reason for the recommended changes are to better serve the diverse population of Los Angeles County and enhance the public trust in county operations.
On July 9, 2024, The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 3 Ayes – 2 Abstentions in favor of the Package to be placed on the November 2024 Ballot. Further, the Board directed the establishment of a Governance Reform Task Force to include City Council Meeting
08-12-24
Item
6.E.
Agenda Item # 6.E.
representation from the County workforce. The taskforce would be responsible for the implementation of the Charter amendment upon adoption by the voters to include robust community and stakeholder outreach.
ALTERNATIVES:
A. Neutral Position – Neither For, Nor Against
B. Oppose Unless Amended
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Letter of Support
B. Los Angeles County Governance Reform Fact Sheet
C. Copy of Motion Proposed by Supervisor Horvath and Supervisor Hahn on July 9, 2024
Attachment 1
[Date]
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
500 W Temple St
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: Los Angeles County Governance Reform Package
Dear Supervisor Horvath and Supervisor Hahn,
I am writing to express the Malibu City Council’s strong support for the Governance Reform Package presented by Supervisor Horvath and Supervisor Hahn, on July 3, 2024. This initiative is a significant step towards enhancing the effectiveness, representativeness, and transparency of our county government, ensuring it better reflects and serves the needs of our diverse community.
The City Council agrees that expanding the board will ensure better representation and more comprehensive decision-making, while the creation of an independent ethics commission will safeguard the integrity of our government by promoting ethical conduct and preventing corruption. Additionally, the creation of an independent ethics commission will safeguard the integrity of our government by promoting ethical conduct and preventing corruption.
These proposed changes to the LA Charter are essential for fostering a government that is truly representative of and responsive to its constituents. By adopting this reform package, we can create a governance structure that is more aligned with the principles of democracy and better equipped to address the complex challenges facing our county.
The City Council commends you, Supervisors Horvath and Hahn, for your leadership in proposing this vital reform package. The Council urges the Board of Supervisors to support these measures and move forward with the necessary steps to implement these changes. The future of Los Angeles County depends on a government that is effective, representative, and transparent, and your proposed reforms are a significant move towards achieving this goal.
Sincerely,
Doug Stewart
Mayor
City of Malibu
Los Angeles County Governance Reform
For a more representative, accountable, and efficient County The Need for Reform
The Los Angeles County government has remained unchanged since 1912, before women had the right to vote and the population was 500,000. Today, five elected supervisors serve the most populous county in the nation, each representing two million constituents. Now is the time to reform Los Angeles County’s form of government to be responsive to our region’s greatest challenges.
Comprehensive Reform Package
LA County deserves a governance structure that is effective, representative, and transparent. By expanding the Board, electing a County Executive, and establishing an independent Ethics Commission, we can build a government that truly serves and reflects the needs of our communities.
1. REPRESENTATION: EXPANSION OF THE BOARD
Expand from Five to Nine Supervisors: Increasing the Board to nine Supervisors would allow more diverse voices, truly reflective of LA County, to shape County policy. The expansion would also increase accessibility of Supervisors to the communities they represent.
2. EFFICIENCY: ELECTED COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Transition from Appointed to Elected: Moving from an appointed CEO to an elected County Executive would ensure the County’s operations and budget management are more efficient and accountable to the public. This separation between an executive and legislative branch would create necessary checks and balances within LA County government.
3. TRANSPARENCY: INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION
Transparency and Trust: An independent Ethics Commission would increase transparency, build public trust, and combat corruption. The commission enhance accountability and integrity within the County’s governance, ensuring ethical conduct.
Additional reforms include a commission to review the County Charter every ten years; a Department of Budget and Management and a County Legislative Analyst; open budget hearings by departments annually; and creating a task force to oversee reform implementation.
Why Now?
This is a once in a generation opportunity to create the necessary structural changes within LA County to tackle our greatest challenges through Charter reform that will go before voters as a ballot measure in November 2024.
We can no longer let a dated bureaucracy prevent us from more effectively addressing our homelessness crisis, making real progress on justice reform, or actualizing a government where Angelenos can meaningfully be at the decision-making table. Reform has been studied for decades – the time to act is now. This is the change our communities have called for and now voters have an opportunity to bring Los Angeles County into the 21st century this November.
Attachment 2
Reforma de Gobernanza del Condado de Los Ángeles
Para un Condado más representativo, responsable y eficiente La Necesidad de la Reforma
El gobierno del Condado de Los Ángeles ha permanecido sin cambios desde 1912, antes de que las mujeres tuvieran derecho a votar y cuando la población era de 500,000 personas. Hoy en día, cinco supervisoras electas sirven al condado más poblado del país, cada una representando a dos millones de constituyentes. Ahora es el momento de reformar la forma de gobierno del Condado de LA para responder a los mayores desafíos de nuestra región.
Paquete de Reforma
El Condado de LA merece una estructura de gobernanza que sea efectiva, representativa y transparente. Al expandir la Junta, elegir un Ejecutivo del Condado y establecer una Comisión de Ética independiente, podemos construir un gobierno que realmente sirva y refleje las necesidades de nuestras comunidades.
1. REPRESENTACIÓN: EXPANSIÓN DE LA JUNTA
Expandir de Cinco a Nueve Supervisores: Aumentar la Junta a nueve Supervisores permitiría que voces más diversas, verdaderamente representativas del Condado de LA, dieran forma a la política del Condado. La expansión también aumentaría la accesibilidad de los Supervisores a las comunidades que representan.
2. EFICIENCIA: EJECUTIVO DEL CONDADO ELECTO
Transición de Nombrado a Electo: Pasar de un Ejecutivo del Condado nombrado a un Ejecutivo del Condado electo garantizaría que las operaciones y la gestión del presupuesto del Condado sean más eficientes y responsables ante el público. Esta separación entre un poder ejecutivo y legislativo crearía los pesos y contrapesos necesarios dentro del gobierno del Condado.
3. TRANSPARENCIA: COMISIÓN DE ÉTICA INDEPENDIENTE
Transparencia y Confianza: Una Comisión de Ética independiente aumentaría la transparencia, generaría la confianza pública y combatiría la corrupción. La comisión mejoraría la responsabilidad y la integridad dentro de la gobernanza del Condado, asegurando conducta ética.
Reformas adicionales incluyen una comisión para revisar la Carta del Condado cada diez años; un Departamento de Presupuesto y Gestión y un Analista Legislativo del Condado; audiencias presupuestarias abiertas por parte de los departamentos anualmente; y la creación de un grupo de trabajo para supervisar la implementación de la reforma. ¿Por Qué Ahora?
Esta es una oportunidad única para crear los cambios estructurales necesarios dentro del Condado de LA para abordar nuestros mayores desafíos a través de la reforma de la Carta que se presentará ante los votantes como una medida de votación en noviembre del 2024.
No podemos seguir permitiendo que una burocracia obsoleta nos impida abordar nuestra crisis de personas sin hogar, hacer un progreso real en la reforma de la justicia o materializar un gobierno donde los angelinos puedan estar incluidos en la toma de decisiones. La reforma ha sido estudiada durante décadas, el momento de actuar es ahora. Este es el cambio que nuestras comunidades han pedido y ahora tienen la oportunidad de llevar al Condado de Los Ángeles al siglo XXI este noviembre.
MOTION
SOLIS __________________________
MITCHELL __________________________
HAHN __________________________
BARGER __________________________
HORVATH __________________________
AGN. NO.
MOTION BY SUPERVISORS LINDSEY P. HORVATH AND July 9, 2024
JANICE HAHN
Increasing Effectiveness, Responsiveness and Accountability of County Government through Charter Reform
When the Los Angeles County Charter was adopted by the voters in 1912, Los Angeles County’s (County) population was a little over 500,000. Since our governance model was adopted, the County has grown massively in scale and scope, becoming the most populous county in the nation with nearly 10 million residents and 88 incorporated cities within its borders. If the County were a state, it would be ranked as the 11th most populous, just below Michigan and above New Jersey. Economically, Los Angeles County has a larger Gross Domestic Product (GDP) than all but five U.S. states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois). Yet our governance structure, established before women had the right to vote, has remained unchanged.
As a result, Los Angeles County residents suffer deficits of representation and accountability. Each of the five-person Board of Supervisors (Board), elected directly by voters, represents approximately 2 million constituents. In the unincorporated areas of the County, Supervisors additionally serve in the same capacity as mayors and councilmembers, responsible for direct municipal services such as waste collection and Attachment 3
street repair. Furthermore, a governance structure that lacks an elected executive does not benefit from clearly delineated roles of accountability and district-specific interests might be prioritized over the County as a whole. A countywide official, elected by and answerable to the voters, is best positioned to consider the common interests of the entire County population and to be held accountable for their implementation. Such a system would sharply reduce the potential for parochialism and focus an essential regional perspective.
Processes vital to how the County functions, such as the creation and passage of the County budget, should be led by an official who is chosen by and directly accountable to the voters.
For over half a century, multiple efforts have been made to reform the County's governance structure, including the expansion of the Board of Supervisors and the creation of an elected County Executive. County and State efforts on governance reform include:
• Proposition D: Board Expansion (1962)
• Proposition A: Elected County Mayor (1976)
• Proposition B: Board Expansion (1976)
• Proposition B: Elected County Executive (1992)
• Proposition C: Enlarging the Board of Supervisors (1992) • SCA 7 (Polanco): Mandated Board Expansion (2000)
• Measure A: Board Expansion (2000)
• SCA 8 (Mendoza): Charter Counties: Board of Supervisors: Redistricting (2015) • SCA 12 (Mendoza): Counties: Governing Body: County Executive (2017) • Equitable Representation through Possible Expansion of the Los Angeles County (Solis-Hahn) (2023)
• Improving Los Angeles County Board Governance to Strengthen Equity and Transparency (Mitchell-Horvath) (2023) [revised motion].
Moreover, numerous studies on Los Angeles County governance reform have been published over the years, including:
• Study of Los Angeles County Charter, Los Angeles County Citizens’ Economy and Efficiency Committee (1970)
• Final Report, Los Angeles County Grand Jury (1973)
• To Serve Seven Million, Public Commission on Los Angeles County Government, Los Angeles County Bar Association (1976)
• Report on the Executive Structure of Los Angeles County Government (Organization), Los Angeles County Citizens’ Economy and Efficiency Committee (1990)
• Final Report, Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (2016) • Final Report, Los Angeles County Citizens Redistricting Commission (2021) Though most studies recommend the creation of an elected County Executive and/or an expansion of the Board of Supervisors, the aforementioned reports lead to the same conclusion: Los Angeles County’s governmental structure is in need of reform.
While the data points may change over time, issues of accountability and the need for better representation remain. As we have faced and continue to face numerous crises on multiple fronts—the COVID-19 pandemic, massive wildfires, homelessness, criminal justice reform, and climate change to name a few—the lack of strong, elected executive leadership has impacted our ability to address those challenges as nimbly and efficiently as possible.
Further, in order to achieve the checks and balances essential to our democracy, creating an elected County Executive must be accompanied by an expansion of the Board of Supervisors. Including additional members to the Board increases equitable representation for the County’s 10 million residents in all their diversity, with varied perspectives to balance a strong County Executive. Los Angeles is an anomaly in terms of local government representation. Table A below illustrates how disproportionate representation is in Los Angeles relative to large metropolitan areas across the country:
Table A: County Comparisons
JURISDICTION TOTAL
POPULATION
LOCAL
REPRESENTATIVES
CONSTITUENTS
PER DISTRICT
ELECTED
COUNTY
EXECUTIVE
San Francisco
City and County,
CA1
875,000 11 County Supervisors 79,500 Yes
Prince George's
County, MD 950,000 11 County Councilmembers 86,000 Yes
Montgomery
County, MD 1 million 11 County Councilmembers 91,000 Yes Cuyahoga
County, OH 1.2 million 11 County Councilmembers 109,000 Yes Wayne County,
MI 1.9 million 15 County Commissioners 127,000 Yes
King County,
WA 2.3 million 9 County Councilmembers 256,000 Yes
Miami-Dade
County, FL 2.7 million 13 County Commissioners 208,000 Yes Cook County, IL 5.2 million 17 County
Commissioners 306,000 Yes
New York City2 8.3 million 51 Councilmembers 163,000 Yes Los Angeles
County, CA 10 million 5 County Supervisors 2 million No With additional elected representation comes the need for independent oversight to maintain public trust. The numerous reports of ethics and corruption scandals in local government over the last two decades reinforce this need. An impartial body charged with 1 Other than San Francisco, which is a consolidated city-county, California's counties are governed by an elected five-member Board of Supervisors.
2 New York City consists of five boroughs coterminous with county boundaries. Boroughs function as counties for certain purposes, but there is no county government. When New York City was consolidated into its present form in 1898, all previous town and county governments within it were abolished in favor of the present five boroughs and a unified, centralized city government. administering county and state laws related to such areas as campaign finance, government contracts, land use developers, governmental ethics, and lobbying must be formed to increase public confidence in local government and elections.
As we near the halfway point to the decennial reapportionment process and approach a presidential election which traditionally yields a higher voter turnout, now is the time to turn to the residents of Los Angeles County to reform government, improve accountability and representation, and take on the complex challenges of our time.
WE, THEREFORE, MOVE that the Board of Supervisors direct County Counsel to draft the necessary documents, including an ordinance, for a proposed Charter amendment reconstituting the Los Angeles County governance structure for placement on the November 5, 2024 ballot, to be consolidated with the Statewide election to be held that day, to be considered for two ordinance readings, with the second reading to be completed at a Board of Supervisors meeting by no later than 88 days before the November 5, 2024 Statewide Election, containing the following provisions:
1. By 2028, establish an office of County Executive to be elected directly by voters countywide at a general election for a term of four years and every four years thereafter. The County Executive shall have all executive and administrative powers and duties of the Board of Supervisors except for administrative oversight of the County Legislative Analyst and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
Legislative and quasi-judicial powers shall be retained by the Board of Supervisors. In addition, the County Executive shall have the following powers and duties:
a. To perform all powers and duties provided by State law and County Code to the county chief administrative officer. b. To appoint and dismiss all appointed department heads, subject to confirmation by the Board of Supervisors unless prohibited by law, except for the County Legislative Analyst and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
c. To supervise, direct, evaluate, and manage the conduct of all appointed department heads, unless prohibited by law, except for the County Legislative Analyst and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
d. To develop and submit the County annual budget to the Board of Supervisors for approval or amendment by that body, which shall transmit back any amendments to the budget, to the County Executive, in accordance with State law.
e. To veto amendments made by the Board of Supervisors to the budget, except that the Board of Supervisors have seven days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) from such veto to restore an amendment by two-thirds majority vote of the Board, within the time for adopting the County budget specified in State law.
2. Expand the Board of Supervisors from five members to nine members following the 2030 decennial census and reapportionment process. a. Seven Supervisors shall be elected in 2032. Two of the seven Supervisors will serve a term of two years. The initial two-year term shall not count towards the term limits established in the County Charter but will also not create a break in service for incumbent Supervisors for purposes of determining consecutive terms. The Supervisorial Districts subject to an initial two-year term shall be selected randomly. Four Supervisors shall be elected in 2034 for a full term expiring in 2038. Thereafter, Supervisors shall be elected in staggered elections of five Supervisors and four Supervisors in even numbered years for four-year terms.
3. By 2028, establish the position of the Director of Budget and Management to prepare the County Executive’s annual budget, to advise and provide recommendations to the County Executive on the fiscal condition, financial status, and future needs of the County, and to promote productivity, economic development, and efficiency in the conduct of County government.
a. The Director of Budget and Management shall be appointed by the County Executive subject to confirmation by the Board of Supervisors.
b. The Director of Budget and Management shall prepare the County’s annual budget and administer the budget upon
adoption.
c. The Director of Budget and Management shall coordinate additional administrative functions currently performed by the Chief Executive Office.
4. By 2028, establish the position of County Legislative Analyst. a. The County Legislative Analyst shall be appointed and removed by a two-thirds majority vote of the Board of Supervisors. b. The County Legislative Analyst shall provide nonpartisan legislative support and analysis for the Board of Supervisors on County policy issues.
5. By 2026, require all non-urgency legislation be publicly posted for a minimum of 120 hours (five days) before action is taken by the Board of Supervisors.
6. By 2026, establish an independent Ethics Commission charged with the following:
a. Investigate allegations of misconduct by County officials and to monitor and enforce laws in coordination with other agencies related to governmental ethics, including but not limited to campaign finance, conflicts of interest, lobbying, postgovernment employment, government contracts, and land use developer conflicts.
b. Regularly review the County Code and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for updates regarding governmental ethics including, but not limited to, campaign finance, conflicts of interest, lobbying, post-government employment, government contracts, and land use developer conflicts.
c. Develop and/or implement additional updates and features to enable searchable public data portals related to governmental ethics, including but not limited to all lobbying activity, defined as but not limited to registration, activity, contributions, and expenditures updated in real time, or as close to real time as practicable.
d. The Board of Supervisors shall provide reasonable funding and staffing for the Ethics Commission.
7. Authorize suspension of an elected county officer, including a member of the Board of Supervisors, with or without pay, who has been criminally charged with felony related to a violation of official duties to the extent permitted by law.
8. By 2026, establish the Office of Ethics Compliance to be led by the Ethics Compliance Officer to support the work of the independent Ethics Commission.
9. Require a “revolving door” policy for Los Angeles County that prohibits former Los Angeles County officials from lobbying the County for a minimum of two years after leaving County service, not the current one year.
10. Establish a Governance Reform Task Force, reporting to the Board of Supervisors, responsible for implementation of this Charter amendment upon adoption by the voters, including robust community and stakeholder outreach. The Task Force shall convene no later than 180 days after certification of the vote and provide initial recommendations to the Board of Supervisors within a reasonable timeframe in order to carry out the effects of the Charter amendment. The Task Force shall disband upon completion of implementation no later than December 3, 2028, unless otherwise directed by the Board of Supervisors.
11. Establish a Charter Review Commission to meet, at a minimum, decennially to review Los Angeles County governance and the Los Angeles County Charter. The Charter Review Commission shall make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Upon transmittal of the Commission’s recommendations, the Board must place the
recommendations on the agenda and vote no later than 90 days after receipt.
12. Require County departments and agencies to present their budgets to the Board of Supervisors in open, public meetings, prior to the annual budget being adopted.
13. Require that the implementation of this measure may only use existing County funding sources, and there not be any additional costs to or taxes imposed on taxpayers to implement this measure.
WE, FURTHER, MOVE that:
1. The Board of Supervisors shall provide, by ordinance, any process, office, or action necessary to implement this measure, if approved by the voters, consistent with the intent of the measure; and
2. County Counsel shall:
a. Draft all necessary documents to effectuate this motion, including incorporation of a severance clause and language from the 2000 Charter amendment ordinance proposing the establishment of a County Executive and expansion of the Board, to the extent appropriate but not inconsistent with this motion, and
b. Ensure all changes proposed in this measure are publicly disseminated in the languages required for County election materials as set forth in Section 203 of the federal Voting Rights Act and Section 14201 of the California Elections Code.
3. Ensure that the proposed Charter amendment is clear that should any provision or part of the proposed Charter amendment be found unconstitutional or invalid, it would be severable, and its invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the remaining provisions or application, which would be implemented without the invalid or unconstitutional part. # # #
LPH:jo:cc
AGN. NO.
MOTION BY SUPERVISORS LINDSEY P. HORVATH AND July 9, 2024
JANICE HAHN
VOTES REQUIRED:
☒ 3-VOTES ☐ 4-VOTES ☐ 5-VOTES
CATEGORIES: (Please check ☒ those that apply)
☐ 1. Child Welfare
☐ 2. Community and Youth Empowerment
☐ 3. County and Municipal Services
☐ 4. Economic Justice
☐ 5. Economic and Workforce Development
☐ 6. Education
☐ 7. Environment and Environmental Justice
☐ 8. Fiscal
☒ 9. Governance
☐ 10. Health
☐ 11. Homelessness and Housing
☐ 12. Immigration
☐ 13. Public Safety and Diversion
☐ 14. Social Justice and Human Rights
☐ 15. Technology and Data
☐ 16. Arts, Culture, and the Creative Economy
☐ 17. Legislation
☐ 18. Parks and Open Space
☐ 19. Planning/Land Use
☐ 20. Transportation
☐ 21. Veterans
☐ 22. Delegated Authority