Table of Contents Page 1
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
PROPOSED BUDGET RESPONSE REPORTS
FY 2022-23 PROPOSED BUDGET
The following is a list of questions raised regarding the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget. The corresponding answer to each of these questions (the “Budget Response Report”) follows in the sequence reflected.
Question No.
What corrections/adjustments need to be made to the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget document for inclusion in the Adopted Budget?
1 What would it cost to refurbish the Perry Park Teen Center, specifically the kitchen and flooring?
2 What is the cost to steam clean the sidewalk on Artesia Boulevard? 3 What Budget Response Reports (BRRs) have been provided over the past three years?
4 Attachment A: FY2021-22 BRR Table of Contents 4A
Attachment B: FY2020-21 BRR Table of Contents 4B
Attachment C: FY2019-20 BRR Table of Contents 4C
What transportation services does the City operate for seniors and people with disabilities? What would be the cost to provide a Taxi/TNC Program for seniors and people with disabilities?
5 What is the status of Transit Fund Revenues for FY 2022-23, and how will they be applied throughout the City?
6 The Proposed Budget includes a Decision Package recommending funding for the restoration of facility hours at the North Branch and Main libraries. What would the North Branch Library hours of operation be if the Decision Package is approved?
7 Which area library systems have gone fine free? How much annual revenue does the Redondo Beach Public Library typically collect from fines? Why do library systems choose to go fine free?
8 How does the City’s Information Technology Equipment Replacement Program work and what equipment is recommended for replacement in FY 2022-23, per Decision Package #25 - Information Technology Equipment Replacement? 9 Question No.
Table of Contents Page 2
What is the cost for adding shade structures over existing park play equipment similar to what was constructed at Perry Park?
10 What is the cost to purchase and install radar feedback signs that collect vehicle speed data?
11 What would be the cost to install a dog run in Czuleger Park? 12 What special events were designated as “Signature Events” and received City subsidy prior to the COVID related budget reductions in Fiscal Year 2020-21? What is the City’s special event review and approval process? What are special event organizers charged for City expenses?
13 Attachment A: Special Event Invoices – Updated 13A
What is the Fire Department doing to address training needs? 14 Attachment: RBFD_Training_Booklet_2022 14A
What would it cost to repave Avenue I between Catalina Avenue and Elena Avenue?
15 What is the cost to enhance the crosswalks at S. Catalina Avenue and S. Elena Avenue?
16 What is the cost to enhance the crosswalks at Grant Avenue and Aviation Blvd.? 17 What do other cities charge merchants for use of outdoor dining parklets in the public right of way? How much parking meter revenue is lost per parking space and what expenses are involved in constructing a dining deck? 18 What funding options are available to support the repaving of Grant Avenue? 19 What is the cost to remodel the restrooms on the International Boardwalk near Quality Seafood?
20 What is the cost to install raised crosswalks at four locations identified on Beryl Street and Diamond Street not currently included in the Capital Improvement Program?
21 What is required to improve maintenance of the upper pond at Wilderness Park and to reconstruct the lower pond?
22 What is the status of sworn police officer staffing in the Redondo Beach Police Department?
23 Question No.
Table of Contents Page 3
What are the estimated costs for the March 7, 2023 General Municipal Election? 24 What are the benefits and feasibility of a self-service program at the North Branch Library?
25 Attachment: Library Commission strategic planning letter 25A Attachment: Open+Access Quote 25B
Attachment: VectorUSA Proposal 25C
Attachment: Ocean Park Branch Photos 25D
What would be the cost to repave International Boardwalk with asphalt or concrete pavers and to paint the boardwalk’s building exteriors? 26 What would be the cost to install a gateway arch at Artesia Blvd. and Inglewood Ave. or at Redondo Beach Blvd and Hawthorne Blvd.?
27 What is the estimated cost for a structural engineering firm to perform a second assessment of the Pier Parking Structure’s physical condition? 28 What is the Police Department currently doing to enhance safety and security at Redondo Beach schools and what is the estimated cost to place a School Resources Officer at each public school?
29 What is the estimated cost to beautify the median on Phelan Lane, between Robinson Street and Johnston Avenue?
30 What is the estimated cost to design and construct signalized crosswalks on Aviation Boulevard at two intersections between Artesia Boulevard and Manhattan Beach Boulevard? What is the estimated cost to install audible indicators at Beryl Street and Catalina Avenue?
31 What is the cost of planting trees in available City-controlled sites? Can trees be planted along the North Redondo Beach Bike Path and, if so, what type and at what cost?
32 What is the cost to install pickleball courts on the vacant field behind Aviation Gymnasium?
33 Can pickleball courts be installed on the waterfront parking lot adjacent to Ruby’s and, if so, what is the cost to install up to eight temporary and permanent courts?
34 Attachment: Preliminary Cost Estimate 34A
Attachment: Local Coastal Plan – Parking Policies 34B
Question No.
Table of Contents Page 4
What is the estimated cost to hire a consultant to assist with review of the Los Angeles County Fire Study?
35 Attachment: Citygate Review of LA County Fire District Proposal 35A What are the staff impacts and costs associated with conducting City Commission meetings both in-person and via Zoom?
36 What City vehicles and equipment are scheduled for replacement by the Public Works Department in Fiscal Year 2022-23 through DP# 38 and DP# 39? What is the status of Zero-Emission Vehicle and Low-Emission Vehicle purchases for the City Fleet?
37 What infrastructure upgrades have been identified in the Riviera Village parking study and what is their estimated cost?
38 What is the cost to design and install new streetscape furniture in Riviera Village?
39 What is the status of the skate park installation at Pad 10? 40 How do neighboring cities manage/administer credit card processing fees? 41 What would be required to transition City banking services from Bank of America to another competing bank?
42 What would be the cost to increase programming at the Perry Park and Anderson Park Senior Centers as well as the Teen Center, and what is the general cost to expand these facilities?
43 What is the annual cost and resource allocation for the City’s programs and services implemented in response to homelessness?
44 What is the total estimated cost to design and install drought tolerant landscaping, pathways, and a pollinator fountain on the SCE right-of-way property licensed by the City, west of Pacific Coast Highway? 45 Question No.
Table of Contents Page 5
Attachment: SCE ROW Improvements – Illustrative Site Analysis 45A Attachment: SCE ROW Improvements – Cost Estimates 45B
What comments were received from City Commissions regarding the FY 2022- 23 Proposed Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Program? 46 Attachment: June 21, 2022 Letter – Budget and Finance Commission 46A Attachment: June 14, 2022 Letter – Harbor Commission 46B Attachment: April 18, 2022 Letter – Library Commission 46C BRR #1
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #1
June 7, 2022
Question:
What corrections/adjustments need to be made to the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget document for inclusion in the Adopted Budget?
Response:
Corrections/adjustments that need to be made to the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget document are listed below. The revised Proposed Budget materials for FY 2022-23 V2, will be available on our website on Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at the following location. https://www.redondo.org/services/city_docs/budget_and_capital_improvement_program .asp
⇒ Financial Summaries Section:
• The following footnotes will be added:
o The 8.33% "minimum contingency reserve" set by the City Council has already been removed from the beginning fund balance of the General Fund.
o Beginning fund balances of the Harbor Tidelands & Harbor Uplands Funds exclude capital assets such as the pier & the parking structures. • The beginning Fund Balance for the Internal Service Funds will be updated to reflect a more accurate estimated beginning fund balance. The updated fund balances will be seen in the following funds:
o Self-Insurance Program Fund
o Vehicle Replacement Fund
o Building Occupancy Fund
o Information Technology Fund
o Emergency Communications Fund
o Community Financing Authority
o Successor Agency
• Proposed Revenues will be updated in the following funds:
o Self-Insurance Program Fund
o Information Technology Fund
o Successor Agency
o Housing Successor Agency
• Proposed Expenditures will be updated in the following funds:
BRR #1
o Intergovernmental Grants Fund
o Vehicle Replacement Fund
o Building Occupancy Fund
o Information Technology Fund
o Emergency Communications Fund
o Housing Successor Agency
• Capital Outlay amounts from FY 2021-22 will be removed from the following funds:
o General Fund
o Intergovernmental Grants Fund
o Vehicle Replacement Fund
o Information Technology Fund
• Transfers In will be updated in the following funds:
o Community Financing Authority
• Transfers Out will be updated in the following funds:
o Community Financing Authority
⇒ Summary of Estimated Revenues – Before and After City Managers’ Recommendations:
• Beginning ISF Fund Balances – Updated from the Financial Summaries • Self-Insurance Fund – Charges for Services updated
• Information Technology Fund – Charges for Services updated • Community Financing Authority – Other Revenues and Transfers-In updated • Successor Agency Fund - Intergovernmental Grants and Other Revenues updated
• Housing Successor Agency Fund – Other Revenues updated ⇒ Summary of Estimated Expenditures – Before and After City Managers’ Recommendations:
• Beginning ISF Fund Balances – Updated from the Financial Summaries • General Fund – Maintenance and Operations and Capital Outlay will be updated
• Intergovernmental Grants – Capital Outlay will be updated • Vehicle Replacement – Capital Outlay will be updated
• Information Technology – Capital Outlay will be updated • Community Financing Authority – Transfers-Out will be updated • Housing Successor Agency – Personnel, Maintenance & Operations and Internal Service will be updated
⇒ Schedule of Interfund Transfers will be updated:
• Community Financing Authority – Transfers-In and Transfers Out will be updated
BRR #1
• A footnote contained FY 2021-22 and should be FY 2022-23 ⇒ Available Resources Pie Graph:
• Total City Revenues will be updated
• General Fund total will be updated
⇒ Mini Financials:
• Updated Total Revenues to Total Funding
• Beginning Fund Balance – Will be updated from the Financial Summaries • Community Financing Authority – Other Revenues and Transfers-In will be updated
Revenue Section:
⇒ Two-Year Comparison of Estimated Revenues:
• Proposed Revenue amounts for the following funds will be updated:
o General Fund Transfers-In
o Street Landscaping and Lighting
o Transit
o Capital Projects
o Self-insurance Program
o Information Technology
o Community Financing Authority
o Successor Agency
o Housing Successor Agency
⇒ General Fund License and Permits, in the outlook section of $1.85M will be updated to $1.86M.
⇒ General Fund Revenue Detail table will be updated to exclude Transfers-In ⇒ Other Funds Revenue Detail, will be updated to remove blank space on page and include the General Fund in the grand total
Expenditure Section:
⇒ Summary of the FY 2022-23 proposed General Fund operating expenses compared with the FY 2021-22 midyear budget operating expense:
• Total increase/decrease and % change will be updated
⇒ Overview of Expenditures – Capital Projects Fund, will update to remove prior year capital expenses
⇒ Two-Year Comparison of Expenditures by Fund:
• Amounts updated for:
o General Fund Transfers-Out
BRR #1
o Prop A
o Intergovernmental Grants
o Harbor Tidelands
o Harbor Uplands
o Vehicle Replacement
o Building Occupancy
o Information Technology
o Community Financing Authority
o Successor Agency
o Housing Successor Agency
• Transfers-Out will be removed from amounts
⇒ Two-year comparison of Expenditures by Department and Expenditure by Department Tables:
• Amounts updated for:
o Information Technology
o Community Services
o Public works
o Successor Agency
o Housing Successor Agency
⇒ Expenditure by Fund Detail
• General Fund to be Added to table
Department Sections:
• Variance and percentage change columns will be added due to formatting issues in the Proposed Budget document for the following departments:
o Fire
o Library
o Community Services
o Community Development
o Waterfront and Economic Development
o Public Works
• The object codes will be grouped by: Personnel, Maintenance and Operations, Internal Service Funds and Capital Outlay.
• The Police Department expenditures will be broken out by Division. The formatting of the Proposed Document had it rolled up into only three (3) areas of operations.
• Information Technology Equipment Replacement will be isolated from the Information Technology Equipment Maintenance expense. This update will be seen throughout all departments.
BRR #2
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #2
June 7, 2022
Question:
What would it cost to refurbish the Perry Park Teen Center, specifically the kitchen and flooring?
Response:
The kitchen at the Teen Center is typically used for prepping snacks and other basic items and is equipped with limited appliances. A refurbishment of the kitchen would include the following elements and estimated costs:
New cabinets $15,000
New counter tops $10,000
New refrigerator & appliances $ 5,000
New floor tile $ 5,500
Repainting $10,000
Other/Incidentals $10,000
Kitchen Total $55,500
The majority of the floor tile in the Teen Center is in good shape. The cost to refurbish the general area, including limited flooring repairs, is detailed below:
Replace damaged floor tile (300sf) $ 5,500
Repaint interior and exterior $50,000
Repair windows $ 3,000
Replace four heating units $30,000
General Area Total $88,500
The total cost for refurbishment of the facility would be approximately $144,000.
Restrooms are not included in the estimate as the Teen Center restrooms are scheduled to be renovated as part of the CIP, under the Regional Restroom Improvements Project.
BRR #3
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #3
June 7, 2022
Question:
What is the cost to steam clean the sidewalk on Artesia Boulevard? Response:
The City’s portion of Artesia Boulevard between Aviation and Hawthorne contains approximately 68,000 square feet of sidewalk. The trash hauling contract with Athens Services contains pricing for steam cleaning services. The cost to clean this segment of Artesia Boulevard, twice per month, would be $21,900 per month and $262,800 per year.
Staff contacted another local steam cleaning contractor for comparative pricing. This contractor provided a cost estimate for steam cleaning ranging from $0.25 to $0.40 per square foot, depending on the condition of the sidewalk. As such, the cost to steam clean the above segment of Artesia Boulevard each time would range from $17,000 to $27,000.
The twice monthly cost of the alternative provider would therefore range from $34,000 to $54,000 per month and $408,000 to $648,000 per year, nearly double the cost of Athens.
BRR #4
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #4
June 7, 2022
Question:
What Budget Response Reports (BRRs) have been provided over the past three years? Response:
The Table of Contents for the past three Fiscal Years of Budget Response Reports are attached as follows:
• 4A – FY 2021-22 BRR Table of Contents
• 4B – FY 2020-21 BRR Table of Contents
• 4C – FY 2019-20 BRR Table of Contents
BUDG T
RESPONSE
PORTS
FY 2021-22
}1/l_evte, ~ Seo.r
redondo
B E A C H
ATTACHMENT 4A
Table of Contents Page 1
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
PROPOSED BUDGET RESPONSE REPORTS
FY 2021-22 PROPOSED BUDGET
The following is a list of questions raised regarding the FY 2021-22 Proposed Budget. The corresponding answer to each of these questions (the “Budget Response Report”) follows in the sequence reflected.
Question No.
▪ What corrections/adjustments need to be made to the FY 2021-22 Proposed Budget document for inclusion in the Adopted Budget? 1 Attachment A: FY 2021-22 Decision Packages for City Council Approval Summary 1A
▪
What is the status of:
A) Installing lighting at the beach access walkways at Sapphire Street, Topaz Street and Knob Hill Avenue, and
B) Replacing the existing lighting along the upper beachfront pedestrian walkway between Veterans Park and Knob Hill
Avenue?
2 ▪
What City vehicles and equipment are scheduled for replacement by the Public Works Department in the 2021-22 Fiscal Year, what makes up the large fund balance of the Vehicle Replacement Fund, and what modifications to allocations are recommended as part of the FY 2021-22 budget?
3 ▪
What is the typical breakdown between the base vehicle cost and the equipment/technology added to the vehicle? What is the history of the 2008 Fire Division Chief vehicle (Unit# 104) planned for replacement in FY 21-22 and what options does the City have to reduce the expenditure?
3.1 ▪ What is the status of Transit Funding for FY 2021-22? 4 ▪ What are the City’s internal service fund and overhead allocations, and what policies and procedures govern them? What are the reasons for 5 ATTACHMENT 4A
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 2
the changes in the FY 2021-22 allocations included in the proposed budget from those in the FY 2020-21 adopted budget? And what is the opinion of the outside audit firm regarding the internal service funds? Attachment A: Administrative Policy and Procedures
Internal Service Fund/Overhead Allocation 5A
Attachment B: Internal Service Fund Analysis 5B
Attachment C: Internal Service Funds Financial Statements 5C ▪ What changes to Fire Inspection program could be made to reduce the fee schedule? 6
Attachment A: Inspection Rate 6A
Attachment B: Regional Inspection Rates 6B
Attachment C: PT Inspection Rate 6C
▪
What locations could support the installation of a new dog run facility, what are the costs and impacts of a dog run, and what improvements are included in the budget for the City’s existing Dog Park? 7 Attachment A: Perry Park aerial map 7A
Attachment B: Dominguez Dog Park CIP 7B
▪
Could McNeill/Jaycee Parkette, Franklin Park, and/or Lilienthal Park support the installation of a new dog run facility, and what would be the costs and impacts of the facilities?
7.1 Attachment A: Perry Park aerial map 7.1A
Attachment B: Franklin Park aerial map 7.1B
ATTACHMENT 4A
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 3
Attachment C: Dominguez Dog Park CIP 7.1C
▪ What additional detail can be provided for key departmental maintenance and operations expenditure line items? 8
Attachment A: Key Departmental M&O Expenditure Detail 8A ▪ What does implementation of the bicycle plan grant entail? 9 Attachment A: List of corridors included in the Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation Project, CFP 3501 (October 2020) 9A ▪
What is the process for considering special events and what special events are projected to be held in the City during the 2021-22 Fiscal Year?
10 ▪
What are the costs and the timeframe associated with retaining an executive search firm? 11
Attachment A: Bob Murray and Associates – Proposal 11A
Attachment B: Peckham & McKenney – Proposal 11B
Attachment C: Ralph Andersen and Associates – Proposal 11C ▪
What options exist to enhance safety for the Artesia/Felton and Artesia/Rindge intersections? 12
▪
What would be the cost to install bulb-outs at every Grant Avenue intersection not already included in the Capital Improvement Program? 13 ▪
What would be the cost to rehabilitate the Anderson Park Senior Center to include HVAC and PA systems? 14
ATTACHMENT 4A
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 4
▪
What repairs are needed to the Anderson Park Scout House facilities and what is the cost of repairs vs. the cost of full reconstruction? 15 ▪
What has been the history of Quimby fee collection, what revenue is expected in FY 21-22, and what are the planned uses? 16 ▪ What is the status of sworn officer staffing in the Police Department? 17 ▪ What are the new ongoing technology needs of the Police Department? 18 ▪
What is the current status of paid parking programs in the City and what is the breakdown of the additional smart meters to be installed per Decision Package #43?
19 ▪
What level of crossing guard services does the City currently provide and what are the anticipated benefits of outsourcing supplemental crossing guard services per Decision Package #41?
20 ▪
What are the service agreements that are necessary to maintain Fire Department operations? What is the funding source for these service agreements and platforms?
21 ▪
How will the proposed Decision Package #’s 44, 8, 26, 27, 46 enhance the Fire Department’s direct and indirect life-saving efforts to the community?
22 ▪
What is the status of current staffing levels in the Redondo Beach Fire Department? 23
▪
What is the mission of the Fire Department and how is it staffed to accomplish the mission? 24
▪
What are the Fire Department’s training needs in order to meet the Community’s response needs? What is the cost to train fire personnel the identified training goals?
25 ATTACHMENT 4A
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 5
▪
Which streets will be constructed as part of the current residential street rehabilitation and slurry seal capital improvement projects and which streets are anticipated to be included in the FY 2021-22 projects? 26 Attachment A: Citywide and District Maps for 2021-2023 Residential Street Rehab and Slurry Seal Projects 26A
▪
What improvements are planned in FY 2021-22 using Traffic Calming Project funds? 27
▪
What ongoing materials and equipment will be purchased with the funds requested in Decision Package #5? 28
▪
What improvements are anticipated in FY 2021-22 for the City’s parks and recreation facilities identified as being in poor condition as part of the most recent assessment, including what improvements can be done to the area known as Turtle Park above the International Boardwalk? 29 ▪
What is the cost and feasibility of repairing the irrigation lines along the North Redondo Beach Bikeway (SCE right-of-way)? What options does the City have to improve ROW maintenance and enhance the bikeway’s appearance?
30 ▪
What is the cost of studying and installing stop signs at the intersections within the bounds of Inglewood Avenue, Aviation Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard and Grant Avenue?
31 ▪
What would be the cost to install flexible delineators and pedestrian advisory signs mid-span of street at marked crosswalks? Is it advisable per the California Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD)? 32 ▪
Can fines be avoided with the installation of a recirculation system at Seaside Lagoon and what is the estimated cost of a replacement facility? 33 ▪
What Redondo Beach Performing Arts Center Deferred Building Maintenance Needs have been identified and what are their costs? 34 ATTACHMENT 4A
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 6
▪
What would it take to modify the traffic signals at the intersections of Del Amo & Prospect and at Beryl & Pacific Coast Highway to convert the left turn movements to become protected left turn phasing operation? 35 ▪
What would it cost and take to conduct four to six compost giveaway events per year? 36
▪
What impact do CalPERS rate increases have on the City’s budget? What are the projected increases in FY 2022-23? And what is the status of the bond issue to refinance the City’s CalPERS unfunded accrued liability (UAL)?
37 ▪
What modifications to allocations are recommended as part of the FY2021-22 budget balancing and what equipment is scheduled for replacement as recommended in the Information Technology – Equipment Replacement Decision Package #39?
38 ▪
What is the status of the City’s Sailing Program? What is the anticipated level of program participants, revenue and number of Boats? 39 ▪
What is the typical per unit cost for the installation of on-grade parking spaces vs. structured parking spaces? What was the estimated cost for the Riviera Village Parking structure provided by Walker Consultants?
40 Attachment A: 3/12/2019 N.2 Administrative Report and Feasibility Report for the Riviera Village Business Improvement District Parking Structure
40A
▪
What would it cost to install, operate and maintain a 50-meter pool in the lot behind Aviation Gymnasium? 41
▪
What would be the costs to install a fence along the front access of Townsend Parkette? 42
▪
What work is necessary, and at what cost, to control the erosion on the north slope of Dominguez Park along 190th Street? 43
ATTACHMENT 4A
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 7
▪
What are the potential viable sites for future community gardens and what are the estimated associated City costs? 44
Attachment A: Surveyed Community Garden Sites 44A
▪
What is the impact to the FY2021-22 budget of an extension to the South Bay Center SPE, LLC agreement for overtime deployment of City Police Officers at the South Bay Galleria?
45 ▪
What would it cost to install green bike lanes on Grant Avenue from Aviation Blvd. to Inglewood Ave.? 46
Attachment A: Sample intermittent green paint design – 60% Review Set Torrance Blvd. 46A
▪
What is the cost to purchase a striping truck for lane striping and a thermoplastic striping truck? 47
▪
What planning efforts are being made to transition Beach Cities Transit to Zero Emission Buses? 48
Attachment A: CARB ICT Regulation Fact Sheet 48A
Attachment B: ZEB Technologies 48B
Attachment C: ZEBRA ZEB Deployment Guide 48C
Attachment D: Subregional Mobility Matrix South Bay Cities 2015 48D ▪ How much revenue is collected from contract recreation classes? 49 ATTACHMENT 4A
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 8
▪
What is the feasibility of replacing the King Harbor Marquee Sign on Harbor Drive with either a like-for-like replacement or with an electronic message display sign upgrade?
50 ▪
What is the City’s current level of Code Enforcement staffing, how does it compare to historic levels, and what are the costs to provide supplemental code enforcement services? How is Code Enforcement response expected to improve by transferring personnel from the Community Development Department to the Police Department per Decision Package #28?
51 Attachment A: Administrative Report – Supplemental Code Enforcement Services 51A
▪
What is the process to obtain an updated Fire Services proposal from Los Angeles County and what is the status of the review with Manhattan Beach and El Segundo for the possible sharing of fire administration personnel?
52 Attachment A: Feasibility Study Process in Brief 52A Attachment B: Guidelines and Processes – Requests for Fire District Services (July 2010) 52B
▪
What are the closing costs for the March 2nd 2021 General Municipal Election and other cost alternatives for future elections, such as Ranked Choice Voting to consider?
53 ▪
What was the feedback received from the Harbor, Library, Public Works and Budget and Finance Commissions on the FY 2021-2022 Proposed Budget and the FY 2021-2026 Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program?
54 Attachment A: Library Commission Letter to the Mayor and City Council 54A Attachment B: Minutes from the Budget and Finance Commission and Public Works Commission Joint Meeting 54B
ATTACHMENT 4A
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 9
Attachment C: Memo Containing Harbor Commission Recommendations 54C Attachment D: Memo Containing Budget and Finance Commission Recommendations 54D
What is the FY 2021-22 funding status (in the core budget and after decision packages) of positions that were deauthorized, frozen and eliminated with reorganizations in FY 2020-21? And what additional positions are recommended in FY 2021-22 Decision Packages? 55 Attachment A: Listing of Positions 55A
What are the City’s General Fund probable, best and worst case financial scenarios for FY 2021-22 to FY 2025-26? 56
Attachment A: General Fund Five-Year Financial Plan 56A What would be required to add an administrative citation program for certain code violations? What are the costs of such a program? How do our neighboring cities process code violations?
57 What are possible options for investigating financial violations related to campaign contributions?
58 Attachment A: Ordinance 3184-18 58A
Attachment B: Campaign Contribution Limits current summary 58B ATTACHMENT 4A
ATTACHMENT 4B
Table of Contents Page 1
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
BUDGET RESPONSE REPORTS
FY 2020-21 PROPOSED BUDGET
The following is a list of questions raised regarding the FY 2020-21 Proposed Budget.
The corresponding answer to each of these questions (the “Budget Response Report”) follows in the sequence reflected.
Question No.
What corrections/adjustments need to be made to the FY 2020-21 Proposed Budget document for inclusion in the Adopted Budget? 1 Attachment A: WED Division Pages 1A
What corrections/adjustments need to be made to the FY 2020-21 Proposed Budget document for inclusion in the Adopted Budget? 1B Attachment A: Revised Financial Summary 1BA
Attachment B: Revised Decision Package Listing 1BB
What corrections/adjustments need to be made to the FY 2020-21 Proposed Budget document for inclusion in the Adopted Budget? 1C Attachment A: Fire Performance Measure Hours 1CA
How does the City’s current and recommended staffing levels compare with that of surrounding cities? And how do the FY 2020-21 staffing levels compare with prior years?
2 Attachment A: Full-time Employees Per Capita Comparison 2A Attachment B: Employees Per Department Comparison 2B
Attachment C: Historical Budgeted Full-time Employee Count 2C Are there alternatives to the budget balancing measures proposed in the FY 2020-21 decision packages? 3
What was the cultural and entertainment rental activity at the RBPAC in FY 2019-20 and how has the Business Plan approved in 2007 affected the Center’s fiscal impact and facility booking percentages? 4 What is the status of Transit Funding for FY 2020-21? 5 ATTACHMENT 4B
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 2
What City vehicles and equipment are scheduled for replacement by the Public Works Department in the 2020-21 Fiscal Year, and what modifications to allocations are recommended as part of the FY 2020-21 budget balancing?
6
What is the process for considering special events and what special events are projected to be held in the City during the 2020-21 Fiscal Year?
7 Attachment A: Special Events Calendar 2020 7A
What modifications to allocations are recommended as part of the FY2020-21 budget balancing and what equipment is scheduled for replacement as recommended in the Information Technology – Equipment Replacement Decision Package #40?
8
What Public Works expenses are charged to the Street Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District Fund and what cost reduction alternatives are available to reduce the General Fund subsidy to the Street Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District Fund?
9 What has been the success rate of recent Fire Department recruitments? 10
What is the annual amount and the genesis of the Harbor Uplands debt service payment? 11
What are the City’s internal service fund and overhead allocations, and what policies and procedures govern them? What are the reasons for the changes in the FY 2020-21 allocations included in the proposed budget from those in the FY 2019-20 adopted budget? What is the opinion of the outside audit firm regarding the internal service funds? And what changes are recommended as part of the FY 2020-21 budget balancing?
12 Attachment A: Administrative Policy/Procedures Internal Service Fund/Overhead allocation 12A
Attachment B: Internal Service Funds Comparison 12B
Attachment C: Internal Service Fund – Reports on Audit 2019 12C
What was the feedback received from the Harbor, Library and Budget and Finance Commissions on the FY 2020-2021 Proposed Budget and the FY 2020-2025 Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program? 13 Attachment A: Harbor Commission Letter to Mayor and City Council 13A ATTACHMENT 4B
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 3
Attachment B: Library Commission Letter to Mayor and City Council - 4/2/2020 and 5/6/2019 13B
What was the feedback received from the Budget and Finance Commission on the FY 2020-21 Proposed Budget and the FY 2020-2025 Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program?
13A
What is the history of dredging in King Harbor and what are the plans for future dredging? 14
What is the cost of maintenance for the Harbor moorings and what has been the utilization rate? 15
What is the City’s current level of staffing for Code Enforcement functions and how does it compare to historic levels? What are the pros and cons of supplementing Code Enforcement staffing with contract services and what would be the impact on Division revenues and expenditures? 16 What is the process for increasing Street Landscaping and Lighting assessments in accordance with Proposition 218? 17
Attachment A: Prop 218 Requirements 17A
Which streets will be constructed as part of the current residential street rehabilitation and slurry seal capital improvement projects and which streets are anticipated to be included in the FY 2020-21 projects? 18 Attachment A: Preliminary List of Streets Scheduled for Improvement (2017 Report) 18A
What have been the historical internal service fund and overhead allocations to the Harbor Enterprise? 19
Attachment A: Harbor Enterprise’s ISF and Overhead for 15 years 19A Attachment B: OpenGov Harbor Enterprise ISF and Overhead Allocation Chart for 11 Years 19B
Attachment C: State Lands Commission Review 19C
What would be the cost for a fixed radar unit on Aviation Blvd. at Grant Ave. and what improvements are planned as part of the 2020-21 Traffic Calming Project if the $250,000 recommended appropriation is approved?
20 What positions are vacant or projected to be vacant in the upcoming fiscal year, and what are the budgeted costs for each of the positions? 21 ATTACHMENT 4B
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 4
How does the City’s organization structure appear before and after the position deauthorizations proposed in the Budget?
Attachment A: Listing of positions - current, projected to be vacant and recommended for deauthorization 21A
Attachment B: Organizational charts – current and proposed in recommended decision packages 21B
What organizations use City meeting rooms at no charge and what is the value of their use? 22
What are the actual line item operating expenses for each Department for the last five years? 23
Attachment A: Line item operating expenses for each Department for the last five years 23A
What has been the Library’s historical usage by day and by hour? And what is the hourly cost to keep the Library open given the library system’s level of full-time staffing in FY 2020-21 if the Decision Packages are approved?
24 Supplemental Information Related to Library Hours 24A
What impact do CalPERS rate increases have on the City’s budget? What are the projected increases in FY 2021-22 and beyond? How can the City fund the future increases and what impact will recent investment losses from COVID-19 have on future CalPERS rates?
25 Attachment A: CalPERS Investment Loss Amortization 25A What is the status of sworn officer staffing in the Police Department? 26 What is the status of the Cannabis Task Force’s work? 27 What is the status of the RCC quote? 28
Attachment A: Dispatch Feasibility Study – Redondo Beach 28A What is the cost to rehabilitate Beryl Street from Prospect Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway? 29
What is the annual core operating budget for Mayor and City Council Special Departmental Supplies and Training, Meetings, and Conferences and what have been the total expenses in these areas for the past five years? What are typical examples of annual expenditures in 30 ATTACHMENT 4B
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 5
these categories? How will the budget cuts proposed in Decision Package #7 affect the availability of funds for these uses?
What operating models have been used for the City’s Harbor Patrol Unit and what has been the number of calls for service for the past four years? What options could be implemented to allow the Harbor Patrol Unit to operate with the recommended 1/3 budget reduction?
31 Attachment A: Redondo Beach Fire Department Harbor Patrol Unit Service Calls 31A
What are the City’s General Fund probable, best and worst case financial scenarios for FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25? 32
Attachment A: Five Year Financial Plan 32A
What expenditure budgets are included in the Self-Insurance Program Fund and what has led to the Fund’s growing negative fund balance? 33 Attachment A: Self Insurance Fund – Fund Balance History 33A
What is the City’s structural deficit and what one-time expenditure reductions and fund/reserve transfers are recommended to balance the structural shortfall? Are structural revenues anticipated to change in FY 2021-22, and will they be sufficient to cover the portion of the structural deficit covered by one-time expenditure reductions or fund transfers in FY 2020-21?
34 Attachment A: Structural Deficit Calculation 34A
What COVID-19 cost reimbursements does the City anticipate from FEMA as part of the City’s emergency response and what funding is Redondo Beach expected to receive as part of the Federal stimulus bills? 35
What has been the Police Department Maritime Enforcement Patrol Boat’s activity and calls for service for the past few years? What are the associated maintenance and operations costs for the Maritime Enforcement Unit Patrol Boat?
36 ATTACHMENT 4B
ATTACHMENT 4C
Table of Contents Page 1
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
BUDGET RESPONSE REPORTS
FY 2019-20 PROPOSED BUDGET
The following is a list of questions raised regarding the FY 2019-20 Proposed Budget.
The corresponding answer to each of these questions (the “Budget Response Report”) follows in the sequence reflected.
Question No.
What corrections/adjustments need to be made to the FY 2019-20 Proposed Budget document for inclusion in the Adopted Budget? 1
What are the City’s internal service fund and overhead allocations, and what policies and procedures govern them? What are the reasons for the changes in the FY 2019-20 allocations included in the proposed budget from those in the FY 2018-19 adopted budget? And what is the opinion of the outside audit firm regarding the internal service funds? 2 Attachment A: Administrative Policy/Procedures Internal Service Fund/Overhead Allocation 2A
Attachment B: Internal Service Funds Comparison 2B
Attachment C: Internal Service Fund – Report on Audit 2018 2C What have been the historical internal service fund and overhead allocations to the Harbor Enterprise? 3
Attachment A: Harbor ISF 14 Year History 3A
Attachment B: OpenGov Chart of Harbor Enterprise ISF Allocation 3B Attachment C: State Lands Commission Review 3C
What is the status of the lease agreement for the facilities at 1922 Artesia Blvd. facility occupied by the Community Services and Police Departments?
4 What is the status of Transit Funding for FY 2019-20? 5 What is the status of the Veterans Memorial Project Donation Fund and what are the remaining project reimbursements? 6
What equipment is scheduled for replacement as recommended in the Information Technology – Equipment Replacement Decision Package? 7 ATTACHMENT 4C
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 2
What is the status of sworn officer staffing in the Police Department? 8 What is the process for considering proposed special events and what special events are included in the proposed budget for FY 2019-20? 9 Attachment A: Special Events Calendar 2019 9A
What are possible funding options for a Riviera Village parking garage? 10 Attachment A: Admin Report 3/12/19 for City Council Meeting 10A
What was the feedback received from the Public Works and Budget and Finance Commissions on the Proposed Capital Improvement Program and from the Budget and Finance and Library Commissions on the FY 2019-2020 Proposed Budget?
11 Attachment A: Draft Minutes, Joint Public Works/Budget and Finance Commission Meeting - 4/22/19 11A
Attachment B: Library Commission Letter to Mayor and City Council 11B What is the process for increasing Street Landscaping and Lighting assessments in accordance with Proposition 218? 12
Attachment A: Prop 218 Requirements 12A
What was the cultural and entertainment rental activity at the RBPAC in FY 2018-19 and how has the Business Plan approved in 2007 affected the Center’s fiscal impact and facility booking percentages? 13
What City vehicles and equipment are scheduled for replacement by the Public Works Department in the 2019-20 Fiscal Year, and what makes up the large fund balance of the Vehicle Replacement Fund? 14
What City vehicles and equipment are scheduled for replacement by the Public Works Department in the 2019-20 Fiscal Year, and what makes up the fund balance of the Vehicle Replacement Fund? (Updated)
14.1 Attachment A: VRF ISF FY2018-19 Schedule 14.1A
What improvements have been made to Wilderness Park and what funding is included in the FY 2019-20 Budget and Capital Improvement Program for improvement projects in Wilderness Park?
15 What has been the history of Quimby fee collection and use? 16 ATTACHMENT 4C
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 3
What options are available for future operations of the Seaside Lagoon and what is the cost to hire a consultant to assist with the preparation of a new facility masterplan?
17 Attachment A: City Council Agenda 3/24/2009 Discussion Regarding Facility Design Concepts for Rehabilitation 17A
Attachment B: City Council Minutes 3/24/2009 17B
What impact do CalPERS rate increases have on the City’s budget? And what are the projected increases in FY 2020-21 and beyond? 18
What would be the process to implement a local transactions and use tax (AKA add-on sales tax)? And how much additional revenue could be generated for the General Fund?
19 Attachment A: Transaction and Use Tax Listing 19A
Attachment B: Election Results 19B
What has been done with the funding received to date and what more can be done with new or existing funding to address the issue of people experiencing homelessness in Redondo Beach?
20 Attachment A: RB Task Force Recommendations 20A
Attachment B: Measure H Fact Sheet 20B
Attachment C: Partnership Report 20C
Attachment D: 5 Year Plan to Address Homelessness 20D
Attachment E: Measure H Approved Strategies 20E
Attachment F: Homeless Count Reports 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017,2018 20F Attachment G: City Attorney Decision Package 20G
Attachment H: City Attorney Attachment to Decision Package 20H Attachment I: Police Department Decision Package 20I
Attachment J: Police Department Attachment to Decision Package 20J
What is the projected General Fund operating budget for the next three fiscal years (2020-2023) assuming best case, probable case and worst case scenarios?
21 ATTACHMENT 4C
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 4
How can the Storefront Improvement Program be expanded to include businesses in the Riviera Village and Pacific Coast Highway Commercial Corridor?
22 Attachment A: Program Guidelines 22A
What is the status of identifying alternative locations for skatepark amenities and what are the projected costs to implement one or more skatepark amenities?
23
Why are tree trimming costs expected to increase significantly during the next four-year cycle and can a portion of the $300,000 recommended in Decision Package #46 be used for the City’s tree trimming contractor to assist with the planting of new trees?
24
Can bonds be issued for street maintenance, repairs and rehabilitation and repaid with funding from the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1) and other local transportation sales tax funding streams?
25 Attachment A: METRO Borrowing Guidelines for Prop A, Prop C, Measure R and Measure M Local Return Programs – March 1, 2018 25A
What was the feedback received from the Harbor Commission on the FY 2019-2020 Proposed Budget and the Proposed Capital Improvement Program?
26 Attachment A: 2019-03-11 SeaLab Letter 26A
What is the cost basis for the current fire inspection fees, and what are the implications of charging a 30-minute inspection fee?
27 What was the feedback received from the Budget and Finance Commission on the FY 2019-2020 Proposed Budget?
28 How much is it estimated to cost to extend the North Redondo Beach Bike Path from Felton Lane to Inglewood Avenue? 29
What are the City’s current vacant positions and where is the City in the recruitment process for those positions? 30
Attachment A: Vacant Position Listing 30A
Why does the lease appropriation in the Financial Services Department annual operating budget related to the former Redevelopment Agency South Bay Center (Galleria) revenue bonds remain unspent? 31 ATTACHMENT 4C
Responsible Question No.
Table of Contents Page 5
What is the expected cost to repair, if possible, or replace the irrigation system along the Southern California Edison Right of Way in North Redondo, regrade and hydroseed the area to add new turf, apply appropriate decomposed granite walkway buffers, and maintain the improved space going forward?
32 Attachment A: Bike Path Turf Replacement Map 32A
Why does the City Treasurer consistently come under budget with regards to Maintenance and Operations of the department’s annual budget?
33 ATTACHMENT 4C
BRR #5
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #5
June 7, 2022
Question:
What transportation services does the City operate for seniors and people with disabilities? What would be the cost to provide a Taxi/TNC Program for seniors and people with disabilities?
Response:
The City operates two Beach Cities Transit (BCT) general public fixed routes, (Line 102 and Line 109,) that seniors and people with disabilities may use to meet their transportation needs. Fares for seniors and people with disabilities are 50 cents and monthly passes are $10. City residents receive a pass subsidy and pay $5 for a monthly pass. Due to COVID-19, fare collection was suspended in March 2020 on BCT services and passengers ride free.
The City supplements transportation services to resident seniors 62+ of age and people with disabilities of Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach with the WAVE Dial-A-Ride (WAVE) program. The WAVE is a shared-ride curb-to-curb paratransit service, that operates daily, serving destinations within Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and designated satellite facilities in Torrance and Kaiser Medical facilities in Manhattan Beach. The $1 fare for the WAVE has also been suspended since March 2020. The City owns 5 WAVE vehicles with ramps for safe access for wheelchair users and people who have difficulty with steps.
The WAVE operates Monday through Friday 6:00 AM to 8:30 PM, and Saturday and Sunday 8:00 AM to 8:30 PM, with reduced service hours on Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and New Year’s Day. Riders can request trips for the same day, advanced reservation service, subscription service and group service. Same day services can be provided within two hours of request, advance reservations can be made 24 hours ahead of requested trip time, and subscription service may be scheduled up to 7 days in advance. The majority of trips are provided during the weekday.
The 2020 Census data shows a Redondo Beach senior (65+) population of 9,376 (13.1% of total population) and 2,433 residents with disabilities under 65 years of age (3.4% of total population). There are over 1,500 Redondo Beach residents and approximately 120 Hermosa Beach residents registered for the WAVE. Approximately 12% of the eligible Redondo Beach population is registered for the WAVE and new applicants continue to register for the program.
BRR #5
Before the COVID-19 pandemic*, WAVE ridership was averaging 1,110 trips per month, and trending towards 13,500 trips to be provided in FY 2019-20. After the State Stay-At Home orders were implemented, ridership decreased significantly to approximately 404 monthly trips (5 to 8 daily) through FY 2020-21. See Table 1 for WAVE service data.
Currently, FY 2021-22 ridership is improving with an average 608 monthly trips, approximately 50% of the total trips provided pre-COVID-19. Monthly trips continue to increase, with the majority taken by single riders in the vehicle. The WAVE service can easily provide more trips with the current bus fleet. The annual operations cost of the WAVE service including fuel is $530,000 and is funded with dedicated transit funding under the Formula Allocation Procedure (FAP) and Proposition Local Return Funds.
Table 1 - WAVE Service Data
Fiscal Year 2017-18 2018-19
2019-20
July-Feb
2019-20
Mar-June 2020-21
2021-22
July-April
Service
Hours 6,731 6,864 4,436 1,817 5,838 5,435
Boardings 14,201 13,669 8,880 1,437 4,845 6,082
Avg. Monthly
Trips 1,183 1,139 1,110 359 404 608
Taxi Voucher or Transportation Network Companies (TNC) Transportation Subsidy Programs
In 2005, the City made major changes to its transportation services that implemented three fixed routes (102, 104 and 109), and cancelled the Dial-A-Taxi program for seniors and people with disabilities in order to convert to the WAVE Dial-A-Ride service.
Currently, South Bay cities have different approaches to providing supplemental transportation services for seniors and people with disabilities to their residents. Hermosa Beach supplements the WAVE service with a Dial-A-Taxi program (up to $450/mo. per person), Manhattan Beach operates a Dial-A-Ride similar to the WAVE, El Segundo changed their dial-a-ride service in mid-2021 to use a Transportation Network Company (TNC) (up to $600/mo. per person) due to issues with hiring drivers, and Torrance offers a Dial-A-Taxi program (up to $156/mo. per person).
Funding
Dedicated Local Return Proposition A funds which pay for City transportation programs are fully allocated to current transportation services and programs, bus capital expenses, and the new Transit Center location. Unless changes in existing service levels were made, the addition of a new transit program would require the use of other Local Return Funds such as Proposition C, Measure R or Measure M, or the use of General Funds. A taxi/TNC transportation subsidy program is not eligible to be funded by FAP or other state transit operations formula funding.
BRR #5
Cities with Taxi/TNC Transportation Subsidy Programs
Each city has a different program design and parameters which determine the annual costs for their individual programs. These factors include: the eligible population size, the percentage of the population that uses the service and the frequency of use by each person, the monthly value allocated per person, the amount the City pays for each trip, the maximum trip distance allowed, the amount the City pays each month per person, age and eligibility criteria, the use of a TNC or taxi companies, and the cost of the program administration using in-house staff or an outside contractor.
Table 3, “Taxi Voucher/TNC Program Parameters and General Information” (at the bottom of the report), provides brief general information and the annual budgets of the supplemental Taxi/TNC transportation subsidy programs offered by El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, Torrance, and West Hollywood. Approximately 2.4% (50) of El Segundo senior residents are registered to use the TNC program, approximately 4.43% (119) of Hermosa Beach senior residents are registered to use the taxi voucher program, approximately 6.07% (1,500) of Torrance senior residents are registered to use the DialA-Taxi program, and approximately 7% (504) of West Hollywood senior residents are registered to use the Van/TNC program.
While Hermosa Beach and El Segundo offer higher monthly trip values per person, they both have a smaller eligible population that uses the program. Torrance and West Hollywood offer a lower monthly trip value but have higher eligible populations that use their program. The design of a Redondo Beach program would determine the overall cost of the service, and staff would need to return to City Council with various program design options and detailed cost estimates before a final figure could be provided.
The Redondo Beach senior population is 9,376, and the population of people with disabilities is 2,433. The program parameters and the percentage of population that could register and use the service will determine the annual transportation cost to provide a voucher/TNC program. The budget would be based on the estimated people registered for the program, their approximate use each month, and the monthly trip value allocated to users.
Taxi/TNC Program Costs
Table 2, “Taxi/TNC Transportation Example of Estimated Costs” (below) shows annual cost estimates for a Redondo Beach program with parameters similar to the other Cities.
If the program parameters are designed similar to Hermosa Beach, El Segundo, Torrance or West Hollywood, based on projections between 4% (472) to 7% (827) of the senior and disabled population who register and regularly use the program, the total cost for trips provided would range from $566,000 per year up to $5.9 million per year. If the percentage of residents using the program is higher than 7%, the total cost for trips would be more than $6M per year.
The lower estimated program transportation cost would have a monthly trip value amount similar to West Hollywood (up to $100 per month per person) and the higher estimated BRR #5
program cost would have a monthly trip value similar to Hermosa Beach (up to $450 per month per person) or El Segundo (up to $600 per month per person).
Table 2 – Taxi/TNC Transportation Example of Estimated Costs For Trips Eligible 65+ 9,375 9,375
Eligible Disabled 2,433 2,433
Percentage and Number of Users 4% 472 7% 827
Up to 40 rides/month @ $15 value
Monthly Value per person: $600/month $3,400,992 / Year $5,952,000 / Year Up to 30 rides/month. Avg trip value: $15
Average Monthly Value per person:
$450/month
$2,550,774 / Year $4,463,802 / Year
Purchase up to 12 ride credits, @ $13
each
Monthly Value per person: $156/month
$884,256 / Year $1,547,100 / Year
Purchase up to $100 ride credits monthly
value per person
Average 10 trips/month
$200/month (with a medical condition)
$566,832 / Year $991,956 / Year
In addition, the administration of the program would need to be contracted out, as there is inadequate City personnel to oversee the program, and a Request for Proposals would need to be prepared and issued for the service. West Hollywood contracts the administration of their program and budgets approximately $153,000 per year for the contractor’s Project Manager, Customer Service Representative, Dispatcher, Call Center and application processing.
BRR #5
Table 3 -Taxi Voucher/TNC Program Parameters and General Information Category
El Segundo
Dial-a-Ride with
Lyft
Hermosa Beach
Dial-A-Taxi
Torrance
Taxi, Dial-A-Taxi
West Hollywood
TNC program with
Van
Redondo Beach
Eligibility
Criteria
Resident
55+ or Disabled
Resident
62+ or Disabled
Resident
65+ or Disabled,
Income- based
fees
Resident
62+ or Disabled
Resident
62+ or Disabled
(WAVE)
Total
Population Pop 16,654, Pop 19,728 Pop 147,067 Population: 36,145 Population: 71,573 Senior
Population
12.5% over 65:
2,081
13.6% over 65:
2,683
16.8% over 65:
24,707
20% over 62:
7,230
13.1% over 65:
9,376
3.4% disabled:
2,433
Number of
participants
Approximately 50
registered
2.4% of eligible
65+
119 registered
4.43 % of eligible
65+
1,500 registered
6.07 % of eligible
65+
504 registered
7% of eligible 65+
Assumption of
S/D:
4%: 472
participants
7%: 827
participants
Taxi or TNC TNC- Lyft South Bay
Yellow Cab
All Yellow Taxi, Bell
Cab, South Bay
Yellow/United
Checker Cab Coop
Administration and
Service Contract
with Ambiance for
lift vehicle or TNC
(Lyft/Uber.
95% of trips are
TNC)
BRR #5
Table 3 -Taxi Voucher/TNC Program Parameters and General Information Category
El Segundo
Dial-a-Ride with
Lyft
Hermosa Beach
Dial-A-Taxi
Torrance
Taxi, Dial-A-Taxi
West Hollywood
TNC program with
Van
Redondo Beach
Monthly per
person
maximum
value or trips
provided
Up to 40 trips
@$15 value
Monthly value:
$600
Up to 30 trips
@ average $15
value
Monthly value:
$450
Purchase up to 12
ride credits @ $13
each.
Monthly Value:
$156
Purchase up to
$100 ride credits;
average 10
trips/month.
Eligible for
$200/month
(medical).
Annual Budget
of trip
expenses
New program. No
current data. FY21: $55,000
$1.2M – PreCOVID
$800K during
COVID
$532,345
Total
Estimated
Annual Cost
Up to $50,000
Excludes Staff
costs
Up to $65,000
Excludes Staff
costs
$1 million
Staff Costs:
$100,000
$648,046
Excludes staff costs
BRR #6
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #6
June 7, 2022
Question:
What is the status of Transit Fund Revenues for FY 2022-23, and how will they be applied throughout the City?
Response:
All transportation programming is projected to be fully funded for FY 2022-23. Beach Cities Transit (BCT), as a recognized Municipal Transit Operator, receives its primary sources of funding from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) under the Countywide Formula Allocation Procedure (FAP) Transit Funds. Many elements of transit funding are voter-approved sales tax measures that provide stable sources of funding for transit activity. The use of Transit Funds and revenues are restricted to transit services and programs and are not eligible for non-transit related uses.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Government approved the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 which provided the Los Angeles County region $1,464,954,367 of public transit formula operating and capital grants to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19. The ARPA authorizes the City to use these funds for reimbursement of BCT operating expenses, COVID-19 related costs, transit revenue losses, and transportation funding shortfalls. The ARPA transit funding allocations will continue to support FAP and farebox funding shortfalls in FY 2022-23.
Each year Metro approves the Countywide FAP Transit Funds for Municipal Transit Operators, and Proposition A/C, Measure R and Measure M Local Return Fund Allocations in June. Metro has projected a FAP funding increase of approximately 3.3% over FY 2021-22 Local Return revenue estimates based on economic forecasting data.
BCT fare and bus pass revenues estimates are conservative, as the resumption of fare collection and BCT bus pass sales will begin later in FY 2022-23.
The City’s FAP allocation is based on Metro’s fare-unit formula that uses vehicle service miles and passenger revenues as factors to determine the proportionate share of revenue distributed to Municipal Transit Operators. Due to COVID-19, Municipal Transit Operators in the region suspended fare collection, so an average of FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 statistics will be used to determine the allocations for FY 2022-23.
Total available transit funds - inclusive of FAP revenues, Proposition A Local Return Funds and ARPA funds - are estimated to be approximately $5,298,785 for FY 2022-23.
The following is a summary of transit revenues for FY 2022-23:
BRR #6
Anticipated FY 2022-23 Transit Fund Revenues
Proposition A Fund Local Return Allocation Reserve Fund $ 860,674 Metro Transit FAP Funds Allocation FY 2022-23 $ 3,126,817 ARPA Federal Transit Funds $ 1,341,294
Total Estimated Transit Fund Revenue $ 5,298,785
Transportation program expenditures include programming for BCT and WAVE service operations, transit center facilities operations, management and maintenance, transit marketing, transit security, bus pass sales and subsidy programs, senior and youth recreational trips, professional consultants, personnel costs, general transportation administration, and rideshare programming related to Rule 2202 compliance (SCAQMD regulation). In addition to the regular program costs, there will be increased costs related to the additional COVID-19 safety measures that have been implemented for public and operator safety, bus operations, transit operations facility and equipment cleaning.
Additionally, Transit Fund expenditures will increase in FY 22-23 when the new transit center facility is operational due to new costs for building, landscaping and parking lot maintenance as well as increased utility usage.
Proposition A Fund Local Return funds require expenditure within three years of funding allocation. The City receives and spends approximately $1.6 million Proposition A Fund Local Return funds per year; unexpended Proposition A Fund Local Return funds are placed in the Proposition A Special Revenue Fund for future allocation. The FY 2020-21 CAFR lists a fund balance of over $2M. The City also receives funds from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and California Department of Transportation (CALTrans) for capital and special project purchases.
BRR #7
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #7
June 7, 2022
Question:
The Proposed Budget includes a Decision Package recommending funding for the restoration of facility hours at the North Branch and Main libraries. What would the North Branch Library hours of operation be if the Decision Package is approved? Response:
In FY 2020-21, due to COVID-19, facility hours at the North Branch Library were reduced by 8 hours per week, and at the Main Library by 16 hours per week. The combined reduction in hours resulted in part-time savings of approximately $170,000.
Prior to FY 2020-21, the North Branch was open to the public during the following hours:
Monday – Thursday 12:00 PM – 8:00 PM
Saturday 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Currently the North Branch is open to the public during the following hours:
Monday – Thursday 1:00 PM – 7:00 PM
Saturday 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
If “Decision Package #5 – Restoration of Library Hours” is approved, the North Branch library will be open to the public during the following hours:
Monday – Thursday 11:00 AM – 7:00 PM
Saturday 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
The realignment of operating hours from 12:00 PM – 8:00 PM to 11:00 AM – 7:00 PM is suggested to better serve patrons during times of peak demand. Restoring the 8-hour Monday through Thursday schedule at the North Branch Library costs approximately $30,000 per year in additional part-time funds.
BRR #8
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #8
June 7, 2022
Question:
Which area library systems have gone fine free? How much annual revenue does the Redondo Beach Public Library typically collect from fines? Why do library systems choose to go fine free?
Response:
Within the last five years, library systems in the following cities and counties have gone fine free: Altadena, Burbank, County of Los Angeles, Glendale, Inglewood, Los Angeles, Monterey Park, Palmdale, Pasadena, Sierra Madre, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, and Ventura County.
Library systems in Azusa, Calabasas, Oxnard, and Pomona are considering going fine free in the upcoming fiscal year.
El Segundo Public Library, Palos Verdes Library District, and Santa Monica Public Library are currently fine free for juvenile materials. El Segundo and Santa Monica libraries are considering going fine free for all materials this year.
The Redondo Beach Public Library is budgeted to collect approximately $12,000 in library fines for overdue materials this fiscal year comprised of approximately $5,400 in late fines on adult materials and approximately $6,600 on juvenile materials. Total revenue from library book fines represents 0.3% of the Library’s overall budget.
Revenue from fines has decreased over the years due to reduced circulation of physical materials (and a corresponding increase in digital circulation), automatic renewal of items, and the closure of the library system during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fine revenue since FY 2010-11 is as follows:
Fiscal Year Amount
FY 2021-22 (to date) $5,328.73
FY 2020-21 $2,751.27
FY 2019-20 $20,954.06
FY 2018-19 $41,023.31
FY 2017-18 $45,484.84
FY 2016-17 $51,648.48
BRR #8
FY 2015-16 $59,438.35
FY 2014-15 $66,106.46
FY 2013-14 $77,608.60
FY 2012-13 $79,032.76
FY 2011-12 $86,163.16
FY 2010-11 $96,021.83
TOTAL $631,561.85
If the Library were to forgive all previously issued fines (that remain uncollected), the lost revenue would total approximately $170,000. Approximately 369 Redondo Beach Public Library active cardholders are currently blocked from using the Library due to owing fines of over $10.00. The blocked cardholders represent 0.6% of total library system participants.
Library systems typically decide to go fine free because it is generally labor intensive to collect and reconcile fines and, from an equity standpoint, fines have been found to have a disproportionate impact on lower-income individuals, keeping them from fully engaging with libraries. It should be noted that fine-free library systems still bill for unreturned items, and a certain number of overdue items prevent a patron from checking out additional materials.
BRR #9
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #9
June 7, 2022
Questions:
How does the City’s Information Technology Equipment Replacement Program work and what equipment is recommended for replacement in FY 2022-23, per Decision Package #25 - Information Technology Equipment Replacement?
Response:
The City’s Information Technology Equipment Replacement Program was established in FY 2005-06 as a way to keep the City’s technological infrastructure up to date and to minimize failures and workplace disruption due to unreliable, outdated or failing computer hardware and software. The City had experienced considerable disruption due to old technology from the time it started implementing non-mainframe-based solutions around 1993 up to 2006. The replacement program was funded to combat these disruptions and to proactively maintain a mission critical system. Since the program’s implementation, the City has enjoyed a very robust and reliable technological infrastructure.
During each mid-year budget review, IT staff evaluate the equipment replacement schedule and add or remove equipment based on current needs and circumstances. IT staff may also extend or reduce the lifespan based on the condition of the equipment or pending changes in the technological cycle. For example, in FY 2007-08 instead of replacing 21 computer servers, the City funded the implementation of a virtual server infrastructure. At times, equipment is replaced for other reasons than simply reaching the end of its lifespan, such as technological advances or the inability of equipment to run current software.
The spreadsheet used to manage the IT Replacement Schedule was created by Financial Services staff and provided to the IT Department. The schedule is based on the estimated useful lives of the equipment across a 10-year rolling period. The replacement value is calculated using a 3.5% compounded rate against the purchase price of the equipment, software and services for the respective number of life span years assigned. Examples are provided in the below table:
BRR #9
Equipment Purchase
Price
Life Span
Years
Replacement Value
Full Life (3.5%
compounded rate)
Annual Rental
Network Edge
Equipment $600,000 7 $971,217 $138,745
Network Core
Routers $100,000 7 $161,869 $23,124
Each fiscal year, an IT Internal Service Annual Rental charge is assessed to each department for the eventual replacement of technological equipment. These charges are independent of the IT Internal Service Fund charges for personnel and maintenance and operations. The number of departmental computers, computer-related equipment, telephones, and telecom-related items is used to allocate equipment that cannot be identified directly to a department. The total yearly charge (beginning in FY 2006-07) has ranged from approximately $420,000 to $736,000 depending on the equipment included in the replacement schedule each year. The charge has declined over time as we move from capital equipment expenses to subscription-based services. The table below contains past departmental annual rental charges:
Fiscal Year Amount
FY 2022-23 $496,711
FY 2021-22 $512,969
FY 2020-21 $0
FY 2019-20 $477,706
FY 2018-19 $462,563
FY 2017-18 $462,508
FY 2016-17 $441,795
FY 2015-16 $488,259
FY 2014-15 $495,432
FY 2013-14 $477,234
FY 2012-13 $494,909
FY 2011-12 $617,354
FY 2010-11 $588,166
FY 2009-10 $636,403
FY 2008-09 $736,905
FY 2007-08 $736,905
FY 2006-07 $420,200
BRR #9
For FY 2020-21, due to budget restrictions, staff extended the life of equipment by one year and suspended the departmental rental charges. This extended the lifespan and replacement cycle of all equipment by one year and saved the General Fund $454,748 and other funds $95,158. The end result was a revenue reduction to the Information Technology Fund of $548,906, representing approximately a 19% reduction in the IT budget.
FY 2022-23 Equipment Replacement:
Each fiscal year, a budget Decision Package is recommended for Council consideration to allocate funds from the IT Replacement Fund to the IT Internal Service Fund for equipment scheduled for replacement. Equipment is only recommended for replacement when it is fully funded - the funds to pay for the FY 2022-23 IT replacement program are currently fully accrued in the IT Replacement Fund.
The amount requested to be allocated each fiscal year depends on which equipment is scheduled to be replaced. It can be more or less than the annual departmental rental charge. Previous years allocations approved by City Council from the IT Equipment Replacement Fund to the IT Internal Service Fund are as follows:
Fiscal Year Amount
FY 2022-23 (Proposed) $211,245
FY 2021-22 $432,695
FY 2020-21 $1,133,086
FY 2019-20 $234,385
FY 2018-19 $427,712
FY 2017-18 $105,710
FY 2016-17 $543,700
FY 2015-16 $246,533
FY 2014-15 $220,471
FY 2013-14 $985,291
FY 2012-13 $550,298
FY 2011-12 $327,000
FY 2010-11 $136,743
FY 2009-10 $201,875
FY 2008-09 $436,452
FY 2007-08 $1,101,301
FY 2006-07 $441,600
BRR #9
Following are some examples of enterprise wide mission critical systems that have benefitted from the replacement program:
• Data Network Infrastructure - (2006, 2013, 2021)
• Telecommunications System – (2006, 2012, 2021)
• Public Safety Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management Systems (2005, 2010, 2015)
• Network perimeter firewalls – (2010, 2016)
• Network Equipment Battery Backup – (2011, 2015, 2019) • High speed document imaging scanners – (2010, 2014, 2016, 2019) An appropriation from the IT Equipment Replacement Fund (fully funded for FY 2022-23) to the Information Technology Internal Service Fund (Decision Package #25) is necessary to implement the FY 2022-23 IT replacement program.
In FY 2020-21, in light of the City’s financial situation, staff recommended that only City network equipment be replaced as it had reached end-of-life and was showing some signs of instability (noisy fans, failures, unexpected behavior, etc.). All other equipment scheduled for replacement was deferred to FY 2021-22 and as such those funds remained in the IT Equipment Replacement Fund.
Below is a listing of technological equipment scheduled for replacement in FY 2022-23 and the estimated costs that make up the requested $211,245:
Information Technology:
Replacement Item Amount
Enterprise Perimeter Firewall
• Acquired in 2016. Equipment will be ~6 years old upon replacement. Protects City network through a host of security features. Newer, more advanced model now available.
$43,024
Copy Center Paper Folder.
• Acquired in 2017. Equipment will be ~5 years old upon replacement.
$7,053
Copy Center Tape Binder
• Acquired in 2017. Equipment will be ~ 5 years old upon replacement.
$7,053
Identification Card printer and Camera
• Acquired in 2018. Equipment will be ~4 years old upon replacement. Used to generate and print City employee
identification cards.
$7,459
BRR #9
Fire Department:
Replacement Item Amount
Portable Smart Board
• Acquired in 2016. Equipment will be ~6 years old upon replacement.
$9,834
Fire Vehicle Modem
• Acquired in 2017. Equipment will be ~5 years old upon replacement. Modems connect Fire vehicles to the City
network.
$14,252
Engineering:
Replacement Item Amount
Conference Room Projector
• Acquired in 2015. Equipment will be ~5 years old upon replacement.
$2,613
City Clerk:
Replacement Item Amount
High Speed Document Scanners – 3 Ea.
• Acquired in 2018. Equipment will be ~4 years old upon replacement. Used to scan documents into the Laserfiche document imaging system.
$ 34,353
City Attorney:
Replacement Item Amount
Document Scanner
• Acquired in 2018. Equipment will be ~4 years old upon replacement.
$6,584
Library:
Replacement Item Amount
Receipt Printers
• Acquired in 2018. Equipment will be ~4 years old upon replacement.
$6,584
BRR #9
Police Department:
Replacement Item Amount
High Speed Document Scanners
• Acquired in 2018. Equipment will be ~4 years old upon replacement. Used to scan documents in to the Laserfiche document imaging system.
$22,902
Briefing Room Projector
• Acquired in 2016. Equipment will be ~6 years old upon replacement.
$7,376
Police Vehicle Modems
• Acquired in 2017. Equipment will be ~5 years old upon replacement. Used to connect Police patrol vehicles to the City network.
$33,255
Video Surveillance View Stations
• Acquired in 2019. Equipment will be ~4 years old upon replacement. Used by PD staff to view and monitor surveillance video.
$8,906
BRR #10
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #10
June 7, 2022
Question:
What is the cost for adding shade structures over existing park play equipment similar to what was constructed at Perry Park?
Response:
The existing shade umbrellas used at Perry Park, as shown below, are attached elements of the play structures. Due to structural safety and liability concerns it is not practical to install this type of shade structure on existing play equipment at other parks post construction.
Perry Park Umbrella Shade Feature
The preferred method to increase shade over existing play equipment is to add separate freestanding structures. The two most common types of freestanding shade structures are canopy style and sail style, as pictured below.
BRR #10
The cost for canopy style structures ranges from $7,000 to $50,000, depending on the size and height of the structure. The most popular size, a 20’ x 20’ structure with an eightfoot entry height, costs roughly $10,000. Installation costs, which includes concrete footings, support columns and associated hardware, vary significantly depending on the size of the play structure and the type of surface on which it sits. Installation costs range from $15,000 to $50,000. The cost to install a 20’ x 20’ structure is about $18,000.
Canopy Style Shade Structure
Sail style structures are more expensive than canopy structures, with costs ranging from $10,000 to $75,000. The cost for a structure with 20-foot sides is about $18,000.
Installation costs are similar to that of canopy style structures.
BRR #10
Sail Style Shade Structure
The Public Works Department’s annual operating budget does not include funding for the installation of shade structures at existing play equipment facilities. If the City Council would like to install additional shade structures, it is recommended that the park sites be identified and specific project funding be appropriated as part of the Capital Improvement Program.
BRR #11
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #11
June 7, 2022
Question:
What is the cost to purchase and install radar feedback signs that collect vehicle speed data?
Response:
The Public Works Department has deployed a number of static radar feedback (RFB) signs and is in the process of obtaining more to improve driver awareness, calm traffic, and reduce vehicle speeds. These “static” RFB signs are in addition to the portable signs mounted on trailers used by the Police Department.
In the current Public Works inventory, the RFB signs provide an instantaneous display of the speed of an approaching vehicle but do not track or retain data. Newer sign technology can support remote monitoring and data collection from the RFB signs, including a cloud-based data mining and reporting platform. These RFB signs communicate via on-going cellular service, which is bundled upfront as part of the purchase. Solar powered options also exist to simplify placement compatibility.
The price for the sign (hardware), software and cellular subscriptions, with a 10-year maintenance term has a one-time cost of approximately $7,500 per sign unit. Most locations utilize two RFB signs, with one pointed in each travel direction. The installations have been performed by City crews, but could be contracted out in the future to avoid impacts on staff resources. Installation costs vary depending on whether an existing pole can be used for mounting or a separate pole must be purchased and installed at the desired location. Cost for installation and materials is estimated below for four scenarios, based on current market pricing.
Existing Pole Installation / Contractor New Pole Installation / Contractor RFB Sign $7,500 RFB Sign $7,500
Labor $1,000 Labor $4,000
Materials (pole, base, etc.) $2,500
Total $8,500 Total $14,000
Existing Pole Installation / City Crews New Pole Installation / City Crews RFB Sign $7,500 RFB Sign $7,500
Labor $300 Labor $1000
Materials (pole, base, etc.) $2,500
Total $7,800 Total $11,000
BRR #12
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #12
June 7, 2022
Question:
What would be the cost to install a dog run in Czuleger Park? Response:
Most areas of Czuleger Park are not suitable for a dog run because the terrain is too sloped and do not allow for ADA compliance. However, there is a suitable flat area in the northwest corner of the park, outlined in red below.
BRR #12
This area is ADA accessible, as it is serviced by the elevator in the Plaza Parking Structure. It is also the furthest location from residences which would ease potential noise concern. A dog run of approximately 3,600 square feet could be created in this area.
The costs would be as follows:
Install perimeter fencing: $22,000
Install gate and holding area: $1,000
Install dog waste bag dispensers: $75
Install wood chips: $750
Install signage: $500
General site improvements: $5,000
Irrigation system modifications: $2,000
15% contingency $4,700
Total $36,025
It should be noted that the dog run would also create on-going costs for maintenance and operation. The Public Works Department estimates an annual cost of roughly $15,000 for trash and waste removal, restocking waste bags, replacing wood chips and other necessary maintenance.
The creation of similar dog runs in other parks throughout town have been popular and widely used by members of the community without greenspace to safely run their dogs in or around residences.
BRR #13
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #13
June 7, 2022
Question:
What special events were designated as “Signature Events” and received City subsidy prior to the COVID related budget reductions in Fiscal Year 2020-21? What is the City’s special event review and approval process? What are special event organizers charged for City expenses?
Response:
Prior to FY 2020-21, special events occurring on public property fell into one of three categories: (1) Signature Events, (2) City-Initiated Events; and (3) Other Special Events.
While these three categories are collectively referred to as “Special Events,” there are important distinctions between the three categories as noted below.
Signature Events – Prior to FY 2020-21, there were six designated Signature Events that received City funding and/or staff support. The list of Signature Events and the degree of support was reviewed annually by the City Council as part of the budget process. In addition to subsidizing staff costs in identified annual amounts, the City waived rental, permit, and parking fees for these events.
Prior to FY 2020-21, the following event subsidies were in place:
Signature Events General Fund Tidelands Uplands
Super Bowl 10K Run/Walk $20,000 $ - $ -
Lobster Festival $ 5,500 - -
Springfest Carnival $ 8,190 - -
Riviera Village Summer Festival $ 2,500 - -
Riviera Village Holiday Stroll $ 2,500 - -
4th of July City Fireworks* $ - 4,200 16,800
*The City’s annual Fireworks event used to be hosted by a contract partner that collected all event fees and covered all costs beyond the identified subsidy. The City’s subsidy was offset by retained parking fees.
It should be noted that there were two additional special events, not designated as “Signature”, that received a cost waiver from the City, the King Harbor Sea Fair ($2,000) and the King Harbor Boat Parade ($2,000).
As a budget savings measure in FY 2020-21, the City eliminated signature event subsidies and required all event sponsors to fully cover event costs. As a result of this BRR #13
policy change and due to COVID related group gathering restrictions and a lack of anticipated participation, several special events did not occur in FY’s 2020-22 including three historic signature events; the Riviera Village Summer Festival, the Lobster Festival, and the Springfest Carnival.
Other Special Events – All other special events are subject to the City’s review policy for special events as outlined below. These special events are required to pay all requisite fees and to cover any resulting costs to the City. On an annual basis, the Community Services Department prepares an event calendar which lists these special events with dates and locations to be published on the City’s website. Some of these events were not held in FY 2021-22, including the South Bay Greek Festival and the St. Patrick’s Day 5k Run.
City-Initiated Events – Additionally, there are a limited number of City-Initiated events which are sponsored and funded through City department budgets as part of their regular work program including the Community Open House, Volunteer Appreciation, Egg Hunt, and the Senior Health Fair. These events are largely self-contained and do not create impacts causing concern to residents or businesses and are funded through annual department operating budgets.
Special Event Review/Approval Process – The Community Services Department receives special event applications and coordinates the interdepartmental review of all special events. The process flows as follows:
1. Upon receipt of the completed application, Community Services staff will distribute an electronic copy of the completed Special Event Application to the Special Events Review Committee comprised of the following individuals:
a. Traffic Engineer
b. Police Chief or designee
c. Fire Chief or designee
d. Public Works Director or designee
e. RCS Director or designee
f. Risk Manager
g. Waterfront & Economic Development Director or designee h. Community Development Director or designee
2. Requirements and cost estimates concerning the special event application are the collected via e-mail. In the event of significant concerns, a meeting of the above individuals is scheduled to review the application. In some cases, there is a pre-meeting of the Special Events Review Committee prior to the meeting held with the event promoter.
3. The event plan is modified/finalized based on direction from the Review Committee and the event is then executed with the identified supporting City resources.
BRR #13
4. Following the event, each impacted City department submits final charges for event support. Charges vary based on the size and scope of the event and typically include Public Safety staffing, Public Works support, Traffic Control Plan and Building Safety Inspections, and associated permit fees.
City Charges for Special Events – Invoices for each of the past year’s events have been included as attachments to the BRR to illustrate typical City event charges. The attached invoices include the following special events:
• July 4 5K Run/Walk
• 4th of July Fireworks & Festival for a Fun 21
• Beach Life Festival – September
• LA Kings 5K/Walk
• Halloween Trick or Treat Stroll
• Riviera Village Holiday Stroll
• Redondo Beach Superbowl Sunday 10K
ATTACHMENT 13A
ATTACHMENT 13A
ATTACHMENT 13A
ATTACHMENT 13A
ATTACHMENT 13A
ATTACHMENT 13A
ATTACHMENT 13A
BRR #14
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #14
June 7, 2022
Question:
What is the Fire Department doing to address training needs? Response:
The recent assessment of the Fire Department identified inconsistent training as one of the principal concerns of Redondo Beach Firefighters. Inconsistent training is defined by the organization as the varied delivery and practice of the core firefighter skills used by members during emergency response. The Fire Department has developed an ambitious multifaceted approach to resolve this concern. These strategies include developing a comprehensive Training Matrix (see attached), assigning a Fire Division Chief to training as their principal responsibility, and hiring subject matter experts to deliver curriculum to all personnel. Decision Package #’s 18 and 53 support resolving these inconsistencies and providing top level training for all members of the department.
COMPREHENSIVE TRAINING MATRIX
Historically the Fire Department has relied on quarterly training exercises to maintain competency. This system has not grown as the demands for Fire Department services have expanded. This has resulted in inconsistencies between shifts as members work on different skills in varying ways. This variance is a challenge for employees as they work with different supervisors. This spring, the Fire Department assigned personnel to develop a Training Matrix in response to this identified weakness. Three months of staff work were committed to developing a comprehensive plan to satisfy the following benchmarks:
• Capture the Fire Department core competencies
• Provide a unified, systematic skill delivery that develops similar emergency operations • Create a simple and easy to use plan
• Implement a training cycle that is coordinated with other regional Fire Departments • Provide a paperless system that documents all members completing training • Obtain buy-in and contribution from all members
• Develop skills that could be delivered by different members of the organization with similar results
The Training Matrix is currently being beta tested with several modules. The complete application of the plan is anticipated by the start of FY 2022-23. The Training Matrix covers a two-year cycle to capture all of the required Fire Department core competencies.
Appendix A is a copy of the Redondo Beach Training Matrix with Quick Response (QR) code access. Each month introduces operational competencies with related skills sheets and reference material for review. Over 240 hours of training are captured in the Training BRR #14
Matrix with an additional 36 hours of emergency medical continuing education. The primary focus of all training is the hands-on application of identified critical job performance competencies. The Training Matrix also incorporates a digital library with videos developed by the Redondo Beach Fire Department that highlight operational best practices.
TRAINING DIVISION CHIEF
Inconsistent training was also the product of different Fire Division Chiefs and Captains taking on the responsibility of training oversight. This process invariable created widely diverse practices and frustration among team members. In June, an acting Division Chief position was assigned training as their primary area of responsibility. This Fire Division Chief is charged with implementing the Training Matrix, standardizing the department practices, and updating the methods used to document training. As part of the executive staff the Division Chief position has the influence and organizational oversight to completely overhaul the department training process. The Training Division Chief also has the ability to impact change at the highest levels of the organization. The Fire Department training records also require a significant overhaul. Since the Fire Department lost the Training Officer position in 2008, training files have been irregularly updated and completed. Direction from the Training Fire Division Chief, with support from administrative staff, will confirm that training is delivered effectively and then properly documented.
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AND TRAINING RESOURCES
The Redondo Beach Fire Department is an “all-risk” response agency, meaning that the agency is accountable for any emergency that our community may face. Emergency response competencies that are high-risk but low frequency require expertise found outside of the agency. Examples of these types of responses include hazardous materials, wildfires, technical rescues, and automobile extrications. Decision Package # 53 supports the hiring of experts from across the country to teach our Firefighters the best practices to mitigate high-risk emergencies. Using outside instructors also allows the Fire Department to have the same material delivered by experts to all of our Firefighters, reducing inconsistencies.
An example of this type of specialized high-risk training is our Hazardous Materials IQ course presented by the experts from Federal Resource. These instructors work for the Miami-Dade Fire Department and travel across the country to teach Redondo Beach Firefighters. They have developed a system and curriculum that allows our Firefighters to rapidly identify the risks associated with any hazardous material spill and, if we can, rescue exposed victims.
A second component to improve training consistency is having the training resources to support hands-on practice. DP # 18 supports the Fire Department hiring outside experts and purchasing the props to support that training. Currently one of our high-risk Fire Department operations is ventilation, where our Ladder Truck Firefighters make access to the roof of a building to release the smoke from inside the structure. This operation allows firefighters inside of the structure to locate victims and determine where the fire is burning. This skill requires constant practice to safely and effectively master. Currently our firefighters travel to Manhattan Beach or the El Camino Fire Academy to use their ventilation training prop.
BRR #14
This limits their access to practice and developing ventilation skills is a challenge due to the infrequent exposure. DP # 18 supports the Fire Department building a ventilation training prop in Redondo Beach. This will allow firefighters to frequently practice a skill that can make a critical difference in rescuing victims in a fire.
TRAINING MATRIX
2023-2024
“Training Mission
Statement Here”
ATTACHMENT 14A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.Cover Sheet
2. Introduction
3.Table of Training Disciplines
4. QR Code to Master Schedule & QR Code
to Master Online Library
5. Master Schedule for 2022,2023,2024
6. Drill Evolution Template
7.Skill Sheet Evolution Template
8. Monthly Training Record
ATTACHMENT 14A
To do as a group/presentation:
1. Develop Training Mission Statement
2. Understand Master Schedule and Rx
Training
3. Evolution Template
4. Skill Sheet Template
5. APS and Sending Recorded Training to
Training Department
ATTACHMENT 14A
Introduction
The Redondo Beach Fire Department is striving to increase the competency during emergency response while simultaneously increasing the safety of personnel. We are also always seeking to improve our customer service for the citizens, business partners, and visitors of Redondo Beach. As such, a thorough training program is being built to ensure standardized, consistent training for all members of the fire department. The purpose of this document is to provide systematic training to improve the efficiency and reliability of emergency response.
This training document will provide The Redondo Beach Fire Department with a detailed, multi-year training plan. This training plan is developed to create a safe, positive, and effective training environment. The training topics will enable all personnel to build upon foundational skills and to learn new and innovative firefighting concepts and techniques.
The structure and content of this plan strives to provide the agency with a clear and concise training guide. Utilizing this guide will provide weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual training topics. The goal will be to follow this guide to meet the needed training topics set forth in this plan. Flexibility and revision will be expected as new training opportunities and agency and community needs arise or new events develop.
Personnel will be encouraged to promote personal training accountability, innovative thinking, and teamwork during all training activities. Reviewing training topics and skills prior to the training drills can also improve the training efficiency. It is imperative to create a new culture and mindset when it comes to training. Those cultural changes should include:
• providing training topics in advance
• providing resources to prepare personnel prior to topics • encouraging positive dialogue, accepting that errors occur, and learning from them as an agency
Each discipline will be covered systematically throughout the training year. Topics will be loaded into the training matrix, so all crews can follow a consistent training schedule. The material covered will be developed by the captain assigned to that particular discipline.
Station captains will ensure all training is provided to their respected shifts each month.
Skill sheets, reference material, and video links will be uploaded as they are developed.
This information will help personnel review material prior to training. Training records will be logged throughout the month to ensure proper record keeping and accountability.
ATTACHMENT 14A
Overview of training discipline are listed below:
Engine Company Operations Quarterly HOURS TBD
Truck Company Operations Quarterly HOURS TBD
RIC/VEIS/Search and Rescue Bi-Annually HOURS TBD
HAZMAT Annually HOURS TBD
Technical Rescue Bi-Annually HOURS TBD
Officer Development Bi-Annually HOURS TBD
Multi-Causality Incidents Annually HOURS TBD
Apparatus Operator Quarterly HOURS TBD
Multi-Company Quarterly HOURS TBD
Rapid Fire Monthly HOURS TBD
EMS Continuing Education Monthly HOURS TBD
Boat Operations Monthly HOURS TBD
APS Online Topics Monthly HOURS TBD
ATTACHMENT 14A
REDONDO BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT
2022
Redondo Beach Fire Department
401 South Broadway
Redondo Beach, California 90277
Ph: (310) 318-0663
Fax : (310) 376-3407
www.Redondo.org
REDONDO BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT
TRAINING SCHEDULE AND SKILL SHEETS
RBFD TRAINING SCHEDULE
RBFD SKILL SHEETS
WWW.REDONDO.ORG/RBFDTRAINING
WWW.REDONDO.ORG/RBFDTRAININGDOCS
ATTACHMENT 14A
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER ENGINE OPS TRUCK OPS R.I.C. VEIS S&R ENGINE WILDLAND TRUCK ENGINE OPS TRUCK OPS R.I.C. VEIS ENGINE TRUCK MAKE UP OFFICER HAZMAT TECH RESCUE PUMP OPERATOR AERIAL OPERATOR MCI OFFICER Water Rescue TECH RESCUE PUMP OPERATOR AERIAL OPERATOR MAKE UP
EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS
RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE
BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS Q1 MULTI-CO.DRILL Q2 MULTI-CO.DRILL Q3 MULTI-CO-DRILL Q4-MULTI-CO-DRILL REDONDO BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAINING SCHEDULE 2022
ATTACHMENT 14A
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER ENGINE OPS TRUCK OPS R.I.C. VEIS S&R ENGINE WILDLAND TRUCK ENGINE OPS TRUCK OPS R.I.C. VEIS ENGINE TRUCK MAKE UP OFFICER HAZMAT TECH RESCUE PUMP OPERATOR AERIAL OPERATOR MCI/Acitive OFFICER Water Rescue TECH RESCUE PUMP OPERATOR AERIAL OPERATOR MAKE UP
EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS
RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE
BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS Q1 MULTI-CO.DRILL Q2 MULTI-CO.DRILL Q3 MULTI-CO-DRILL Q4-MULTI-CO-DRILL REDONDO BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAINING SCHEDULE 2023
ATTACHMENT 14A
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER ENGINE OPS TRUCK OPS R.I.C. VEIS S&R ENGINE WILDLAND TRUCK ENGINE OPS TRUCK OPS R.I.C. VEIS ENGINE TRUCK MAKE UP OFFICER HAZMAT TECH RESCUE PUMP OPERATOR AERIAL OPERATOR MCI OFFICER Water Rescue TECH RESCUE PUMP OPERATOR AERIAL OPERATOR MAKE UP
EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS EMS
RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE RAPID FIRE
BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS BOAT OPS Q1 MULTI-CO.DRILL Q2 MULTI-CO.DRILL Q3 MULTI-CO-DRILL Q4-MULTI-CO-DRILL REDONDO BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAINING SCHEDULE 2024
ATTACHMENT 14A
Candidate/Firefighter
Evaluator/Instructor
ĂƚĞ
Evolution Performed:
Equipment needed:
Performance Objective
Evolution/Skill Steps
Candidate/Firefighter
Evaluator/Instructor
ĂƚĞ
Evolution Performed:
Equipment needed:
Performance Objective
Evolution/Skill Steps
SMITH
JOHNSON
05/03/2022
AUTO EXTRICATION
TRUCK 61 & HOLMATRO TOOLS
CUT DOORS OFF VEHICLE
1. ESTABLISH TOOL CASH WITH HOLMATRO AND NEW HURST JAWS OF LIFE
2. ASSESS DAMAGE OF VEHICLE AND DEVELOP A JAWS OF LIFE PLAN
3. PROVIDE PATIENT CARE ONCE VEHICLE IS STABILIZED
4. UTLILIZE RESUCE 42'S FOR EXTRA STABILIZATION
5. UTILIZE JAWS OF LIFE TO CUT DOORS OFF VEHICLE
6. CONTINUE PATIENT CARE AND TRANSPORT PATIENT WITH RESCUE 61 TO
HOSPITAL
7. CLEAN UP DEBRIS AND OIL FROM VEHICLE
8. RETURN EQUIPMENT TO IN SERVICE CRITERIA
ATTACHMENT 14A
ATTACHMENT 14A
Additional Notes:
Critical Failures/Notes:
New Changes:
Feedback :
Additional Notes:
Critical Failures/Notes:
New Changes:
Feedback :
NEW HURST TOOLS WORKED EFFICIENTLY
E-mail Form
ATTACHMENT 14A
Candidate/Firefighter
Evaluator/Instructor
ĂƚĞ
Evolution Performed:
Equipment needed:
Performance Objective
Evolution/Skill Steps
dŝŵĞ
ƌŝƚŝĐĂů&ĂŝůƵƌĞƐ
WĂƐƐ &Ăŝů ŽŵƉůĞƚĞ
Candidate/Firefighter
Evaluator/Instructor
ĂƚĞ
Evolution Performed:
Equipment needed:
Performance Objective
Evolution/Skill Steps
dŝŵĞ
ƌŝƚŝĐĂů &ĂŝůƵƌĞƐ
WĂƐƐ &Ăŝů ŽŵƉůĞƚĞ
Holmatro Extrication Equipment
T61, Power Unit, Cutters, Spreaders, Rams
Assemble Equipment and Perform Extrication
See Below
10 Mins
• Fails to peek and peal, prior to operating a tool.
• Fails to maintain the 10/10/20 rule or places head, hand or other body part past the window threshold.
• Fails to create a purchase point prior to attempting to spread the door. • Operates the tool while positioned between the tool and the vehicle. • Fails to manage panel movement or has to be stopped for personnel or equipment safety. • Fails to secure the door and have assistance in supporting the door prior to completely removing from vehicle.
• Inappropriately utilizes tools during the operation. i.e. uses the cutter tips to create a larger gap. • Any unsafe condition in which the proctor must step in and stop the evolution.
Any step with an *** signifies a critical failure
1.Build tool cache will all extrication equipment and Rescue 42’s.
2.Assemble Holmatro Tools and prepare to perform extrication.
3.Peal and Peek Prior to cutting or spreading.***
4.Perform Vehicle Extrication Techniques to remove door.
ATTACHMENT 14A
5.Creates purchase point when needed.***
6.Demonstrates safe practices when spreading or cutting. (avoids being in between vehicle and tools).***
7.Demonstrates safe practices by using 10,10, 20 airbag space whenever in vehicle.***
8.Utilizes assistant to secure and remove door prior.
9. ATTACHMENT 14A
Additional Notes:
Critical Failures/Notes:
New Changes:
Feedback :
Additional Notes:
Critical Failures/Notes:
New Changes:
Feedback :
E-mail Form
ATTACHMENT 14A
Training Record
Topic – Engine Company and Officer Training
Shift – A1
January
Personnel
Engine Officer
Boster x x
Yamamoto x x
Hong x
Odell x
Godinez x
Diaz Missed
Carvutto Missed Mandatory
Archambault x
SAMPLEATTACHMENT 14A
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #15
June 7, 2022
Question:
What would it cost to repave Avenue I between Catalina Avenue and Elena Avenue? Response:
The 2020 Pavement Management System Report (2020 Report) included a survey and evaluation of the pavement along the stretch of Avenue I between Catalina Avenue and S. Elena Avenue and provided a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for the street segment of 52. This portion of Avenue I is approximately 55,590 square feet, which is equivalent to 6,177 square yards. PCI scores in this range are typically not good candidates for slurry seal treatment and require more intensive rehabilitation methods.
The recommended treatment for blocks with a PCI of 52 is typically a mill and thick overlay. The estimated unit cost for this treatment in the 2020 Report is set at $50 per square yard.
Avenue I – Catalina Avenue to S. Elena Avenue Construction Costs Total square yardage of asphalt: 6,177/SY
Unit cost for grind and thin overlay: $ 50/SY
Cost for Rehabilitating Pavement: $ 308,850
The above cost is only for paving rehabilitation and should not be used for budgeting without accounting for the additional work done by the City when these projects go to construction. There are additional costs to prepare design documents, repair concrete curb, gutter and ADA curb ramps as required, add back striping, replace traffic signal loops that are damaged in the milling process, and provide construction management and inspection services. For budgeting purposes, this number should be escalated by 25- 30% to account for the other elements involved in completing the work. As such, the total cost to repave Ave I between Catalina and Elena Avenues is estimated to be $400,000.
BRR #15
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #16
June 7, 2022
Question:
What is the cost to enhance the crosswalks at S. Catalina Avenue and S. Elena Avenue? Response:
The intersection of S. Catalina Avenue and S. Elena Avenue is a three-legged intersection with all-way stop controlls and upgraded solar powered flashing LED stop signs.
Recently, as part of the crosswalk enhancements at the intersection, a curb bulbout was added to the west side of S. Catalina Ave to focus pedestrian crossing at this location and to add visibility to pedestrians emerging from the sidewalk. In addition, high visibility continental-style crosswalks were added to the north and east legs.
As the crosswalks are already enhanced with flashing all-way stop controls, a bulbout, and high visibility crosswalk markings there are limited options for further enhancement due to regulations in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) outlined in Section 4N.02 In-Roadway Warning Lights at Crosswalks. The Section states, “If used, In-Roadway Warning Lights at crosswalks shall be installed only at crosswalks with applicable warning signs. They shall not be used at crosswalks controlled by YIELD signs, STOP signs, or traffic signals.” One remaining option is the installation of raised pavement reflective markers in the crosswalk that would increase visibility for oncoming motorists, especially at night. The cost to add raised pavement markers is approximately $500 for this intersection.
BRR #16
BRR #17
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #17
June 7, 2022
Question:
What is the cost to enhance the crosswalks at Grant Avenue and Aviation Blvd.? Response:
The intersection of Grant Avenue and Aviation Blvd is an offset four-legged intersection (Grant Ave is opposite Ormond Lane) that is controlled by a traffic signal, with pedestrian heads at each corner. As such, there are limited options for enhancing the crosswalks with more electronic devices (e.g. beacons or rapid flashers) due to regulations in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD), as outlined in Section 4N.02 In-Roadway Warning Lights at Crosswalks. The Section states, “If used, InRoadway Warning Lights at crosswalks shall be installed only at crosswalks with applicable warning signs. They shall not be used at crosswalks controlled by YIELD signs, STOP signs, or traffic signals.”
The remaining enhancement options at this intersection include upgrading the current standard crosswalks to high visibility continental style crosswalks and installing a Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians (R10-15) sign to remind drivers who are making turns to yield to pedestrians. The cost to complete these enhancements is approximately $3,500.
BRR #18
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #18
June 7, 2022
Question:
What do other cities charge merchants for use of outdoor dining parklets in the public right of way? How much parking meter revenue is lost per parking space and what expenses are involved in constructing a dining deck?
Response:
Staff contacted neighboring/comparable cities that have installed dining decks in public rights of way and found a wide variation of assigned fees and charges.
Neighboring Cities (alphabetical)
El Segundo – does not currently charge rent for dining decks or for the segment of Richmond Street that has been closed to traffic and used for outdoor dining.
Gardena – No rental fees on record.
Hawthorne – No rental fee on record. Application fees suspended through 06/30/2022.
Hermosa Beach - $1.50 per square foot of area utilized.
Lawndale – No rental fees on record.
Manhattan Beach - $3.00 per square foot. The fee is currently suspended to assist restaurants in recovering from pandemic impacts.
Other Comparable Cities (alphabetical)
Beverly Hills – Fees suspended through 12/31/2022, with fees varying from $2.50 to $5.00 per square foot for parklet dining under consideration by the OpenBH Conversion Code and Fee Structure Subcommittee.
Culver City - $1.08 per square foot, plus a ROW Restoration Assessment, a Sewer Assessment, and an Application Fee.
Pasadena – Fees Suspended through 06/30/2022. Rates vary from $0.51-$1.34 per square foot and include an additional per spot parking recovery fee.
BRR #18
San Clemente - $4.00 per square foot for public property, $1.00 per square foot for private property.
Santa Barbara – Fees suspended through 07/01/2022.
Parking Meter Revenue
The rate charged for parking meters in Riviera Village is $1.50 per hour. Meters are enforced from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm, making potential revenue per meter $22.50 per day and $8,212.50 per year.
However, several factors impact parking meter revenue, such as permit holders parking in metered spaces and spaces not being occupied. During the 2019 calendar year, when parking meter rates were the same, the City was not yet impacted by COVID-19 and there were no dining decks, the average revenue per meter in Riviera Village was $3,527 per year, which equates to $294 per month.
Dining decks vary in size and number of occupied metered parking spots. If we estimate that the average dining deck occupies three metered parking spaces, the City has accepted the loss of approximately $882 in metered parking revenue per month for each dining deck. The average full parking space is 180 square feet, and three spaces total 540 square feet. As a comparison, if the City collects $2 per square foot, per month for each dining deck, and the dining decks on average occupy three full parking spaces, the City would receive $1,080 in monthly revenue.
Cost to Construct
The estimated cost to construct a permanent dining deck with K-rail traffic protection is approximately $110 per square foot, including design, materials and installation. A deck of typical size (18’ x 30’) costs roughly $59,400.
These estimates are based on previous installation costs and have been adjusted for the increased cost of construction over the past two years.
BRR #19
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #19
June 7, 2022
Question:
What funding options are available to support the repaving of Grant Avenue? Response:
Grant Avenue spans 1.25 miles from Inglewood Avenue on the east and Aviation Blvd. on the west. During the pavement study conducted by NCE in 2020 the estimated cost of repaving Grant Avenue was $2,617,000. Given increased construction and material costs, and the additive costs for necessary sidewalk concrete repairs, design services and other soft costs, it is reasonable to assume that the estimated cost has increased by 25%, pushing the estimated cost to repave Grant Ave. to approximately $3,300,000.
Grant Avenue is not a bus route and therefore is not eligible for Prop C funding, a source that is typically used for the City’s busier arterial streets. Potential funding sources include SB 1 State Gas Tax, Local Return Measure R, Local Return Measure M, and/or future General Fund Capital allocations.
It should be noted however, that there are specific ongoing/recurring street projects, including the City’s annual Residential Rehabilitation Project, that traditionally occupy a significant portion of the local return funds and SB 1 State Gas Tax funds. Furthermore, there are specific street projects, such as Artesia Blvd. from Harper Ave. to Hawthorne Blvd., Aviation Blvd. from Artesia Blvd to Manhattan Beach Blvd, and Rindge Ln. that are programmed to be funded by local return funds over the next three fiscal years. These projects, if approved in future CIP budgets as currently scheduled in the five-year program, will utilize the majority of available local return funds over the next several years.
Repaving Grant Ave. could be added to the unfunded CIP list and/or programmed for local return funds and capital funds in out years of the CIP plan. The council could also make Grant Ave. a priority in the deferred maintenance street CIP and fund it through that project account as funds become available.
BRR #20
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #20
June 7, 2022
Question:
What is the cost to remodel the restrooms on the International Boardwalk near Quality Seafood?
Response:
In March 2020, the Public Works Department installed six new entrance doors and repainted the restrooms located near Quality Seafood. There are additional upgrades that could also be implemented. The estimated costs for these improvements are as follows:
Replace floor tile $30,000
Replace plumbing fixtures $60,000
A full reconstruction of the restroom can-not be accomplished at this location because the current restroom foot print and existing structural walls do not allow for the expansion of stall space needed to comply with ADA standards.
As an alternative, there may be an opportunity to place brand new ADA-compliant restrooms in a portion of the space formerly occupied by the Fun Factory. For planning purposes, new infill restrooms in this setting are estimated to cost approximately $500 BRR #20
per square foot. Assuming four restrooms, averaging 80 square feet each, the estimated construction cost is calculated to be $160,000. An additional 50% should be added to include design costs, contingencies, and construction management services required to effectively complete the project. Using these assumptions, the resulting budget estimate is approximately $240,000 for the installation of four new restrooms in the vacant former Fun Factory space.
BRR #21
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #21
June 7, 2022
Question:
What is the cost to install raised crosswalks at four locations identified on Beryl Street and Diamond Street not currently included in the Capital Improvement Program? Response:
Raised crosswalks can have the benefit of increasing visibility of pedestrians crossing a street and slowing traffic to accommodate the vertical displacement created by the raised portion of the roadway. Unlike midblock raised crosswalks that the City Council has considered in the past, raised crosswalks at intersections typically bring an entire intersection, not just the crosswalk, from street level to sidewalk level. The roadway rises somewhat abruptly at each leg of the intersection, inducing drivers to slow down to cross.
Like raised midblock crosswalks, raised intersections also serve to reduce speeds and improve visibility of pedestrians. This forced slowing encourages motorists to yield to pedestrian crossers. Raised intersections also have the added benefit of being easier to navigate for emergency vehicles than crossing two raised crosswalks, one each at the entry point and departure point of the intersection.
The general cost to install a single raised intersection varies depending on the size of the intersection, the material used, and potential modifications to the existing infrastructure.
The cost to install raised crosswalks along Beryl Street, at North Lucia Avenue and at North Maria Avenue, and along Diamond Street, at North Juanita Avenue and North Helberta Avenue, including design and construction, is estimated to be roughly $547,000, (or $137,000 per intersection). These intersections would require reconstruction of existing curb ramps, additional curb drains, adjustments to existing infrastructure, and the relocation of at least one storm drain side-opening catch basin.
The following is a summary of the benefits and disadvantages of raised intersections:
Benefits – Raised intersections create a safer, slow-speed crossing and public space at minor intersections. Similar to speed cushions and other vertical speed control elements, they reinforce slow speeds and encourage motorists to yield to pedestrians at the crosswalk.
Disadvantages – General disadvantages associated with the construction of raised intersections include cost of design and construction, especially if large modifications to existing infrastructure, such as reconstruction of existing curb ramps, storm drains, and catch basins, are required. Additionally, the construction of curb raised intersections can involve the removal of on-street parking spaces to accommodate the design (approximately 1 to 2 spaces per corner depending on the location and design).
BRR #22
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #22
June 7, 2022
Question:
What is required to improve maintenance of the upper pond at Wilderness Park and to reconstruct the lower pond?
Response:
Maintenance of the Upper Pond
A program for regular and improved maintenance of the upper pond should include the following:
- Skimming the pond surface daily to remove twigs, trash and small debris - Feeding the fish daily
- Back washing pond filters weekly
- Comprehensive cleaning once per year in the spring, which involves removing the fish to clean the sand and remove algae and other debris It is estimated these tasks would require roughly 1,400 hours of staff time per year, which represents roughly 3/4ths of the annual work hours of a full-time Maintenance Worker 1.
The cost for a part-time maintenance worker dedicated to this function would be approximately $40,000 per year. Additionally, it is estimated that it would cost roughly $2,000 annually for needed materials including fish food, algicides and skimming nets.
For comparison, when staff previously contracted out maintenance of the upper pond it cost $1,000 per month and provided for only one servicing per week.
Reconstruction of the Lower Pond
In 2019, staff prepared a BRR discussing the cost to renovate the lower pond. In it, the cost to install a shallow depth lined pond with water filtration was estimated at $475,000.
An expressed caveat was whether ADA accessibility would be required to this pond. This is an important issue that would require determination by an ADA compliance expert and an issue that could potentially subject the City to legal challenge.
The cost to install such an accessible path of travel could easily double the cost of the pond redevelopment. Escalation of pricing from 2019 to now, and the hyper volatility of the market in these last few months also lend themselves to uncertainty about the existing cost estimates. An initial budget estimate, inclusive of an ADA accessible path of travel to the lower pond could reasonably be estimated at $1,000,000 and could vary by 20% to 30%. Maintenance costs for the pond’s water system are likely to run between $2,000 BRR #22
to $2,500 per month initially, depending on the type of filtration system used (chlorine, biofiltration, etc.).
A new concern emerging this year is also whether development of this feature will be consistent with water restrictions likely to be imposed as the current drought worsens. In the past, water features were shut down due to water restrictions. The City’s efforts to reduce water use elsewhere could be negated by the addition of a new water feature that will, over time, consume potable water.
BRR #23
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #23
June 7, 2022
Question:
What is the status of sworn police officer staffing in the Redondo Beach Police Department?
Response:
The current staffing status for the Redondo Beach Police Department’s 95 budgeted sworn personnel, as of June 1, 2022, is shown on the following table.
Position Authorized Frozen Filled Vacant
Chief of Police 1 0 1 0
Police Captain 3 0 3 0
Police Lieutenant 6 0 6 0
Police Sergeant 14 0 14 0
Police Officer 71 0 65 6
Total 95 0 89 6
The Redondo Beach PD currently has eighty-nine filled positions which includes two trainees who are currently part of the field training program, one police officer recruit currently in the academy, and one police officer recruit beginning the academy in July.
Three additional candidates were given conditional offers pending the results of their medical and psychological examinations and would bring the sworn personnel number to ninety-two (92). In addition, three Officers are out on IOD status, three Officers are on extended leave due to personal injury with no estimated return date, and two Officers are out on extended family leave.
Recruitment has been a consistent challenge for the Law Enforcement profession nationwide and Redondo Beach PD is not exempt from these challenges. The Department is committed to developing new and innovative ways to recruit qualified candidates via social media, academy visits, billboards, mobile sign boards, and professional flyers. Additionally, the Department is hoping to further incentivize hiring through the approval of Decision Package # 52 - PD Referral and Recruitment Program.
This program would increase recruitment for lateral candidates through sign-on and referral bonuses. Additionally, the Department intends to continue to market the City’s many video vignettes, special programs, special assignment details, positive history of community engagement, and its contemporary social media platforms to attract candidates from across the country.
BRR #24
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #24
June 7, 2022
Question:
What are the estimated costs for the March 7, 2023 General Municipal Election? Response:
On March 7, 2023, the City Clerk’s Office will conduct the General Municipal Election for Councilmembers in District’s Three and Five, the City Clerk, the City Treasurer and two members of the Redondo Beach Unified School District Board. Also included on the ballot, as of June 7, is the cannabis initiative (a 20-page ordinance, as written). It is also possible that additional measures will be included on the ballot as a result of recommendations from the Charter Review Advisory Committee. Additional measures could increase printing and postage costs depending on the volume and type.
Overall, the estimated cost for the election is $353,725. Funding for the election is proposed as part of Decision Package # 21 and is comprised of the following:
• Staff: both part-time and overtime (pre-, day of, and post-election) to assist with the vote-by-mail process and signature verification in an amount of $45,000; • Postage: mailing of Voter Information Guide and prepaid vote-by-mail ballots in an amount of $35,500;
• Election costs related to poll workers and location procurement in an amount of $1,500;
• Supplies and Advertising costs for election associated supplies, certificate framing, annual election conference registration and travel, and legal advertising in an amount of $5,925;
• Contracts/Professional Services:
o Netfile – e-filing and City website publication of campaign finance reporting in an amount of $4,800;
o Consultants – professional services for pre-, day of, and post-election consultation and voter management election software in an amount of $50,000;
o Printing – fulfillment, printing of voter information guide, district and city-wide ballots, and language translation in an amount of $150,000; o Ballot Tabulation Equipment – includes vendor assisted on-site services in an amount of $50,000;
o Candidate statement upfront costs in an amount of $10,000; and o LA County - Verification of signatures not found in the county’s subscription database in an amount of $1,000.
BRR #25
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #25
June 7, 2022
Question:
What are the benefits and feasibility of a self-service program at the North Branch Library? Response:
As part of the January 2022 Strategic Plan process, the Redondo Beach Library Commission submitted a letter asking the City Council to consider implementing the open+access system for the North Branch Library. An analysis of the benefits and feasibility of a library self-service program was then added as an Objective of the Strategic Plan.
Developed by the company Bibliotheca, open+access is a system that allows patrons access to a library building, as well as the building’s collections, computers, and Wi-Fi, during hours when the building is unstaffed. The service hours at both the North Branch and the Main Library were reduced during FY 2020-21 due to fiscal impacts from COVID19. The North Branch is currently open thirty-two hours per week (down from forty) while the Main Library is currently open forty hours per week (down from fifty-six). Due to its smaller size, the North Branch is a more feasible location for open+access than the Main Library.
The implementation of open+access at the North Branch Library would offer multiple benefits. Primarily, it would allow for an expansion of service hours without incurring the full costs of staffing. As an example, the Hill Road Library in Ventura County implemented open+access in February of 2018 which allowed the branch to open two hours earlier during weekdays and Saturday and allowed for additional services on Sundays. This particular branch has over 1,000 program patrons and has provided these additional hours of service at an estimated 60% reduced cost compared to normal staffed operations.
Cities across the state have received the California State Library “Bringing the Library to You: Mobile Library Solutions” grant to implement open+access within their facilities.
Santa Monica and Torrance are both recipients of this particular grant. While Santa Monica launched its open+access program in July 2021, Torrance was able to use grant funds to prepare for self-service hours by installing security cameras and retrofitting facility doors for automatic lock/unlock capabilities.
The California State Library plans to offer “Bringing the Library to You” grants again in FY 2022-23. This grant could potentially cover up to $5,000 of set-up fees as well as the first two years of subscription fees.
BRR #25
Bibliotheca provided a quote to Redondo Beach Public Library for the installation and ongoing subscription fees to implement open+access at the North Branch Library. Onetime installation fees total $6,198, while ongoing subscription fees total $10,688 annually.
The automatic door facing the parking lot would require modification to allow for electronically controlled access. Modifications could include a piggyback off a current access control, a link into the door sensor, or a dry contact relay going into an electronic strike lock. If the door has to be replaced entirely it could cost up to $40,000. There is an adjacent manual door as well as a manual door on the opposite end of the lobby, facing Artesia Boulevard. Although these doors would remain locked to prevent entry, patrons could exit from them.
Bibliotheca is unable to provide security cameras for the North Branch due to the complexity of the building. Representatives from the City’s existing security camera vendor, VectorUSA, provided the City with estimated costs. First year costs for the nine recommended cameras, installation, and monitoring would total approximately $20,023 and ongoing annual maintenance costs would be approximately $304. This turnkey system would tie into the existing video management software managed by the City Police Department.
The total cost for year one of the project, assuming the maximum cost for door modifications required, is estimated at $76,909, with no grant funds factored in. Going forward, open+access would require ongoing costs of approximately $10,688 for subscription fees and $304 in security camera costs. This is compared to restoring eight staffed hours per week to the North Branch at a cost of $30,000 annually in part-time funds. Additional hours, past the proposed restoration of eight per week, would require an additional allocation of full-time personnel.
Installation Expenditures
Installation fee $6,198
Subscription fee $10,688
Door modification $40,000
Security cameras $20,023
Total $76,909
Attachments
Library Commission strategic planning letter
open+access quote
VectorUSA proposal
Ocean Park Branch photos
Ongoing Annual Expenditures
Subscription fee $10,688
Security cameras $304
Total $10,992
ATTACHMENT 25A
ATTACHMENT 25A
ATTACHMENT 25A
Redondo Beach Public Library
Extending Access and Advanced Analytics
Date: March 17th, 2022
ATTACHMENT 25B
www.bibliotheca.com, page 1
March 17, 2022
Susan Anderson
Director, Redondo Beach Public Library
303 N. Pacific Coast Highway
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
tel 310 318-0674
Re: Extending Access and Advanced Analytics
Dear Mrs. Anderson,
Libraries today are faced with many unique challenges. We have conversations with libraries that are struggling to respond to the need for patrons to gain access to library materials during the Covid-19 pandemic. During our conversation this week, we learned of your preliminary goal for reopening Redondo Beach Public Library and that creating a safe way increase access to materials is a top priority.
More than ever, shift workers, students, senior citizens and vulnerable individuals all need Redondo Beach Public Library’s resources. They need access to crucial library materials and services, and they need a self-service experience that allows them to safely socially distance and while accessing your resources. We don’t know how long the current pandemic will last, but forward-thinking libraries like yours are taking action now so they can continue to stay relevant and accessible well into the future.
With the right partner, Redondo Beach Public Library can re-open its libraries with extended access technology that increases access to your resources and keeps patrons safe during and after the Covid-19 crisis. bibliotheca will support you in taking the next steps toward enhancing library services at a time when the community needs it most.
This proposal includes special pricing to assist Redondo Beach Public Library in re-opening its libraries. As the Covid-19 pandemic has shown us, libraries remain critical for their communities, and providing accessible and safe ways to access library materials is of utmost importance.
Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Mason Humphrey
VP of Sales, West
ATTACHMENT 25B
www.bibliotheca.com, page 2
Flexible extended access
Redondo Beach Public Library needs a solution that will allow you to comply with social distancing guidelines and embrace the need for increasing patron engagement and awareness by offering extended access to your resources. By moving quickly to deploy technology in safely re-opening your libraries, Redondo Beach Public Library will be making it safer for patrons to access materials and library services in a way they find most comfortable.
In fact, 75% of patrons prefer self-service solutions, according to a recent study by Pew Research Center. Staff members will also benefit from increased patron self-service, as they can focus on the needs of community, rather than spending precious time on transactional processes.
How can you encourage patrons to return to Redondo Beach Public Library and reassure them that safe social distancing will be in place? How can you use technology to control the number of people physically allowed in the building at one time to comply with social distancing guidelines?
Without a measured approach to allowing access, Redondo Beach Public Library risks becoming a virus hotspot.
Our proposal includes two different Open+ solutions that will allow patrons to enter the library during staffed and un-staffed hours to use your solutions and services or accurately track occupancy in the building/spaces.
Libraries around the world have offered Open+, our flexible extended access solution, to their libraries for years. bibliotheca’s Open+ will support you in meeting Redondo Beach Public Library’s goals:
Supports social distancing compliancy
Extends access to library resources during a time when more and more patrons will need it
Increase library hours, especially on Sundays and for branches with fewer open hours We appreciate the opportunity to present our solutions and welcome any discussion about our proposal.
ATTACHMENT 25B
www.bibliotheca.com, page 3
open+ controlled library access
With almost 1000 libraries relying on open+ globally, bibliotheca is the first library technology provider in North America to bring a truly integrated library-focused solution that allows for extended access to library spaces and resources.
open+ complements staffed library hours, creating a more convenient and accessible community hub. From extending access to an entire library or only a section of it, providing full self-service resources or mainly a holds pick-up area, open+ allows libraries the flexibility to extend access in the way that best meets the needs of their community and space. There is no one-size-fits-all approach with this technology.
An annual open+ subscription is predictable as there is no increase to price if you increase open hours. In addition, the open+ subscription includes ongoing software releases and support for the entire solution, and it’s a hosted solution, so CPL doesn’t have to worry about on-site server maintenance.
Learn how open+ works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoIV-h7bCR0 ATTACHMENT 25B
www.bibliotheca.com, page 4
Helping libraries comply with new social distancing regulations By using state-of-the-art technology, bibliotheca’s Open+ solutions has been deployed at hundreds of libraries around to world to:
Control the physical access to the building: Using the Open+ Core access control panel, library staff can remotely and automatically lock the doors when the building has reached its maximum level of compliancy. This ensures continued support of social distancing within the library. It also eliminates the need for staff to personally attempt to restrict people from entering the library. Once a user leaves the library, freeing up capacity, the doors automatically unlock for new library users to enter. This delicate balance of ingress and egress is controlled by a central software system with flexible occupancy limits. open+ can be linked to our digital communication platform and other displays to inform users of current occupancy restrictions to entry.
Broadcast messages to all members: Open+ Core includes an integrated audio system that plays pre-recorded announcements triggered by customizable scenarios. Library staff can use these messages to let people know when the library is close to capacity and kindly ask those who have been in the library for an extended time to finish their visit and free up space for new visitors.
Gain real-time accurate people counts with Open+ Count: Using a flexible, 3D camera-based people-counting solution on select library entrances, Open+ Analytics quickly, accurately, and anonymously determines how many people are inside the building at one time. Paired with the occupancy software, live screens placed throughout the library display real-time occupancy counts. Color-coded warning levels provide a visual indicator of library capacity and warn users and staff when occupancy nears a non-compliance.
ATTACHMENT 25B
www.bibliotheca.com, page 5
open+ Pricing
We have special pricing to assist Redondo Beach Public Library in re-opening your libraries with extended access solutions that can be tailored to each branch. The following pricing is the basic open+ Access & Count implementation with supporting hardware and software.
Products include implementation and 12-month warranty Quantity Price per Unit
open+ Access subscription & hardware service
Annual per branch. This price is for 1 branch, however, if you implement Open+ Access at more than one location the pricing for the subscription goes down
1 $9,989
open+ Access enterprise hardware for initial installation One-time, per branch.
Hardware includes:
1 Controller
1 Entry panel
1 Amplifier
2 Speakers
CAT7 cable/connectors
1 $4,499
open+ Count enterprise annual software & hardware subscription $699 Annual per year, hosted. $1,100 one-time fee for remote setup, configuration, and web portal access.
1 $1,799
Introduction to open+ Count Training
One-time remote training session (2 hours) for up to 10 staff to deep dive into the Open+ Count analytics solution, best practices, and how to present live information to the public 1 $350
Shipping & Handling 1 $249
Note: The library is required to prepare the sites for all open+ implementations according to bibliotheca’s site-planning guides. Open+ Count hardware is self-install and the software and configuration is remotely installed by Bibliotheca.
ATTACHMENT 25B
www.bibliotheca.com, page 6
Accepted By: ____________________________________________________________ Accepted Date: __________________________________________________________ Customer Purchase Order Number: _________________________________________ ATTACHMENT 25B
Bibliotheca, LLC
3169 Holcomb Bridge Road, Suite 200
Norcross, GA 30071
www.bibliotheca.com
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 25B
Vector Resources, Inc dba VectorUSA
20917 Higgins Court, Torrance CA 90501 Confidential
VRN 110909-001
May 24, 2022
Prepared For: City of Redondo Beach Library
Susan Anderson
303 N. Pacific Coast Highway
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Project Description: New Turnkey Surveillance System
Proposal V.1
Prepared By: Salvador Palacios
Account Executive
310-436-1090
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 25C
2 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Table of Contents
Company Overview................................................................................................................................. 3 Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 4 Statement of Work................................................................................................................................... 5 Overview........................................................................................................................................ 5 Cameras and Mounts......................................................................................................................... 5 Servers, Storage and Licensing........................................................................................................... 5 Switching........................................................................................................................................ 5 Power............................................................................................................................................. 5 Connectivity.................................................................................................................................... 5 Pathway.......................................................................................................................................... 6 Deliverables........................................................................................................................................ 6 Assumptions ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Exclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Definitions.......................................................................................................................................... 7 Project Parameters / Caveats..................................................................................................................... 8 Price Guarantee..................................................................................................................................... 10 Lead Time Disclaimer............................................................................................................................ 10 Project Pricing ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Warranty.............................................................................................................................................. 12 Maintenance and Managed Services......................................................................................................... 13 Terms & Conditions............................................................................................................................... 14 Signature & Acceptance ......................................................................................................................... 17 Appendices........................................................................................................................................... 18 IPVM Drawing.................................................................................................................................. 18 ATTACHMENT 25C
3 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Company Overview
VectorUSA’s corporate visionisto become the unsurpassedstandardin“connecting people to information and the world.” We build our business one customer at a time throughourfamilyof dedicatedemployees providing reliable, high quality communications designs and solutions that exceed our customers’ expectations.
Headquartered in Torrance, CA, with offices in San Diego, CA, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, Scottsdale, AZ and Charlotte, NC, VectorUSA maintains an industry-wide reputation for delivering the highest quality products and services while executing projects on time and on budget in all types of production environments.
VectorUSA employs more than 350 people trained and certified to support the products and services we offer.
Through continuous training and education, we maintain numerous certifications in the areas of Data Center Design and implementation, Collaboration / Video Conferencing, Unified Communications / VoIP, Cloud, Network Infrastructure, Wireless Networking, Cyber Security, Physical Layer - Fiber and Copper Infrastructure, Surveillance & Analytics, Access Control as well as Commercial and Professional Audio-Visual Systems.
Customer service and support is paramount; to provide the best service possible, VectorUSA has two network operation centers one in California and another in North Carolina. This allows us to provide 24/7/365 coverage to our clients.
VectorUSA has established partnerships with the industry leading manufacturers included in our products and service portfolio. Our partnerships include Cisco Gold, Cisco Data Center Architecture, Cisco Collaboration Architecture, HP Enterprise / Aruba Platinum, Microsoft, VMWare, Veeam, Fortinet, Qognify, Milestone Gold, Avigilon, Axis, Hanwa Gold, Siemon Company, CommScope, Corning, Sumitomo, Hitachi, Crestron, Extron as well as other industry leading manufacturers.
ATTACHMENT 25C
4 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Executive Summary
VectorUSA has assessed the library and is recommending the following surveillance solution. Our proposed surveillance design includes 10 Hanwha cameras, 10 new Qognify Ocularis Enterprise licenses and SMA’s for the library. The libraries new surveillance system will tie into the existing video management software managed by the city police department. New cable support hardware will be provided in the area above the hard lid ceiling.
ATTACHMENT 25C
5 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Statement of Work
Overview
VectorUSA will provide a new surveillance system that will tie into the existing video management software for the City of Redondo Beach Police Department.
Cameras and Mounts
VectorUSA will provide and install a total of ten (10) new cameras. The camera models and types to be installed indoors are as follows:
• (1) Hanwha PNM-9000VD – 2x5MP Dual-Sensor w/ IR – (1) Surface Mount • (2) Hanwha QND-6082R – 2MP Indoor Dome w/ IR – (2) Surface Mount • (5) Hanwha QND-8080R – 5MP Indoor Dome w/ IR – (5) Surface Mount • (1) Hanwha QNF-9010 – 12MP Fisheye Dome w/ IR – (1) Surface Mount • (1) Hanwha QND-6012R – 2MP Indoor Dome fixed 2.8mm lens w/ IR – (1) Surface Mount Camera locations are shown on the IPVM drawings in the Appendix. Camera views will be configured by VectorUSA with the direction of the end user main point of contact.
Servers, Storage and Licensing
VectorUSA will provide ten (10) new Qognify Ocularis Enterprise camera licenses and SMA for the cameras added to the North Library. It is assumed the cameras will link back to the police department VMS system so they can have the view of the cameras. It is assumed the centralized storage will have room for the new cameras. The following shows the calculation for the retention needed for the new cameras:
If more storage is needed on the back end to accommodate these cameras, the adjustment to the project will be addressed via a written change order or through a separate proposal. VectorUSA will configure the camera views and the VMS software on the back end to set the required recording retention and settings for the library cameras.
The yearly Ocularis SMA license cost for the ten (10) cameras in this proposal is $304.30 (Pending price fluctuations year to year).
Switching
VectorUSA assumes the existing switches have enough PoE ports and can be used for the ten new cameras.
Power
It is assumed PoE power will be used to power the new cameras.
Connectivity
VectorUSA will provide and install new Category 6 plenum copper cable to connect to the new cameras. Cables will have a permanent link between the patch panel in the IT Closet and a surface mount box near the camera location.
Patch cords will be installed on each side with one connecting to the camera from the surface mount box and one connecting to the existing switch from the patch panel.
ATTACHMENT 25C
6 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Pathway
New cable support hardware will be provided in the area above the hard lid ceiling. VectorUSA assumes there is an access hatch to get above the ceiling to run the cable for the cameras. If there is no access, a new solution for pathway will need to be addressed via a written change order.
Deliverables
Upon completion of work outlined in the Statement of Work, VectorUSA will provide the client with a closeout package containing the following documentation:
Surveillance Closeout Documentation Checklist
Included Description Notes
☐ As-Built Drawings
☒ Asset List
☐ Final Camera FOV Images
☐ Inspection Report
☒ IPVM Drawings Included in Appendix
Assumptions
• VectorUSA assumes existing switches can be used for this project. • VectorUSA assumes the centralized server for the police department will be used to record and view these new cameras at the North Library.
• VectorUSA assumes there is access above the ceiling in the library to run the new cable.
If any of the above assumptions are incorrect, the adjustments to the project will be addressed via a written change order.
Exclusions
• VectorUSA excludes providing switching for this project. • VectorUSA excludes any electrical for this project.
• VectorUSA excludes providing patch panels for this project. • VectorUSA excludes providing a new workstation or components to view the cameras.
ATTACHMENT 25C
7 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Definitions
Surveillance Asset list: Asset lists provide information on devices pertinent to the project. This includes but is not limited to the following:
• Server Information
• VMS Information
• Camera Information
• IP Information
• Network Topology Information (if applicable)
Final Camera Field-of-View (FOV) Images: The final camera FOV is the coverage provided by a camera within the surveillance system after configuration and alignment. This is the view that the end-user will receive and approve prior to completion of a job.
IPVM - IP Video Market (surveillance industry information) Drawings: IPVM drawings provide an overview of proposed camera installations and can provide information on camera types, lens types, FOVs, frame rates, storage requirements, and other important surveillance information.
ATTACHMENT 25C
8 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Project Parameters / Caveats
Change Order: Any work that is added to or deleted from the original scope of this proposal that alters the original costs or completion date must be agreed upon by both parties in the form of a written change order.
Proprietary Information: The information contained in this document is proprietary to VectorUSA and intended to be used as evaluative and / or bidding information only. No part of this document may be disclosed, reproduced and/or distributed to anyone except the listed recipients within this package without written permission from VectorUSA.
Add & Delete: Any additional work requested outside of the scope of work will be considered as separate work and addressed in
the form of a written change order. This proposal is not to be used as an "add & delete" schedule.
Defective Materials: If, due to problems with the existing hardware and / or materials provided by the client or other third parties, here is a delay and / or VectorUSA is unable to perform the work outlined in the scope of work it will be addressed in the form of a written change order.
Extraordinary Service: Certain additional charges related to extraordinary levels of support or out-of-pocket costs incurred by VectorUSA, through no fault of its own, shall be reimbursed to VectorUSA by the client under this agreement.
Examples of costs reimbursable under this section include, but are not limited to 1) shipping expenses related to unusual site handling fees (e.g., extra distance, no loading dock, extra stairs, extra demurrage charges); 2) storage or special handling expenses incurred if an installation site is not able to accept delivery as scheduled; 3) expenses incurred by VectorUSA to resolve network compatibility issues caused by a client’s election to substitute nonVectorUSA provided equipment or services; and 4) expenses incurred by VectorUSA for additional installation time and / or materials caused by a site not being prepared as called for in this proposal. VectorUSA shall promptly notify the client in writing of such charges. Notification will be provided, when feasible, prior to the incurrence of such charges, unless circumstances preclude such prior written notification (by way of example, but not limited to, unusual site handling charges). Provided the incurrence of such charges is not due to VectorUSA’s fault or negligence, VectorUSA shall be entitled to an equitable adjustment in the prices herein, the delivery schedule, or both, to reflect such charges and any related delay.
Schedule: VectorUSA plans to implement this project in a continuous fashion or following the baselined schedule if submitted as part of this project. If delays or changes are introduced that are outside of VectorUSA’s control, and those changes result in additional cost those costs will be addressed in the form of a written change order.
Delays: The client must provide five (5) working days advance notice of any delays that will impact this project. If proper notice is not provided VectorUSA reserves the right to issue a work stoppage change order. Additionally, idle time incurred due to the absence of required escorts, clearance, permits, inability to enter the workplace, delays by other trades or other factors beyond VectorUSA’s control will be addressed in the form of a written change order.
Workdays / Overtime: All work will be performed during VectorUSA's standard business hours of 7am - 5pm, Monday – Friday, or as specified in the statement / scope of work. If changes to the stated work hours are required due to conditions outside of VectorUSA’s control result in additional cost those costs will be addressed in the form of a written change order.
ATTACHMENT 25C
9 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Asbestos / Hazardous Environments: VectorUSA assumes that its installation teams will be working in areas that do not contain asbestos or any other hazardous material that would require additional time or alternative installation procedures. It is the responsibility of the client to provide written notification to VectorUSA of any asbestos contained material (ACMs) in or around the area of the project prior to the start of a project. If ACMs are present prior to job commencement or if ACMs are encountered during the project, additional cost, damages and / or delays attributed to necessary procedures for working in this environment will be the client’s responsibility.
Ceiling Tile: VectorUSA exercises care in the removal, storage, and reinstallation of existing (used) ceiling tiles:
however, Vector accepts no liability for any incidental damages that may result from the handling of ceiling tiles.
Office Furniture: VectorUSA is not responsible for disassembling or moving desks or other office furniture to gain proper access to perform work.
Storage Area: The client shall provide a secured storage area onsite for VectorUSA's materials and tools. If adequate space is not provided, or the cost of temporary storage is not included in our proposal that cost will be addressed in the form of a written change order.
Coring: If any coring, x-ray, or sonar inspections are necessary that are not specifically included in our proposal, it will be addressed in the form of a written change order.
Existing Conduit: The client is responsible for ensuring that existing conduit / pathway that may be used for this project is installed and utilized in accordance with NEC requirements, have adequate space available for addition of new cables, will not exceed 60% fill ratio after new cables have been added, and are free of obstructions, blockages, and / or defects. If existing conduits / pathways to be used for this project need to be brought into compliance with current code and standards, VectorUSA can assist the client with this work if the client requests such assistance and those costs can be addressed in the form of a written change order.
ATTACHMENT 25C
10 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Price Guarantee
Due to the volatility in markets affecting material costs across all product lines we can only guarantee material costs for 30 days unless otherwise specified. If a purchase order is not received within the guaranteed window any increases will be addressed through a new proposal.
Lead Time Disclaimer
At the time of this proposal lead time for the materials specified was up to 60 Days.
Lead times on material orders are verified at the time we submit our proposals based on our understanding of the anticipated project period of performance. With the current volatility in the market driven by supply and demand those lead times cannot be guaranteed past the date of the proposal. Lead times will be refreshed once a purchase order is received and if any items have lead times that impact the project timeline a Stakeholder notification will be sent. If needed alternative “equivalent” products may be discussed and if agreed upon substituted to maintain the desired period of performance.
ATTACHMENT 25C
11 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Project Pricing
ATTACHMENT 25C
12 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Warranty
VectorUSA provides, for all work completed under this contract our Vector USA warranty. This warranty coverers all workmanship for a period of one year unless specifically extended in writing as part of this agreement.
While this agreement extends the manufacturer’s warranty for all items installed that warranty does not include labor required to replace, return, remove, install, or configure those items. If a product or item requires replacement under the manufacturer’s warranty VectorUSA will provide the labor to replace that item on a time & material basis. Materials covered under that warranty will be provided under the warranty, if any additional supporting materials are requiredthat are not covered, they would be billed.
Please note that RMA’stypically require the productto be returnedinthe originalpackaging. Itis recommendedthat packaging be retainedif possible.
This warranty does not include any damages or cost related to unforeseen environmental evens including but not limited to fire, water, rodents, construction, abuse, or misuse. VectorUSA can address and repair issues of this nature through a service request at an additional cost. If VectorUSA responds to a warranty request and upon arriving on site or at any time during that warranty call determines that the issue is related to an uncovered event or condition work will stop and the client shall be notified. If the client authorizes the repairs the warranty call will be converted to a service call and billed accordingly
ATTACHMENT 25C
13 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Maintenance and Managed Services
Maintenance Services
VectorUSA offers a full complement of proactive maintenance services to ensure the systems and software within this proposal are kept in a healthy and available state throughout the systems lifecycle. VectorUSA maintenance services can be created on a customized basis to ensure the right level of care matches the client’s business objectives and budgeting. Maintenance services are fulfilled by VectorUSA’s Service Center, backed by a full complement of Systems Technicians, Application Specialists and Network Engineers.
Maintenance Services are typically packaged into offerings based on expected lifecycle maintenance tasks or in a looser Time and Materials basis. All maintenance services provided by VectorUSA include priority queueing and 24x7 phone and email support lines, with maintenance tasks receiving proactive, flexible and predictable scheduling.
VectorUSA maintenance services can be bundled with Qognify and Hanwha Software & Hardware support to provide a complete systems maintenance solution for organizations.
Managed Services
VectorUSA provides enterprise-level IT managed services over a nationwide footprint via our (2) U.S. based Network Operations Centers (NOC)s and best-in-class services partnerships.
VectorUSA employs a ITIL-based services portfolio grouped into (3) tiers of packages based on business criticality for each individual system. VectorUSA managed services alleviates the stress on organizations to maintain a fully staffed 24x7 IT support structure, even when the pace of their business operates in a non-stop environment.
By empowering their organizations with VectorUSA managed services, our clients are able to make data-driven decisions to synchronize technology with their business objectives. Our full complement of core infrastructure managed services is able to support a heterogenous and hybrid IT footprint across geographies.
In addition to its core infrastructure services, VectorUSA manages client programs providing organizations with a single point of contact for its user helpdesk, endpoint & desktop services and cybersecurity operational services partnerships.
ATTACHMENT 25C
14 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Terms & Conditions
Assumptions and Exclusions: The above stated assumptions and exclusions are fully integrated and incorporated within the below terms and conditions and are to be treated as one inclusive document.
Scope of Services: VectorUSA agrees to provide the services stated in this Agreement for all Customer Premise Equipment (“Equipment”). VectorUSA does not warrant that the operation of any listed Equipment shall be uninterrupted. The services to be supplied by VectorUSA for the total charge set forth on this Agreement shall consist of personnel services required to respond appropriately to Customer incidents and issues, and requests for additional professional services and materials as required.
Charges for materials and services outside the scope of this Agreement but still required to resolve Customer requests shall be due and payable upon receipt of an invoice after the completion of the installation, repair, or other service. The charges and all other charges payable to VectorUSA under this Agreement are exclusive of federal, state or local tax, other than a tax on net income now or hereafter in effect or become applicable to any payment due under this Agreement, or to the Customer’s equipment. The Customer shall file all necessary tax returns and shall pay all such taxes.
Access: Customer agrees to maintain, where required, a full time, dedicated Internet connection and to allow VectorUSA access to the Customer’s network via that Internet connection. Customer agrees to allow VectorUSA employees or subcontractors access to its facilities in order to perform services under this Agreement. Customer agrees to allow VectorUSA access to the covered Equipment. Customer agrees to allow VectorUSA to load any necessary management software on their systems and / or install a Vector-owned device on the Customer network as required. Customer agrees to furnish VectorUSA with Administrator-level password access for all covered Equipment and servers, where necessary. VectorUSA agrees not to prevent Customer from accessing any Equipment owned by the Customer. If persons other than VectorUSA representatives shall perform maintenance, or repair the Equipment, and as a result further repair by VectorUSA is required to restore the Equipment to good operating condition, such repair will be made at rates for additional onsite service established in this Agreement.
Limited Warranty: VectorUSA warrants to the Customer that the material, analysis, data, programs and SERVICES to be delivered or rendered hereunder will be of the kind and quality designated and will be performed by qualified personnel. VECTOR USA MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTIES, WHETHER WRITTEN, ORAL, OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
WITHOUT LIMITATION THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Excusable Delays: VectorUSA shall not be liable for any failure or delay in furnishing maintenance or spare parts hereunder resulting from fire, explosion, flood, storm, Act of God, governmental acts, orders or regulations, hostilities, civil disturbances, strikes, labor difficulties, difficulty in obtaining parts, supplies, or shipping facilities, inability to obtain or delays in obtaining suitable material or facilities required for performance, temporary unavailability of qualified personnel, failure by Customer to provide full and appropriate access to the covered Equipment, failure of monitoring hardware or software, Customer Internet connection failure, or other causes beyond VectorUSA’s reasonable control.
Exclusions: THIS AGREEMENT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY HARDWARE PRODUCT,
OR ANY SOFTWARE LICENSING EXCEPT SOFTWARE INSTALLED AND USED EXCLUSIVELY BY VECTOR USA TO PROVIDE MONITORING AND REPORTING SERVICES. Charges for the above will be on a Time and Materials basis. The Customer is advised to maintain hardware warranties on covered equipment at their own discretion and expense.
Customer is responsible to assure all software used by the Customer is appropriately licensed.
ATTACHMENT 25C
15 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Limitation of Liability: The Customer agrees that VectorUSA will not be liable for any special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages hereunder, including but not limited to the loss of profit, or liability to third parties, however caused, whether by the act or negligence of VectorUSA or otherwise. It is recognized that the Equipment contains memories or other devices which have accumulated substantial data. In no event shall VectorUSA be liable to the Customer if any such data is lost or rendered inaccurate, regardless of the cause of any such loss or inaccuracy.
VectorUSA’s liability on any claim of loss or liability, arising out of or connected with this Agreement (including, but not limited to, loss or liability arising from VectorUSA’s breach of contract of any alleged act or negligence of Vector) shall in no case exceed the total purchase price of services covered under this Agreement. In no event shall VectorUSA’s liability for any services under this Agreement exceed $25,000. VectorUSA will in no way be held responsible and / or liable for damages, monetary or otherwise, by customer, or any other affected party, in the event of a security breach or network security-related outages, damages, losses, etc.
In no event shall either VectorUSA or the Customer be liable to the other for any indirect, special, punitive, exemplary, incidental or consequential damages (including, but not limited to, lost profits, lost business opportunities, or loss of use or equipment down time, and loss of or corruption to data) arising out of or relating to any portion of this Agreement, regardless of the legal theory under which such damages are sought, and even if VectorUSA has been advised on the possibility of such damages or loss.
Software and Operating System Errors: This Agreement is limited to services specifically defined in this Agreement.
It is the responsibility of the Customer to ensure that all of its files are adequately backed up and that all necessary materials are available, including manufacturer recovery media for software and other software to be reloaded. In no way is VectorUSA liable for defects or “bugs” in software, or for correcting errors introduced into the data, programs, or any other software due to hardware failure, or for any cost of reconstructing software or lost data.
Any technical support required to restore data integrity or to make the system function, such as, but not limited to, rebuilding corrupted records, examining files, re-installation of O / S or Software, or re-indexing databases, will be billed separately on a Time and Materials basis.
Indemnification: The Parties agree to hold each other, their employees, officers, directors, affiliates, and agents harmless from and to defend and indemnify each other from and against any and all claims, actions, disputes, fines, penalties, liquidated damages, reasonable legal costs, or other loss or liability arising from the negligent acts or omissions of the Party, its employees, officers, directors, affiliates and agents under this Agreement.
Scope of Agreement: If the scope of any of the provisions of the Agreement is too broad in any respect whatsoever to permit enforcement to its full extent, then such provisions shall be enforced to the maximum extent permitted by law, and both the Customer and VectorUSA hereto consent and agree that such scope may be judicially modified accordingly and that the whole of such provisions of this Agreement shall not hereby fail, but that the scope of such provisions shall be curtailed only to the extent necessary to conform to the law.
Assignment: This Agreement may not be assigned by either the Customer or VectorUSA without the prior written consent of the other party. Except for the prohibition on assignment contained in the preceding sentence, this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
Integration Clause: This instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes any and all prior written and / or oral agreements. This Agreement may be altered or modified only in writing signed by the parties hereto.
Applicable Law: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. It constitutes the entire Agreement between the Customer and VectorUSA. Its terms and conditions shall prevail should there be any variance with the terms and conditions of any order submitted by the Customer for the repair or maintenance of the Equipment in the Equipment. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time for failure of the other to comply with any of its Terms and Conditions.
ATTACHMENT 25C
16 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Confidentiality, Publication and Non-Compete: VectorUSA and the Customer agree that any and all information identified by the other as "Confidential" and / or "Proprietary", or which, under all of the circumstances, ought reasonably to be treated as Confidential and / or Proprietary, will not be disclosed to any third person without the express written consent of the other party. Confidential Information includes, but is not limited to, information about the respective entities' products and services, information relating to purchasing, accounting, pricing, marketing and customers not generally known in the business in which the entity has been, is or may become engaged and which is developed by, disclosed to, or becomes known as a consequence of or through each party's relationship with the other. Confidential Information does not include any information or development: (i) which is or subsequently becomes available to the general public other than through a breach by the receiving party; (ii) which is already known to the receiving partybefore disclosure by the disclosing party; (iii) which is developed through the independent efforts of the receiving party; or (iv) which the receiving party rightfully receives from third parties without restriction as to use.
Upon the expiration of the term of this Agreement, VectorUSA shall, and shall instruct its agents to whom Confidential Information was disclosed pursuant hereto, continue to treat as confidential and preserve the confidentiality of all Confidential Information received from the Customer.
Neither VectorUSA nor Customer shall directly or indirectly, solicit, recruit or hire any Customer or VectorUSA personnel, whether or not such personnel performed work for the Customer, during the term of this agreement and for a period of one (1) year after the termination of this agreement. The provisions of this Section shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement.
The Customer represents that he is owner of the Equipment subject to this Agreement or if not the owner, he has authority to enter into the Agreement.
Prevailing Wage: Unless specifically stated in the scope of work VectorUSA has based this proposal on nonprevailing wage labor rates. If we are informed or it is determined later that the project is subject to prevailing wage rates for the performance of the public work portion of the contract, VectorUSA will submit those changes / additional costs that the project may incur will be address in the form of a written change order.
Sales Tax: If Sales tax is applicable, it shall be is calculated and billed based on the effective tax rates at the date of invoice.
Payment and Termination: All payments are due net 30 from the date of invoice. VectorUSA reserves the right to stop work, delay delivery of services and / or products for failure by customer topay within terms of this agreement.
VectorUSA reserves the right to deem this contract in default immediately and terminate it if the payment is delinquent more than thirty (30) days. If customer is in default in the payment of the Agreement charge(s) and fails to cure such default within ten (10) days after receiving written notification of such default, the Customer agrees to pay reasonable collection costs, late charges and / or Attorney Fees. Late charges, if levied, shall be assessed at
1.5%monthly or 18% annually.
Contract: Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing this contract will be executed as a fixed price contract.
Acceptance of Order: This quote is valid for 30 days. The prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. VectorUSA is authorized to do the work as specified. Signature andPurchaseOrder due upon acceptance.
ATTACHMENT 25C
17 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Signature & Acceptance
Material Total $ 8,772.74
Labor Total $ 10,606.67
Tax Total $ 643.95
Proposal Total $ 20,023.36
Accepted and Approved for:
City of Redondo Beach Library VectorUSA
303 N. Pacific Coast Highway 20917 Higgins Court
Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Torrance, CA 90501
(Date) (Date)
(Printed Name) (Printed Name)
(Printed Title) (Printed Title)
(Signature) (Signature)
ATTACHMENT 25C
18 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Appendices
IPVM Drawing
IPVM Designer Calculation | May 23, 2022
Overview
ATTACHMENT 25C
19 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Camera 1: Imager 1
Camera 1: Imager 2
ATTACHMENT 25C
20 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Camera 2
Camera 3
ATTACHMENT 25C
21 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Camera 4
Camera 5
ATTACHMENT 25C
22 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Camera 6
Camera 7
ATTACHMENT 25C
23 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Camera 8
Camera 9
ATTACHMENT 25C
24 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential Camera 10
Network Closet 1 (Devices 1–10 of 10)
ATTACHMENT 25C
25 | Page
VectorUSA / 20917 Higgins Court / Torrance, CA 90501 Confidential This presentation is an output of the IPVM Designer / Calculator but is the work product of the individual who created it. IPVM does not guarantee nor warranty the work therein nor its implementation. Issues that may impact actual performance include but are not limited to lighting conditions, lens quality, and compression level.
ATTACHMENT 25C
Santa Monica Public Library- Ocean Park Branch
open+access Photos
card access to door automatic sliding doors
notice on door
ATTACHMENT 25D
posted rules security camera
phone access to staffed location
ATTACHMENT 25D
BRR #26
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #26
June 14, 2022
Question:
What would be the cost to repave International Boardwalk with asphalt or concrete pavers and to paint the boardwalk’s building exteriors?
Response:
The International Boardwalk’s lower walk is a horseshoe shaped paved area around Basin 3 in the City’s watefront. One side is bounded by the seawall that defines the shape of Basin 3 and the other side by commercial space housing restaurants, bars and retail stores. The total paved surface area is about 21,000 square feet.
The proposed FY 2022-23 CIP includes a budget appropriation of $500,000 to provide for asphalt repaving of this space. The cost to install pavers is typically 40% to 50% higher than asphalt paving. However, given the tight spaces, the price differential might be less. An additional appropriation of $200,000 would be suggested to cover the increased cost of pavers, if desired.
Painting the buildings along the International Boardwalk would involve power washing and/or sandblasting, scaffolding, work area screening, patching and repairs, and multicoat paint application. All of these work items are made more difficult due to the proximity of the ocean and the need for strict environmental protection. The City’s maintenance staff estimates a $200,000 budget would be needed to complete the work.
BRR #27
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #27
June 14, 2022
Question:
What would be the cost to install a gateway arch at Artesia Blvd. and Inglewood Ave. or at Redondo Beach Blvd and Hawthorne Blvd.?
Response:
Installation of an arch-style sign at one of the City’s key entry points would include the following:
• Sign Design
• Structural Design
• Manufacture of Sign
• Installation
The estimated total cost is between $350,000 to $450,000. Pictured below are sample arch signs from several neighborhoods in San Diego, although there are many other styles available.
BRR #27
BRR #28
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #28
June 14, 2022
Question:
What is the estimated cost for a structural engineering firm to perform a second assessment of the Pier Parking Structure’s physical condition? Response:
Walker Consultants (Walker) has provided structural and condition analysis services to the City for the Pier Parking Structures for the last 10 years. Walker performed a condition assessment along with a Tier 2 Evaluation of the Pier Parking Structures (North Pier, South Pier, and Plaza Parking Structures) in 2012 for $121,800 and then performed an update of the condition assessment in 2015 for $13,800. In 2021, Walker was awarded a contract for $79,000 to perform a new condition assessment with invasive testing and a seismic evaluation of the North Pier Parking Structure. The City’s total investment in these services is $214,600.
Staff has conducted outreach to consultants and other public agencies to generate an estimate for a second assessment of the Pier Parking Structure’s physical condition.
Based on these correspondences and factoring cost escalation, staff estimates a budget of $235,000 would be sufficient to recreate the Condition Assessment and Tier 2 Evaluation with invasive testing. As an alternative, the City may also have Walker’s assessments peer-reviewed by another qualified firm. Staff estimates a cost of $50,000- $75,000 to have another consultant provide a peer review of the assessments completed by Walker.
BRR #28
(This is a sample only – not approved for construction.) BRR #29
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #29
June 14, 2022
Question:
What is the Police Department currently doing to enhance safety and security at Redondo Beach schools and what is the estimated cost to place a School Resources Officer at each public school?
Response:
Current RBPD School Safety and Security Measures
Providing excellent school safety has always been a priority of the Redondo Beach Police Department (RBPD). The Redondo Beach Unified School District (RBUSD) and the Police Department have worked cooperatively for a sustained period to build relationships and to enhance training and coordination in order to deliver greater safety throughout our School District.
The RBUSD is comprised of eight elementary schools, two middle schools and one high school. In addition, the District also has a continuation school and an adult educational school. The Police Department has consistently provided a specifically trained Police Officer to respond to calls for service at any of the schools in the District. In 2019 the RBUSD and RBPD entered into a memorandum of understanding to provide a designated Police Officer who would regularly be assigned to the public safety needs of the Redondo Union High School. As part of that agreement, the RBUSD paid $100,000 annually to supplement a portion of the Police Officer’s salary. The City Council recently extended the MOU with the RBUSD through June 30, 2023.
Currently, two specifically trained Police Officers are assigned to the Special Operations Bureau as School Resource Officers (SRO). One of the Police Officers is assigned to Redondo Union High School and is responsible for calls for service, engagement and patrolling the campus and events held at the campus. The second SRO is responsible for the calls for service and patrolling of the middle and elementary schools in the District.
Police Officers from other divisions of the Police Department, such as the Patrol Division also contribute to patrolling and answering calls for service to the various schools in the District.
The RBPD remains at a state of readiness by creating updated safety programs and conducting assessments, drills and training. These are tasks in which the entire Police Department participates in order to provide robust public safety to all RBUSD schools.
Three significant proactive responses by the RBPD to improve school safety in the recent past were:
BRR #29
1. Conduct RUN, HIDE, FIGHT training, which is the most up-to-date active shooter training, to every adult member at every campus in the RBUSD.
2. Create a specialized cadre of Police Officers to conduct sight safety assessments of every campus in the RBUSD and provide recommendations for safety upgrades.
3. Provide the most up to date medical trauma kits for every classroom and building in the RBUSD as well as train every teacher and staff member in how to provide emergency life-saving trauma care in the most extreme circumstances.
These partnerships are labor-intensive and are costly to maintain. However, they are the best practices in providing excellent safety for schools in our District. In addition to these safety measures, the RBPD continues to do the following to maintain the highest level of safety readiness at schools in the RBUSD:
1. Refresher training on the RUN, HIDE, FIGHT training curriculum.
2. Refresher training on the use of Trauma Kits.
3. Ongoing and consistent dialogue between SROs and RBUSD staff about safety and security.
4. SRO-initiated daily meetings with school staff and security to identify priorities.
5. Daily security checks conducted by SROs of campuses to ensure, amongst other security measures, that school gates are secured.
6. At each school in the district, Patrol Officers engage in conversations with students, parents and educators regarding school safety and providing reassurances during times of concern.
7. The school campus administrators contact list at all sites is maintained and updated regularly.
8. SROs attend school events, meetings, district school board meetings and parent/teacher conferences as requested.
9. Officers, track and update locations and confirm availability of campus keys for law enforcement use during emergency situations.
10.Patrol Officers, Traffic Units, School Resource Officers and Community Services Unit personnel conduct high-visibility patrols at drop-off, pick-up, and during other school hours.
11.Provide regular Department-wide briefing discussions and training for current response methods to an active shooter or other critical incident protocols.
BRR #29
12.Partnership with RBUSD on a software program which allows for RBPD to view pre-determined surveillance cameras on campuses in the event of an emergency to maximize response efficiencies.
13.SRO-developed refresher training with the Department’s Patrol Division on school campus layouts and orientation during summer break.
14.SRO-coordinated Active Shooter refresher training drills for PD personnel.
15.Continued development of relationships between SROs and RBUSD staff - SROs make themselves available by cellphone, if needed, to address any immediate concerns.
Placing a School Resources Officer at Each School
Ensuring a Police Officer is placed at each of the eleven campuses in the RBUSD would require a staff of an additional twenty Police Officers and two Police Sergeants. SROs are contractually allowed to work a schedule of ten hours per day, for four days in the week.
Additionally, considering contractually agreed upon time off, potential injury or sick leave time off, and mandatory training requirements, twenty Police Officers would be needed to ensure coverage of every school day and the additional school related events. Assigning two Sergeants to supervise the unit would be needed to ensure a reasonable span of control, while Police Department processes and policies are adhered to and would be consistent with the current supervisory span of control models used within the Department.
Supervisors would also be responsible for ensuring proper training and engagement is occurring at each of the schools in the District. Up to eleven new Police vehicles would also be required to add to the Department’s current fleet to ensure SROs have proper transportation, in marked police vehicles, to and from campuses and to conduct law enforcement duties and patrols around campuses.
The cost of a fully-funded Police Officer, on average is $182,672 annually. The average fully-funded cost of a Police Sergeant is $244,668. The cost for 20 Police Officers is $3,653,440 and 2 Police Sergeants is $ 489,336. The total ongoing cost, depicted below, for the Police personnel needed to provide SRO’s at all public school sites is $4,142,776.
An additional $1M (or more) would be needed to provide vehicles, uniforms, and equipment for the expanded program.
Rank Staff Total Avg. Salary Total
Officers 20 $182,672 $3,653,440
Sergeants 2 $244,668 $489,336
Total Annual Cost $4,142,776
BRR #30
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #30
June 14, 2022
Question:
What is the estimated cost to beautify the median on Phelan Lane, between Robinson Street and Johnston Avenue?
Response:
Phelan Lane/Beland Boulevard between Robinson Street and Johnston Avenue contains a landscaped parkway/median along the frontage of a small commercial strip. The area currently contains turf and 10 Bottle Brush trees. A project to enhance and beautify the area would involve the following:
• Removal of existing turf
• Installation of drought tolerant plants and shrubs
• Installation of a drip irrigation system
• Installation of mulch
Performing the work in-house would require about 160 labor hours and roughly $5,000 of material costs. The Public Works Parks Division is currently short-staffed and could not immediately take on the project without impacting core services. Outsourcing the work to a landscaping contractor would cost $15,000 to $20,000. Some of the cost could possibly be mitigated through a turf replacement grant.
BRR #31
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #31
June 14, 2022
Question:
What is the estimated cost to design and construct signalized crosswalks on Aviation Boulevard at two intersections between Artesia Boulevard and Manhattan Beach Boulevard? What is the estimated cost to install audible indicators at Beryl Street and Catalina Avenue?
Response:
Signalized Crosswalks on Aviation Boulevard
Pedestrian crossings across busy arterials like Aviation Boulevard would typically be assigned to signalized intersections. The only signalized intersection in the stretch of Aviation Boulevard between Artesia Boulevard and Manhattan Beach Boulevard is at Robinson Street. New pedestrian crossings would involve installation of a new traffic signal system at each location. For budget purposes, staff estimates a new traffic signal system installation across Aviation Boulevard to be $450,000 per location.
As an alternative, a hybrid beacon crossing (similar to what exists across PCH just south of 3rd Street in Hermosa Beach, see photo) could be installed. These systems are pedestrian activated and, when not in use, go dark which conserves energy. For budget purposes, staff estimates a new hybrid beacon crossing across Aviation Boulevard to be $300,000 per location.
BRR #31
Audible Indicator at Beryl Street and Catalina Avenue
Accessible pedestrian signals (APS) provide audible and/or vibrotactile information coinciding with visual pedestrian signals to let sight-impaired pedestrians know precisely when the WALK interval begins. This information is useful in analyzing an intersection and preparing to cross. Audible signals can also provide directional guidance, which is particularly useful at non-perpendicular intersections and at wide multi-lane crossings.
At an intersection like Beryl Street and Catalina Avenue the existing pedestrian push buttons can be replaced with push button units providing the audible and vibrotactile feedback. A budget estimate of $10,000 per intersection is considered adequate to make such a replacement. Per guidance in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, an engineering traffic study may be appropriate to support their use at intersections presenting difficulties for pedestrians with visual disabilities. Such a study, when needed, may increase the total cost by 25% to 30%.
BRR #32
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #32
June 14, 2022
Question:
What is the cost of planting trees in available City-controlled sites? Can trees be planted along the North Redondo Beach Bike Path and, if so, what type and at what cost? Response:
Tree Plantings in Available City-Controlled Sites
The Public Works Department typically plants approximately 100 new trees per year in parkways, medians, parks and other green spaces. The plantings are performed by an outside vendor through the City’s contract for tree trimming services. Decision Package #63 in the proposed FY 2022-23 Budget requests funding for 350 new plantings during the upcoming fiscal year. The cost to plant 350 24-inch box trees, plus a contract with an outside vendor to water and maintain the trees during the first year following installation, would be approximately $145,000.
According to Arbor Access, the software used to track maintenance of the City’s tree inventory, there are approximately 2,000 potential sites available for new trees around Redondo Beach. This figure is somewhat inflated as a number of the sites are likely not suitable for tree plantings because of underground utilities and other access issues. If 75% of those sites (1,500) are suitable, the cost to plant new trees in all of them and have the trees maintained for a year would be approximately $620,000.
Tree Plantings Along the North Redondo Beach Bike Path
The bicycle path along the Southern California Edison (SCE) right of way in North Redondo Beach is approximately 3,700 feet long, not including the 11 streets the path crosses. Roughly 1,000 feet of the path frontage are not able to accommodate trees as SCE does not allow any above-ground improvements within 90 feet of their power line support towers. There would also be a 15-foot height limit on any trees in the right of way. Approximately 110 trees could be planted in the remaining 2,700 feet of frontage.
Trees could be planted every 25 feet, alternating on each side of the path. The cost to plant 110 24-inch box trees, plus a contract with an outside vendor to water and maintain the trees during the first year following installation, would be approximately $47,000.
Per the City’s License Agreement, SCE would have to approve the installation of all trees.
The Public Works Department’s certified arborist believes Strawberry (Arbutus Marina), Fruitless Olive (Olea Europaea) and/or Toyon (Heteromeles Arbutifolia) are the BRR #32
appropriate species for the area and would be acceptable to SCE. If the Council appropriates funding for the planting of trees on the right of way, staff would prepare a plan and submit it to Edison for review and approval.
BRR #33
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #33
June 14, 2022
Question:
What is the cost to install pickleball courts on the vacant field behind Aviation Gymnasium?
Response:
As part of the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget, the City Council directed staff to conduct a pickleball feasibility study. Hirsch & Associates was selected to complete this study, which included an analysis of the open field area located behind Aviation Park Gymnasium. Currently, this area is unused and unassigned for another use. Current site conditions are shown below:
The feasibility study provides an analysis of the installation of six (6) pickleball courts positioned in a north/south orientation, which is optimal for game play visibility. This layout is shown in Image 1 below.
BRR #33
Image 1: Conceptual Layout for Six (6) Pickleball Courts Construction of courts, per the above layout, would provide enough space to include seating area(s), fencing and sport court lighting, and would allow games to be played in the evening hours. The total estimated cost for construction is approximately $599,800, which includes:
Table 1: Estimated Costs for Six (6) Pickleball Courts
Item Cost Per Court Total
Stand-alone Court $53,500.00 $319,800.00
Sports Court Surfacing with Multi-sport Stripes $5,000.00 $30,000.00 Sport Court Lighting $40,000.00 $240,000.00
Electrical Improvements --- $10,000.00
Total $599,800.00
Item Cost Per Court Total
Stand-alone Court $53,500 $319,800
Sports Court Surfacing with Multi-sport Stripes $5,000 $30,000 Sport Court Lighting $40,000 $240,000
Electrical Improvements --- $10,000
Total $599,800
Construction would likely require the removal of several trees, grading of the site, and the removal of retaining wall(s) and curbs. Additional courts could fit at this location if the BRR #33
orientation were shifted, but a site survey would need to be completed to determine how many final courts are possible.
It should be noted that the construction estimates were provided at the time the feasibility study was completed in November 2021, so it is possible that there would be additional costs.
BRR #34
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #34
June 14, 2022
Question:
Can pickleball courts be installed on the waterfront parking lot adjacent to Ruby’s and, if so, what is the cost to install four to eight temporary and permanent courts? Response:
The City has been considering the installation of pickleball courts since the development of the FY 2021-22 Budget. Although the City Council formally approved the installation of three shared-use pickleball courts on the basketball courts located at Perry Park, one pickleball court at Anderson Park, and two pickleball courts at Anderson Park, there continues to be a growing interest from the pickleball community to find a location that can support multiple pickleball courts at a single location.
The Redondo Beach Marina lot, located adjacent to the former Ruby’s Diner, has ample space to support the installation of a pickleball complex. Included below is a conceptual placement of these courts located just north of the former restaurant.
BRR #34
This layout allows for eight (8) pickleball courts to be installed, which would sit atop of 32 parking stalls.
Pursuant to Policy F.9 of the Local Coastal Plan (see attached), the existing public parking spaces in the Harbor-Pier area cannot be reduced as a result of further development. In the event that parking is removed, additional spaces equal in number to those removed must be replaced in another location within the Harbor-Pier area (a zero-net loss of parking). As such, the 32 parking stalls slated for reuse to accommodate the proposed pickleball courts would need to be provided at another location within the Harbor-Pier area. If an appropriate area can be identified to relocate the 32 parking stalls and the proposed pickleball courts receive a coastal development permit from the Coastal Commission, then the project could be pursued.
Per the City’s pickleball consultant, Hirsch and Associates, there is no temporary court solution available at the site, as the surface of the parking area is uneven and would require reconstruction and restriping. Additionally, given its proximity to other parking and vehicle uses, the courts would require fencing for play and safety purposes.
The estimated cost for court installation totals $1,246,320, which would include site demolition, grading and drainage modifications, court installation (including required site improvements for ADA accessibility, fencing, court striping, nets, windscreens and sport court lighting) and necessary utility improvements.
Attachments:
Seaside Lagoon Adjacent Parking Lot Preliminary Cost Estimate Local Coastal Plan – Parking Policies
SITE DEMOLITION
Remove Existing Items
1 Remove Asphalt 16,545 SF $ 3.50 $ 57,908
2 Remove Existing Parking Lot Light Poles and Concrete Footing 2 EA 500.00 $ $ 1,000 3 Clear and Grub Improvement Area 16,545 SF $ 0.60 $ 9,927 4 SITE DEMOLITION SUBTOTAL $ 68,835
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Precise Grading and Drainage Modifications
5 Grading 16,545 SF $ 2.00 $ 33,090
6 6" High Curb and Gutter 380 LF 38.00 $ $ 14,440
7 GRADING AND DRAINAGE SUBTOTAL $ 47,530
SPORTS IMPROVEMENTS
Pickleball Court Improvements QTY UNIT COST TOTAL
8 Restripe Pkg Lot Stalls and Include ADA Parking Lot Striping and Signage
1 LS 1,800.00 $ 1,800 $
9 10' Chain Link Fence Around New Courts 1,440 LF 150.00 $ $ 216,000 10 10' Wide Maintenance Gate for New Courts 2 EA 1,750.00 $ $ 3,500 11 5' Wide Pedestrian Gate for New Courts 8 EA 1,200.00 $ $ 9,600 12 12" Wide Reinforced Concrete Curb at 10' Chain Link Fence 1,440 LF 30.00 $ $ 43,200 13 6" Thick Reinforced Court Concrete for New Courts 14,400 SF 15.0 $ 0 $ 216,000 14 4" Thick Reinforced Concrete Walk- Access to New Courts 2,625 SF 10.00 $ $ 26,250 15 New Ramp Connection to Existing Walk 2 EA 2,500.00 $ $ 5,000 16 Court Striping for New Courts 8 EA 5,500.00 $ $ 44,000 17 Court Net for New Courts 8 EA 3,500.00 $ $ 28,000
18 Court Windscreen for New Courts 8,400 SF $ 3.00 $ 25,200 19 Court Surfacing for New Courts 14,400 SF $ 5.00 $ 72,000 20 Court Sports Lights for New Courts 11 EA 17,500 $ $ 192,500 21 Replace Parking Lot Lights 2 EA 17,500 $ $ 35,000
22 PICKLEBALL COURT IMPROVEMENT SUBTOTAL $ 918,050
SITE UTILITIES
Utility Improvements
23 Upgrade Electrical Panel for Pickel Ball Court Light Expansion 1 ALLOW 40,000 $ $ 40,000 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS SUBTOTAL $ 40,000
24 Site Improvements Subtotal $ 1,074,415
25 Construction Contingency 10% $ 107,441
26 Contractor General Conditions 6% $ 64,465
27 PROJECT TOTAL $ 1,246,320.82
SEASIDE LAGOON ADJACENT PARKING LOT
PICKLEBALL IMPROVEMENTS- 8 COURTS
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE JUNE 2022
1 OF 1
ATTACHMENT 34A
ATTACHMENT 34B
ATTACHMENT 34B
ATTACHMENT 34B
ATTACHMENT 34B
BRR #35
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #35
June 14th, 2022
Question:
What is the approximate cost of hiring a third-party consultant to review the Los Angeles County Fire Department survey?
Response:
The cost for any consulting service will ultimately be dependent on the exact scope of the review and how long the work will take. The City would most likely process any quotes for these services after completing a comprehensive request for proposals of all of the qualified candidates that wish to respond.
In order to generate an approximate price range for purposes of the Fiscal Year 2022- 23 budget discussion, some basic research was done utilizing information gathered from the City of Hermosa Beach that recently went through the process of annexation by the Los Angeles County Fire District.
Per the Hermosa Beach Finance Director, the City paid approximately $22,000 to Citygate Associates, LLC for an independent review of the County’s proposal. It should be noted that this was in 2016 and that Citygate had conducted additional work for the City (which may have resulted in a reduction of costs for this particular effort). The Citygate review of the LA County Fire District proposal is attached to the BRR for reference. The scope of that document was “to review the operational and fiscal components, including start-up costs, of the Los Angeles County Fire District’s (District) contract for fire services proposal to the City (Hermosa Beach). Citygate also was to peer review the City staff’s fiscal analysis of contracting fire services versus ongoing City Fire Department costs.”
The City reached out to Citygate for a preliminary quote. The company is hesitant to provide an estimate until a specific scope of work is available and they are able to determine the total hours necessary for assessment completion. Staff has generated a very rough estimated cost using the available information for a three fire station analysis, as opposed to the one station review performed in Hermosa Beach, and considering inflation. The range of cost for a third party review of the LA County Fire Study for Redondo Beach Fire Services is estimated to be approximately $40,000 - $60,000.
Attachment:
Citygate Review and Assessment of LA County Fire District Proposal ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Table of Contents page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1 Policy Choices Framework .......................................................................................... 1 Citygate’s Overall Opinions on the Fire Services Contract Proposal ......................... 1 Section 1—Citygate’s Review Methods .......................................................................................2 Section 2—Review of the Fire District’s Operational Proposal and Conversion Costs ..........3
2.1 Minimum Fire Services ................................................................................. 3
2.2 Current and Planned Hermosa Beach Fire Services .................................... 4
2.2.1 Current Fire Services ........................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Planned Fire Services .......................................................................... 5
2.3 Los Angeles County Fire District Services Proposal .................................. 5
2.4 Contract Fire Services Conversion Issues .................................................... 7 Section 3—Review of the Fiscal Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal .......................................................................................................................8
3.1 District-Proposed Annual and Start-Up Contract Costs to the City ................ 8
3.1.1 Annual Payment Cap ........................................................................... 9
3.2 Assessment of the Fiscal Components of the District Proposal .................... 10
3.2.1 Labor and Benefit Expense Calculation ............................................ 10
3.2.2 District Overhead Expenses .............................................................. 10 Section 4—Review of the City’s Analysis of the Fire District Proposal..................................12
4.1 Proposed City Fire Department Budget with Added Staffing for Fiscal Year 2016-17 .......................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Fire Station Rehabilitation or Replacement .................................................. 13
4.3 Contracting with the Fire District: City Stranded Costs, Unfunded Retiree Health, and CalPERS Pension Liability ........................................................ 13
4.4 Contracting with the Fire District: Ambulance Revenue Options................. 15 Section 5—Comparison of City Fire Department to Fire District Contract Expenses .........17 ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Executive Summary page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) was retained by the City of Hermosa Beach (City) to review the operational and fiscal components, including start-up costs, of the Los Angeles County Fire District’s (District) contract for fire services proposal to the City. Citygate also was to peer review the City staff’s fiscal analysis of contracting fire services versus ongoing City Fire Department costs. The goal of this review is to independently verify that all the operational and fiscal issues have been properly dealt with so the City Council can, with full transparency, make an informed policy choice for the provision of fire services. All parties involved have modeled the costs to provide, to a great degree, a similar fiscal comparison of the choices.
POLICY CHOICES FRAMEWORK
As the City Council and Executive Management understand, there are no mandatory federal or state regulations directing the level of fire service response times or outcomes delivered by a City. The body of regulations on the fire service provides that if fire services are provided, they must be done so with the safety of the firefighters and citizens in mind. Historically, while the City has made investments in its fire and ambulance services, it has been increasingly challenged to provide fire services as the costs and complexity of doing so have risen dramatically over several decades.
CITYGATE’S OVERALL OPINIONS ON THE FIRE SERVICES CONTRACT PROPOSAL In brief, Citygate finds that the City has all the cost and staffing depth challenges of operating a one-station fire department with appropriate line and command staffing to meet operational and safety challenges. Citygate finds that the District and City have done a best-practices job of setting forth a contract for fire services framework that not only meets the City’s needs, but raises the level of fire service depth of personnel and technical services past the point a small city could ever fiscally justify.
Citygate finds that all the needed costs have been identified correctly and, at this point, the cost of enhanced City fire services, at $6,225,198, is only about $385,000 less than the cost of a Fire District contract. The cost figures, at this point, are still estimates, but are close enough to hold final discussions and make policy choice work worthwhile.
Citygate therefore recommends that, for a single-station fire department, the much higher level of fire services and personnel redundancy offered by the Fire District contract proposal make a District contract very advantageous to the City.
ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 1—Citygate’s Review Methods page 2
SECTION 1—CITYGATE’S REVIEW METHODS
Citygate’s Public Safety and General Government Principals conducted this review consistent with Citygate’s Project Team members’ experience in fire services and local government finance administration. As best-practices guidelines for fire services, Citygate utilizes various National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) publications, along with the self-assessment criteria of the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI). Citygate is familiar with the provision of fire services in small cities, as well as the services and costing methods of several of the largest fire departments in the state, including the Los Angeles County Fire District.
Citygate requested a large variety of City and Fire Department operating and budget documents in addition to the Fire District’s proposal. Citygate also interviewed key City and Fire District Managers that worked on both the District’s proposal, as well as the City staff fiscal analysis.
As for field operations, Citygate conducted a joint fire services operational analysis for the City and Manhattan Beach in early 2014 and, as such, Citygate acquired a robust operational understanding of Hermosa Beach’s fire and ambulance service issues and challenges. Citygate also discussed, with the City’s Interim Fire Chief, the current operational staffing and Fire Station building issues, along with his recommendations for restoring Hermosa Beach fire services if a contract with the District is not feasible.
Once Citygate completed the preliminary assessment, Citygate discussed the observations with the City team to fact check the information and understanding obtained.
ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 2—Review of the Fire District’s Operational Proposal and Conversion Costs page 3 SECTION 2—REVIEW OF THE FIRE DISTRICT’S OPERATIONAL
PROPOSAL AND CONVERSION COSTS
To place the District’s services and cost proposal into context, it is necessary to discuss what should comprise an appropriate small city fire department. That small-city, best-practices organization should be compared to the Hermosa Beach Fire Department (Department), both as it operates presently and as it has been proposed to operate in the future as an independent agency. Each of the City’s choices can then be compared to the District’s proposal. Finally, in addition to the District’s ongoing services and costs, there are one-time conversion issues when transferring a city-based fire department to a contracted regional service. This section will review the conversion issues and ensure that they are addressed by the District’s proposal.
2.1 MINIMUM FIRE SERVICES
A fire department needs a management organization that is properly sized, adequately trained, and appropriately supported. Over the last twenty years, there are increasing regulations with which to comply. In addition, the proper hiring, training, and supervision of emergency response employees requires an equally serious commitment to leadership and general management functions.
There are also safe, effective minimum requirements for line fire crew staffing. A department must be staffed sufficiently to compensate for absences due to vacation, illness, injury, and other types of absences, including short-term vacancies due to retirement or resignation.
In addition, Emergency Incident Command responsibilities are very different from the day-today business management of a fire department. Chief officers performing incident command and safety oversight must be trained and credentialed for that role. All safety laws must be followed and, over the last two decades, the Occupational Health and Safety Organization (OSHA) has made safety compliance both the personal responsibility of the incident commander and the employer. No longer can employers shield the responsible command chiefs if OSHA finds a lack of training and safety command organization at an incident.
Furthermore, the training and clinical quality assurance of paramedics must be completed by certified personnel that also must keep exacting records. These requirements are in addition to normal, everyday managing of a fire department’s human resources and fiscal needs.
In its earliest decades, almost none of these requirements were present for Hermosa Beach to be concerned with. However, given the complexity of modern fire services, the headquarters staffing and program costs are clearly more expensive than is cost effective for a one- to threeATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 2—Review of the Fire District’s Operational Proposal and Conversion Costs page 4 station fire department. In fact, a minimum headquarters team could sufficiently staff a three- to five-station fire department.
Citygate has long recommended the following minimum headquarters positions for even the smallest agencies, even if staffed entirely by volunteers. The duties performed by these positions are essential to any fire services operation:
One Fire Chief
Three Battalion Chiefs on a 24/7/365-basis
One Fire Marshal or Fire Prevention Officer for Fire Code enforcement One Office Support professional (clerical) with support from City Hall in case of absences.
In this minimum headquarters staff of six personnel, the functions of training, equipment, fleet management, and other management duties must be completed by the 24-hour shift Battalion Chiefs. Small departments can typically hire, in addition to the above positions, a part-time paramedic oversight and training position. Even this level of headquarters staffing does not provide much depth, redundancy, or succession planning for the Chief Officers.
For line fire station personnel on 24-hour shifts, small departments are typically well advised to hire more personnel than the per-shift minimum to not place all the absence coverage on off-duty personnel via overtime. For a one-engine and one-ambulance fire department that staffs its engine with three personnel and its ambulance with two personnel, as does Hermosa Beach, Citygate would recommend that each shift be staffed by a total of seven personnel to sufficiently account for relief and long-term injury redundancy.
2.2 CURRENT AND PLANNED HERMOSA BEACH FIRE SERVICES
2.2.1 Current Fire Services
Due to the economic pressures of the past recession, retirements, and resignations, the current Fire Department staff consists of:
One Interim Fire Chief
Three Fire Captains, one per shift to supervise the engine and ambulance crew Five Fire Engineers (driver operators) to handle the fire and ambulance units.
Four of these personnel are paramedics, and the fifth is an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT)
Seven Firefighter/Paramedics
ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 2—Review of the Fire District’s Operational Proposal and Conversion Costs page 5 Zero Firefighter/EMTs
One Administrative Assistant
Fire Inspector
Emergency Manager.
This employee roster means that there is a two-position headquarters team, no chief officers for incident command other than the 40-hour Interim Fire Chief and/or mutual aid, and a bare minimum of 15 fire crew personnel. This means that each shift is staffed by five personnel with all vacancy coverage being provided via overtime.
2.2.2 Planned Fire Services
If the Department remains an independent, City-based organization, the Interim Fire Chief has proposed the addition of:
Three Battalion Chiefs on a 24/7/365-basis
Three Firefighter/Paramedics, one per shift, increasing each shift’s personnel to six.
This enhancement still would not provide a dedicated fire prevention position, or a backup for the Administrative Assistant. It also assumes the City can hire a qualified, permanent Fire Chief and three Battalion Chiefs to do everything needed for a one-station department without relief or back up. It also assumes that this minimum staffing would not create an adverse amount of overtime for current staff, which is why Citygate recommends a seven-personnel daily staff rather than the six-personnel daily staff.
Finding #1: Citygate cannot support, in any manner, the current staffing level of the Hermosa Beach Fire Department. Personnel will wear out, and the size of the headquarters team is insufficient to provide the necessary oversight for firefighting and paramedic services.
2.3 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT SERVICES PROPOSAL
The District is proposing a similar level of staffing as the City provides by fielding one 3- firefighter engine company and one 2-firefighter/paramedic squad for a daily staff total of five.
Overtime is covered by not only the District’s 5-person daily staffing at the Hermosa Fire Station, but also the larger, District-wide work force to ensure fire staff do not incur an adverse ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 2—Review of the Fire District’s Operational Proposal and Conversion Costs page 6 amount of overtime that affects firefighter work quality, safety, and willingness to continue working for the Fire Department.
Normally, the District does not operate ambulances; the ambulances are provided from private sector companies under agreement with the Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Agency. If the City wants to continue to provide an ambulance and bill for those services, the City could contract a private ambulance company and be entirely responsible for the service and costs.
The District’s proposal also includes fire prevention services and all needed emergency incident command and headquarters support and oversight services. To provide the most straightforward cost comparison, Citygate’s analysis will assume the District’s proposal of a fire engine and paramedic squad.
In the District’s proposal, multiple units for serious emergencies (e.g., a First Alarm building fire) would bring the closest units from existing Hermosa Beach mutual aid partners, as well as District units that are approximately five miles away. For catastrophic emergencies, the District would send all the needed regular and specialty resources such as engines, aerial ladders, helicopters, and technical rescue and hazardous materials response teams. The District’s dispatch center would handle the Hermosa Beach units as it does all its regional units.
There is a unique District service that can also assist the City. The District’s Lifeguard headquarters is in Hermosa Beach. The Lifeguard headquarters is staffed year-round with multiple Lifeguard Division members. Today, the lifeguard is no longer only a rescue swimmer.
Lifeguards are trained in a variety of first responder skills, including EMS. Lifeguard command staff are trained and participate in command teams, as do District Chief officers, at serious emergencies. There is no reason that for serious events “landside” that lifeguards cannot also be dispatched as first responders to assist, especially on critical EMS events near beaches.
The District’s proposal provides a very robust, best-practices-based management, training, fleet, dispatch, and EMS clinical oversight team.
Finding #2: Citygate finds the District’s services proposal completely meets the operational needs, present and future, for Hermosa Beach’s risks and expected emergencies. There is no way a one-station fire agency can ever cost effectively afford the headquarters team bench depth, specialties, and extra technical response capacity as found in the District’s proposal.
ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 2—Review of the Fire District’s Operational Proposal and Conversion Costs page 7
2.4 CONTRACT FIRE SERVICES CONVERSION ISSUES
In converting fire services to a contract with a regional provider, there are some one-time personnel and technical issues with which to deal as the conversion begins. The District lists the following issues and costs in its proposal:
1. Personnel and earned leave (vacation and sick leave start-up balances)
2. Benefits including pension and health care
3. Rank and seniority conversion
4. Dispatch, radio, and computer systems technology conversion
5. A health safety and building code assessment of the existing Fire Station
6. The ability to assist the City with repairing or replacing its Fire Station.
Based on Citygate’s experience with contracting for, and participating in, regional fire services, Citygate has not identified any omitted start-up conversion items. The proposed costs for onetime conversion issues appear fair and within local government norms. Once converted, all highexpense and liability items are transferred off the City’s books and future liabilities. It is hard to place a cost on the significance of the City forever not being responsible for personnel tragedies, fire apparatus or station failures, or safety code upgrades. All such issues would be handled by the District at its very large economy of scale, and then passed onto all the contract cities fairly.
Finding #3: Citygate finds that the District’s proposal adequately and fairly addresses the usual and customary fire service conversion costs, both personnel and operating assets. Citygate did not find any issues to be added.
ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 3—Review of the Fiscal Components of the Fire District’s Proposal page 8 SECTION 3—REVIEW OF THE FISCAL COMPONENTS OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT PROPOSAL
3.1 DISTRICT-PROPOSED ANNUAL AND START-UP CONTRACT COSTS TO THE CITY The District initially proposed to provide fire services via contract to the City of Hermosa Beach at an annual cost of $4,914,278. Upon a review by the City and the District of the fire prevention program needs of the City, the annual cost was reduced to $4,786,928. This cost maintains the current level of fire prevention service for the City, and is based on a better understanding of the City’s workload data for fire prevention.
In addition to the annual cost of $4,786,928, the District contract requires the City to fund the following start-up costs to transfer the City’s employees to the District, and match District dispatch technology and fire station rehabilitation work that the City had postponed since the recession:
1. Pay the $12,000 cost incurred by the District to evaluate and determine which City fire apparatus and equipment can be used by the District, and which equipment will need to be replaced to ensure it meets the standard safety and/or functional specifications of similar District equipment.
2. Pay $220,994 to the District to ensure that no employee is transferred to the District without any available accumulated vacation and sick leave time. For each employee that has accumulated unused vacation and sick leave time, a maximum of ten vacation shifts and six sick shifts will be credited to each employee. These costs may be payable to the District over an initial three- to five-year contract period, based upon the final contract negotiations between the City and the District. Additionally, the City will owe fire employees transferring to the District an estimated $371,942 for unused vacation and sick leave payout as they leave City employment.
3. Pay the annual cost of major maintenance and rehabilitation of the Fire Station that is in excess of $50,000 (this cap is increased by 10 percent per year during years six through ten).
4. Optionally pay the District to undertake the rehabilitation or new construction of the City’s Fire Station. The repair/replacement choice, cost, and method of payment to the District would be the subject of contract negotiations between the City and the District.
ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 3—Review of the Fiscal Components of the Fire District’s Proposal page 9
5. Provide the District with a fire apparatus fueling site if the current arrangement for obtaining fuel from a City of Redondo Beach facility is not continued.
6. Pay the cost of site abatement and mitigating environmental hazards found on the City Fire Station site.
7. Transfer to the District the City’s interest, right, and title, which shall be free and clear, for specified pieces of vehicular equipment which will be necessary for the fire operations within the City as staffed by the District. This includes fire apparatus and other equipment essential to the operation of the vehicles or Fire Station. The current County estimated value of the transferred equipment is $490,226.
3.1.1 Annual Payment Cap
To provide some ability for the City to forecast its annual fire service contract expenditures, the District has provided an annual payment cap provision:
A four percent payment cap would be placed on any increases to the City’s annual fee each year for the first five years of the agreement. This payment cap applies only to the City’s annual fee payment amount (i.e., the salary, employee benefits, and overhead cost). Calculation of the payment cap would not include any conversion costs, credits, rebates, etc., which may be factored into the City’s monthly payment amount.
For the sixth year of the agreement term, the payment cap would be the average of the immediately preceding four years’ percentage increases in the annual fee, plus one percent. For the seventh year of the Agreement, and each subsequent year, the payment cap would be the average of the immediately preceding five years’ percentage increases plus one percent.
In any year in which the City’s annual fee payment amount exceeded the preceding year’s payment amount, plus the applicable payment cap, payment of the excess amount would be deferred to a subsequent fiscal year when the increase in the annual fee payment for that fiscal year over the preceding fiscal year is less than the payment cap. The excess amount would be repaid by the City in any subsequent fiscal year to the extent the City’s annual fee payment increase in that fiscal year is less than the excess amount for that fiscal year.
ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 3—Review of the Fiscal Components of the Fire District’s Proposal page 10
3.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE FISCAL COMPONENTS OF THE DISTRICT PROPOSAL The required financial assumption required by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is that any contract for fire services will recover the full cost incurred by the District in both annual cost as well as operational start-up of fire services. Thus, the District has used the same financial format and formulas in determining the Hermosa Beach contract cost as is used for other District contract cities. The District’s cost formula is composed of three principle parts: personnel labor and benefits, administrative overhead on the quantity of personnel and services required in the City, and one-time contract start-up expenses.
3.2.1 Labor and Benefit Expense Calculation
While firefighters will be assigned to the City’s Fire Station, employee turnover, promotion and transfer, overtime coverage, and use of District fire crews from elsewhere in Hermosa Beach will result in fire personnel of various pay and benefit levels filling the assigned positions. The District develops an annual labor and benefit cost that represents the average of personnel expenses and, when used, will result in the full recovery of labor and benefit costs throughout the District. This “Uniform Personnel Cost” was used to develop the labor and benefit cost portion of the District contract proposal amounting to $3,566,445.
Finding #4: Citygate reviewed the District formula and detailed Uniform Personnel Cost supporting materials and concurs in the adequacy and appropriateness of using this information to develop the District’s personnel costs in the Hermosa Beach proposal.
3.2.2 District Overhead Expenses
The current City Fire Department budget does not include an “overhead” or “City Hall administrative services” budget section; Doing so is typical for line-operating department budgets in suburban cities. When the City develops its Fire Department line-item budget, all the specific expense categories are listed separately with their own budget dollars. Examples are, “personnel services,” “retirement,” “safety eye protection glasses,” “repair to turnout safety equipment,” and “service to Fire Department small tools.” The nearest the City comes to including overhead expenses in the Department budget are line items for “Building Maintenance Charges,” “Communication Equipment Charges,” “Equipment Replacement Charges,” and “Insurance User Charges.” Such Citywide operating expenses are charged to the line departments (e.g., Fire Department) from a central budget category. Thus, each City department pays its fair share of the central Citywide charge for these services.
ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 3—Review of the Fiscal Components of the Fire District’s Proposal page 11 The District uses a different budgeting approach because the District supports many fire stations that are overseen by a command structure supervising several sites and stations that use common products and share supplies and materials. Thus, the District combines area-wide supervision and supplies into a District-wide “overhead” category. This approach is fiscally and operationally more efficient for it. The District develops what it labels as an “Overhead Expense” which includes items such as: the cost of the Battalion Chiefs, Assistant Fire Chiefs (that act as Fire Chiefs for the contract cities), Administrative Assistants, charges similar to the cities such as for information technology and communications, all materials, supplies and services used by the fire stations, vehicle fuel, parts and replacement, and paramedic oversight support staff.
The District’s overhead expense amounts to 34.2213 percent of the labor and benefit costs in the proposed Hermosa Beach contract. When this overhead amount is compared to the general expenses that the City budgets as individual line items, the result is essentially the same. The City spends an estimated 32 percent of its overall Fire Department budget for similar items.
Finding #5: The District overhead expense format, and the way the District calculates and distributes the costs among fire stations, fairly distributes the benefits of supervision, supplies, equipment, etc., that each station and station labor need to operate.
ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 4—Review of the City’s Analysis of the Fire District Proposal page 12 SECTION 4—REVIEW OF THE CITY’S ANALYSIS OF THE FIRE DISTRICT
PROPOSAL
4.1 PROPOSED CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET WITH ADDED STAFFING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17
The City has estimated a fiscal year 2016-17 Fire Department net budget $6,225,198 to provide upgraded Fire Department staffing for increased effectiveness, safety, and operational sustainability. The increased staffing will include three new Battalion Chiefs (one per 24-hour fire crew shift) and three additional firefighters (one per shift). The enhancements will provide a daily shift staffing of six firefighters and one chief officer in addition to the 40-hour per week Fire Chief position. The minimum daily staffing of each fire shift will be five; the remaining staff position will provide relief to lower the overtime need for vacation, other absences, and employee vacancies.
Finding #6: The City’s latest draft fiscal year 2016-17 budget of $6,225,198 has correctly included not only the salary and benefits for the added positions, but also the materials, supplies, services, and support expenses that would accompany this staffing increase, along with a credit for revenue earned by the Fire Department.
This increased staffing represents the budgeted cost of a Department that the City Fire Chief recommends as the minimum necessary to fill the existing staffing shortfalls in providing fire protection to the City. However, the actual net Department cost to the City General Fund is more accurately represented by subtracting the annual Department-generated fire prevention revenue of $34,740 and the approximately $500,000 in annual ambulance revenue generated by the paramedic staff included in the Fire Department budget. This credit is applied against the Department budget because the labor and materials to provide the inspection and ambulance service is in the overall Department budget.
Finding #7: An estimated net annual Department expense of $6,225,198 for the City in fiscal year 2016-17 at the upgraded staffing level results from subtracting the revenue received by the Department as a credit against the City’s General Fund expense.
ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 4—Review of the City’s Analysis of the Fire District Proposal page 13
4.2 FIRE STATION REHABILITATION OR REPLACEMENT
The current City Fire Station is well past its expected safe and effective life cycle. City, District, and Citygate staffs agree that the building needs major rehabilitation or replacement as soon as possible. The City will incur this expense regardless of whether it retains its own Fire Department or contracts for fire service with the District. However, under a contract with the District, the City does not have to rehabilitate the administrative office spaces significantly because the District will not require that square footage.
Several fire station rehabilitation or replacement options have been explored by Mary McGrath/Architects, a consultant retained by the City. For ongoing full City usage, the options studied provide a cost range of rehabilitating the Fire Station at $4,068,000, to replacing the current station between $10,328,000 and $14,684,523.
The District estimate for rehabilitation (including a 15 percent contingency) is $2,091,000, and a range from $5,020,000 to $10,925,000 to construct a new fire station for just a single-engine company and paramedic squad. It appears that the District is willing to “front” these expenses and permit the City to pay off the expense over a five-year period. While this is a beneficial proposal with the annual expense spread over only a few years, this may cause the City to instead consider undertaking the work itself, and finance with bonds over a longer time period to lower the annual payment. Either way, the City must look at not just annual cost, but also the total cost of borrowing, including interest on debt service.
Finding #8: The current Fire Station rehabilitation or replacement cost is estimated at a cost range from $2,091,000 to $14,684,523, dependent on full City use, partial District use, and the choice of rehabilitation or replacement. While the City will incur the expense, the annual cost will depend upon policy choices made by the City regarding who is to undertake the work and the financing option used.
4.3 CONTRACTING WITH THE FIRE DISTRICT: CITY STRANDED COSTS, UNFUNDED RETIREE
HEALTH, AND CALPERS PENSION LIABILITY
In contrast to the City’s Fire Department first-year net cost of $6,225,198, the District has proposed an expense of $4,786,928. However, City staff appropriately identified costs in the Department budget that will remain with the City even if it contracts with the District. The identified costs are named “stranded (residual) costs,” which include items such as a portion of the City’s vehicle replacement and communication/technology expenses that include portions of ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 4—Review of the City’s Analysis of the Fire District Proposal page 14 other City personnel and other expenses that cannot be “divided,” and thus partially lowered in future years, even if the Department is no longer an internal part of the City. Other stranded costs include the Department’s portion of the Workers’ Compensation and Liability expenses, accrued before separation to the District that will not be reduced or transferred to the District.
Specifically, the City will retain the following expenses as they appear in the Fire Department fiscal year 2016-17 budget:
Table 1—Fiscal Year 2016-17 Stranded Costs
Item
Current Annual
Cost
Vehicle Replacement $38,785
Insurance (Workers’ Compensation and Liability) $345,421 Communications and IT $23,321
Building Maintenance $4,325
Emergency Manager $100,023
Total $511,875
In addition to the “stranded costs” that continue to be a City expense, the City will also owe the State of California pension system, CalPERS, the unfunded liability on the City sworn and nonsworn Fire Department positions that are either transferred to the District, or which are transferred to a different function in another City Department. These liabilities were accrued prior to the transfer of fire employees to the District. As part of these costs, the City employees will retain CalPERS pension benefits earned to date, but will transfer into the separate District pension system.
Thus, the liability represents funds that CalPERS has not yet collected from the City, but will need in the future to pay the full-required CalPERS portion of the earned pension benefits in City employment. In the latest available CalPERS report to the City, this amount is $7,984,615 for both the older Classic Benefit Sworn Fire personnel, and the several newer fire personnel under the post-recession state PEPRA retirement benefit plan.
It is important to note, however, that the City Fire Department budget already includes approximately $800,000 to pay down over time the unfunded liability expenses for these employees as part of the City’s budgeted CalPERS pension expenses. Thus, contracting to the District does not generate an additional liability payment.
To pay CalPERS the unfunded pension liability if the City contracts with the Fire District, there are several options discussed by the City’s CalPERS actuary, with the least annual expense ranging over the next five years from $602,561 to $912,153. However, it appears very likely that ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 4—Review of the City’s Analysis of the Fire District Proposal page 15 CalPERS will lower its annual investment earnings rate which will increase this unfunded liability amount owed by the City. The actual annual cost will then very likely exceed $800,000 per year, which is an expense the City will continue to have even if it contracts with the Fire District.
The City also has an unfunded liability of about $866,000 for retiree health benefits to Fire employees. For fiscal year 2016-17, this has been estimated at $108,312. This will be a continuing expense that rises to $123,117 in fiscal year 2020-21 until the unfunded liability is paid off.
Finding #9: To directly compare the cost of the Fire District contract with continuing a City Fire Department, expenses have to be added to the base District contract amount to include a minimum of $800,000 for the CalPERS unfunded liability payments, $108,312 for the unfunded retiree health benefits, and the estimated $511,875 in annual “stranded” costs.
4.4 CONTRACTING WITH THE FIRE DISTRICT: AMBULANCE REVENUE OPTIONS The City currently staffs a fire station with five personnel, three of which operate the fire engine, and two firefighter/paramedics that staff an ambulance. All the labor, materials, and contract expenses to operate the ambulance services are in the City Fire Department budget, but the actual expenses have not been separated to compare the ambulance system expense to the annual revenue.
Currently, annual ambulance revenue received is estimated for fiscal year 2016-17 at $500,000, while the actual billing revenue is closer to $1,200,000, with about 42 percent of this latter number as not collectable due to Medical and Medicare required write-downs. Actual operating expense, based on using newly-hired firefighter/paramedics on the ambulance, includes a personnel cost of $789,753 plus the cost of overtime, materials, supplies, contract clinical oversight/training services, and ambulance maintenance, fuel, and replacement. It appears the City expense is nearly twice the annual estimated $500,000 in net ambulance revenue.
In a contract with the District, the City’s Interim Fire Chief has suggested one ambulance alternative, which is to contract with a private ambulance company to operate the City ambulance system. Under that scenario, actual expenses were estimated at about $403,000 per year, leaving the City with minimum positive revenue of about $97,000. Additional effort to recover unpaid ambulance billings could somewhat increase this positive revenue flow, although not significantly.
ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 4—Review of the City’s Analysis of the Fire District Proposal page 16 Another alternative is for the City to simply relinquish the ambulance service to the County EMS Agency. Private ambulance companies commonly provide all transport in the District and elsewhere in the County. In this case, the ambulance company retains all revenue more than operating cost; however, the ambulance company also assumes all risk to meet the County EMS Agency response time requirements, including providing other unit coverage if the one ambulance in the City is committed to an incident when another call for service is received.
If the City retains the authority to operate an ambulance contract, it assumes all the rate-setting, operational multi-unit coverage needs, and billing complaint responsibility and liabilities. To do so will minimally require City Hall overhead time, along with the unknown risk of operational liabilities and/or revenue shortfalls. For revenue of approximately $97,000, the City should discuss if the revenue is worth more than the risks.
Finding #10: The City’s ambulance revenue is impacted depending on which of several ambulance service alternatives it chooses to pursue. If the City retains ambulance service responsibility and contracts with a private provider, the net revenue loss in contracting with the District will total about $403,000 per year. This is an expense that will need to be added to the District contract expense along with the “stranded” costs and CalPERS unfunded liability expense.
ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 5—Comparison of City Fire Department to Fire District Contract Expenses page 17 SECTION 5—COMPARISON OF CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT TO FIRE
DISTRICT CONTRACT EXPENSES
The City Fire Department fiscal year 2016-17 cost, reduced for Department-related revenue for fire inspection/permit services and ambulance revenue, totals $6,225,198.
In comparison, the Fire District expense, with the addition of the “stranded” costs, CalPERS unfunded liability payments, and potential City ambulance revenue loss, totals $6,610,115. This comparison is reflected in the following table:
Table 2—Fiscal Year 2016-17 City Fire Services Expense Comparison Expense Element
City Fire Department
with Expanded Staffing
Fire District Proposal
with Added Continuing
City Expense
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Proposed Cost $6,759,938 $4,786,928 Vehicle Replacement - $38,785
Insurance (Workers’ Compensation, Liability, etc.) - $345,421 Communications and IT - $23,321
Building Maintenance - $4,325
Emergency Manager - $100,023
Unfunded CalPERS Liability - $800,000
Unfunded Retiree Health Benefits - $108,312
Less Inspection Revenue $(34,740) -
Ambulance Revenue $(500,000) $500,000
Net Cost with No City-Provided Ambulance $6,225,198 $6,707,115 Ambulance Revenue Net of Private Ambulance
Contract Cost from City Private Ambulance
Operator
- $(97,000)
Net Cost if the City Contracts to Provide
Ambulance Service - $6,610,115
Potential One-Time Capital Cost/Savings from
Fire Station Replacement or Rehabilitation
New Headquarters
Station:
± $14,684,523
Fire Station
Rehabilitation:
± $2,091,000
ATTACHMENT 35A
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
Review and Assessment of the Operational Components of the Los Angeles County Fire District Proposal to the City of Hermosa Beach
Section 5—Comparison of City Fire Department to Fire District Contract Expenses page 18 Finding #11: The General Fund cost of a rebuilt and ongoing separate City Fire Department at $6,225,198 is an estimated $384,917 less than the cost of a Fire District contract that includes the City using a private ambulance vendor. The cost figures, at this point, are still estimates, but are close enough to hold final discussions and make policy choice work worthwhile.
Finding #12: Significant capital cost savings occur for the City if it chooses to contract with the District and have the District rehabilitate the current fire station at an estimated cost of $2,091,000 as compared to an estimated cost of $14,684,523 if the City retains its own fire station and constructs the needed headquarters offices and fire station.
Finding #13: Even with three added chief officers and three added firefighter/paramedics (one firefighter/paramedic per shift), an independent, one-station fire department will always be fragile and subject to personnel vacancies and limited fiscal ability to provide all typical fire service programs within regulatory compliance. For nearly the same cost, the City, in a contract with the District, purchases comprehensive, sustainable fire services.
ATTACHMENT 35A
BRR #36
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #36
June 14, 2022
Questions:
What are the staff impacts and costs associated with conducting City Commission meetings both in-person and via Zoom?
Response:
Currently, after-hours audio visual (AV) technical support for both City Council meetings and Commission meetings are provided by full-time salaried (non-FLSA) Information Technology staff. The number of after-hours worked varies and is in addition to regular daily schedules and other off-hour emergencies. Preparation for the meetings pulls staff away from routine work as the average window of support is from 4:00PM to ~7:30- 8:00PM, depending on when the meeting starts. Meeting setup tests are generally conducted with City Clerk staff at ~11:30AM on the day of the meeting to identify any potential issues.
Zoom participation for the public is included in all City Council and Commission meetings and staff has been trained on managing that added complexity. The addition of remote participation by Commissioners (already available to Council Members) would require additional training for Commission Liaisons, but no additional cost. There are no direct technology costs associated with adding Commissioner remote attendance capability either. However, with the recent Council Chamber AV and broadcast upgrades, management of the AV infrastructure has become much more technologically complex (there are 23 computers running in support of a meeting broadcast).
The addition of Zoom and the Council Chamber participation in Zoom sessions, the new broadcast to YouTube feature and the integration of Granicus into the AV infrastructure has added several new potential points of failure. This is where the IT support for Council and Commission meetings has become critical. IT staff frequently troubleshoot and resolve issues that can potentially cause a meeting to be cancelled. Someone, other than the meeting’s minutes secretary or staff liaison, has to be available to address these issues as they arise. Existing full-time IT staff are scheduled and can be counted on to staff and support the 3 to 4 City Council meetings each month, but cannot provide this level of support for an additional 10-12 monthly Commission meetings.
A potential solution that could provide support for City Council and Commission meetings – and also free up full-time IT staff to focus on their daily work – would be to provide funding to hire a dedicated part-time AV Technician (or Technicians). The position would be responsible for meeting setup, verifying properly functioning equipment, supporting City staff where necessary, troubleshooting and resolving any technical issues and BRR #36
working with the contracted videographer when needed. The estimated support window would be 1-2 hours before meeting start times, to 1-2 hours after meeting start times, leaving when the AV system is stable.
Assuming on average 15 meetings per month for 12 months (beginning September 1, 2022), and 5 hours of support per meeting at approximately $25.00/hour, the annualized cost would be roughly $22,500 for one year of support. This number, of course, would likely vary due to time-extending issues that may arise during meetings, increases in hourly wages, or variance in the number of meetings held each month.
BRR #37
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #37
June 14, 2022
Question:
What City vehicles and equipment are scheduled for replacement by the Public Works Department in Fiscal Year 2022-23 through DP# 38 and DP# 39? What is the status of Zero-Emission Vehicle and Low-Emission Vehicle purchases for the City Fleet? Response:
The Vehicle Replacement Fund (VRF) was established by the City during Fiscal Year (FY) 1983-84. It is a best management practice tool that allows the City to efficiently replace vehicles and equipment. The purpose of the Vehicle and Heavy Equipment Replacement Program is to evaluate, maintain, and replace vehicles and equipment on a schedule that optimizes their usefulness, avoids major repairs and periods of downtime, and captures ongoing technological improvements in vehicle safety, efficiency, environmental sustainability and performance. Most City vehicles historically have been replaced every 4-12 years, depending on their type and function, at an aggregate cost of between $600,000 and $1,500,000 each year.
Vehicle Replacement Fund (VRF) Balance
In the proposed FY 2022-23 Budget the expected beginning fund balance of the VRF is $7.26 million prior to any decision packages being approved. It’s important to note that the funding for the VRF comes from a variety of Department budget allocations depending on the Department’s number and type of vehicles, maintenance and operation history, and use of fuel, and from other miscellaneous sources. Expenditures of the VRF are comprised of personnel, maintenance and operations, internal service fund, and overhead. Therefore, depending on the amount and types of vehicles/equipment that are due for replacement in the given fiscal year, the fund balance can increase or decrease significantly. Historically, the ebbs and flows in the fund balance are dependent on the amount and type of vehicles being replaced. Although the fund balance may increase due to the delayed replacement of vehicles/equipment, the need and funding to replace those vehicles/equipment remains and often at increased costs given inflationary impacts on goods and services.
Staff will continue to reassess the VRF structure on a year to year basis and evaluate individual vehicles/equipment to ensure the replacement cycle is in line with optimizing the full life of each vehicle/equipment without creating excessive maintenance and repair costs. It should be noted that in FY 2020-21 the City Council directed the extension of all vehicle replacement schedules for a two-year period to reduce annual VRF allocations.
As a result, maintenance and repair costs have increased, as additional vehicle components reach the end of their useful life and require replacement.
BRR #37
Decision Package #38 Annual Vehicle Replacement
This year staff is recommending, via Decision Package #38, that nineteen vehicles/equipment be replaced at a total cost to the Vehicle Replacement Fund of $1,039,272. The appropriation is necessary for the regularly scheduled replacement of nineteen (19) vehicles/equipment used by City employees to carry out their work assignments. Of the 19 vehicles/equipment, ten (10) are Police vehicles for administration, patrol, parking enforcement, and code enforcement divisions. One (1) vehicle is for the Building Inspection unit within the Community Development Department.
Seven (7) vehicles are needed for the Public Works Department and consist of two (2) trucks and one (1) electric cart for the harbor division, three (3) trucks for parks and facilities, one (1) vehicle for engineering. Additionally, one (1) generator is scheduled for replacement. Per City Council direction, when feasible, Zero/Low Emission Vehicles (ZEV/LEV) are purchased. Public Works will continue to coordinate with the Departments to follow that direction for the FY 2022-23 vehicle purchases and that list is provided later in this report.
Decision Package #39 Vehicle Replacement Purchases FY2021-22 Carryover Decision Package #39 recommends the re-appropriation of the unused funds ($980,144) from FY 2021-22 to complete previously scheduled vehicle purchases. None of the sixteen (16) approved FY 2021-22 vehicles/equipment were delivered to the City due to supply chain issues/shortages in the market. As an example, from the FY 2020-21 approved vehicles list there are still nine (9) Ford CNG trucks that are ordered and not yet delivered and one (1) Chevrolet Bolt EV that will be delivered in coming weeks. The re-appropriation is needed now rather than as part of the regular fiscal year-end discussion in December to enable staff to execute the procurement of any outstanding vehicles between the months of July and November in the event they are made available for acquisition. Since the writing of the Decision Packages, Public Works was able to acquire two (2) additional vehicles from the FY 2021-22 vehicle replacement list.
Removed from this request are two Police Patrol Sergeant Chevrolet Tahoes (units #651 and #652) that were approved by Council for purchase on June 7, 2022. The adjusted carryforward request in Decision Package #39 for the remaining three (3) vehicles and five (5) generators to be purchased is $821,546 as a result of the recent acquisitions.
This figure includes $40,000 approved by City Council for the City Attorney's Homeless Outreach vehicle not current included in the VRF or the table below.
BRR #37
Table 1: FY 2022-21 Status of Vehicles/Equipment Approved for Purchase Increased costs
Given upfront cost of all vehicles, including CNG vehicles, changing needs of departments, and supply chain-related price increases, there are several vehicles that are underfunded in the VRF for FY 2022-23 purchase. This amount is estimated at $86,960 and is included in the requested appropriations in DP’s #38 and #39. An ISF adjustment will be made at Mid-Year to fund the VRF for these overages based on the final purchase price.
Supply Chain Issues
Current supply chain issues have severely impacted the future availability of vehicles/equipment across all sectors and manufactures from small/mid-size vehicles, Zero-Emission/Low Emission vehicles, (ZEV/LEV), through to heavy duty trucks and generator equipment. Long delivery delays and costs well above MSRP are also experienced as a result of the national/global inventory issue. According to Cox Automotive, a leading provider of automotive data, current US Inventory supply shrunk 54% April 2021 to April 2022 from 65 to 35 day’s supply. Recently, that level has dropped even further, to around 28 day’s supply. The impact of the shortage is particularly challenging for municipalities/fleet purchases given public agencies procurement processes.
The vehicles/equipment recommended for purchase would be acquired through the City’s regular purchasing procedures. The procedures contain a number of competitive purchasing options including the use of a “Piggyback” Bid which is a procedure of procuring goods or services by utilizing another public entity's recent Request for Unit Year Existing Vehicle Assigned Dept
Total Funding
per unit Status
104 2008 CHEVROLET SUBURBAN-EQ OPS-SPEC-SRVS F $ 191,492 On Hold 651 2017 CHEVROLET TAHOE PATROL-Sergeants P $ 79,298 In Progress 652 2017 CHEVROLET TAHOE PATROL-Sergeants P $ 79,298 In Progress 660 2017 FORD UTILITY PATROL P $ 66,112 In Progress
661 2017 FORD UTILITY PATROL P $ 66,112 In Progress
672 2017 FORD UTILITY SLICK TOP PATROL P $ 65,717 In Progress 675 2017 DODGE RAM CHARGER SLICK TOP PATROL P $ 55,205 In Progress 678 2017 DODGE RAM CHARGER PATROL P $ 55,748 In Progress 51-06 2006 GMC CANYON P/U XTRA CAB CODE ENF PL $ 29,074 FY2022-23 DP#39 59-07 2007 GMC CANYON P/U XTRA CAB BUILDING PL $ 29,074 FY2022-23 DP#39 261-08 2008 FORD RANGER UNIT 378 MOUNTED TO TRUCK UPLANDS MAINT PW $ 18,869 FY2022-23 DP#39 G-1 1999 CATEPILLAR 3306 GENERATOR SEWER PW $ 150,969 FY2022-23 DP#39 G-11 1999 GENERAC 99A03799-S GENERATOR BUILDING OCCUPANCY PW $ 246,145 FY2022-23 DP#39 G-12 1999 ONAN 175DGFB GENERATOR* BUILDING OCCUPANCY PW $ 149,210 FY2022-23 DP#39 G-16 1999 GENERAC 98A06019-S GENERATOR BUILDING OCCUPANCY PW $ 96,804 FY2022-23 DP#39 G-2 1999 MQ POWER DCA-25SSIU SEWER PW $ 27,420 FY2022-23 DP#39 BRR #37
Proposal (RFP) or Request for Bid (RFB), or the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) Contract Cooperative Purchasing Program. Cooperative purchasing programs provide valuable benefits to state and local governments. By attaching to national or regional cooperatives, an agency has immediate access to competitively solicited contracts and guaranteed pricing and delivery options without expending staff resources on the preparation of its own RFB. Pricing is often attractive because of the purchasing power of these cooperatives.
However, due to the shortage of inventory in general, there is a limited availability of vehicles sold to fleets through cooperative purchasing programs, which has created additional challenges for the City including:
• Difficulty sourcing the appropriate vehicles required for departments’ needs • Short window open to fleet to procure vehicles (for recent PD Tahoe purchase this was approximately a 24-hour window)
• Cancelation of orders
• Long delivery times once the Purchase Order is issued • Long wait times for parts/materials if vehicles need to be retro-fitted (CNG etc.) Public Works continues to research all vehicle options, including and specifically ZEV/LEV options, work with dealer/suppliers to stay informed of manufacturing inventory and windows for fleet purchasing, stand ready to move as quickly as possible to procure any suitable vehicles, and work with departments to ensure all possible vehicle options are explored.
Fuel Costs
According the U.S. Department of Energy a “vehicle that gets 30 MPG will cost you $1,155 less to fuel each year than one that gets 20 MPG (assuming 15,000 miles of driving annually and a fuel cost of $4.62). Over a period of 5 years, the 30-MPG vehicle will save you $5,775.” www.fueleconomy.gov
Despite, the higher MSRP of many of the EV options, Council recognizes the environmental and potential economic benefits of the EV options. The Department of Energy provides a fuel economy calculator to allow consumers to compare the cost of fuel by manufacture and vehicle type. A quick comparison of a 2022 Kia Niro (regular gasoline) versus a 2022 Kia Niro Electric shows an annual savings of $829 in fuel costs based on 15,000 miles of driving. At Council’s direction Public Works is exploring all feasible EV vehicle options to harness these savings. However, at this time there are no field-ready options for the City’s fleet needs and there is still a heavy reliance on gas and CNG vehicles. Decision Package #35 – Increased Fuel Costs (Gasoline and CNG) requests additional funding to support fleet fuel costs in the face of forecasted sustained high costs during some or all of FY 2022-23.
Status of Zero/Low Emission Vehicles (ZEV/LEV)
The Public Works Department continues to work with other departments to recommend ZEV/LEV whenever possible and feasible. A number of LEV/Hybrid vehicles have been BRR #37
deployed successfully in various departments. To date, there has been limited availability of ZEV that meet the needs of most departments. The City’s ZEV/LEV vehicle total is 3 EV, 10 Hybrids and 16 CNG trucks out of a total of 193 vehicles .
Public Works has worked to identify vehicles that are scheduled to come to market in 2023 that will meet City needs. For example, in the Police Department, Parking Enforcement and Animal Control Municipal Service Officers (MSOs) are all cross-trained to perform both parking and animal control calls while on duty in any given shift. Working with the Police Department, Public Works has identified multiple EV vehicles (crossovers and trucks) that are appropriate for the dual role/functionality of the MSOs. That said, the challenge for all departments in the coming year will be to procure these high-demand vehicles in a marketplace with extremely limited inventory and to create the infrastructure to support the vehicles.
A large percentage of the City’s fleet is comprised of public safety vehicles (Police and Fire) that currently have limited or no EV options available for purchase. There continues to be the development of economically viable, hybrid pursuit-rated police vehicles.
However, there is still no sufficient data on their performance that would allow staff to recommend moving in that direction at this time.
As manufacturers expand their ZEV/LEV portfolio, Public Works will continue to find feasible vehicles from those offerings. In accordance with Council direction, the Public Works Department is looking to replace all standard light/medium duty trucks with alternative fuel trucks when feasible. At this time only CNG vehicles are available (with wait periods of more than 18 months). Public Works is also looking toward the planned release of EV trucks from a number of manufacturers in the coming years.
EV Infrastructure City Fleet Charging Needs
In March 2022, Public Works completed the first EV charging station project, installing 11 ChargePoint stations (total 18 ports) that service the existing City EV vehicles and introduced them on City property for paid public access. The Public Works Department is now in the preliminary stages of consulting with City departments, Southern California Edison and EV charging station vendors to determine next steps to create the infrastructure necessary to support a growing City EV fleet. Critical will be the development and funding of a master EV infrastructure plan to support the City’s future fleet needs and take advantage of potential funding opportunities. This will be a multiyear project as the Department works within the constraints of space, aging City facilities & infrastructure and the availability of funding.
Planned ZEV/LEV Purchases in FY 2022-23
All of the vehicles/equipment recommended for replacement, including proposed ZEL/LEV vehicles are listed in the following table:
BRR #37
Table 2: Proposed FY 2022-23 Vehicle Replacement
Unit Year Existing Vehicle Assigned Dept
Total Funding
per unit ZEV/LEV
621 2008 DODGE RAM CHARGER ADMIN P $ 41,410 LEV
57 2009 TOYOTA PRIUS HYBRID BUILDING PL $ 38,963 LEV
405 2009 TOYOTA PRIUS HYBRID CODE ENF P $ 38,963 LEV
354 2009 FORD F-250 3/4 TON PICKUP PARKS PW $ 60,000 LEV 241-09 2009 FORD F-250 PARKS PW $ 61,833 LEV
58 2009 TOYOTA PRIUS HYBRID ENGINEERING PW $ 38,463 LEV 647 2018 DODGE RAM CHARGER Equipped PATROL P $ 56,208 N/A 649 2018 FORD UTILITY Equipped PATROL P $ 67,000 N/A
665 2018 FORD UTILITY Equipped PATROL P $ 67,417 N/A
671 2018 FORD UTILITY Equipped PATROL P $ 67,417 N/A
401 2009 TOYOTA PRIUS HYBRID-Moved from E-B unit 7 PATROL- PARKING ENF P $ 38,463 LEV/ZEV 403 2009 FORD ESCAPE HYBRID PATROL- PARKING ENF P $ 49,666 LEV/ZEV 404 2009 FORD ESCAPE HYBRID PATROL- PARKING ENF P $ 49,666 LEV/ZEV 408 2009 JEEP WRANGLER RHDRIVE PATROL- PARKING ENF P $ 43,474 LEV/ZEV 349 2009 FORD F-350 1-TON PICKUP-EQ UPLANDS MAINT PW $ 71,000 N/A 872 2013 TAYLOR-DUNN ELECT CART UPLANDS MAINT PW $ 12,276 N/A 243-09 2009 FORD F-250 UPLANDS MAINT PW $ 67,749 N/A
348-09 2009 FORD F-350 1-TON PICKUP-EQ BUILDING OCCUPANCY PW $ 71,000 N/A G-14 2018 GENERAC 98A06015-S GENERATOR FIRE STATION 1 PW $ 98,304 N/A BRR #38
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #38
June 14, 2022
Question:
What infrastructure upgrades have been identified in the Riviera Village parking study and what is their estimated cost?
Response:
In Fiscal Year 2019-20, the City Council approved funding for a parking study, primarily of paid parking, in the Riviera Village area. The scope of work and contract with Walker Consultants was finalized and approved by Council in February 2020. Unfortunately, before field work could begin, the project was halted due to COVID-19. The field work was resumed in October 2021 when it was possible for Walker to consistently deploy staff and when it was believed that parking conditions had “normalized’ somewhat in a postCOVID environment. The parking study was completed in March 2022 and the final report will be brought to City Council this summer for review and direction regarding potential operational changes to various parking programs in the Riviera Village.
Operational Changes with Cost Associations
The majority of the parking study recommendations focus on operational changes to City parking programs and employee best parking management practices in the Riviera Village. These include, but are not limited to, changes to permit programs, time-parking limits, fee schedules, and parking locations for permit users. There are operational recommendations that if implemented would have associated costs including: increasing use of technology to make various elements of the parking programs more efficient, improving the customer purchasing experience, and streamlining enforcement.
Walker recommends moving the City’s permit purchasing programs fully online and moving away from physical hard copy permits/stickers or hanging tags to digital enforcement. There is potential to do this using existing vendors but the costs will need to be explored further. Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) would be required to facilitate electronic enforcement for permits and could also be used to enforce other parking payment systems. Estimated costs associated with ALPR systems for this use are $50,000 per unit, not including the estimated cost of the required vehicle to mount it on ($38,000).
In addition to operational improvements, the study recommends adjusting the fee schedules of various parking programs, most specifically the parking permit programs.
As Walker’s presentation to Council is scheduled for this summer, any Council direction to explore increases to the fees as listed on the Master Fee Schedule would be returned BRR #38
to City Council for consideration as part of the midyear budget review or the FY 2023-24 budget adoption.
Parking Supply Increase with Cost Associations
The parking study demonstrated that at peak-times the RV parking needs were close to, or equal to, demand. Additionally, following a review of three years of revenue data, Walker remarked that “despite fewer meters in service due to the presence of dining decks, meter revenue was roughly equal to meter revenue in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic.” This indicates that the removal of some parking in prime areas resulted in a shift in parking demand to meters and areas that were previously underutilized. Walker notes that “the removal of dining decks and the restoration of parking meters would likely pull demand back into the core of the Riviera Village from the outlying parking meters and the Triangle Lot.”
Aside from the restoration of parking spaces forfeited to dining decks, the study provides other options for increasing parking including 1) stackable parking (employeemonitored/valet type) in a section of the Triangle Lot or 2) closing some of the centrally located ingress/egress points in the Triangle Lot. Both of these options would increase the parking capacity by 15-16 spaces and have an estimated infrastructure cost of $15,000 - $30,000 depending on the option selected. Both options will significantly impact existing parking patterns and traffic flow in the Triangle Lot. There are also personnel costs associated with the stackable parking option.
The future of the Dining Parkette program is still in discussion and being developed. This considered, there may be a forthcoming reduction in the number of parking spaces out of service as a result of changes to that program – there are currently 56 parking spaces out of service. Returning some of these 56 spaces to the parking inventory of the Riviera Village may impact Council direction on other suggested options to increase supply.
BRR #39
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #39
June 14, 2022
Question:
What is the cost to design and install new streetscape furniture in Riviera Village?
Response:
Riviera Village contains the following streetscape furniture, most of which was installed about 12 years ago:
• 20 benches
• 40 trash receptacles
• 35 bicycle racks
The benches and bicycle racks remain in serviceable condition and their useful lifespan will extend for several more years. The trash receptacles are beyond their useful life and should be replaced in the near future. If the Council decides to replace the furniture, staff suggests two style options:
Steelcase Fixtures
Steelcase powder-coated steel fixtures, similar to the existing fixtures, come in a variety of colors and designs. The estimated costs to replace all fixtures with Steelcase are as follows:
Item Cost
Benches $35,000
Trash receptacles $68,000
Bicycle racks $14,000
Demo/removal $20,000
Installation $20,000
Design & Project Management $55,000
Total $212,000
BRR #39
Concrete Fixtures
Pre-cast concrete fixtures are a more durable alternative to steel fixtures and are common in coastal areas. Estimated costs to replace all fixtures with concrete furniture are as follows:
Item Cost
Benches $70,000
Trash receptacles $56,000
Bicycle racks $16,000
Demo/removal $20,000
Installation $30,000
Design & Project Management $70,000
Total $262,000
Photos of both types of furniture are included below. Alternatively, the City could set money aside for the replacement of streetscape furniture and work with the Riviera Village Business Improvement District to design and identify preferred replacement options and return to the City Council with a report on specific furniture types, styles, quantities, and cost estimates.
BRR #39
Steelcase Furniture
BRR #39
Pre-cast Concrete Furniture
BRR #40
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #40
June 14, 2022
Question:
What is the status of the skate park installation at Pad 10? Response:
Due to multiple issues, the contractor for this project, Spohn Ranch, has delayed the installation of the skate park at Pad 10. Spohn Ranch cites material availability as well as financial obstacles for the delay. There are multiple paths that Council can consider moving forward.
On the material side, Spohn Ranch has indicated that their firm has experienced difficulty obtaining concrete and other building materials on other projects which has impacted their schedule on the City’s project. No estimate has been given for a start time for the work at Pad 10. Once started, Spohn Ranch estimates completion to take about 16 weeks.
This is due to long lead times (10 to 12 weeks) for structural foam.
To detail their current financial obstacles, Spohn Ranch provided the City with a letter on June 1st, indicating they are no longer able to complete the project for the $110,000 contract price due to hyper inflationary market conditions that have impacted the cost of fuel and construction materials.
Spohn Ranch indicated that, with current market conditions, the cost for current project completion would be $250,000 – approximately $140,000 greater than the amount appropriated to complete the Pad 10 skate park by Council on March 15th. If Council would like to increase the project appropriation, staff recommends a 20% contingency be added to any additional funding to allow for uncertainties related to constructability. The constructability issues revolve around the posted weight limit of the International Boardwalk, which may require that more and smaller concrete loads be transported to the job site as a result of weight restrictions in place on the International Boardwalk. This logistical adjustment may impact the price beyond the estimate provided by Spohn Ranch in their June 1st letter.
There are multiple paths that Council can direct staff to pursue. The proposed FY 2022- 23 CIP already includes a $30,000 appropriation for modifications to the Perry Park skate facility, in accordance with public input since it was installed. Council should consider an additional funding appropriation in the FY 2022-23 budget to complete the work at Pad 10 in the near term. Per the letter from Spohn Ranch, the minimum amount staff would recommend is an additional $140,000. At present, staff is unsure of the exact amount to recommend until the constructability issues are resolved and, as such, recommends the BRR #40
aforementioned 20% contingency be added, which would bring the total $168,000.
Council may also wish to direct staff to pursue completion of the project by enforcement of the current contract at the agreed upon terms, but this is certain to add delay and other costs and may not result in skatepark installation.
Additionally, the City Council has the opportunity to consider funding the second phase of the project (also described as the ultimate plan) that was approved as part of the Coastal Development Permit. The goal of moving forward with phase one of the pad 10 skatepark only, was to expedite construction of the park and allow for completion of the project this summer. Given the aforementioned delays, the Council may wish to build the complete project in one effort later this year. Spohn Ranch, provided a price of $281,000 for the ultimate buildout at the March 15th meeting and has indicated they will hold that price if a decision to go forward with it is made this month. That would require an appropriation of $171,000 above the $110,000 already under contract. If a decision could not be made now, they would revise their total price for the ultimate project upward to $311,500, an increase of $201,500 above the $110,000 already under contract. Staff recommends the 20% contingency be added to the phase two (ultimate plan) estimates, for the same reasons listed above. To be clear, the ultimate project scope with Spohn Ranch does not include the art work shown in prior skatepark drawings, as it was simply an illustration of what the facility could look like with public art.
Summarizing the issue, the Council may wish to enforce the current contract at no additional payment to Spohn Ranch, or appropriate additional monies per the following options:
Base Plan
Project
Ultimate Plan
(now)
Ultimate Plan
(Over 2 phases)
Spohn Ranch Change order $140,000 $171,000 $201,500
Contingency (~20%) total price $ 50,000 $ 56,000 $ 62,000 Total new appropriation $190,000 $227,000 $263,500
Under contract $110,000 $110,000 $110,000
Total Pad 10 Price $300,000 $337,000 $373,500
Funding for the additional costs/scope could be provided through available Harbor Uplands Funds, Subdivision Park Trust (Quimby) Funds, or Unallocated General Fund Balance. In order to move the project forward, staff will need to bring an amendment to the design build contract with Spohn Ranch back to Council for approval of the change order for the cost of the original scope of work, or prepare an amendment to the agreement to complete an expanded scope of work depending on the level of supplemental funding appropriated for the project. It should be noted that staff is continuing to install new railings around the Pad 10 location as part of the Pier/Harbor Railings Project recently awarded by the City Council.
BRR #41
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #41
June 14, 2022
Question:
How do neighboring cities manage/administer credit card processing fees? Response:
The cost of doing business has increased significantly over time. The City has experienced large increases in credit card processing fees charged by banks, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, as most agencies transitioned to online business portals in order to provide residents with a safe option to complete their business needs.
Types of credit card processing fees charged to agencies Discount rate
The discount rate is the percentage of a sale that goes towards paying credit card processing fees. A discount rate consists of interchange fees, assessment or service fees and markups from payment processors.
Interchange rate
The largest portion of the fee and rate pie is comprised of interchange fees, which are collected by credit card issuers. These fees are often presented as some percentage plus an additional fixed amount. Interchange fees vary widely based on a number of factors, including the credit card network (such as Visa or Mastercard), whether the card is a debit or credit card, how the payment is processed and the merchant category code.
Below is a list of the ranges of interchange rates charged by the major credit card networks. These ranges are based on publicly available information for credit cards; fees for debit cards are often lower. In addition to the card network, fees will vary based on the type of card, method of payment and Merchant Category Codes (MCC).
Credit Card Network Credit Card Interchange Fee Ranges
MasterCard 1.35% + $0.00 % to 3.25% + $0.10
Visa 1.15% +$0.25 to 2.70% + $0.10
Discover 1.56% to 2.40% + $0.10
American Express
(for OptBlue merchants) 1.43% to 3.0% + $0.10
BRR #41
Assessment fees
The assessment fee is a much smaller credit card processing fee, and is paid directly to the card network (Visa, MasterCard, Discover or American Express). These fees will also depend on a number of factors that differ from network to network. Some networks will charge higher rates for credit card versus debit card usage, while others may charge higher rates when the transaction volume is greater. Other incidental fees may arise from specific transactions being unique, such as foreign transaction fees.
The table below lists the minimum assessment fees for credit cards by network. These figures are based on limited publicly available information, so rates may vary. Rates may be higher if the card is manually keyed in or if there is an international transaction.
Credit Card Network Credit Card Assessment Fees
MasterCard 0.13% (for transactions under $1,000)
0.14% (for transactions of $1,000 or greater)
Visa 0.14%
Discover 0.13%
American Express
(for OptBlue merchants) 0.15%
Management of Fees by Neighboring Cities
The City is in the process of implementing a 3% charge for all credit card payments. The fee was approved by City Council via Resolution last year. A lack of software synergy between the City’s financial system (MUNIS), bank, and credit card companies has made fee implementation a difficult process. Staff expects to complete the project and begin charging the fee in the next few months.
Financial Services reached out to neighboring cities to inquire about how they offset credit card processing fees and received the following three (3) responses:
• City of Torrance - charges 2.13% to all credit card users. The charge was approved by City Council by Resolution.
• City of Hermosa Beach - charges 2.75% to most customers and a flat rate for certain specific types of charges. They plan to conduct a fee study in the near future which will determine any change to this rate.
• City of El Segundo - charges 2.75% for all credit card transactions.
BRR #42
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report #42
June 14, 2022
Question:
What would be required to transition City banking services from Bank of America to another competing bank?
Response:
If the City decided to transition the City’s banking services from Bank of America to another competing bank a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) or a Request for Proposal (RFP) process would have to be initiated. The request for proposal process is estimated to take 6-8 months to complete. Following selection of the new bank, the transition is estimated to take 3-6 months to fully implement and to cost approximately $50,000.
Various City Departments (City Treasurer, Financial Services and Information Technology) would need to be involved in the transition. The following services would need to be changed or updated:
• Positive Pay – a cash management service used by most banks to detect fraud • Automated Clearing House (ACH) – the primary system agencies use for electronic funds transfer (EFT)
• ACH block - prevents all ACH transactions from posting to accounts, allowing staff to review debits before posting
• Account reconciliations - process of verifying the City’s financial records and transactions in order to detect discrepancies
• Vaults and lock boxes
• Armored car services
• Internal Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems - software used to manage day-to-day business activities such as accounting, procurement, project management, risk management and compliance, and supply chain operations Once implementation is complete, the City would need to contact all vendors who send EFT/ACH (Electronic Funds Transfer) payments and submit new banking forms to guarantee that there is no delay in receiving payments due to the City (i.e. Los Angeles County – Property Tax, State of California – Gas Tax and Sales Tax remittances etc.).
For out-going ACH/EFT the City would need to update Vendor accounts to make sure that all obligations are met timely with the new banking information. It would be recommended that both banking systems be run simultaneously for a period of time to test the new system and ensure all City bills are paid in a timely manner.
BRR #42