Fire Meeting Room Rental - Fire Station 1
Community Room (2 Hour Minimum)
$50 for each additional hour.
$ 30.00 Residents /
Neighborhood
Groups
The use of this facility is limited to the Santa
Monica neighborhood groups only.
Fire Kitchen Use Fee - Fire Station 1
Community Room
$ 50.00 Residents /
Neighborhood
Groups
The use of this facility is limited to the Santa
Monica neighborhood groups only.
Fire CUPA - county charges (set by and
passed through to LA County):
hazardous waste generation, 3-5
Employees
$ 910.00 Businesses New fee to more accurately calculate full costs to provide the service for the specified
number of employees.
Fire Advanced Life Support Assessment
Fee -Transports provided by SMFD
(The fee is set by LA County)
$ 3,329.00 Residents /
Individuals
Establish new fee to allow the City to
recover costs associated with providing
ambulance transport services, as described
in the fee study for EMS services
(Attachment C).
Fire Basic Life Support - Transports
provided by SMFD (The fee is set by
LA County)
$ 2,223.00 Residents /
Individuals
Establish new fee to allow the City to
recover costs associated with providing
ambulance transport services, as described
in the fee study for EMS services
(Attachment C).
Fire Mileage - Transport provided by
SMFD (The fee is set by LA County)
$ 29.00 Residents /
Individuals
Establish new fee to allow the City to
recover costs associated with providing
ambulance transport services, as described
in the fee study for EMS services
(Attachment C).
Fire Oxygen - Transport provided by
SMFD (The fee is set by LA County)
$ 117.00 Residents /
Individuals
Establish new fee to allow the City to
recover costs associated with providing
ambulance transport services, as described
in the fee study for EMS services
(Attachment C).
Recreation and Arts Material Fee for Junior Lifeguard
Program
$ 32.00 Individuals Establish new fee to recover the cost of the materials that are provided for the Junior
Lifeguard Program.
D-3 of 8
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Attachment D - Revisions to Fee Schedules for FY 2024-25 (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Summary of Proposed Fee Changes Attachment D
Department /
Division
Fee Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee Rate
%
Increase /
Decrease
Revised Fee - Purpose
Community
Development / City
Planning
Architectural Review Board –
Administrative Design Approval (New
Construction)
$ 5,125.43 $ 3,201.64 -37.5% This decrease reflects the removal of a code compliance review.
Community
Development / Code
Compliance
Medicinal Cannabis Light
Manufacturer
$ 127.34 $ 132.05 3.7% Revised to make subject to the City's annual revision and increase.
Community
Development / Code
Compliance
Medicinal Cannabis Retailer- New:
July - September (4 inspections)
$ 1,845.12 $ 1,913.39 3.7% Revised to make subject to the City's annual revision and increase.
Community
Development / Code
Compliance
Medicinal Cannabis Retailer- New:
October - December (3 inspections)
$ 1,410.90 $ 1,463.10 3.7% Revised to make subject to the City's annual revision and increase.
Community
Development / Code
Compliance
Medicinal Cannabis Retailer- New:
January - March (2 inspections)
$ 976.67 $ 1,012.81 3.7% Revised to make subject to the City's annual revision and increase.
Community
Development / Code
Compliance
Medicinal Cannabis Retailer- New:
April - June (1 inspection)
$ 542.45 $ 562.52 3.7% Revised to make subject to the City's annual revision and increase.
Community
Development / Code
Compliance
Medicinal Cannabis Retailer -
Renewal
$ 1,845.12 $ 1,913.39 3.7% Revised to make subject to the City's annual revision and increase.
Fire CUPA - county charges (set by and
passed through to LA County):
hazardous waste generation, 1-5
Employees 1 /
CUPA - county charges (set by and
passed through to LA County):
hazardous waste generation, 0-2
Employees
$ 590.00 $ 624.00 5.8% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.
Fire CUPA - county charges (set by and
passed through to LA County):
hazardous waste generation, 6-19
Employees
$ 828.00 $ 1,299.00 56.9% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.
Fire CUPA - county charges (set by and
passed through to LA County):
hazardous waste generation, 20-100
Employees
$ 1,131.00 $ 1,754.00 55.1% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.
Fire CUPA - county charges (set by and
passed through to LA County):
hazardous waste generation, 101-500
Employees
$ 1,644.00 $ 2,599.00 58.1% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.
Fire CUPA - county charges (set by and
passed through to LA County):
hazardous waste generation, 501
Employees and over
$ 2,815.00 $ 4,418.00 56.9% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.
Fire CUPA - county charges (set by and
passed through to LA County):
hazardous waste generation-silver
waste only
$ 295.00 $ 455.00 54.2% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.
Proposed Fee Revisions
D-4 of 8
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Attachment D - Revisions to Fee Schedules for FY 2024-25 (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Summary of Proposed Fee Changes Attachment D
Department /
Division
Fee Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee Rate
%
Increase /
Decrease
Revised Fee - Purpose
Proposed Fee Revisions
Fire CUPA - county charges (passed
through to LA County): hazardous
waste generation/tiered permitconditionally authorized $ 916.00 $ 2,121.00 131.6% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.
Fire CUPA - county charges (passed
through to LA County): hazardous
waste generation/tiered permitpermit by rule
$ 1,308.00 $ 3,075.00 135.1% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.
Fire CUPA - county charges (set by and
passed through to LA County):
hazardous waste generation/tiered
permit-conditionally exempt
$ 139.00 $ 318.00 128.8% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.
Police CCW Renewal Application Fee $ 25.00 $ 457.00 1728.0% State law has been updated through PC26190(b)(1) and removed the $25
renewal language. City's can charge a
reasonable fee for new license and
renewals. The proposed amount was
previously approved by Council.
Public Works /
Airport
Tie-Downs: Single-engine Space $ 123.67 $ 57.82 -53.2% This fee is required to comply with the federal standards and the Consent
Decree as it pertains to aeronautical rates
and charges at the Santa Monica Airport.
Fee increases 3% annually.
Public Works /
Airport
Tie-Downs: Multi-engine Space
below 12,500 lbs.
$ 185.52 $ 86.74 -53.2% This fee is required to comply with the federal standards and the Consent
Decree as it pertains to aeronautical rates
and charges at the Santa Monica Airport.
Fee increases 3% annually.
Public Works /
Airport
Transient Tie-Downs: Single-engine
Space below 12,500 lbs.
$ 20.12 $ 9.41 -53.2% This fee is required to comply with the federal standards and the Consent
Decree as it pertains to aeronautical rates
and charges at the Santa Monica Airport.
Fee increases 3% annually.
Public Works /
Airport
Transient Tie-Downs: Multi-engine
Space below 12,500 lbs.
$ 40.26 $ 18.82 -53.3% This fee is required to comply with the federal standards and the Consent
Decree as it pertains to aeronautical rates
and charges at the Santa Monica Airport.
Fee increases 3% annually.
Public Works /
Airport
Transient Tie-Downs: Multi-engine
Space: Aircraft over 12,500 lbs.
$ 40.26 $ 18.82 -53.3% This fee is required to comply with the federal standards and the Consent
Decree as it pertains to aeronautical rates
and charges at the Santa Monica Airport.
Fee increases 3% annually.
D-5 of 8
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Attachment D - Revisions to Fee Schedules for FY 2024-25 (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Summary of Proposed Fee Changes Attachment D
Department /
Division
Fee Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee Rate
%
Increase /
Decrease
Revised Fee - Purpose
Proposed Fee Revisions
Public Works /
Airport
Transient Tie-Downs: Overnight
Vehicular Parking (nightly)
$ 13.41 $ 13.81 3.0% This fee is required to comply with the federal standards and the Consent
Decree as it pertains to aeronautical rates
and charges at the Santa Monica Airport.
Fee increases 3% annually.
Public Works /
Airport
Transient Tie-Downs: Overnight
Vehicular Parking (monthly)
$ 134.23 $ 138.25 3.0% This fee is required to comply with the federal standards and the Consent
Decree as it pertains to aeronautical rates
and charges at the Santa Monica Airport.
Fee increases 3% annually.
Public Works /
Airport
Hangars (Land Value): Light Aircraft
Covers and 22T Hangar
$ 3.78 $ 2.00 -47.1% This fee is required to comply with the federal standards and the Consent
Decree as it pertains to aeronautical rates
and charges at the Santa Monica Airport.
Fee increases 3% annually.
Public Works /
Airport
Landing Fee $ 5.48 $ 2.56 -53.3% This fee is required to comply with the federal standards and the Consent
Decree as it pertains to aeronautical rates
and charges at the Santa Monica Airport.
The reduced rates and charges will
remain in effect until at least December 31,
2028.
Fee shall not be subject to annual increase.
Public Works /
Airport
Fuel Flowage Fee-Jet A Fuel
(dispensed at SM Airport)
$ 0.11 $ 0.05 -54.5% This fee is required to comply with the federal standards and the Consent
Decree as it pertains to aeronautical rates
and charges at the Santa Monica Airport.
The reduced rates and charges will
remain in effect until at least December 31,
2028.
Fee shall not be subject to annual increase.
Public Works /
Airport
Fuel Flowage Fee-AVGas Fuel
(dispensed at SM Airport)
$ 0.11 $ 0.05 -54.5% This fee is required to comply with the federal standards and the Consent
Decree as it pertains to aeronautical rates
and charges at the Santa Monica Airport.
The reduced rates and charges will
remain in effect until at least December 31,
2028.
Fee shall not be subject to annual increase.
Public Works / OSE EV User Fee (Summer: June 1 -
September 30) /
EV User Fee
$ 0.35 $ 0.35 0.0% The information was revised to capture one consistent rate of $0.35/kWh all year
to cover these costs.
D-6 of 8
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Attachment D - Revisions to Fee Schedules for FY 2024-25 (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Summary of Proposed Fee Changes Attachment D
Department /
Division
Fee Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee Rate
%
Increase /
Decrease
Revised Fee - Purpose
Proposed Fee Revisions
Public Works /
Cemetery
Mortuary Charges: Additional
Evening Services
$ 953.26 $ 1,389.57 45.8% This fee is reflective of additional services now being provided, such as evening
service requests.
Public Works /
Cemetery
Mortuary Charges: Charge for any
ceremony held on weekend
$ 1,513.88 $ 2,217.24 46.5% This fee is reflective of additional services now being provided, such as weekend
service requests.
Public Works / Public
Landscape
Tree Planting 24" Box $ 311.80 $ 362.00 16.1% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.
Public Works / Public
Landscape
Tree Planting 36" Box $ 850.44 $ 892.00 4.9% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.
Public Works / Public
Landscape
Tree Planting 48" Box $ 2,154.39 $ 2,310.00 7.2% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.
Public Works / Public
Landscape
Full Prune >36 DSH $ 566.95 $ 603.00 6.4% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.
Public Works / Public
Landscape
Tree Restitution - Cost Per Required
Replacement 24" Box Tree
$ 755.24 $ 848.00 12.3% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.
D-7 of 8
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Attachment D - Revisions to Fee Schedules for FY 2024-25 (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Summary of Proposed Fee Changes Attachment D
Department /
Division
Fee Fee
Amount
Deletion of Fee - Purpose
Library Technology Package fee $ 38.00 This fee was meant to provide IT support to meeting room renters with more complicated needs. However, the service was not being used, as many complications were considered
minimal.
Library Internet session for extra time or
those without library cards
$ 2.00 Due to mandated restrictions and significant reductions, Library operations and logistics were altered in compliance, and there was no longer capacity for this service.
Public Works / OSE EV User Fee (Winter: October 1 - May 31)
$ 0.30 Staff recommends one consistent rate of $0.35/kWh all year to cover these costs.
Proposed Fee Deletions
D-8 of 8
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Attachment D - Revisions to Fee Schedules for FY 2024-25 (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP
POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION CHANGES
ATTACHMENT H
FUND DEPT FTE POSITION TITLE FUND DEPT FTE POSITION TITLE 01 01 CMO 1.0 Customer Services Assistant 01 CMO 1.0 Customer Service Supervisor 1 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 02 01 CMO 1.0 Production Specialist 1 Add 1.0 Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 03 01 CAO 6.0 Deputy City Attorney III 01 CAO 6.0 Deputy City Attorney IV Add/Delete - Funded utilizing Consumer Protection funds 04 01 CDD 1.0 Building and Safety Manager 01 CDD 1.0 Building Official 2 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 05 01 DOT 1.0 Fiscal Staff Assistant III 1 Add 1.0 Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 06 01 DOT 1.0 Traffic Painter 1 Add 1.0 Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 07 60 DOT 1.0 Lead Customer Service Assistant 60 DOT 1.0 Customer Service Supervisor Add/Delete - Funded by BBB Fund - Offset by overtime 08 60 DOT 1.0 Chief Planning Officer 1, 2 Add 1.0 Funded 75% BBB Fund and 25% General Fund (offset with Mobility supplies and expenses)
09 60 DOT 1.0 Transit Finance and Grants Manager 60 DOT 1.0 Transit Chief Administrative Officer Add/Delete - Funded by BBB Fund - Offset by overtime 09 60 DOT 1.0 Principal Administrative Analyst Add 1.0 Funded by BBB Fund - Offset by overtime 10 01 Finance 2.3 Revenue Collections Assistant 01 Finance 2.5 Revenue Collections Assistant 1 Increase FTE 0.25 Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 11 01 Finance 1.0 Buyer 01 Finance 1.0 Principal Buyer 1 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 12 01 Fire 1.0 Fire Captain - Prevention 01 Fire 1.0 Battalion Chief - Prevention 1 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund N/A 01 Fire 1.0 Administrative Analyst 01 Fire 1.0 Senior Administrative Analyst Reclassification - Results in approx. $12k impact to the General Fund 13 01 HHS 1.0 ADA Coordinator 01 PW 1.0 ADA Coordinator Transfer - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 14 01 HHS 1.0 Assistant Director of Housing & Human
Services 01 HHS 1.0 Administrative Services Officer 1 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 14 01 HHS 1.0 Senior Administrative Analyst 01 HHS 1.0 Senior Administrative Analyst - Human Services/Fiscal 2 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 15 01 HR 1.0 Senior Human Resources Analyst 01 HR 2.0 Human Resources Technician 1 Add/Delete 1.0 Results in net zero impact to the General Fund N/A 01 HR 1.0 Director of HR/Chief People Officer 01 HR 1.0 Director of Human Resources Title Change - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 16 01 ISD 1.0 Project Support Assistant 01 ISD 1.0 Communications Systems Technician 1 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 16 01 ISD 1.0 Software Developer 01 ISD 1.0 Principal Software Developer 2 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 16 01 ISD 1.0 Systems Engineer 01 ISD 1.0 Principal Systems Engineer 2 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 17 01 Library 1.0 Staff Assistant III 01 Library 1.0 Administrative Staff Assistant 1 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 17 01 Library 1.0 Senior Administrative Analyst-Library Fiscal Services 3 01 Library 1.0 Principal Administrative Analyst 1, 3 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund ID #
DELETE ADD
REASON NET FTE
CHANGE NET IMPACT
May 28, 2024 Page 1 of 3
7.A.h
Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Attachment H - Position and Classification Changes [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25
POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION CHANGES
ATTACHMENT H
FUND DEPT FTE POSITION TITLE FUND DEPT FTE POSITION TITLE ID #
DELETE ADD
REASON NET FTE
CHANGE NET IMPACT
17 01 Library 1.0 Senior Administrative Analyst-Library Administrative Services 3 01 Library 1.0 Communications and Marketing Coordinator 1, 3 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 17 01 Library 1.0 Library Program Specialist-Youth & Family Services 01 Library 1.0 Library Assistant III 1 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 17 01 Library 1.0 Library Assistant III 1 Add 1.0 Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 17 01 Library 1.0 Principal Librarian - Reference Services 01 Library 1.0 Principal Librarian - Branch and Neighborhood Services 2 Reclassification - Results in approx. $11K impact to the General Fund 17 01 Library 1.0 Principal Librarian - Information
Management 01 Library 1.0 Principal Librarian - Collections, Technology and Patron Services 2 Reclassification - Results in approx. $11K impact to the General Fund 17 01 Library 1.0 Principal Librarian - Public and Branch Services 01 Library 1.0 Principal Librarian - Community Engagement and Programming Reclassification - Results in approx. $11K impact to the General Fund 18 01 Police 1.0 Traffic Services Officer 01 Police 1.0 Parking Citation Review Officer 1 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 19 01 Police 0.5 Traffic Services Officer 4, 5 Add 0.5 Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 20 54 PW 2.0 Zero Waste Assistant 54 PW 2.0 Zero Waste Specialist 2 Title Change - Results in net zero impact to the RRR Fund 20 59 PW 1.0 Equipment Operator I 59 PW 1.0 Cemetery Crew Leader 2 Add/Delete - Funded by Cemetery Fund 20 01 PW 1.0 Electrician II 01 PW 1.0 Electrician Title Change - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 20 01 PW 3.0 Electrician II 01 PW 3.0 Electrician Title Change - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 21 01 PW 1.0 Groundskeeper 01 PW 1.0 Parks Maintenance Crew Leader 1 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 21 01 PW 1.0 Maintenance Assistant 01 PW 1.0 Staff Assistant III 1 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 22 01 PW 1.0 Senior Administrative Analyst 01 PW 1.0 Business Assistant 1 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 22 01 PW 1.0 Engineering Technician 01 PW 1.0 Civil Engineering Assistant 1 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 22 01 PW 1.0 Public Works Inspector 01 PW 1.0 Senior Public Works Inspector 1 Add/Delete - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 22 01 PW 0.5 Public Works Inspector 1 Delete (0.5) Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 22 01 PW 2.0 Supervising Civil Engineer 01 PW 2.0 Senior Civil Engineer 2 Title Change - Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 24 50 PW 2.0 Water Production and Treatment Operator II Add 2.0 Funded by Water Fund 24 50 PW 2.0 Water Maintenance Worker II Add 2.0 Funded by Water Fund 25 50 PW 1.0 Senior Administrative Analyst Add 1.0 Funded by Water and Wastewater Funds N/A 50 PW 1.0 Water Resources Manager 50 PW 1.0 Water Utilities Manager 2 Title Change - Funded by Water Fund N/A 70 PW 1.0 Welder Fabricator 70 PW 1.0 Welder 2 Title Change - Funded by Vehicle Management Fund May 28, 2024 Page 2 of 3
7.A.h
Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Attachment H - Position and Classification Changes [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25
POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION CHANGES
ATTACHMENT H
FUND DEPT FTE POSITION TITLE FUND DEPT FTE POSITION TITLE ID #
DELETE ADD
REASON NET FTE
CHANGE NET IMPACT
N/A 01 PW 1.0 Staff Assistant III 01 PW 1.0 Administrative Analyst Reclassification - Results in approx. $18k impact to the General Fund N/A 70 PW 1.0 Staff Assistant III 70 PW 1.0 Administrative Staff Assistant Reclassification - Funded by Vehicle Management Fund 26 11 RAD 1.0 Cultural Affairs Venue Supervisor 2, 4 Add 1.0 Funded by Beach Fund - Offset by new revenue 28 01 RAD 1.0 Senior Administrative Analyst 1, 4 Add 1.0 Results in net zero impact to the General Fund PERMANENT EMPLOYEES TOTAL (rounded to the nearest tenth) 14.3 FTE 02 01 CMO 0.3 Production Specialist 1 Delete (0.3) Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 02 01 CMO 0.2 Graphic Designer 1 Delete (0.2) Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 17 01 Library 0.1 Librarian I 1 Delete (0.1) Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 17 01 Library 0.5 Library Assistant II 1 Delete (0.5) Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 23 59 PW 0.01 Maintenance Assistant 4 Add 0.01 Funded by Cemetery Fund - Offset by new revenue 27 01 RAD 0.5 Community & Cultural Services Leader 4 Add 0.5 Results in net zero impact to the General Fund 28 01 RAD 1.7 Facilities Attendant 1 Delete (1.7) Results in net zero impact to the General Fund TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES TOTAL (rounded to the nearest tenth) -2.3 FTE
11.9 FTE
1 Cost of the position change will be offset by the reallocation of budgeted funds within department budgets, resulting in a net zero impact to the budget for FY 2024-25. 2 Subject to Personnel Board approval.
3 To ensure a smooth transition, the positions being added will commence around September/October 2024, and the positions being deleted will be removed around October/November 2024. 4 Cost of the position will be offset with new revenues. 5 Cost of the position will be funded by the Big Blue Bus Fund until new revenues can support it.
GRAND TOTAL (rounded to the nearest tenth)
May 28, 2024 Page 3 of 3
7.A.h
Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Attachment H - Position and Classification Changes [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25
ATTACHMENT I
Classification
# of Budgeted
FTE Impacted Dept Fund Name
Assistant City Librarian 1 Library General
Principal Librarian – Branch and Neighborhood Services 1 Library General Principal Librarian – Collections Technology and Patron Services 1 Library General Principal Librarian – Community Engagement and Programming 1 Library General Animal Control Officer 5 Police General
Animal Control Supervisor 1 Police General
Community Services Officer 8 Police General
Custody Officer 14 Police General
Forensic Specialist 6 Police General
Forensic Supervisor 1 Police General
Investigative Intelligence Analyst 1 Police General
Lead Animal Control Officer 1 Police General
Lead Community Services Officer 1 Police General
Lead Custody Officer 2 Police General
Lead Forensic Specialist 1 Police General
Lead Public Services Officer 2 Police General
Police Property Evidence Clerk 3 Police General
Police Records Supervisor 3 Police General
Public Services Officer 25 Police General
Public Services Officer Supervisor 3 Police General
Assistant Director of Public Works 1 Public Works General Chief Operations Officer - Airport 1 Public Works General Chief Operations Officer 1 Public Works General
Electrical Crew Leader 2 Public Works General
Electrician 4 Public Works General
Facilities Supervisor 3 Public Works General
Public Landscape Manager 1 Public Works General
Street Services Supervisor 1 Public Works General
Facilities Supervisor 1 Public Works Airport
Fleet Services Writer 1 Public Works Vehicle Management Welder 1 Public Works Vehicle Management
Water Utilities Manager/Water Resources Manager 1 Public Works Water Assistant Director of Transportation 1 Transportation Big Blue Bus Chief Operations Officer 1 Transportation Big Blue Bus
Director of Transportation 1 Transportation Big Blue Bus Graphic Designer 1 Transportation Big Blue Bus
Motor Coach Operator 285.5 Transportation Big Blue Bus
Senior Transit Maintenance Worker 2 Transportation Big Blue Bus Transit Maintenance Worker 1 Transportation Big Blue Bus Transit Training Coordinator 5 Transportation Big Blue Bus Classifications Impacted by Equity Adjustments
Page I-1 of 1
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Attachment I - Classifications Impacted by Equity Adjustments (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP
ATTACHMENT J
Council Discretionary Funds *
FY 2023-24
Allocation
FY 2022-23
Allocation
FY 2021-22
Allocation
FY 2020-21
Allocation
Typical Annual Allocations
4th of July Parade - Ocean Park Association & City expenses $ 15,000 15,000 $ 15,000 $ - $ Business Improvement Districts 1
44,000 29,000 29,000 29,000
Pico Youth and Family Center Car Show 2
7,000 - 10,000 -
Santa Monica High School Latina/o Graduation 3
5,000 7,000 - -
Westside Coalition for Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration 9,000 10,000 9,000 - $ 80,000 $ 61,000 $ 63,000 $ 29,000
Black Agenda - - - 25,000
Brunson Terrace Small Business Marketplace - - 25,000 - CAO - Legal review of deed of March 3, 1888 by Arcadia Bandini 10,000 - - - Church in Ocean Park for community programs - 10,000 - - Church in Ocean Park for Trans Equity Scholarships - - 9,000 - Early Childhood Education - - - 20,000
Elks Memorial Day 4,682
Family Services of Santa Monica - - - 10,000
Housing Authority mailer to housing voucher holders 1,500 - - - LAFLA - Domestic Violence Clinic - - - 10,000
Latino Cultural Events - - 10,000 -
League of Cities Real Training - - - 12,000
LGBTQ Pride - Crow Comedy 10,000
Library 10,000
Lincoln Middle School Music Program 5,000
Main Street Business Improvement Association - open streets 10,000 - - - Montana Avenue Merchants Association's Annual Art Walk 10,000 - - - Neighborhood Organizations - - 20,000 -
PAL - Rick Crocker 5K Walk Run Challenge event expenses - - 5,000 - Pier Palisades Safety Signage - - - 10,000
Pride - sponsor Pride activities throughout the City 10,000 - - - Public Policy Institute at Santa Monica College 15,000 - - - St. Joseph Center YRT & SM Retention - - - 20,000
Santa Monica Animal Shelter - create turfed play area 10,000 - - - Santa Monica Arts Parents Association - SAMOHI Orchestra 25,000 15,000 - - Santa Monica Digital New Arts Festival 10,000
Santa Monica High School Black Student Union 18,000
Santa Monica High School Choir 20,000
Santa Monica High School Grad Nite 10,000 20,000 10,000 - Santa Monica High School Wrestling Program 5,000 5,000 - - Santa Monica Pier Corporation - 2nd Annual Day of the Dead 5,000 - - - Santa Monica Pony League to repair Los Amigos Park scoreboard 5,000 - - - Santa Monica Sister City - expenses to host delegation from Mazatlan 2,000 Santa Monica Sister City Foundation - travel to signing ceremony 3,500 - - - Shopping Cart Tree at Edgemar Center 5,000 - -
Tenant Assistance Mailings 25,000 - -
May 28, 2024 Page J-1 of 2
7.A.j
Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Attachment J - Council Discretionary Funds (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget)
ATTACHMENT J
FY 2023-24
Allocation
FY 2022-23
Allocation
FY 2021-22
Allocation
FY 2020-21
Allocation
Virginia Avenue Park Food Pantry - - 20,000
West Coast Care 20,000 - 10,000
Wise and Healthy Aging - - - 20,000
- - - -
TOTAL ALLOCATIONS $ 209,682 $ 181,000 $ 192,000 $ 186,000 FY 2023-24 Undesignated Council Discretionary Funds $ - * Allocations are reflected in the year first designated and typically spent in that year. 3 Reflects a $3,000 allocation approved on July 14, 2022 and a $4,000 allocation approved on April 11, 2023.
FY 2024-25 Council Discretionary Funds
The FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget includes $127,653 in Council Discretionary Funds.
Allocation of the funds may occur along with Budget Adoption in June or throughout the year. No action is needed at this time.
Council Discretionary Funds Available as of July 1, 2024 $ 127,653 2 Reflects a $5,000 allocation approved on August 24, 2021 for the Fall 2021 car show and a $5,000 allocation approved on April 26, 2022 for the Fall 2022 car show.
1 Allocations to Business Improvement Districts have historically been $21,000. Beginning in FY 2017-18, the allocations increased to $24,000.
In FY 2020-21, Council allocated an additional $5,000 to the Main Street Business Improvement Association for the Shopping Cart Holiday Tree.
May 28, 2024 Page J-2 of 2
7.A.j
Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Attachment J - Council Discretionary Funds (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 1 David Yakobson
From: Alan Levenson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 11:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7a - Budget: 53% Reduction in Aviation Fees/Remediation Dear Mayor Brock and Council Members,
Inside of your budget study session is a proposal by airport staff and the public works department to reduce aviation fees by 53%. I respectfully ask that you direct staff to find better ways to reduce the airport surplus funds than gifting them to those who use our buildings, hangars, tie downs and runway for aviation purposes. Aviation users. including Atlantic Aviation, are not down and outs worthy of charity by any logic or matter of law. Aviation has used our land for 100 years for next to nothing. We do not owe them. They owe us a cleanup fee.
One suggestion would be to begin, ASAP, a complete review of the airport property and all areas that will require remediation and how much it might cost to clean up the mess. The Airport Commission has already recommended similar to you.
Another suggestion would be to use surplus airport funds (i.e. profit from the non-aviation leases) to begin remediation of sites already identified on the Airport Park expansion plan area and any other future identified clean up sites where spills or leaks have occurred over the years.
To be clear, remediation of specific areas off the runway would not require shutting down the airfield or violating the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree says nothing about remediation being a violation of the decree. Remediation is not prohibited in the FAA rule book. It is allowed for in FAA regulations.
We are all are acutely aware that nothing has gone down 53% in Santa Monica Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 2 lately. Aviation fees certainly should not either.
I respectfully request you reject the 53% giveaway and direct staff to begin the remediation of the Santa Monica Airport without further delay.
It is time to prepare this land to be a healthy community asset.
Thank you for your time and service,
Alan Levenson
"A drop of effort can create a sea of change."
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 1 David Yakobson
From: Joseph Hardin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 5:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: item 7.A. 05/28/24
EXTERNAL
Hello Council members,
Thanks for your hard work.
The reduction of aviation fees at SMO would be shameful,( or full of sham ). Aviation fees and lease rates at SMO were far below market rate for many years. Now with 4 more years until the closing of the airport is not a time to reduce fees and rates. We should still be trying to recoup lost revenue from past years.
Please do not spend any more city money on aviation infrastructure, only spend money on the minimum FAA required airport maintenance.
I'm sure you all know the long history of Santa Monica's Great Park and the recent history of Measure LC. It's time to move toward the park..
Thanks, Joe
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 2 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 5:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Item 7a - Budget: 53% Reduction in Aviation Fees/Remediation From: Robb Curtis Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 4:46 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]> Subject: Item 7a - Budget: 53% Reduction in Aviation Fees/Remediation
EXTERNAL
Spend the money on Remediation! Do not give it away to the gluttonous pilots Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 1 David Yakobson
From: Karen Croner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; David White; Douglas Sloan Subject: Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and Council Members,
Inside of your budget study session is a proposal by airport staff and the public works department to reduce aviation fees by 53%. I respectfully ask that you direct staff to find better ways to reduce the airport surplus funds than gifting them to those who use our buildings, hangars, tie downs and runway for aviation purposes. Aviation users. including Atlantic Aviation, are not down and outs worthy of charity by any logic or matter of law. Aviation has used our land for 100 years for next to nothing. We do not owe them.
All of you constantly say the city is broke. Why would you give aviation a break of fees they absolutely owe us? If you give them a 53% reduction, then I assume you will give me and all residents a 53% reduction on our
taxes.
I respectfully request you reject the 53% giveaway. If you give the 53% giveaway, I assume our city is not, in fact, broke, and you can afford to rehire the librarians, hire more police officers, etc.
Thank you for your time and service,
Karen Croner
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 2 David Yakobson
From: Brian Sweeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 11:56 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A: CIP Budget Plan, Project C0469 (Maintenance of City-Owned Airport Buildings)
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and City Council members,
I'm writing regarding the planned maintenance of City-owned buildings at the airport. As I understand it, there is certain maintenance of the airport that is required by the Consent Decree with the FAA.
See, e.g., C0147 (maintenance of runways), where staff notes, under "Project Justification," that the "'[t]he consent decree of January 2017 requires that the City maintain the infrastructure of the AirOperations Areas (AOA) of the airport for the safe operation of aircraft." Fair enough, those appear to be required expenditures.
However, I'm less sure that the Consent Decree requires that the City spend significant sums to maintain City-owned buildings at the airport. See below:
I guess what I'm worried about is that the City may be spending a lot of money ($9.3 million next fiscal year; about $24 million over the next four years), even though those properties may not be part of the post-airport future. I see that the Project Justification is revenue from leases, but (1) I wonder if it's true that those leases will not occur without this (or as significant) maintenance?; and (2) that the lease revenue will manage to offset $24 million in costs over that short a time period? Spending $24 million on buildings that may soon be out of use may not be the wisest use of funds.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 3 I also understand that these funds are from the Airport Fund, but I believe it would be prudent to build up as much Airport Funds as possible between now and January 1, 2029 for what will undoubtedly be an extremely expensive site remediation.
Either way, I hope we can get a handle on those costs as soon as possible--hopefully engaging not just outside consultants but also outside attorneys who specialize in CERCLA and other relevant clean up programs.
Best wishes,
Brian Sweeney
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 4 David Yakobson
From: Carol Lemlein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 11:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: May 28 Agenda Item 7A: Study Session on Fiscal Year 2024-25 Proposed Budget ...
EXTERNAL
Mayor Brock, Mayor Pro-Tem Negrete and Council Members, This letter is written on behalf of the Board of the Santa Monica Conservancy. Given the current financial circumstances, we expect that the development of the midcycle budget will be significantly influenced by the priority of Social Equity and Inclusion. Progress in this area has been an important city priority and would be an important contribution to the City’s celebration of its 150th birthday.
We believe there are significant ways in which the the historic preservation program could demonstrate that progress, some of which are relatively low cost and achievable in the short term, others will require longer term investment of staff time and budget.
The recommendations of the Landmarks Commission Subcommittee on Social Justice/Equity in Preservation outline 7 areas where action could be taken to make the program more sensitive to the stories of underserved and often overlooked communities among us. We understand that these recommendations have been circulated to you but that full Commission has not yet reviewed them. The Conservancy supports these recommendations, some of which could be implemented with small budget impacts and others, like the update of the current Historic Resource Inventory and development of new context statements, will require a larger investment. We note that work on the “current” 2018 inventory began at least 3 years earlier. These are critical resources to identify historic properties and increase public understanding of the community’s history – especially important in addressing our developing understanding of social justice and inclusion.
We also note that Council’s 2023 requests that staff examine ways to reduce the cost of consultant fees and return to a public process for demolition review would each represent a step forward in making the Preservation Program more inclusive and accessible.
Staff has now recommended that a new flat rate fee structure for Historic Rescource Designations.
Currently, when a Landmark designation application is filed, applicants are charged an application fee for staff time spent processing the application. In addition, applicants are charged the actual historic consultant cost for preparation of an historic assessment to evaluate the application. A proposed flat rate fee of $6400 will, as staff indicates “simplify the administrative process for applicants and staff, reduce delays in processing designation applications, and reduce barriers to filing Landmark designation.” However, while this proposal represents an improvement, we will still have the highest designation costs in the state, restricting the public benefits of preservation to the stories and histories of the privileged!
Identification and protection of our historic resources is considered to be a public benefit and is identified as such in the LUCE. The $6400 fee presents a barrier to access for those whom we most want to reach with a view towards social equity and inclusion. We respectfully ask you to consider extending the fee waiver to cover the consultant fee as well as the application fee for nonprofit organizations. Annually this might amount to $32,000 for five applications - which would be a reasonable assumption. We ask you to consider making this investment in opening the historic preservation program to underserved and overlooked communities.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 5 Finally, we have not seen any progress on the matter of public review of demolition permits. The fact is, the City adopted a robust mechanism for public demolition review by the Landmarks Commission with the Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance of 2018. It addressed the complex legal and policy issues ascribed to demolition review and allowed the Commission to continue its important work to identify irreplaceable historic resources among the many properties proposed for demolition. This process was, unfortunately, interrupted by the Covid shutdown and replaced by the process we have today, where there is no public venue for review of demolition proposals and little opportunity for those familiar with the properties to come forward.
We thank you in advance for your consideration of these suggestions. As always, the Conservancy remains committed to working with staff and our residents to make the opportunities and benefits of historic preservation and heritage conservation accessible to all.
Sincerely,
Carol Lemlein and Ruthann Lehrer
Advocacy Co-Chairs
Santa Monica Conservancy Board of Directors
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 6 David Yakobson
From: Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 10:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis
Subject: SMO: SMCC 05-28-24 // Item 7A -- Proposed Budget - Public Comment
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council:
Please REJECT staff's proposal to give a 53% cut to aeronautical rates. It will amount to an unnecessary $13 million gift of public funds to private aviation interests.
Instead of giving the $13M away, the Staff should be asked to spend the surplus money, and identify some potential expenditures to be considered. Common sense says, there is NOT only one single alternative to give it away. Scott Lewis, outside counsel, should be asked directly by the City Council (not through Staff) what the compliant alternatives are for the $13M (give or spend).
Fundamentally, this dispute pertains to the Airport Fund's surplus from aeronautical revenues, and whether the rates and charges are excessive, or NOT.
Not yet budgeted and accounted for is:
aeronautical environmental assessment and remediation costs that are TBD (for example, the ongoing Boeing/Douglas water remediation project)
aeronautical litigation and settlement costs that are TBD (for example, $450K given to Justice Aviation in 2016 to leave SMO, link)
other non-standard aeronautical costs that are TBD
Lastly, the 4-alarm fire that Staff is portraying is simply false. The Part 16 process is still in-progress and neither compliance nor non-compliance has been determined. There is an ongoing process that is working through these issues to ensure compliance. Alternative scenarios that are compliant should FIRST be established in writing with the FAA, BEFORE the City chooses a course of action and formalizes and commits its budget.
A rash giveaway of public funds to private aviation is unnecessary and is the least prudent course of action. It will be an admission of guilt, and will be a very risky precedent for the future.
Thank you,
Ben Wang
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 7 David Yakobson
From: Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 9:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SMO: SMCC 05-28-24 // Item 7A -- Proposed Budget Attachments: Landing Fee Litigation --Declaration of City Staff and Consultant.pdf; Exh._17 _-_SMO_Landing_Fee_Financial_Model_(6-24-13).pdf; 2019 - 16-16-02 FAA Directors Determination.pdf; 2022 - 16-16-02 FAA Final Agency Decision.pdf
EXTERNAL
SMCC 05-28-2024 -- Item 7A -- Proposed Budget
I am submitting the following for the record only.
++++++++++++++++++++
Links:
FAA POLICY ON AIRPORT RATES AND CHARGES
(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-09-10/pdf/2013-21905.pdf)
FAA AIRPORT REVENUE USE POLICY
(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-02-16/pdf/FR-1999-02-16.pdf) Attachments:
2018 Declaration of the Consultant and Staff Member (who produced the 2013 landing fee financial model and their explanation of how the landing fee has been calculated) 2019 FAA Directors Determination for the Part 16 matter #16-16-02 2022 FAA Final Agency Decision for the Part 16 matter #16-16-02 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 0 U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
Office of the Associate Administrator 800 Independence Ave., SW. for Airports Washington, DC 20591
November 8, 2019
Rick Cole, City Manager
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Lane Dilg, Esq., City Attorney
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 310
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Susan Cline
Director of Public Works
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 116
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Counsel:
Stelios Makrides, Airport Manager
Airport Administration Building
3223 Donald Douglas Loop South
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Scott Lewis, Esq., Partner
Anderson & Kreiger LLP
50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Richard K. Simon, Esq.
1131 Camino San Acacia
Santa Fe, NM 87505
Re: FAA Docket No. 16-16-02
Enclosed is a copy ofthe determination ofthe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with respect to the above-referenced matter finding the City of Santa Monica in non-compliance with certain ofits federal obligations, namely Grant Assurance 25, Airport Revenues, Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, and Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure.
The reasons for the finding are set forth in the enclosed Director's Determination. The Director's Determination does not constitute a Final Agency Decision and order subject to judicial review. [14 CFR § 16.247(b)(2)].
Si erely,
uLJi
K/yin C. Willis
I1irector, Office of Airport Compliance
/nd Management Analysis
Enclosure
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC
Mark Smith, Kim Davidson Aviation, Inc., Bill's Air
Center, Inc., Justice Aviation, Inc., NBAA, Inc., and
AOPA Inc.
Complainant,
v.
City of Santa Monica, California
Respondent.
DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION
I. INTRODUCTION
FAA Docket No. 16-16-02
On February 5, 2016, Complainants filed a Complaint pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 16 against the City of Santa Monica (City), sponsor of the Santa Monica Airport (SMO), in Santa Monica, California.
Complainants allege that the City is in violation of its federal obligations, including Grant Assurances 22 Economic Nondiscrimination, Grant Assurance 24 Fee and Rental Structure, and Grant Assurance 25 Airport Revenues.
Specifically, Complainants argue (1) airport revenue has been and continues to be diverted through insufficiently documented alleged loans from the City to the Airport and that the City charges excessive interest thereon; (2) the landing fee structure at the Airport is flawed, resulting in excessive and unjustified fees; (3) a non-aeronautical user, Santa Monica College (SMC), has paid below-market rent for non-aeronautical property; and (4) the City has refused to extend the leases of aeronautical tenants beyond month-to-month holdover terms and adopted short-term leasing policies. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Pages 45-46].
In response, the City asserts the loans made to the Airport were "valid, enforceable and adequately documented," the landing fees met "legal standards," and its "New Leasing Policy" moots Complainant's claims concerning short-term leases. However, the City "acknowledges that the FAA could find.. .that the City has charged SMC less than [fair market value (FMV)] for its use" of airport property, but proposes a corrective action plan on this one matter. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11, Pages 8- 9, 23, 40, 42-43].
Based on the evidence of record in this proceeding, the Director finds that:
¯ The City's documentation concerning certain contributions and loans made to the Airport is inadequate to establish they are interesting-bearing loans and thus the City is in noncompliance with respect to those loans; ¯ The City's landing fees methodology and rates do not reflect the actual use of the Airport and thus compliance with Grant Assurance 22 and Grant Assurance 24 cannot be established; ¯ The corrective action plan concerning charges below FIVIV rents to the College needs to be supplemented; and
¯ The City's current leasing policies are consistent with the 2017 Settlement Agreement.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) II. PARTIES
A. Santa Monica Airport
The Santa Monica Airport serves the role of a general aviation public-use airport capable of accommodating a wide range of business and personal aircraft, including corporate and business jets.
FAA records indicate that the planning and development of the Airport has been financed, in part, with funds provided by the FAA under the Airport Improvement Program (PJP), authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AATA), 49 U.S.C. § 47101. Between 1985 and 2003, the Airport received approximately $9.7 million in AlP funds. Since 1948, certain airport land has also incurred obligations arising from conveyances of land (1948 Instrument of Transfer) executed under the powers and authority contained in the provisions of the Surplus Property Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 47151-153. While the validity of those obligations has been the subject of litigation between the City, the FAA and other parties, they are not at issue here.
B. Complainants
The Complainants, which include tenants of the Airport and organizations with members who are aviation users of the Airport, are as follows:
1. Mark Smith is a pilot and owner of a Mooney 231 aircraft based in a City-leased hangar.
2. Kim Davidson Aviation, Inc. (Kim Davidson Aviation) is an aircraft service provider at the Airport.
3. Bill's Air Center, Inc. (Bill's Air Center) is an aircraft service provider at the Airport.
4. Justice Aviation, Inc. (Justice) is flight school at the Airport.
5. The National Business Aviation Association, Inc. (NBAA) represents companies that operate aircraft at the Airport.
6. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Inc. (AOPA) represents members who base their aircraft at the Airport. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Pages 3-4].
III.PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¯ On February 5, 2016, Complainants filed a 14 C.F.R. Part 16 Complaint. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1]. ¯ On February 25, 2016, the FAA docketed the Complaint. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2]. ¯ On April 11, 2016, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5]. ¯ On April 22, 2016, Complainants filed the Complainants'Answer to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6].
¯ On May 13, 2016, Complainant Justice Aviation, Inc. withdrew as a complainant.1 [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 7].
¯ On July 1, 2016, the City filed its Answer to the Complaint. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11 and hA]. ¯ On August 1, 2016, Complainants' filed a Reply to Respondent's Answer. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12]. ¯ On September 13, 2016, the City filed its Rebuttal. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15]. ¯ On September 19, 2016, Complainants filed a Supplement and Objections. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 16].
¯ On September 29, 2016, the City filed a Corrective Action Plan. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 18]. ¯ On October 11, 2016, Complainants filed the Complainants'Response to Santa Monica College Corrective Action Plan, [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 19].
¯ On January 30, 2017, the City and the FAA entered into a Settlement Agreement/Consent Decree. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 20].
This motion was based on a settlement agreement between justice Aviation Inc. and Respondent City of Santa Monica, in separate and unrelated litigation. This motion did not affect the claims of any other parties in this proceeding.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) W. BACKGROUND
A. 2017 Settlement Agreement (AgreementlDecree)
On January 30, 2017, the FAA and the City of Santa Monica entered into a Settlement Agreement (Agreement), to resolve several disputes pertaining to the operation of the Airport. The Agreement was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Central District Court of California (U.S. District Court) as part of a Consent Decree. The Agreement resolved certain claims/litigation by the parties, including claims pertaining to the past operation of the Airport by the City pertaining to tenants, non-tenant aircraft and FBOs. The Agreement modified some of the City's federal obligations, including those which apply to this Complaint. The provisions in the Agreement pertinent to this dispute include the following:
1. The Airport's runway can be reduced to an operational runway length of 3,500 feet;
2. The City agrees to operate the Airport consistent with its obligations until December 31, 2028;
3. The City's operation of the Airport until December 31, 2028 shall conform with (i) the standards set forth in grant assurances 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 30; and (ii) all applicable operational, maintenance, and safety standards;
4. The City may exercise its proprietary exclusive right to provide aeronautical services, and that if the City does not fully provide a type of service that a private FBO desires to provide, that operator shall have reasonable access to the Airport on reasonable terms and in conformance with the standards of Grant Assurance 22;
5. Leases offered to all tenants providing aeronautical services shall be on reasonable terms and in substantially the same form as that attached as Exhibit C of the Agreement, and for purposes of the Agreement, "reasonable terms" shall mean terms that are customary and usual at similarly situated and sized general aviation airports;
6. The City shall offer all current tenants providing aeronautical services leases of no less than three (3) years with reasonable terms appropriate to the aeronautical service usually and customarily provided such service at similar facilities, including but not limited to tenant investment and financing requirements;
7. The City shall also offer leases to all prospective tenants providing aeronautical services subject to reasonable terms and consistent with Grant Assurance 22, if City does not exercise its proprietary exclusive rights; and,
8. Any lease providing aeronautical services may, at the City's discretion, be subject to termination upon six (6) months written notice of the City's exercise of its proprietary exclusive right to provide the category of services. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 20].
In summary, the Agreement released certain grant assurances but preserved the obligations to operate the Airport in conformance with the standards of grant assurances 19, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 30.
The City remains subject to its statutory obligations, including restrictions upon the use of revenue set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 47107 and 49 U.S.C. § 47133. The Agreement stipulated that the FAA was to send a letter to private parties that have filed Part 16 complaints raising issues within the scope of the Agreement requesting that the parties withdraw those complaints. Complainants in the present case declined to withdraw their Complaint but rather, requested it to be adjudicated.
V. ISSUES
Complainants raise the following specific claims and allegations in their Complaint:
¯ The City has diverted airport revenues by charging the Airport principal anchor interest on loans without valid documentation;
¯ The City has diverted airport revenues by charging interest on loans at rates exceeding those allowed;
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) ¯ The City has diverted airport revenues by charging the Airport for loans made more than 6 years prior to claimed loan documentation;
¯ The City has imposed excessive and unreasonable landing fees on both based and transient aircraft, based on improper methodology, impermissible expenses, and unallowable or inadequately documented costs;
¯ The City's landing fees were adopted without reasonable notice/comment from airport users; ¯ The landing fees imposed by the City have resulted in the accumulation of revenue surpluses; ¯ The landing fees are unreasonable because it is a double-charge for services already paid; ¯ The City allows a non-aeronautical tenant to pay less than fair market rent for the use of airport property;
¯ The City has established short-term leases of less than three years without any cognizable justification;
¯ The City has denied new leases and imposed month-to-month lease terms without justification; and,
¯ The City has unreasonably delayed aeronautical lease policies. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Pages 1-3].
Upon review of the allegations summarized above, the Director has determined that the following issues require analysis to provide a complete review of the allegations made in this Complaint:
Issue 1 -Whether the City has diverted airport revenues by charging the Airport for questionable and improperly documented loans, contrary to Grant Assurance 25; Issue 2- Whether the City has charged below FMV rents to Santa Monica College, contrary to Grant Assurance 25;
Issue 3 -Whether the City has imposed excessive and unreasonable landing fees using artificial, unsupported numbers and improper accounting methods, contrary to Grant Assurances 22 and 24; and
Issue 4 -Whether the City's airport leasing policies are contrary to the City's federal obligations.
VI. APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW AND POLICY
A. The Airport Improvement Program and Grant Assurances 49 U.S.C. § 47101, et seq., provides for federal financial assistance for the development of public-use airports under the Airport Improvement Program (AlP). 49 U.S.C. § 47107, et seq., sets forth certain assurances to which an airport sponsor must agree to as a condition of receiving federal financial assistance, and become a binding contractual obligation between the airport and the FAA.2 The FAA has a statutory mandate to ensure that airport owners comply with these sponsor assurances. FAA Order 5190.6B, FAA Airport Compliance Manual (Order) provides the relevant policies and procedures. The grant assurances and policies relevant to this Complaint are listed below.
1. Relevant Grant Assurances and Related Policies:
¯ Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination;
¯ Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure;
¯ Grant Assurance 25, Airport Revenues;
¯ FAA Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use ofAirport Revenues, 1999 (Revenue Use Policy);3 and ¯ DOT/FAA Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges, 2013 (Rates and Charges Policy).4 2 See https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/medialairport-sponsor-assurances-aip .pdf. 4 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/09/1O/2013-2 1905/policy-regarding-airport-rates-and-charges.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget)
2. 49 U.S.C. 47107(b) (1) Use of Revenue and 49 U.S.C. 47133 Restriction on Use of Revenues
Revenues generated by an airport that is the subject of federal assistance may not be expended for any purpose other than the capital or operating costs of (1) the airport; (2) the local airport system; or (3) any other local facility that is owned or operated by the person or entity that owns or operates the airport that is directly and substantially related to the air transportation of passengers or property.
B. The FAA Airport Compliance Program and FAA Enforcement Responsibilities The FAA discharges its responsibilities for ensuring airport owners' compliance with their federal obligations through its Airport Compliance Program. The program is designed to ensure the availability of a national system of safe and properly maintained public-use airports operated in a manner consistent with the airport owners' federal obligations and the public's investment in civil aviation. FAA Order 5190.6B sets forth policies and procedures for the Airport Compliance Program.
In addressing allegations of noncompliance, the FAA will make a determination as to whether an airport sponsor is currently in compliance with the applicable federal obligations. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 40101, assigns the FAA Administrator broad responsibilities for the regulation of air commerce in the interests of safety, security, and development of civil aeronautics. Commitments assumed by airport owners or sponsors in property conveyance or grant agreements are important factors in maintaining a high degree of safety and efficiency in airport design, construction, operation and maintenance, as well as ensuring the public reasonable access to the airport. The FAA has a statutory mandate to ensure that airport owners comply with their federal grant assurances under 49 U.S.C. § 47122.
C. The Complaint and Investigative Process
Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §16.23, a person directly and substantially affected by any alleged noncompliance may file a complaint with the FAA. The complainant shall provide a concise but complete statement of the facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation and describe how the complainant was directly and substantially affected by the things done or omitted by the respondents. If there is a reasonable basis for further investigation, the FAA will investigate. The regulations governing Part 16 proceedings provide that, if the parties' pleadings supply "a reasonable basis for further investigation," the FAA should investigate "the subject matter of the complaint." 14 C.F.R. § 16.29(a).
The Complainant bears the burden of showing the airport sponsor violated a grant assurance. The airport sponsor bears the burden of proof with respect to any affirmative defense it may raise.
D. ANALYSIS
Issue 1- Whether the City has diverted airport revenues by charging the Airport for questionable and improperly documented loans contrary to Grant Assurance 25
1. Complainants' Position on Issue 1
Complainants question the validity and amount of $16 million of loans from the City to the Airport, a significant portion of which bears interest, claiming the "documentation and the interest computations for these loans are inconsistent with federal requirements," and thus contrary to 49 U.S.C. § 47133 and Grant Assurances 25. Complainants argue that (a) the City has diverted airport revenues by charging principal andlor interest on loans which lack valid documentation; (b) the City has diverted airport revenues by charging interest at rates exceeding those allowable under FAA policy; and (c) the City has diverted airport revenues by charging the Airport for loans made more than 6 years prior to claimed loan documentation. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Pages 2, 12-13].
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget)
2. The City's Position on Issue 1
The City asserts that "it is legally entitled.. .to be repaid for the millions of dollars it has loaned to the Airport." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, Page 1]. The City responds that the "loans are valid, enforceable and adequately documented," and that neither 49 U.S.C. § 47133 nor Grant Assurance 25 provides any specific guidance about the use of airport revenue to repay "contributions" or "loans" that are made. The City cites FAA Revenue Use Policy as establishing that (a) if a transfer of funds from an airport sponsor's general fund to its airport enterprise account was documented as a loan (and not just a contribution) at the time it was made, it can be repaid whenever the airport is able to generate sufficient funds to make repayment, even if that is much longer than six years later; (b) if a loan to the airport is documented as interest-bearing at the time it is made, repayment may include interest, and (c) the interest rate charged to the airport should not exceed what the sponsor received on other investments at the time of the loan. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item hA, Pages 8-9].
Although the City claims that the "transfers to the Airport were documented as loans at the time they were made" and that "all the loans that the City claims are interest-bearing were documented as interest-bearing loans at the time they were made," the City states that it "will implement a corrective action plan to recalculate the accumulated interest on its loans." For these reasons, the City adds, the "FAA should dismiss Complainants' claims about the outstanding loans owed to the City by the Airport." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item hA, Page 10].
3. Discussion on Issue 1
The FAA Revenue Use Policy requires loans to airports to be clearly documented. Under the Policy, "an airport owner or operator can seek reimbursement of contributed funds only if the request is made within 6 years of the date the contribution took place. 49 U.S.C. § 47107(1). If the contribution was a loan to the airport, and clearly documented as an interest-bearing loan at the time it was made, the sponsor may repay the loan principal and interest from airport funds. Interest should not exceed a rate which the sponsor received for other investments for that period of time." Revenue Use Policy, 64 Fed. Reg. 7696, 7718.
A review of the record concerning the alleged loans made by the City show numerous instances of insufficient documentation. This includes agreements lacking signatures, no stated or documented interest rate, no substantive terms to validate the transaction, backdating, no loan instrument for claimed transactions, and recent documentation "superseding" earlier documentation. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15 a-f]. There are also changes in interest rate on entire balances without adequate justification and there is a lack of information on principal repayments. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 16 a-d].
In addition, some agreements are also characterized as grants and are not clearly documented as interest-hearing loans as required. In other cases, "reimbursement" of contributed funds on loans is inappropriately sought on loans entered into more than 6 years earlier. [FAA Exhibit 16 a-d].
Likewise, airport budget documents are unclear in reflecting some of the loans or payment obligations. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Pages 16-17]. Although the City stated that it "will implement a corrective action plan to recalculate the accumulated interest on its loans," the information provided by the City recalculating loan balances is limited and relies on this deficient loan documentation. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item hA, Pages 14-22, Ex. G].
In its Answer, the City claims that its independent auditor prepared annual financial reports which shows that advances were loans from the City's general fund to the airport fund. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item hA, Pages 10-11]. The City argues that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports from 1989 to 2006 evidence loans because they show a "payable" item to the Airport. The City contends "formal loan agreements" are not required and that "contemporaneous documentary evidence of an Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) expectation of repayment" is enough documentation to show the advances were loans. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item hA, Pages 10-11].
The City's arguments are rejected by the Director. The Annual Reports do not show the advances were interest-bearing loans at the time they were made (from 1989 onward) nor do they show any terms of the loans. The Reports, standing alone, simply do not satisfy the "clearly supportable and documented" standard required to establish loans.
The City also points to various agreements, including six Interfund Loan/Grant Agreements and four Interfund Loan Agreements, as additional evidence showing the advances made to the airport fund from 1989-2016 were loans. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15 a-f and Exhibit 16 a-d respectively].
In June, 2005, City representatives executed a series of Interfund Loan/Grant Agreements.5 However, these agreements were backdated - executed years after the advances were made. As such, they are not evidence of the City's intent at the time the advances were made. Additionally, the terms and title of the Interfund Loan/Grant Agreements have the characteristics of both loans and grants.
The agreements include the term "Grant Agreement" in its very title. There is no expectation of repayment of a grant. None of the agreements provided for the payment of interest, but rather, provided interest was "N.A.", or not applicable, which is indicative of a grant.
The "intended use of the funds" of each of the backdated agreements is stated as "to subsidize the operating expenses of the Airport Fund." This is misleading as the funds were advanced to the airport decades or years before. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15 a-f]. In addition, the term "subsidy" is also indicative of a grant, not a loan. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, Exhibit Q, Page 50]. The Director finds the backdated loans/grant agreements [Exhibit 15 a- f] pertaining to funds advanced from 1988 to 2002 do not qualify as loans or interest bearing loans under the Revenue Use Policy because they were not clearly documented as loans when the contributions were made. 64 Fed. Reg. at 7718.
In 2005 and 2009, the City attempted to refinance the funds identified in the Interfund Loan/Grant Agreements6 into several new interest bearing loans. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 16 a-b]. Exhibit 16a is an Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement which was executed by the same City representatives during the same June 2005 period. No new funds were contributed to the airport fund. Rather, the agreement combined the $2,000,000 non-interest bearing loan/grant made in December 1999 and the $414,000 non-interest bearing loan/grant made in 2002 into a new $2,414,000 interest-bearing loan with principal and interest required to be repaid over 20 years. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 16 ahi. The City's attempt to combine and re-finance the previously non-interest bearing loan/grants into a new interest bearing loan is unconvincing and fails to satisfy the requirements of the Revenue Use Policy. They were not clearly documented as "interest bearing loans" when the contributions were actually made in 1999 and 2002. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15 e-f].
The airport fund was charged a total of $743,665 of interest on the $2,414,000 loan/grant from 2005 through 2016. All of the interest originated from the airport account and thus constitutes airport revenue which was unlawfully diverted. However, 49 U.S.C. § 47107(m)(7) precludes the recovery of illegally diverted funds more than six years after the date of diversion. The complaint was filed on February 5, 2016. Therefore, section 47107(m)(7) precludes the recovery of funds diverted prior to February 5, 2010. With respect to the $743,665 of interest payments, $289,073 was diverted prior to The first Loan/Grant agreement documented a $655,208 advance made 18 years earlier on 6/01/1988. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15 a]. The second LoanlGrant agreement documented a $728,227.98 advance made 17 years earlier on 03/01/1989. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15 b]. The third documented a $600,000 advance made 16 years earlier on 4/01/1990. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15 ci. The fourth documented a $1,941,322.44 advance made 12 years earlier in 1994. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15 dl. The fifth agreement is unsigned and documented a $2,000,000 advance made 12/01/1999. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15 e]. The sixth agreement is unsigned and documented a $414,154 advance made 01/01/2002. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15f]. 6 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15 e-f.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) February 5, 2010, leaving a recoverable diversion of $454,592 which must be credited back to the airport fund together with interest from the date the unlawful payment was made [49 U.S.C. § 47107(n)]. No further interest charges are allowable on the $2,414,000 loan/grant.
The airport fund also made principal payments on the $2,414,000 loan/grant from 6/2005 through 6/2008 totaling $227,000. (FAA Exhibit 1, Item hA, Exhibit G). Under the Revenue Use Policy, an airport owner or operator can seek reimbursement of contributed funds only if the request is made within six years of the date the contribution took place. 64 Fed. Reg. at 7718. The City advanced $414,155 of new funds in 2002. (FAA Exhibit 1, Item hA, Exhibit G). The $227,000 in principal payments are allowable with respect to the $414,155 funds advanced in 2002 because those payments were made within six years of the date of contribution. 49 U.S.C. § 47107(m)(7).
In June 2005, the City entered into another Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement for a $2,839,729 loan/grant made on 11/30/2004 to subsidize capital projects. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15g]. The agreement provided "N.A." or no interest on the funds. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15g]. Five years later, on or about July 24, 2009, the City attempted to refinance this originally non-interest bearing loan/grant into an interest bearing loan with interest set at 8%, backdated to be effective a year earlier, July 1, 2008. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 16b]. Again, the City's attempt to refinance the previously non-interest bearing loan/grant into an interest bearing loan fails. It was not clearly documented as "interest bearing loan" when the contribution was made in 2004. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15g].
The airport fund was improperly charged a total of $515,622 in interest on the $2,839,729 loan/grant from 2009 through 2016. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item hA, Exhibit G]. Again, the six year limitation in section 47107(m)(7) precludes recovery of the $132,449 funds which were diverted prior to February 5, 2010, which leaves a recoverable diversion of $383,173 which must be credited back to the airport fund, plus interest. The airport fund has also made principal payments on the $2,839,729 amount.
The principal payments made include $2,859,090 and $188,873 and total $3,047,963. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item hA, Exhibit G]. Under the Revenue Use Policy, these principal payments are allowable because the original August, 2005 agreement contemplated re-payment of the funds and was reasonably contemporaneous (within 7 months) of the date of the original contribution. However, the allowable principal payments exceeds the original obligation by $188,873 and this sum must be credited back to the airport fund, plus interest from the date the excess payments were made [49 U.S.C. § 47107(n)].
In July 2009, the City documented a $400,000 advance made to the airport fund in April of that year. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 16b]. The $400,000 advance is reasonably contemporaneous and sufficiently documented under the Revenue Use Policy and thus the City is entitled to interest and repayment of the $400,000. In October 2012 and March 2013, the City entered into new agreements that re-financed all of the prior loan/grants to the airport fund and documented an additional advance of $3,309,648 to the airport fund. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 16 c-d]. The agreements set forth the interest rates and repayment terms of the pre-2005 loans/grants, which is improper as explained above. The actual date and purpose of the new $3,309,648 advance is not stated, except that it was after July 1, 2011. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 16c]. The Director finds that the 2012 and 2013 agreements are valid as to the $3,309,648 advance only, with the exception of the 7.5% and
5.4% interest rates, which cannot exceed the rate which the City received for other investments.
Repayment based on the corrected interest rates is thus required.
4. Conclusion Issue 1
For the reasons shown above, the Director finds, based upon the record, that the alleged loans to the Airport are insufficiently and improperly documented as such and fail to satisfy the requirements of loans under the Revenue Use Policy. Therefore, against this background, the Director concludes the City is in non-compliance with 49 U.S.C. § 47133, 49 U.S.C. § 47107(1), Grant Assurance 25 Airport 8 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Revenues and related FAA policies, pending implementation and completion of appropriate corrective action. Specifically, the Director finds:
a. The funds advanced from the City to the airport fund prior to 2005 constitute contributions to the Airport, not loans or interest bearing loans. However, the recovery of any improper interest and principal payments made prior to February 5, 2010 is now time-barred under the six year limitation set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 47107(m)(7) and under the Revenue Use Policy. b. Improper interest payments charged to the airport fund made after February 5, 2010 totaling $454,292 and $383,173 and the principal overpayment of $188,873 must be credited back to the airport fund, plus interest from the date of the improper withdrawals or payments. c. The City is entitled to interest and repayment of the July 2009 $400,000 advance and the October 2012 $3,309,648 advance.
d. The City must provide, within 60 days, documentation regarding the interest rate charged showing it does not exceed the rate for its other investments when the loans were issued. The City has been fully repaid the November 2004 advance of $2,839,729.
Issue 2-Whether the City has charged below FMV rents to Santa Monica College (SMC), contrary to Grant Assurance 25
1. Complainants' Position on Issue 2
Complainants allege that there is "substantial evidence that the City has for years charged, and continues to charge, less than fair market rent to for Airport property." Complainants assert the arrangement between the City and the College for use of airport property violates Grant Assurance 25 and constitutes revenue diversion. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Pages 36-37].
2. The City's Position on Issue 2
Without admitting that the rent it charged to the College was inconsistent with the City's federal obligations, the City acknowledges "that the FAA could find, for the period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2016, that the City has charged SMC less than fair market value for its lease for SMC. The City admits that the College's lease rate in 2013 was $21,411/month, but states that it "lacks sufficient information to admit or deny" the methodology and findings presented by Complainants. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11, Pages 41]. The City submitted a corrective action plan concerning rent payments from [SMC] and found that the under payments, with interest through 2016, were $1.1 million. The City committed to reduce the outstanding loan balance of the Airport by that amount. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 18].
3. Discussion on Issue 2
The City proposes a corrective action plan to resolve the claim that the City violated its federal obligation for the College lease. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item hA, Page 40]. The City proposed to recalculate the rent in accordance with the property's appraised FMV and repay any shortfall to the Airport going back to February 2010. Specifically, the City's proposed corrective action plan states (1) the City will submit to the FAA an appraisal of the FMV of the Airport's property that is the subject of the College lease for FY 2011-2016; (2) the City will pay the Airport the shortage between the rents paid to and the FMV of the property, plus interest; (3) for FY 2017, the City will pay the Airport the shortage between the rents paid to the Airport by the College for 2017 and the FJVITV of the property; and (4) the City will provide the FAA with a written certificate of compliance with this corrective action plan." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, Page 16].
As part of the corrective action plan, the City provided an appraisal report estimating the fair market rental value of the College property and calculated the variances, valued at $1,069,327.91. The City calculated adjusted for accumulated interest bringing the total to $1,103,146.19. Finally, the City 9 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) affirms that the City's General Fund would, effective as of September 30, 2016, "reduce the outstanding loan balance of the Airport Fund" by that amount [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 18].
Complainants assert that the City's proposal "appears to resolve the allegations [in the Complaint] for the timeframe within the applicable statute of limitations through June 30, 2016," but there is no "discussion of how the City will ensure current and future compliance." Complainants state that although "the City represented that...[it will] reimburse the Airport for any differential between the rent paid by SMC in FY 2017 (July 1, 2016 -June 30, 2017)," the proposed corrective action plan "does not actually include such a commitment," nor does the plan "evaluate the FMV of the property at issue for FY2017." Complainants add that "it is unclear how the amount of any differential for FY2017 would be determined," and if "the City intends to.. .enter into a new FMV-based lease with SMC."[FAA Exhibit 1, Item 19].
Upon review of the allegation made by Complainants, the Director concurs that the leasing agreement between the City and the College was not consistent with the City's federal obligations, but that the City took proactive steps to correct the situation by submitting the corrective action plan, which, upon review, is generally consistent with correcting the situation. However, within 60 days, the City still must provide details, acceptable to the FAA, on (1) how it will ensure future compliance, (2) how reimbursements to the Airport for any differential between the rent paid by the College in FY20 17 and beyond will occur, and (3) the City's actions concerning future leases with the College. The Director also requests the City provide information showing (1) whether any similar occurrences have taken place with other non-aeronautical users at the Airport and (2) how to prevent any future occurrences of this type.
4. Conclusion on Issue 2
Based on the above, the Director finds that the City charged below FMV rents to the College, contrary to its applicable federal obligations. Although the City took action to correct the situation, the corrective action plan needs to be supplemented as noted above.
Issue 3 -Whether the City has imposed excessive and unreasonable landing fees using artificial, unsupported numbers and improper accounting methods contrary to Grant Assurance 22 and Grant Assurance 24
1. Comolainants' Position on Issue 3
Complainants allege that in April 2013, "with virtually no opportunity for public review or input, and with constantly changing supporting materials, the City adopted a resolution nearly tripling Airport landing fees and imposing them for the first time on both based and transient aircraft." Complainants add that "the justification for the imposition of these landing fees stems primarily from artificial Airport deficits created by the revenue diversion alleged supra, as well as by... additional financial manipulation." Complainants assert that "the landing fees are.. .facially unreasonable" and "contrary to Grant Assurance 22." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Page 21].
2. The City's Position on Issue 3
The City states that it has the right to establish by ordinance a compensatory landing fee that recovers from the operators of aircraft using the Airport and for the capital and operating costs of building, improving, maintaining and operating the Airport. The City adds that the 2013 landing fees "meets applicable legal standards," and that they were calculated in accordance with well-accepted principles of compensatory rate-setting. The City explains that the landing fees were "calculated to recover all of the City's capital and operating costs allocable to the airfield cost center after crediting the airfield rate base with certain airfield revenue," and that the "net airfield costs were then divided by total landed weight, yielding a landing fee rate (per thousand pound unit) to be paid by each 10 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) aircraft operator using the airfield." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11, Page 23]. As variables, the City refers, among others to its Cost Allocation Plan, cross-crediting, airfield cost center elements (other aviation revenues), amortization charges, area square footage, project useful life, and landing weights. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item hA, Pages 22-30].
3. Discussion on Issue 3
The City's explanation for its landing fee structure and rate-setting methodology is now obsolete.
Following the 2017 Settlement Agreement, significant changes have occurred at the Airport, including changes to the airport's infrastructure, use, planning and funding requirements. This has had a significant effect on how the airport is used, in terms of number of and types of aircraft.
Relevant factors include the reduction of the runway length from 5,000 feet to 3,500 feet, expanding non-aviation uses and related revenues (and how these are applied), changes in the airport's fleet mix, distinctions between based v. transient users, changes in budgets and forecasts, and a 80% reduction in jet operations. These direct and indirect changes impact many of the variables presented by the City as justification in its methodology (2013 Financial Projections -Proposed Landing Fee Calculation). Consequently, the City's original justifications for an increase in landing fee from $2.07 to $5.48 per 1,000 lbs. landing weight (an increase in 264%) or, as the City documents, a 500%+ increase in landing fees revenues from 2012 into 2013 and beyond, are based upon obsolete baselines and calculations.
In 2013, the City represented the landing fees as "cost recovery for the maintenance and operation of the public-use aviation areas," or costs "to maintain and operate the public-use aviation areas - runway, taxiways, taxi lanes & ramps," or, in part, to pave "runway, taxiway and parking lot improvements." [FAA Exhibit 1, Items 30, 32 and 33]. That defines the allowable costs. The allowable costs cited by the City in 2013 as justification (cost recovery) have appreciably changed, and it is not possible, based on the information submitted by the City, to make the finding that the landing fees at the Airport (1) reasonably and fairly allocate costs to users on a rational and economically justified basis, and (2) do not exceed the allowable costs of the airfield, as required by FAA policy.
It is unclear how (1) some non-airfield costs (i.e., certain amortization charges, non-aviation improvements) appear to have been improperly bundled as part of the cost recovery justification for the landing fees, (2) how some non-landing fee revenues are accounted for, (3) how substantial amounts of interest costs on debt were incorrectly charged and (4) how other charges have been allocated, raise additional issues that now require further consideration in setting landing fees.
4. Conclusion Issue 3
Because the City's justification for its landing fee methodology and rates does not reflect current and actual costs and use of the Airport, and some of the methodology is unclear, compliance with Grant Assurances 22 and 24 cannot be established. Therefore, within 60 days, the City must update its methodology and fees to reflect current and actual costs in the use of the Airport and in accordance with FAA guidance.7
Issue 4 -Whether the City's airport leasing policies are contrary to the City's federal obligations
1. Complainants' Position on Issue 4
Complainants argue that lease renewals and new leases have been delayed unreasonably and without justification and that "the City's proposed short-term leases are unjustified and plainly 7A1so see Bombardier Aerospace Corn.. Dassault Falcon Jet Corp. v. City of Santa Monica, FAA Docket No. 16-03-11 provides guidance on various elements of pavement cost recovery requirements. 11 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) illegal." Complainants argue that the City has established "short-term leases of less than three years' duration for commercial aeronautical tenants, without any cognizable justification" and that the City has denied new leases and imposed month-to-month lease terms on aeronautical airport tenants, also without any cognizable justification. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Pages 3, 37].
2. The City's Position on Issue 4
In response, the City states that "given the unique circumstances", the City has struck an appropriate middle-ground by permitting aeronautical tenants to remain on the Airport, but exercising its discretion not to enter into leases that could extend beyond the date that the City is obligated to operate the Airport as an airport." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, Page 17]. The City adds that its New Leasing Policy, dated March 22, 2016 moots the claims by Complainants. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11, Pages 47-48]. In 2018, the City updated this leasing policy. [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 22].
3. Discussion on Issue 4
Complainants' arguments, including the multiple references to the applicable federal requirements and policies are sound, but only within the context of the conditions which existed before the 2017 Settlement Agreement. For example, short term leases are generally not reasonable in most cases where lessees have made investments in the facilities. The fact is that the relevant terms and conditions contained in the 2017 Settlement Agreement effectively moots Complainants' allegations on this issue. The 2017 Settlement Agreement specifically states that "leases offered to all tenants providing aeronautical services shall be on reasonable terms and in substantially the same form" and that the "the City shall offer all current tenants providing aeronautical services leases of no less than three (3) years with reasonable terms appropriate to the aeronautical service" and taking into account tenant investment and financing requirements." [FAA Exhibit 1, Item 20, Page 6].
4. Conclusion Issue 4
Against this background, the Director finds that while the City's leasing policies are generally consistent with the 2017 Settlement Agreement, any leases to aeronautical service providers must be "no less than (3) years" in duration.
E. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS
Based on the evidence of record in this proceeding, the Director finds that:
Issue -1 The City is in non-compliance with 49 U.S.C. § 47133, 49 U.S.C. § 47107(1), Grant Assurance 25 and related FAA policies concerning certain advances and loans/grants made to the airport fund because they were not clearly documented as loans or interestbearing loans when they were made, as required by the Revenue Use Policy.
Issue -2 Although the City charged below FJVIV rents to the College and submitted a corrective action plan, the plan needs to be supplemented, and the City needs to provide information showing (1) whether any similar occurrences have taken place with other nonaeronautical users at the Airport, and (2) how to prevent any future occurrences of this type;
Issue -3 The City's landing fee methodology and fees do not reflect the actual use of the airport (after the settlement was executed) and lack justification, and thus compliance with Grant Assurance 22 and Grant Assurance 24 cannot be established.
Issue -4 The City's current leasing policies are generally consistent with the 2017 Settlement Agreement, but any leases must be no less than (3) years in duration.
All other motions not specifically granted herein are denied. 12 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget)
INTERIM ORDER
The Director, in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 16.109(c), directs the City to submit within 30 days a comprehensive corrective action plan to:
a) Subject to FAA review and approval, and using acceptable financial and accounting practices, submit accurate loan and payment schedule which shows only the allowable loans from the general fund to the airport fund, as provided herein, and adjusts the outstanding allowable loan balances to reflect the payment, in full, of the November, 2004 advance of $2,839,729; credit the improper interest payments charged to the airport fund totaling $743,665 and $515,672 and the principal overpayment of $188,873, plus interest from the date of each improper payment; and provides documentation regarding the interest rate to be charged on the allowable loans does not exceed the rate for other City investments.
b) Supplement the corrective action plan to (1) ensure future compliance, including any differential rents in FY 2017 and beyond, and (2) provide details on the current and future leases for the College property;
c) Provide an updated landing fee methodology, acceptable to the FAA, which reflects the significant physical and operational changes that have occurred at the Airport since the 2017 Settlement Agreement and correct the stated deficiencies;
d) Provide evidence that the leases being offered to aeronautical service providers at the airport are no less than 3 years in duration.
e) Pending the FAA's approval of the corrective action plan, any approval of any applications submitted by the City for amounts apportioned under 49 U.S.C. § 47114(d) and authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 47115 will be withheld in accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 47106(d): and f) Consideration will also be given to seek and apply the sanctions for noncompliance as provided in Section IX, (E), (e-g) ofFAA Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use ofAirport Revenues, 1999 (Revenue Use Policy).
RIGHT TO APPEAL
This Director's Determination is an initial agency determination and does not constitute a final agency decision and order subject to judicial review. 14 C.F.R. § 16.247(b)(2). A party to this proceeding adversely affected by the Director's Determination may appeal the initial determination pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.33(c) within 30 days after service of the Director's Determination.
OY
Kevi C. Willis
Diretor, Airport Compliance
and Management Analysis
Federal Aviation Administration
Date
13 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget)
INDEX OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
FAA Exhibit 1
Item 1 -Part 16 Complaint, February 5, 2016.
Exhibit 1 Transcript of remarks from Mayor McKeown and Councilmember Himmeirich to FAA on July 8, 2015.
Exhibit 2 FAA Delays Part 16 Ruling, by Matthew Hall, (http://smdp.com/author/matthewhall) on August 24, 2015.
Exhibit 3 Santa Monica Warns Fuel Companies at Airport, by Niki Cervantes, Santa Monica Lookout, December 9, 2015.
Exhibit 4 E-mail from Ted Winterer to Rick Rosenthal, October 27, 2015.
Exhibit 5 City Of Santa Monica City Council Minutes, October 27, 2015.
Exhibit 6 Resolution No. 6296, City Council Meeting, 6/23/81.
Exhibit 7 City Of Santa Monica Inter-Department Memo, January 23, 1962.
Exhibit 8 City Rescinds Eviction Notices to Airport Firms, Evening Outlook, October 15, 1981.
Exhibit 9 Santa Monica Airport Agreement, January 31, 1984.
Exhibit 10 City Council Report, City Council Meeting, October 4, 2011.
Exhibit ha Letter from Office of the City Attorney to Richard K. Simon, May 29, 2015.
Exhibit hib Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Santa Monica Airport Lease No. 4670 (CCS).
Exhibit 12 Memorandum to Mayor and City Council from City Manager, November 27, 2012.
Exhibit 13 City of Santa Monica -Advances from the City's General Fund to the Airport Fund.
Exhibit 14 Airport Financial Tables.
Exhibit iSa Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, 08/03/05 (First Document).
Exhibit 15b Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, 08/03/05 (Second Document).
Exhibit 15c Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, 08/03/05 (Third Document).
Exhibit 15d Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, 08/03/05 (Fourth Document).
Exhibit 15e Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, (undated), (Fifth Document).
Exhibit 1Sf Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, (undated), (Sixth Document).
Exhibit 15g Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, 08/03/05 (Seventh Document).
Exhibit 16a Interfund Loan Agreement from General Fund to the Airport Fund, 7/29/05.
Exhibit 17 Santa Monica Airport Proposed FY 2010/2011 Budget Discussion, 01/25/2010.
Exhibit 18 Santa Monica Airport Campus, October 4, 2011.
Exhibit 19 General Fund Advances to Airport Fund -Airport Loan Balances, March 14, 2013.
Exhibit 20 E-mail from Candace Tysdal, August 3, 2012.
Exhibit 21a City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2008.
Exhibit 21b City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2009.
Exhibit 21c City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2010.
Exhibit 21d City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2011.
Exhibit 21e City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2012.
Exhibit 21f City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2013.
Exhibit 21g City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2014.
Exhibit 22 City of Santa Monica Advances from the City to the Airport trough 6.30.08.
Exhibit 23 City of Santa Monica FY 20 15-2017 Proposed Biennial Budget Line Item Detail.
Exhibit 24 City of Santa Monica City Council Minutes, April 30, 2013.
Exhibit 25 City of Santa Monica Airport Commission Meeting Minutes, May 12, 2012.
Exhibit 26 Airport Commission Memo, February 25, 2013.
Exhibit 27 Airport Commission Memo, April 1, 2013.
Exhibit 28 Financial Projections -Proposed Landing Fee Calculation, March 13, 2013.
Exhibit 29 City of Santa Monica Airport Commission Meeting Minutes, April 1, 2013.
Exhibit 30 Financial Projections -Proposed Landing Fee Calculation, April 17, 2013.
Exhibit 31 City of Santa Monica Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Charges in Fund Net Assets, Year Ended June 30, 2003.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Exhibit 32 Airport Commission Memo, April 22, 2013.
Exhibit 33 City of Santa Monica City Agenda, April 30, 2013.
Exhibit 34 City Council Report, June 9, 2016.
Exhibit 35a E-mail from and to Stelios Makrides and Kevin Nagata, January 17, 2013.
Exhibit 35b E-mail from Stephanie Manglares to Stelios Makrides, November 19, 2012.
Exhibit 35c Allocation of Operating expenses, November 15, 1012.
Exhibit 35d E-mail from Stephanie Manglares to Stelios Makrides, April 23, 2013.
Exhibit 36a Letter from Jol Silversmith to Brigette Garay, July 3, 2013.
Exhibit 3Gb Letter from Brigette Garay to Jol Silvermith, July 24, 2013.
Exhibit 36c Letter from Jol Silversmith to Brigette Garay, July 31, 2013.
Exhibit 36d Letter from Ivan Campbell to Jol Silvermith, August 30, 2013.
Exhibit 37 Letter from Brigette Garay to Mark Smith, May 15, 2014.
Exhibit 38 Letter from Brigette Garay to Mark Smith, July 16, 2014.
Exhibit 39 Letter from Mark Smith to Brigette Garay, June 29, 2015.
Exhibit 40 Letter from Brigette Garay to Mark Smith, July 23, 2015.
Exhibit 41 Financial Table (Not Titled or dated).
Exhibit 42 Financial Table Prof Services 2012-2014.
Exhibit 43a City of Santa Monica Final Allocation Detail Report, July 8, 2010.
Exhibit 43a City of Santa Monica Final Allocation Detail by Division and Subpool, Total CAP for FY 2012-2013.
Exhibit 44 Amortization Charges for Year Ended June 30 (undated).
Exhibit 45a City of Santa Monica 2010-2011 Adopted Budget Line Item Detail and 2011-2012 Budget Plan Line Item Detail.
Exhibit 45b City of Santa Monica FY 2013-2015 Adopted Biennial Budget Line Item Detail.
Exhibit 45c City of Santa Monica FY 2015-2017 Adopted Biennial Budget Line Item Detail.
Exhibit 46 City of Santa Monica Information Item, July 12, 2012.
Exhibit 47 Teview of Santa Monica Airport landing Fee Proposal and Related Financial Information (GRA Review).
Exhibit 48a Massachusetts Port Authority Meeting Minutes, September 17, 2015.
Exhibit 48b Schedule of Fees and Charges, Denver Municipal Airport System Rules and Regulations 92015).
Exhibit 48c Massport Aircraft Operating & Parking Fees.
Exhibit 48d RTAA Monthly Financial Reporting Package, May 31, 2015.
Exhibit 48e Southwest Florida International Airport Rates and Charges October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016.
Exhibit 48f Santa Fe Municipal Airport General Aviation Data Sheet.
Exhibit 49 Santa Monica Airport Leasing Guidelines, August 12, 2014.
Exhibit 50 Historical Tenant Ledger, Santa Monica College, August 28, 2008.
Exhibit 51 Lease Ledger, Santa Monica College, August 28, 2013.
Exhibit 52 GRA Santa Monica College Lease.
Exhibit 53 Airport Leases.
Exhibit 54 City of Santa Monica, City Council Report, March 25, 2014.
Exhibit 55 City of Santa Monica, City Council Minutes, March 25, 2014.
Exhibit 56 City of Santa Monica, City Council Minutes, August 12, 2014.
Exhibit 57 City of Santa Monica, Airport Commission Minutes, October 27, 2014.
Exhibit 58 City of Santa Monica, Airport Commission Minutes, February 23, 2015.
Exhibit 59 City of Santa Monica, Airport Commission Minutes, March 23, 2015.
Exhibit 60 City Council Meeting Memorandum, March 24, 2015.
Exhibit 61 City of Santa Monica, City Council Minutes, March 24, 2015.
Exhibit 62 City Council Meeting, Agenda, July 14, 2015.
Exhibit 63 City of Santa Monica, City Council Minutes, July 14, 2015.
Exhibit 64 City of Santa Monica, City Council Report, October 27, 2015.
Exhibit 65 Letter from Richard Simon to City of Santa Monica, December 2, 2015.
Exhibit 66 Letter from NBAA to Santa Monica Airport Commission, March 28, 2013.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Exhibit 67 Letter from NBAA to Santa Monica Mayor, April 26, 2013.
Exhibit 68 Letter from NBAA to Santa Monica Mayor, March 24, 2014.
Exhibit 69 Letter from NBAA to Santa Monica Mayor, March 19, 2015.
Exhibit 70 Letter from NBAA to Santa Monica Mayor, July 14, 2015.
Exhibit 71 Letter from NBAA to Santa Monica Mayor, October 26, 2015.
Exhibit 72 Letter from NBAA to Santa Monica Airport Manager, December 2, 2015.
Exhibit 73 E-mails to and from M. Pastucha, S. Manglaras, B. Dunn, April 24 & 29, 2013.
Exhibit 74 Letter from Richard Simon to City of Santa Monica's Attorney, December 18, 2015.
Exhibit 75 Letter from Richard Simon to City of Santa Monica's Attorney, January 22, 2016.
Exhibit 76 Letter from Santa Monica City Attorney to Richard Simon, January 29, 2016.
Exhibit 77 Letter from Richard Simon to City of Santa Monica's Attorney, February 3, 2016.
Item 2 -FAA Notice of Docketing, February 25, 2016.
Item 3 -City's Assented -To Motion To Extend Time, March 15, 2016.
Item 4 -FAA Order Granting Extension of Time, March 22, 2016.
Item 5 -City's Motion to Dismiss, April 11, 2016.
Exhibit A Completed Agenda City of Santa Monica Regular Meeting, March 22, 2016.
Exhibit B Instrument of Transfer, August 10, 1948.
Exhibit C City of Santa Monica v. United States of America, CV-13-8046-JFW, Principal Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant City of Santa Monica, October 24, 2014.
Exhibit D FAA Docket No. 16-14-04, Brief for Respondent City of Santa Monica on Appeal from the Director's Determination, January 8, 2016.
Item 6 -Complainants' Answer to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, April 22, 2016.
Exhibit 78 City of Santa Monica v. United States of America, CV-13-8046-JFW, brief Amici Curiae Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and National Business Aviation Association in Support of Defendant-Appellees and Affirmance of District Court, January 22, 2015.
Exhibit 79 Santa Monica Airport Commission (Minutes), March 15, 2016.
Item 7 -Motion ofJustice Aviation, Inc. to Withdraw as a Complainant, May 13, 2016.
Item 8 -City's Assented -To Motion To Extend Time, June 1, 2016.
Item 9 -FAA Order Granting an Extension of Time, June 10, 2016.
Item 10 -Complainants' Assented-To Motion to Extend Time, July 8, 2016.
Item 11 -FAA Order Granting Extension of Time, July 27, 2016.
Item hA -City's Answer, July 1, 2016.
Exhibit A Instrument of Transfer, August 10, 1948.
Exhibit B City of Santa Monica v. United States of America, No. 14-55583, D.C. No. 2:13-cv08046-JFW-VBK (Memorandum), March 11, 2016.
Exhibit C Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, City of Santa Monica, Year June 30, 1987.
Exhibit D Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, 8/3/2005.
Exhibit E Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, 3/23/2013.
Exhibit F City of Santa Monica Portfolio Management Summary, August 31, 2004.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Exhibit G City of Santa Monica Recalculation of Balance on Loans from the City's general Fund to the Airport Fund, 6/30/16.
Exhibit H Report 3, Final Allocation Report With Detail by Division & Subpool.
Exhibit I City of Santa Monica, Overview of the Cost Allocation Plan.
Exhibit J Letter from Eugene Korney to Martin Pastucha, April 19, 2013 and letter from Martin Pastucha to Eugene Korney, April 24, 2013 (includes financial tables).
Exhibit K Santa Monica Airport, Financial Projects, Proposed Landing Fee Calculations, 4/1/20 13.
Exhibit L Letter from NBAA to Pam O'Connor, April 26, 2013.
Exhibit M Completed Agenda, City of Santa Monica Regular Meeting, March 22, 2016.
Exhibit N City of Santa Monica v. United States of America, Case No. CV13-08046, Complaint for Declaration and Injunctive Relief Under the Quiet Title Act and United States Constitution, October 31, 2013.
Exhibit 0 City of Santa Monica v. United States of America, Case No. CV13-08046, Principal Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant, City of Santa Monica, October 14, 2014.
Exhibit P FAA Docket No. 16-14-04, Brief for Respondent City of Santa Monica on Appeal From the Director's Determination, January 8, 2016.
Item 12 -Complainants' Reply to Respondent's Answer, August 1, 2016.
Exhibit 28 Landing Fee Calculation.
Exhibit 80 Airport Revenue Diversion, FAA Presentation, March 30, 2012.
Exhibit 81 City Council Report, March 17, 2015.
Exhibit 82 City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Year Ended June 30, 2015, Independent Auditor's Report (Memo).
Exhibit 83 City of Santa Monica Staff Report 1621.
Exhibit 84 City of Santa Monica Staff Report 1919.
Exhibit 85a City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2005.
Exhibit 85b City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2006.
Exhibit 85c City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2007.
Exhibit 85d City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2008.
Exhibit 85e City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2009.
Exhibit 8Sf City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2010.
Exhibit 85g City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2011.
Exhibit 85h City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2012.
Exhibit 85i City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2013.
Exhibit 85j City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2014.
Exhibit 85k City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2015.
Exhibit 86 Declaration of Kim Davidson, July 20, 2016.
Exhibit 87 Airport Commission Rules.
Exhibit 88 Notice regarding City's Control of Property at SMO.
Exhibit 89 Santa Monica City Council Airport leasing and Licensing Policy.
Exhibit 90 Letter from Richard K. Simon to Stelios Makrides, June 7, 2017.
Exhibit 91 Letter from Richard K. Simon to Stelios Makrides, June 23, 2017.
Item 13 -City's Assented -To Motion To Extend Time, August 5, 2016.
Item 14 -FAA Order Granting Extension Request, August 16, 2016.
Item 15 -City's Rebuttal, September 13, 2016.
Item 16 -Complainants' Supplement and Objections, September 19, 2016.
Item 17 -Notice of Change of Firm Address, September 27, 2016.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 18 -City's Corrective Action Plan, September 29, 2016.
Exhibit A Real Estate Appraisal Report -2800 Airport Avenue.
Exhibit B Calculations of Rent Shortfall and Interest on SMC's Airport Arts Campus.
Item 19 -Complainants' Response to Santa Monica College Corrective Action Plan, October 11, 2016.
Item 20 -Settlement Agreement/Consent Decree Between the FAA and the City of Santa Monica, January 30, 2017.
Item 21 -Notice of Address Change, April 1, 2019.
Item 22 -Santa Monica City Council Airport Leasing and Licensing Policy, August 2018.
Item 23 -Santa Monica Airport News, From the City Manager's Office, June 20, 2019.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November_, 2019, I caused to be placed in with Federal Express/Electronic Mail a true copy of the Director's Determination, addressed to:
FOR COMPLAINANT
Richard K. Simon, Esq.
1131 Camino San Acacia
Santa Fe, NM 87505
[email protected]
FOR RESPONDENT
Rick Cole, City Manager
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Lane Dilg, Esq., City Attorney
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 310
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Susan Cline
Director of Public Works
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 116
Santa Monica, CA 90401
[email protected]
Copy to:
FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket
Stelios Makrides, Airport Manager
Airport Administration Building
3223 Donald Douglas Loop South
Santa Monica, CA 90405
[email protected]
Scott Lewis, Esq., Partner
Anderson & Kreiger LLP
50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
Boston, MA 02109
[email protected]
FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100 Regional Office, AWP-600
minis ative Officer
ffice of Airport Compliance and
Management Analysis
8 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Office of Airport Compliance
and Management Analysis
800 Independence Ave, SW.
Washington, DC 20591
July 15, 2022
Jol A. Silversmith, Esq.
Barbara M. Marrin, Esq.
KMA Zuckert LLC
888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20006
Richard K. Simon, Esq.
1131 Camino San Acacio
Santa Fe, NM 87505
Scott Lewis, Esq.,
Mina Makarious, Esq.,
Anderson & Kreiger LLP
50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Re: Mike Smith, et al v. City of Santa Monica, California FAA Docket No. 16-16-02
Dear Ms. Marrin and Messrs. Silversmith, Simon and Lewis:
Enclosed is a copy of the final agency decision of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on the Director’s Determination in FAA Docket No. 16-16-02.
As discussed in detail in the attached Final Agency Decision, the Director’s Determination is reversed in part and affirmed on remaining issue
Sincerely,
Shannetta R. Griffin, P.E.
Associate Administrator for Airports
Enclosure
SHANNETTA R
GRIFFIN
Digitally signed by SHANNETTA
R GRIFFIN
Date: 2022.07.15 16:59:34 -04'00'
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, DC
MARK SMITH, et al.,
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT,
V.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA,
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT. FAA Docket No. 16-16-02
FINAL AGENCY DECISION
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Associate Administrator for Airports on cross appeals filed by Mark Smith, et al. (Smith or Complainant) and the City of Santa Monica, California (City or Respondent). The City owns and operates the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (Airport or SMO). Smith and the City challenge the findings of the November 8, 2019 Director’s Determination (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1).
In the Director’s Determination, the Director of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis (Director) concluded:
Issue 1 – The City is in noncompliance with 49 U.S.C. § 47133, 49 U.S.C. § 47107(l), Grant Assurance 25 and related FAA policies concerning certain advances and loans/grants made to the airport fund because they were not clearly documented as loans or interest bearing loans when they were made, as required by the FAA Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, 1999 (Revenue Use Policy). Issue 2 – Although the City charged below fair market value rents to the College and submitted a corrective action plan, the plan needs to be supplemented and the City needs to provide information showing (1) whether any similar occurrences have taken place with other non-aeronautical users at the Airport and (2) how to prevent any future occurrences of this type.
Issue 3 – The City’s landing fee methodology and fees do not reflect the actual use of the Airport (after the settlement was executed) and lack justification, and thus compliance with Grant Assurance 22 and Grant Assurance 24 cannot be established. Issue 4 – The City’s current leasing policies are generally consistent with the 2017 Settlement Agreement, but any leases must be no less than (3) years in duration (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1, p. 12.)
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 2 The Director also issued an Interim Order in accordance with 14 CFR §16.109(c) directing the City to submit within 30 days a corrective action plan, the terms of which include:
a) Subject to FAA review and approval, and using acceptable financial and accounting practices, submit accurate loan and payment schedule which shows only the allowable loans from the general fund to the airport fund, as provided herein, and adjusts the outstanding allowable loan balances to reflect the payment, in full, of the November, 2004 advance of $2,839,729; credit the improper interest payments charged to the airport fund totaling $743,665 and $515,672 and the principal overpayment of $188,873, plus interest from the date of each improper payment; and provides documentation regarding the interest rate to be charged on the allowable loans does not exceed the rate for other City investments. b) Supplement the corrective action plan to (1) ensure future compliance, including any differential rents in FY2017 and beyond and (2) provide details on the current and future leases for the College property.
c) Provide an updated landing fee methodology, acceptable to the FAA, which reflects the significant physical and operational changes that have occurred at the Airport since the 2017 Settlement Agreement and correct the stated deficiencies. d) Provide evidence that the leases being offered to aeronautical service providers at the airport are no less than 3 years in duration.
e) Pending the FAA’s approval of the corrective action plan, any approval of any applications submitted by the City for amounts apportioned under 49 U.S.C. § 47114(d) and authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 47115 will be withheld in accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 47106(d); and
f) Consideration will also be given to seek and apply the sanctions for noncompliance as provided in Section IX, (E), (e-g) of FAA Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, 1999 (Revenue Use Policy).
(FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1, p. 13.)
Both parties appeal the Director’s Determination on Issues 1 and 3 and the Complainant raises a new issue.
Accordingly, the FAA has reexamined the record, including the Director's Determination, the administrative record supporting the Director's Determination, and the pleadings of both parties, in light of applicable law and policy. Based on this reexamination, the Associate Administrator affirms the Director's Determination in part, reverses in part, and modifies the corrective action plan.
This constitutes the final decision of the Associate Administrator for Airports pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.33(a).
II. SUMMARY OF THE DIRECTOR’S DETERMINATION
In the Director’s Determination, the Director found the City in non-compliance with 49 U.S.C. §§ 47133 and 47107(1) and Grant Assurance 25, Airport Revenue, concerning certain advances and loans/grants to the Airport fund because they were not clearly documented as loans or interest-bearing loans. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1, p. 12.) Additionally, the Director found that the Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 3 landing fee methodology and fees do not reflect the actual use of the Airport (after the 2017 Settlement Agreement was executed) and lacks justification, and therefore compliance with Grant Assurances 22 and 24 could not be established. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1, p. 12.) The Director ordered a corrective action plan to address, among other items not on appeal, the improper loans and payments and provide an updated landing fee methodology, acceptable to the FAA. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1, p. 13.)
The findings that the City charged below fair market value rent to the College and that the City’s leasing policies were consistent with the 2017 Settlement Agreement are not on appeal. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1, p. 12.)
III. PARTIES
A. Appellant/Respondent
The City is the owner and operator of SMO. SMO is a general aviation public-use airport capable of accommodating a wide range of business and personal aircraft, including corporate and business jets. FAA records indicate that the planning and development of the Airport has been financed, in part, with funds provided by the FAA under the Airport Improvement Program AIP), authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA), as codified at 49 U.S.C. § 47101, et seq. Between 1985 and 2003, the City received approximately $9.9 million in AIP funds1
(FAA Exhibit 2, Item 20, p. 2). Since 1948, certain airport land has also incurred obligations arising from land conveyed (1948 Instrument of Transfer) under the Surplus Property Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. §§ 47151- 47153. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1, p. 2.) B. Appellant/Complainant
The Complainants are Airport tenants and organizations with members who are users of SMO:2
1. Mark Smith – A pilot and owner of a Mooney 231 aircraft based in a hangar leased from the City.
2. Kim Davidson Aviation, Inc. (Kim Davidson Aviation) – An aircraft service provider at the Airport.
3. Bill’s Air Center, Inc. (Bill’s Air Center) – An aircraft service provider at the Airport.
4. The National Business Aviation Association, Inc. (NBAA) – A District of Columbia corporation that represents member companies that operate aircraft at the Airport.
5. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Inc. (AOPA) – An independent, not-forprofit education and advocacy association that represents members who base their aircraft at the Airport.
(FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pp. 3-4.)
1 The total AIP funds was misstated as $9.7M in the Director’s Determination (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1, p. 2). These AIP funds included a $1,604,700 grant issued on June 7, 1994 and a $240,600 amendment to that grant agreement.
The amendment was issued on August 27, 2003 (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 21; FAA Exhibit 1, Item 20, p. 2). 2 Justice Aviation, Inc. withdrew as a complainant May 13, 2016 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 7).
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 4 IV. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. On February 5, 2016, the Complainants filed a 14 CFR Part 16 Complaint against the City (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1).
2. On January 30, 2017, the City and the FAA entered into a Settlement Agreement/Consent Decree (the 2017 Settlement) (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 20).
3. On November 8, 2019, the Director issued the Director’s Determination (FAA, Exhibit 2, Item 1).
Complainants’ Appeal
1. On December 9, 2019, the Complainants appealed the Director’s Determination and filed Motion for Interim Order (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4).
2. On December 19, 2019, the City filed an Opposition to Complainant’s Motion for Interim Order and Conditional Opposition to Petition to Expand the Record (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 6).
3. On December 30, 2019, the City filed a Reply to Complainants Appeal (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 8).
4. On December 30, 2019, the Complainants filed a Response to the City’s Opposition for an Interim Order and the City’s Conditional Opposition to Petition to Expand the Record (FAA Exhibit 2, Items 9 and 10).
5. On January 9, 2020, the Complainants filed a Response to the City’s Reply to Complainant’s Appeal (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 11).
6. On January 23, 2020, the City filed a further Reply to Complainant’s Appeal (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 13).
City’s Appeal
1. On December 4, 2019, the City filed a Motion to Extend Time to Appeal (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 2).
2. On December 17, 2020, the FAA granted City’s Motion to Extend Time to Appeal (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 5).
3. On January 23, 2020, the City appealed the Director’s Determination.
4. On February 12, 2020, the Complainants filed their Reply to the City’s Notice of Appeal (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 14).
FAA Orders to extend time are listed in the Index of Administrative Record (FAA Exhibit 2).
V. THE APPEALS PROCESS
A party adversely affected by the Director’s Determination may file an appeal with the Associate Administrator within 30 days after the date of service of the initial determination (14 CFR § 16.33(c)). The review is limited to an examination of the Director’s Determination and the administrative record upon which such determination was based. The Associate Administrator does not consider new allegations or issues on appeal unless finding good cause as to why the new issue or evidence was not presented to the Director (14 CFR § 16.33(f)).
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 5 On appeal, the Associate Administrator will consider (1) whether the findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence contained in the record; (2) whether the conclusions were made in accordance with law, precedent, and policy; and (3) whether there are questions on appeal that are substantial; and (4) whether any prejudicial errors occurred (14 CFR § 16.33(e)).
VI.ISSUES
The Associate Administrator identified four issues to be reviewed on Appeal:
Issue 1 Whether the Director applied incorrect standards when he determined that five City transfers between 1988 and 2000 were not loans.
Issue 2 Whether the Director applied an incorrect standard when he determined that three City transfers between 2004 and 2012 were loans or interest bearing loans.
Issue 3 Whether the Director failed to address certain transfers and interest and made calculation errors in his determination.
Issue 4 Whether the Director erred when he did not address specific issues with the City’s landing fee methodology and found that the City’s compliance with Grant Assurances 22 and 24 could not be determined based on outdated information and ordered a corrective action plan.
A. Preliminary Issue – New Allegations by Complainants
A significant portion of the Complainants’ and the City’s pleadings argue the new issue of whether City may use accumulated airport revenue for general fund purposes if SMO closes.
The Associate Administrator is addressing this in detail below.
While arguing their appeal of the landing fee methodology (See Issue 4 below), the Complainants further claim that it should be impermissible “for the Airport to accumulate surpluses today that are not intended to ever be used for aeronautical purpose, but rather to be retained until after the Airport has been closed and then used to repurpose the property for nonaeronautical purposes and/or general municipal purposes” (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, Pg. 15). The Complainants also state, “The Western Pacific Region’s informal determination dated October 21, 2019 [sic] warned Santa Monica that doing so would be non-compliant. Likewise, nothing in 49 U.S.C § 47133 suggests that the closure of an airport releases from its obligations any revenues previously collected under its auspices.” (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, p. 15, FN 16.) In response to the City’s reply, the Complainants later state that it is unnecessary for the Associate Administrator to consider post-closure applicability of the statute to resolve the appeal. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 11, p. 2.)
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 6 1. City Position on New Allegations
The City asks the Associate Administrator to “reject any finding that § 47133 will continue to restrict the City’s use of any remaining airport revenue if the City closes the Airport after December 31, 2028, as permitted by the Settlement Agreement/Consent Decree.” (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 8, p. 20.)
2. Associate Administrator’s Decision on New Allegations The FAA’s process for considering a new issue or evidence in an appeal or reply to an appeal is stated in 14 CFR § 16.33(f)(1-3):
Any new issues or evidence presented in appeal or reply will not be considered unless accompanied by a petition of good cause found as to why the new issue or evidence was not presented to the Director. Such a petition must:
(1) Set forth the new matter;
(2) Contain affidavits of prospective witnesses, authenticated documents, or both, or an explanation of why such substantiation is unavailable; and (3) Contain a statement explaining why such a new issue or evidence could not have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence prior to the date on which the evidentiary record closed.
In raising and arguing this issue, neither party presented a petition of good cause as to why the issue was not presented to the Director as required under 14 CFR § 16.33 to raise new issues on appeal. Accordingly, this issue is dismissed.
VII. ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – Whether the Director applied an incorrect standard when he determined that five City transfers between 1988 and 2000 were not loans.
A. City Position
The City appeals the Director’s Determination that five transfers from the City general fund to the airport were not loans. These transfers were:
1. A 1988 transfer for $575,000,
2. A 1989 transfer for $1,035,200,
3. A 1990 transfer for $857,236,
4. A 1990 transfer for $1,889,322, and
5. A 2000 transfer for $2,000,000.
(FAA Exhibit 2, Item 12, p. 3.)
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 7 The City argues that the Director applied an unduly restrictive and retroactive standard of proof when it found that the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) did not satisfy the “clearly supportable and documented” standard required to establish the transfers at issue as loans (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 12, p. 2). The City states that the determinative question should be whether there was a “documented expectation of repayment” at the time the transfer was made.
The City argues that the Director’s finding was contrary to the evidence (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 12, p. 3). The City claims that the CAFRs demonstrate the City’s intent to be repaid. The City notes that the CAFRs consistently characterized the transfers as “advances” by the general fund and “payables” of the Airport Fund (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 12, p. 3). The City argues that interfund loans are described in this manner that is in generally accepted government accounting terminology. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 12, pp. 3-4.)
The City notes that all the disputed transfers were made before the Revenue Use Policy was published and that until revenue use policies were published,3 airport sponsors were not on
notice of any obligation to document an expectation of repayment. The City asks the Associate Administrator to reverse the Director’s Determination to the extent it invalidated the repayment (without interest) of any loans the City made to the Airport (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 12, pp. 5-6).
B. Complainants Position
The Complainants argue that the Director’s findings with regard to the disputed transfers should be affirmed and that the Director correctly concluded that the CAFRs references to the transfers were insufficient documentation to repay the principal on the transfers beyond six years. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 14, pp. 1-2.) The Complainants assert:
To re-emphasize, the FAA requires a loan to be specifically documents ‘at the time it was made.’ 64 Fed. Reg. 7696, 7718 (February 16, 199). An “expectation’ of repayment” does not meet the documentation standard, and a CAFR codified months later is not timely. Nor do general references to Airport related “advances” or “payables” in a CAFR adequately document a loan, consistent with the Revenue Use Policy. Pursuant to that policy, the FAA can require more from the City than may be required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). And the excerpt from a treatise that the City previously submitted as an exhibit establishes that its general CAFR references do not even fulfill the GAAP requirements for loans, much less the FAA requirements for loans. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 14, p. 2.)
The Complainants argue that the City’s claim that the transfers occurred prior to the Revenue Use Policy was raised for the first time on appeal and should not be considered. They also argue that the City waived this argument when it belatedly created documentation for the transfers in 2005. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 14, p. 2.)
3 The Revenue Use Policy was codified at what is now 49 U.S.C. §47107(k)(5).
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 8 C. Associate Administrator’s Determination
Having examined the arguments of the City and the Complainants, the Associate Administrator affirms the Directors Determination that the five City transfers that occurred between 1988 to 2000 are not loans. Under 49 U.S.C. § 47107(k)(5), “any request by a sponsor or any other governmental entity to any airport… for reimbursement for capital contributions or operating expenses shall be filed not later than 6 years after the date on which the expense is incurred;…” The Revenue Use Policy,
4 provides for an exception to the six-year limitation, “if the contribution was a loan to the airport, and clearly documented as an interest-bearing loan at the time it was made, the sponsor may repay the loan principal and interest from airport funds.” See Revenue Use Policy, Section V.A.4.a., 64 Fed. Reg. 7696, 7718.
Thus, contributions for capital and operating costs that are clearly documented as a loan at the time it was made may be repaid over a longer period of time than six years. The preamble to the Revenue Use Policy further supports this position, “If an airport is unable to generate sufficient funds to repay the airport owner or operator within six years, the Final Policy permits repayment over a longer period, with interest, if the contribution is structured and documented as an interest-bearing loan to the airport when it is made.” (Revenue Use Policy, 64 Fed.
Reg. 7704.)
The Revenue Use Policy requires that reimbursement of principal and interest beyond six years requires that the contribution be clearly documented as a loan at the time it was made. The Director correctly found that the CAFRs do not show the transfers were interest-bearing loans at the time they were made; nor do they show any terms of the loans. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1, p. 7.) The CAFRs alone do not satisfy the “clearly documented” part of the standard required by the Revenue Use Policy. While the CAFRs are evidence of expenditures, they are not sufficient to document the expenditure as a loan.
After finding the CAFRs were insufficient evidence of a loan, the Director reviewed the loans/grant agreements pertaining to these transfers and found that they were executed years after the transfers. The Director found that these do not qualify as loans or interest-bearing loans under the Revenue Use Policy because they were not clearly documented as loans when the contributions were made (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1, p. 7). Thus these loans/grant agreements do not meet the standard that loans be documented “at the time they were made”. The Associate Administrator affirms this determination.
The City also argues that until the statutory revenue use provisions (49 U.S.C. § 47107(k)(5)) were enacted in 1996, airport sponsors were not on notice of any obligation to document their expectation of repayment. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 12, p. 5.) As explained in the preamble of the Revenue Use Policy:
Based on Congressional intent evidenced by the legislative history of these provisions, airport revenue may be used to reimburse a sponsor only for contributions or expenditures for a claim made after October 1, 1996, when the claim is made within six years of the contribution or expenditure. In addition, a
4 FAA’s Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue (Revenue Use Policy) explains how the FAA applies the statutory requirements of section 47107(k)(5). (64 Fed. Reg. 7696, Feb. 16, 1999).
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1028 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 9 sponsor may claim interest. The FAA interprets these statutory provisions to apply to contributions or expenditures made before October 1, 1996, so long as the claim is made after that date.
(Revenue Use Policy, 64 Fed. Reg. 7704)
We acknowledge the City’s point that some of the transfers at issue occurred prior to 1996, but the City’s Interfund Loan/Grant Agreements were not completed until 2005 – that is nine years after the enactment of 49 U.S.C. § 47107(k)(5) and six years after publication of the Revenue Use Policy. Therefore, even after receiving notice, the City did not establish that these transfers were loans in a reasonable timeframe.
The Associate Administrator affirms the Directors Determination that the City transfers from 1988 to 2002 did not qualify as loans or interest-bearing loans under the Revenue Use Policy because they were not clearly documented as loans when the contributions were made.
Moreover, the claims were made after the statute was enacted and the Revenue Use Policy was published, and the transfers were not documented as loans until over six years after the publication of the Revenue Use Policy.
Issue 2 – Whether the Director applied an incorrect standard when he determined that three City transfers between 2004 and 2012 were loans or interest-bearing loans.
A. Complainants Position
The Complainants argue that the Director erred in applying a “reasonably contemporaneous” standard to loan documents when he found the following City transfers to be loans:
(1) $2,839,729 payment on November 30, 2004, (2) $400,000 advance in April 2009, and(3) $3,309,648 advance after July 1, 2011. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, pp. 4-7.) They further argue that the Director did not cite any authority for his interpretation that documentation executed between three and fifteen months after a transfer is reasonably contemporaneous. The Complainants claim that the Director’s decision is inconsistent with the Revenue Use Policy requirement that a loan be “clearly documented…at the time it was made” (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, p. 6). They ask the Associate Administrator to find that “appropriate reimbursement is due the airport.” (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, p. 5.) They request the Associate Administrator to order the following:
Concerning the November 30, 2004 transfer of $2,839,729 to the Airport: Repayment of any interest paid by the Airport on or after February 5, 2010, and repayment of any principal paid after November 30, 2010. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, p. 5.) Concerning the April 2009 transfer of $400,000 to the Airport: Repayment of any interest paid by the Airport on or after February 5, 2010, and any principal paid after April 2015 along with statutory interest. The Complainants also ask the FAA to require the City to provide additional documentation so calculations necessary to determine the reimbursement amount can be made. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, p. 6.)
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 10 Concerning the transfer of $3,309,648 to the Airport between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012:
Repayment of any interest paid by the Airport after February 5, 2010 and repayment of any principal paid after July 1, 2017 along with statutory interest, and erase any outstanding balance.
The Complainants also ask the FAA to require the City to provide additional documentation so calculations necessary to determine the reimbursement amount can be made. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, p. 6.)
B. City Position
In reply, the City argues the Director properly found that the loan documentation was “reasonably contemporaneous” with the three identified transfers (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 8, p. 3).
The CAFRs for all related fiscal years showed the “advances” by the City and “payables” by the Airport, which is the terminology used for interfund loans in government accounting (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 8, p. 6).
The City claims that the six-year limitation on reimbursement was codified to prevent a sponsor, many years later, claiming that a contribution was actually a loan (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 8, p. 5).
The City argues that its CAFRs reflect the expectation of repayment and, since the loan documents were completed prior to the City closing its books, this is sufficient to document an expectation of repayment rather than merely a contribution (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 8, p. 9).
C. Associate Administrator’s Determination
Having examined the arguments of the Complainants and the City, the Associate Administrator reverses the Director’s Determination as it relates to the three City transfers between 2004 and 2012.
As discussed in Issue 1, there are two options for reimbursement to the City (1) reimbursement for capital and operating costs within six years for which the City CAFR documentation is sufficient to allow repayment and (2) reimbursement beyond the six year statute of limitations “if the contribution was a loan to the airport, and clearly documented as an interest-bearing loan at the time it was made…” See Revenue Use Policy, Section V.A.4.a., 64 Fed. Reg. 7696, 7718.
The record shows that the loan/grant agreement documents were all first signed between three to six months after the transfer of funds occurred.5
The Director determined that the loan/grant
agreement documentation for each of the three City transfers was made within months of the transfer and therefore “reasonably contemporaneous” to establish the transfers as loans (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1, p. 8). The Revenue Use Policy does not discuss a “reasonably
5 The interfund loan/grant agreement for the November 30, 2004 transfer of $2,839,729 was first signed by the Finance Director on June 23, 2005, then by the Recipient Fund Manager on June 25, 2005 and the City Manager on August 3, 2005 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 15g). The interfund loan agreement for the April 2009 transfer of $400,000 was first signed by the City Attorney on July 13, 2009 then by the City Finance Director on July 22, 2009 and the City Manager on July 24, 2009 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 16b). The interfund loan agreement for the $3,309,648 transfer that occurred sometime between July 2011 and June 2012 was first signed by the City Attorney on October 10, 2012 and signed by the City Finance Director and City Manager on October 12, 2012 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 16c).
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1030 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 11 contemporaneous” standard for documentation. The Director did not explain the “reasonably contemporaneous” standard or how he arrived at the standard.
The Revenue Use Policy requires the contribution to must be “clearly documented as a loan at the time it was made.” Under the circumstances in this case, the Associate Administrator finds that documentation completed three months after cannot be construed to be completed at the time the contribution was made. The transfers do not meet the requirements of the statute as explained in Section V.A.4.a of the Revenue Use Policy to qualify as loans. (Revenue Use Policy, 64 Fed. Reg. 7696, 7718.)
The Associate Administrator reverses the Director’s Determination and finds that these transfers were not structured as loans at the time the transfers were made; therefore, the City cannot seek reimbursement beyond six years. Since the transfers were documented in the City CAFR, the City is allowed reimbursement of the principal within six years from the date the transfer was made. Specifically, the Associate Administrator finds:
(1) The November 30, 2004 transfer of $2,839,729: The City is allowed reimbursement of the principal through November 30, 2010. The Airport is allowed repayment of any principal paid after November 30, 2010, and any interest paid after February 5, 2010 (recovery of improper interest prior to this date is time barred under 49 U.S.C. § 47107(m)(7) and the Revenue Use Policy). Within 60 days, the City must provide specific documentation identifying all payments made on this loan, all overpayments of principal and interest, all statutory interest owed, and a plan to credit the airport fund for these amounts.
(2) The April 2009 transfer of $400,000: The City is allowed reimbursement of the principal until April 2015. The Airport is allowed repayment of any principal paid after April 2015 and any interest paid on or after February 5, 2010 (recovery of improper interest prior to this date is time barred under 49 U.S.C. § 47107(m)(7) and the Revenue Use Policy) with statutory interest. Within 60 days, the City must provide specific documentation identifying the actual date of transfer (e.g., interfund transaction document, or Journal Entries). In the absence of this documentation, the date of transfer will be April 1, 2009. (3) The $3,309,648 transfer between July 1, 2011 and June 30 2012: The City is allowed reimbursement of the principal through July 1, 2017). The Airport is allowed repayment of any interest paid on this transfer and any principal paid after July 1, 2017 with statutory interest. Within 60 days, the City must provide specific documentation identifying the actual date of transfer (e.g., interfund transaction document or Journal Entries). In the absence of this documentation, the date of transfer will be July 1, 2011.
Issue 3 – Whether the Director failed to address certain transfers and interest and made calculation errors in its determination.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1031 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 12 A. Complainants Position
The Complainants raise three issues with the Directors findings of fact. The Complainants categorize these as “oversights” and “calculation errors.” Specifically, the Complainants argue:6 (1) The Director failed to discuss a $115,000 transfer when the City did not provide documentation that it was a loan or that it was repaid and the Airport’s outstanding balance should be reduced by $115,000 and interest payments since February 5, 2010 be reimbursed (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, p. 7);
(2) The Director used an inappropriate data set for interest paid on a $2,414,000 loan/grant and miscalculated the amount of interest owed to the Airport. Complainants argue that the Director relied on the City’s “Recalculation of Balance Due on Loans from the City’s General Fund to the Airport Fund” rather than the interest payments made by the Airport to the City. The Complainants argue that this results in a reimbursement amount that is too low and that absent additional documentation, an exact calculation cannot be determined. Complainants ask the FAA to require the City to provide additional documentation so necessary calculations can be performed (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, pp. 7-8); and
(3) The Director should have specified that his reimbursement calculations were subject to revision based on subsequent interest payments and that the City should identify what interest related transactions have occurred since 2016 (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, p. 8).
B. City Position
The City does not specifically rebut each allegation, but states, If these issues have not otherwise been resolved by the time cross-appeals and any subsequent petitions for judicial review are decided, the City will promptly submit to the FAA revised calculations showing that proper reconciliations have been performed as the Complainants ask. There is no need to address each of the alleged accounting errors at this time. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 8, p. 9).
C. Associate Administrator’s Determination
The Complainants claims are all related to the calculation of payments owed to the Airport and challenge the findings of fact by the Director. First, the Complainants claim that the Director failed to address an $115,000 payment to the City in Fiscal Year 2007. In reviewing the pleadings, the Associate Administrator notes that the original complaint included $115,000 in a list of advances from the City’s general fund to the airport and two exhibits that referenced an $115,000 advance (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1 at 44; Exhibits 13, 14); however, the City, in its Answer, stated in a footnote, “In FY 2006, the Airport made a payment of $115,000 to the General Fund on its outstanding loan balance. The payment was returned to the Airport in FY 2007 because of a shortage in Airport funds” (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11A, p. 13, FN6). The Complainants did not refute the City’s statement in its August 1, 2016, Reply (FAA Exhibit 1,
6 Complainants also raised issue with the application of interest on a $400,000 transfer and the calculation of overpaid principal on the $2,839,729 transfer (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, p. 7). The Associate Administrator discussed these transfers in Issue #2 above and its Order renders these claims moot.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 13 Item 12). The fact was that the $115,000 was a return of a payment and not a loan. There was no reason for the Director to opine on this matter as the issue is moot.
Next, the Complainants argue that the Director, in determining the amount of interest owed to the Airport on a $2,414,000 transfer, incorrectly used the City’s proposed recalculation of interest rather than the actual interest paid by the airport (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, p. 7). A review of the pleadings and the determination indicate that while the Director correctly determined these transfers were not loans and that the City improperly charged interest, the Director did inadvertently use the City’s “Recalculation of Balance Due on Loans from the City’s General Fund to the Airport Fund” rather than the actual interest payments made by the Airport to the City. The pleadings are silent on the amount of actual interest the Airport paid and the amount of interest owed to the Airport cannot be calculated based on the pleadings.
The Associate Administrator finds that the Director’s calculation of interest owed on the $2,414,000 transfer to the Airport was incorrect and orders the City to submit to the FAA an accounting of the interest payments made after February 5, 2010 and provide a repayment schedule for the interest and principal overpayment plus interest.
Finally, the Complainants take issue with a portion of the Director’s Interim Order because the Director did not explain that reimbursement calculations may be revised as additional payments are made and did not require the City to identify all interest related transactions since 2016. The Complainants do not raise issues with the Director’s findings, but with the level of instruction provided in the Interim Order. The Associate Administrator finds that the Director did not err in his determination, but supplements the Interim Order to clarify that any accounting of loans and any payment schedule will include all loans and payments made.
For the reasons provided above, the Associate Administrator affirms the Director’s finding, but corrects errors in calculation and adds clarification to the order.
ISSUE 4 – Whether the Director erred when he did not address specific issues with the City’s landing fee methodology and revenue surplus and found that the City’s compliance with Grant Assurances 22 and 24 could not be determined based on outdated information and ordered a corrective action plan.
The Complainants and the City both appealed the Director’s Determination on the landing fee methodology. The Complainants argue that the Director failed to address specific issues with the landing fee methodology and revenue surpluses (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, pp. 9-15). The City argues that the Director erred when he ordered a corrective action plan requiring the City to submit a landing fee methodology acceptable to the FAA without a finding of non-compliance (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 12, pp. 6-7). The City asks the Associate Administrator to withdraw FAA’s Interim Order as it relates to the submission of a new landing fee acceptable to the FAA (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 12, p. 7).
A. Complainants Position
On appeal, the Complainants argue that the Director failed to address if the City’s landing fee methodology was compliant with FAA requirements (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, pp. 9-13) and failed to address alleged revenue surpluses (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, pp. 13-15). The Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1033 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 14 Complainants ask the Administrator to resolve the compliance issues in the methodology, address the revenue surpluses, and conclude the corrective action instructions should have been broader in scope, including reimbursement of unlawful landing fees (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, p. 17). The Complainants also move for an interim order suspending the collection of landing fees at the airport (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, p. 2).
The Complainants argue that the Director should have addressed associated legal issues in their Complaint and specified methodological parameters for the corrective action (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, p. 9).7
They argue that if the prior methodology was improper, then inputting new data into the prior methodology will yield an incorrect result (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, p. 10). The Complainants argue that this prevents in-depth analysis of substantive issues raised in the Complaint, avoiding review while providing the City a nominal justification to increase its landing fees further based on prior reasoning (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, pp. 9-10).
In its reply, the City argues that the Complainants have not offered a good reason as to why the Associate Administrator should address all the legal challenges raised on a record that the Director determined was stale and would amount to an advisory opinion on a seven-year-old methodology (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 8, pp. 2, 12). The City states that it will propose a new landing fee for SMO within 90 days, taking into account the changed circumstances (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 8, p. 11).
The City argues that the Complainants have not pointed to any statutory authority for the FAA to order refunds, and if the FAA found the City’s landing fees unlawful, it must first provide the opportunity for a hearing before ordering a refund (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 13, p. 11).
B. City’s Position
On appeal, the City argues that the Director erred when, absent a finding of noncompliance, it ordered the City to “provide an updated fee methodology acceptable to the FAA, which reflects the significant physical and operational changes that have occurred at the Airport since the 2017 Settlement Agreement and correct the stated deficiencies.” The City claims that without a finding of noncompliance, the Director cannot order corrective action and by doing so, this Order shifts the burden of proof to the City, when the burden of proof of a violation rests with Complainants. The City also argues that there is no provision of law providing that an airport sponsor obtains pre-approval from the FAA prior to implementing a new airport rate-setting (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 12, pp. 6-7). The City asks the Associate Administrator to withdraw the FAA’s Interim Order as it relates to the submission of a new landing fee acceptable to the FAA (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 12, p. 7).
In its reply, the Complainants argue that matters related to implementing a corrective action directive remain with the Director even after the issuance of a Director’s Determination and therefore the appeal is premature. The Complainants also note that the City cites no authority for the proposition that a finding of noncompliance is required for the FAA to order a sponsor to
7 The Complainants raised issues regarding transparency and documentation in establishing fees, airfield costs and revenue, indirect cost reimbursement, legal expenditures, amortization costs, double charges, facial reasonableness of the fees, and revenue surplus at the airport.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 15 address a situation in which current compliance cannot be established (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 14, p. 3).
C. Associate Administrator’s Determination
On January 30, 2017, after the pleadings in the case had been docketed, the FAA and City entered into a Settlement Agreement that led to significant changes at the airport. (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 20). Both the Complainants and the City agree that the circumstances at the airport have changed. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 4, Page 9; FAA Exhibit 2, Item 8, Page 11.) However, the Complainants argue the Director should have addressed the issues they raised with the prior methodology and revenue surplus and the City asks the Associate Administrator to withdraw FAA’s Interim Order as it relates to the submission of a new landing fee acceptable to the FAA.
It has been over five years since the Settlement Agreement was entered into and this is sufficient time for the City to have established a new landing fee methodology based on current and actual costs and use of the Airport. The City, in its Reply to Complainant’s Appeal, stated that it would propose a new landing fee within 90 days, taking into account the changed circumstances (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 8, p. 11.)
The Director correctly explained in his analysis that due to the significant changes at the airport, the City’s justification for the landing fee structure and rate setting methodology is obsolete, compliance could not be established and the City must update its methodology. The Director summarized these changes to include, “the reduction of the runway length from 5,000 feet to 3,500 feet, expanding non-aviation uses and related revenues (and how these are applied), changes in the airport's fleet mix, distinctions between based v. transient users, changes in budgets and forecasts, and an 80% reduction in jet operations.” (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1, p. 11.) The Director concluded:
Because the City’s justification for its landing fee methodology and rates does not reflect the current and actual costs and use of the Airport, and some of the methodology is unclear, compliance with Grant Assurances 22 and 24 cannot be established. Therefore, within 60 days, the City must update its methodology and fees to reflect current and actual costs in the use of the Airport and in accordance with FAA guidance. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1, p. 11.)
Finally, the Director summarized this finding in his Conclusions and Findings, “The City’s landing fee methodology and fees do not reflect the actual use of the airport (after the settlement was executed) and lack justification and thus compliance with Grant Assurance 22 and Grant Assurance 24 cannot be established.” (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 1, p. 12.) The Associate Administrator agrees with the Director’s decision to not analyze an obsolete methodology. Addressing specific details of an old methodology risks misapplication and misinterpretation and does not serve to further establish an accurate rate setting. FAA’s role in a Part 16 Complaint is to determine whether the Respondent is in current compliance with its federal obligations. (See Platinum Aviation and Platinum Jet Center BMI v. BloomingtonItem 7-A May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 16 Normal Airport Authority, FAA Docket 16-06-09, Final Decision and Order, (November 28, 2007), p. 25).
The Associate Administrator also agrees with the Director’s decision to require the City “update its methodology and fees to reflect current and actual costs in the use of the Airport and in accordance with FAA guidance.” This is supported by the FAA Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges, requirement that a sponsor have “a reasonable, ‘transparent’ and not unjustly discriminatory methodology.” (FAA Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges, 78 Fed.
Reg. 55330, par. 2.4.5(b), September 10, 2013.)
While, the Associate Administrator agrees with the Director’s conclusions, since the Director did not find the City in non-compliance, the requirement to “Provide an updated landing fee methodology, acceptable to the FAA…” should not have been placed in the section on the corrective action plan.
The Associate Administrator affirms the Directors decision on this and removes the discussion of the landing fee methodology from the corrective action plan. The Associate Administrator reminds the City, that it has committed to updating its landing fee methodology. (FAA Exhibit 2, Item 8, p. 11.) Furthermore, failure to do so could result in future action under 14 CFR Part 16.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS
The Associate Administrator’s role is to determine whether the Director erred in findings of fact or conclusions of law in issuing the Director’s Determination. In arriving at a final decision in this Appeal, the Associate Administrator has reexamined the record in detail, including the Director’s Determination, the administrative record supporting the Director’s Determination, the pleadings of both parties, and applicable law and policy.
Based on this re-examination, the Associate Administrator reverses the Director’s Determination on Issue 1 and finds that the three identified City transfers do not qualify as loans.
On Issue 4, the Associate Administrator affirms the Director’s Determination and revises the Director’s Interim Order regarding the City’s landing fee methodology.
The Director’s Determination on all remaining issues are supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, and are consistent with applicable law, precedent, and FAA policy.
Director’s prescribed corrective actions are modified as ordered below.
ORDER
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED that the Director’s Determination is reversed on Issue 1 and affirmed on all remaining issues.
The City is afforded 60 days to submit a detailed Correction Action Plan (CAP) consistent with this Final Agency Decision and acceptable to the FAA, which would:
a) Regarding the $2,839,729 transfer: Provide specific documentation identifying all payments made on the $2,839,729 transfer, all overpayments of principal (after Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 17 November 30, 2010) and interest (after February 5, 2010), all statutory interest owed, and a plan to credit the airport fund for these amounts. b) Regarding the $400,000 transfer:
i. Provide specific documentation identifying the actual date of the transfer. In the absence of this documentation, the date of transfer will be April 1, 2009. ii. Provide specific documentation of any interest paid on or after February 5, 2010 and any principal paid after April 1, 2015 (or 6 years after the date identified in (1)(b)(i) above) and statutory interest owed and a plan to credit the airport fund for these amounts.
c) Regarding the $3,309,648 transfer:
i. Provide specific documentation identifying the actual date of transfer. In the absence of this documentation, the date of transfer will be July 1, 2011. ii. Provide specific documentation of any interest paid on this transfer and any principal paid after July 1, 2017 (or 6 years after the date identified in (1)(c)(i) above) with statutory interest owed and a plan to credit the airport fund for these amounts.
d) Regarding the $2,414,000 transfer: Provide an accounting of all payments made on the $2,414,000 transfer, all overpayments of principal (after November 30, 2010) and interest payments (after February 5, 2010), all statutory interest owed, and provide a repayment schedule.
e) Subject to FAA approval and using acceptable financial and accounting practices, submit accurate loan and payment schedules that show only the allowable loans from the general fund to the airport fund as provided herein. This applies to all existing loans, transfers and payments and must account for all interest paid and accrued up to the date of FAA approval of the schedule.
i. The loan and payment schedule must document all loans, transfers, payments, and interest paid and accrued up to the date of FAA approval. ii. All current and past loan interest rates cannot exceed the rate which the City received for other investments at the time of the loan. iii. The airport may recover unlawful payments of principal or interest that were made with airport revenue after February 5, 2010.
iv. The City may only receive reimbursement of transfers to the airport that occurred over six years prior to the request, if the transfers has been determined to qualify as a loan.
v. Interest rates on repayments to the Airport must be at the statutory interest rate. vi. The loan payment schedule must allow for continuing rolling calculation of payments made, interest accumulated, and remaining balance. f) Pending the FAA’s approval of the corrective action plan, any approval of any applications submitted by the City for amounts apportioned under 49 U.S.C. § 47114 (d) and authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 47115 will be withheld in accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 47106 (d); and
g) Consideration will also be given to seek and apply the sanctions for noncompliance as provided in Section IX,(E),(e-g) of FAA Revenue Use Policy.
All other Motions not specifically granted herein are DENIED.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1037 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 18 RIGHT OF APPEAL
A party to this decision disclosing a substantial interest in the final decision and order of the Federal Aviation Administration may file a petition for review pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46110, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the Court of Appeals of the United States for the Circuit in which the person resides or has its principal place of business. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after a Final Agency Decision has been served on the party. (14 CFR § 16.247(a)).
Shannetta R. Griffin, P.E. Date
Associate Administrator for Airports
Federal Aviation Administration
SHANNETTA R GRIFFIN
Digitally signed by SHANNETTA R
GRIFFIN
Date: 2022.07.18 16:09:14 -04'00'
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1038 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 19 Mark Smith, et.al., Complainants
v.
City of Santa Monica, California, Respondent
Docket No. 16-16-02
INDEX OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
The following items constitute the administrative record in this proceeding:
FAA Exhibit 1
Item 1 – Part 16 Complaint, February 5, 2016.
Exhibit 1 Transcript of remarks from Mayor McKeown and Councilmember Himmelrich to FAA on July 8, 2015.
Exhibit 2 FAA Delays Part 16 Ruling, by Matthew Hall,
(http://smdp.com/author/matthew-hall) on August 24, 2015.
Exhibit 3 Santa Monica Warns Fuel Companies at Airport, by Niki Cervantes, Santa Monica Lookout, December 9, 2015.
Exhibit 4 E-mail from Ted Winterer to Rick Rosenthal, October 27, 2015.
Exhibit 5 City of Santa Monica City Council Minutes (unapproved), October 27, 2015.
Exhibit 6 Resolution No. 6296, City Council Meeting, June 23, 1981.
Exhibit 7 City of Santa Monica Inter-Department Memo, January 23, 1962.
Exhibit 8 City Rescinds Eviction Notices to Airport Firms, Evening Outlook, October 15, 1981.
Exhibit 9 Santa Monica Airport Agreement, January 31, 1984.
Exhibit 10 City Council Report, City Council Meeting, October 4, 2011.
Exhibit 11a Letter from Office of the City Attorney to Richard K. Simon, May 29, 2015.
Exhibit 11b Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Santa Monica Airport Lease No. 4670 (CCS).
Exhibit 12 Memorandum to Mayor and City Council from Rod Gould, City Manager, City Council Meeting, November 27, 2012.
Exhibit 13 The City of Santa Monica - Advances from the City's General Fund to the Airport Fund.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 20 Exhibit 14 Airport Financial Tables.
Exhibit 15a Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, 08/03/05 (First Document).
Exhibit 15b Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, 08/03/05 (Second Document).
Exhibit 15c Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, 08/03/05 (Third Document).
Exhibit 15d Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, 08/03/05 (Fourth Document).
Exhibit 15e Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, (undated), (Fifth Document).
Exhibit 15f Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, (undated), (Sixth Document).
Exhibit 15g Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, 08/03/05 (Seventh Document).
Exhibit 16a Interfund Loan Agreement from General Fund to the Airport Fund, 7/29/05.
Exhibit 16b Interfund Loan Agreement Between City of Santa Monica and the City of Santa Monica Municipal Airport, 7/24/09.
Exhibit 16c Interfund Loan Agreement Between City of Santa Monica and the City of Santa Monica Municipal Airport, 10/12/12.
Exhibit 16d Interfund Loan Agreement Between City of Santa Monica and the City of Santa Monica Municipal Airport, 3/28/13.
Exhibit 17 Santa Monica Airport Proposed FY 2010/2011 Budget Discussion, 1/25/2010.
Exhibit 18 Santa Monica Airport Campus, October 4, 2011.
Exhibit 19 General Fund Advances to Airport Fund – Airport Loan Balances, March 14, 2013.
Exhibit 20 Email from Candace Tysdal, August 3, 2012.
Exhibit 21a City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2008.
Exhibit 21b City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2009.
Exhibit 21c City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2010.
Exhibit 21d City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2011
Exhibit 21e City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2012.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 21 Exhibit 21f City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2013.
Exhibit 21g City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2014.
Exhibit 22 City of Santa Monica Advances from the City to the Airport through
6.30.08. City of Santa Monica Advances from the City to the Airport Estimate of Balances through June 30, 2016.
Exhibit 23 City of Santa Monica FY 2015-2017 Proposed Biennial Budget Line Item Detail.
Exhibit 24 City of Santa Monica City Council Minutes, April 30, 2013.
Exhibit 25 City of Santa Monica Airport Commission Meeting Minutes (Unapproved), May 16, 2012.
Exhibit 26 Airport Commission Memo, Santa Monica Airport Proposed Biennial Budget Fiscal Year 2013-2014 and FY 2014-2015 Discussion, February 25, 2013.
Exhibit 27 Airport Commission Memo, Proposed Landing Fee Rate, April 2, 2013.
Exhibit 28 Financial Projections – Proposed Landing Fee Calculation, March 13, 2013.
Exhibit 29 City of Santa Monica Airport Commission Meeting Minutes (unapproved), April 1, 2013.
Exhibit 30 Financial Projections – Proposed Landing Fee Calculation, April 17, 2013.
Exhibit 31 City of Santa Monica Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets, Year Ended Jun 30, 2008; June 30, 2010; June 30, 2011; June 30, 2012.
Exhibit 32 Airport Commission Memo, Proposed Adjustments to the Landing Fee Program (Continued), April 22, 2013.
Exhibit 33 City of Santa Monica City Agenda, April 30, 2013.
Exhibit 34 City Council Report, Contractual Service Agreement for Airport Landing Fee Services, June 9, 2015.
Exhibit 35a E-mail from and to Stelios Makrides and Kevin Nagata, January 17, 2013.
Exhibit 35b E-mail from Stephanie Manglares to Stelios Makrides, November 19, 2012.
Exhibit 35c Allocation of Operating expenses, November 15, 1012.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 22 Exhibit 35d E-mail from Stephanie Manglares to Stelios Makrides, April 23, 2013.
Exhibit 36a Letter from Jol Silversmith to Brigette Garay, July 3, 2013.
Exhibit 36b Letter from Brigette Garay to Jol Silvermith, July 24, 2013.
Exhibit 36c Letter from Jol Silversmith to Brigette Garay, July 31, 2013.
Exhibit 36d Letter from Ivan Campbell to Jol Silvermith, August 30, 2013.
Exhibit 37 Letter from Brigette Garay to Mark Smith, May 15, 2014.
Exhibit 38 Letter from Brigette Garay to Mark Smith, July 16, 2014.
Exhibit 39 Letter from Mark Smith to Brigette Garay, June 29, 2015.
Exhibit 40 Letter from Brigette Garay to Mark Smith, July 23, 2015.
Exhibit 41 Financial Table (Not Titled or dated).
Exhibit 42 Financial Table Prof Services 2012-2014.
Exhibit 43a City of Santa Monica Final Allocation Detail Report Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Actual, July 8, 2010.
Exhibit 43b City of Santa Monica Final Allocation Detail by Division and Subpool, Total CAP for FY 2012-2013.
Exhibit 44 Amortization Charges for Year Ended June 30 (undated).
Exhibit 45a City of Santa Monica 2010-2011 Adopted Budget Line Item Detail and 2011-2012 Budget Plan Line Item Detail.
Exhibit 45b City of Santa Monica FY 2013-2015 Adopted Biennial Budget Line Item Detail.
Exhibit 45c City of Santa Monica FY 2015-2017 Adopted Biennial Budget Line Item Detail.
Exhibit 46 City of Santa Monica Information Item, July 12, 2012.
Exhibit 47 Review of Santa Monica Airport landing Fee Proposal and Related Financial Information (GRA Review).
Exhibit 48a Massachusetts Port Authority Meeting Minutes, September 17, 2015.
Exhibit 48b Schedule of Fees and Charges, Denver Municipal Airport System Rules and Regulations 92015).
Exhibit 48c Massport Aircraft Operating & Parking Fees.
Exhibit 48d RTAA Monthly Financial Reporting Package, May 31, 2015.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 23 Exhibit 48e Southwest Florida International Airport Rates and Charges October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016.
Exhibit 48f Santa Fe Municipal Airport General Aviation Data Sheet.
Exhibit 49 Santa Monica Airport Leasing Guidelines, August 12, 2014.
Exhibit 50 Historical Tenant Ledger, Santa Monica College, August 28, 2008.
Exhibit 51 Lease Ledger, Santa Monica College, August 28, 2013.
Exhibit 52 GRA Memo: Santa Monica College Lease.
Exhibit 53 Airport Leases.
Exhibit 54 City of Santa Monica, City Council Report, March 25, 2014.
Exhibit 55 City of Santa Monica, City Council Minutes, March 25, 2014.
Exhibit 56 City of Santa Monica, City Council Minutes, August 12, 2014.
Exhibit 57 City of Santa Monica, Airport Commission Minutes (unapproved), October 27, 2014.
Exhibit 58 City of Santa Monica, Airport Commission Minutes (unapproved), February 23, 2015.
Exhibit 59 City of Santa Monica, Airport Commission Minutes (unapproved), March 23, 2015.
Exhibit 60 City Council Meeting Memorandum, March 24, 2015.
Exhibit 61 City of Santa Monica, City Council Minutes, March 24, 2015.
Exhibit 62 City Council Meeting, Agenda, July 14, 2015.
Exhibit 63 City of Santa Monica, City Council Minutes, July 14, 2015.
Exhibit 64 City of Santa Monica, City Council Report, October 27, 2015.
Exhibit 65 Letter from Richard Simon to City of Santa Monica, December 2, 2015.
Exhibit 66 Letter from NBAA to Santa Monica Airport Commission, March 28, 2013.
Exhibit 67 Letter from NBAA to Santa Monica Mayor, April 26, 2013.
Exhibit 68 Letter from NBAA to Santa Monica Mayor, March 24, 2014.
Exhibit 69 Letter from NBAA to Santa Monica Mayor, March 19, 2015.
Exhibit 70 Letter from NBAA to Santa Monica Mayor, July 14, 2015.
Exhibit 71 Letter from NBAA to Santa Monica Mayor, October 26, 2015.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 24 Exhibit 72 Letter from NBAA to Santa Monica Airport Manager, December 2, 2015.
Exhibit 73 E-mails to and from M. Pastucha, S. Manglaras, B. Dunn, April 24 & 29, 2013.
Exhibit 74 Letter from Richard Simon to City of Santa Monica's Attorney, December 18, 2015.
Exhibit 75 Letter from Richard Simon to City of Santa Monica's Attorney, January 22, 2016.
Exhibit 76 Letter from Santa Monica City Attorney to Richard Simon, January 29, 2016.
Exhibit 77 Letter from Richard Simon to City of Santa Monica's Attorney, February 3, 2016.
Item 2 – FAA Notice of Docketing, February 25, 2016.
Item 3 – City's Assented - To Motion to Extend Time, March 15, 2016.
Item 4 – FAA Order Granting Extension of Time, March 22, 2016.
Item 5 – City’s Motion to Dismiss, April 11, 2016.
Exhibit A Completed Agenda City of Santa Monica Regular Meeting, March 22, 2016.
Exhibit B Instrument of Transfer, August 10, 1948.
Exhibit C City of Santa Monica v. United States of America, CV-13-8046-JFW, Principal Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant City of Santa Monica, October 14, 2014.
Exhibit D FAA Docket No. 16-14-04, Brief for Respondent City of Santa Monica on Appeal from the Director's Determination, January 8, 2016.
Item 6 – Complainant’s Answer to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, April 22, 2016.
Exhibit 78 City of Santa Monica v. United States of America, CV-13-8046-JFW, brief Amici Curiae Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and National Business Aviation Association in Support of Defendant-Appellees and Affirmance of District Court, January 22, 2015.
Exhibit 79 Santa Monica Airport Commission (Minutes), March 15, 2016.
Item 7 – Motion of Justice Aviation, Inc. to Withdraw as a Complainant, May 13, 2016.
Item 8 – City's Assented - To Motion to Extend Time, June 1, 2016.
Item 9 – FAA Order Granting an Extension of Time, June 10, 2016.
Item 10 – Complainants' Assented-To Motion to Extend Time, July 8, 2016.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 25 Item 11 – FAA Order Granting Extension of Time, July 27, 2016.
Item 11A – City’s Answer, July 1, 2016.
Exhibit A Instrument of Transfer, August 10, 1948.
Exhibit B City of Santa Monica v. United States of America, No. 14-55583, D.C.
No. 2:13-cv- 08046-JFW-VBK (Memorandum), March 11, 2016.
Exhibit C Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (excerpt Interfund Advances), City of Santa Monica, Years June 30, 1987 through June 30, 2015.
Exhibit D Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, 8/3/2005.
Exhibit E Interfund Loan/Grant Agreement, 3/23/2013.
Exhibit F City of Santa Monica Portfolio Management Summary, Monthly July 31, 2004 through June 30 2012.
Exhibit G City of Santa Monica Recalculation of Balance on Loans from the City's general Fund to the Airport Fund, 6/30/16.
Exhibit H Report 3, Final Allocation Report with Detail by Division & Subpool.
Exhibit I City of Santa Monica, Overview of the Cost Allocation Plan.
Exhibit J Letter from Eugene Korney to Martin Pastucha, April 19, 2013 and letter from Martin Pastucha to Eugene Korney, April 24, 2013 (includes financial tables).
Exhibit K Santa Monica Airport, Financial Projects, Proposed Landing Fee Calculations, 4/1/2013.
Exhibit L Letter from NBAA to Pam O'Connor, April 26, 2013.
Exhibit M Completed Agenda, City of Santa Monica Regular Meeting, March 22, 2016.
Exhibit N City of Santa Monica v. United States of America, Case No. CV13-08046, Complaint for Declaration and Injunctive Relief Under the Quiet Title Act and United States Constitution, October 31, 2013.
Exhibit O City of Santa Monica v. United States of America, Case No. CV13-08046, Principal Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant, City of Santa Monica, October 14, 2014.
Exhibit P FAA Docket No. 16-14-04, Brief for Respondent City of Santa Monica on Appeal from the Director's Determination, January 8, 2016.
Item 12 – Complainants’ Reply to Respondent’s Answer, August 1, 2016.
Exhibit 28 Landing Fee Calculation (Excerpt).
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 26 Exhibit 80 Airport Revenue Diversion, FAA Presentation, March 30, 2012.
Exhibit 81 City Council Report, March 17, 2015.
Exhibit 82 City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Year Ended June 30, 2015, Independent Auditor's Report (Memo).
Exhibit 83 City of Santa Monica Staff Report 1621.
Exhibit 84 City of Santa Monica Staff Report 1919.
Exhibit 85a City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2005.
Exhibit 85b City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2006.
Exhibit 85c City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2007.
Exhibit 85d City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2008.
Exhibit 85e City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2009.
Exhibit 85f City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2010.
Exhibit 85g City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2011.
Exhibit 85h City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2012.
Exhibit 85i City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2013.
Exhibit 85j City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2014.
Exhibit 85k City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ended June 30, 2015.
Exhibit 86 Declaration of Kim Davidson, July 20, 2016.
Exhibit 87 Airport Commission Rules.
Exhibit 88 Notice regarding City's Control of Property at SMO.
Exhibit 89 Santa Monica City Council Airport leasing and Licensing Policy.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 27 Exhibit 90 Letter from Richard K. Simon to Stelios Makrides, June 7, 2016.
Exhibit 91 Letter from Richard K. Simon to Stelios Makrides, June 7, 2016.
Item 13 – City's Assented - To Motion to Extend Time, August 5, 2016.
Item 14 – FAA Order Granting Extension Request, August 16, 2016.
Item 15 – City’s Rebuttal, September 13, 2016.
Exhibit Q Governmental Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting, Stephen J.
Gaulthier, Government Finance Officers Association.
Exhibit R Operating Expense Detail Report.
Item 16 – Complainants’ Supplement and Objections, September 19, 2016.
Exhibit 92 City of Santa Monica, City Council Report, August 23, 2016.
Item 17 – Notice of Change of Firm Address, September 27, 2016.
Item 18 – City's Corrective Action Plan, September 29, 2016.
Exhibit A Real Estate Appraisal Report - 2800 Airport Avenue.
Exhibit B Calculations of Rent Shortfall and Interest on SMC's Airport Arts Campus.
Item 19 – Complainant’s Response to Santa Monica College Corrective Action Plan, October 11, 2016.
Item 20 – Settlement Agreement/Consent Decree between the FAA and the City of Santa Monica, January 30, 2017.
Item 21 – Notice of Address Change, April 1, 2019.
Item 22 – Santa Monica City Council Airport Leasing and Licensing Policy, August 2018 (Not found in regs.gov).
Item 23 – Santa Monica Airport News, From the City Manager’s Office, June 20, 2018 (Not found in regs.gov) – note that this was not referenced in the DD and was not submitted to the docket by either party. We may want to identify it as deleted and not used.
Item 24 – FAA order for Extension of Time to Issue Director’s Determination, June 7, 2018.
Item 25 – FAA order for Extension of Time to Issue Director’s Determination, September 5, 2018.
Item 26 – FAA order for Extension of Time to Issue Director’s Determination, October 17, 2018.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1047 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 28 Item 27 – Complainants Notice of Change of Address and Notice of Appearance, November 14, 2018.
Item 28 – FAA order for Extension of Time to Issue Director’s Determination, December 14, 2018.
Item 29 – Complainants Notice of Firm Name Change, January 7, 2019.
Item 30 – FAA order for Extension of Time to Issue Director’s Determination, March 13, 2019.
Item 31 – FAA order for Extension of Time to Issue Director’s Determination, May 29, 2019.
FAA Exhibit 2
Item 1 – November 8, 2019 – Director’s Determination.
Item 2 – December 4, 2019 – City of Santa Monica’s Motion to Extend Time to Appeal.
Exhibit A NBAA/AOPA/GMA v. City of Santa Monica/Santa Monica Municipal Airport, Informal Determination, October 21, 2019.
Item 3 – December 6, 2019 – Complainants Objection to Motion to Extend Time to Appeal.
Item 4 – December 9, 2019 – Complainant Notice of Appeal and Brief, Motion for Interim Order.
Item 5 – December 17, 2019 – FAA Order Granting Motion to Extend Time to Appeal.
Item 6 – December 19, 2019 – City of Santa Monica’s Opposition to Motion for Interim Order.
Exhibit A NBAA/AOPA/GMA v. City of Santa Monica/Santa Monica Municipal Airport, Informal Determination, October 21, 2019.
Item 7 – December 19, 2019 – City of Santa Monica’s Conditional Opposition to Petition to Expand the Record.
Item 8 – December 30, 2019 – City of Santa Monica’s Reply to Complainants’ Appeal.
Item 9 – December 30, 2019 – Complainant’s Response to City of Santa Monica’s Opposition to Motion for an Interim Order.
Item 10 – December 30, 2019 – Response of the Complainants to City of Santa Monica’s Conditional Opposition to Petition to Expand the Record.
Item 11 – January 9, 2020 – Complainant’s Response to City of Santa Monica’s Reply to Complainant’s Appeal.
Item 12 – January 23, 2020 – City of Santa Monica’s Notice of Appeal and Brief.
Item 13 – January 23, 2020 – City of Santa Monica’s Further Reply to Complainant’s Appeal.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 29 Exhibit 1 142 Cong.Rec. S12232-01 (1996) Statement of Sen. Ford.
Exhibit 2 Statement of A. Mary Schiavo, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, May 1, 1996.
Item 14 – February 12, 2020 – Complainant’s Reply to City of Santa Monica’s Notice of Appeal.
Item 15 – June 25, 2020 – FAA order for Extension of Time to Issue Final Agency Decision.
Item 16 – September 22, 2020 – FAA Order for Extension of Time to Issue Final Agency Decision.
Item 17 – November 30, 2020 – FAA Order for Extension of Time to Issue Final Agency Decision.
Item 18 – January 22, 2021 – Notice of Email Address Change (Complainants Counsel).
Item 19 – January 28, 2021 – FAA Order for Extension of Time to Issue Final Agency Decision.
Item 20 – SMO Airport Improvement Program Grant History.
Item 21 – Grant Step History Report, Grant Number: 3-06-0239-006-1994.
Item 22 – March 3, 2021 – FAA Order for Extension of Time to Issue Final Agency Decision.
Item 23 – May 4, 2021 – FAA Order for Extension of Time to Issue Final Agency Decision.
Item 24 – July 1, 2021 – FAA Order for Extension of Time to Issue Final Agency Decision.
Item 25 – September 8, 2021 – FAA Notice for Extension of Time to Issue Final Agency Decision.
Item 26 – November 3, 2021 – FAA Notice of Extension of Time to Issue Final Agency Decision.
Item 27 – December 22, 2021 – FAA Notice of Extension of Time to Issue Final Agency Decision.
Item 28 – March 1, 2022 – FAA Notice of Extension of Time to Issue Final Agency Decision.
Item 29 – April 28, 2022 – FAA Notice of Extension of Time to Issue Final Agency Decision.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 19, 2022, I caused to be emailed and/or to be placed in the Federal Express a true copy of this Final Agency Decision for FAA Docket No. 16-16-02 addressed to:
For the Complainant
Jol A. Silversmith, Esq.
Barbara M. Marrin, Esq.
KMA Zuckert LLC
888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20006
[email protected]
[email protected]
Richard K. Simon, Esq.
1131 Camino San Acacio
Santa Fe, NM 87505
[email protected]
[email protected]
For the Respondent
Scott Lewis, Esq. Partner,
Mina Makarious, Esq. Partner,
Anderson & Kreiger LLP
50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
Boston, MA 02109
[email protected]
[email protected]
Copy to:
FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600)
FAA Office of Airport Management and Management Analysis (ACO-100) Western Pacific Region Airports Division (AWP-600)
_____________________________
Natalie Curtis
Office of Airport Compliance
and Management Analysis
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) City of Santa Monica
Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation June 24, 2013
Santa Monica Municipal Airport
MSJ 0288 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 This financial model calculates a proposed landing fee rate based on a projection of historic costs, revenues, and the landed weight forecast.
Principles Used by the City to Calculate the Proposed Landing Fee Rate The rate was calculated based on the following principles:
•Historic costs allocable to the airfield area as defined in section 18.4.a in the FAA's Chapter 18 Airport Rates and Charges. Defined as runways and taxiways, public aircraft parking ramps and aprons, and associated aeronautical land, such as land used for navigational aids. •Cost recovery principles
•A basis for establishing and charging the rate—landed weight—that is fair and equitable across all users, including itinerant and based aircraft.
Costs that are Recovered through Proposed Landing Fee Rate Costs recovered through the landing fee rate include the following:
•Operating expenses of the Airport, including expenses for City-provided services such as insurance, risk management, accounting support, etc. •Capital expenditures that are allocable to the airfield area. Costs are recovered (amortized) from users over the useful life of the asset at an interest rate provided by the City for the year when the project was placed in service for its intended use, and included in the landing fee rate base.
Calculation of the Proposed Landing Fee Rate
The elements of the landing fee exhibit:
•Total operating expenses and amortization charges allocable to the airfield •Specific credits are applied against airfield costs, which are airport fuel sales and noise abatement revenues The resulting “net costs” are divided by landed weight of aircraft using the SMO airfield to derive the proposed landing fee rate.
List of Exhibits
E1 Operating Expenses
E1A Operating Expenses Detail
E2 Capital Project Amortization Charges (Completed Airfield Projects since 2002) E3 Summary of Landed Weight
MSJ 0289 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26
LANDING FEE CALCULATION
Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation Santa Monica Municipal Airport
(For Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Actual Actual Budget
Exhibit Reference FY 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016
AIRFIELD COSTS
Operating expenses (a) Exhibit 1 $ 1,297,167 $ 1,278,361 $ 1,504,733 $ 1,505,386 $ 1,544,726 $ 1,583,818 Amortization of City funded assets Exhibit 2 178,862 335,192 340,575 442,081 468,671 502,740 TOTAL AIRFIELD COSTS [A] $ 1,476,029 $ 1,613,553 $ 1,845,308 $ 1,947,467 $ 2,013,397 $ 2,086,558
AIRFIELD CREDITS
Airport Fuel Sales $ (206,437) $ (186,404) $ (199,200) $ (203,184) $ (208,264) $ (213,470) Noise Abatement - Airport (8,000) (33,075) (23,214) (23,678) (24,270) (24,877) TOTAL AIRFIELD CREDITS [B] $ (214,437) $ (219,479) $ (222,414) $ (226,862) $ (232,534) $ (238,347) NET AIRFIELD COSTS [C=A+B] $ 1,261,592 $ 1,394,074 $ 1,622,894 $ 1,720,605 $ 1,780,863 $ 1,848,211 Airport abatement of Airfield Costs [D] $ (930,265) $ (1,092,119) $ (1,322,894) - - - ADJUSTED NET AIRFIELD COSTS [E=C+D] $ 331,327 $ 301,955 $ 300,000 $ 1,720,605 $ 1,780,863 $ 1,848,211 LANDED WEIGHT (1,000-lb. units)
Based aircraft Exhibit 3 119,026 119,026 119,026
Itinerant Exhibit 3 195,010 195,010 195,010
TOTAL LANDED WEIGHT (1,000-lb. units) [F] 314,036 314,036 314,036 LANDING FEE (1,000-LB. UNIT) (b) [G=-E/F] $ 2.07 $ 2.07 $ 2.07 $ 5.48 $ 5.67 $ 5.89 LANDING FEE REVENUES (c) [H=F*G] $ 331,327 $ 301,955 $ 300,000 $ 1,720,605 $ 1,780,863 $ 1,848,211 Source: City of Santa Monica
Prepared by: City of Santa Monica and WJ Advisors LLC
NOTES:
(a) Expenditures limited to components of airfield and for aeronautical use as identified by the Federal Aviation Administration's Policy Regarding the Establishment of Airport Rates and Charges. (b) It is assumed that for the forecast period, a landing fee rate that is based on full cost recovery is charged to all aircraft (based & itinerant). (c) Landing fee revenues historically and for the FY 2012-2013 Budget are based on charging a landing fee to itinerant aircraft only.
It is assumed that all aircraft are charged a landing fee for the forecast period, including based & itinerant aircraft.
Forecast
MSJ 0290 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 City of Santa Monica
June 24, 2013
Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation Exhibits
Santa Monica Municipal Airport
MSJ 0291 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Exhibit 1
OPERATING EXPENSES
Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation Santa Monica Municipal Airport
(For Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Actual Actual Budget
FY 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016
OPERATING EXPENSES
Salaries & wages (a) $ 1,373,493 $ 1,304,704 $ 1,382,652 $ 1,410,305 $ 1,445,582 $ 1,481,741 Indirect cost allocation (b) 868,449 894,503 939,228 630,226 645,982 662,131 Security (c) 535,708 482,970 585,128 596,831 611,751 627,045 Maintenance (d) 290,797 286,532 441,293 450,119 461,372 472,906 Utilities (e) 199,126 201,334 312,289 320,550 329,721 339,657 Supplies & equipment (f) 89,952 120,346 140,210 143,014 146,590 150,254 Insurance (g) 91,800 122,227 137,872 137,452 148,262 154,340 Other (f) 390,428 489,873 552,903 563,961 578,060 592,512 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 3,839,753 $ 3,902,489 $ 4,491,575 $ 4,252,457 $ 4,367,319 $ 4,480,586 Annual growth rate (a) 1.6% 15.1% -5.3% 2.7% 2.6%
OPERATING EXPENSES BY COST CENTER
Airfield $1,297,167 $1,278,361 $1,504,733 $1,505,386 $1,544,726 $1,583,818 Non-airfield 2,542,586 2,624,128 2,986,842 2,747,071 2,822,593 2,896,767 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 3,839,753 $ 3,902,489 $ 4,491,575 $ 4,252,457 $ 4,367,319 $ 4,480,586 Source: City of Santa Monica
Prepared by: City of Santa Monica and WJ Advisors LLC
NOTES:
(a) Salaries & wages were lower in FY 2011-2012 by 5.0 percent primarily due to savings from a partial position vacancy.
The FY 2012-2013 Budget estimate and the forecast is based on the assumption that there is a return to full and level staffing.
The FY 2012-2013 Budgeted expenses are estimated to be only .7 percent higher than in FY 2010-2011. (b) The FY 2012-2013 Budget estimate for the indirect allocation is 5.0 percent higher than FY 2011-2012 primarily due to additional staff for Airport visioning processes.
The FY 2013-2014 estimate is 32.9 percent lower due to revised assumptions and cost analyses to be incorporated beginning that fiscal period. (c) In FY 2011-2012, security expenses were 9.8 percent lower than in FY 2010-2011 due to savings from vacancies in security positions.
The FY 2012-2013 Budget estimate is 21.2 percent higher than in FY 2011-2012 (or 9.2 percent higher than FY 2010-2011) primarily due to the Police Department's request to increase airport security. (d) The estimate for Budget FY 2012-2013 for maintenance is 54.0 percent higher than in FY 2011-2012 due to deferral of major maintenance items.
While efforts continue to minimize maintenance expenses, the budget must account for maintenance costs. (e) The estimate for Budget FY 2012-2013 for utilities is 55.1 percent higher than in FY 2011-2012. This is a result of incorporating tenant reimbursements into the actual amounts shown.
Utility light/power increases applied to the budget and forecast period do not include reimbursements from tenants. These will now be recorded as revenue. (f) Supplies & equipment and "other" expenses increased in FY 2011-2012 by 33.8 percent and 25.5 percent over FY 2010-2011, respectively.
In the FY 2012-2013 Budget, these expenses are projected to increase at approximately 1/2 of the growth rates that occurred in FY 2011-2012.
These increases are reflective of professional services and are not projected to occur during the forecast period. (g) Insurance expenses increased in FY 2011-2012 by 33.1 percent over FY 2010-2011. The increases were due to a revised allocation of property insurance to more accurately reflect actual costs.
In the FY 2012-2013 Budget, these expenses are projected to increase by approximately 12.8 over FY 2011-2012. This was primarily due to the General Liability insurance being overstated and a budget adjustment was made at midyear. The forecast period assumes steady growth at the rate provided by the City's Risk Management Division.
This rate is based on broker estimates and evaluations insurance markets.
Forecast
MSJ 0292 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Exhibit 1A
Actual Actual Budget
Line-item designation FY 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016 Airfield Nonairfield
OPERATING EXPENSES
Salaries & wages
33203 (Airport - City Manager) Salaries & wages $ 960,866 43.6% 56.4% 33431 (Airport - Public Works) Salaries & wages 895,330 998,655 1,018,628 1,044,094 1,070,196 43.6% 56.4% 33457 (Airport Maintenance - Public Wo Salaries & wages 353,063 353,958 387,717 395,471 405,358 415,492 20.0% 80.0% Total Salaries & Wages $ 1,313,929 $ 1,249,288 $ 1,386,372 $ 1,414,099 $ 1,449,452 $ 1,485,688 Supplies & expense
Util - Light/Power (a) Utilities $ 44,153 $ 36,924 $ 99,819 $ 105,509 $ 111,523 $ 117,879 10.0% 90.0% Util - Natural Gas Utilities 10,789 9,581 11,433 11,433 11,433 11,776 0.0% 100.0% Util - Water Utilities 42,365 59,146 102,647 104,700 107,317 110,000 10.0% 90.0% Stormwater Mgmt Utilities 75,773 76,790 77,317 77,317 77,317 77,317 25.0% 75.0% Transfer Station fee Utilities 1,590 3,339 1,748 1,783 1,828 1,873 0.0% 100.0% Bank Fees Other 986 685 625 638 653 670 0.0% 100.0%
Util - Telephone Utilities 24,456 15,554 19,325 19,808 20,303 20,811 43.6% 56.4% Office Supplies / Expenses Supplies & equipment 13,462 12,844 13,000 13,260 13,592 13,931 43.6% 56.4% Metered Postage Supplies & equipment 3,360 3,698 5,400 5,508 5,646 5,787 5.0% 95.0% Inventory Issues Supplies & equipment 933 1,437 5,000 5,100 5,228 5,358 50.0% 50.0% Community Outreach Other 11,866 5,390 13,000 13,260 13,592 13,931 90.0% 10.0% Equipment Rental Supplies & equipment 7,338 8,446 12,760 13,015 13,341 13,674 50.0% 50.0% Mileage Other - - 550 561 575 589 0.0% 100.0%
Conference / Mtgs/Travel Other 10,003 9,733 5,500 5,610 5,750 5,894 50.0% 50.0% Food purchases Other 1,519 1,655 1,500 1,530 1,568 1,607 50.0% 50.0% Membership Dues Other 1,090 2,599 2,750 2,805 2,875 2,947 65.0% 35.0% Vehicles - Fuel Supplies & equipment 1,948 1,357 2,500 2,550 2,614 2,679 0.0% 100.0% Vehicles - Tires/Tubes Supplies & equipment - 600 612 627 643 50.0% 50.0% Vehicles - Insurance Insurance 9,500 - - - 50.0% 50.0%
CNG Fuel Supplies & equipment 2,772 975 3,950 4,029 4,130 4,233 10.0% 90.0% Veh Mgmt Fund - Maint Maintenance 27,292 26,656 48,734 49,709 50,951 52,225 5.0% 95.0% General Liability / Auto Insurance 82,300 172 9,696 130 130 130 50.0% 50.0% Property Insurance (b) Insurance 74,273 77,987 87,552 96,927 101,773 25.0% 75.0% Special Insurance Insurance 45,575 47,854 47,826 49,261 50,493 25.0% 75.0% Airport Security Guard trans Security 535,708 482,970 585,128 596,831 611,751 627,045 60.0% 40.0% Special Equip Maint Maintenance 3,384 2,629 - - - 0.0% 100.0% Audio Equip Maint Maintenance 461 - 17,700 18,054 18,505 18,968 100.0% 0.0% Bldg/Structure Maint Maintenance - - 4,000 4,080 4,182 4,287 0.0% 100.0% Special Department Supplies Supplies & equipment 2,300 475 6,300 6,426 6,587 6,751 0.0% 100.0% Indirect Cost Allocation Indirect cost allocation 799,455 823,439 864,611 435,173 446,052 457,204 11.0% 89.0% Other Costs Other 19,752 18,941 39,000 39,780 40,775 41,794 0.0% 100.0% Professional Services Other 331,817 441,817 460,000 469,200 480,930 492,953 36.5% 63.5% Reimburse Engineering Office Other 2,963 106 3,353 3,420 3,506 3,593 25.0% 75.0% Airport Field Maintenance Maintenance 340 483 3,600 3,672 3,764 3,858 43.6% 56.4% Property Taxes Other 8,918 8,827 26,625 27,158 27,836 28,532 25.0% 75.0% Blgd Renovation /Maintenance Maintenance 956 60,000 61,200 62,730 64,298 10.0% 90.0% Misc Equipment Supplies & equipment 34,865 59,974 70,000 71,400 73,185 75,015 90.0% 10.0% Office Supplies/Expenses Supplies & equipment 1,207 1,634 700 714 732 750 50.0% 50.0% Inventory Issues Supplies & equipment 16,375 26,004 17,400 17,748 18,192 18,646 50.0% 50.0% Conferences /meetings/ travel Other 120 - - - 50.0% 50.0% Food purchases Other 22 - - - 50.0% 50.0%
Vehicles - Fuels Supplies & equipment 208 - - - 0.0% 100.0% CNG Fuel Supplies & equipment 1,166 1,482 - - - 10.0% 90.0% General Liability Insurance 2,207 2,335 1,944 1,944 1,944 25.0% 75.0% Non-Aviation Maint Maintenance 151,046 151,212 132,459 135,108 138,486 141,948 0.0% 100.0% Aviation Maint Maintenance 76,841 72,906 139,400 142,188 145,743 149,386 95.0% 5.0% Landscape Maint Maintenance 20,633 20,890 24,600 25,092 25,719 26,362 10.0% 90.0% Uniform / Protective Clothing Supplies & equipment 4,226 1,812 2,600 2,652 2,718 2,786 20.0% 80.0% Indirect Cost Allocation Indirect cost allocation 68,994 71,064 74,617 195,053 199,929 204,928 19.1% 80.9% Airport Field Maint Maintenance 10,800 10,800 10,800 11,016 11,291 11,574 50.0% 50.0% Retirement - Misc Empl Salaries & wages 59,564 55,416 - - - - 43.6% 56.4% Interest Exp - Bonds and Other Loans Other 1,492 - - - - - 0.0% 100.0% PERS paydown Salaries & wages - - (3,720) (3,794) (3,870) (3,948) 43.6% 56.4% Total supplies and expense $ 2,525,824 $ 2,653,201 $ 3,105,203 $ 2,838,358 $ 2,917,867 $ 2,994,897 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 3,839,753 $ 3,902,489 $ 4,491,575 $ 4,252,457 $ 4,367,319 $ 4,480,586 Airfield 1,297,167 1,278,361 1,504,733 1,505,386 1,544,726 1,583,818 Non-airfield 2,542,586 2,624,128 2,986,842 2,747,071 2,822,593 2,896,767 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 3,839,753 $ 3,902,489 $ 4,491,575 $ 4,252,457 $ 4,367,319 $ 4,480,586 Source: City of Santa Monica
Prepared by: City of Santa Monica and WJ Advisors LLC
(a) The estimate for Budget FY 2012-2013 for utilities is 55.1 percent higher than in FY 2011-2012. This is a result of incorporating tenant reimbursements into the actual amounts shown.
Utility light/power increases applied to the budget and forecast period do not include reimbursements from tenants. These will now be recorded as revenue. (b) Property insurance annual percent increases applied over the forecast period are based on revised assumptions provided by the City's Risk Management Division.
Forecast Cost Center Allocation
MSJ 0293 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Exhibit 2
AMORTIZATION CHARGES--COMPLETED CAPITAL PROJECTS
Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation Santa Monica Municipal Airport
(For Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Actual Actual Budget
FY 10-11 FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016
AMORTIZATION CHARGES
Airfield $ 178,862 $ 335,192 $ 340,575 $ 442,081 $ 468,671 $ 502,740 Non-airfield 387,915 410,552 443,261 460,191 476,378 463,942 TOTAL AMORTIZATION CHARGES $ 566,777 $ 745,744 $ 783,836 $ 902,273 $ 945,049 $ 966,683 NOTE: Includes capital expenditures that are allocable to the airfield area. Costs are recovered (amortized) from users over the useful life of the asset at an interest rate provided by the City for the year when the project was placed in service for its intended use, and included in the landing fee rate base.
Includes expenditures for completed airfield capital projects beginning in 2002.
Source: City of Santa Monica
Prepared by: City of Santa Monica and WJ Advisors LLC
Forecast
MSJ 0294 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Exhibit 3
SUMMARY OF LANDED WEIGHT
Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation Santa Monica Municipal Airport
(For Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Actual (a)
Estimated
Actuals (b)
FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016 LANDED WEIGHT FORECAST (1,000-lb-units)
Based aircraft 116,986 119,026 119,026 119,026 119,026
Itinerant 191,124 195,010 195,010 195,010 195,010
TOTAL LANDED WEIGHT (1,000-lb. units) 308,110 314,036 314,036 314,036 314,036 Annual growth rate
Based aircraft 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Itinerant 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total annual growth rate 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Source: City of Santa Monica
Prepared by: City of Santa Monica and WJ Advisors LLC
NOTES:
(a) Based on actual data provided by the City of Santa Monica. (b) Based on actual data for July 1 through December 31, 2012 and forecasted data for January 1 through June 30, 2013 provided by the City of Santa Monica. (c) Forecasted levels, provided by the City of Santa Monica, to remain flat.
Forecast (c )
MSJ 0295 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26
REVENUES
Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation Santa Monica Municipal Airport
(For Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Actual Actual
Revised
Budget (a)
FY 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016
REVENUES
Landing fee revenues (b) $ 331,327 $ 301,955 $ 300,000 $ 1,720,605 $ 1,780,863 $ 1,848,211 Annual growth rate -8.9% -0.6% 473.5% 3.5% 3.8%
Airfield revenues (excluding landing fee revenues)
Airport Fuel Sales $ 206,437 $ 186,404 $ 199,200 $ 203,184 $ 208,264 $ 213,470 Noise Abatement - Airport (c) 8,000 33,075 23,214 23,678 24,270 24,877 Total Airfield revenues (excluding landing fee revenues) [A] $ 214,437 $ 219,479 $ 222,414 $ 226,862 $ 232,534 $ 238,347 Annual growth rate 2.4% 1.3% 2.0% 2.5% 2.5%
Non-airfield revenues
Airport - Hangar Rental Sales (d) 633,996 687,305 748,177 763,141 782,219 801,775 Airport - Office / Shop Rental (e) 538,358 616,224 642,030 654,871 671,242 688,023 Airport - Land Lease (f) 1,878,612 1,952,985 1,920,022 1,958,422 2,007,383 2,057,568 Airport - Tie Down Charges 159,944 146,843 152,400 155,448 159,334 163,318 Airport - Misc Rev 3,026 7,602 5,336 5,442 5,578 5,718
Filming Receipts 15,450 11,650 8,177 8,340 8,549 8,762
Parking Receipts 91,349 93,599 65,694 67,008 68,683 70,400 Int Dep/investments 29,568 8,628 97,647 99,600 102,090 104,642 Unrealized Gain Loss (8,858) (6,374) (72,138) (73,580) (75,420) (77,305) Accrued Investment Income (4,870) (4,187) (47,386) (48,334) (49,542) (50,781) Amort/Accret 6,492 5,379 60,877 62,094 63,647 65,238
Total Non-airfield revenues [B] $ 3,343,067 $ 3,519,654 $ 3,580,835 $ 3,652,452 $ 3,743,763 $ 3,837,357 Annual growth rate 5.3% 1.7% 2.0% 2.5% 2.5%
TOTAL REVENUES [C=A+B] $ 3,888,831 $ 4,041,088 $ 4,103,249 $ 5,599,919 $ 5,757,160 $ 5,923,915 Annual growth rate 3.9% 1.5% 36.5% 2.8% 2.9%
Source: City of Santa Monica
Prepared by: City of Santa Monica and WJ Advisors LLC
NOTES:
(a) Certain budgeted and forecasted revenues are allocated based on percentages from FY 2011-2012 actual revenue amounts. (b) Landing fee revenues are estimated to increase substantially in FY 2013-2014 based on the assumption that the City begins charging a landing fee to based aircraft. (c) Airport noise abatement revenues increased in FY 2011-2012 primarily due to increases in fines.
The FY 2012-2013 Budget estimate reflects the level at which is expected to be maintained over the forecast period. (d) Hangar sale revenues increased by 8.4 percent in FY 2011-2012 primarily due to six months of new hangar lease revenue and revenues are expected to increase by 8.9 percent in FY 2012-2013 to reflect the entire year of lease revenue for the new rental. The forecasted amount is expected to be maintained over the forecast period. (e) Office/shop rental revenues increased by 14.5 percent in FY 2011-2012 primarily due to increased rentals and are expected to increase at 4.2 percent in FY 2012-2013 due to additional anticipated occupancy.
(f) Land lease revenues are budgeted to decline by 1.7 percent in the FY 2012-2013 Budget however revenues estimated to be received in FY 2012-2013 will likely not result in a decline and forecasted estimates reflect continued growth over the forecast period.
Forecast (a)
MSJ 0296 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26
AIRPORT APPLICATION OF REVENUES
Draft Base Case (Full Cost Recovery)
Santa Monica Municipal Airport
(For Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Actual Actual Budget
FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16
Revenues
Landing fee revenues $ 331,327 $ 301,955 $ 300,000 $ 1,720,605 $ 1,780,863 $ 1,848,211 Aviation revenues (excluding landing fee revenues) 214,437 219,479 222,414 226,862 232,534 238,347 Non-aviation revenues 3,343,067 3,519,654 3,580,835 3,652,452 3,743,763 3,837,357 [A] $ 3,888,831 $ 4,041,088 $ 4,103,249 $ 5,599,919 $ 5,757,160 $ 5,923,915 Operating expenses [B] ($3,839,753) ($3,902,489) ($4,491,575) ($4,252,457) ($4,367,319) ($4,480,586) Airport surplus (or deficit)--prior to City Loan
interest expense [C=A+B] $ 49,078 $ 138,599 $ (388,326) $ 1,347,462 $ 1,389,841 $ 1,443,330 Source: City of Santa Monica
Prepared by: City of Santa Monica and WJ Advisors LLC
Forecast
MSJ 0297 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Exhibit 1B
OPERATING EXPENSE DETAIL--INDIRECT COST
Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation Santa Monica Municipal Airport
(For Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
EXPENDITURES - ADMIN INDIRECT FY 2012-2013 BUDGET
Admin Indirect
Plan Year
FY 2012-2013 Airfield Non-airfield Total Airfield Non-airfield Total Comments PUBLIC WORKS 33431.544340
Indirect Cost Allocation $ 864,611 n/a n/a
City Council - Legislative Services 4,283 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 4,283 4,283 Per Airport staff City Council - City Council Staff Svcs 3,625 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 3,625 3,625 Per Airport staff City Council - Intergovernmental Rel 1,126 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 1,126 1,126 Per Airport staff City Council - Public Information 534 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 534 534 Per Airport staff City Manager Admin - City Administration 8,081 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 8,081 8,081 Per Airport staff City Manager Admin - City Council Staff Supp 2,132 10.0% 90.0% 100% 213 1,919 2,132 Per Airport staff City Manager Admin - Intergovernmental Rel 634 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 634 634 Per Airport staff City Manager Admin - Public Information 1,107 10.0% 90.0% 100% 111 996 1,107 Per Airport staff City Manager Admin - Special Projects 59,953 10.0% 90.0% 100% 5,995 53,958 59,953 Per Airport staff Community Information - Public Information 2,193 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 2,193 2,193 Per Airport staff IS- Web Development - GIS Services 5,603 10.0% 90.0% 100% 560 5,042 5,603 Per Airport staff IS - Systems Networks - Svr admin + Network Support 9,881 10.0% 90.0% 100% 988 8,893 9,881 Per Airport staff IS - Systems Networks - Telecommunications Support 1,380 43.6% 56.4% 100% 601 778 1,380 based on salary IS Software Systems - Application Develop/Supp. 22,048 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 22,048 22,048 Per Airport staff IS Support Services - Help Desk /Training Svcs 5,797 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 5,797 5,797 Per Airport staff Rec & Elect Svcs - Admin- City Council Support 2,718 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 2,718 2,718 Per Airport staff R&E Support Services- City Council Support 120 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 120 120 Per Airport staff R&E Support Services - Mail Services 6,388 20.0% 80.0% 100% 1,278 5,111 6,388 Per Airport staff R&E Support Services - Printing Services 8,543 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 8,543 8,543 Per Airport staff Finance Admin & Budget - City Administration 1,984 5.0% 95.0% 100% 99 1,885 1,984 Based on aviation revenue % Finance Admin & Budget - Purchasing Services 8,275 5.0% 95.0% 100% 414 7,862 8,275 Based on aviation revenue % Financial Operations - General Accounting 10,334 5.0% 95.0% 100% 517 9,817 10,334 Based on aviation revenue % Financial Operations - Payroll Services 4,016 43.6% 56.4% 100% 1,751 2,265 4,016 Based on salaries Financial Operations - Accounts Payables 2,982 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 2,982 2,982 Per Airport staff Financial Operations - Budget Prep/Support 345 5.0% 95.0% 100% 17 328 345 Based on aviation revenue % Financial Operations - Financial System Support 1,060 5.0% 95.0% 100% 53 1,007 1,060 Based on aviation revenue % Finance - Budget - Budget Prep / Support 6,018 5.0% 95.0% 100% 301 5,717 6,018 Based on aviation revenue % Fin BRO - Cash receipts 8,418 5.0% 95.0% 100% 421 7,998 8,418 Based on aviation revenue % Fin BRO - Cash mgmt/invest. 327 5.0% 95.0% 100% 16 310 327 Based on aviation revenue % Fin BRO - Budget Prep 591 5.0% 95.0% 100% 30 562 591 Based on aviation revenue % Finance - Internal Audit 2,213 5.0% 95.0% 100% 111 2,102 2,213 Based on aviation revenue % City Attorney - Dept Legal Services 187,431 10.0% 90.0% 100% 18,743 168,688 187,431 per CAO on time spent in noise mgmt HR Admin- Recruit Select Staff 917 43.6% 56.4% 100% 400 517 917 Based on salaries HR Admin- Benefit Adm - Perm Empl 231 43.6% 56.4% 100% 101 130 231 Based on salaries HR Admin - Labor Negotiations 945 43.6% 56.4% 100% 412 533 945 Based on salaries HR Admin - Employee Training 783 43.6% 56.4% 100% 341 442 783 Based on salaries Employment and Org Dev - Recruit, Select Staff 4,042 43.6% 56.4% 100% 1,762 2,280 4,042 Based on salaries Employment and Org Dev - Labor negotiations 108 43.6% 56.4% 100% 47 61 108 Based on salaries Employment and Org Dev - Employee Training 1,789 43.6% 56.4% 100% 780 1,009 1,789 Based on salaries Employment and Org Dev - Class & Comp Study 946 43.6% 56.4% 100% 412 533 946 Based on salaries Employee Rel + Benefits - Recruit, Select Staff 179 43.6% 56.4% 100% 78 101 179 Based on salaries Employee Rel + Benefit - Benefit Adm. - Perm Empl. 2,593 43.6% 56.4% 100% 1,130 1,462 2,593 Based on salaries Employee Rel + Benefit - Labor Negotiations 226 43.6% 56.4% 100% 98 127 226 Based on salaries Employee Rel + Benefit - Employee Training 88 43.6% 56.4% 100% 38 49 88 Based on salaries Employee Rel + Benefit - Class & Comp Study 35 43.6% 56.4% 100% 15 20 35 Based on salaries CCS Public Landscape Admin - Landscape Maint 1,564 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 1,564 1,564 no aviation PW Admin - Admin Services 34,894 25.0% 75.0% 100% 8,724 26,171 34,894 Per Airport staff PW Fac Maint - Admin 120 20.0% 80.0% 100% 24 96 120 Based on salaries of Maint Staff PW Fac Maint - Fac Maint Mgmt 5,574 20.0% 80.0% 100% 1,115 4,459 5,574 Based on salaries of Maint Staff $ 864,611 $ 435,173 $ 47,697 $ 387,475 $ 435,173 11.0%
Source: City of Santa Monica
Prepared by: City of Santa Monica and WJ Advisors LLC
PERCENTAGE AMOUNTS
Admin Indirect % Admin Indirect Details
MSJ 0298 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Exhibit 1B
OPERATING EXPENSE DETAIL--INDIRECT COST
Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation Santa Monica Municipal Airport
(For Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
EXPENDITURES - ADMIN INDIRECT FY 2012-2013 BUDGET
Admin Indirect
Plan Year
FY 2012-2013 Airfield Non-airfield Total Airfield Non-airfield Total Comments Provided by SMO AIRPORT MAINT 33457
$ 74,617 n/a n/a $ -
City Council - City Council Staff Svcs 1,054 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 1,054 1,054 Per Airport staff City Council - Intergovernmental Rel 328 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 328 328 Per Airport staff City Council - Public Information 155 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 155 155 Per Airport staff City Manager Admin - City Administration 2,350 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 2,350 2,350 Per Airport staff City Manager Admin - Intergovernmental Rel 184 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 184 184 Per Airport staff City Manager Admin - Public Information 322 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 322 322 Per Airport staff CM - Comm & Gov Rel - Public Information 638 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 638 638 Per Airport staff IS- Systems & Networks - Server Admin+Network Support 1,853 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 1,853 1,853 Per Airport staff IS- Systems & Networks -Telecommunications Support 690 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 690 690 Per Airport staff IS Support Services - Help Desk /Training Svcs 1,087 0.0% 100.0% 100% - 1,087 1,087 Per Airport staff Finance Admin - City Administration 577 20.0% 80.0% 100% 115 462 577 Based on salaries of Maint Staff Finance Admin - Purchasing Services 11,893 20.0% 80.0% 100% 2,379 9,514 11,893 Based on salaries of Maint Staff Financial Operations - General Accounting 3,006 20.0% 80.0% 100% 601 2,405 3,006 Based on salaries of Maint Staff Financial Operations - Payroll Services 2,008 20.0% 80.0% 100% 402 1,607 2,008 Based on salaries of Maint Staff Financial Operations - Accounts Payables 4,058 20.0% 80.0% 100% 812 3,247 4,058 Based on salaries of Maint Staff Financial Operations - Budget Prep/Support 100 20.0% 80.0% 100% 20 80 100 Based on salaries of Maint Staff Financial Operations - Financial System Support 308 20.0% 80.0% 100% 62 247 308 Based on salaries of Maint Staff Finance- Budget - Budget Prep/Support 1,750 20.0% 80.0% 100% 350 1,400 1,750 Based on salaries of Maint Staff Fin BRO - Budget Prep / Support 172 20.0% 80.0% 100% 34 138 172 Based on salaries of Maint Staff Finance - Internal Audit Services 644 20.0% 80.0% 100% 129 515 644 Based on salaries of Maint Staff HR Admin - Benefit Adm - Perm Empl 116 20.0% 80.0% 100% 23 92 116 Based on salaries of Maint Staff HR Admin - Labor Negotiations 473 20.0% 80.0% 100% 95 378 473 Based on salaries of Maint Staff HR Admin - Employee Training 392 20.0% 80.0% 100% 78 313 392 Based on salaries of Maint Staff HR Admin - Rideshare Admin 31 20.0% 80.0% 100% 6 25 31 Based on salaries of Maint Staff HR Employmt + Org Dev - Labor Negotiations 54 20.0% 80.0% 100% 11 43 54 Based on salaries of Maint Staff HR Employmt + Org Dev- Employee Training 894 20.0% 80.0% 100% 179 716 894 Based on salaries of Maint Staff HR Employmt + Org Dev - Class & Comp Study 473 20.0% 80.0% 100% 95 378 473 Based on salaries of Maint Staff HR Emp Rel + Benefits - Benefit Adm. - Perm Empl. 1,296 20.0% 80.0% 100% 259 1,037 1,296 Based on salaries of Maint Staff HR Emp Rel + Benefits - Labor Relations 113 20.0% 80.0% 100% 23 90 113 Based on salaries of Maint Staff HR Emp Rel + Benefits - Employee Training 44 20.0% 80.0% 100% 9 35 44 Based on salaries of Maint Staff HR Emp Rel + Benefits - Class & Comp Study 17 20.0% 80.0% 100% 3 14 17 Based on salaries of Maint Staff HR Emp Rel + Benefits - Rideshare Prog Admin 328 20.0% 80.0% 100% 66 262 328 Based on salaries of Maint Staff PW Admin Svcs - Admin 17,447 20.0% 80.0% 100% 3,489 13,958 17,447 Based on salaries of Maint Staff PW Fac Maint - Admin 2,682 20.0% 80.0% 100% 536 2,146 2,682 Based on salaries of Maint Staff PW Fac Maint - Custodial Svcs 12,711 20.0% 80.0% 100% 2,542 10,169 12,711 Based on salaries of Maint Staff PW Fac Maint - Fac Maintenance Mgmt 124,805 20.0% 80.0% 100% 24,961 99,844 124,805 Based on salaries of Maint Staff $ 74,617 $ 195,053 $ 37,278 $ 157,775 $ 195,053 19.1%
Source: City of Santa Monica
Prepared by: City of Santa Monica and WJ Advisors LLC
Admin Indirect % Admin Indirect Details
PERCENTAGE AMOUNTS
MSJ 0299 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Exhibit 1C
OPERATING EXPENSE DETAIL--INDIRECT COST
Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation Santa Monica Municipal Airport
(For Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
SALARIES & WAGES
JobDesc Division EmpName Salaries (511000) as in JDE
Retirement
as in JDE Benefits
Emp Share as in
JDE Tot Salary % of salary - Airfield
AIRFIELD
TOTAL
Airport Operations Admin 2030 Makrides,Stelios $ 122,349 $ 23,124 $ 23,713 $ (845) $ 168,341 80% $ 134,673 Airport Noise/Operations Spec 2030 Gaskins,Nikolas S 68,411 12,930 13,408 (450) 94,299 100% 94,299 Airport Noise/Operations Spec 2030 Hernandez,Diana V 68,590 12,963 11,332 (308) 92,577 100% 92,577 Business Assistant 2030 Diaz,Stella 74,945 14,165 21,483 (845) 109,747 0% - Business Assistant 2030 Mecham,Deena D 81,903 15,480 11,614 (308) 108,689 0% - Staff Assistant II 2030 Ferguson,Warren M 54,751 10,348 17,128 (616) 81,611 0% - Airport Services Director 2030 Trimborn,Robert D 167,653 31,686 31,390 (1,171) 229,559 50% 114,779 Administrative Analyst 2030 Kate S. 82,577 14,857 18,801 (652) 115,583 0% - $ 721,179 $ 135,553 $ 148,868 $ (5,196) $ 1,000,404 $ 436,328 44% Airport Maintenance Crew Ldr 4570 Gonzalez,Jaime $ 66,621 $ 14,024 $ 22,160 $ (850) $ 101,954 20% $ 20,391 Airport Maintenance Worker 4570 Carrillo,Richard 65,077 13,156 5,080 - 83,312 20% 16,662 Airport Maintenance Worker 4570 Liu,Hung K 60,716 12,983 22,012 (850) 94,861 20% 18,972 Airport Maintenance Worker 4570 Orellana,Willie 64,302 13,141 21,972 (845) 98,570 20% 19,714 $ 256,716 $ 53,303 $ 71,224 $ (2,546) $ 378,697 $ 75,739 20%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Order Number Or Ty Supplier Description
Amount
Committed Airfield Account Number G/L Date
1494 OS 203659 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 21,600 $ 21,600 33431.555060. 7/8/2012 1494 OS 203659 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 33431.555060. 9/5/2012 1494 OS 203659 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 33431.555060. 10/23/2012 2122 OS 336481 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18,460 18,460 33431.555060. 7/8/2012 2122 OS 336481 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 33431.555060. 8/3/2012 2122 OS 336481 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 33431.555060. 10/24/2012 2152 OS 299894 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20,272 20,272 33431.555060. 7/8/2012 2165 OS 280420 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20,675 20,675 33431.555060. 7/8/2012 2562 OS 346863 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 37,538 37,538 33431.555060. 9/26/2012 2562 OS 346863 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 33431.555060. 11/9/2012 9308 OS 338071 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 33431.555060. 7/8/2012 9310 OS 338072 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,162 33431.555060. 7/8/2012 9628 OS 341032 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 198,119 33431.555060. 8/16/2012 345753 OW 236192 Advertising 285 33431.555060. 9/26/2012 345753 OW 236192 Advertising 33431.555060. 9/27/2012
345792 OW 203225 Advertising 285 33431.555060. 9/26/2012 345792 OW 203225 Advertising 33431.555060. 9/27/2012
345945 OW 287500 advertising 273 33431.555060. 9/27/2012 346767 OW 287500 Open House Ad 273 33431.555060. 10/9/2012 346767 OW 287500 Open House Ad 33431.555060. 10/23/2012 346768 OW 200946 Open House Banner 120 33431.555060. 10/9/2012 346769 OW 200946 Open House Banner 131 33431.555060. 10/9/2012 346769 OW 200946 Open House Banner 33431.555060. 10/23/2012 $ 325,194 $ 118,546
36%
Source: City of Santa Monica
Prepared by: City of Santa Monica and WJ Advisors LLC
MSJ 0300 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Exhibit 2A
AMORTIZATION CHARGES DETAIL--PROJECTS FUNDED FROM AIRPORT CASH Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation Santa Monica Municipal Airport
(For Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
(b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b)
Project Name
Project
number Airfield Non-airfield Total
Project Cost
(a)
Interest
rate
Useful
life
Amortization
charge FY 2004-2005 FY 2005-2006 FY 2006-2007 FY 2007-2008 FY 2008-2009 FY 2009-2010 FY 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% $ 180,188 5.40% FY 04/05 7 $ 31,593 $ 31,593 $ 31,593 $ 31,593 $ 31,593 $ 31,593 $ 31,593 $ 31,593 $ - $ - Airfield pavement rehab M330638 0.0% 100.0% 100% 49,771 5.40% FY 05/06 7 8,726 - 8,726 8,726 8,726 8,726 8,726 8,726 8,726 - Airfield pavement rehab M330638 0.0% 100.0% 100% 2,000 5.40% FY 06/07 7 351 - - 351 351 351 351 351 351 351 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 0.0% 100.0% 100% 388,601 5.40% FY 07/08 7 68,135 - - - 68,135 68,135 68,135 68,135 68,135 68,135 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 19.2% 80.8% 100% 290,116 5.40% FY 08/09 7 50,867 - - - - 50,867 50,867 50,867 50,867 50,867 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 21.9% 78.1% 100% 205,560 5.40% FY 09/10 7 36,042 - - - - - 36,042 36,042 36,042 36,042 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% 90,506 5.40% FY 10/11 7 15,869 - - - - - - 15,869 15,869 15,869
Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% 1,071,805 5.40% FY 11/12 7 187,923 - - - - - - - 187,923 187,923 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 11.0% 89.0% 100% 140,373 5.40% FY 12/13 7 24,612 - - - - - - - - 24,612
Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% 456,000 5.40% FY 13/14 7 79,952 - - - - - - - - - Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% 250,000 5.40% FY 14/15 7 43,833 - - - - - - - - -
Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% 250,000 5.40% FY 15/16 7 43,833 - - - - - - - - - Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% 250,000 5.40% FY 16/17 7 43,833 - - - - - - - - -
Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% 250,000 5.40% FY 17/18 7 43,833 - - - - - - - - - Airfield lighting C334023 100.0% 0.0% 100% 291,970 5.40% FY 13/14 25 21,554 - - - - - - - - - Airfield gate replacement M333091 100.0% 0.0% 100% 20,213 5.40% FY 12/13 10 2,669 - - - - - - - - 2,669 Underground tank management C330020 0.0% 100.0% 100% 34,370 5.40% FY 07/08 50 2,000 - - - 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Underground tank management C330020 0.0% 100.0% 100% 516,541 5.40% FY 03/04 50 30,061 30,061 30,061 30,061 30,061 30,061 30,061 30,061 30,061 30,061 Underground tank management C330020 0.0% 100.0% 100% 283,630 5.40% FY 04/05 50 16,506 16,506 16,506 16,506 16,506 16,506 16,506 16,506 16,506 16,506 Underground tank management C330020 0.0% 100.0% 100% 118,908 5.40% FY 05/06 50 6,920 - 6,920 6,920 6,920 6,920 6,920 6,920 6,920 6,920
Underground tank management C330020 0.0% 100.0% 100% 54,143 5.40% FY 06/07 50 3,151 - - 3,151 3,151 3,151 3,151 3,151 3,151 3,151 Enhanced gate security C330641 60.0% 40.0% 100%
51,000 5.40% FY 04/05 10 6,734 6,734 6,734 6,734 6,734 6,734 6,734 6,734 6,734 6,734 Purchase/Install flight track EQ C330630 100.0% 0.0% 100% 212,472 5.40% FY 10/11 20 17,632 - - - - - - 17,632 17,632 17,632 Airside erosion control C330640 100.0% 0.0% 100% 613,780 5.40% FY 07/08 20 50,935 - - - 50,935 50,935 50,935 50,935 50,935 50,935
Airport Ave utility infrastructure C330815 7.9% 92.1% 100% 531,685 5.40% FY 09/10 20 44,123 - - - - - 44,123 44,123 44,123 44,123 Airport parking lot pavement rehab M330642 0.0% 100.0% 100% 17,959 5.40% FY 06/07 25 1,326 - - 1,326 1,326 1,326 1,326 1,326 1,326 1,326
Airport parking lot pavement rehab M330642 3.2% 96.8% 100% 149,380 5.40% FY 07/08 25 11,028 - - - 11,028 11,028 11,028 11,028 11,028 11,028 Airport parking lot pavement rehab M330642 0.0% 100.0% 100% 27,913 5.40% FY 09/10 25 2,061 - - - - - 2,061 2,061 2,061 2,061
Airport parking lot pavement rehab M330642 0.0% 100.0% 100% 33,177 5.40% FY 10/11 25 2,449 - - - - - - 2,449 2,449 2,449 Airport parking lot pavement rehab M330642 0.0% 100.0% 100% 77,021 5.40% FY 12/13 25 5,686 - - - - - - - - 5,686
Airport parking lot pavement rehab M330642 0.0% 100.0% 100% 650,000 5.40% FY 13/14 25 47,985 - - - - - - - - - Airside security fence C330823 100.0% 0.0% 100% 100,000 5.40% FY 04/05 10 13,203 13,203 13,203 13,203 13,203 13,203 13,203 13,203 13,203 13,203 Airport buildings rehabilitation C336033 0.0% 100.0% 100% 38,393 5.40% FY 12/13 25 2,834 - - - - - - - - 2,834 Airport buildings rehabilitation C336033 0.0% 100.0% 100% 378,000 5.40% FY 13/14 25 27,905 - - - - - - - - -
Airport buildings rehabilitation C336033 0.0% 100.0% 100% 378,000 5.40% FY 14/15 25 27,905 - - - - - - - - - Airport buildings rehabilitation C336033 0.0% 100.0% 100% 378,0005.40% FY 15/16 25 27,905 - - - - - - - - - Airport buildings rehabilitation C336033 0.0% 100.0% 100% 3,000,000 5.40% FY 16/17 25 221,470 - - - - - - - - - Hangar purchases C336036 0.0% 100.0% 100% 100,000 5.40% FY 17/18 25 7,382 - - - - - - - - - Hangar purchases C336036 0.0% 100.0% 100% 100,000 5.40% FY 16/17 25 7,382 - - - - - - - - - Airport environmental enhancements C334081 100.0% 0.0% 100% 240,000 5.40% FY 17/18 20 19,917 - - - - - - - - - Courtyard offices roof C336032 0.0% 100.0% 100% 404,400 5.40% FY 16/17 20 33,560 - - - - - - - - - Gunite Slope Repairs C336031 0.0% 100.0% 100% 350,000 5.40% FY 16/17 20 29,045 - - - - - - - - - Sidewalk Repairs C336034 0.0% 100.0% 100% 300,000 5.40% FY 16/17 20 24,896 - - - - - - - - -
Airport Safety Improvements C330032 0.0% 100.0% 100% 18 5.40% FY 03/04 15 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Runway/Taxi Slurry C330638 0.0% 100.0% 100% 12,915 5.40% FY 03/04 7 2,264 2,264 2,264 2,264 2,264 2,264 2,264 - - - Airport Master Plan C330647 0.0% 100.0% 100% 168,195 5.40% FY 05/06 20 13,958 - 13,958 13,958 13,958 13,958 13,958 13,958 13,958 13,958 Roof Office Bldgs C330712 0.0% 100.0% 100% 194,739 5.40% FY 07/08 20 16,161 - - - 16,161 16,161 16,161 16,161 16,161 16,161 Southside Improvement C330814 49.2% 50.8% 100% 371,470 5.40% FY 10/11 10 49,046 - - - - - - 49,046 49,046 49,046 Renovation to 3400 Airport Ave C330735 0.0% 100.0% 100% 49,447 5.40% FY 03/04 25 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 Renovation to 3400 Airport Ave C330735 0.0% 100.0% 100% 16,389 5.40% FY 10/11 25 1,210 - - - - - - 1,210 1,210 1,210 Parking Lot Lighting C337035 0.0% 100.0% 100% 84,814 5.40% FY 11/12 25 6,261 - - - - - - - 6,261 6,261 Airport Elevator C334044 0.0% 100.0% 100% 23,581 5.40% FY 11/12 20 1,957 - - - - - - - 1,957 1,957 Percent for Arts C330081 0.0% 100.0% 100% 1,125 5.40% FY 12/13 25 83 - - - - - - - - 83 City Facility Maint M330085 0.0% 100.0% 100% 1,250 5.40% FY 08/09 5 292 - - - - 292 292 292 292 292 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 11,865 5.40% FY 03/04 1 12,506 - - - - - - - - - Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 03/04 1 16,850 - - - - - - - - - Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 50,460 5.40% FY 03/04 1 53,185 - - - - - - - - - Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 70,104 5.40% FY 04/05 1 73,890 73,890 - - - - - - - - Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 13,800 5.40% FY 04/05 1 14,545 14,545 - - - - - - - - Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 04/05 1 16,850 16,850 - - - - - - - - Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 11,000 5.40% FY 05/06 1 11,594 - 11,594 - - - - - - - Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 05/06 1 16,850 - 16,850 - - - - - - - Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 11,600 5.40% FY 06/07 1 12,226 - - 12,226 - - - - - - Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 06/07 1 16,850 - - 16,850 - - - - - - Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 11,000 5.40% FY 07/08 1 11,594 - - - 11,594 - - - - - Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 07/08 1 16,850 - - - 16,850 - - - - - Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 63,343 5.40% FY 07/08 1 66,764 - - - 66,764 - - - - - Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 13,000 5.40% FY 08/09 1 13,702 - - - - 13,702 - - - - Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 08/09 1 16,850 - - - - 16,850 - - - - Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 34,967 5.40% FY 08/09 1 36,855 - - - - 36,855 - - - - Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 11,000 5.40% FY 09/10 1 11,594 - - - - - 11,594 - - - Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 09/10 1 16,850 - - - - - 16,850 - - - Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 11,000 5.40% FY 10/11 1 11,594 - - - - - - 11,594 - - Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 10/11 1 16,850 - - - - - - 16,850 - - Year
placed in
Total Amortization Charges
Cost Center Allocation
MSJ 0301 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Exhibit 2A
AMORTIZATION CHARGES DETAIL--PROJECTS FUNDED FROM AIRPORT CASH Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation Santa Monica Municipal Airport
(For Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
(b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b)
Project Name
Project
number Airfield Non-airfield Total
Project Cost
(a)
Interest
rate
Useful
life
Amortization
charge FY 2004-2005 FY 2005-2006 FY 2006-2007 FY 2007-2008 FY 2008-2009 FY 2009-2010 FY 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 Year
placed in
Total Amortization Charges
Cost Center Allocation
Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 32,546 5.40% FY 10/11 1 34,303 - - - - - - 34,303 - - Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 12,870 5.40% FY 11/12 1 13,565 - - - - - - - 13,565 - Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 11/12 1 16,850 - - - - - - - 16,850 - Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 44,356 5.40% FY 11/12 1 46,751 - - - - - - - 46,751 - Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 12,270 5.40% FY 12/13 1 12,933 - - - - - - - - 12,933 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 12/13 1 16,850 - - - - - - - - 16,850 Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 55,330 5.40% FY 12/13 1 58,318 - - - - - - - - 58,318 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 12,270 5.40% FY 13/14 1 12,933 - - - - - - - - -
Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 13/14 1 16,850 - - - - - - - - - Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 12,577 5.40% FY 14/15 1 13,256 - - - - - - - - - Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 16,387 5.40% FY 14/15 1 17,272 - - - - - - - - - Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 55,374 5.40% FY 14/15 1 58,364 - - - - - - - - - Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 12,891 5.40% FY 15/16 1 13,587 - - - - - - - - - Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 16,796 5.40% FY 15/16 1 17,703 - - - - - - - - - Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 55,374 5.40% FY 15/16 1 58,364 - - - - - - - - - Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 13,278 5.40% FY 16/17 1 13,995 - - - - - - - - - Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 17,300 5.40% FY 16/17 1 18,234 - - - - - - - - - Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 55,374 5.40% FY 16/17 1 58,364 - - - - - - - - - Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 13,676 5.40% FY 17/18 1 14,415 - - - - - - - - - Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 17,819 5.40% FY 17/18 1 18,781 - - - - - - - - - Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 55,374 5.40% FY 17/18
1 58,364 - - - - - - - - -
$ 15,250,677 $ 2,545,417 $ 209,299$ 162,062$ 167,522$ 381,912$ 405,270$ 448,532$ 566,777$ 745,744$ 783,836 Source: City of Santa Monica
Prepared by: City of Santa Monica and WJ Advisors LLC
NOTES:
(a) Reflects net project costs as provided by the City of Santa Monica on February 11, 2013. (b) "Calculated" (not charged) amortization costs for historical years in which Airport Fund has funded capital projects.
MSJ 0302 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1065 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Exhibit 2A
AMORTIZATION CHARGES DETAIL--PROJECTS FUNDED FROM AIRPORT CASH Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation Santa Monica Municipal Airport
(For Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Project Name
Project
number Airfield Non-airfield Total
Project Cost
(a)
Interest
rate
Useful
life
Amortization
charge
Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% $ 180,188 5.40% FY 04/05 7 $ 31,593 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 0.0% 100.0% 100% 49,771 5.40% FY 05/06 7 8,726 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 0.0% 100.0% 100% 2,000 5.40% FY 06/07 7 351 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 0.0% 100.0% 100% 388,601 5.40% FY 07/08 7 68,135 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 19.2% 80.8% 100% 290,116 5.40% FY 08/09 7 50,867 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 21.9% 78.1% 100% 205,560 5.40% FY 09/10 7 36,042 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% 90,506 5.40% FY 10/11 7 15,869 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% 1,071,805 5.40% FY 11/12 7 187,923 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 11.0% 89.0% 100% 140,373 5.40% FY 12/13 7 24,612 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% 456,000 5.40% FY 13/14 7 79,952 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% 250,000 5.40% FY 14/15 7 43,833 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% 250,000 5.40% FY 15/16 7 43,833 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% 250,000 5.40% FY 16/17 7 43,833 Airfield pavement rehab M330638 100.0% 0.0% 100% 250,000 5.40% FY 17/18 7 43,833 Airfield lighting C334023 100.0% 0.0% 100% 291,970 5.40% FY 13/14 25 21,554 Airfield gate replacement M333091 100.0% 0.0% 100% 20,213 5.40% FY 12/13 10 2,669 Underground tank management C330020 0.0% 100.0% 100% 34,370 5.40% FY 07/08 50 2,000 Underground tank management C330020 0.0% 100.0% 100% 516,541 5.40% FY 03/04 50 30,061 Underground tank management C330020 0.0% 100.0% 100% 283,630 5.40% FY 04/05 50 16,506 Underground tank management C330020 0.0% 100.0% 100% 118,908 5.40% FY 05/06 50 6,920 Underground tank management C330020 0.0% 100.0% 100% 54,143 5.40% FY 06/07 50 3,151 Enhanced gate security C330641 60.0% 40.0% 100% 51,000 5.40% FY 04/05 10 6,734 Purchase/Install flight track EQ C330630 100.0% 0.0% 100% 212,472 5.40% FY 10/11 20 17,632 Airside erosion control C330640 100.0% 0.0% 100% 613,780 5.40% FY 07/08 20 50,935 Airport Ave utility infrastructure C330815 7.9% 92.1% 100% 531,685 5.40% FY 09/10 20 44,123 Airport parking lot pavement rehab M330642 0.0% 100.0% 100% 17,959 5.40% FY 06/07 25 1,326 Airport parking lot pavement rehab M330642 3.2% 96.8% 100% 149,380 5.40% FY 07/08 25 11,028 Airport parking lot pavement rehab M330642 0.0% 100.0% 100% 27,913 5.40% FY 09/10 25 2,061 Airport parking lot pavement rehab M330642 0.0% 100.0% 100% 33,177 5.40% FY 10/11 25 2,449 Airport parking lot pavement rehab M330642 0.0% 100.0% 100% 77,021 5.40% FY 12/13 25 5,686 Airport parking lot pavement rehab M330642 0.0% 100.0% 100% 650,000 5.40% FY 13/14 25 47,985 Airside security fence C330823 100.0% 0.0% 100% 100,000 5.40% FY 04/05 10 13,203 Airport buildings rehabilitation C336033 0.0% 100.0% 100% 38,393 5.40% FY 12/13 25 2,834 Airport buildings rehabilitation C336033 0.0% 100.0% 100% 378,000 5.40% FY 13/14 25 27,905 Airport buildings rehabilitation C336033 0.0% 100.0% 100% 378,000 5.40% FY 14/15 25 27,905 Airport buildings rehabilitation C336033 0.0% 100.0% 100% 378,000 5.40% FY 15/16 25 27,905 Airport buildings rehabilitation C336033 0.0% 100.0% 100% 3,000,000 5.40% FY 16/17 25 221,470 Hangar purchases C336036 0.0% 100.0% 100% 100,000 5.40% FY 17/18 25 7,382 Hangar purchases C336036 0.0% 100.0% 100% 100,000 5.40% FY 16/17 25 7,382 Airport environmental enhancements C334081 100.0% 0.0% 100% 240,000 5.40% FY 17/18 20 19,917 Courtyard offices roof C336032 0.0% 100.0% 100% 404,400 5.40% FY 16/17 20 33,560 Gunite Slope Repairs C336031 0.0% 100.0% 100% 350,000 5.40% FY 16/17 20 29,045 Sidewalk Repairs C336034 0.0% 100.0% 100% 300,000 5.40% FY 16/17 20 24,896 Airport Safety Improvements C330032 0.0% 100.0% 100% 18 5.40% FY 03/04 15 2 Runway/Taxi Slurry C330638 0.0% 100.0% 100% 12,915 5.40% FY 03/04 7 2,264 Airport Master Plan C330647 0.0% 100.0% 100% 168,195 5.40% FY 05/06 20 13,958 Roof Office Bldgs C330712 0.0% 100.0% 100% 194,739 5.40% FY 07/08 20 16,161 Southside Improvement C330814 49.2% 50.8% 100% 371,470 5.40% FY 10/11 10 49,046 Renovation to 3400 Airport Ave C330735 0.0% 100.0% 100% 49,447 5.40% FY 03/04 25 3,650 Renovation to 3400 Airport Ave C330735 0.0% 100.0% 100% 16,389 5.40% FY 10/11 25 1,210 Parking Lot Lighting C337035 0.0% 100.0% 100% 84,814 5.40% FY 11/12 25 6,261 Airport Elevator C334044 0.0% 100.0% 100% 23,581 5.40% FY 11/12 20 1,957 Percent for Arts C330081 0.0% 100.0% 100% 1,125 5.40% FY 12/13 25 83 City Facility Maint M330085 0.0% 100.0% 100% 1,250 5.40% FY 08/09 5 292 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 11,865 5.40% FY 03/04 1 12,506 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 03/04 1 16,850 Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 50,460 5.40% FY 03/04 1 53,185 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 70,104 5.40% FY 04/05 1 73,890 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 13,800 5.40% FY 04/05 1 14,545 Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 04/05 1 16,850 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 11,000 5.40% FY 05/06 1 11,594 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 05/06 1 16,850 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 11,600 5.40% FY 06/07 1 12,226 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 06/07 1 16,850 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 11,000 5.40% FY 07/08 1 11,594 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 07/08 1 16,850 Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 63,343 5.40% FY 07/08 1 66,764 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 13,000 5.40% FY 08/09 1 13,702 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 08/09 1 16,850 Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 34,967 5.40% FY 08/09 1 36,855 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 11,000 5.40% FY 09/10 1 11,594 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 09/10 1 16,850 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 11,000 5.40% FY 10/11 1 11,594 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 10/11 1 16,850 Year
placed in
Cost Center Allocation (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b)
FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016 FY 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016 FY 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016 $ - $ - $ - $ 31,593 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - - - - - - - - - 8,726 8,726 - - - -
- - - - - - - - - 351 351 351 - - -
68,135 - - - - - - - - 68,135 68,135 68,135 68,135 - -
50,867 50,867 - 9,764 9,764 9,764 9,764 9,764 - 41,103 41,103 41,103 41,103 41,103 - 36,042 36,042 36,042 7,879 7,879 7,879 7,879 7,879 7,879 28,162 28,162 28,162 28,162 28,162 28,162 15,869 15,869 15,869 15,869 15,869 15,869 15,869 15,869 15,869 - - - - - - 187,923 187,923 187,923 - 187,923 187,923 187,923 187,923 187,923 - - - - - - 24,612 24,612 24,612 - - 2,714 2,714 2,714 2,714 - - 21,898 21,898 21,898 21,898 79,952 79,952 79,952 - - - 79,952 79,952 79,952 - - - - - - - 43,833 43,833 - - - - 43,833 43,833 - - - - - -
- - 43,833 - - - - - 43,833 - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
21,554 21,554 21,554 - - - 21,554 21,554 21,554 - - - - - - 2,669 2,669 2,669 - - 2,669 2,669 2,669 2,669 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000 2,000 - - - - - - 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 30,061 30,061 30,061 - - - - - - 30,061 30,061 30,061 30,061 30,061 30,061 16,506 16,506 16,506 - - - - - - 16,506 16,506 16,506 16,506 16,506 16,506 6,920 6,920 6,920 - - - - - - 6,920 6,920 6,920 6,920 6,920 6,920 3,151 3,151 3,151 - - - - - - 3,151 3,151 3,151 3,151 3,151 3,151 6,734 - - 4,040 4,040 4,040 4,040 - - 2,693 2,693 2,693 2,693 - - 17,632 17,632 17,632 17,632 17,632 17,632 17,632 17,632 17,632 - - - - - - 50,935 50,935 50,935 50,935 50,935 50,935 50,935 50,935 50,935 - - - - - - 44,123 44,123 44,123 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 40,634 40,634 40,634 40,634 40,634 40,634 1,326 1,326 1,326 - - - - - - 1,326 1,326 1,326 1,326 1,326 1,326 11,028 11,028 11,028 350 350 350 350 350 350 10,678 10,678 10,678 10,678 10,678 10,678 2,061 2,061 2,061 - - - - - - 2,061 2,061 2,061 2,061 2,061 2,061 2,449 2,449 2,449 - - - - - - 2,449 2,449 2,449 2,449 2,449 2,449 5,686 5,686 5,686 - - - - - - - - 5,686 5,686 5,686 5,686 47,985 47,985 47,985 - - - - - - - - - 47,985 47,985 47,985 13,203 - - 13,203 13,203 13,203 13,203 - - - - - - - -
2,834 2,834 2,834 - - - - - - - - 2,834 2,834 2,834 2,834 27,905 27,905 27,905 - - - - - - - - - 27,905 27,905 27,905 - 27,905 27,905 - - - - - - - - - - 27,905 27,905
- - 27,905 - - - - - - - - - - - 27,905
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 2 2 - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 2 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
13,958 13,958 13,958 - - - - - - 13,958 13,958 13,958 13,958 13,958 13,958 16,161 16,161 16,161 - - - - - - 16,161 16,161 16,161 16,161 16,161 16,161 49,046 49,046 49,046 24,107 24,107 24,107 24,107 24,107 24,107 24,939 24,939 24,939 24,939 24,939 24,939 3,650 3,650 3,650 - - - - - - 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 1,210 1,210 1,210 - - - - - - 1,210 1,210 1,210 1,210 1,210 1,210 6,261 6,261 6,261 - - - - - - - 6,261 6,261 6,261 6,261 6,261 1,957 1,957 1,957 - - - - - - - 1,957 1,957 1,957 1,957 1,957 83 83 83 - - - - - - - - 83 83 83 83
- - - - - - - - - 292 292 292 - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - 11,594 - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - 16,850 - - - - -
Forecast Forecast Forecast
Total Amortization Charges Airfield Amortization Charges Non-airfield Amortization Charges MSJ 0303 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1066 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Exhibit 2A
AMORTIZATION CHARGES DETAIL--PROJECTS FUNDED FROM AIRPORT CASH Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation Santa Monica Municipal Airport
(For Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Project Name
Project
number Airfield Non-airfield Total
Project Cost
(a)
Interest
rate
Useful
life
Amortization
charge
Year
placed in
Cost Center Allocation
Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 32,546 5.40% FY 10/11 1 34,303 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 12,870 5.40% FY 11/12 1 13,565 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 11/12 1 16,850 Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 44,356 5.40% FY 11/12 1 46,751 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 12,270 5.40% FY 12/13 1 12,933 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 12/13 1 16,850 Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 55,330 5.40% FY 12/13 1 58,318 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 12,270 5.40% FY 13/14 1 12,933 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 15,987 5.40% FY 13/14 1 16,850 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 12,577 5.40% FY 14/15 1 13,256 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 16,387 5.40% FY 14/15 1 17,272 Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 55,374 5.40% FY 14/15 1 58,364 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 12,891 5.40% FY 15/16 1 13,587 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 16,796 5.40% FY 15/16 1 17,703 Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 55,374 5.40% FY 15/16 1 58,364 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 13,278 5.40% FY 16/17 1 13,995 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 17,300 5.40% FY 16/17 1 18,234 Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 55,374 5.40% FY 16/17 1 58,364 Computer Equipment Replacement IS330003 0.0% 100.0% 100% 13,676 5.40% FY 17/18 1 14,415 Telecommunications IS330006 0.0% 100.0% 100% 17,819 5.40% FY 17/18 1 18,781 Fleet IS330167 0.0% 100.0% 100% 55,374 5.40% FY 17/18 1 58,364 $ 15,250,677 $ 2,545,417
Source: City of Santa Monica
Prepared by: City of Santa Monica and WJ Advisors LLC
NOTES:
(a) Reflects net project costs as provided by the City of Santa Monica on February 11, 2013. (b) "Calculated" (not charged) amortization costs for historical years in which Airport Fund has funded capital projects. (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b)
FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016 FY 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016 FY 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016 Forecast Forecast Forecast
Total Amortization Charges Airfield Amortization Charges Non-airfield Amortization Charges - - - - - - - - - 34,303 - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - 13,565 - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - 16,850 - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - 46,751 - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - 12,933 - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - 16,850 - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - 58,318 - - -
12,933 - - - - - - - - - - - 12,933 - -
16,850 - - - - - - - - - - - 16,850 - -
- 13,256 - - - - - - - - - - - 13,256 -
- 17,272 - - - - - - - - - - - 17,272 -
- 58,364 - - - - - - - - - - - 58,364 -
- - 13,587 - - - - - - - - - - - 13,587
- - 17,703 - - - - - - - - - - - 17,703
- - 58,364 - - - - - - - - - - - 58,364
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
$ 902,273 $ 945,049 $ 966,683 $ 178,862 $ 335,192 $ 340,575 $ 442,081 $ 468,671 $ 502,740 $ 387,915 $ 410,552 $ 443,261 $ 460,191 $ 476,378 $ 463,942 MSJ 0304 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1067 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Exhibit 3A
REVENUES
Financial Projections--Proposed Landing Fee Calculation Santa Monica Municipal Airport
(For Fiscal Years Ending June 30)
Actual Actual
Revised
Budget
Account code FY 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016 Cost Center
("Aviation" or
"Non-aviation")
REVENUES
Revenues (excluding Landing Fees)
Airport Fuel Sales 33431.402100 $ 206,437 $ 186,404 $ 199,200 $ 203,184 $ 208,264 $ 213,470 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% Aviation Airport - Hangar Rental Sales 33431.402110 633,996 687,305 748,177 763,141 782,219 801,775 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% Non-aviation Airport - Office / Shop Rental 33431.402120 538,358 616,224 642,030 654,871 671,242 688,023 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% Non-aviation Airport - Land Lease 33431.402130 1,878,612 1,952,985 1,920,022 1,958,422 2,007,383 2,057,568 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% Non-aviation Airport - Tie Down Charges 33431.402140 159,944 146,843 152,400 155,448 159,334 163,318 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% Non-aviation Airport - Misc Rev 33431.402160 (a) 3,026 7,602 5,442 5,578 5,718 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% Non-aviation Noise Abatement - Airport 33431.402161 (a) 8,000 33,075 23,678 24,270 24,877 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% Aviation Filming Receipts 33431.402162 (a) 15,450 11,650 8,340 8,549 8,762 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% Non-aviation Parking Receipts 33431.402163 (a) 91,349 93,599 67,008 68,683 70,400 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% Non-aviation Landing Fees 33431.402170 331,327 301,955 300,000 1,720,605 1,780,863 1,848,211 Int Dep/investments 33431.402950 (a) 29,568 8,628 99,600 102,090 104,642 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% Non-aviation Unrealized Gain Loss 33431.40295A (a) (8,858) (6,374) (73,580) (75,420) (77,305) 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% Non-aviation Accrued Investment Income 33431.40295B (a) (4,870) (4,187) (48,334) (49,542) (50,781) 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% Non-aviation Amort/Accret 33431.40295C (a) 6,492 5,379 62,094 63,647 65,238 2.00% 2.50% 2.50% Non-aviation TOTAL REVENUES $ 3,888,831 $ 4,041,088 $ 4,103,249 $ 5,599,919 $ 5,757,160 $ 5,923,915 Total Airfield Related Revenues (including Landing Fees) $ 545,764 $ 521,434 $ 522,414 $ 1,947,467 $ 2,013,397 $ 2,086,558 Total Non-airfield Related Revenues 3,343,067 3,519,654 3,580,835 3,652,452 3,743,763 3,837,357 Source: City of Santa Monica
Prepared by: City of Santa Monica and WJ Advisors LLC
NOTES:
(a) Certain budgeted and forecasted revenues are allocated based on percentages from FY 2011-2012 actual revenue amounts.
Forecast
102,420
39,000
CALCULATED ON LANDING FEE MODEL
Annual growth rate
MSJ 0305 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1068 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024 7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1069
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1070 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1071 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1072 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1073 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1074 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1075 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1076 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024 7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1077
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1078 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1079 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1080 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1081 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1082 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1083 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024 7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1084
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1085 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1086 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1087 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1088 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1089 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1090 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024 7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1091
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1092 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1093 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1094 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1095 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1096 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1097 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1098 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1099 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 8 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Wilder <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 9:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; David White; Rick Valte; Susan Cline
Subject: 7A - Reserve aeronautical funds to pay for environmental cleanup
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Right now the aeronautical surplus is approximately $13 million, which can and should be used for environmental remediation once the airport is closed -- if you don't give it away! Staff is recommending lowering aeronautical fees by a whopping 53% in order to spend down the aeronautical "surplus" funds by the time the airport closes.
But they calculated this fee reduction without factoring in the millions of dollars that will be needed for environmental cleanup once the airport closes.
The projections include $3 million for a remediation needs assessment, but that will take at least 18 months to complete. And if it costs $3 million just to assess the damage of the past hundred years, imagine how much the actual cleanup will cost!
For now, all we need is a reasonable estimate of what remediation could cost. It would be relatively easy to get some justifiable estimates based on what similar airports have cost to clean up. The draft EIR from the Airport Park Expansion project may also be useful.
That estimate should be factored into any calculations for aeronautical fee changes now. Then, once the environmental assessment is completed, the fees can be adjusted again based on the assessed costs in order to still "spend down" any remaining surplus.
Tonight, please ask staff to determine a reasonable estimate for environmental cleanup at the airport, and recalculate any aeronautical fee changes with that anticipated expense included.
Thank you,
Andrew Wilder
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1100 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 9 David Yakobson
From: Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 8:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SMO: FAA Letter // SMCC 05-28-24 // Item 7A -- Proposed Budget
EXTERNAL
I am submitting the email below as Public Comment.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ben <[email protected]>
To: Stelios Makrides <[email protected]> Cc: Ivan Campbell <[email protected]>; Rick Valte <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 at 08:37:13 AM PDT
Subject: Re: SMO: FAA Letter
Hi Stelios,
Can you please publicly post and send me copies of the letters between the FAA and the City, after the August 4, 2024 FAA letter below?
I had requested the subsequent letters between the City and FAA via a PRR (public records request), but have not received anything. At the very least, please share the reply to this 08-04-24 FAA letter received by the City almost 10 months ago.
I’ve listened carefully to Scott Lewis (City’s outside counsel) and he is a very good attorney who knows the law. It seems he interprets it as I do. I would like to see how he responded in writing to the FAA letter, which conflates 2 different compliance issues (the loans vs. the landing fees).
Please listen and read the following:
++++++++++++++++++++
SM City's Outside Counsel Scott Lewis Challenges the Validity of FAA August 4, 2024 Letter (17:10 - 17:35) "We have a disagreement about what that letter can say and what it does say and and about the validity and about the validity of what the FAA in fact calculated and what the FAA can order the city to do. The city has responded to the FAA's request with respect to the elimination of Non-Aeronautical Surplus, of Aeronautical Surplus, Aeronautical Surplus." (Link to Video Clip: https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxrxZXDslNPlRjw2yNtEbfPlFKZLdqgaBR) ++++++++++++++++++++
Stelios, by posting only the FAA's letter and not the City's response to the letter, you are effectively endorsing the FAA on the disputed issues in the Letter. If you do not also share the City's response, there is not a complete perspective on this issue. The public is only seeing the FAA's perspective. This, I strongly feel, misrepresents to the public the City's legal standing on this issue.
Please make the subsequent correspondence between the FAA and the City available to the public.
Lastly, please disclose outside counsel's perspective on spending down any surplus monies, rather than giving the surplus back to aeronautical users and tenants. This alternative would eliminate the entire dispute, without setting a risky precedence of giving money back, which gives the appearance that the City was "caught with its hands in the cookie jar" as one aviation proponent framed it in the meeting.
Thank you,
Ben
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1101 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 10 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1102 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 11 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1103 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 12 Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1104 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 1 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2024 12:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: May 28, 2024 Santa Monica City Council Agenda Item 16E: Sidewalk Dining Fees in Downtown Santa Monica
Attachments: Sidewalk Dining Fees Advocacy Letter 05.20.24.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Phil Brock, Honorable Council Members, and Esteemed City Staff, The Board of Directors of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM, Inc.) is advocating for a reduction in outdoor dining fees in Downtown Santa Monica. This proposed update aims to eliminate the competitive advantage that other communities currently enjoy over Santa Monica. Moreover, it underscores the city’s commitment to incentivizing investment, development, and business growth in the downtown area.
By reducing outdoor dining fees, Santa Monica can level the playing field and create a more attractive environment for businesses compared to neighboring communities. This adjustment aligns with the city's broader goals of fostering economic development and supporting the local business community.
To inform the discussion of the Board, DTSM, Inc. staff conducted a thorough fee study, comparing Santa Monica's monthly sidewalk dining rates with those of neighboring cities such as Culver City and Beverly Hills. The findings reveal a significant variance, with Santa Monica's current rates ($2.30 - $4.09 per square foot) notably surpassing those of comparable locations in Beverly Hills ($1.00 - $1.75 per square foot) and Culver City ($1.03 per square foot). Even when considering Beverly Hills' higher retail rental rates, their sidewalk dining fees remain substantially lower than Santa Monica's.
Category City of Santa Monica City of Beverly
Hills
City of Culver
City
Sidewalk Dining Rate per SF
(Monthly)
Depends on location & alcohol
service
$2.30 -$4.09 per SF
Depends on
location
$1.00 -$1.75 per
SF
$1.08 per SF
Sidewalk Dining Rate Per SF
(Annual)
$27.60 -$49.08 per SF $12.00 -$21.00 per
SF
$13.00 per SF
For context, DTSM, Inc. staff calculated sidewalk dining fees using one outdoor dining model with site conditions that can be found across all three cities. The example used was a full-service restaurant with the highest sidewalk dining rates per SF that serves alcohol and occupies 210 square feet of space in the public right of way. The fee comparison breakdown has been included below.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1105 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 2 Category City of Santa Monica City of Beverly
Hills
City of Culver
City
Location Third Street
Promenade
North Rodeo Drive Culver Blvd
Sidewalk Dining Fees per SF
(Annual)
=$858.90
$4.09 x 210 SF
=$367.50
1.75 x 210 SF
=$226.80
1.08 x 210 SF
After conducting the initial fee study, DTSM. Inc staff reached out to the City of West Hollywood Community Development Department to obtain information about their monthly sidewalk dining fees. The City of West Hollywood confirmed that businesses using sidewalk dining in the public right of way pay a monthly fee of $1 per sq. ft. ($12 per sq. ft annually), with an additional monthly fee of $1 per sq. ft. for restaurants that serve alcohol. In total, a restaurant serving alcohol that is using sidewalk space in the public right of way is paying a monthly fee of $2 per sq. ft. ($24.00 per sq. ft. annually). In comparison to Santa Monica, the City of West Hollywood’s sidewalk dining fees are less than half of what businesses on the Third Street Promenade are required to pay.
In addition to the fee study, DTSM, Inc. staff reached out to local brokers that have commercial listings on the Third Street Promenade. We repeatedly heard that it remains challenging to lease space on all three blocks of the Promenade, and it is especially difficult to convince restaurants to sign a lease. Moreover, the brokers who provided feedback were in support of significantly lowering or eliminating sidewalk dining fees as a way to attract restaurants to the Third Street Promenade.
After extensive consideration, the DTSM, Inc. Board proposes the following changes to the current ordinances governing outdoor dining in Downtown Santa Monica:
For Existing Businesses:
Waive all Downtown Santa Monica outdoor dining license fees for one year.
In Year 2, establish the sidewalk dining rate at $1
per square foot per month, with annual CPI adjustments ranging from a minimum of 3% to a maximum of 5%.
For New Businesses:
Waive all Downtown Santa Monica outdoor dining license fees for one year from the date of opening.
In Year 2, establish the sidewalk dining rate at $1
per square foot per month, with annual CPI increases subject to a minimum of 3% and a maximum of 5%.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1106 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 3 It is essential to acknowledge the challenges facing our Downtown district, particularly the task of attracting new dining establishments, especially along the Third Street Promenade. Coupled with imminent increases in the minimum wage to $17.27 per hour, escalating operational expenses, and shortages in staffing, our existing businesses require additional support.
We firmly believe that implementing the proposed reduction in fees reflects a strategic approach to enhancing the appeal of Downtown Santa Monica as a destination for dining and entertainment. It also signals to prospective businesses that Santa Monica is committed to creating a favorable environment for investment and growth and ensuring the long-term prosperity of downtown businesses. We express our sincere gratitude for your thoughtful consideration of these recommendations and for your support of Downtown businesses.
Sincerely,
Andrew Thomas, LPM
Chief Executive Officer
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
1351 Third Street Promenade, Ste. 201
Santa Monica, CA 90401
310.393.8355 (Office)
Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | TikTok
Sign up for our newsletter
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1107 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) May 20, 2024
Mr. Phil Brock, Mayor
and Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Sidewalk Dining Fees in Downtown Santa Monica
Dear Mayor Phil Brock, Honorable Council Members, and Esteemed City Staff, The Board of Directors of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM, Inc.) is advocating for a reduction in outdoor dining fees in Downtown Santa Monica.
This proposed update aims to eliminate the competitive advantage that other communities currently enjoy over Santa Monica. Moreover, it underscores the city’s commitment to incentivizing investment, development, and business growth in the downtown area.
By reducing outdoor dining fees, Santa Monica can level the playing field and create a more attractive environment for businesses compared to neighboring communities. This adjustment aligns with the city's broader goals of fostering economic development and supporting the local business community.
To inform the discussion of the Board, DTSM, Inc. staff conducted a thorough fee study, comparing Santa Monica's monthly sidewalk dining rates with those of neighboring cities such as Culver City and Beverly Hills. The findings reveal a significant variance, with Santa Monica's current rates ($2.30 - $4.09 per square foot) notably surpassing those of comparable locations in Beverly Hills ($1.00 - $1.75 per square foot) and Culver City ($1.03 per square foot). Even when considering Beverly Hills' higher retail rental rates, their sidewalk dining fees remain substantially lower than Santa Monica's.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1108 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Category City of Santa
Monica
City of Beverly
Hills
City of Culver
City
Sidewalk Dining Rate
per SF (Monthly)
Depends on
location & alcohol
service
$2.30 -$4.09 per SF
Depends on
location
$1.00 -$1.75 per
SF
$1.08 per SF
Sidewalk Dining Rate
Per SF (Annual)
$27.60 -$49.08 per
SF
$12.00 -$21.00
per SF
$13.00 per SF
For context, DTSM, Inc. staff calculated sidewalk dining fees using one outdoor dining model with site conditions that can be found across all three cities. The example used was a full-service restaurant with the highest sidewalk dining rates per SF that serves alcohol and occupies 210 square feet of space in the public right of way. The fee comparison breakdown has been included below.
Category City of Santa
Monica
City of Beverly Hills City of Culver City
Location Third Street
Promenade
North Rodeo Drive Culver Blvd
Sidewalk Dining
Fees per SF
(Annual)
=$858.90
$4.09 x 210 SF
=$367.50
1.75 x 210 SF
=$226.80
1.08 x 210 SF
After conducting the initial fee study, DTSM. Inc staff reached out to the City of West Hollywood Community Development Department to obtain information about their monthly sidewalk dining fees. The City of West Hollywood confirmed that businesses using sidewalk dining in the public right of way pay a monthly fee of $1 per sq. ft. ($12 per sq. ft annually), with an additional monthly fee of $1 per sq. ft. for restaurants that serve alcohol. In total, a restaurant serving alcohol that is using sidewalk space in the public right of way is paying a monthly fee of $2 per sq. ft. ($24.00 per sq. ft. annually). In comparison to Santa Monica, the City of West Hollywood’s sidewalk dining fees are less than half of what businesses on the Third Street Promenade are required to pay. 1351 Third Street Promenade, Suite 201, Santa Monica, CA I 310.393.8355 I [email protected] Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1109 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) In addition to the fee study, DTSM, Inc. staff reached out to local brokers that have commercial listings on the Third Street Promenade. We repeatedly heard that it remains challenging to lease space on all three blocks of the Promenade, and it is especially difficult to convince restaurants to sign a lease. Moreover, the brokers who provided feedback were in support of significantly lowering or eliminating sidewalk dining fees as a way to attract restaurants to the Third Street Promenade.
After extensive consideration, the DTSM, Inc. Board proposes the following changes to the current ordinances governing outdoor dining in Downtown Santa Monica:
For Existing Businesses:
● Waive all Downtown Santa Monica outdoor dining license fees for one year.
● In Year 2, establish the sidewalk dining rate at $1 per square foot per month, with annual CPI adjustments ranging from a minimum of 3% to a maximum of 5%.
For New Businesses:
● Waive all Downtown Santa Monica outdoor dining license fees for one year from the date of opening.
● In Year 2, establish the sidewalk dining rate at $1 per square foot per month, with annual CPI increases subject to a minimum of 3% and a maximum of 5%.
It is essential to acknowledge the challenges facing our Downtown district, particularly the task of attracting new dining establishments, especially along the Third Street Promenade. Coupled with imminent increases in the minimum wage to $17.27 per hour, escalating operational expenses, and shortages in staffing, our existing businesses require additional support.
We firmly believe that implementing the proposed reduction in fees reflects a strategic approach to enhancing the appeal of Downtown Santa Monica as a destination for dining and entertainment. It also signals to prospective businesses that Santa Monica is committed to creating a favorable environment for investment and growth and ensuring the long-term prosperity of downtown 1351 Third Street Promenade, Suite 201, Santa Monica, CA I 310.393.8355 I [email protected] Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1110 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) businesses. We express our sincere gratitude for your thoughtful consideration of these recommendations and for your support of Downtown businesses.
Sincerely,
Andrew Thomas, CEO
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
cc: DTSM, Inc. Board of Directors
David White, City Manager
David Martin, Community Development Director
Jennifer Taylor, Economic Development Director
Haley Favre-Smith, Business License Administrator
1351 Third Street Promenade, Suite 201, Santa Monica, CA I 310.393.8355 I [email protected] Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1111 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 4 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2024 12:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: May 28, 2024 Santa Monica City Council Agenda Item 7A Study Session: Public Safety in Downtown Santa Monica
Attachments: Downtown Private Security Continuation 05.24.24.docx.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Phil Brock, Honorable Council Members, and Esteemed City Staff, The Board of Directors of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM, Inc.) respectfully requests that the City of Santa Monica fund the continuation of the Downtown Santa Monica Private Security Program, effective December 1, 2024.
The services contracted by DTSM, Inc. have rapidly become essential in supplementing public safety in Downtown Santa Monica. Since the launch of the one-year pilot program on December 1, 2023, private security officers have consistently engaged in thousands of interactions each month, saved lives, made arrests, and put themselves at risk for the sake of public safety.
DTSM, Inc. initiated and funded this $1.7M pilot program to respond to the conditions in Downtown Santa Monica. It has never been the mandate of DTSM, Inc. to supplement public safety. However, we could not ignore the calls from businesses, visitors, and residents to address the realities and perceptions of safety in our district.
To fund the one-year pilot program, DTSM, Inc. significantly reduced our hospitality Ambassador program and drew from our reserves. Once the pilot period concludes, DTSM, Inc. will not have the resources to continue funding the private security program.
We firmly believe that the City of Santa Monica is responsible for public safety, and the Downtown Santa Monica Private Security Program is crucial for maintaining it. Therefore, DTSM, Inc. urges the City of Santa Monica to prioritize public safety in Downtown Santa Monica and fund the continuation of the Downtown Santa Monica Private Security Program, effective December 1, 2024.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request and your support of the Downtown community.
I can discuss this matter anytime at your and the staff's convenience.
Sincerely,
Andrew Thomas, LPM
Chief Executive Officer
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
1351 Third Street Promenade, Ste. 201
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1112 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 5 310.393.8355 (Office)
Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | TikTok
Sign up for our newsletter
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1113 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) May 24, 2024
Mr. Phil Brock, Mayor
and Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Public Safety in Downtown Santa Monica
Dear Mayor Phil Brock, Honorable Council Members, and Esteemed City Staff, The Board of Directors of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM,Inc.) respectfully requests that the City of Santa Monica fund the continuation of the Downtown Santa Monica Private Security Program, effective December 1, 2024.
The services contracted by DTSM, Inc. have rapidly become essential in supplementing public safety in Downtown Santa Monica. Since the launch of the one-year pilot program on December 1, 2023, private security officers have consistently engaged in thousands of interactions each month, saved lives, made arrests, and put themselves at risk for the sake of public safety.
DTSM, Inc. initiated and funded this $1.7M pilot program to respond to the conditions in Downtown Santa Monica. It has never been the mandate of DTSM, Inc. to supplement public safety. However, we could not ignore the calls from businesses, visitors, and residents to address the realities and perceptions of safety in our district.
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1114 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) To fund the one-year pilot program, DTSM, Inc. significantly reduced our hospitality Ambassador program and drew from our reserves. Once the pilot period concludes, DTSM, Inc. will not have the resources to continue funding the private security program.
We firmly believe that the City of Santa Monica is responsible for public safety, and the Downtown Santa Monica Private Security Program is crucial for maintaining it. Therefore, DTSM, Inc. urges the City of Santa Monica to prioritize public safety in Downtown Santa Monica and fund the continuation of the Downtown Santa Monica Private Security Program, effective December 1, 2024.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request and your support of the Downtown community. I can discuss this matter anytime at your and the staff's convenience.
Sincerely,
Andrew Thomas, CEO
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
cc: DTSM, Inc. Board of Directors
David White, City Manager
Jennifer Taylor, Economic Development Director
1351 Third Street Promenade, Suite 201, Santa Monica, CA I 310.393.8355 I [email protected] Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1115 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 6 David Yakobson
From: Alejandra Villeda
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 5:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Diana Hernandez; Stelios Makrides; Diana Hernandez
Subject: Item 7.A. - Recommendation to City Council from the Airport Commission Attachments: 5-16-24 AC Approved Recommendation for CC.pdf Hello,
Attached is the recommendation for City Council that the Airport Commission unanimously approved during the special meeting held on Thursday, May 16, 2024.
Kind Regards,
Ale Villeda
Staff Assistant III
Office: (310) 458-8591
Direct: (310) 458-2201 ext. 5738
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1116 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Mayor Brock, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, City Council Members, and City Manager David White
Diane Reynolds, Chair, Airport Commission
May 20, 2024
5/16/2024 Airport Commission Recommendation to City Council On May 16, 2024, the Airport Commission unanimously passed the following motion:
Recognizing the significant likelihood of environmental remediation at the airport necessary due to aeronautical use, we strongly recommend that the Council expedite the environmental site assessment (including but not limited to considering the possibility of a sole-source contract for the environmental assessment consultant) to determine the extent and anticipated costs of environmental remediation as quickly as possible.
Further, we encourage a regular reassessment of aeronautical rates and charges to recalibrate the calculations to ensure that aeronautical funds can be used for any required remediation.
Sincerely,
Diane Reynolds, Chair
Andrew Wilder, Vice-Chair
Geoff Neri, Commissioner
Joe Pertel, Commissioner
Margaret Griffin, Commissioner
Santa Monica Airport Commission
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1117 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 1 David Yakobson
From: Dolores Sloan
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 1:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Stephanie Reich; Michelle M. Hugard; Regina Szilak
Subject: Landmarks Commission/CRJ Social Justice Framework Budget Requests Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Councilmembers:
In June 2022, the City Council gave direction to the Landmarks Commission to work with the Committee on Racial Justice (CRJ) and other groups to develop a framework of social justice when reviewing potential Landmarks. The Working Group on Social Justice/Equity in Preservation is pleased to announce that it has completed its draft report entitled, A Place for Everyone in Santa Monica’s History. This draft report will be reviewed by the Landmarks Commission on June 10, 2024 for final approval, and it will be submitted to City Council later this year. This project was the culmination of two-year partnership between a subcommittee of the Landmarks Commission and the Committee on Racial Justice (CRJ), as requested by City Council. It outlines the Working Group’s research and provides several substantive recommendations for ensuring social equity in the course of implementation of the Santa Monica Landmarks Ordinance.
Some of these recommendations will require budget requests to City Council.
Originally, the Working Group was hoping to submit this report for review and final approval by the full Landmarks Commission at its May 13, 2024 meeting and in time for the City Council’s upcoming budget meeting at the end of May. However, the Landmarks Commission hearing has since been continued until June 10, 2024 . Although we do not have any official budget requests at this time, there is a possibility that, subject to the review and official adoption of the report by the full Landmarks Commission, a budget request for implementation of certain recommendations may be forthcoming later this year.
We look forward to presenting the Landmarks Commission recommendations in the near future, and we thank City Council for its continued support of this important work.
Best,
Dolores Sloan, Member, Landmarks Commission Subcommittee on Social Justice / Equity in Preservation Pam O’Connor, Member, Landmarks Commission Subcommittee on Social Justice / Equity in Preservation Tara Barauskas, Committee for Social Justice
Dolores Sloan
Landmarks Commissioner
City of Santa Monica
Immediate Past Chair
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1118 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) 2 Member of Subcommittees:
Public Education and Media Outreach
Ordinance Revision
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.m
Packet Pg. 1119 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, and FY 2024-26 Biennial CIP Budget) Vertical Deflection Speed Reduction Treatments
Split Table
Hump
Offset Table
Cushion
Table
Longer & more flat
Residential <= 35 mph, 4 lanes
<= 30 mph, 2 lanes
Designed for
emergency response
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.n
Packet Pg. 1120 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Ocean Park
Hill St
Ashland Ave
Marine St
Kinney St
Strand St
Hollister AveWadsworth
Bicknell Ave
D D P
Traffic Calming Toolbox
• New crosswalks
• Flashing beacons
• Advance special markings
• Extend parking to off peak
• Consistent with Pacific Ave
• Expand ‘rest in red’
• Corridor timing
• Pedestrian/driveway signals
• Speed limit on pavement
• Transverse markings
$10K to
$40K
$74K to $192K
$94K to
$187K
$20K to $30K
$208K to $459K
Reflects ~25% savings with bundling
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.n
Packet Pg. 1121 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.n
Packet Pg. 1122 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, 48’ curb to curb
Approximate allocation:
Four 10’ travel lanes with 9’ center (either concrete
raised median, turn lane, or painted median)
9’ 10’ 9’-6” 9’-6” 10’
Cross Section Constraints
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.n
Packet Pg. 1123 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, • 20’ width (each direction)
• Fire truck needs 8’-8” split to split
• Assume right lane has stopped vehicles, moved over for Fire truck • The split would be in the travel lane’s wheel path
Split Speed Table Constraints
10’
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.n
Packet Pg. 1124 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, • Distance required to divert and re
-enter, ~100’ minimum
• Raised concrete median intermittently throughout the corridor • Turning lanes (some segments) • Closely spaced intersections (some segments) 4: Offset Speed Table Constraints
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.n
Packet Pg. 1125 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, City Council – May 28, 2024
Budget Study Session for the FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget and FY 2024-26 Biennial Capital Improvement Program
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1126 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, • Summary of five-year forecast
• Contingent liabilities and strategy for fiscal stability • Proposed FY 2024-25 Operating Budget adjustments
• Proposed FY 2024-26 Capital Improvement Program Budget • City Fees and Rates
• Other business
Agenda – Budget Study Session
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1127 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, The Budget is the result of collaboration between the community, City Departments led by the City Manager’s Office, and the City Council June 2023
Public Hearing and
Adoption of the 1st
year of the Biennial
Budget and 2nd year
of the Biennial CIP
Budget
October 2023
Staff reports on
FY 2022-23 year-end
budget performance,
proposes
adjustments
February 2024
Staff reports on
midyear budget
performance,
updated forecast,
proposes
adjustments
May 28, 2024
Proposed FY 2024-25
operating Budget and
FY 2024-26 biennial CIP
Budget presented to
City Council
June 25, 2024
Public Hearing and
Adoption of the 2nd
year of the Biennial
Budget and 1st year
of the Biennial CIP
Budget
Santa Monica's Budget Process
March 2023
Council Priority
Setting for the FY
2023-25 Biennial
Budget
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1128 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Challenges remaining
• Inflation and high interest rates
• Increased insurance and medical costs
• Impact of remote and hybrid work on
consumer behavior
• Deferred infrastructure and maintenance
• Contingent legal liabilities
• Program and service restorations
• Reduced CIP funding and Reserves
• Labor negotiations
Five Year General Fund Forecast
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1129 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Capital needs unmet
• In FY 24-25 at 61% of
pre-COVID level
• Deferred maintenance
is not sustainable
• No additional
investments through
forecast period
• $458M in projects
unfunded across all
funds
Capital Needs Remain Unfunded
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1130 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, • Reserves provide financial
stability, cushion against
financial shocks
• Unrestricted reserves below
pre-COVID levels
• Legal Settlements
• Maintain services during
COVID
• FY 2022-23 reserves are
needed for contingent
liabilities and working capital
General Fund Reserve Levels
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1131 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Funds Transferred from Other Funds
Total $52.1
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1132 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Strategy to Safeguard Fiscal Stability
Continue to seek compensation from excess insurance providers Sale of city-owned properties
CIP Funding Deferral - fifteen one-time and ongoing projects over two years
Suspend Housing Trust Fund payments – suspend payment over two years, excluding payments that cover Preserving Our Diversity (POD) Program and staffing costs
Other initiatives – Existing partner agreements and/or Judgement Obligation Bonds
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1133 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget
Citywide Expenditures - $763.5 million*
• FTE Change 11.9 FTE:
• +14.3 Permanent
• -2.4 As-needed
General Fund - $462.5 million
• FTE Change 4.0 FTE:
• +6.3 Permanent
• -2.3 As-needed
*Citywide expenditures are net of reimbursements and transfers between funds $91.8
$13.0
$671.7
$449.5
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
Citywide* General Fund
(in millions)
Operating
Capital
$763.5
$462.5
Budget Overview – FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1134 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Other Adjustment (~$216,000)
• City Attorney Staff Retention
(Consumer Protection Funds)
General Fund Operating Budget Adjustments
Revenue Supported (~$266,000)
• Enhance Community Programs
• Pass-thru EV Charger Electricity
Adjustments (~$532,000)
• Equity Adjustments &
Reclassifications
NO COST adjustments to strengthen
services in:
• Customer Service (311 and Public Landscape)
• Communications
• Library Operations
• Community Recreation Programs
• Parking Operations & Enforcement
• Multimodal Transportation Network Alignment
• Staff Recruitment & Retention
Total FTE Changes 4.0
Permanent 6.3
Increase of approximately $1 million: As-Needed (2.3)
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1135 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Self-Sustaining: Airport, BBB, Cemetery, Housing Authority, RRR, Stormwater, Water, Wastewater
Requiring Attention: Vehicle Management, Information Technology & Replacement - future year repayments of suspended contributions General Fund Impact: Beach and Pier subsidies to offset revenue losses and support critical capital expenditures
Other Funds Financial Status
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1136 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Net increase of approximately $3.9 million:
Other Funds Revenue Adjustments
New Funding Levels
& Pass-Thru
Project Cost
Reimbursements
Fees & Rates
and Other
Gas Tax (-$0.2m)
Local Return (+$1.1m)
Wastewater (+$0.5m)
Big Blue Bus (+$1.4m)
Grants (+$2.5m)
Info Tech (+$0.7m)
Airport (-$3.2m)
Beach (+$0.8m)
All Other (+$0.4m)
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1137 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, • Equity Adjustments and Reclassifications (BBB Fund, Vehicle Management Fund, and Water Fund) - $1.6 million
• Increased POD Program and Art of Recovery Program funding (Special Revenue Source Fund) - $1.1 million
• Additional Positions - $1.1 million to:
• enhance event programming (Beach Fund)
• support the City’s growing water/wastewater infrastructure (Water Fund and Wastewater Fund)
• further integrate multimodal transportation (BBB Fund) Other Funds Operating Expenditure Adjustments
Total FTE Changes 8.0
Permanent 8.0
As-Needed 0.01
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1138 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Proposed FY 2024-26 Biennial
Capital Improvement Program Budget
Capital Improvement Program
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1139 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, CIP Budget Process & Funding Sources
• CIP Budget Process
Biennial Budget – FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26
Five-year planning period FY 2024-25 through FY 2028-29 CIP review and recommendations to Council
• Funding Sources
General Fund
Enterprise Funds
Grant Funds
Local Return Funds
CIP Budget Process & Funding Sources
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1140 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, General Fund CIP Allotment (in millions)
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1141 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, A. Mandated Activities
1. Necessary for health or safety reasons
2. Federally or State required
3. Maintain existing facilities, infrastructure or equipment
4. Projects underway
CIP Budget Priorities
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1142 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, B. Council Priorities
1. Clean & Safe
2. Addressing Homelessness
3. Economic Growth and Cultural Vitality
4. Justice, Equity, and Diversity
5. Sustainable & Connected
CIP Budget Priorities
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1143 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, C. Fiscally Responsible Projects
1. Improve operational efficiency and achieve cost savings
2. Generate revenue
3. Outside funding has been obtained
CIP Budget Priorities
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1144 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, 73 Projects in the Proposed Budget
(20 – General Fund, 53 – Other Funds)
All Funds
FY 2024-25: $91.8 million
FY 2025-26: $102.7 million
General Fund
FY 2024-25: $15.9 million > $13 million ($2.9 million)
FY 2025-26: $19.9 million >$15.3 million ($4.6 million) CIP Budget Summary by Fund
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1145 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, CIP Diverse Funding Sources
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1146 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, CIP Budget Trends (in millions)
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1147 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Proposed General Fund CIP Projects
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1148 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, CIP Held Projects
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1149 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Maintaining Clean and Safe Public Spaces
Park Improvements and Planning
Water & Stormwater Projects
Modernization of critical City Infrastructure
CIP Program Areas of Focus
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1150 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Maintaining Clean and Safe Public Spaces
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1151 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Park Improvements and Planning
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1152 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Water & Stormwater Projects
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1153 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Modernization of Critical City Infrastructure
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1154 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Estimated at
$300M
Infrastructure Maintenance
New Infrastructure or Technology
Parks
Pier and Beach
Streetscape and Lighting
Miscellaneous
Estimated at
$458 million
Unfunded CIP Categories
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1155 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Unfunded Projects
• Parking Structure 1 Seismic
Retrofit
• Memorial Park Expansion
• Lincoln Neighborhood Corridor
Streetscape
• Street Light Upgrades
• Vehicle and Computer
Replacement
• Fire Station 3 and Fire
Station 7
• Airport ParkExpansion
• City Yards Modernization – Michigan
Ave Improvements
• Historic City Hall North Wing
Building System Upgrade
• Pier Deck Upgrades
• Pier West End Upgrade
Unfunded CIP Projects (Not Comprehensive)
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1156 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, $46M In Pending Grant Applications
• Bus replacements and mobility projects
• Lincoln Blvd Neighborhood Corridor Plan (LiNC)
$16M Not Awarded
• Freeway Capping
• Memorial Park Expansion and Gandara Park Improvements $35M Successful Grant Awards
• Bus replacements
• City Yards Microgrid
• Groundwater Recharge Well SM-11i
• Lincoln Blvd Neighborhood Corridor Plan
(LiNC)
• Wilshire Blvd Safety Study Phase 2
Grants for CIP Projects
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1157 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, • Community Development Fees • Fire Department Fees • Library Fees • Police Fees • Public Works Department Fees • Airport Fees and Rates • Recreation and Arts Fees City Fees and Rates
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1158 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, • June 25th
• Public Hearing: Adopt the FY 2024-25 Operating and FY 2024-26 Capital Improvement Program Budget
• Final Changes
• Resolutions
• Seek Direction on Revising Cannabis Rates
Next Steps
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1159 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, Tonight’s Recommended Actions
• Review and provide direction on the FY 2024-25 Proposed Operating Budget adjustments and FY 2024-26 Proposed Biennial CIP Budget
• Direct staff to proceed with setting the budget adoption hearing on June 25, 2024
• Provide direction for staff to evaluate other funding mechanisms such as general obligation bonds to support the City’s CIP in future years
• Review and provide direction on new and changes to existing fees Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.o
Packet Pg. 1160 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, • Eliminate two one-time projects in CIP Held List: Projects were originally suspended as a strategy to set-aside the funding to address contingent liabilities. o Annual Paving and Sidewalk Repair Program
o CCTV Security Camera Program
• No increase to Citywide Facilities Renewal Program: No increase beyond base funding of $2.0 million. Funding was to increase starting in FY 2026-27. • Use of Measure CS funds: Use any funds available above and beyond what is needed to cover current budgeted ongoing expenses (appropriated in FY 2023- 24). These funds are from the projected recovery in tourism, starting in FY 2025- 26, which increase TOT revenues.
Illustrative Tradeoffs for adding 4 Police Officers
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.p
Packet Pg. 1161 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, • Eliminate three one-time projects in CIP Held List: Projects were originally suspended as a strategy to set-aside the funding to address contingent liabilities.
o Annual Paving and Sidewalk Repair Program
o CCTV Security Camera Program
o SM28/Celebrate28
• No increase to Citywide Facilities Renewal Program: No increase beyond base funding of $2.0 million. Funding was to increase starting in FY 2026-27. • Eliminate one-time funding for Memorial Park PLD Relocation: Project is required in order to move forward with Memorial Park Expansion project. • Use of Measure CS funds: Use any funds available above and beyond what is needed to cover budgeted ongoing expenses (appropriated in FY 2023-24).
These funds are from the projected recovery in tourism, starting in FY 2025-26, which increase TOT revenues.
Illustrative Tradeoffs for adding 8 Police Officers
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
Item 7-A
May 28, 2024
7.A.p
Packet Pg. 1162 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6042 : FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget, City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 28, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Recommendation to accept Alexis Hemphill-Elsea's resignation from the Human Services Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy.
Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Resignation Email
16.A
Packet Pg. 1163
1 Xavier Mota
From: Ivette Gomez
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 10:14 AM
To: Xavier Mota
Subject: FW: Commission Meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Xavier,
See Human Services Commissioner, Alexis Hemphill-Elsea, resignation below.
Let me know if anything else is needed from my end.
Thank you,
Ivette
From: Alexis Hemphill-Elsea <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 1:56 PM
To: Bruce Leddy <[email protected]>
Cc: Ivette Gomez <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Commission Meeting
Hi Bruce, Ivette,
Thank you for your email. I was unable to attend last meeting as I had a conflict with an event for my daughter's school. I was not under the impression that this would be an issue; don't we have 3 meetings that can be missed. I have not missed any meetings until this one over the course of my time on the Commission so I am not sure my absence warranted this email? That said, I have given some thought to my time with this Commission and feel that my time is better served elsewhere. My daughter and I are part of the National Charity League and I have decided to continue my philanthropic work there. I feel I make a greater impact through that organization and have a direct impact on at risk individuals in a more meaningful way.
Thanks again for the time.
Warmly,
Alexis
From: Bruce Leddy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 8:55 AM
To: Alexis Hemphill-Elsea <[email protected]>
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1164 Attachment: Resignation Email (6437 : Resignation: Human Svcs. Comm. A.Hemphill-Elsea (2 mins.)) 2 Cc: Ivette Gomez <[email protected]>
Subject: Commission Meeting
Hi Alexis - Hope this finds you well. You were missed at the HSC meeting last week. I'm just checking to see if you still plan to continue with the Commission as it's crucial we have good attendance moving forward. We only had 5 people at the last meeting (one resignation, one sick out, one travel, and you were missing), just enough for a quorum but one commissioner had to leave early so we didn't get to all the agenda items and that's very unfortunate since we only meet quarterly.
We hope you will continue to serve with the commission but if things have gotten too busy for you, please let me know as the replacement process takes a long time and we would want to get it started right away.
Thanks -
Bruce
Bruce Leddy
Chair, Human Services Commission
[email protected]
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1165 Attachment: Resignation Email (6437 : Resignation: Human Svcs. Comm. A.Hemphill-Elsea (2 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 28, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Human Services Commission for a term ending on June 30, 2026.
Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Applicant List
16.B
Packet Pg. 1166
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Human Services Commission
Name Application Date
Jaffe, Mark
Koza, Maxine R.
Muntaner, Zoe
Nguyen, Krystina
01/26/2024
05/14/2024
05/14/2024
05/19/2024
Susman, Matthew B.* 12/26/2023
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 5
*Currently serves on the Disabili�es
Commission
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1167 Attachment: Applicant List (6438 : 16.B. Appointment: Human Svcs. Comm. (5 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 28, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, Interim City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Recommendation to rescind the appointment of Jeff Bush to the Commission of Sustainability, Environmental Justice and the Environment; and, appoint to that unscheduled vacancy for a term ending on June 30, 2024.
Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Email Declining Appointment
B. Applicant List
16.C
Packet Pg. 1168
From: Jeff Bush
To: Clerk Mailbox
Cc: Xavier Mota
Subject: Appointment to the Sustainability Commission
Date: Friday, May 17, 2024 9:07:28 AM
I was appointed at the last City Council Meeting to the Sustainability Commission. I am currently a member of the Audit Subcommittee.
I would welcome the opportunity to serve on both committees/commissions.
I have nearly three years left on my appointment to the Audit Subcommittee and I want to continue in that role.
I understand that the appointment on the Sustainability Commission was for about one month - term ending June 30, 2024.
If City Policy does not allow me to serve concurrently on both the Audit Subcommittee and the Sustainability Commission, then I will relinquish my appointment to the Sustainability Committee.
I want to continue serving on the Audit Subcommittee for the full term.
Jeff Bush
16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1169 Attachment: Email Declining Appointment (6443 : 16.C.Rescind and Appoint:Environment Comm. (5 mins.)) City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Commission on Sustainability,
Environmental Justice, and the
Environment
Name Application Date
Newbold, Gerda
Walker, Olivia
05/07/2024
03/08/2024
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 2
16.C.b
Packet Pg. 1170 Attachment: Applicant List (6443 : 16.C.Rescind and Appoint:Environment Comm. (5 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 28, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, Interim City Clerk, City Clerk 16 Items Subject: Request of Mayor Brock that the City Manager and City Attorney develop policies that regulate tree removal as a result of new development including exploring replacement requirements as part of the development or on public property to protect and preserve the City’s tree canopy. In developing this policy, the City Manager is being asked to consider requiring three replacement trees for every tree removed.
Prepared By: Maria Dacanay, Acting Assistant City Clerk Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
16.D
Packet Pg. 1171
1 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 9:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Cc: David White; Douglas Sloan; Susan Cola; Matthew Wells Subject: May 28, 2024 Council Meeting - Item 16.D. - Tree Removal and Replacement Requirements - SUPPORT
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Brock and Esteemed Councilmembers:
I SUPPORT this item in concept and I thank you, Mayor Brock, for adding it to tomorrow night's agenda as a 16. Item.
Nearby cities like Pasadena and Los Angeles have tree ordinances that may be worth scrutinizing as Santa Monica considers a new regulation.
Thank you for understanding the importance of Santa Monica's Urban Forest and our tree canopy - it's a priceless partner in our efforts to mitigate climate change and to shade and cool our city as it densifies.
Sincerely,
Ann Bowman
Resident, 28 years
Item 16-D
May 28, 2024
Item 16-D
May 28, 2024
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1172 Attachment: Written Comments (6445 : Trees) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 28, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, Interim City Clerk, City Clerk 16 Items Subject: Request of Mayor Brock, Vice Mayor Negrete, and Councilmember de la Torre that the City Manager and City Attorney evaluate the attached request from Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. and return to City Council with recommendations to reduce the per square foot monthly fees associated with the use of sidewalks for outdoor dining on the Third Street Promenade to support the City’s economic recovery. In addition, the City Manager and City Attorney are also being asked to evaluate and return to City Council with recommendations for incentives such as waiving fees for a period of time to spur outdoor dining on sidewalks on the Third Street Promenade.
Prepared By: Maria Dacanay, Acting Assistant City Clerk Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Sidewalk Dining Fees Advocacy Letter 05.20.24
16.E
Packet Pg. 1173
May 20, 2024
Mr. Phil Brock, Mayor
and Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Sidewalk Dining Fees in Downtown Santa Monica
Dear Mayor Phil Brock, Honorable Council Members, and Esteemed City Staff, The Board of Directors of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM, Inc.) is advocating for a reduction in outdoor dining fees in Downtown Santa Monica.
This proposed update aims to eliminate the competitive advantage that other communities currently enjoy over Santa Monica. Moreover, it underscores the city’s commitment to incentivizing investment, development, and business growth in the downtown area.
By reducing outdoor dining fees, Santa Monica can level the playing field and create a more attractive environment for businesses compared to neighboring communities. This adjustment aligns with the city's broader goals of fostering economic development and supporting the local business community.
To inform the discussion of the Board, DTSM, Inc. staff conducted a thorough fee study, comparing Santa Monica's monthly sidewalk dining rates with those of neighboring cities such as Culver City and Beverly Hills. The findings reveal a significant variance, with Santa Monica's current rates ($2.30 - $4.09 per square foot) notably surpassing those of comparable locations in Beverly Hills ($1.00 - $1.75 per square foot) and Culver City ($1.03 per square foot). Even when considering Beverly Hills' higher retail rental rates, their sidewalk dining fees remain substantially lower than Santa Monica's.
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1174 Attachment: Sidewalk Dining Fees Advocacy Letter 05.20.24 (6446 : Sidewalk Dining) Category City of Santa
Monica
City of Beverly
Hills
City of Culver
City
Sidewalk Dining Rate
per SF (Monthly)
Depends on
location & alcohol
service
$2.30 -$4.09 per SF
Depends on
location
$1.00 -$1.75 per
SF
$1.08 per SF
Sidewalk Dining Rate
Per SF (Annual)
$27.60 -$49.08 per
SF
$12.00 -$21.00
per SF
$13.00 per SF
For context, DTSM, Inc. staff calculated sidewalk dining fees using one outdoor dining model with site conditions that can be found across all three cities. The example used was a full-service restaurant with the highest sidewalk dining rates per SF that serves alcohol and occupies 210 square feet of space in the public right of way. The fee comparison breakdown has been included below.
Category City of Santa
Monica
City of Beverly Hills City of Culver City
Location Third Street
Promenade
North Rodeo Drive Culver Blvd
Sidewalk Dining
Fees per SF
(Annual)
=$858.90
$4.09 x 210 SF
=$367.50
1.75 x 210 SF
=$226.80
1.08 x 210 SF
After conducting the initial fee study, DTSM. Inc staff reached out to the City of West Hollywood Community Development Department to obtain information about their monthly sidewalk dining fees. The City of West Hollywood confirmed that businesses using sidewalk dining in the public right of way pay a monthly fee of $1 per sq. ft. ($12 per sq. ft annually), with an additional monthly fee of $1 per sq. ft. for restaurants that serve alcohol. In total, a restaurant serving alcohol that is using sidewalk space in the public right of way is paying a monthly fee of $2 per sq. ft. ($24.00 per sq. ft. annually). In comparison to Santa Monica, the City of West Hollywood’s sidewalk dining fees are less than half of what businesses on the Third Street Promenade are required to pay. 1351 Third Street Promenade, Suite 201, Santa Monica, CA I 310.393.8355 I [email protected]
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1175 Attachment: Sidewalk Dining Fees Advocacy Letter 05.20.24 (6446 : Sidewalk Dining) In addition to the fee study, DTSM, Inc. staff reached out to local brokers that have commercial listings on the Third Street Promenade. We repeatedly heard that it remains challenging to lease space on all three blocks of the Promenade, and it is especially difficult to convince restaurants to sign a lease. Moreover, the brokers who provided feedback were in support of significantly lowering or eliminating sidewalk dining fees as a way to attract restaurants to the Third Street Promenade.
After extensive consideration, the DTSM, Inc. Board proposes the following changes to the current ordinances governing outdoor dining in Downtown Santa Monica:
For Existing Businesses:
● Temporarily waive all Downtown Santa Monica outdoor dining license fees for one year.
● In Year 2, establish the sidewalk dining rate at $1 per square foot per month, with annual CPI adjustments ranging from a minimum of 3% to a maximum of 5%.
For New Businesses:
● Waive all Downtown Santa Monica outdoor dining license fees for one year from the date of establishment.
● From Year 2 onwards, set the sidewalk dining rate at $1 per square foot per month, with annual CPI increases subject to a minimum of 3% and a maximum of 5%.
It is essential to acknowledge the challenges facing our Downtown district, particularly the task of attracting new dining establishments, especially along the Third Street Promenade. Coupled with imminent increases in the minimum wage to $17.27 per hour, escalating operational expenses, and shortages in staffing, our existing businesses require additional support.
We firmly believe that implementing the proposed reduction in fees reflects a strategic approach to enhancing the appeal of Downtown Santa Monica as a destination for dining and entertainment. It also signals to prospective businesses that Santa Monica is committed to creating a favorable environment for investment and growth and ensuring the long-term prosperity of downtown 1351 Third Street Promenade, Suite 201, Santa Monica, CA I 310.393.8355 I [email protected]
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1176 Attachment: Sidewalk Dining Fees Advocacy Letter 05.20.24 (6446 : Sidewalk Dining) businesses. We express our sincere gratitude for your thoughtful consideration of these recommendations and for your support of Downtown businesses.
Sincerely,
Andrew Thomas, CEO
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
cc: DTSM, Inc. Board of Directors
David White, City Manager
David Martin, Community Development Director
Jennifer Taylor, Economic Development Director
Haley Favre-Smith, Business License Administrator
1351 Third Street Promenade, Suite 201, Santa Monica, CA I 310.393.8355 I [email protected]
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1177 Attachment: Sidewalk Dining Fees Advocacy Letter 05.20.24 (6446 : Sidewalk Dining) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 28, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.F
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, Interim City Clerk, City Clerk 16 Items Subject: Request from Councilmember de la Torre and Vice Mayor Negrete that the City Council direct the City Manager to conduct a survey of cities within the Westside Cities Council of Governments and other charter cities across the state with populations comparable to Santa Monica. The survey should compare City Council compensation and benefits and the City Manager is to present the findings at the first Council meeting in July, with recommendations for next steps. The purpose of this survey is to assess whether the current compensation allows residents of varying income levels to serve on the City Council. By understanding how Santa Monica compares to other cities, the Council can consider placing a charter amendment on the November ballot to adjust compensation, making City Council service more accessible to residents with lower incomes.
Prepared By: Maria Dacanay, Acting Assistant City Clerk Approved Forwarded to Council
16.F
Packet Pg. 1178