Solana Beach City Council
September 25, 2024

1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026
p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com
REVIEWED DOCUMENTS:

Response to City of Solana Beach Comments
Bates Residence
403 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, California
GEI Job No. 23-14438, dated June 21, 2024
2 nd Application Submittal Geotechnical Review
Bates Residence Remodel
403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, California
UES Job No. 4830.2400013, dated April 28, 2024
Application Submittal Geotechnical Review
Bates Residence Remodel
403 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach, California
UES Job No. 4830.2400013, dated March 1, 2024
COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # C.1.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2024
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development Department – Joseph Lim, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Wildcoast Petition to Change Swami’s Marine Protected Area (MPA) Boundaries
BACKGROUND:

Wildcoast submitted a petition to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to modify the existing boundaries of the Swami’s State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) (Attachment 1) as part of a decadal review process for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in California. The initial Wildcoast proposal would keep the Swami’s MPA the same size but would generally shift of the entire MPA boundaries 300 to 600 feet to the south that would encompass all of the tidepools up to the mean high tide line at Tabletops, or Tide Park, near the City’s northern boundary with Encinitas. Based on an initial Staff review of the Wildcoast proposal, there does not appear to be a scientific rationale or justification for a boundary change as outlined in the City’s comment letter included as Attachment 2.

This proposal is similarly opposed by the City of Encinitas as outlined in their letter included as Attachment 3. State Parks also submitted a letter raising concerns about a boundary shift as noted in their comment letter which is included as Attachment 4.

Wildcoast notes in their petition an enforcement and compliance concern regarding tide pooling at the reef and indicates enforcement for taking of lobster is difficult at the southern boundary. Since Wildcoast is neither responsible for MPA compliance nor enforcement, the basis of these statements is unclear. Currently the southern boundary of the MPA is readily visually identifiable as it is co-terminus with the south end of a seawall located at 637 West Circle Drive, which is technically in the City of Encinitas’ jurisdiction. Wildcoast requests that the southern boundary be shifted approximately 300 - 600 feet further south and into the City of Solana Beach near Tide Park.

This is an informational item intended to educate the Council and public regarding this proposal. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council to consider facilitating additional public outreach meetings on this topic with CDFW, State Parks and the City of Encinitas, September 25, 2024
Swami’s MPA Boundary – Wildcoast Petition

as well as other interested stakeholders to address any concerns regarding the Wildcoast proposal.

DISCUSSION:

The protection of valued coastal resources, coastal access and protection of the public beach are paramount priorities in the City of Solana Beach. City Staff learned of the proposed boundary change for the Swami’s MPA only a few weeks before the item was scheduled for consideration by the California Fish and Game (CFG) Commission, Marine Resources Subcommittee, as part of their prioritization or “binning” process.

City Staff has raised concerns that the Wildcoast petition fails to site any specific compliance and/or management problems within the MPA as currently configured or how it would be remedied by a boundary change. In follow-up meetings and discussions with Wildcoast and staff from CDFW, no scientific rationale for a boundary change has been provided to date. Rather, there has been general reference to enforcement issues but those have similarly also not been substantiated to date.

City Staff notes that there is a single sign at the south end of the parking lot of Cardiff State Beach informing and educating the public regarding the existence of the Swami’s MPA and the importance of responsible tide pooling. At a minimum, additional signage, education and outreach will be a valuable tool for helping beach visitors to understand the existing rules and boundary of the MPA. City Staff has offered to place additional signage at the Tide Park beach access stairway to ensure beach visitors are aware of the presence of the existing MPA.

Based on Staff’s current understanding of the petition process for changing existing rules, regulations and boundaries, petitioners were invited to submit proposals to CDFW for consideration. However, there has been no formal vetting of the proposals on their merits or substance to date by CDFW. Instead, CDFW, through the Marine Resources Subcommittee of the CFG Commission, grouped the various petitions into “bins.” There are three bins for the MPA petitions with Bin 1 being the first group of petitions to be reviewed.

Petitions targeted to be included in Bin 1 were identified as having essentially no controversy; however, due to the lack of general community, or City Staff, outreach on the proposed MPA boundary changes, the binning process did not have the benefit of stakeholder input, so the true level of controversy was not measured nor accurately portrayed.

Both the City of Solana Beach and the City of Encinitas as well as California State Parks raised formal concerns regarding the proposed boundary shift of the Swami’s MPA.

These concerns were raised in a public forum (at the CDFW Marine Resources Subcommittee meeting of July 17th) and in writing (see Attachments 2, 3 and 4) and indicate lack of concurrence on the Wildcoast proposal to change the boundaries of the Swami’s MPA.

September 25, 2024
Swami’s MPA Boundary – Wildcoast Petition

There is a lack of alignment/consensus because the Wildcoast petition is not supported by the public agencies most likely to be affected and responsible for education, outreach and potential future enforcement efforts and actions. In addition, it is likely that the general beach going public is wholly unaware of the proposal to change the boundaries which would essentially make the entire rocky reef and tidepools off limits to beach visitors including children on educational field trips. Thus, the Wildcoast petition should not have been included in “Bin 1” due to the existence of controversy as noted by the City (see Attachment 2).

Regardless, the City has continued to coordinate with all parties and met in the field on August 1st to walk the MPA boundaries and discuss the Wildcoast proposal. Today’s meeting and presentation by Wildcoast is an outgrowth of our efforts to raise awareness of the potential changes to the existing Swami’s MPA. Wildcoast will also be presenting to the Encinitas City Council on October 23, 2024, to solicit community input and feedback.

Due to the lack of transparency on the process to date and the lack of scientific rationale for the boundary change being requested by Wildcoast, the City believes the petition is without merit and should be rejected by the CFG Commission. However, City Staff proposes that an educational outreach effort be initiated, and additional signs be posted to inform beach goers of the existing rules, regulations, and boundaries of the Swami’s MPA established in 2014, and that the issue of approving a boundary adjustment is without merit and should be revisited after the conclusion of the educational outreach campaign.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

A boundary change to an existing MPA would be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The California Department of Fish and Game would be the CEQA Lead Agency for the preparation of the CEQA documentation pursuant to the 2024 State CEQA Guidelines.

FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
September 25, 2024
Swami’s MPA Boundary – Wildcoast Petition

CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

This is an informational item. Staff is requesting direction from the City Council on next steps, if any, for community outreach and involvement.
_________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Wildcoast Petition to Change Swami’s MPA Boundaries

2. City of Solana Beach Letter to the California Fish and Game Commission

3. City of Encinitas Letter to the California Fish and Game Commission

4. California State Parks Letter to the California Fish and Game Commission

PETITION TO THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION FOR REGULATION CHANGE State of California – Fish and Game Commission
FGC 1 (Rev 06/19) Page 1 of 3

1. Name of primary contact person:

Person or organization requesting the change (Required) Lisa Gilfillan
Address: 2120 Jimmy Durante Blvd #106, Del Mar, CA 92014 Email address:

Telephone number:
[email protected]

2. Rulemaking Authority (Required) - Reference to the statutory or constitutional authority of the Commission to take the action requested: Authority cited: Sections 200, 205(c), 265, 399, 36725(e), Public Resources Code.
1590, 1591, 2860, 2861 and 6750, Fish and Game Code; and Sections 36725(a) and

3. Overview (Required) - WILDCOAST is an international non-profit that conserves coastal and marine ecosystems and addresses climate change through natural solutions. We often work in Collaborative group. We will reference the Collaborative Network’s partnership with the MPA Collaborative Network and serve as co-chairs for the San Diego MPA Vetted Regulation
Recommendations for this petition. Given the complete consensus received within the San other changes) across four MPAs. The proposed changes are as follows:

Diego MPA Collaborative, we are proposing four changes (one boundary change, and three ● Line/Row #162- affecting Swami’s SMCA: Our Reg recommendation= Shifting the entire South side)
shape South (from the lifeguard tower to State/Solana Beach line to cover tidepool on ● Line/Row #160, #164, & #170- affecting Batiquitos Lagoon No-Take SMCA, San Elijo Lagoon No-Take SMCA, & Famosa Slough No-Take SMCA: Our Reg recommendation= changing the purple to red for outreach purposes only, if boundaries remain the same

4. Rationale (Required) -
)
Tracking Number: (2023-26MPA
(Commission), you are required to su
To request a change to regulations under the authority of the California Fish and Game Commission bmit this completed form to: California Fish and Game
Commission, (physical address) 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1320, Sacramento, CA 95814, (mailing address) P.O. Box 944209, Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 or via email to [email protected]. Note: This form is not intended for listing petitions for threatened or endangered species (see Section 670.1 of Incomplete forms w
Title 14).
ill not be accepted. A petition is incomplete if it is not submitted on this form or fails to contain necessary information in each of the required categories listed on this form (Section I).

A petition will be rejected if it does not pertain to issues under the Commission’s authority. A petition may be denied if any petition requesting a functionally equivalent regulation change was considered within the previous 12 months and no information or data is being submitted beyond what was previously submitted. If you need help with this form, please contact Commission staff at (916) Please be su
SECTION I: Required Information.
653-4899 or [email protected].
ccinct. Responses for Section I should not exceed five pages \\tI1
State of California – Fish and Game Commission

PETITION TO THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION FOR REGULATION CHANGE FGC 1 (Rev 06/19) Page 2 of 3
The above proposed recommendations are based on WILDCOAST’s extensive MPA work in San Diego County and also through our collaboration with the MPA Collaborative Network (as a long-standing co-chair for San Diego County). These proposed recommendations came about after a robust discussion with local San Diego stakeholders on June 26, 2023, at the last San Diego MPA Collaborative meeting.

Line/Row #162- Swami’s SMCA: There is a compliance concern here regarding harmful tidepooling, especially at Seaside reef. Enforcement for take of lobster is difficult at the southern boundary since it splits two jurisdictions and the reef (hard to know where they are actually taking from and who is responsible for enforcing what). This proposed change keeps the same size MPA but covers the impacted tidepool area on the Southern boundary.

Additionally, the Lifeguard tower would serve as a clear boundary at the North end.

Line/Row #160, #164, & #170- affecting Batiquitos Lagoon No-Take SMCA, San Elijo Lagoon No-Take SMCA, & Famosa Slough No-Take SMCA: The compliance concerns in these locations are all the same- there is confusion amongst the general public around the purple No-Take SMCA designation versus a red SMR. It is therefore easier for the public to understand the regulations when there are fewer designations. It would simplify the rules if all No-Take areas were red for education and outreach purposes. It is anticipated that other MPA Collaborative members will be submitting similar petitions across the South Coast region.

Additionally, this change supports Decadal Review Prioritized Recommendation #15.

SECTION II: Optional Information

5. Date of Petition: November 28, 2023

6. Category of Proposed Change
☐ Sport Fishing
☐ Commercial Fishing
☐ Hunting
☐ Other, please specify: MPAs, Section 632.

7. The proposal is to: (To determine section number(s), see current year regulation booklet or https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs)
☐ Amend Title 14 Section(s):Westlaw regulations.
☐ Add New Title 14 Section(s): Click here to enter text. ☐ Repeal Title 14 Section(s): Click here to enter text.

8. If the proposal is related to a previously submitted petition that was rejected, specify the tracking number of the previously submitted petition Click here to enter text.

Or ☐ Not applicable.

9. Effective date: If applicable, identify the desired effective date of the regulation.

If the proposed change requires immediate implementation, explain the nature of the emergency: N/A
X
X
X

PETITION TO THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION FOR REGULATION CHANGE State of California – Fish and Game Commission
FGC 1 (Rev 06/19) Page 3 of 3

10. Supporting documentation: Identify and attach to the petition any information supporting the proposal including data, reports and other documents:
● MPA Collaborative Network Vetted Regulation Recommendations

11. Economic or Fiscal Impacts: Identify any known impacts of the proposed regulation change other state agencies, local agencies, schools, or housing:
on revenues to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, individuals, businesses, jobs, N/A

12. Forms: If applicable, list any forms to be created, amended or repealed:

N/A
FGC staff action:

Date received: 11/30/2023
SECTION 3: FGC Staff Only
☐ Accept - complete
☐ Reject - incomplete
☐ Reject - outside scope of FGC authority
Tracking Number
Date petitioner was notified of receipt of petition and pending action: _______________ FGC action:

Meeting date for FGC consideration: ___________________________ ☐ Denied by FGC
☐ Denied - same as petition _____________________
Tracking Number
☐ Granted for consideration of regulation change \\tI1
June 25, 2024
California Fish and Game Commission
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
Re: Petition Number 2023-26MPA; Lisa Gilfillan, WILDCOAST and San Diego MPA Collaborative; July 17, 2024, Marine Resources Committee Meeting Dear Commissioners:

The purpose of this letter is to request that you move this Item into "Bin 2" to allow for further review and study by affected jurisdictions including the City of Solana Beach. The City learned of this request to shift the boundary of the Swami’s Marine Protected Area (MPA) less than one month before it was scheduled to be considered. Learning about this proposal at this late date deprives the City of a meaningful opportunity to review and provide comment on this proposal.

We suggest that the Commission convene a stakeholder outreach meeting and request the Petitioner, WILDCOAST, meet with representatives of the City of Solana Beach (City) and Encinitas, California State Parks, and other interested stakeholders to discuss the rationale, justification and impacts for the proposed "shift" or boundary adjustments and rule changes.

As coastal stewards and managers, it is important the City have a full and complete understanding of how this proposal could affect our day-to-day operations as it relates to the management of the beach in the area of the proposed boundary change.

Further, this area has been a source for sand nourishment – both as an offshore sand resource site and on-shore receipt location. As a resiliency measure, sand nourishment is a critical tool that cities have up and down the coast to directly mitigate global effects of climate change.

While we have climate action plans to reduce, or avoid, the emissions of greenhouse gases, nourishment is an essential adaptation measure to combat the already occurring effects of sea level rise (SLR) as a result of climate change.

This area is also used for fishing by community members, some who have fished in this area for generations. The proposal should include analysis of any potential impact on historical fishing uses, including Indigenous native American populations. This rulemaking could have the unintended consequence of denying Indigenous or multi-generational community members access to sustainable fishing resources.

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH www.cityofsolanabeach.org
635 S OUTH H IGHWAY 101 • SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 • (858) 720-2400 • Fax (858) 720-2455 Swami’s Marine Protected Area Letter
June 25, 2024

The City also requests a complete mete and bounds survey showing the limits of the boundary adjustment or proposed "shift" of the Swami’s MPA so that the City, along with other stakeholders, can evaluate the potential effects of this proposed change on the ground including locating the proposed boundary as it relates to the City’s municipal limits, Encinitas municipal limits, State Lands, State Parks and CDFW jurisdiction.

This area of coastline is very popular for school groups and visitors to the region due in part to its proximity to a large public parking lot that provides important coastal access for visitors to the City and region. It is an important coastal resource that serves a vital educational role, including historically underserved populations, in the City and region and is well known for tide pooling, fishing, including spearfishing. In reaching out to our community members, it appears that no one in the community is aware of this pending proposal by WILDCOAST. Due to the limited engagement with the City of Solana Beach to this point, we would like to request that prior to any further consideration of this stakeholder proposal, additional coordination with the City should be conducted, along with community outreach and education. This includes coordination on the specific area delineated, restrictions on use, signage, and on-going monitoring and enforcement.

Additional considerations with regard to education and enforcement are required from City resource managers and our Marine Safety staff to ensure compliance with any adopted changes. The City is requesting more considerations and input on the time period for implementation; warning system (prior to fines); and defining the responsible entity for enforcement (e.g., State Parks and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)).

Given the popularity of this beach and reef, there would likely be an increase in the need for patrolling and enforcement if the SMCA is expanded further south.

The City requests that a recent marine biological survey be completed for the areas south of the current limits (proposing to be expanded) that we and other stakeholders may review. If a recent survey has already been completed, please forward it to the City for review.

We reiterate our concern that any changes would have an adverse effect on coastal public use and access, and due to lack of stakeholder outreach and the potential effects on existing City operations, and the long-term SLR resiliency mitigation needs, that such a boundary change could have on local jurisdictions, this item is more appropriately moved into "Bin 2" to allow for further review and study by all interested parties.

We appreciate the opportunity to learn more about the stakeholder proposal and provide our comments. We are committed to collaborating to ensure the protection of coastal resources and the resilience of our shorelines in the face of climate change. We are available to meet Swami’s Marine Protected Area Letter
June 25, 2024

with you either in person at the site or virtually. Please contact me via email at [email protected] or by phone at (858) 720-2431 to arrange a meeting time..

Sincerely,
Alyssa Muto
City Manager
City of P,ncinitas
<Deve[opment Services <Department
505 S. 1/u[can}lvenue, C£ncinitas, Ca[ifornia 92024-3633 June 20, 2024
California Fish arid Game Commission
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
Re: Petition Number 2023-26MPA; Lisa Gilfillan, WILDCOAST and San Diego MPA Collaborative; July 17, 2024, Marine Resources Committee meeting Dear Fish and Game Commissioners,
My name is Todd Mierau. I am the Coastal Zone Program Administrator for the City of Encinitas.

I am responsible for managing six miles of coastline that front our jurisdiction within our city limits.

This includes portions of the Batiquitos Lagoon State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) and Ecological Reserve at the northern boundary, the San Elijo Lagoon SMCA and Ecological Reserve at our southern boundary, and the Swami's SMCA that spans 3.5 miles of our coastline, reaching from Moonlight State Beach, south to South Cardiff State Beach.

Attached is the petition information (Attachment A) and the general map (Attachment B) outlining the request to be heard at the Marine Resources Committee meeting on July 17, 2024. I would like to recommend a modification of the proposed "shift" to the Swami's SMCA boundary south towards the City of Solana Beach for the following reasons:
• The City of Encinitas manages the northern portion of the Swami's SMCA from the Cottonwood Creek outfall, south to the Swami's Marine Lifeguard Tower at the public stair accessway. Our lifeguards and other related city staff would have to help enforce the Marine Protected Area (MPA) rules that change with the northerly boundary adjustment.

Just south of Cottonwood Creek, there are some sensitive cultural resources that are currently protected under the sand and cobble. It is important that the "No Collecting" and "No Take" provisions that apply to geologic or culturally sensitive resources found within the Swami's SMCA remain in place at this location. • Cottonwood Creek, a riparian waterway that outfalls at the northern most portion of Moonlight State Beach, is a clear delineation marker as the current northern boundary for the Swami's SMCA for those wishing to fish within the MPA's shore limits. It is easy for the public to understand the limits as the creek separates the MPA limits from the nonMPA limits. • The city requests that a complete mete and bounds survey showing the complete limits of the boundary adjustment or "shift" so that we (along with other stakeholders) can evaluate how this could change the existing MPA limits. Additionally, the city requests that a recent marine biological survey be completed in the areas south of the current limits (proposing to be expanded) that we and other stakeholders may review. Finally, the city requests that %[; (760) 633-2710; Pa:(; (760) 633-2818
a current cultural resources study be completed in the MPA area overall prior to requesting this change.

Based on the incomplete information noted above, I request that the Commissioners move this Item into "Bin 2" to allow for further review and study. Additionally, I suggest that the Commission have the Petitioner, WILDCOAST, meet with the City of Encinitas, City of Solana Beach, California State Parks, Nature Collective, manager of the San Elijo Lagoon SMCA, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife to see how these proposed "shifts" or boundary adjustments and rule changes would impact all jurisdictions that manage these facilities and maintain this sensitive geographic marine area.

Thank- you all for your time and consideration.

U,
Coastal Zon Program Administrator

ATTACHMENT A
PETITION NO. 2023-26MPA
State of California - Fish and Game Commission

PETITION TO THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION FOR REGULATION CHANGE FGC 1 (Rev 06/19) Page 1 of 3
Tracking Number: (2023-26MPA
)
To request a change to regulations under the authority of the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission), you are required to submit this completed form to: California Fish and Game Commission, (physical address) 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1320, Sacramento, CA 95814, (mailing address) P.O. Box 944209, Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 or via email to [email protected]. Note: This form is not intended for listing petitions for threatened or endangered species (see Section 670.1 of Title 14).

Incomplete forms will not be accepted. A petition is incomplete if it is not submitted on this form or fails to contain necessary information in each of the required categories listed on this form (Section I).

A petition will be rejected if it does not pertain to issues under the Commission's authority. A petition may be denied if any petition requesting a functionally equivalent regulation change was considered within the previous 12 months and no information or data is being submitted beyond what was previously submitted. If you need help with this form, please contact Commission staff at (916) 653-4899 or [email protected].

SECTION I: Required Information.

Please be succinct. Responses for Section I should not exceed five pages

1. Person or organization requesting the change (Required) Name of primary contact person: Lisa Gilfillan

2. 3.

4. Address: 2120 Jimmy Durante Blvd #106, Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone number:

Email address: [email protected]
Rulemaking Authority (Required) - Reference to the statutory or constitutional authority of the Commission to take the action requested: Authority cited: Sections 200, 205(c), 265, 399, 1590, 1591, 2860, 2861 and 6750, Fish and Game Code: and Sections 36725(a) and 36725(e), Public Resources Code.

Overview (Required) - WILDCOAST is an international non-profit that conserves coastal and marine ecosystems and addresses climate change through natural solutions. We often work in partnership with the MPA Co!labmative Network and serve as co-chairs for the San Diego MPA Collaborative group. We will reference the Collaborative Network's Vetted Regulation Recommendations for this petition. Given the complete consensus received within the San Diego MPA Collaborative, we are pmposing four changes (one boundary change, and th1"ee other changes) across four MPAs. The proposed changes are as follows· • Une/Row #·162- affecting Swami's Sl\l1CA: Ou1· Reg recommendation= Shifting the entire shape South (from the lifeguard tower to State/Solana Beach line to cover tidepool on South side)
e Line/Row #'160, #164, & #'170- affecting f3atiqLJjtos Lagoon No-Take SMCA, San Eliio _'=9goon No-Take SMCf\, & Fa1T1osa Slough No-Take SMCA: Our Reg recommendation= changing the purple to red for outreach purposes only, if boundaries remain the same Rationale (Required) -
State of California - Fish and Game Commission

PETITION TO THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION FOR REGULATION CHANGE FGC 1 (Rev 06/19) Page 2 of 3
The above proposed recommendations are based on WILDCOAST's extensive MPA work in San Diego County and also through our collaboration with the MPA Collaborative Network (as a long-standing co-chair for San Diego County). These proposed recommendations came about after a robust discussion with local San Diego stakeholders on June 26, 2023, at the last San Diego MPA Collaborative meeting.

Line/Row #162- Swami's SMCA: There is a compliance concern he1·e regarding harmful tidepooiing, especially at Seaside reef. Enforcement for take of lobster is difficult at the southern boundary since it splits two jurisdictions and the reef (hard to know where they are actually takin~1 from and wilo is responsible for enforcing what). This proposed change keeps the same size MPA but covers the impacted tidepool area on the Southern boundary.

Additionally, the Lifeguard tower wouid serve as a clear boundary at the North end.

Line/Row #'I 60, #164, & #170- affecting Batiquitos Lagoon No-Take SMCA, San Elijo Lagoon No-Take SMCA & Famosa Slough No-Take SMCA: The compliance concerns in these locations are all the same- there is confusion amongst the general public around the purple No-Take SMCA designation versus a red SMR. It ls therefore easier for the public to understand the regulations when there are fewer designations. It would simplify the rules if all No-Take areas were red for education and outreach purposes. It is anticipated that other MPA Collaborative members will be submitting similar petitions across the South Coast region.

Additionally, this change supports Decadal Review Prioritized Recornmenciation #15.

SECTION II: Optional Information

5. Date of Petition: November 28, 2023

6. Category of Proposed Change
□ Sport Fishing
□ Commercial Fishing
□ Hunting
XOther, please specify: MPAs, Section 632.

7. The proposal is to: (To determine section number(s), see current year regulation booklet or ht s:IA ovt.westlaw.com/calre s)
mend Title 14 Section(s):Westlaw regulations.
□ Add New Title 14 Section(s): Click here to enter text. □ Repeal Title 14 Section(s): Click here to enter text.

8. If the proposal is related to a previously submitted petition that was rejected, specify the tracking number of the previously submitted petition Click here to enter text.

Or X Not applicable.

9. Effective date: If applicable, identify the desired effective date of the regulation.

If the proposed change requires immediate implementation, explain the nature of the emergency: N/ A
State of California - Fish and Game Commission

PETITION TO THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION FOR REGULATION CHANGE FGC 1 (Rev 06/19) Page 3 of 3

10. Supporting documentation: Identify and attach to the petition any information supporting the proposal including data, reports and other documents:
• Collaborative Vetted Regulation Recommendations

11. Economic or Fiscal Impacts: Identify any known impacts of the proposed regulation change on revenues to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, individuals, businesses, jobs, other state agencies, local agencies, schools, or housing:

12. Forms: If applicable, list any forms to be created, amended or repealed:

SECTION 3: FGC Staff Only
Date received: 11/30/2023
FGC staff action:
□ Accept - complete
□ Reject - incomplete
□ Reject - outside scope of FGC authority
Tracking Number
Date petitioner was notified of receipt of petition and pending action: ______ _ Meeting date for FGC consideration: ___________ _
FGC action:
□ Denied by FGC
□ Denied - same as petition _________ _
Tracking Number
□ Granted for consideration of regulation change

ATTACHMENT B

EXISTING NORTHERLY BOUNDARY AND SIG NA GE AT COTTONWOOD CREEK

OUTFALL

MOONLIGHT BEACH ACCESS
Northern Boundary
(Left), sign indicating northern boundary at outfall; (right), looking back toward outfall (pt. 1)
- 4 -
EXISTING SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF CITY OF ENCINITAS IN GREEN. - 5 -

PROPOSED SHIFT IN SWAMI'S SMCA SOUTHERN BOUNDARY
- 6 -
State of California • Natural Resources Agency Gavin Newsom, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Armando Quintero, Director San Diego Coast District
4477 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92110
(619) 688-3260 FAX (619) 688-3229
July 5, 2024
California Fish and Game Commission
Marine Resources Committee
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
[email protected]
RE: PETITION NO. 2023-26MPA ON JULY 17-18 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION MARINE

RESOURCES COMMITTEE AGENDA
Dear Marine Resources Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed binning of petition number 2023- 26MPA to amend the boundary of Swami’s State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA). The mission of the California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) is to preserve the state’s extraordinary biological diversity, protect its most valued natural and cultural resources, and create opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation. This mission aligns well with the goals of California’s Marine Protected Area system and is particularly reflected in State Parks’ management of lands adjacent to and within Swami’s SMCA.

Swami’s SMCA currently extends three nautical miles from the mean high tide line beginning in the north at Moonlight State Beach (managed by the City of Encinitas), extending south through City beaches and San Elijo State Beach, and terminating in the south adjacent to Cardiff State Beach. San Elijo and Cardiff State Beaches are very popular and offer a variety of high-quality recreational activities, including surfing, swimming, tide pooling, spearfishing, and surf fishing.

Due to this high visitation by a variety of beachgoers, State Parks staff interact daily with the public. This often includes communicating about the SMCA’s purpose and boundaries and enforcing SMCA regulations both on the beach and in the water.

It is our understanding that part of the proposed petition would shift the boundaries of Swami’s SMCA to the south so that the southern boundary would align with the southern boundary of Cardiff State Beach, which borders the City of Solana Beach. State Parks supports the petition’s overall goal of enhancing protection at the southern end of Cardiff State Beach and clarifying the southern boundary of Swami’s for enforcement purposes. However, more review and discussion are needed to develop an effective alternative boundary; as proposed, the new boundary would still bisect the reef and not necessarily eliminate confusion over where the SMCA ends. Therefore, the review should include extensive stakeholder outreach to affected land managers (State Parks, City of Encinitas, and City of Solana Beach) as well as the public (including inland residents who visit the beach to fish) and tribes. The review should also include biological surveys and recreational fishing surveys to help inform these discussions.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this item and look forward to engaging on this as it moves through the review process.

Sincerely,
Darren Smith, Senior Environmental Scientist
CC’d
Sean Homer, Sector Superintendent
Erik Burgan, Peace Officer Lifeguard Supervisor
Timothy Gunther, Lifeguard / Peace Officer
Carrie Benner, Environmental Scientist
In DocuSigned by:

L!Z~2I:~
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # C.2.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2024
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Department
SUBJECT: Update on Utility Underground Districts and Adopting District Boundary Maps for the Glenmont/Mar
Vista/Marview UUD and the Nardo/Granados/Rios UUD
BACKGROUND:

The City of Solana Beach has been working to take a major step toward enhancing public safety and preserving its coastal views with the creation of Utility Undergrounding Districts, aimed at relocating overhead utility lines underground. Staff has been working with the neighborhood coordinators on three separate utility underground districts, all west of Interstate 5. The three districts and the corresponding boundaries are summarized below. An update was last provided to the City Council at the January 24, 2024, City Council meeting.
• Pacific Avenue – Phase II Utility Underground District (UUD) – Pacific Avenue from North Helix Avenue to Solana Vista Drive (this District includes the Fletcher Cove Community Center).
• Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview UUD – Glenmont Drive (entire street), Mar Vista Drive (entire street), Rawl Place (entire street), Marview Drive (entire street), Ford Avenue (entire street) and Canyon Drive (from Rawl Place to Ford Avenue). • Nardo/Granados/Rios UUD – Nardo Avenue from Lomas Santa Fe Drive (LSF) to just south of Lirio Street, South Granados Avenue from LSF to south end of the street, South Rios Avenue from LSF to south end of the street, Rosa Street (east end of street), Palmitas Street (entire street), Lirio Street (entire street) Corto Street (entire street) and the south end of Via de Vista.

This item is before the City Council for the consideration of Resolution 2024-006 (Attachment 1), which would approve a revised district boundary map and authorize payment of $18,647 to SDG&E from the City’s share of CPUC Rule 20A allocation for the redesign of the Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview Utility Underground District. This item September 25, 2024
Updates on Utility Underground Districts

also includes for Council consideration Resolution 2024-007 (Attachment 2) which would approve a revised district boundary map and authorize payment of $24,979 to SDG&E from the City’s share of CPUC Rule 20A allocation for the redesign of the Nardo/Granados/Rios Utility Underground District.

DISCUSSION:

Below are updates for each of the three UUDs along with action/recommendations for the City Council’s consideration for each District. Staff has been meeting routinely with SDG&E and other utility companies (i.e., phone, cable) to further the undergrounding designs, easements, and utility coordination in an effort to move the projects forward for future consideration by residents and the City for implementation. At the end of the update summary provided below for each District, the update and action items are provided in an outline format.

While the Pacific Avenue – Phase II District is in the final stages of design (preconstruction bid), the information provided at this time is still in the design phase for each of the three UUDs. For each district, once the design is completed, the project has been put out for construction bids, and all costs for the district is known, the property owners for that district will vote to decide if their district should be formed and construction move forward. Property owners will have the opportunity to know the costs that they will be required to pay prior to voting. Each district will have a separate vote for that district only, making each district independent of the others so that it will be possible for individual districts to move forward while others are under design and/or should one or more others do not move forward.

Pacific Avenue – Phase II (Pacific) UUD
The Pacific UUD was the first of the three UUDs that was submitted to the City and it is also the furthest along in the process. The second petition was completed and met the 70% threshold as detailed in the “Steps to Forming a Private Residential Utility Underground District” brochure. It is important to note that the City-owned Fletcher Cove Community Center and the adjacent Overlook Park are included in this District.

SDG&E is working with the other utility providers (phone and cable) to determine construction costs for this project.

As part of the January 2024 update, the City Council approved payment in the amount of $45,360 to AT&T for the design of their underground system from the CIP Fund - Engineering Design Account. If the UUD is ultimately approved, the money the City paid to AT&T for this design cost would be included in the total UUD cost and would be reimbursed to the City. Once the total project cost is determined and if the district is formed, the City will have to pay its fair share of the undergrounding cost for the Fletcher Cove Community Center and the Overlook Park.

September 25, 2024
Updates on Utility Underground Districts

City Council also approved the District Boundary Map (Attachment 3) allowing AT&T to sign a joint trench agreement (JTA) with SDG&E. The JTA allows AT&T to include their facilities and corresponding construction costs in the SDG&E construction documents for the competitive bidding process as one project. SDG&E is still coordinating with AT&T to execute the JTA for this District.

There are six streetlights within the boundaries of this District that are attached to wood utility poles. Since the wood utility poles would be removed as part of the undergrounding project, the streetlights would be replaced by the City using proceeds from the City of Solana Beach Lighting Maintenance District. Service points for the new streetlights would be included with the undergrounding work so that future trenching will not be required. The pole and light styles and mounting height will be consistent with the City Standard design, similar to the exposed aggregate concrete poles with LED fixtures installed as part of the UUD on the north end of Pacific Avenue and Circle Drive. Please see Attachment 4 for a comprehensive, detailed update on the current activities and future action items.

Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview (Glenmont) UUD
As part of the SDG&E design of this District, SDG&E identified several locations where easements are required to place pad-mounted transformers and certain overhead utility lines underground. All required easements are for the undergrounding of overhead facilities located along private roads or within private properties. Since these locations where transformers or overhead utility lines would be placed underground are not within public streets, the utility companies do not have pre-existing rights for undergrounding their utility lines. The overhead utility lines have easements for the overhead placement of the lines, but these easements do not extend the rights for underground placement of the utility lines. As such, new easements are required for the underground placement of the utility lines.

In the boundaries of the Glenmont UUD, there are properties along the private street Marview Lane for which easements are required. Extensive outreach has been conducted but the necessary easements for the majority of the properties have not been obtained. In order to move forward, the initial District boundary has been adjusted to remove Marview Lane from the UUD since the majority of the properties are not willing to grant easements and the original design needs to be revised. The revised District boundary is included as Exhibit A to Resolution 2024-006. This redesign will remove the properties along Marview Lane as indicated in Exhibit A to Resolution 2024-006.

SDG&E requires an additional fee for the redesign of their infrastructure in the amount of $18,647 so that the District can be built without obtaining easements.

Per Council Policy No. 13, the City Council may approve seed money to be used for the preparation of preliminary plans and a preliminary cost estimate by SDG&E. SDG&E has stated that the redesign fees are eligible to be paid out of the City’s Rule 20A allocations. If the District is ultimately formed, then the redesign fees would be paid September 25, 2024
Updates on Utility Underground Districts

back to the City’s share of Rule 20A account from the proceeds collected from the property owners within the District. If the District is not approved, the Rule 20A funds would be lost. In either case, no General Fund money is proposed for this redesign work at this time. In anticipation of this item being presented at this Council meeting, Staff sent out letters to all residents within the Glenmont and Nardo District boundaries. This includes properties that are identified as being removed from the District due to easement issues. All correspondences received in response to the letters sent from the City are included with this Staff Report as Attachment 5.

Please see Attachment 4 for a comprehensive, detailed update on the current activities and future action items.

Nardo/Granados/Rios (Nardo) UUD
Similar to the Glenmont UUD, the Nardo UUD also has overhead utility lines within a private street (Via de Vista) and on private properties. Although extensive outreach was conducted by SDG&E staff and City Staff, the necessary easements along Via de Vista have not been obtained. The revised District boundary is included as Exhibit A to Resolution 2024-007. This redesign will remove the properties along Via de Vista as indicated in Exhibit A to Resolution 2024-007. Therefore, this also necessitates the redesign of the UUD to remove some properties from the District. SDG&E requires an additional fee for the redesign of their infrastructure in the amount of $24,979. These funds can be allocated from the City’s Rule 20A funds. All correspondences received in response to the letters sent from the City are included with this Staff Report as Attachment 5. Please see Attachment 4 for a comprehensive, detailed update on the current activities and future action items.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

UUD projects are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15302(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Notices of Exemption were filed for each of the three UUDs in December 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are not any specific fiscal impacts associated with this Staff Report. The amount of seed money requested to pay SDG&E for the preliminary design plans and cost estimate for the Glenmont UUD is $18,647 and for the Nardo UUD is $24,979. These costs would be paid from the City’s CPUC Rule 20A funds allocation pursuant to City Council Policy No. 13. If either of the Districts is ultimately formed, then the Rule 20A funds would be paid back to the City Rule 20A account with the proceeds collected from the property owners within that District. If either of the District fails, the Rule 20A funds would be lost for that District. In either case, no General Fund money is proposed to be used at this time.

September 25, 2024
Updates on Utility Underground Districts

WORK PLAN:

This project is not identified in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Work Plan.

OPTIONS:
• Approve revised District boundaries and seed money from the CPUC Rule 20A allocation in the amount of $18,647 for the Glenmont UUD and $24,979 for the Nardo UUD.
• Do not approve the seed money request.
• Provide further direction to the City Manager and City Engineer for this project.

CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council consider the following:

1. Adopt Resolution 2024-006:
a. Authorizing payment of $18,647 to SDG&E from the City’s share of CPUC Rule 20A allocation for the redesign of the Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview Utility Underground District.
b. Approving the Revised District Boundary Map for the Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview Utility Underground District subject to final voting approval from the District property owners as outlined in the “Steps to Forming a Private Residential Utility Underground District” brochure.

2. Adopt Resolution 2024-007:
a. Authorizing payment of $24,979 to SDG&E from the City’s share of CPUC Rule 20A allocation for the redesign of the of the Nardo/Granados/Rios Utility Underground District.
b. Approving the Revised District Boundary Map for the
Nardo/Granados/Rios Utility Underground District subject to final voting approval from the District property owners as outlined in the “Steps to Forming a Private Residential Utility Underground District” brochure. _________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
September 25, 2024
Updates on Utility Underground Districts

Attachments:

1. Resolution 2024-006 (Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview UUD)

2. Resolution 2024-007 (Nardo/Granados/Rios UUD)

3. Boundary Map for Pacific Avenue – Phase II UUD

4. Undergrounding Utility District Detailed Update on Current Activities and Future Action Items

5. Correspondences received from property owners with the Glenmont and Nardo UUDs
RESOLUTION 2024-006

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PAYMENT

TO SDG&E FOR REDESIGN WORK AND REVISIONS TO

BOUNDARY MAP ASSOCIATED WITH THE

GLENMONT/MAR VISTA/MARVIEW UTILITY

UNDERGROUND DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Staff has been working with the neighborhood coordinators on the Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview Utility Underground District (UUD), which includes properties on Glenmont Drive (entire street), Mar Vista Drive (entire street), Rawl Place (entire street), Marview Drive (entire street), Ford Avenue (entire street) and Canyon Drive (from Rawl Place to Ford Avenue); and
WHEREAS, as part of the SDG&E design of this District, SDG&E identified locations where easements are required to place the utilities underground. All easements required are for properties along private roads or driveways. Since the location along private roads where the overhead utility lines would be placed underground are not public streets, the utility companies do not have pre-existing rights for their utility lines. The overhead utility lines have easements for the overhead placement of the lines but these easements do not extend to underground placement of the utility lines. As such, new easements are required for the underground placement of the utility lines; and WHEREAS, in the boundaries of the Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview UUD, there are properties along the private street Marview Lane for which easements are required.

Extensive outreach has been conducted but the necessary easements for the majority of the properties have not been obtained. In order to move forward, the initial District boundary has been adjusted to remove Marview Lane from the UUD since the majority of the properties are not willing to grant easements and the original design needs to be revised. The revised Boundary Map is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, SDG&E requires an additional fee for the redesign of their infrastructure in the amount of $18,647 so that the District can be built without obtaining easements. Per Council Policy No. 13, the City Council may approve seed money to be used for the preparation of preliminary plans and a preliminary cost estimate by SDG&E.

If the District is ultimately formed, then the Rule 20A funds would be paid back to the City’s share of Rule 20A allocation from the proceeds collected from the property owners within the District. If the District is not approved, the Rule 20A funds would be lost. In either case, no General Fund money is proposed to be used at this time.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach does resolve as follows:

Resolution 2024-006
Update on Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview UUD

1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.

2. That the City Council authorizes payment of $18,647 to SDG&E from the City’s share of CPUC Rule 20A allocation for the redesign of the Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview Utility Underground District.

3. That the City Council approves the Revised District Boundary Map for the Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview Utility Underground District subject to final voting approval from the District property owners as outlined in the “Steps to Forming a Private Residential Utility Underground District” brochure.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of September 2024, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_____________________________ _______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk Exhibits:

A. Revised Boundary Map for Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview UUD 21 409
J':••········
• Properties •
• Removed Due to •
0 382 • Easement Issues :

Aug. 2024 • ~ -... ......... .
716
7110 6 •
,
..........
..,..3o
_
·•
__ 6_• 69-f ( '874 411,
66 659 I
l I 652 653 I . 660 427 ·654 435
I 646 645 646 645
1638 639
·630 629
·622 625
612 615
1602 605
517
633
623

GLENMONT ET AL UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT
RESOLUTION 2024-007

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PAYMENT

TO SDG&E FOR REDESIGN WORK AND REVISIONS TO

BOUNDARY MAP ASSOCIATED WITH THE

NARDO/GRANADOS/RIOS UTILITY UNDERGROUND

DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Staff has been working with the neighborhood coordinators on the Nardo/Granados/Rios Utility Underground District (UUD), which includes properties on Nardo Avenue from Lomas Santa Fe Drive (LSF) to just south of Lirio Street, South Granados Avenue from LSF to south end of street, on South Rios Avenue from LSF to south end of street, Rosa Street (east end of street), Palmitas Street (entire street), Lirio Street (entire street) Corto Street (entire street) and the south end of Via de Vista; and WHEREAS, As part of the SDG&E design of this District, SDG&E identified locations where easements are required to place the utilities underground. All easements required are for properties along private roads or driveways. Since the location along private roads where the overhead utility lines would be placed underground are not public streets, the utility companies do not have pre-existing rights for their utility lines. The overhead utility lines have easements for the overhead placement of the lines but these easements do not extend to underground placement of the utility lines. As such, new easements are required for the underground placement of the utility lines; and WHEREAS, in the boundaries of the Nardo/Granados/Rios UUD, there are properties along the private street Via de Vista for which easements are required.

Extensive outreach has been conducted but the necessary easements for the majority of the properties have not been obtained. In order to move forward, the initial District boundary has been adjusted to remove Via de Vista from the UUD since the majority of the properties are not willing to grant easements and the original design needs to be revised. The revised Boundary Map is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, SDG&E requires an additional fee for the redesign of their infrastructure in the amount of $24,979 so that the District can be built without obtaining easements. Per Council Policy No. 13, the City Council may approve seed money to be used for the preparation of preliminary plans and a preliminary cost estimate by SDG&E.

If the District is ultimately formed, then the Rule 20A funds would be paid back to the City’s share of Rule 20A allocation from the proceeds collected from the property owners within the District. If the District is not approved, the Rule 20A funds would be lost. In either case, no General Fund money is proposed to be used at this time.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach does resolve as follows:

Resolution 2024-007
Update on Nardo/Granados/Rios UUD

1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.

2. That the City Council authorizes payment of $24,979 to SDG&E from the City’s share of CPUC Rule 20A allocation for the redesign of the of the Nardo/Granados/Rios Utility Underground District.

3. That the City Council approves the Revised District Boundary Map for the Nardo/Granados/Rios Utility Underground District subject to final voting approval from the District property owners as outlined in the “Steps to Forming a Private Residential Utility Underground District” brochure.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of September 2024, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______________________________ _______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk Exhibits:

A. Revised Boundary Map for Nardo/Granados/Rios UUD
267 2.16 311
~\-::""r.2~675 -lli'l~2:!:6.;.2+.;2;37~ j
258 231
256 229
248 221
246 215
238 211
148
170
170
~ -~\~. roperties ■
Removed Due to :_
Easement Issues
ug. 2024 ■■■■■■■
155 N
LJ
477'

NARDO/GRANADOS/RIOS UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT
5 t
N
C.
ca
:a::
ca
-c,
C:
::::,
0 m
I
..,
(.)
I...
..,
tn
c
-c,
C:
::::,
0 I...

Cl)
-c,
C:
::,
-
..,
::,
(.) (.) ca
a.

ATTACHMENT 5

DETAILED UPDATE ON THE CURRENT ACTIVITIES AND FUTURE ACTION ITEMS Pacific Avenue – Phase II Utility Underground District

1. Communication Companies
• AT&T – plans have been provided from AT&T to SDG&E and SDG&E completed their review of the plans on 8/14/2024.
• AT&T to provide to City information on billable costs. Trenching costs will be included in the billable value to be sent by SDG&E. If District is ultimately approved by a vote of the District, these costs will be included in the total assessed value of the District.
• AT&T to sign the JTA. As of the writing of this report, the JTA has not been signed and returned to SDG&E.
• Cox Communications – the JTA has been signed and returned to SDG&E.

Although Cox has submitted design plans to SDG&E, the plans are based on the SDG&E design plans from 2021 not the more current version prepared in 2023. Cox will update their plans and submit to SDG&E. All Cox trenching costs will be submitted to SDG&E and included to the City in the overall costs that SDG&E provides to the City.
• Costs provided from all communication companies will be included in the overall District cost and apportioned out by the assessment engineer as part of the District vote.

2. Permitting Update – the City has approved an encroachment permit with SDG&E for the construction of the District. The encroachment permit is valid until December 2026 but can be extended if needed.

3. Replacement of Streetlights
• There are six streetlights within the District that are attached to poles that will be removed as part of this project.
• The City intends to replace the streetlights as a separate CIP (CIP) project after the wood utility poles are removed so that the asset is owned and managed by the City moving forward. The City will provide documentation to SDG&E as to the exact location of the existing streetlights so service points can be provided during the undergrounding project. This will eliminate the need for further trenching to install the streetlights after the undergrounding work is completed. There will be short period of time when streetlights will not be present until the District is complete and the City can install new streetlight poles.

Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview (Glenmont) UUD

1. Design Status
• Updated Boundary Map & Resolution will need to be issued before redesign can commence. The revised District boundaries are shown in the map provided as Exhibit A to Resolution 2024-006, which is included with this Staff Report as Attachment 1.

2. Communication Companies
• AT&T, Cox Communications, Crown Castle and Spectrum/Charter all have facilities within the Glenmont Utility Underground District. • SDG&E needs to finalize their plans before sending out their plans to these communication companies.
• Communication companies will use SDG&E design as a basis for their designs. It is anticipated that the JTA will be executed by all communication companies so that one construction contract and one trench can accommodate all underground utilities.

3. Replacement of Streetlights
• The City will provide SDG&E locations of existing streetlights that will need to be replaced once the wood utility poles are removed. • This information will be used by SDG&E to provide service points in their design plans for the future streetlights.

4. Santa Fe Irrigation District (SFID) Easement
• SDG&E currently has an easement across SFID property for existing utility lines. This easement allows for both overhead and underground power lines. SDG&E has stated that a new, additional easement is needed because safety issues preclude them from placing new power lines underneath active overhead power lines.
• SFID has many underground water lines within their property at 440 Glenmont Drive. A new easement could limit their ability to provide future upgrades at this site.
• The language of the proposed SDG&E easement prevents grading inside the easement. This restriction could impact the planned neighborhood park the City is designing for this site.

Nardo/Granados/Rios (Nardo) Utility Underground District

1. Design Status
• Updated Boundary Map & Resolution will need to be issued before redesign can commence. The revised District boundaries are shown in the map

provided as Exhibit A to Resolution 2024-007, which is included with this Staff Report as Attachment 2.
• SDG&E was able to adjust the boundaries so that three properties on the south end of Via de Vista can remain in the District without the need for easements.

2. Communication Companies
• AT&T, Cox Communications and Spectrum/Charter all have facilities within the Nardo Utility Underground District.
• SDG&E needs to finalize their plans before sending out their plans to these communication companies.
• Communication companies will use SDG&E design as a basis for their designs. It is anticipated that the JTA will be executed by all communication companies so that one construction contract and one trench can accommodate all underground utilities.
• It is anticipated that Charter needs six to eight weeks and AT&T needs approximately eight weeks to complete their designs.

3. Replacement of Streetlights
• The City will provide SDG&E locations of existing streetlights that will need to be replaced once the wood utility poles are removed. • This information will be used by SDG&E to provide service points in their design plans for the future streetlights

4. Easements
• SDG&E is working with their design team to eliminate the need for easements on private property. As noted above, this is complicated by the fact that Via de Vista is a private street. At this point, the current draft design has eliminated the need for easements. However, this is subject to change as the final design is completed.

From: Mo Sammak
To: Peter Brunelle
Cc: Alyssa Muto; Dan Goldberg; Dan King
Subject: RE: Nardo/Granados/Rios Utility Underground District (UUD) Date: Monday, September 16, 2024 11:33:29 AM
Hi peter
Your parcel is correctly identified. Even though you have a Via De Vista, private street, Address, your property is being served from a public right of way. You are still in the district.

Thanks.

Mo.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Brunelle
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 9:10 AM
To: Mo Sammak <[email protected]>
Cc: Alyssa Muto <[email protected]>; Dan Goldberg <[email protected]>; Dan King <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Nardo/Granados/Rios Utility Underground District (UUD) [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: External e-mail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Helo Mo,
Thank you very much for your reply, it is much appreciated.

I did receive the letter this past Saturday and have one question that I would not want to tie up the meeting with. We are at Via De Vista and are wondering if our parcel has been correctly identified, can you please clarify the status of Via De Vista?
Thank you again for the communications,
Peter Brunelle
> On Sep 16, 2024, at 7:25 AM, Mo Sammak <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Good morning Peter
>
> The City Manger asked me to reply to your email.
>
> Your recollection of our efforts in obtaining easements from property owners within Via De Vista neighborhood is accurate. Since our last update to the City Council, we have been trying to work with SDG&E to revise the district boundary to exclude those property owners who are unwilling to grant easement and the corresponding additional design costs for the project. After several months of collaborative efforts with SDG&E, we have a conceptual plan for moving forward.

We are currently preparing an informational and update item that will be presented to the City Council at the Council meeting that will be held on Wednesday September 25. Once the Staff Report is ready, it will be posted on the City's website. In preparation for the Council meeting, we prepared letters to everyone in the District, including those who refused to grant easements to update them know about the project and encourage them to attend the meeting. The letters were sent out last week (Thursday September 12). In the meantime, If you have any specific questions, please feel free to contact me at (858)-720-2473. >
> Thanks.
> Mo.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Brunelle
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 1:18 PM
> To: Alyssa Muto <[email protected]>
> Subject: Nardo/Granados/Rios Utility Underground District (UUD) >
> [You don't often get email from Learn why this
> is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] >
> CAUTION: External e-mail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> Hi Alyssa,
>
> My name is Peter Brunelle and I live at Via De Vista, part of the Nardo/Granados/Rios Utility Underground District (UUD).
> Is it possible to get an update on this project? It has been over six years since this project was initiated. > Last year we were told City Staff and SDG&E had been unable to obtain the necessary easements from the property owners at the north end of Via De Vista and SDG&E was moving forward with the UUD that will not include Via De Vista.
> Has SDGE made any progress with a new plan? During the power outage Sunday night SDGE spent a lot of time on the poles on Via De Vista, wondering if there is any news on UUD? >
> Thank you very much for your help,
>
> Peter Brunelle
■
From:

To:

Tjitske Zitman
Pw-Enq
Subject:

Date:

UUD Glenmont/MarVista/Marview Utility
Saturday, September 14, 2024 12:32:15 PM
I You don't often get email from I earp wh>: this is important CAUTION: External e-mail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Mohammad Sammak
Engineering Public Works Director
Today I received a letter regarding the issue that I might be impacted by the proposed Utility undergroud project in my neighborhood. I live onMarVista Drive. I have in the past informed the project organizer in my neighborhood that I am not willing to pay for placing the overhead vacilities underground and want to opt out and do not give my vote.

I feel very strongly that this is a beautification that should be paid and done by the City of Solana Beach to beautify our town and should not be expected to be a financial burden on the property owners.

I imagine they will need to vote and get a majority vote to get it approved. I have not even received how this will financially impact me and asked if I can afford to do this so that I may continue to live in my home and the area I love for over 35 years. My property tax is high enough and I am not willing to have them increase. My neighbors most likely have a much h igher income and are not looking at the financial burden it m ight cause others.

The poles I have lived with for over 35 years and are not bothering me - I do have to agree it would look nicer if they are underground but again that is a project for the beautification of the city of Solana Beach.

My questions is how do I opt out and what do I need to sign that I am not part of this project. I want to opt out and how do I proceed? My voice is that I do not support of the undergrounding project and they cannot count on my vote.

Thanking you in advance for your attention in this matter and I hope you can inform me how to proceed,
Tjitske E. Zitman
MarVista Drive
From: Karin Esser
To: Pw-Eng
Subject: Marview Lane Utility Undergrounding
Date: Saturday, September 14, 2024 5:19:07 PM
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: External e-mail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Sammak,
Thank you for your letter referring to the City Council meeting on September 25, 2024 in regard to the Utility Undergrounding District Project.

Unfortunately we will be unable to attend this meeting but want to assure you that we are supporting the undergrounding project and would like to see it move forward. We are aware that we have to grant SDG&E the easement rights to our address at Marview Lane.

We are looking forward to learn about any progress in this matter.

Sincerely,
Alfred and Karin Esser
■
From:

To:

Mark Robinson
Pw-Enq
Subject:

Date:

Nardo / Granados / Rios Utility Undergrounding District Project Saturday, September 14, 2024 10:24:42 PM
Attachments: Solana Beach Utility Underground Notice .pdf I You don't often get email from I earp why this is important CAUTION: External e-mail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
I received the attached communication and plan on attending the noted City Council meeting.

My residence is at■ Via De Vista and appear to be within the "Properties removed due to easement issues Aug 2024". I wasn't sure exactly what it means to be within t his "Properties removed ..... " area, any further explanation would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

MARK ROBINSON

MANAGING D IRECTOR & PARTNER- PORTFOLIO ASSET MANAGEMENT

SOUTHWEST VALUE PARTNERS
12770 El Camino Real, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92130
(858) 480-2900
mrobjnson@swyp com
This transmission is confidential and intended solely for t he recipient. Be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribut ion or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you received t his email in error, please not ify t he sender by return e-mail or call 1-858-480-2900 and then delete the transmission immediately. Thank you.

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

For engineering
Angela Ivey
Mo Sammak: Dan Goldberg
Megan Bavin; Gabriela Zoquiapa
FW: Nardo/Granados/Rios UUD project update on September 25, 2024 Tuesday, September 17, 2024 10:49:33 AM
Angela Ivey I City Clerk
City of Solana Beach 635 S. Hwy 101 Solana Beach CA 92075 858-720-2425
[email protected] www.cityofsolanabeach.o1y city clerk services From: Marc Halpern
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 11:26 PM
To: Clerk Office <[email protected]>
Cc: Kristi Becker
Subject: Nardo/Granados/Rios UUD project update on September 25, 2024 Some people who received this message don't often get email from this ·s important
Learn wbll
CAUTION: External e-mail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Council and Councilmember Becker:

I am one of the community liaisons for the Nardo/Granados/Rios UUD and a 20+ year resident of Solana Beach. Thank you for your continued attention to this important project that will improve both the UUD area and add to Solana Beach as a whole.

I received the notice of the upcoming project update at the September 25th City Council meeting. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend in person because of prior travel arrangements. So I am writ ing with a brief note to continue to express my support for this project and relay the support of the neighborhood. The remarkable improvements to other parts of town and neighboring communities that have been undergrounded should continue to inspire us.

I am excited to see that the necessary adjustments to t he boundary map have now been implemented to be able to proceed forward expeditiously to next steps, and look forward to reviewing the minutes of the meeting to hopefully see continued support from t he City, pressure on t he utility companies, and the setting of target dates to keep this moving. As you know, It has been almost 7 years since the UUD was approved on September 29, 2017. There are still a few steps to go, but hopefully we have seen the last of any significant delays or hurdles.

Sincerely,
Marc Halpern
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Siegfried Reich
Pw-Enq
Glenmont Mar Vista Undergrounding
Monday, September 16, 2024 12:04:09 PM
I You don't often get email from I earp why this is important CAUTION: External e-mail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, I received a letter noting an upcoming SB City Counsel mtg Sept 25 to discuss undergrounding status, but no time is noted and I see nothing on the CSB website calendar for this date/topic. Can you provide more detail and can one call into the meeting to listen in? thanks
Siegfried Reich
( owner,- Glenmont Drive)
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Rik Floyd
Pw-Enq
Rikfloyd;----
Glenmon~rounding District Project Update (UUD)
Monday, September 16, 2024 1:14:21 PM
I You don't often get email fro~ I earn whlr' this js important CAUTION: External e-mail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Sammak,
Thank you for your September 11 update letter. We are Rik and Carol Floyd (Floyd Family Trust) of. Glenmont Drive.

Based on the map you enclosed, we believe our parcel has been property identified; in other words,. Glenmont Drive would like to be INCLUDED in a district to underground overhead utility lines.

If you need to reach us our contact information is given below.

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of our neighborhood and Solana Beach.

Warm regards,
Rik and Carol
Rik Floyd
(is being retired). To reach us through our shared, personal email account please update your records to:

From: Kelley Hall
To: Pw-Eng
Subject: UUD Project Glenmont
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 7:46:50 AM
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: External e-mail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City of Solana Beach Engineering Department,
We own/reside in Glenmont Drive and were very excited to receive UUD letter. We are definitely in favor and are in support of our overhead power lines being eliminated and placing them underground. What is the timing of this project?
Sincerely,
Kelley & Chris Hall
•
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Wendi McKenna
Pw-Enq
Neil McKenna
Utility Undergrounding
Tuesday, September 17, 2024 10:40:27 AM
I You don't often get email from I earp wh¥ this is important CAUTION: External e-mail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mohammad,
Neil and I received your letter from the city regarding the utility undergrounding project. To my knowledge, we did not receive an easement request for the ui!ner rounding. I understand there are probably other parcels that are more affected than ours Via de Vista) but we would like to work with our neighbors to have this move fo1war m our neighborhood.

Please advise.

Thank you
Wendi and Neil McKenna
Wendi McKenna, DPT
- cell
~ cKenna.com
www.MovePlayGrow.com
https :/ /www. face book. com/ groups/livinginleadership The info1mation contained herein, including any attachments, is proprietaiy and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. It also may contain privileged info1mation and/or personal info1mation subject to privacy legislation. The authorized addressee of this info1mation, by its retention and use, agrees to protect the info1mation contained herein from loss, theft, or compromise with at least the same cai·e it employs to protect its own confidential info1mation. Any dissemination or use of this info1mation by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. If you have received this e-mail in enor, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all copies.

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Carrie Greenstein
Pw-Enq
Angela Ivey
Fwd: Glenmont underground utility district
Tuesday, September 17, 2024 2:31:08 PM
I Some people who received this message don't often get email from mportant
I earn why this is
CAUTION: External e-mail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Sammak,
Thank you for providing the district update letter. We are disappointed that our property will be excluded from the disti·ict.

While I understand so1ie roperties have not agreed to grant easements, my neighbor at ■ Marview Lane and us Marview Lane) have granted an easement to locate the SDG&E ti·ansfo1mer that would a ow the removal of the pole located between-and-Maiview Lane.

We ai·e requesting that ■ thm- Ma1view Lane be included in the disti·ict to allow the undergi-ound of the one utility pclelocated between ■ and ■ Marview Lane.

Thank you for this consideration.

CatTie and Jim Greenstein
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Angela Ivey
Mo Sammak: Dan Goldberg
FW: Utility Undergrounding Project
Tuesday, September 17, 2024 3:4S:00 PM
From: John Mansdorfer
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 3:44 PM
To: Angela Ivey <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Utility Undergrounding Project
You don't often get email from Leam why thj, is imp011ant CAUTION: External e-mail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: John Mansdorfer
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 3:34 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: ajyery@cosb org
Subject: Utility Undergrounding Project
Dear Mr. Sammak,
>
I recently received a letter from you concerning the Glenmont/Mar Vista/Marview Utility Undergrounding District Project Update.

I see we at-Marview Lane are excluded. You may remember that we have already granted an easement to the locate an SDG&E transformer on our property as well as t he property of■ Marview Lane. This would allow for the removal of t he utility pole between ■ ■ Marview Lane.

Therefor we are requesting that the lots be ween ■ be re-included in the Utility Undergrounding District Project, to allow for the undergrounding of the utility pole betwee ■ ■ Marview Lane.

Thank you for your prompt attent ion to this matter.

John & Barbara Mansdorfer
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # C.3.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2024
ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance – Rachel Jacobs, Finance Director SUBJECT: General Fund Update (Unaudited) for Fiscal Year 2024 BACKGROUND:

The City of Solana Beach (City) is working on the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) which is to be completed by mid-January. Staff is presenting preliminary financial information for the General Fund for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 in advance of the completion of this report. In previous years, the City Council (Council) has used this information to allocate portions of the General Fund surplus to other funds with the purpose of funding future projects or reducing future liabilities. Any approved allocations will be included as part of the FY 2024 closing process.

Staff is also presenting proposed budget appropriations for all funds in which the original or amended budgets were exceeded. If approved, these budget appropriations will also be included as part of the FY 24 closing process.

This item is before the City Council (Council) to accept and file the General Fund Update (Unaudited) for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) and to consider adoption of Resolution 2024- 100 (Attachment 1) revising appropriations in the FY24 Budget.

DISCUSSION:

General Fund Unaudited Information
Staff is presenting unaudited General Fund revenue and expenditure financial information for FY24. The following discussion is intended to highlight the areas of the budget – both revenues and expenditures – where the largest impacts were realized. If there are specific questions regarding any areas of the budget that Council may have, Staff will be prepared to address them.

September 25, 2024
General Fund Update for FY24

The information presented is unaudited and certain assumptions were made as to revenues and expenditures that may still be adjusted. Staff will return to Council at a later Council meeting to present the audited ACFR.

Revenues
Revenues (unaudited) for the General Fund are summarized in Table 1 on the next page and are provided in detail in Attachment 2.

The revised General Fund revenue budget for FY24 was $29,406,260. Actual revenues collected equal $31,603,015, an increase over the revised budget of $2,196,755 or 7.5%.

The following section contains the highlights of the FY23 General Fund Budget:
• Short-Term Vacation Rentals TOT: Short-Term Vacation Rental (STVR) TOT revenue was $117,877 higher than the revised budget. The variance reflects an increase in the number of vacation rental units in the city, as well as an increase in the demand for short term vacation rentals.
• Investment Earnings: Investment earning revenue was $781,950 higher than the revised budget. These revenues include the GASB requirement to record annual changes in market value of the investment portfolio, which was $394,486 this year. $ %

GENERAL FUND REVENUE
TAXES 18,177,310 600,000 18,777,310 19,327,051 549,741 2.9% LICENSES & PERMITS 614,750 200,000 814,750 815,647 897 0.1% FINES & PENALTIES 320,200 - 320,200 528,722 208,522 65.1% USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 325,475 - 325,475 1,115,901 790,426 242.9% INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES 2,199,850 102,072 2,301,922 2,434,789 132,867 5.8% SERVICE CHARGES 829,000 50,000 879,000 852,041 (26,959) -3.1% OTHER REVENUES 1,372,603 15,000 1,387,603 1,443,513 55,910 4.0% TRANSFERS 633,730 (633,730) - - - 0.0%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 24,472,918 333,342 24,806,260 26,517,664 1,711,404 6.9%

MEASURE S REVENUES
TAXES 4,400,000 200,000 4,600,000 5,045,209 445,209 9.7% USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY - - - 40,143 40,143 0.0%
TOTAL MEASURE S REVENUES 4,400,000 200,000 4,600,000 5,085,351 485,351 10.6% TOTAL GF & MEASURE S REVENUES 28,872,918 533,342 29,406,260 31,603,015 2,196,755 7.5% TABLE 1
Variance to
Revised Budget
2024
Original
Budget
Xfers/Adj 2024 Revised
Budget
2024 Actual

GENERAL FUND REVENUES
September 25, 2024
General Fund Update for FY24

• Measure S Tax: Actual Measure S Tax revenue was $445,209 higher than the revised budget projections. The increase is primarily attributed to a continued recovery and growth in restaurant, general consumer goods, and fuel sectors.

Some of this increase was also due to inflationary pressure on the cost of taxable goods.

Expenditures
Expenditures (unaudited) for the General Fund are summarized in Table 2, below, and are provided in detail in Attachment 3 by function and Attachment 4 by object classification.

The revised General Fund Expenditure budget for FY24 was $26,321,343. Actual expenditures were $24,657,927 and encumbered funds were $619,252, which was $1,044,164, or 4.0%, less than the revised expenditure budget amount.

The following section contains the expenditure highlights of the FY24 Budget:
• Salaries and Fringe Benefit Costs:
o Actual salaries and benefit costs totaled $10,606,979, which was $250,472 less than the revised budget, primarily due to position vacancies. • Professional Services:
o The professional services category realized savings in all departments throughout City Hall. Overall professional services totaled $8,280,504, which was $567,203 less than the revised budget.
$ %

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT 4,866,049 49,614 4,915,663 4,422,599 55,827 437,237 8.9% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,959,533 97,140 2,056,673 1,812,282 122,965 121,426 5.9% PUBLIC SAFETY 12,053,566 56,910 12,110,476 12,039,652 - 70,824 0.6% PUBLIC WORKS 3,330,257 104,000 3,434,257 3,061,894 35,000 337,363 9.8% COMMUNITY SERVICES 869,124 27,750 896,874 858,647 9,250 28,977 3.2% TRANSFERS OUT 980,000 70,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 - - 0.0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 24,058,529 405,414 24,463,943 23,245,075 223,042 995,827 4.1%

MEASURE S EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT 60,000 - 60,000 11,663 - 48,337 80.6% PUBLIC WORKS 1,064,000 - 1,064,000 667,790 396,210 - 0.0% TRANSFERS OUT 733,400 - 733,400 733,400 - - 0.0%
TOTAL MEASURE S EXPENDITURES 1,857,400 - 1,857,400 1,412,853 396,210 48,337 2.6% TOTAL GF & MEASURE S EXPENDITURES 25,915,929 405,414 26,321,343 24,657,927 619,252 1,044,164 4.0% TABLE 2

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
2024 Original
Budget Xfers/Adj 2024 Revised Budget
2024 Actual 2024 Variance to
Encumbered
September 25, 2024
General Fund Update for FY24

• Materials, Supplies and Services:
o All other Materials, Supplies and Services expenditure categories realized cumulative savings of $163,186 for the fiscal year.

Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Projected Surplus With the unaudited revenue and expenditures reported for the FY24, the projected unaudited surplus is detailed in Table 3.

Payment to PARS Trust Funds
In FY 2015, the City Council approved and established a combined PARS Pension and OPEB Trust. Through FY24, Council has allocated a total of $4,430,560 to the Trust by using a portion of each of the FY’s General Fund surpluses as detailed in Table 4.

GENERAL FUND MEASURE S TOTAL
ACTUAL REVENUES 26,517,664 5,085,351 31,603,015
ACTUAL EXPENDITURES (23,245,075) (1,412,853) (24,657,927) ENCUMBRANCES (223,042) (396,210) (619,252)
NET SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 3,049,547 3,276,288 6,325,836
TABLE 3

GENERAL FUND - PROJECTED SURPLUS
FY

PROJECTED

SURPLUS PENSION OPEB TOTAL
2015 907,284 500,000 - 500,000
2016 613,462 316,209 135,000 451,209
2017 1,123,432 347,094 85,376 432,470
2018 1,121,884 357,098 87,689 444,787
2019 1,768,986 623,724 253,516 877,240
2020 1,046,697 283,926 198,000 481,926
2021 1,378,485 485,075 204,000 689,075
2022 2,161,522 - 138,000 138,000
2023 1,887,905 1,517,434 137,000 1,654,434
2024 120,100 120,100
TOTAL 12,009,657 4,430,560 1,358,681 5,789,241
TABLE 4

PARS CONTRIBUTIONS
September 25, 2024
General Fund Update for FY24

As part of the adoption of the FY24 and FY25 Budget, the City continued its funding policy for the OPEB PARS Trust ($120,100 in FY24 and $115,000 in FY25).

To continue funding the Pension portion of the PARS Trust, Staff is recommending that Council consider setting aside a portion of the FY24 projected surplus. Staff has prepared a resolution that will be updated to reflect the amounts that Council approves to be used to fund the PARS Pension Trust. Since the Pension Trust provides funds for employee benefits and employee benefits are paid by both General Fund and non-General Fund funds, an allocation method will be used to ensure all funds which pay employee benefits contribute to the Trust payments. The General Fund portion of the contribution will be budgeted and paid from the FY24 Unreserved General Fund balance.

Proposed FY 2024 Budget Appropriations – All Funds
For FY 2024, Fund 219 and Fund 214 both had expenditures exceed the original or amended budgeted appropriations.

Fund 219 is used to record COPS grant funding which pays for a portion of the City’s contract with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. On January 25, 2023, Council approved the purchase and installation of License Plate Recognition Cameras and appropriated funding in the FY 2023 budget. No costs were billed in FY 2023. In FY 2024, the Sherriff’s Department billed the City $22,800 for the cameras as part of the July monthly invoice. After adding in credits to the Sheriff’s Department’s fees for towing and the additional $22,800 for the License Plate Recognition Cameras, Fund 219 exceeded its budgeted appropriations by $22,206. Fund 219 has enough fund balance to cover the additional appropriations.

Fund 214 is used to record the Fire Mitigation Impact Fees listed on the City’s master fee schedule. In an effort to utilize the fund balance in Fund 214, the City’s Fire Department purchased needed turnout gear for staff.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff is recommending the following budget appropriations be made to the FY24 Budget.

These appropriations are for audit purposes only, no additional payments or charges to the City will be made as a result of these adjustments.

Other Funds
• Increase of $11,910 in the Fire Mitigation fund – Turnout gear purchases utilizing available fund balance.
• Increase of $22,206 in the COPS fund – Professional Services for the LPR program cost utilizing available fund balance.

September 25, 2024
General Fund Update for FY24

If authorized by Council, Staff is recommending the following budget adjustments and appropriation be made in the FY24 Budget utilizing projected surplus as follows:

PARS Trust Funds
• Budget appropriations, as determined by the Finance Department, if Council authorizes funds be used from the projected FY24 General Fund surplus to fund the PARS Pension and OPEB Trust.

Asset Replacement Fund
• Budget appropriations, as determined by the Finance Department, if Council authorizes funds be used from the projected FY24 General Fund surplus to fund asset replacement fund.

Facilities Replacement Fund
• Budget appropriations, as determined by the Finance Department, if Council authorizes funds be used from the projected FY24 General Fund surplus to fund facilities replacement fund.

WORK PLAN: N/A
OPTIONS:
• Approve Staff recommendation.
• Provide alternative direction.

CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Accept and file the General Fund Update for FY24.

2. Provide direction to Staff regarding whether to use an amount of the projected General Fund surplus to fund the PARS Irrevocable Trust for Pensions as part of a budget appropriation to the General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance, and other funds as determined by the Finance Department, in FY24.

3. Provide direction to Staff regarding whether to use an amount of the projected General Fund surplus to add funding to the Asset Replacement Fund as part of a budget appropriation to the General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance in FY24.

4. Provide direction to Staff regarding whether to use an amount of the projected General Fund surplus to add funding to the Facilities Replacement Fund as part of a budget appropriation to the General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance in FY24.

September 25, 2024
General Fund Update for FY24

5. Approve Resolution 2024-100 revising appropriations in the FY24 budget.

6. Authorize the City Treasurer to amend the FY24 budget accordingly. _____________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2024-100

2. General Fund Revenues for FY24

3. General Fund Expenditures by Function for FY24

4. General Fund Expenditures by Object Code for FY24
RESOLUTION 2024-100

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REVISING
APPROPRIATIONS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2024

BUDGETS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TREASURER

TO AMEND THE BUDGETS ACCORDINGLY
WHEREAS, during the course of the fiscal year, new information becomes available to Staff which require adjustments to the adopted budget; and WHEREAS, Section 3.08.040 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code limits the purchases by departments within the total departmental budget appropriations; and WHEREAS, the City’s Operating Budget Policies state that total expenditures of a particular fund may not exceed that which is appropriated by the City Council, without a budget amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager, in coordination with the Finance Director, reviewed and analyzed the expenditures of the Fiscal Year 2024 Adopted Budget, and recommend certain amendments be made to the General Fund as well as other funds.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows:

1. That the above recitations are true and correct.

2. That the City Treasurer is authorized to amend appropriations in the FY24 budget as follows:
i. Increase of $11,910 in the Fire Mitigation Fund – Clothing for turnout gear purchases utilizing available fund balance.
ii. Increase of $22,206 in the COPS Fund – Professional Services for the LPR program cost utilizing available fund balance.

3. That the City Treasurer is authorized to amend budget and appropriations in the FY24 budget utilizing projected surplus as follows:
iii. Appropriations from the General Fund of $______ from the General Fund Fiscal Year 2024 projected surplus and proportionally to other funds to fund the PARS Pension Stabilization Trust
iv. Appropriations from the General Fund of $______ from the Fiscal Year 2024 projected General Fund surplus to increase funding to the Asset Replacement Fund
Resolution 2024-100
Budget Amendments FY24

v. Appropriations from the General Fund of $______ from the Fiscal Year 2024 projected General Fund surplus to increase funding to the Facilities Replacement Fund
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, this 25th day of September 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______________________________ ______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk

GENERAL FUND REVENUES
FY 24
Description $%
PROPERTY TAXES - CURRENT 9,898,000 $ 200,000 $ 10,098,000 $ 10,493,656 $ $ 3.9% 395,656 PROPERTY TAXES-DELINQUENT 20,200 $ - $ 20,200 $ 7,424 $ $ -63.2% (12,776) SALES & USE TAX 4,400,000 $ 200,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 4,425,148 $ $ -3.8% (174,852) TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 1,099,560 $ - $ 1,099,560 $ 1,184,699 $ $ 7.7% 85,139 SHORT TERM VAC RENTAL TOT 800,800 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,800 $ 1,033,538 $ $ 3.3% 32,738 GAS & ELECTRIC FRANCH TAX 245,000 $ - $ 245,000 $ 299,166 $ $ 22.1% 54,166 WASTE FRANCHISE 260,000 $ - $ 260,000 $ 310,259 $ $ 19.3% 50,259 CABLE TV FRANCHISE TAX 230,000 $ - $ 230,000 $ 206,321 $ $ -10.3% (23,679) COMMUNITY ACCESS 1% 50,000 $ - $ 50,000 $ 41,380 $ $ -17.2% (8,620) REAL PROPERTY TRANSFR TAX 170,000 $ - $ 170,000 $ 212,911 $ $ 25.2% 42,911 BENEFIT FEES 455,000 $ - $ 455,000 $ 446,999 $ $ -1.8% (8,001) STREET SWEEPING 50,750 $ - $ 50,750 $ 52,796 $ $ 4.0% 2,046 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE 33,000 $ - $ 33,000 $ 35,198 $ $ 6.7% 2,198 NPDES FEES 260,000 $ - $ 260,000 $ 264,762 $ $ 1.8% 4,762 RDA PASS THRU PAYMENTS 205,000 $ - $ 205,000 $ 312,794 $ $ 52.6% 107,794 TAXES - TOTAL $ 600,000 18,177,310 $ 18,777,310 $ 19,327,051 $ $ 2.9% 549,741 BUSINESS REGISTRATION 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 $ 268,598 $ $ 7.4% 18,598 BUILDING PERMITS 332,000 $ 200,000 $ 532,000 $ 510,582 $ $ -4.0% (21,418) OTHER PERMITS 32,750 $ - $ 32,750 $ 36,467 $ $ 11.3% 3,717 LICENSES & PERMITS - TOTAL $ 200,000 614,750 $ 814,750 $ 815,647 $ $ 0.1% 897 CVC FINES 65,000 $ - $ 65,000 $ 119,367 $ $ 83.6% 54,367 ADMIN CITATIONS 20,000 $ - $ 20,000 $ 86,029 $ $ 330.1% 66,029 PARKING CITATIONS 110,000 $ - $ 110,000 $ 115,230 $ $ 4.8% 5,230 REDFLEX CITATIONS 125,000 $ - $ 125,000 $ 208,096 $ $ 66.5% 83,096 FALSE ALARM FINES 200 $ - $ 200 $ - $ $ -100.0% (200)
FINES & PENALTIES - TOTAL $ - 320,200 $ 320,200 $ 528,722 $ $ 65.1% 208,522 INTEREST EARNINGS 249,900 $ - $ 249,900 $ 637,361 $ $ 155.0% 387,461 GAIN/LOSS ON FMV OF ASSET - $ - $ - $ 394,489 $ $ 100.0% 394,489 PROPERTY RENTAL 75,575 $ - $ 75,575 $ 84,023 $ $ 11.2% 8,448 SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY - $ - $ - $ 29 $ $ 100.0% 29
USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY - TOTAL $ - 325,475 $ 325,475 $ 1,115,901 $ $ 242.9% 790,426 MOTOR VEHICLE IN LIEU 2,100,000 $ - $ 2,100,000 $ 2,194,459 $ $ 4.5% 94,459 STATE HOE 49,000 $ - $ 49,000 $ 47,505 $ $ -3.1% (1,495) OFF TRACK BETTING 11,000 $ - $ 11,000 $ 11,631 $ $ 5.7% 631 PALOMAR COLLGE REIMB 7,350 $ - $ 7,350 $ 4,536 $ $ -38.3% (2,814) FIRE REV FM OTHER AGENCES 10,000 $ - $ 10,000 $ 7,098 $ $ -29.0% (2,902) TOWING FEE CREDIT 2,500 $ - $ 2,500 $ 2,488 $ $ -0.5% (12) STATE GRANTS - $ 102,072 $ 102,072 $ 167,072 $ $ 63.7% 65,000 MISCELLANEOUS - INTERGOV 20,000 $ - $ 20,000 $ - $ $ -100.0% (20,000) INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE - TOTAL $ 102,072 2,199,850 $ 2,301,922 $ 2,434,789 $ $ 5.8% 132,867 PLANNING & ZONING FEES 241,000 $ - $ 241,000 $ 264,369 $ $ 9.7% 23,369 BUILDING PLAN CHECK FEES 320,000 $ 50,000 $ 370,000 $ 385,927 $ $ 4.3% 15,927 PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES 70,000 $ - $ 70,000 $ 32,334 $ $ -53.8% (37,666) ENGINEERING FEES 162,000 $ - $ 162,000 $ 128,672 $ $ -20.6% (33,328) FIRE FEES 33,000 $ - $ 33,000 $ 40,527 $ $ 22.8% 7,527
MISC. SERVICE CHARGES 3,000 $ - $ 3,000 $ 212 $ $ 100.0% (2,789) SERVICE CHARGES - TOTAL $ 50,000 829,000 $ 879,000 $ 852,041 $ $ -3.1% (26,959) GRANTS & DONATIONS 20,000 $ 15,000 $ 35,000 $ 30,000 $ $ -14.3% (5,000) MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 20,000 $ - $ 20,000 $ 83,467 $ $ 317.3% 63,467 WORKERS COMPENSATION 20,000 $ - $ 20,000 $ - $ $ -100.0% (20,000) ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES 1,173,467 $ - $ 1,173,467 $ 1,173,468 $ $ 0.0% 1 REIMBURSED COSTS 139,136 $ - $ 139,136 $ 156,579 $ $ 12.5% 17,443 OTHER REVENUES - TOTAL $ 15,000 1,372,603 $ 1,387,603 $ 1,443,513 $ $ 4.0% 55,910 TRANSFERS IN 633,730 $ (633,730) $ - $ - $ $ 0.0% -
TRANSFERS IN - TOTAL $ (633,730) 633,730 $ - $ - $ $ 0.0% - TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $ 333,342 24,472,918 $ 24,806,260 $ 26,517,664 $ 1,711,404 $ 6.9%

MEASURE S REVENUES
SALES & USE TAX 4,400,000 $ 200,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 5,045,209 $ $ 9.7% 445,209 TAXES - TOTAL $ 200,000 4,400,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 5,045,209 $ $ 9.7% 445,209 INTEREST EARNINGS - $ - $ - $ 52,295 $ $ 100.0% 52,295
GAIN/LOSS ON FMV OF ASSET - $ - $ - $ (12,153) $ $ 100.0% (12,153) USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY - TOTAL $ - - $ - $ 40,143 $ $ 100.0% 40,143 TOTAL MEASURE S REVENUES $ 200,000 4,400,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 5,085,351 $ $ 10.6% 485,351 2024 Original
Budget Transfers/Adj 2024 Revised
Budget 2024 Actual
Variance Actual to
Revised
$%

GENERAL GOVERNMENT
CITY COUNCIL 351,315 16,500 367,815 363,958 0 3,857 1.0% CITY CLERK 623,687 83,000 706,687 648,491 30,000 28,196 4.0% CITY MANAGER 672,917 10,600 683,517 585,125 - 98,392 14.4% CITY ATTORNEY 533,475 - 533,475 424,835 - 108,640 20.4% FINANCE 1,261,032 1,885 1,262,917 1,197,581 25,827 39,509 3.1% NON-DEPARTMENTAL 39,614 - 39,614 33,812 - 5,802 14.6%
HUMAN RESOURCES 660,665 (62,000) 598,665 508,332 - 90,333 15.1% INFORMATION SERVICES 723,344 (371) 722,973 660,464 - 62,509 8.6% TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 49,614 4,866,049 4,915,663 4,422,599 55,827 437,237 8.9%

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING 1,113,292 (36,110) 1,077,182 910,370 122,965 43,847 4.1% BUILDING SERVICES 536,794 133,250 670,044 612,607 - 57,437 8.6% CODE/PARKING COMPLIANCE 309,447 - 309,447 289,305 - 20,142 6.5% TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 97,140 1,959,533 2,056,673 1,812,282 122,965 121,426 5.9%

PUBLIC SAFETY
LAW ENFORCEMENT 4,789,738 - 4,789,738 4,789,738 - - 0.0% FIRE DEPARTMENT 5,951,762 (47,000) 5,904,762 5,838,589 - 66,173 1.1% ANIMAL CONTROL 94,000 - 94,000 93,236 - 764 0.8%
CIVIL DEFENSE 34,491 - 34,491 33,395 - 1,096 3.2%
MARINE SAFETY 1,182,375 103,910 1,286,285 1,284,693 - 1,592 0.1% SHORELINE PROTECTION 1,200 - 1,200 - - 1,200 100.0%
TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 56,910 12,053,566 12,110,476 12,039,652 - 70,824 0.6%

PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING 624,152 101,000 725,152 584,108 30,000 111,044 15.3% ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 536,626 (20,000) 516,626 477,955 - 38,671 7.5% STREET MAINTENANCE 662,999 3,900 666,899 658,242 - 8,657 1.3% TRAFFIC SAFETY 518,247 20,000 538,247 427,948 5,000 105,299 19.6% STREET CLEANING 71,500 - 71,500 56,901 - 14,599 20.4%
PARK MAINTENANCE 488,013 (13,889) 474,124 437,640 - 36,484 7.7% PUBLIC FACILITIES 428,720 12,989 441,709 419,100 - 22,609 5.1% TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 104,000 3,330,257 3,434,257 3,061,894 35,000 337,363 9.8%

COMMUNITY SERVICES
COMMUNITY SERVICES 187,402 10,000 197,402 187,193 9,250 959 0.5% RECREATION 681,722 17,750 699,472 671,455 - 28,017 4.0% TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 27,750 869,124 896,874 858,647 9,250 28,977 3.2% TRANSFERS OUT 70,000 980,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 - - 0.0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 24,058,529 405,414 24,463,943 23,245,075 223,042 995,827 28.4%

MEASURE S EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT 60,000 - 60,000 11,663 - 48,337 80.6% PUBLIC WORKS 1,064,000 - 1,064,000 667,790 396,210 - 0.0% TRANSFERS OUT 733,400 - 733,400 733,400 - - 0.0%
TOTAL MEASURE S EXPENDITURES 1,857,400 - 1,857,400 1,412,853 396,210 48,337 2.6% TABLE 2

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
2024 Original
Budget Xfers/Adj 2024 Revised Budget 2024 Actual 2024 Encumbered Variance to Revised
Budget

GENERAL FUND EXP BY OBJECT
FY 2024
$%
REGULAR SALARIES 6,184,132 (4,337) 6,179,795 6,104,502 - 75,293 1.2% PART-TIME & TEMPS 474,479 10,225 484,704 481,125 - 3,579 0.7% OVERTIME 770,215 (77,257) 692,958 675,982 - 16,976 2.4% SPECIAL PAY 135,273 39,976 175,249 173,456 - 1,793 1.0% PART TIME/TEMP:NON-SALA - 4,120 4,120 4,120 - - 0.0%
RETIREMENT 868,260 6,850 875,110 850,940 - 24,170 2.8%
RETIREMENT-UAL PAYMENT 977,606 - 977,606 977,606 - - 0.0% MEDICARE 119,930 (9,706) 110,224 103,365 - 6,859 6.2%
SOCIAL SECURITY 31,216 (7,726) 23,490 20,513 - 2,977 12.7% HEALTH INSURANCE 1,215,811 (126,308) 1,089,503 1,008,276 - 81,227 7.5% LT DISABILITY INSURANCE 23,634 (1,635) 21,999 14,088 - 7,911 36.0% LIFE INSURANCE 17,482 (222) 17,260 14,129 - 3,131 18.1% RHSA % BENEFIT 40,925 (40,925) - - - - 100.0%
CITY CONTRB FF TRUST - 40,925 40,925 40,007 - 918 2.2%
DEFERRED COMP 457 74,185 18,031 92,216 83,974 - 8,242 8.9% UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 20,000 - 20,000 2,682 - 17,318 86.6% AUTO ALLOWANCE 43,703 839 44,542 44,471 - 71 0.2%
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 3,000 533 3,533 3,533 - 0 0.0%
RIDESHARE 4,000 217 4,217 4,210 - 7 0.2%
TOTAL SALARIES & BENEFITS 11,003,851 (146,400) 10,857,451 10,606,979 - 250,472 2.3% TRAVEL-MEETINGS 53,695 (18,549) 35,146 23,331 - 11,815 33.6% TRAINING 48,800 (5,629) 43,171 33,535 - 9,636 22.3%
MEMBERSHIPS/DUE 123,010 1,838 124,848 117,984 - 6,864 5.5% CLOTHING 53,200 1,723 54,923 53,683 - 1,240 2.3%
TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 10,000 - 10,000 8,830 - 1,170 11.7% PRE-EMPLOYMENT 13,500 - 13,500 8,558 - 4,942 36.6%
RECRUITMENT 19,750 - 19,750 1,223 - 18,527 93.8%
FIRE PREVENTION PROGRAM 9,900 (1,175) 8,725 8,724 - 1 0.0% ELECTIONS 1,900 - 1,900 525 - 1,375 72.4%
OFFICE SUPPLIES 16,960 (1,747) 15,213 9,208 - 6,005 39.5% POSTAGE 8,400 - 8,400 3,000 - 5,400 64.3%
BOOKS/SUB/PRINT 60,370 (5,546) 54,824 39,103 - 15,721 28.7% MINOR EQUIPMENT(UNDER $ 66,350 (3,691) 62,659 53,441 - 9,218 14.7% EQUIPMENT (OVER $5K) - 11,950 11,950 11,922 - 28 0.2%
SPECIAL DEPT SUPPLIES 150,550 12,924 163,474 138,009 - 25,465 15.6% SMALL TOOLS 3,500 (175) 3,325 2,962 - 363 10.9%
VEHICLE OPERATING SUPPL 57,700 4,268 61,968 59,787 - 2,181 3.5% VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 114,700 (9,808) 104,892 96,868 - 8,024 7.7% ADVERTISING 13,050 7,804 20,854 20,359 - 495 2.4%
COMMUNICATIONS 132,800 54,207 187,007 184,443 - 2,564 1.4% UTILITIES - ELECTRIC 139,800 22,695 162,495 159,843 - 2,652 1.6% RENTS/LEASES 28,714 756 29,470 25,656 - 3,814 12.9%
MAINT OF BUILDING/GROUN 442,420 (36,420) 406,000 385,559 - 20,441 5.0% UTILITIES - WATER 65,600 448 66,048 62,972 - 3,076 4.7% MILEAGE 3,760 (65) 3,695 1,498 - 2,197 59.5%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,176,738 409,421 8,586,159 7,878,125 223,042 484,992 5.6% MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMEN 200,065 1,483 201,548 167,675 - 33,873 16.8% CONTRIBUTION TO AGENCIE 90,791 16,500 107,291 104,429 - 2,862 2.7% COMMUNITY TV PRODUCTION 73,900 (3,569) 70,331 45,321 - 25,010 35.6% SPECIAL EVENTS 30,300 (737) 29,563 28,452 - 1,111 3.8%
CONTINGENCY 37,500 (37,260) 240 239 - 1 0.3%
OTHER CHARGES 196,155 (1,600) 194,555 172,090 - 22,465 11.5% PUBLIC ART EXPENDITURES 16,000 (2,232) 13,768 12,879 - 889 6.5% TOTAL MATERIALS, SUPPLIES & PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,459,878 417,814 10,877,692 9,920,231 223,042 734,419 6.8% TRANSFERS OUT 980,000 70,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 - - 0.0% INTRNL CHRGS - CLAIMS 521,600 - 521,600 521,600 - - 0.0% INTRNL CHRGS - WRKRS CO 454,000 - 454,000 454,000 - - 0.0% ASSET REPLACEMENT CHRGS 112,500 64,000 176,500 176,500 - - 0.0% STEVENS 445,700 - 445,700 434,764 - 10,936 2.5%
PARS OPEB CHARGES 81,000 - 81,000 81,000 - - 0.0%
TOTAL CAPITAL, DEBT, & INTERNAL SVS CHARGES 2,594,800 134,000 2,728,800 2,717,864 - 10,936 0.4% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 24,058,529 405,414 24,463,943 23,245,075 223,042 995,826 4.1%

MEASURE S EXPENDITURES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60,000 - 60,000 11,663 48,337 - 80.6% CONSTRUCTION 1,064,000 - 1,064,000 667,790 - 396,210 0.0% TRANSFERS OUT 733,400 - 733,400 733,400 - - 0.0%
TOTAL MEASURE S EXPENDITURES - 1,857,400 1,857,400 1,412,853 396,210 2.6% 48,337 Variance Actual to
Revised 2024 Original
Budget Transfers/Adj 2024 Revised
Budget 2024 Actual 2024 Encumbered