THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO MEMORANDUM DATE: May 20, 2016 TO: Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members FROM: Tracy McCraner, Financial Management Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Review Committee Referral Responses for May 5, 2016 This memorandum provides responses and/or follow up information to unanswered questions asked at the Budget Review Committee Meeting held on May 5, 2016. The responses are listed by department in the order that they were reviewed by the Committee. In addition to the responses below, a separate memorandum will be issued by Performance Analytics on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) no later than Thursday, May 26th. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 QUESTION: Will Performance and Analytics place information on the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) on their Dashboard? RESPONSE: The CIP?related KPIs that appear in the performance dashboard include the following: Invest 50% of year?over?year major General Fund revenue growth in infrastructure Miles of streets paved as a percentage of the Mayor?s 1,000 mile goal Percentage of CIP projects delivered on baseline Project Charter schedule Average number of days to award contracts Percentage difference between total combined actual expenditures versus total combined estimated expenditures 0 On average, manage a construction change order rate of 5% or lower QUESTION: When will the Coastal Rail Trail portion built by Caltrans in Sorrento Valley (800951), going over Genesee and connecting with the City portion of the project, be completed? RESPONSE: Per Caltrans, the project will be completed by October 2017. Page 2 of 17 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 QUESTION: Please provide a list of all projects that are planned for Balboa Park for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017? RESPONSE: In fall 2015, the Park and Recreation Department hired a new program manager to assist with implementation of projects in Balboa Park and Mission Bay Park. Current capital projects within the City?s CIP for Balboa Park include: BP West Mesa Comfort Station Replacement ($15036) - currently in design; full project description and status may be found at California Tower Seismic Retrofit (L12003) currently in design; full project description and status may be found at Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse ($00614) currently in design; full project description and status may be found at Golf Course Drive Multi-Purpose Pathway ($15040) a feasibility study is currently underway to evaluate options available to create a pathway alongside Golf Course Drive for pedestrians and bicyclists. The feasibility study is scheduled for completion in January 2017 and will provide a cost estimate for constructing the path. Design and construction of the pathway is unfunded at this time. Bud Kearns Aquatic Center Improvements (817000) this new project is proposed to design and construct accessibility and related improvements to the Bud Kearns Aquatic Center complex using Regional Park Improvement Funds. Design is proposed for funding in FY 2017; the five?year outlook for Regional Park Improvement Funds identifies funding for construction. Additionally, the FY 2017 May Revise includes $1.5 million for the rehabilitation of the Thompson Medical Library/Eddy Auditorium building in Balboa Park and $350,000 for the replacement of 100 light posts within the Central Mesa of Balboa Park. Other projects in Balboa Park are partnerships with various stakeholder non?profit groups which include the Botanical Building Rehabilitation, Cabrillo Bridge Lighting Restoration, and Gatehouse Restoration, among others. These projects are not City?funded and therefore are not part of the City?s CIP budget. QUESTION: Please provide status update for Children's Park Improvements (816013)? Can this project be broken up to do something sooner rather than later? RESPONSE: The Park and Recreation Department maintains Children?s Park, and the Downtown Partnership maintains the water feature. In consultation and cooperation with San Diego Police Department, the Park and Recreation Department has recently undertaken or will soon undertake the following steps to improve safety: - Remove 24 Trees completed Page 3 of 16 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 Lace/trim the remaining trees pending 0 Remove four (4) remaining dirt/turf mounds pending As for longer?term capital projects, Civic San Diego is managing improvements to Children?s Park (816013) and with the following schedule for the project: July 2016 - Sign Contract for Preparation of the General Development Plan (GDP) amendment and Project Kick?off 0 August 2016 Public Workshop #1 to solicit input for new/revised elements and uses for the park September 2016 Preparation of 2 alternatives to meet the needs of the community October 2016 Public Workshop #2 to present the two alternatives and receive community input November 2016 Prepare Final GDP December 2016 Approval/Presentations to Civic San Diego?Real Estate Committee, Downtown Community Planning Council, and Civic San Diego Board January 2017 Park and Recreation Board Approval of GDP 0 February 2017 RFQ for the Preparation of Construction Documents 0 April 2017 Short List Design Teams for Construction Documents and Interviews May 2017 Contract with Design Team for Construction Documents December 2017 100% Construction Documents March 2018 Permitting April?June 2018 Bid and Award project July-Ian 2019 Construction Currently, the design phase of the project is funded; however, completion of the project is contingent upon additional funds being identified for construction. UESTION: Please provide an update on the expansion of Ward Canyon Neighborhood Park Phase 2. RESPONSE: The Park and Recreation Department implemented the interim dog off?leash park earlier this year and continues to seek funding for the eventual expansion of Ward Canyon Neighborhood Park. Until funding is identified, no further work is being performed on the park expansion project. COUNCIL DISTRICT 4 QUESTION: How many community parks are there in the City, and how many of those parks do not have a recreation center or some sort of indoor facility? RESPONSE: There are 48 parks currently classified as community parks, eight of which are without recreation centers. QUESTION: Please provide a status update of the following projects: Page 4 of 16 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 $15002 ADA Improvements 8: Expansion of Paradise Senior Center 0 800654 Chollas Community Park 813020 Martin Luther King Jr. Promenade $15029 Rolando Joint Use Facility Development 800810 Paradise Hills Library 0 Market Street Sidewalk (Northside) RESPONSE: $15002 ADA Improvements Expansion of Paradise Senior Center Public Works is currently designing the accessibility improvements, as funds are insufficient for the expansion. The project is in design, with the accessibility improvements anticipated to be completed by summer 2017. 800654 Chollas Community Park (North Chollas Comfort Station) Public Works will complete the preliminary engineering report by the end of May 2016, and design will start at that time. $13020 Martin Luther King Jr. Promenade ?Project scope will be determined after Project Planning is complete; and construction cost will be determined following completion of design. $15029 Rolando Joint Use Facility Development The Public Works Department is currently implementing the GDP phase of the Rolando Elementary School Joint Use project. The Department is currently selecting a consultant that will identify desired park amenities at both the upper and lower field. Once the Park and Recreation Board has approved the GDP, the San Diego Unified School District has agreed to construct the field adjacent to the school under its Proposition and the Mayor?s Play All Day program. $00810 Paradise Hills Library The Paradise Hills Library CIP project is scheduled to be closed in FY 2017 due to inactivity and will be re?op?ened once funding is identified. The project site identification began in FY 2008. The project calls for a new 15,000 sq. ft. library to replace the existing facility at a cost of approximately $9.0 million. Market Street Sidewalk (Northside) Market Street 47th to Euclid Improvements (B16133) 0 Working in conjunction with the Jacobs Center, staff is refining the conceptual design that was originally proposed. It is anticipated that the preliminary design will be completed in July and that the completion of the construction will be in 2019 in accordance with the State grant conditions. Market Street Euclid to Pita Improvements (316022) 0 Staff has developed a design concept that will provide for the sidewalk installation while minimizing the environmental challenges. Using this concept, preliminary engineering will be completed in July 2016, after which the design and environmental documents will be developed. Due to the complex environmental permitting required for this project, it is anticipated that the construction will not start until 2018. Page 5 of 16 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 COUNCIL DISTRICT 8 QUESTION: Please provide a breakdown of cost for each phase for Beyer Park Development ($00752)? RESPONSE: As part of the first phase for this project, Public Works staff is currently conducting an environmental review of the Beyer Community Park property. An older draft GDP provides guidance on intended park improvements at the site. Based on information available to date, Public Works estimates that design and construction of a first phase of Beyer Community Park, which would include a skate park, turf areas, picnic shelter, and playground, would be at least $8.0 million, depending on the type of skate park and other desired amenities. The estimated cost break down for this initial phase, assuming no major concerns arise from the ongoing environmental study and no major changes to the draft GDP, would be as follows: General Development Plan 250,000 Design 3 1,800,000 Construction 5,950,000 TOTAL 8,000,000 QUESTION: Is it accurate that the Public Works Department anticipates $372,000 in Development Impact Fees (DIF) to be allocated to Beyer Community Park project, if not, will there be another revenue source? RESPONSE: The $372,000 Otay Nestor Development Impact Fee allocation to the FY 2017 Anticipated column was added in error. The current phase of work to complete the environmental study is fully funded with the existing project budget. An additional $280,000 in San Ysidro Development Impact Fees is proposed in the May Revision to the FY 2017 Proposed Budget for the Beyer Community Park project, which should be adequate to fund completion of the GDP. QUESTION: Please provide a breakdown of costs by phases (design) for Southeastern Mini Park Improvements RESPONSE: Southeastern Mini Park Improvements (L16000) is proposed to consist of accessibility improvements to four parks. The scope for each project will be to replace each playground to meet current accessibility and safety standards and provide an accessible path of travel from the adjacent public street to the playground. Cost estimates are very preliminary at this point. Of these four parks, three of them, Island Avenue Mini Park, Clay Avenue Mini Park, and Street Mini Park, are proposed to receive funding from the EDCO Community Fund to initiate design The fourth park site, Gamma Street (815032), will use its current Southeastern San Diego Development Impact Fee funding to complete design and initiate construction The remaining funding needed for construction for all four park sites is currently estimated to be approximately $4.0 million. Park and Recreation staff intends to seek Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for these projects. Page 6 of 16 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 UESTION: Please provide a cost breakdown of repair construction projects. RESPONSE: On April Financial Management released a memo with all anticipated projects to be funded by annual allocations in FY 2017 that are known at this time. The memo is included in Attachment 1. FACILITIES FINANCING COUNCIL DISTRICT 8 QUESTION: How much in Facility Benefit Assessment (FBA) fees have been received in FY 2016 in Otay Mesa and how much have been expended on different projects? How much is being budgeted in FY 2017? RESPONSE: Through the third quarter of FY16, $1.34 million in impact fees (FBA and DIF) have been collected in Otay Mesa and $1.97 million has been expended. Approximately 87% of the expenditures have been for transportation projects (Old Otay Mesa Road, La Media Road, and Palm Ave/I?80 5 Interchange), 8% for parks projects (primarily Cesar Solis Community Park), and 5% for administrative costs. The $1.97 million in expenditures are funded from the impact fee revenues collected in FY 2016 as well as existing fund balance in the impact fee funds. The FY 2017 Proposed CIP Budget does not include an appropriation for the Otay Mesa FBA because the FBA fees are not appropriated until the fees have been collected by the City. The FY 2016 Appropriations Ordinance provides authority for the Chief Financial Officer to appropriate FBA funds in accordance with the City Council approved Community Public Facilities Financing Plan provided funding is available. Similar authorization will be requested in the FY 2017 Appropriations Ordinance. PUBLIC WORKS COUNCIL DISTRICT 8 QUESTION: In regards to Public Works?Engineering 8: Capital Projects, what is the associated increase in projects as it relates to the increase in positions? RESPONSE: The proposed increase of 46.10 Full?Time Equivalents (FTEs) in the Public Works?Engineering Capital Projects Branch is directly tied to the increase in the FY 2017 CIP Budget and the anticipated Five Year CIP Outlook. The proposed FY 2017 CIP budget is $372.7 million with an additional anticipated $261.4 million for a combined total of $634.1 million. In FY 2016, the CIP Budget was $338.3 million with an additional anticipated $192.0 million for a combined total of $530.3 million. From FY 2016 to FY 2017, the CIP Budget is increasing by 19.6%. Page 7 of 16 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 The most recent Five Year CIP Outlook projects available funding from FY 2017 through FY 2021 is $2.85 billion. The previous Five Year CIP Outlook projected available funding from FY16-FY20 of $2.16 billion. This results in an increase of $690.0 million over the next five years or an increase of 32%. Much of the increase is due to the City?s Pure Water Program. The proposed increase in in FY 2017 is 46.10 FTEs (FY 2016: 598.60 FTEs to FY 2017: 644.70 FTEs) which is a 7.7% increase. Although ECP staffing levels are not increasing at the same rate as the CIP Budget, it is anticipated that recent streamlining improvements will provide increased efficiencies to help offset some of the difference. QUESTION: In Public Works Facilities Maintenance Division there is an $8.0 million reduction in the budget under Non?Discretionary Adjustment and One Time?Reduction, can you provide breakdown of these costs? RESPONSE: The $1.0 million reduction in the Non?Discretionary Adjustment consists of changes to various commitment items that are outside the department?s control, including utilities, insurance, and rent. In regard to the One?Time Reductions, the $7.0 million variance is summarized below: 0 $5.3 million reduction in a transfer to the CIP for Facilities Annual Allocation in FY 2016; $1.4 million reduction in contracts, primarily for the facility condition assessments completed in FY 2016; and $0.3 million reduction in the one?time purchase of vehicles in FY 2016. I One-Time Reductions Contracts (1,474,998) Capital Expenditures (315,000) Transfers Out (5,264,086) Total Expenditures (7,054,084) COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 QUESTION: In regards to Balboa Park, can the Department please share practical suggestions on how to increase the number of staff dedicated to facilities maintenance? RESPONSE: Balboa Park is made up of several facilities from small comfort stations to three-story art museums; and the City has varying level of responsibilities for these facilities. The Facilities Maintenance Division is responsible for the minor maintenance and repair to most of the buildings in the park but a combination of capital investment, component replacement and maintenance is needed. Building repair and maintenance in Balboa Park is also complicated by the fact that some buildings are designated as historical. Page 8 of 16 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 The Facilities Division is transitioning to a more proactive approach. The FY 2017 Proposed Budget included the addition of 23.00 FTE positions to assist the division with facilities maintenance, including Balboa Park. Additionally, the FY 2017 May Revise includes the addition of 1.00 FTE Grounds Maintenance Supervisor to increase supervision of maintenance crews in Balboa Park, increasing maintenance service levels in the Park. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 QUESTION: What are the number of water main breaks for the past five years? RESPONSE: Water Construction and Maintenance Annual Main Break Reports Main Break Totals 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 YTD Total 104 89 75 34 34 120 .2012 .2014 40 . . .2015 .2015YTD 20 . . 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 YTD *Note: This graph reflects Calendar Years ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT COUNCIL DISTRICT 6 QUESTION: With $900,000 in funding for the Compressed Natural Gas Fueling Station and $381,164 for 2.00 FTEs as well as non?personnel to support the Zero Waste Plan, will the City reach its goal of 75% diversion by 2020? RESPONSE: Yes, the City is on track to reach its goal by 2020. QUESTION: Page 9 of 16 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 Is there an itemized break down of all of the costs for the $250,000 going into the Miramar Landfill consultants? RESPONSE: The following is an itemized breakdown of the services provided by the Miramar Landfill consultants: Services Estimated Cost Development of Planning Documents 110,000 Environmental Impact Plan 125,000 Public Outreach and Hearings 3 15,000 Total 250,000 QUESTION: The Department has worked with Council Member Cate?s office regarding the process of completing a time and motion study to determine what the costs would be to deliver multiple containers to the same address since we currently charge residents a delivery fee of $25 per container. Have these costs been determined yet? RESPONSE: The Department recently completed the time and motion study and is now evaluating the data in order to identify a better cost model for combining multiple containers on the same delivery. The results from the data should be available by November 2016. QUESTION: For the increase in trash containers sold to replace old containers, how much of this is due to containers being marked as inoperable by trash collectors and how much is due to residents replacing trash containers on their own? RESPONSE: . For the majority of the cases, the residents are replacing trash containers on their own. QUESTION: The trash containers have a 10?year shelf life, are there numbers on trash cans being replaced that have not made it through the 10?year life span? RESPONSE: The amount of containers that fail before the anticipated shelf life is less than QUESTION: How feasible is it to fix broken wheels or lids as opposed to having residents pay for a full replacement container? RESPONSE: If the container is less than 10 years, ESD will repair at no cost to customer. If greater than 10 years, ESD will provide wheels and lids for free, if manufacture parts are available. QUESTION: Page 10 of 16 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 The City?s container contract is dueto expire in November of 2016 in which there will be a push for a full 10?year warranty on the trash containers. If this warranty is set up, will this have an impact on the projected revenue from replacement trash container purchases? RESPONSE: Yes, there could be a revenue impact of approximately $50,000 since the new contract will contain an all?inclusive warranty and a co?op agreement is being considered. QUESTION: Why is there a difference between expenditure and revenue in the Enterprise Recycling Fund? RESPONSE: The difference is due to a planned use of fund balance in FY 2017. This one?time use of fund balance will support one?time expenses for the purchase of a trash truck ($305,000) and a transfer to the CNG project QUESTION: Are there any steps in the Zero Waste Plan that will help address the expenditure to revenue difference? If so, which ones? Refuse or Recycling Fund? RESPONSE: There are several steps being taken to ensure the financial stability of the Zero Waste Plan including returning $2.9 million for the Sycamore Facility franchise fees over five years. FY 2017 is the second year that includes $580,000 of new revenue to the Recycling Fund. Beginning in January 2017, the Recycling Fund will receive approximately $960,000 per year from the Franchise agreement. This revenue is the result of limiting the type of recycling material that is currently exempt from the franchise requirement. As identified in the Zero Waste Proposed Funding Plan, in FY19, the AB939 fee will be evaluated to determine if an increase is necessary to maintain a stable fund. Finally, the Department will continue to look for operational efficiencies and reduce costs as appropriate. TRANSPORTATION AND STORM WATER COUNCIL DISTRICT 8 QUESTION: What is the source of funding for Southwest Middle School's crosswalk, and what fiscal year are the funds budgeted in? RESPONSE: Based on a recent traffic study of the area, Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons will be installed, as well as a crosswalk, curb ramps, and a street light. The project is funded with FY 2016 Capital Outlay funds in Annual Allocation and installation is estimated to be completed by September 2016. Page 11 of 16 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 COUNCIL DISTRICT 6 QUESTION: What is the status of the 10 SANDAG traffic signals projects on Mira Mesa Boulevard? RESPONSE: The expansion of the Traffic Signal Adaptive System on Mira Mesa Boulevard from 805 to the east (total of 10 intersections) is in progress. The City has received the equipment from Engineering and will be installing it over the next six weeks. Following installation, engineers from Engineering will be on site to configure the adaptive control. The City is expected to go live" by July 2016. Transportation Engineering Operations Division has met with Caltrans to discuss installation of equipment at their two traffic signals. It appears the City will need a permit to proceed, therefore, those two installations will likely take longer but will not delay implementation at the City signals. Please note that there is no SANDAG grant for these projects. This project is funded through FY 2016 Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) funds. COUNCIL DISTRICT 8 UESTION: What is the current unfunded need for Sidewalk Repair and Reconstruction? RESPONSE: The sidewalk condition assessment conducted in FY 2015 estimated a CIP need of approximately $46.1 million to repair and replace existing sidewalks. Since then, $5.4 million has been allocated to the Sidewalk Repair and Reconstruction annual allocation. Additionally, $2.0 million is included in the FY 2017 Proposed Budget and the FY 2017?2021 Five?Year Financial Outlook included $4.0 million in anticipated funding from the General Fund for each year in FY 2018, 2019, and 2020. This leaves a remaining need of approximately $26.7 million to complete all CIP repairs identified in the FY 2015 sidewalk condition assessment. QUESTION: The total FTE on your budget report states 45.05, if you add up the FTEs identified under SignificantBudgetAdjustment, it adds up to 46.95. Is this a typo? RESPONSE: 46.00 FTE additions have been proposed for the General Fund with a net reduction of 0.95 FTE non?standard hour positions. This totals to an FTE count of 45.05. QUESTION: Has there recently been any unclassified employees that have come into Transportation 8: Storm Water that are not reflected in the budget? RESPONSE: All TSW unclassified positions are reflected in the FY 2017 Proposed Budget. The budget includes a request for 2.00 FTE unclassified positions 1.00 FTE Program Manager-Customer Advocate in Right?of?Way Coordination (ROW) Division and 1.00 FTE Program Manager to support the Storm Water Operations 8: Maintenance section. QUESTION: Was El Ni?o clearing covered in the FY 2016 budget? Page 12 of 16 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 RESPONSE: Planned channel cleaning at Alvarado and Tijuana River Valley was included in the FY 2016 budget. Other channel locations that were maintained under emergency authorizations were not included in the Department?s FY 2016 budget - QUESTION: What is the cost of the contractor for Tijuana River Valley?will that be FY 2016 or FY 2017? RESPONSE: No contractors accepted offers to perform pumping or channel clearing work in the Tijuana River Valley. As noted above, costs are included in the department?s FY 2016 budget. Work currently being performed (de?watering and grading at Effie May Crossing) is being performed by City crews. QUESTION: Regarding the 4.00 new FTE positions for the Admin and Right of Way Coordination division, what will their responsibility be? - RESPONSE: The General Fund portion of the Right?of?Way Division is requesting 3.00 new FTE positions in FY 2017. 1.00 FTE Program Manager (Customer Advocate) will ensure high?functioning relationships between the Transportation and Storm Water Department and all internal and external customers and partners. This position will play a key leadership role inside the organization developing department staff knowledge and understanding of stakeholder perspectives; supporting an efficient relationship management system, and ensuring standards for excellence in interactions. Also, the position will play a primary role with the ?Get it done? initiative that will streamline the department?s response to service requests which was identified as a priority in the recent Customer Satisfaction Survey. 2.00 FTE positions will support the City?s Street Preservation Ordinance. 1.00 FTE Code Compliance Officer will enforce provisions of the Street Preservation Ordinance and other applicable right?of?way codes. The position will also assist with other department code enforcement activities related to transportation and storm water projects. Additionally, 1.00 FTE Clerical Assistant 2 will focus on the processing and collection of street damage fees including reviewing for accuracy, issuing invoices, transferring of funds, and providing overall clerical support to division staff. Currently, the Division relies on assistance from other department clerical staff. Additionally, 1.00 FTE Supervising Management Analyst was transferred mid?year from Street Division to better align the responsibility of the position. QUESTION: The 6.00 FTEs tasked with Graffiti Abatement, listed under SignificantBudgetAdjustments, are they new FTEs or transfers, and are they Citywide or responsible for certain districts? Page 13 of 16 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 RESPONSE: The six new positions are additional resources, not transfers, which will support graffiti abatement Citywide. QUESTION: There is a reduction of $3,834,925 in General Fund expenditures for the Street Division, yet 11.65 FTEs were requested. Please provide an explanation for this. RESPONSE: The net decrease is primarily due to the reduction of FY 2016 one?time additions of $7.9 million. $1.0 million for vehicles and equipment and $6.9 million for transfers to CIP projects. QUESTION: Can you please send the location list for the following? 1. 308 miles of street 2. $2.0 million sidewalk repairs 3. $1.7 for installation of new sidewalk. Is this part of the 4. $1.4 million for upgrading one circuit of old street lights RESPONSE: 1. The list of streets that will receive slurry seal and overlay is being developed and will include various locations throughout the City. Staff will have the list of streets completed by the end of June which will be provide to each Council Office. 2. The locations for FY 2017 panel replacement are being developed using the sidewalk assessment data and will include locations near public facilities such as schools, libraries, and parks throughout the City. 3. Yes, the $1.7 million for installation of new sidewalks is part of the CIP. The FY 2017 funding is anticipated to be allocated to the Market Street - 47th to Euclid Improvements new sidewalk project and the San Diego Mission Road new sidewalk project. 4. There are approximately 30 circuit replacements identified that need to be completely replaced. In evaluating all the circuits the one area that is deemed to be most in need of repair at this time is Santa Monica Avenue. A final decision and location will be determined by the end of June. QUSESTION: On Page 609, there is reduction of $13,850,391 for One?Time Reductions and Annualizatons, please send me the details for this budget adjustment. Page 14 of 16 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 RESPONSE: Posted below is a breakdown of the one?time reductions and annualizations. One Time Categories Amount Transfers to CIP $9,121,361 Vehicle/ Equipment $3,355,383 Other $765,647 Total 13,242,391 Annualization Amount Low Flow Diversion Inhousing 608,000 Total One Time Categories and Annualization 13,850,391 One?Time Revenue IAM Project Revenue 513,115 QUESTION: The Department is requesting 29.40 FTE, your report addresses 27.00 FTE, where will the 2.40 FTE going? RESPONSE: The Storm Water Division is requesting an additional 31.00 FTE in FY 2017. In addition to the 27.00 FTE listed, 3.00 FTE of the new Trucking Crew and 1.00 FTE Program Manager to support the Storm Water Operations 8: Maintenance section are requested. The net 29.40 FTE comprises of 31.00 new FTE, a net reduction of 0.60 FTE for non?standard hour positions, and a mid?year transfer of 1.00 FTE Associate Management Analyst to Street Division. QUESTION: Please send the location list for the 13.00 FTE positions and $3.5 million expenditure to support channel cleaning and maintenance. Which channels will they be cleaning? RESPONSE: Staff are currently conducting field evaluations and prioritizing channels after conclusion of the rainy season. As was done last year, staff will seek community input on potential locations during the summer and will present the findings to the Environment Committee in early fall. In addition, as noted at the April 14, 2016 Environment Committee meeting, if work is halted this spring due to presence of nesting birds, staff will be seeking permits to perform maintenance in the Tijuana River Valley this fall. QUESTION: Are ongoing environment remediation costs for the emergency cleanings associated with El Nino, factored in this budget, and if so, can you provide a list. RESPONSE: Emergency?related mitigation costs are not yet known and are not included in the FY 2017 Proposed Budget. Page 15 of 17 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 QUESTION: Please provide the location list for 6.00 FTE positions and $1.6 million for pipe repairs for flood risk management. RESPONSE: Potential pipe repair locations will be evaluated throughout the fiscal year to determine whether repairs can be completed with City crews or through a capital improvement project. QUESTION: Please provide the location list for 5.00 FTE and $1.9 million to increase catch basin cleaning, as part of improving storm water quality. RESPONSE: Crews will perform 5,000 additional catch basin cleanings throughout the City based on historical debris accumulation data in storm drains, as well as water quality priorities in each watershed. This year, more than 30,000 catch basins were cleaned citywide. QUESTION: Please provide a list of streetlights by Council District, that have been resident requested and department evaluated, but not yet funded. RESPONSE: There are currently 1,820 streetlights on the unfunded list. All are resident requested streetlights and have been evaluated. As a result of the evaluations, they all meet Transportation Engineering Operations (TEO) Division criteria for installation. Below is a list of the current number of unfunded streetlights within each Council District. Additionally, Attachment 2 lists all current unfunded streetlights sorted by Council District and location. Council District Number of ,Streetlights District 1 260 District 2 133 District 3 179 District 4 217 District 5 244 District 6 70 District 7 123 District 8 224 District 9 370 Total 1,820 QUESTION: In regards to Resurfacing Citywide (AID00005) for $1.5 million, please provide a list of the determined locations for the approximate three miles of asphalt overlay. RESPONSE: The streets to receive resurfacing are being developed and will include various locations throughout the City. We will distribute the list of streets on each project to all Council Offices Page 16 of 17 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 once the locations are finalized. It should be noted that the $1.5 million in Trench Cut funding is a portion of the total street repair budget. QUESTION: Please provide the list of street lights circuits that is being requested through the $1.4 million. RESPONSE: One street light circuit upgrade will be funded with the $1.4 million request. The specific location to be funded next year is being finalized but it will most likely be on Santa Monica Avenue in Ocean Beach due to reoccurring outages this past year. QUESTION: It was reported in the Mayor and Council Member Workshop Group, that Phase 4 of the Otay Truck Route project will be funded with FY17 TransNet funds in the tune of $9,700,000. Is this accurate? RESPONSE: $9.7 million in TransNet is programmed for FY 2018. This funding will support the construction phase of the project which is scheduled to begin in FY 2018. To ensure proper management, this funding is now planned for FY 2018 when needed. Tr . Financial ia gement Director Attachments: 1. Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed CIP Budget: Anticipated Projects to be Funded by Annual Allocations, dated April 28, 2016 2. Unfunded Streetlights, dated May 9, 2016 cc: Honorable Mayor Kevin L. Faulconer Honorable Members of the City Council Stephen Puetz, Chief of Staff, Office of the Mayor Jaymie Bradford, Deputy Chief of Policy, Office of the Mayor Marshall Anderson, Director of Council Affairs, Office of the Mayor Katherine Johnson, Deputy Chief of Policy, Office of the Mayor Scott Chadwick, Chief Operating Officer Stacey LoMedico, Assistant Chief operating Officer Mary Lewis, Chief Financial Officer Andrea Tevlin, Independent Budget Analyst David Graham, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Neighborhood Services Ronald H. Villa, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Internal Operations Herman Parker, Director, Park 8: Recreation Erik Caldwell, Director, Economic Development Dana Springs, Director, Commission for Arts 8: Culture Alia Khouri, Deputy Director, Fleet Services Cybele Thompson, Director, Real Estate Assets Jonathan Behnke, Director, Department of Information Technology Page 17 of 17 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 18, 2016 Financial Management Staff THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 24, 2016 TO: Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members FROM: Tracy McCraner, Financial Management Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Review Committee Referral Responses for May 9, 2016 _______________________________________________________ This memorandum provides responses and/or follow up information to unanswered questions asked at the Budget Review Committee Meeting held on May 9, 2016. The responses are listed by department in the order that they were reviewed by the Committee. In addition to the responses below, a separate memorandum will be issued by Performance & Analytics on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) no later than Thursday, May 26th. PARK AND RECREATION COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 QUESTION: How many tickets are issued in the La Jolla Shores area by Park Rangers, and what are they issued for? RESPONSE: In calendar year 2015 Shoreline Park Rangers issued 12 parking citations at Kellogg Park (La Jolla Shores). In addition, Park Rangers reported 222 contacts with the public for a variety of observed infractions (dog off-leash, alcohol, and slack lining). Through the Park Rangers ability to educate and act as stewards of park resources, they were able to bring park users into compliance and citations were not issued. QUESTION: Please provide a copy of the Doyle study regarding odor control when it is available. RESPONSE: The study is anticipated to be completed by July 2016. A copy of the study will be provided upon completion. Page 2 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 QUESTION: Please provide a complete breakdown of expenses in the Environmental Growth Funds (1/3 and 2/3 Fund). RESPONSE: The purpose and utilization of the Environmental Growth Fund is to preserve and enhance the environment as stated in the San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 6, Article 3, Division 00, Section 63.30, City of San Diego City Charter Article VII, Section 103.1a, and Appropriation Ordinance O-19159. Attachment 1 provides the department's Fiscal Year 2017 breakdown of eligible expenses. QUESTION: Please provide a breakdown of how Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) funds are used by the Park and Recreation Department. RESPONSE: The purpose and intent of the Transient Occupancy Tax is to promote the City through planning, construction, maintenance and operation of tourist-related cultural, recreational and convention facilities as stated in San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 3, Article 5, Division 1, Section 35.0101, and City of San Diego Council Policy 100-03. The table below outlines the department's expenses and TOT reimbursement for Fiscal Year 2015. Cost Center Number 1714141114 Cost Center Title Citywide Park Forestry FY15 Actuals FY15 TOT Transfer 640,242 640,000 1714141212 Balboa Park Grounds Maintenance 3,410,842 3,400,000 1714141213 Balboa Park Rangers 982,587 700,000 1714141214 Balboa Park Events 162,529 160,000 1714141215 Balboa Park Recreation Facility Mgmt. 433,021 300,000 1714141216 Balboa Park Facility Mgmt./Maint. 2,211,947 2,000,000 1714141312 Mission Bay Park Turf Maint. 2,396,362 2,200,000 1714141313 Mission Bay Park Hort / Custodial 2,906,355 2,900,000 1714141314 Mission Bay Park Aquatic/Non-Rout Maint 912,268 800,000 1714141412 Beach / Shore Turf Maint 467,997 400,000 1714141413 Beach / Shore Hort / Custodial Maint 1,652,716 1,500,000 1714141414 Beach / Shore Beach Maint 2,537,011 707,250 18,713,877 15,707,250 Total COUNCIL DISTRICT 2 QUESTION: What is the cost of adding additional Park Rangers to Tecolote Canyon to address homeless encampments? Page 3 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 RESPONSE: Cost estimate for one additional park ranger is approximately $86,500 which includes salary and fringe, $40,000 in one-time expenditure for vehicle outlay, and $4,500 in supplies. QUESTION: What is the cost for adding grounds maintenance workers at Mission Bay Park and Rose Creek Bike Path? RESPONSE: The cost estimate of one Grounds Maintenance Worker II is approximately $36,762 for salary and fringe. There may be an additional one-time cost for vehicle outlay, estimated at $30,000 per vehicle. Park and Recreation maintains park grounds which are adjacent to Rose Creek bike path. There are sections of Rose Creek bike path which do not run through parkland and therefore are not maintained by park staff. COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 QUESTION: Regarding the Children's Park in downtown, can some of the mounds and trees be removed to improve visibility, and make monitoring and policing of the park easier? RESPONSE: In consultation and cooperation with San Diego Police Department, the Park and Recreation Department has recently undertaken the removal of 24 trees. All remaining tree canopies are at least 12-15 feet off the ground which has improved visibility and safety. QUESTION: What are the cost estimates of having the bathrooms at Mission Bay open from November to March? RESPONSE: The FY 2017 May Revise includes $117,000 to restore this previous reduction and to have all the comfort stations open year around. QUESTION: What is the cost of having additional maintenance staff on weekends at Balboa Park? RESPONSE: The FY2017 May Revise includes $95,000 for additional maintenance staff at Balboa Park which is a restoration of a previous maintenance staff reduction. QUESTION: Can you tell me if the multimodal path for Golf Course Drive is in the budget? RESPONSE: The Golf Course Drive Multi-Purpose Pathway project has two components: Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse (S-00614) and Golf Course Drive Improvements (S-15040). No additional Page 4 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 funding was identified in FY 2017 for these projects, but both projects are making progress. The Clubhouse project is currently in design, and the project will include a pathway for the segment of Golf Course Drive that passes the clubhouse. Golf Course Drive Improvements project is currently in preliminary design, as Public Works is developing potential alternatives for a multi-use pathway that would parallel existing Golf Course Drive. The results of this study are not yet determined, but they will be helpful in calculating a cost estimate. COUNCIL DISTRICT 4 QUESTION: What is the cost estimates for the Tooma Senior Center at Bay Terraces Community Park? RESPONSE: FY 2016 Year-End Budget Monitoring Report recommends $500,000 for design of Tooma. This design will determine full project costs. COUNCIL DISTRICT 6 QUESTION: With regards to the Clairemont Senior Center, please provide a list of services and an annualized cost break down of the current services offered. RESPONSE: Provided below is a list of services offered by the Clairemont Senior Center: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Open play pool, daily Senior Exercise, four days per week Open play Bridge, two days per week Art Class, two days per week Dominos, one day per week Bingo, one day per week Choir, one day per week Tap Dance, one day per week Community Autism Group attends and assists a few times per week The total annual costs for these services is $111,221, as detailed in the tables below: Personnel Assistant Recreation Center Director FTE Annual Expenditures 52,456 Recreation Leader I - Hourly 1.00 $ 0.50 $ Grounds Maintenance Worker I - Hourly 1.00 $ 33,654 Total 2.50 $ 15,226 101,336 Page 5 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 Utility Monthly Average Water $ Gas Electric Total Annual Estimate 133 $ 1,597 $ 27 $ 324 $ 664 $ 7,964 $ 824 $ 9,885 COUNCIL DISTRICT 8 QUESTION: Please provide more information regarding the rubberizing of J-Street Park in Sherman Heights. RESPONSE: J Street Mini Park is a new Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project which includes playground replacement to meet current accessibility and safety standards, and provide an accessible path of travel from the adjacent public street to the playground. QUESTION: Where in the budget is the cost for maintenance of temporary pools? RESPONSE: The budget for temporary pools, known as the Portable Pool Program is in two Park and Recreation Divisions. Community Parks II contains the recreational staff, while Developed Regional Parks staff and costs associated with the maintenance. The department has never included specific line item or budget for the program, as the costs are included within the overall aquatics program. . The same holds true for aquatic maintenance staff, who also have the responsibility of maintaining 32 ornamental water features, and more than 60 park irrigation booster pumps. QUESTION: Between 30 and 50 park facilities are generally assessed each year, which parks were assessed in Fiscal Year 2016? RESPONSE: For Fiscal Year 2016, Balboa Park is the only park being assessed. QUESTION: Please provide a status update of the Old San Ysidro Fire Station Pocket Park. RESPONSE: The Park and Recreation Department is working with Public Works to hire a contractor to demolish both the Memorial Community Park Girls Club and the Old San Ysidro Fire Station. Both are funded by FY 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The Girls Club will be demolished first by December 31, 2016 and the fire station will be demolished no later than the end of March 2017. Page 6 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 COUNCIL DISTRICT 9 QUESTION: Which eight recreation centers will expand hours? RESPONSE: The following recreation centers will have expanded hours: ? Adams ? La Jolla ? Lopez Ridge ? Pacific Beach ? San Carlos ? Silver Wing ? Skyline ? Southcrest QUESTION: What locations will the additional Area Managers support? RESPONSE: One will support the Community Parks I Division and the other in the Community Parks II Division. Community Parks I Division includes geographic areas of Council Districts 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7, as well as the Naval Training Center Park. Community Parks II Division includes geographic areas of Council Districts 3, 4, 8 and 9 as well as Aquatics Programs, Mount Hope Cemetery, Therapeutic Recreation Services, Senior and Volunteer Services. Also includes the communities listed below. QUESTION: In the Revenues by Category section of the budget publication, what accounts are within Charges for Services, Other Revenue and Rev from Money and Property? RESPONSE: Charges for Services mainly include revenue accounts for fees such as fees for pools, Mt. Hope cemetery, athletics, dance and others. This category also includes revenue accounts for TOT and EGF reimbursements. Other Revenue category include revenue accounts for items such as donations, reimbursements for property damage and rebates. Revenue from Money and Property include revenue accounts for Balboa Park facility rentals and beach bar moorings. QUESTION: The $150,000 legal settlement with Carmel Partners that was deposited with the City, was to be spent on improvements to Clay Park. An advisory group was set up through the Colina Recreation Council to recommend improvements. Councilmember Emerald is interested in trying to fund as many of these recommendations as possible during the current budget process. How many of these recommendations will be included in the Mayor's May Revise? RESPONSE: The first four Clay Park projects can be completed with the original lawsuit funds and will be Page 7 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 recommended to Council during the next Colina Recreation Council meeting. The Clay Park projects include the following: ? ? ? ? Native & Mediterranean Demo Site Western Entry and Arbor Linear Park Area General Park Improvement NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 QUESTION: Please provide an update on results of assessment for gender neutral bathrooms and any information on the possible costs. RESPONSE: An inventory of restrooms was completed last week and is currently being reviewed by the Human Resources Department. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 QUESTION: Please provide a departmental organization chart. RESPONSE: Please see Attachment 2. QUESTION: Please provide a break out of the $7.8 million in the Contract line item; listing the vendor and amount for all contracts that are over $250,000. For all contracts under $250,000, please sum the total and list the percentage it represents of the total. RESPONSE: The table below lists the contracts. Economic Development Contract Budget Successor Agency $ 3,291,750 Homeless Services $ 2,315,000 Small Business Enhancement Program Civic San Diego $ 471,000 $ 250,000 Connect 2 Careers $ 250,000 Contracts budgeted under $250k $ 1,202,348 Total $ 7,780,098 Page 8 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 Contracts under $250K, represent 15% of the total budget for contracts. QUESTION: What are the sources of the revenue for the SBEP budget? RESPONSE: SBEP funds are a General Fund appropriation equivalent to $20 per small business (businesses with 12 or fewer employees) registered with the City. QUESTION: Please provide a list of last year's grant awards. RESPONSE: The table below lists all the organizations/programs along with the grant amount awarded. Organization/Program FY15 Grant Amounts Awarded Adams Avenue Business Association $ 46,900 Asian Business Association $ 25,125 City Heights Community Development Corporation $ 61,690 Greater Golden Hill CDC $ 28,287 Hostelling International-American Youth Hostels $ 46,900 Japan Society of San Diego and Tijuana $ 36,180 La Jolla Village Merchants Association, Inc. $ 46,900 Little Italy Association $ 100,240 North Park Organization of Businesses, Inc. $ 53,036 Old Town San Diego Chamber of Commerce $ 29,064 Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce $ 46,900 San Diego Diplomacy Council $ 40,175 San Diego East Visitors Bureau $ 63,451 South County Economic Development Council $ 55,573 South Park Business Group, Inc. $ 11,017 Travelers Aid Society of San Diego $ 61,690 Urban Corps of San Diego County $ 37,173 Veterans Memorial Center, Inc. $ 37,173 Total $ 827,474 COUNCIL DISTRICT 8 QUESTION: Regarding the one Senior Planner to support the implementation and maintenance of City's Climate Action Plan (CAP), is that position tasked with of tracking the social equity aspect of the CAP? Is it in the job description? Page 9 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 RESPONSE: The new Senior Planner position will help with all aspects of tracking for the CAP, including social equity and jobs. QUESTION: There was also a sentiment that in future fiscal years, additional staffing would need to be added to adequately support the CAP. Can one of the currently vacant positions serve that purpose in the future? RESPONSE: All of the existing vacancies in the department are in the process of being filled. We anticipate as the scope of our implementation efforts increases we will likely need to add additional positions in EDD or other departments in future fiscal years. QUESTION: What are the functions/responsibilities of the one Associate Management Analyst and one Community Development Specialist to manage Successor Agency activities? RESPONSE: The City anticipated that the scope of work associated with wind down activities would decrease over time at a rate faster than what we have experienced. The City is still very much involved in wind down activities and it is expected that this will be the case for several fiscal years, therefore dedicated positions are warranted. These positions will help facilitate coordination between Civic San Diego and the City as well as working on ongoing redevelopment projects separate and apart from the work being done by Civic San Diego for which dedicated management and oversight is required. Funding for these positions will come from the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule's (ROPS') Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF). QUESTION: In FY 2016, $7 million will be spent on contracts, can you specify what these contracts are for? Additionally, what contracts are the department anticipating to fund with the $7.8 million proposed in FY 2017? RESPONSE: A breakdown of the department's major contracts is outlined below. Successor Agency is the contract with Civic San Diego. In addition, Civic San Diego has $250k for economic development. Homeless Services is the department's contract with the Housing Commission. The Small Business Enhancement Program (SBEP) is a collection of small contracts to Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), Maintenance Assessment Districts (MADs), and community organizations with the purpose of supporting small businesses in San Diego. The Connect 2 Careers supports the Workforce Partnership's youth jobs training program with the same name. Page 10 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 Economic Deve Dept. Contract Budget Categories Amount Successor Agency $ 3,291,750 Homeless Services $ 2,315,000 Small Business Enhancement Program $ 471,000 Civic San Diego $ 250,000 Connect 2 Careers $ 250,000 Contracts Budget Under $250,000 $ 1,202,348 Total $ 7,780,098 QUESTION: Due to the department's reorganization, please provide a new organizational chart, with a breakdown by function please. RESPONSE: Please see Attachment 3. QUESTION: According to the May 5th grant award memo, the San Ysidro Business Association did not receive any grants. Can you please provide more information on why that is? RESPONSE: San Ysidro Business Association Economic Development Tourism Support Grant Application received an average score of 14.6 out of total of 30, and did not meet the minimum score required to be considered for funding based on scoring guidelines provided within the application. COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 QUESTION: Please provide more information about SBEP Funds, how is it funded, and what is it generating? RESPONSES: Council Policy 900-12 governs this program. SBEP funds are a General Fund appropriation equivalent to $20 per small business (businesses with 12 or fewer employees) registered with the City. Funding is provided for citywide programs and for business district programs. The types of uses for these funds include, but are not limited to: ? Citywide o Storefront Improvement Program-Incentives and Design Services o Services, Information and Projects o Citywide Small Business Enhancement Grants o Public Sector Contracting Business Development ? Business Districts o City Fees and Services Offset o BID Management Support Page 11 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 o o o o Micro-Districts and Commercial Neighborhoods (Grants/In-Kind Services) Technical Assistance Non-Profit, Board and Staff Development Formation Fund (Revolving) COMMISSION FOR THE ARTS AND CULTURE COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 QUESTION: In regard to the recipients (and non-recipients) of funding, can you please provide additional information on the following: 1. California Lawyers for the Arts. Please clarify how this group is qualified for funding? 2. La Jolla Art and Wine Festival, which was again denied funding, please detail why? RESPONSE: 1. California Lawyers for the Arts (CLA) proposes to produce a series of arts law education events, which take place at various neighborhood galleries including SD Art Institute, Spark Gallery, La Bodega Gallery, and Space4Art. The events are tailored for emerging and midcareer artists who are seeking affordable information about the legal issues involved in their artistic practices. CLA serves artists involved in all arts disciplines who represent diverse ethnic groups and cultural backgrounds as well as economically diverse neighborhoods. This type of "service to the field" strengthens the arts and culture sector overall by improving sustainability, quality and diversity; as such, several other organizations are funded for providing services to the field. The Commission views CLA as a contributor to the achieving the purpose of the ACCF category: To enhance the economy and contribute to San Diego's reputation as a cultural destination by nurturing and maintaining art and culture institutions of national and international reputation; by supporting programs and projects that provide access to excellence in culture and the arts for residents and visitors; and by funding programs and events which enrich the lives of the people of San Diego and build healthy, vital neighborhoods. 2. La Jolla Art and Wine Festival, the FY 2017 application they submitted received a rank of 2 from the ad hoc panel of evaluators, which translates to, "The application has some merit but does not meet the criteria in a strong or solid way." All FY 2017 applicants given a rank of 2+ or lower (i.e. 2+, 2, 2-, 1+, 1) were given the opportunity to appeal the Commission's recommendation. La Jolla Art and Wine Festival did not contact the Commission to receive comments about their application to prepare an appeal nor did they submit an appeal. QUESTION: You've reported that arts programming (e.g. field trips, artist residencies, assemblies, etc.) provided by the City's non-profit arts and culture contractors combined with the San Diego Unified School District's (SDUSD) Visual and Performing Arts Department reached 100% of the SDUSD's schools and 84% of the charter schools affiliated with SDUSD in FY 2015. What other school districts and how many other schools are served by the arts and culture non-profit organizations that receive funding from the Commission? Page 12 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 RESPONSE: The data collected from non-profit organizations that received FY 2016 Organizational Support Program funding and those that applied for FY 2017 Organizational Support Program funding, indicates that 316 schools within the boundaries of the City of San Diego but not affiliated with the SDUSD were served. Research indicates that SDUSD is the only public school district operating within the boundaries of the City of San Diego. The SDUSD includes 117 elementary schools, 9 K-8 schools, 25 middle schools, 24 high schools, 14 alternative schools and is affiliated with 49 charter schools. More schools - those that are not managed by or affiliated with SDUSD - operate within the boundaries of The City of San Diego. These non-SDUSD schools include preschools, private schools, community colleges and universities. The arts and culture nonprofits that receive funding from the City report the following information about the number of non-SDUSD schools served: Council District District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9 Total Number of Non-SDUSD Schools Served 39 24 43 18 51 35 39 40 27 316 In addition to SDUSD, the following 31 school districts also received funding from the City's non-profit arts and culture program. Page 13 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 Non-SDUSD School Districts 1. Alpine Union School District 17. Oceanside Unified School District 2. Cajon Valley Union School District 18. Poway Unified School District 3. Cardiff School District 19. Ramona Unified School District 4. Carlsbad Unified School District 20. Rancho Santa Fe School District 5. Chula Vista Elementary School District 21. San Diego Unified School District 6. Coronado Unified School District 22. San Dieguito Union High School District 7. Del Mar Union School District 23. San Marcos Unified School District 8. Encinitas Union School District 24. San Pasqual Union School District 9. Escondido Union School District 25. San Ysidro School District 10. Escondido Union High School District 26. Santee School District 11. Grossmont Union High School District 27. Solana Beach School District 12. Jamul-Dulzura Union School District 28. South Bay Union School District 13. La Mesa-Spring Valley School District 29. Spencer Valley School District 14. Lakeside Union School District 30. Sweetwater Union High School District 15. Lemon Grove School District 31. Vista Unified School District 16. National School District QUESTION: In the budget pages for Special Promotions under Safety And Maintenance Of Visitor-Related Facilities, please provide a breakout of the $28.6 million in expenditures for TOT Administration and Promotional Activities. RESPONSE: The $28.6 million General Fund Reimbursement for Safety and Maintenance of Visitor Related Facilities consisted of the following departments' expenditures related to tourism support: Services Cost Comm & Legal Services Comptrollers (for TOT Fund Administration) $ 180,000 $ 5,000 DSD/Planning $ 332,200 Facilities Parks and Recreation (includes reimbursement to Park Ranger Program) $ 50,000 $ 27,445,150 Economic Development $ 575,900 Total $ 28,588,250 FLEET SERVICES COUNCIL DISTRICT 8 Page 14 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 QUESTION: Please provide a breakdown of cost and savings since Managed Competition has been introduced. Specifically, has the increase in the number of personnel been offset in any savings since Managed Competitions been introduced? RESPONSE: Please refer to Attachment 4. QUESTION: Please provide a list of the number of vehicles that where checked sent for repair in FY 14, FY 15, and FY 16. RESPONSE: The total number of work order tickets listed below are repairs only. This does not include authorized warranty repair completed, preventative maintenance, fitting, or vehicles that are being prepared for auction. The number of work order tickets does not correspond with the total number of City vehicles that were repaired as many vehicles may have more than one work order ticket. The actual number of vehicle data is not currently stored in the Fleet management system. The upgrade project included in the FY 17 budget will improve the ability to get improved data. Fiscal Year Total Number of Work Order FY14 44,092 FY15 40,306 FY16 35,153 Total 119,551 QUESTION: Please provide the number of City vehicles that were available and operations for this fiscal year. RESPONSE: The table below provides availability percentages for the entire City's Fleet. Please note that the percentages represent fleet availability at the beginning of each quarter. The target for citywide vehicle availability is 90%. Not all vehicle types are tracked in the fleet management system. Adjustments are made with the respective customer departments to focus on priorities depending on needs. FY 2016 Availability Q1 91% Q2 92.5% Q3 91.5% Page 15 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 QUESTION: How will the addition of 1,000 new vehicles impact the backlog of existing cars needing repairs? ANSWER: Replacing older vehicles with new vehicles will have a positive impact on our maintenance operations. The smoothing out of fleet acquisition will have further positive impacts as we replace new vehicles at the end of their useful life. The goal of Fleet Services is to manage the fleet to maximize the life cycle of the vehicle and retire it before the maintenance becomes overwhelming. This was not been done prior to the current management of Fleet Services. The acquisition plans in place in FY 17 will aid in mitigating the past errors. COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 QUESTION: What is Fleet's plan of action, if voters approve the living wage bill in the upcoming election? Please provide a response to be included in the May revise. RESPONSE: A separate response will be provided at a later date. REAL ESTATE ASSETS COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 QUESTION: If the Chargers left San Diego, the City would receive $15.2 million for early termination. Would the City receive that amount if the Chargers left Qualcomm, but remained in San Diego? And, what purposes could that money be used towards, if it did get the money? RESPONSE: The $15.2 million is the fee if the termination option had been exercised by May 1, 2016. The termination fee reduces each year and the next time it is available for exercise by the Chargers is from February 1, 2017 - May 1, 2017, which would result in a termination fee of $12,575,000. The department has requested a legal opinion from the City Attorney's Office on whether the termination fee would be received if the Chargers left Qualcomm but remained in San Diego. Once the legal opinion is provided, it will be forwarded to the Council. QUESTION: What type of events are anticipated for Qualcomm in FY 2017? RESPONSE: Below is the list of anticipated events for FY 2017. Page 16 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 Stadium Events: 1. SUM-Soccer Mexico June 1, 2016 2. Guns N Roses Concert August 22, 2016 3. California State Games 2016 4. Jehovah's Witnesses 2017 5. Crohns & Colitis October 2016 6. Bolt To the Q-Chargers 2016 7. Poinsettia Bowl Dec 2016 8. Holiday Bowl Dec 2016 Parking Lot Events 1. SDAC Used/New Car Sale 2. BMW 3. ShopSmart Ent, Swap Meet 4. Racelegal.com 5. SCCA 6. Porsche Club 7. SD Karting Association 8. OMBAC QUESTION: Please provide the list of scheduled events at Petco Park for FY 2016, and what is anticipated for FY 2017. RESPONSE: The list of special events from November 2015 to July 2016 in included in Attachment 5. At this point, the department does not have a list of scheduled special events at the ballpark past July 2016. However, the department anticipates at least one major full venue concert, the Rock n Roll Marathon, field dirt events, and various corporate receptions and plated dinners for FY 2017. DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 QUESTION: Can you provide an update on the OneSD Dashboard Project? RESPONSE: The dashboard project is developing requirements with the input of different City departments. As a reminder, these will be focused on internal operations. OUESTION: Please provide a status update regarding the City's conversion of legacy systems? Page 17 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 RESPONSE: The Department of Information Technology (DoIT) over the last year has made significant progress in converting or eliminating legacy systems. As previously reported, the Infrastructure Assets Management project will convert approximately 30 legacy systems when it is implemented. An update is tentatively planned for a September 2016 Committee meeting on the OneSD Reporting and Dashboard Project, and the City Technology Roadmap to consolidate and update legacy technologies. COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 QUESTION: Is there any overlap between the Department of Information Technology's dashboard and Performance and Analytics? RESPONSE: The Department of Information Technology dashboard will focus on internal reports that support daily operations and operational service improvements. These dashboards are planned to provide snapshots to managers and directors at a granular level of detail. The Performance and Analytics dashboards will be external visualizations, largely based upon the KPI's in the budget document, which provide a snapshot of the City's performance to the public and policy- makers at a high level of detail. The Performance and Analytics reporting may leverage DoIT reporting data, but there is no overlap in the reporting efforts, as they have different purposes and different audiences. The Financial Management Department vetted each of these budget items to ensure there was no duplication. In addition, the two departments have a strong working relationship to ensure collaboration and efficiency. QUESTION: For the $145,000 cost of email retentions, can you please provide receipts for the cost of this service, or any type of cost breakdowns? RESPONSE: A purchasing order, (PO# 4500064894) was issued to CAPAX for $85,000 to cover annual costs of the NearPoint Email Archive solution. The department also budgeted $60,000 for storage and a software package called Autonomy (from CAPAX) for eDiscovery to manage Public Records Act (PRA) requests. QUESTION: Can IT please provide a detailed breakdown for the $70,000 cost to make the City become Payment Card Industry (PCI) Compliant for processing credit cards? RESPONSE: The City currently utilizes third-party services that are already PCI compliant to process existing credit card payments, but is expanding PCI compliance to the City's internal processes to allow credit card payments for other City revenue sources. The $70,000 budgeted by the department for FY 2017 will cover the services of a certified PCI auditing organization to audit and complete PCI requirements for network, security, and operations. The service includes a portal to manage all of the City's PCI documentation and continued assessment of the City's established baseline to retain PCI compliance. The City Treasurer has budgeted an additional $30,000 to complete auditing requirements in the Treasurer Department. Page 18 of 18 Honorable Council Member Todd Gloria, Budget Review Committee Chair and Budget Review Committee Members May 24, 2016 4 f?zam Tracy McCra Financial Management Director Attachments: 1. Environmental Growth Funds Expense Details 2. Economic Development Organizational Chart 3. Economic Development Organizational Chart by Function 4. Fleet Services MEGO Analysis 5. PETCO Park FY 2016 Schedule of Events CCZ Honorable Mayor Kevin L. Faulconer Honorable Members of the City Council Stephen Puetz, Chief of Staff, Office of the Mayor Iaymie Bradford, Deputy Chief of Policy, Office of the Mayor Marshall Anderson, Director of Council Affairs, Office of the Mayor Katherine Johnson, Deputy Chief of Policy, Office of the Mayor Scott Chadwick, Chief Operating Officer Stacey LoMedico, Assistant Chief operating Officer Mary Lewis, Chief Financial Officer Andrea Tevlin, Independent Budget Analyst David Graham, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Neighborhood Services Ronald H. Villa, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Internal Operations Herman Parker, Director, Park 8: Recreation Erik Caldwell, Director, Economic Development Dana Springs, Director, Commission for Arts Culture Alia Khouri, Deputy Director, Fleet Services Cybele Thompson, Director, Real Estate Assets Jonathan Behnke, Director, Department of Information Technology Financial Management Staff