06-12-12 Agenda Related Material

Transcription

AGENDA RELATED MATERIAL
June 12, 2012
Agenda
Item No.
Subject
6/12/12 Meeting Consent Item Contracts: 47% Cost Overruns10, 12,
14, 23-25 Jim Frost and Manager, Commissioner Services
28.1
Update on Fireworks Permitting- Manager, Community Services;
Manager, Environmental Programs; and Deputy Port Attorney
Date
Distributed
06.11.12
06.08.12
06.05.12
29
Agenda Item No. 29 - Navy Pier Public Parking- District Clerk
30
Agenda Item No. 30- San Diego Convention Center Public Parking
Garage - District Clerk
06.05.12
31
Adoption of the Final Budget- CFO/Treasurer
06.05.12
31
FY 12/13 Final Budget- CFO/Treasurer
06.05.12
31
Agenda Item No. 31 - FY 12/13 Final Budget - District Clerk
06.05.12
31
Changes from Preliminary to Final Budget - Capital Improvements CFO /Treasurer
06.11.12
31
Additional Information Requested at April 30, 2012 Preliminary
Budget Workshop/Special Meeting- CFO/Treasurer
06.11.12
31
Environmental Health Coalition's Concerns and Recommendations
Regarding Use of Environmental Fund Moneys- CFO/Treasurer
06.11.12
33
Coastal Strategy Agenda Item- Director, Environmental 8: Land Use
Management
33
Additional Information for Coastal Strategy Agenda Item #33 Director, Environmental 8: Land Use Management
06.11.12
36
Agenda Item No. 36 - Resolution Authorizing Funding in an amount
not to exceed $385,250 and District Services not to exceed $752,918
for Fiscal Year 2013 Marketing Sponsorship Programs- District Clerk
06.05.12
36
Agenda Related Comment: Letter in Support of Item #36- Susan
Johnson, Council Aide to Councilwoman Pamela Bensoussan, Chula Vista
City Council
06.11.12
06.05.12
Page 1 of3
Laura Nicholson- Response from Jim Frost: 6/12/12 Meeting Consent Item
Contracts: 47°/o Cost Overruns
Donna Morales
From:
Commissioners (7 +Assistants)
To:
Date:
6/11/2012 2:14PM
Subject: Response from Jim Frost: 6/12/12 Meeting Consent Item Contracts: 47% Cost
Overruns
Brandy Christian; ELG - cc Assistants; Randa Coniglio; Tim Deuel
CC:
Commissioners,
Below is Mr. Frost's response for information.
Best regards,
Donna
AGENDA RELATED
JUN 12 2012
#
Io1t'Y, I f, 'J,-'J "2G
>>>
From:
To:
JT FROST <[email protected]>
"SDPORT Morales Donna, Commissioner Support"
<[email protected]>
Date:
6/11/2012 1:50 PM
Subject: RE: 6/12/12 Meeting Consent Item Contracts: 47% Cost Overruns
ms. morales,
thank you for your reply and clarification regarding the consent agenda items.
sincerely,
jim frost
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:56:15 -0700
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: 6/12/12 Meeting Consent Item Contracts: 47% Cost Overruns
Mr. Frost,
Thank you for your e-mail to the Board of Port Commissioners. I note that you included
Mr. Job Nelson from the City of San Diego, so I have forwarded your e-mail to
Commissioner Bob Nelson, as I assume that was your intent.
Your e-mail has been passed along to the full Board with the following explanation:
Commissioners,
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lnichols\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FD5FD56PO...
6111/2012
Page 2 of3
Passing along an e-mail from the public received for you. Mr. Frost characterizes the
agenda items he references as cost overruns. They are not overruns. Here are
explanations for each:
• Consent Agenda Item 10 is for the San Diego Convention Center Corporation &
Hotel Expansion EIR, and there is no cost to the Port as this consultant is
compensated by the City and One Park Boulevard .
• Consent Item 12 is Stormwater Data Base Management is adding another year on
the agreement for a cost of $33,600 .
• Consent Item 14 is for Temporary Staffing Services to fund year two of a three year
agreement.
• Consent Item 23 is for Cook & Schmid and is the annual appropriation for the
second year option. Note, last year's funding was at $175,000 and this year's
proposed funding is at $125,000
• Consent Item 24 is for Public Works Inc. for water front activation and is the annual
appropriation for the second year option. Note- Last year's funding was at
$195,000 and this year's proposed funding is at $152,000 .
• Consent Item 25 is for MJE Marketing the annual appropriation for the third year
option.
I will also forward this explanation to Mr. Frost for his information.
Best regards,
Donna
Donna Morales, CAP
Manager, Commissioner Services
San Diego Unified Port District
Direct: (619) 725-6062 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting
end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Main Line: (619) 686-7296 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting
end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax: (619) 686-6555
[email protected]
>>>
(619) 725-6062
(619) 686-7296
From:
To:
JT FROST <[email protected]>
CC:
SDPORT Darbeau Wayne <[email protected]>
Date:
6/11/2012 10:01 AM
SDPORT Smith Lou <[email protected]>, SDPORT Peters Scott
<[email protected]>, SDPORT Burdick L.
< [email protected] >, SDPORT Valderrama Robert
<[email protected]>, SDPORT Moore Ann
<[email protected]>, SDPORT Malcolm Dan
<[email protected]>, CITYSD Nelson Job
< [email protected]>
6/11/2012
Page 3 of3
Subject: 6/12/12 Meeting Consent Item Contracts: 47% Cost Overruns
Dear Commissioners,
In reviewing the board meeting agenda for 6/12/12, I am deeply concerned about the
amount of cost overruns requested for approval on the consent agenda. On a
cumulative base contract amount of approximately $2,476,400, there is a requested
approval for a overruns of $1,157,600 representing an overall 47% increase.
I would request that you specifically question the reasons and justification for each of
these significant increases rather than simply approve the consent agenda without
discussion.
The following consent agenda contracts approximate amounts are as follows;
CONSENT NO.
REQUESTED INCREASE ORIGINAL CONTRAcr
10
$100,000
12
14
23
24
25
TOTAL
33,600
97,000
125,000
152,000
650,000
$1,157,600
$544,300
125,000
289,100
175,000
195,000
1,150,000
$2,476,400
PERCENTAGE INCREASE
18%
27
34
71
78
57
47
In an era when the Port is wrestling with how to come up with slightly over a million
dollars per year for five years to fund capital improvement projects, here is
approximately the same amount put up for approval in ONE month since the last board
meeting when other similar contract overruns were approved.
Your investigation of this situation would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Jim Frost
6/11/2012
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
Date:
June 8, 2012
To:
Board of Port C o e
. ·ners
From:
Jim Hutzelman
/
Manager, Commu · Services
Marketing & Communications Department
jhutzelm@portor.
. sa~iego.org
'#-)
AGENDA RELATED
12 2012
# ;<~. r
Item Added
06.08.12
Karen Holman \
Manager, Environrfiental Programs
Environmental & Land Use Management Department
[email protected]
Ellen Gross~
Deputy Port Attorney
[email protected]
Subject:
Update on Fireworks Permitting
The purpose of this memo is to update you regarding fireworks displays in San Diego Bay.
History
At the January 10, 2012 Board of Port Commissions meeting, you directed staff to:
1) Decline the tenants' request for the District to be the sole National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit holder for all fireworks displays on San Diego Bay
2) Investigate the feasibility of assisting tenants desiring fireworks displays through a contract
between the District and a third party, such as an events management or fireworks
company. The premise is that the third party would obtain the NPDES permit and assume
the liabilities associated therewith and the District could provide monetary sponsorship to
decrease tenant costs
3) Continue to work with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding
potential future monitoring requirements
4) Return to the Board with the results of staff's research and a recommendation for
proceeding
Meeting with Tenants and Fireworks Companies
Staff spoke with a number of tenants whose events include fireworks displays to obtain more
details on their current approaches to NPDES permitting. The tenants surveyed were the USS
Midway, the Hyatt, the Marriott and the San Diego Symphony, which annually occupies
Embarcadero Marina Park South under a Tidelands Use & Occupancy Permit from the District.
The Midway, Hyatt and Marriott place the responsibility for arranging for and obtaining permits
for fireworks displays on their event customers, while the Symphony obtains its own NPDES
Docs #524054
Page 2 of 3
June 8, 2012
Subject: Update on Fireworks Permitting
permit annually for the fireworks displays that it conducts following its Summer Pops
performances.
Staff also met with representatives of Fireworks America and Pyre Spectaculars, the two
fireworks companies that provide nearly all of the fireworks displays on the bay. The purpose of
the meetings was to discuss those companies' NPDES permitting approach to determine the
feasibility of using a third party to produce and be the NPDES permitee for all fireworks displays
on San Diego Bay.
Fireworks America currently has an NPDES permit to conduct fireworks displays. When hired by
an event organizer, Fireworks America arranges to have the event organizer listed as a copermitee under the NPDES permit for the event only, thus potentially reducing long-term liability.
Pyre Spectaculars places the responsibility of obtaining NPDES permits for fireworks shows
with their customers.
Audit of Big Bay Boom
District audit staff conducted an audit of the Port of San Diego July 41h Big Bay Boom fireworks
show, which receives funding through the District's Marketing Sponsorship Program. As you
may be aware, the District provided funding to the 2011 Big Bay Boom July 4th fireworks show in
the amount of $145,000 to use toward the cost of the barges and pyrotechnics. Additional
services provided by the District, such as Harbor Police, Traffic Enforcement Officers, and
General Services support, cost the District between $30,000 and $50,000 annually. According
to the documents reviewed as part of the audit, the combined cost for the barges and
pyrotechnics for the July 4, 2011 show was $156,450. The producer of the event, H.P. Sandy
Purdon incurs over $140,000 in additional costs for fundraising, environmental administration
and permits, insurance, legal, patrol vessel strobes/banners, event advertising, and other
permits. He also received approximately $200,000 in sponsorship funding and services that
provided for print and electronic advertising, television coverage and radio simulcast of the
event.
Meeting with Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
Due to the ongoing environmental issues associated with fireworks displays, staff also met with
attorney Marco Gonzalez of the Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation (CERF) to discuss
his specific concerns regarding fireworks displays and what, if anything, could be done to
mitigate the impacts of fireworks displays.
CERF is concerned about protecting the water and sediment quality of San Diego Bay. CERF
would like the District to research what, if any, alternatives exist for fireworks that do not cause a
discharge of chemicals and debris into the Bay. Alternatives could include different chemical
composition of the fireworks by eliminating heavy metals, relocating the fireworks to land, and
also the use of indoor fireworks, which generate less smoke and eliminate discharges. Finally,
CERF would like to see enhanced best management practices that prevent any debris from
entering the Bay.
It is CERF's contention that in order to ensure the long-term protection of the bay and its natural
resources, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be completed that would study
impacts caused by fireworks to the water and sediment quality, nesting shorebirds, humans
walking through nesting colonies to view shows, as well as, noise and traffic impacts. Staff and
SDUPD Docs No. 524054
Page 3 of 3
June 8, 2012
Subject: Update on Fireworks Permitting
the Port Attorney's office will continue to work to ensure that proper environmental review is
conducted.
Environmental Advisory Committee
Per a request from Commissioner Burdick, the District's Environmental Advisory Committee
(EAC), at its April 17, 2012 meeting, heard a presentation by Mr. Purdon about his best
management practices used during the Big Bay Boom event to reduce or eliminate impacts to
the Bay. CERF and staff from the RWQCB were also invited to speak, but did not due to lack of
time. Commissioner Burdick has since requested that the RWQCB make a presentation
regarding its perspectives on water monitoring under the current NPDES permit at a future EAC
meeting.
Next Steps
The Big Bay Boom is rated as one of the top twenty fireworks shows in the U.S. and has
tremendous marketing and revenue generating value to the District, tenants and the public.
Marketing & Communications staff is researching other fireworks shows across the nation to
determine the potential costs, responsible parties, roles and the procurement processes related
to these shows in order to analyze the cost and risks versus benefits of soliciting a new third
party producer. Staff will continue to evaluate cost estimates and explore third-party options.
Staff intends to return to the Board in October with a recommendation regarding the feasibility of
a solicitation for production of a fireworks show. Staff is also continuing to follow any new
developments pertaining to potential future monitoring of fireworks shows required by the
RWQCB and will continue to keep you apprised in this regard.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Jim Hutzelman at (619) 686-6564 or via
e-mail at [email protected], Karen Holman at (619) 725-6073 or via e-mail at
[email protected] or Ellen Gross at (619) 686-6521 or via e-mail at
[email protected].
SDUPD Docs No. 524054
AGENDA RELATED
MEMORANDUM
Date:
June 5, 2012
To:
Board of Port Commissioners
From:
Timothy Deuel
District Clerk
[email protected]
Subject:
Agenda Item No. 29 - Navy Pier Public Parking
JUN 12 2012
#_.....;ZJ;.,....~...;.........,-
The Draft Ordinance for the above referenced agenda item is not ready for distribution
at this time and will be provided in Friday's packet.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (619) 686-6203.
OM 380642
AGENDA RELATED
MEMORANDUM
JUN 12
oo
Date:
June 5, 2012
To:
From:
Timothy Deuel
District Clerk
tdeuel@portofsandiego. org
Subject:
Agenda Item No. 30 - San Diego Convention Center Public Parking
Garage
The Draft Ordinance for the above referenced agenda item is not ready for distribution
OM 380642
AGENDA RELATED
MEMORANDUM
12
#
Date:
June 1, 2012
To:
From:
Jeffrey B. McEntee .
CFO/Treasurer
' ( f"
[email protected]
Subject:
Adoption of the Final Budget
31
7
~~-
At the June 12, 2012 Board meeting, staff will be recommending adoption of the Final
Budget. Following is a summary of the budget process to date:
•
•
•
From April 16 through April 23, staff provided Preliminary Budget briefings to
Commissioners. During the briefings, Commissioners asked staff to provide a
variety of information which was provided to the Board in a memo dated April 27,
2012 (Attachment A).
Additionally, at the Preliminary Budget Workshop,
Commissioners asked staff to provide three options for balancing the budget
(Attachment B).
On April 30, 2012, the Board held a Preliminary Budget Workshop. At the
Workshop, Commissioner Burdick asked staff to revise staff's recommendation
concerning use of the Environmental Fund to balance the budget. Commissioner
Burdick asked staff to identify $2.0M in environmental-related projects and
activities in the FY 12/13 Budget for funding from the Environmental Fund. Staff
has implemented this request in the Final Budget.
At the Workshop,
Commissioners asked staff to provide a variety of information which was
provided to the Board in a memo dated May 4, 2012 (Attachment C).
On May 8, 2012, the Board adopted the Preliminary Budget. At the Board
meeting, Commissioner Burdick asked staff to revise staff's recommendation
concerning use of Public Art Fund money to balance the budget. Rather than
use $1M from the Public Art Fund to balance the budget, Commissioner Burdick
asked staff to recommend a one-year reduction in the annual deposit to the
Public Art Fund, reducing the annual deposit from $1.2M to $.2M and using the
$1M difference to balance the budget. Staff has implemented this request in the
Final Budget. At the Board meeting, Commissioner Nelson also asked staff to
provide a list of non-personnel expenses totaling $1M that could be cut from the
FY 12/13 Budget to balance the budget rather than reducing the annual deposit
to the Public Art Fund. In response to Commissioner Nelson's request, staff has
prepared a list of non-personnel expenses totaling $1M (Attachment D). The $1M
list is derived from the original list of $3. ?M in non-personnel expenses that was
provided to the Board at the April 30 Preliminary Budget Workshop
(Attachment E).
Page 2 of 2
June 1, 2012
Subject:
Adoption of the Final Budget
Staff's recommendation for the Final Budget will be as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Use $2.0M from the Environmental Fund to fund environmental-related
projects and activities in the FY 12/13 Budget.
Waive Board Policy 609 (Public Art) and reduce the annual deposit to the
Public Art Fund from $1.2M to $0.2M and use the $1.0M difference to balance
the Budget.
Use $0.7M from the projected surplus for the current fiscal year to balance
the Budget.
As mentioned in staff's Preliminary Budget presentation, staff does not recommend that
the Board make any further cuts to non-personnel expenses because the budgeted
expenditures are for essential projects, services, and activities related to
accomplishment of the Port's strategic goals.
If you have any questions or concerns, please email or call me at (619) 686-6423.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Board Memo-Commissioner Questions from FY 12/13 Budget Briefings
Attachment B: Options (Scenarios) for Balancing the Budget
Attachment C: Board Memo-Information Requested at April 30, 2012 Preliminary
Budget Workshop/Special Meeting
Attachment D: Potential Reductions in Non-Personnel Expenses
Attachment E: Scenario #2-Non-Personnel Expense Cuts
SDUPD Docs. No. 525709
AGENDA RELATED
APR 30 2012
MEMORANDUM
#
Date:
April27, 2012
To:
From:
Jeffrey McEntee
CFOffreasurer
jmcentee@portof
Subject:
Commissioner Questions from FY12/13 Budget Briefings
8
During the Budget Briefings, Board members asked a variety of questions about the
FY12/13 Preliminary Budget. Below are the questions and responses as discussed in the
individual briefings:
•
Section 1, Page 39, two similar projects treated differently: Navy Pier West
End Fender Pile & Whaler Repair and Navy Pier South - Side Fender Pile &
Whaler Demolition - why is one . capitalized and the other in Major
Maintenance Expense?
The repair project is actually replacing fender ·piles and is being capitalized in
accordance with our capitalization guidelines because it is extending the useful
life of an asset, while the demolition project is removing and disposing of the
wooden tendering structure on the south side of the pier which is broken and has
no use with the USS Midway at it's present location.
•
Section 2, Page 8, what is APCD?
We have a prepaid balance with the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for a
truck retrofit program. The expense line item in the budget is to allow for the
expense recognition at the time the trucks take advantage of the retrofit program
with APCD: It is anticipated that some trucks will be retrofitted by the end of the
fiscal year.
\
•
Section 2, Page 15, there is a budget for a 7-12 passenger van, most
agencies lease these type of items, would that be better than purchasing?
Maritime staff is working with General Services/Procurement to determine the
cost/benefit of leasing vs. buying. If leasing is determined to be more cost
effective, barring other considerations, staff will recommend leasing the van.
•
Section 2, Page 17, Cruise Security costs are going up, but cruise calls are
projected to remain flat?
This is a pass through expense to the cruise lines. Actual cost of security
services from our provider are going up, but we receive reimbursement from the
lines for this expense, plus 15% for administration.
Attachment A
Page 2 of 8
April 27, 2012
Subject: Commissioner Questions from FY 12/13 Budget Briefings
•
Section 2, Page 17, what is operator retention?
This is a cost for PASHA to manage the National City Marine Terminal (NCMT).
The Port pays PASHA 24.5% of the gross wharfage, dockage, and storage
revenues from NCMT; and PASHA operates, maintains, and secures the
terminal. If this cost is increasing, it means that wharfage and dockage revenues
·
are also increasing.
•
Section 3, Page 12, why are we grouping all gas/diesel together?
This is done in the FY 12/13 budget to simplify the categories in the budget. The
department tracks individual cost and quantity of items purchased in the SAP
system and can report on it as needed.
•
Section 3, Page 13, why did custodial services increase 50%?
Custodial costs in the General Services budget for FY 12/13 reflect an increase
from $420,000 to $645,000. The largest single portion of the net increase is for
custodial services at the Administration Building and the Administration Building
Annex. Previously, custodial services for these buildings were performed by Port
personnel. However, the Port's custodians were changed to Maintenance
Workers I and redeployed to General Services/Procurement. The cost of
maintenance for the facility is proportional for the main building, a 7-story
structure and the Annex, a separate single story structure, which combined
include numerous offices, restrooms, hallways, stairways, conference and
meeting rooms, and common areas totaling slightly more than 188,000 square
feet. Both buildings are maintained on a daily basis. By comparison, the next
largest facility is the General Services facility with a total of 54,000 square feet
maintained by the contractor daily. Other major work done by the contractor is
performed in smaller buildings (Harbor Police HQ, General Services, Maritime,
etc.), B St. Cruise Ship Terminal, where the use is far less, park restrooms, and
Broadway Pavilion in support of events.
•
Section 3, Page 23, what is the preservation of benefits plan?
SDCERS is a tax qualified retirement plan that must meet the requirements of
IRS Code Section 415(b). SDCERS established a separate plc;m to facilitate
pension payments that exceed a dollar limit per IRS Section 415(b) (refer to
Exhibit 1 - explanation from SDCERS website). The dollar amounts payable
from the Port's Trust are significantly reduced for members who retire at an age
younger than 62. With the ERIP' implementation, we had a few staff that retired
before age 62 and whose pension benefit exceeded the IRS 415(b) limit. These
retirees are not paid more than what they are entitled to. Instead, their payments
are made out of two separate plans administered by SDCERS for the Port.
Page 3 of 8
April27, 2012
•
Section 4, Page 7, why the increase in Interns from 34 to 43?
This is an inexpensive way to get work done and is also a good way to train
potential future Port employees; some high-performing Port employees were
interns before being hired full time at the Port. Interns bring a high value to the
Port.
•
Section 5, Page 9, why is HPD overtime going up so much?
Below is a breakdown by function of the overtime increase:
Dive team overtime (increase $4,000):
General expenses for dive training and call outs have been increasing. ·
Specific increases in call outs are due to body and evidence recoveries.
Law Enforcement Operations (increase $70,000):
The increase is based on the estimated number of unanticipated events that
require call back of personnel. Some examples include vessel accidents,
Occupy the Port call outs, Tsunami event, and other events requiring
additional staff for which we have no reserve capacity. This is a partial byproduct of the downsizing of the department. We also intend on using this
increase to fund bicycle patrols along the Embarcadero during our summer
season.
Special Events (increase $30,000):
This is based on the number of special event permits granted (including
activation events) for which police services are required. Some of these are
reimbursed; some are in-kind services that the Port provides.
Sworn Mandatory Staffing (increase $25,000):
Based on FY 11/12 trends, we are typically at a minimum staffing level,
requiring call back of officers to fill positions when someone calls in sick. We
are controlling this cost by staffing 10-hour shifts for 7.5 hours only. Due to
the reduction in size of the staff, the recent retirements/departures of several
people, and the long lead time to hire and train new people, we basically have
no back up when someone calls in sick.
Training (increase $185,000):
This accounts for the largest increase in our overtime budget. This increase
is due in large part to our maritime police training, which has a significant
gap. The Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Diego are partnering to
establish a maritime police training program that has previously been nonexistent in the State of California. In fact, we were awarded $50,000 in grant
funds to partially fund this training in each of the next two fiscal years. This
type of training needs to be conducted on officers' off time, thus necessitating
overtime. There are other training areas that we need to address since we
made significant reductions in training in the last three years. These include
Page 4 of 8
April 27, 2012
high~liability
areas of use of force and firearms training. We expect these
levels of overtime to be reduced slightly in the next few years as we
implement a more systematic training calendar integrated into our budget.
Our total HPD overtime budget equals 5.0% of our overall budget, which is in
line with industry standards and other area cities.
t
•
Section 6, Page 21, what are the 800 MHz radios for?
These are radios for the General Services staff, which are funded by grants.
•
Section 6, Page 21, where did the telephone and communications expense
come from?
Department telephone and communications. budgets· are being centralized into
the Technology Management Program.
•
Section 8, Page 6, is this Municipal Service Agreements amount realistic?
We are using the current year budget amount until agreements are reached with
each of the member cities for FY 12/13.
•
If the surplus was $2.5M at the FY 11/12 mid-year budget presentation, can
we use the surplus to fund the FY 12/13 budget gap?
The FY 11/12 surplus is already included as funding available for future Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP). Using this surplus will reduce the funding available
for future CIP.
•
Why are we going to be able to execute on Major Maintenance when we
have not been able to in the past?
Things are being done differently in the Engineering Department. Engineering is
focusing more on the budgeted projects. Additionally, the budgeted amount for
Major Maintenance has been reduced to a level that is executable. In the future,
staff will be providing a quarterly update that provides the actual spending
compared to budget.
•
What is the Harbor Police Department overtime history?
o FY 06/07 = $1.5M actual
o FY 07/08 =$1.5M actual
o FY 08/09 =$1.4M actual
o FY 09/1 0 =$1 .2M actual
o FY 10/11 = $1.2M actual
o FY 11/12 = $1.2M budget
o FY 12/13 = $1.5M budget
I
Page 5 of 8
April27, 2012
•
Was the Personnel Expense Ratio (personnel expense as a % of revenue) a
guideline or a policy?
The personnel expense ratio is a guideline. The FY 09/10 actual ratio was
54.9%. The FY 10/11 actual ratio was 53.9%.
•
Is the project for removal of transit shed at Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal
included in the approved ClP projects? Should we be doing this if we don't
have the cargo to justify it?
Yes, this project is in the approved CIP. However, a contract has not been
approved yet. We need to do the work to accommodate current operational
needs.
•
Can we issue more debt?
No, we don't have the capacity to pay additional debt service from any new debt
issuance. While the current "senior and total debt service ratios" show coverage
at more than 1.5x, the calculations do not include the cash required for Major
Maintenance Capital projects, the annual set-asides for the Public Art and
Environmental Funds, and Equipment Outlay because these capital
expenditures/set-asides are considered to be discretionary. If we take all of
these capital expenditures/set-asides into consideration, the Port does not have
additional debt capacity.
•
Of the 556 Permanent Positions in the budget, how many are not filled?
What is the vacancy factor in the Budget?
There are 27 unfilled positions as of March 31, 2012. The vacancy factor in the
FY 12/13 budget is equivalent to 33 positions.
•
Annual Required Contribution (ARC) funding - 1) Are we required to make
the full contribution to the pension plan? 2) What would be the impact if we
underfund the ARC by a specific amount that will help with the budget
deficit?
1) No, as long as the governing board approves the underfunding of the ARC.
There is also no violation of accounting requirements, but Port staff does not
recommend this due to the known negative impacts on the funding ratio and
the 7.75% interest that accrues on the unfunded amount.
2) The potential negative impacts of not paying the full ARC are as follows:
a. higher ARC for the future years;
b. reduction in the Port's funding ratio;
c. negative impact on employee morale and concern on the part of Port
retirees; (Port retirees recently expressed concern about the Port's
funding ratio and questioned if the drop in the funding ratio was due to
intentional underfunding by the Port. Staff advised the retirees that the
drop' in the funding ratio was primarily due to a loss on investments
and not underfunding.)
SOUPD Docs. No. 518120
Page 6 of 8
April 27, 2012
Subject Commissioner Questions from FY 12/13 Budget Briefings
d. negative perception from the public and community;
e. negative impact on the financial statements - the underfunding will
need to be recorded as an additional liability and a full disclosure of the
underfunding in the financial statements will be required;
f. risk of the Port's credit rating being down graded by the credit rating
agencies because underfunding the ARC may be viewed negatively;
g. the accrued interest on the underfunded amount would be greater
(SDCERS assumed investment earnings are set at 7.75%), than the
investment earnings on the Port's reserves like the Environmental and
Public Art Funds (the current return on investment earnings is less
than 1% in compliance with BPC 115 - Guidelines for Prudent
Investments).
•
What is .the retirement funding ratio for the Port? What is the retirement
funding ratio for the County, City, and Airport?
The funding ratios as of June 30, 2011 actuarial valuation are as follows:
73.1%
Port of San Diego
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 102.7%
County of San Diego
81.5%
City of San Diego
68.5%
•
Is the salary year end in alignment with the fiscal year end?
No, the fiscal year is July 1 through June 30 and the salary year is October 1
through September 30.
•
How do we compare to others with regard to reserves?
Compared to other municipalities, the Port of San Diego maintains a healthy
reserve. Other municipalities that were surveyed are shown on Exhibit 2.
Please email me or call me at (619) 686-64 76 or Jeanette Sales at (619) 686-6267 if
you have any other questions.
Page 7 of 8
April 27, 2012
Subject Commissioner Questions from FY 12/13 Budget Briefings
Exhibit 1:
§DCERS
Sal'\ DtettD C1tV f.mplovecs• Ootfrcment St~t~m
Information about Internal Revenue Service Section 415(b)
The San Diego City Employees' Retirement System (SDCERS) is a tax qualified
retirement plan that must meet the requirements of Section 415 of the Internal Revenue
Code (Code). 1Section 41 S(b) of the Code limits the extent to which retirement benefits
m!(y be provided with the favorable tax treatment offered by a qualified pension plan like
To compiy with Section 415(b), SDCBRS must test annual benefits paid to its
members and beneficiaries. Any benefits in excess of Section 415(b) cannot be paid from
the SDCERS Trust Fund. <.
.
·sneERS.
To pay the benefits your employer has promised its retirees that exceed the Section 415(b)
limits, Preservation of Benefit Plans (POB Plan) were established for the City, Port and
Airport. These POB Plans ar~ qualified excess benefit arrangements (QEBA) that legally
permit the payment of benefits aoove the 415(b)·limits. Under IRS rules, the POB Plans
must be funded independently of SDCERS.
·
Retirement benefits that exceed Section 415 dollar limits !Ire not "illegal". It 'ts
absolutely legal for plan sponsors to provide benefits above Section 415 limits, as long as
these benefits are not paid from the SDCERS Trust Fund. The purpose behind Section 415
is to limit the extent to which benefits and contributions can receive the favorable tax
treatment provided to a qualified retirement plan. Congress made clear that while there
was no wi~h to limit benefits and contributions in general, there was a desire to limit the
special tax treatment available for those benefits and contributions.
The basic requirement of Section 415(b) is that an annual benefit to a member cannot
exceed an annual dollar limit. The Section 415 dollar limit for calendar 2007 was
$180,000 for a member who retired;,g~,~~~Q.tJle.ages of 62 and 65. However, the Section
:415 dollar limit is significantly reduced for members who retired at an earlier age (unless
·th·e·ll)e~ber·4~ at least 15 years ofservic~ as a qualified public safety employee). For
·eX!ifiipie, the 2007 Section 4is dollar limit for a member that retired at age 55 (other than a
qualified public safety employee). is reduced from $180,000 to $91,739.
Many other government agencies have QEBAs QEBA arrangements are very common
in' C:alifomia;~~d acrO's·s the Pountry. All20 California counties covered by the California
County Employees Retirement Law have QEBAs, as do CaiPERS, CaiSTRS, other
California city retirement systems and dozens of other state and local retirement systems
across the country.
1
If your annual benefit will exceed Section 41S(b) limits, SDCERS will contact you.
Each year in June, SDCERS will screen the retiree and beneficiary data to determine who
will exceed the 415(b) limits in the next fiscal year. SDCERS will contact you by mail if
you are one of the affected individuals.
• ••••~•~-----··-·--·--·----• - - - - - • - - - - • • • - - - - - - - • • ·---·--•";"'-~ - - - · - - - - - - - - - - - - · - - - - - • • • • - - •' • -• •- n,_'
· · · · -- •. 401 WastA Street, Suits400· •· San Diego, CA- 92101-•-TEL: 519-525-36DO ·• FAX: 619-595.C:J57.· •-·www.oocers.org --
--
Page 8 of 8.
April27, 2012
Exhibit 2:
Reserves Maintained by Other Municipalities (phone call survey and e-mail survey)
Do you maintain
reserves for
unforsoon
emergency?
Municipality
City of Chula Vista
Yes
City of National City
Yes
City of San Diego
Yes
City of Coronado
City of Imperial Beach
Yes
Yes
SDCRAA
What % or Dollar
Amount?
Yes
Basts of Methodology
23% In total of General Fund Expense (15% for General
Operating, 5% for Economic Contingency, 3% for Catastrophic
Reserves)
23%
25% of General Fund Operating budget The city currently meets
23%
25%
8% of Annual General Fund Revenues. This reserve cannot fall
below 5% unless waived by Council.
8%
$19.2M General Fund reserves out of Total Operating Expense
$19.2Mor52% Budget of $36.3M (or about 62%)
General Fund budget is $17.0M or about 41%
$7.0M
$45.0M
Port of Seattle
Yes
9 months
City of Laguna Niguel
Yes
$1.0 M
Town of Truckee
No
0%
City of San Clemente
No
Town of Yountville
Los Osos Community Service
District
East Bay Regional Park
District
Nevada Irrigation District
Yes (1st time)
Yes
Yes
This amount is required from their outstanding bond debt but Is
also available for use as operating reserves. This equates to
about 38% of their total expense budget. SDCRAA have other
reserves aside from this from PFC and FAA requirements.
Polley is to have a minimum of 9 months operating reserves. The
Airport Fund is able to keep 10 months and the 6 months comes
from all others. Their capital spending tends to lag behind
projection so they always exceed the requirement of 9 months.
Represents about 3.4% of the operating budget and 2.4% of the
total budget. The City Manager directs this number and it has
always been the number for the last 10 years.
16.7% General Fund contingency reserves (fund balance
designation • now an •Assigned" fund balance used for
emergencies only)
0%
$1 00,000 or less
than 2% of Gen This is a reserve contingency so only the Town Council can
Fund budget appropriate.
15% or less
3%
General Fund Designation/Reserve
Response was to refer to GFOA best practices on contingency
reserves.
3% Expense Contingency is almost $700,000. The General
Manager has the authority to make budget adjustments and
amendments for the entire amount. Any significant changes over
$1 00,000 goes to the Board for approval.
Source of Information:
1) The member city survey, SDCRAA. and Port of Seattle was done by Finance staff by phone in April 2012. All others were
done through California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) in May 2011.
2) The Government Finance Officers Association's (GFOA) best practice states that the minimum reserve level should be
between 5% and 15% of operating revenues or one or two month's operating expenses. The best practice states that reserve
level should be higher for smaller governments, or governments with a narrow revenue base, or if a portion of the reserves is
needed for a specific purpose.
3) In 2006 a member of the CSMFO conducted a survey about this very issue. Following are the results of that survey:
California Society of Municipal Finance Officers Survey (CSMFOl (2006 Results)
10- Less than or equal to 10% of budgeted operating revenues or expenses
o
o
22- Greater than 10% or less than or equal to 25%
o
7 - Greater than 25% or less than or equal to 50%
o
2 • Greater than 50%
(Lowest 5%; highest 75%)
""'-=ed.
. Unifi Port
o/San Diego
Scenario #1 - Use Public Art and
Environmental reserves
Average
Spending
Balance as of
Set-aside
1/31/2012
Public Art
$1.2M
$1.2M
$2.9M
Environmental
$1.0M
$0.6M
$5.1M
Staff recommendation: continue the annual set-aside, use
some unspent funds to fill budget gap
)>
~
::::r
3
CD
:::J
Impact: Risk of public perception that Port is moving away
from commitment
n Diego Unified Port District
w ____.___.___.___.___.___.___.___.___.____.__.____.__.___.___._.._____...__.._____..._____.___...__..__Pa-ae-10.-+
~ Scenario #2- Non-Personnel Expense Cuts
-
Unified Port
ofSanDiego
ELUM
Goodrich South Campus Site Investigation
Green Port Program
200,000
70,000
Real Estate
CVBMP Eng Infrastructure Development
South Bay Power Plant
200,000
225,000
General Services & Procurement
Harbor Drive Landscape
171,800
Engineering- Construction
CIP Workshop Consultants
85,000
Financial Services
Cost Recovery Analysis
50,000
Marketing & Communications
Activation Consultant
Marketing Sponsorship
Public Relations Consultant
Waterfront Activation- Spec Events
Technology Management Program
Data Center Study
Video Conf Internet Gateway (eqpt. Outlay)
Government Relations
Grant Writing Sennces
Legislative Sennces - Washington
$
Municipal Service Agreements reductions
Total Reductions
157,000
500,000
255,000
200,000
100,000
125,000
75,000
114,000
1,201,100
$ 3,728,900
Paae 11
~
~
Unified Port
of San Diego
•
•
Scenario #3 - Operating Reserves
Overview of Reserves
Impacts:
• Risk of debt rating downgrade
• Funds available for new Capital
Improvement Plan
Paae 12
AGENDA RELATED
MEMORANDUM
Date:
May 4, 2012
To:
From:
Jeffrey B. McEntee
CFO/Treasurer
/ b -~
[email protected]
Subject:
Information Requested at April 30, 2012 Preliminary Budget
Workshop/Special Meeting
0}~
MAY 0 8l012
#ZCf
ADDED
updated
05-04-12
On April 30, 2012, the Port held a Workshop/Special Meeting to review the FY 12/13
Preliminary Budget. During the Workshop, Board members directed staff to provide
additional information and/or address suggestions made by the Board. Following is the
information requested, and suggestions made, by Board members categorized as short,
medium, or long-term action items.
SHORT-TERM
Use of Environmental Fund
The Board directed staff to review environmental-related projects and activities in the
FY 12/13 Preliminary Budget that could be funded by the Environmental Fund.
Staff has identified projects and activities in the FY 12/13 Preliminary Budget that would
qualify for funding from the Environmental Fund in accordance with BPC Policy 730.
The projects have a total cost of $2.0M. A list of the qualified projects is attached for
your review (see Attachment A).
Maritime Rates & Charges
The Board directed staff to review the Port's Tariff 1-G which sets the rates and charges
for all maritime cargo-related activities.
Staff commissions an annual U.S. West Coast Comparative Analysis of all our tariff
rates (not just wharfage) to ensure Port of San Diego rates are competitive. Based on
this annual study, staff recommends increases to the Board. The Port has done
selective increases in recent years (for example, last year we increased automobile
wharfage and storage rates) based on this analysis. During this year's review, staff will
take a closer look in terms of being more aggressive on increases without becoming
uncompetitive in the market.
Attachment C
Page 2 of 4
May 4, 2012
Subject:
Additionally, the California Association of Ports Authority (CAPA) is currently evaluating
the idea of pegging rate increases to CPI for automatic increases annually for California
Ports. Staff is participating in these discussions and expects final recommendations
within the next two months. Staff will advise the Board of results accordingly.
Five-Year History of Port's Funding Ratio
Staff was asked to provide a five-year history of the funding ratio for the Port's pension
plan. Following is the five-year history:
Funded
Ratio
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
93.5%
92.0%
77.5%
75.3%
73.1%
Operating Reserve
Staff was asked to provide a copy of a Board memo dated March 21, 2008 which
addressed the appropriateness of the Port's six-month operating reserve. A copy of the
memo is attached as Attachment B.
Cost Recovery
The Board asked staff to analyze services provided by the Port that should be subject to
cost recovery.
The FY 12/13 Preliminary Budget for the Financial Services Department includes
$50,000 in Professional Services for a cost recovery analysis. Staff plans to hire a
consulting firm to perform a Port-wide Cost Recovery Plan/Fee Study. Part of the study
will encompass a review of all of the Port's existing services and create a
comprehensive fee and service schedule to recover full or partial costs of providing
those services to support long-term financial sustainability and provide a high quality of
service to the public. The consultant will be responsible for developing a recommended
services fee schedule that includes recovery of all direct and indirect costs using a
clear, equitable, and legally defensible method. The user fees would ensure that those
who use a proprietary service, pay for the service in proportion to the benefits received.
The consultant will also aid in the development of a formal cost recovery policy which
will allow the Port to provide an ongoing, sound basis for setting fees given the full cost
of providing the service. The policy will also allow charges and fees to be periodically
reviewed and updated based on predetermined, researched, supportable, and
transparent criteria.
Page 3 of 4
May 4, 2012
Subject:
A Request for Proposal (RFP) is ready for issuance and the project is expected to be
started this fiscal year and completed in FY12/13.
MEDIUM-TERM
Harbor Police Services Level Agreement
At the workshop, commissioners discussed the Harbor Police Services Level
Agreement with the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) and asked
about plans to bring resolution to the matter of the Maximus cost allocation plan.
Following are planned actions to bring this matter to successful resolution:
• On May 15, 2012, Chair Smith and Commissioner Malcolm are on calendar to
meet with Board members of the SDCRAA to discuss resolution of this matter.
• The Port Attorney's Office has prepared a demand letter that will soon be issued
to the SDCRAA. This will start the legal process.
• A decision as to whether to initiate legal action is pending.
• If we are unable to reach agreement administratively or through legal action,
legislative action may be required.
Major Maintenance Review
The Board asked that staff provide briefings, or in some other way, advise the Board on
the Port's long-range major maintenance program. In the fall of this calendar year, staff
plans to update the Board on the process to assess the condition of the Port's
infrastructure assets and the process for scheduling projects in future years.
Motive Equipment Acquisition
The Board directed staff to analyze lease vs. purchase for all mobile equipment
acquisitions.
In 2005, the District contracted professional fleet management services from Spectrum
Consultants. Spectrum analyzed the District's fleet of equipment and vehicles and
prepared the management and replacement strategies that are used today. Equipment
and vehicles are considered for replacement if they meet one of the following criteria:
1) more than 1OOk miles of use, 2) more than 10 years of service, or a combination of 3)
70k miles of use and 7 years of service.
Prior to the procurement process, staff considers whether it is more cost effective to
rent, purchase, or lease equipment and vehicles.
Generally, large and heavy
equipment used infrequently for maintenance, construction, or maritime operations is
rented. Examples of these types of equipment include: large cranes, earth moving,
brush clearing, and mobile high-reach equipment. Equipment and trucks that support
Page 4 of 4
May 4, 2012
Subject:
predicted maintenance or maritime operations are considered for purchase. These
vehicles include heavy and medium class pick-up trucks, power washers, park
maintenance equipment, garbage packers, and telescoping boom trucks. Lastly,
vehicles that are highly used are considered for leasing. These vehicles, generally
administration pool vehicles, are used daily and are worn out by the end of the five- to
seven-year lease. Also, due to the five- to seven-year life of a lease, this procurement
model provides the opportunity for the introduction and field testing of current and
emergent alternative fuel-burning platforms such as hybrid (gas/electrical), compressed
natural gas (CNG), and electric.
LONG-TERM
Balanced Budgets
Based on the most recent cash flow forecast, commissioners asked how staff plans to
reduce or eliminate future budget deficits.
Prior to the start of the FY 13/14 budget cycle, staff will develop and recommend
options to reduce or eliminate future budget deficits. This will likely be accomplished
through a combination of increased revenues and reduced costs. Cost reductions may
be recommended in the following areas: municipal service agreements, sponsorship
programs, and other non-personnel expenses.
Ability to Tax
Commissioners directed staff to research the Port's ability to tax.
Prior to the FY 13/14 budget cycle, staff will research the Port's ability to tax and advise
the Board on all available options.
Please email me or call me at (619) 686-6423 if you have any questions.
Attachments:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Environmental-Related Projects and Activities
March 21, 2008 Board Memo re: Operating Reserve
Attachment A
FY 12/13 PreliminaryBudget
General
Ledger
Account
Account Description
Project or Activity
Budget
Envronmental and Land Use Management Dept.
620100
Services - Professional & Other
ANALYTICAL LAB/BIOASSAY ON-CALL
620100
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT TRUCK RETROFIT
75,000
387,200
620100
CLEAN AIR PROGRAM
13,000
620100
CLIMATE MITIGATION & ADAPTATION PLAN
52,500
620100
ENDANGERED SPECIES MANAGEMENT
620100
GOODRICH SOUTH CAMPUS SITE INVESTIGATION
620100
GREEN PORT PROGRAM
70,000
620100
INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ON-CALL
42,000
620100
MITIGATION BANKING
620100
MUNICIPAL & CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER
32,500
200,000
10,500
154,000
620100
NCMT MITIGATION & MONITORING
620100
PREDATOR CONTROL
35,400
620100
REGIONAL HARBOR MONITORING PRO
84,000
620100
SITE INVESTIGATION & MARINE BIOLOGY
66,500
620100
STORMDRAINING CLEANING
15,400
620100
TDY REGULATORY ORDER
91,000
620100
WILDLIFE ADVISORY GROUP NATURAL RESOURCES MGMT PLAN
87,500
1,421,500
Subtotal
660100
Advertising
LEGAL ADS
660110
Promotional Services
CLEANUP DAY EVENTS
660110
COPPER REDUCTION OUTREACH
12,000
8,000
20,000
Subtotal
Promotional Materials
4,000
4,000
Subtotal
660120
5,000
BROCHURES AND MEDIA
8,000
8,000
Subtotal
Joint Programs/Studies Assistance
CITY/COUNTY WATER PROGRAMS
660170
COPPER HULL REDUCTION
24,000
660170
FISH SURVEY-BAYWIDE
34,000
660170
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
10,000
660170
28,000
3,400
660170
SANDAG - IMPERIAL BEACH SAND MONITORING
660170
SCHOOL STORM WATER TRAINING
660170
SDG&E ENERGY PROGRAM
65,000
660170
SHELTER ISLAND TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD
50,000
660170
THINK BLUE
660170
WATERSHED & REGIONAL PROGRAMS
Permits/ Certificates/ License
3,000
28,500
320,900
Subtotal
670130
75,000
35,000
35,000
Subtotal
Total from Environmental Land Use Management Department
1,809,400
Attorney's Office
620110
Services - Legal
SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT SITE INVESTIGATION (partial costs)
100,000
Major Maintenance Expense:
Major Maintenance Expense
POINT LOMA KELLOGG BEACH/AREA SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL
74,900
IMPERIAL BEACH STREET ENDS SAND ABATEMENT
20,000
GRAND TOTAL
DM5# 520610
2,004,300
Attachment B
MEMORANDUM
Date:
March 21, 2008
To:
From:
Jeffrey B. McEntee
CFO/Treasurer
COPY
Subject: Operating Reserve
At the February 12, 2008 COP Workshop, a discussion of the Port's operating reserve took
place. Commissioner Spane asked the question, ''What is the appropriate level of operating
reserves?" As a follow-on to this question, the Board directed staff to provide additional
information concerning the appropriateness of the six-month operating reserve.
Following the COP Workshop, staff solicited feedback from members of the California
Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) and received 25 responses, including
results of a survey that was compiled in 2006 (46 respondents) and a "white paper"
completed in 2000 titled, "The Adoption of Reserve Policies in California Cities." Staff also
posed this question to the credit rating agency Standard and Poor's (S&P) and the following
information is provided to respond to this important question.
Without exception, all responding agencies agreed that it was fiscally prudent to set aside
sufficient reserves to respond to future uncertainties and protect against a decline in service
levels; however, staff found no universally accepted reserve level considered fiscally
prudent. General fund reserve levels vary from municipality to municipality and depend to a
large degree upon the risk associated with revenues and revenue sources, as well as four
major areas of concern identified in the "white paper."
•
A municipality with diverse and relatively stable sources of revenues presumably
requires a lower reserve amount than does a municipality for which its revenue sources
are fewer and variable in nature. Staff believes the Port falls in the latter category.
•
The areas of concern include temporary cash flow shortages (i.e., the timing difference
between the payment of expenses and the collection of revenues), emergencies (e.g.,
natural or man-made disasters and the likelihood of occurrence and expected degree of
business disruption), unanticipated economic downturns, and unpredicted one-time
expenditures and opportunities.
The Port has varying levels of sensitivity to each of these areas of concern; however,
with respect to "emergencies," the Port's assets are located in an area considered to be
seismically active and a significant earthquake is possible by 2030 (the San Diego area
has not experienced a significant earthquake in over 50 years). A recent assessment by
the Port's insurer concludes that in the event of a major earthquake, the Port would
suffer a maximum probable loss of $70 million. The Port's earthquake, terrorism, and
March 21, 2008
Page 2 of 2
flood insurance policy would cover $15 million of the loss, thereby leaving a deficit of
$55 million. While the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) would
provide financial assistance, FEMA's estimate of the cost to fix the damage is often far
less than the actual cost, and it typically takes several years to finally settle on the
reimbursement amount. In the interim, the Port would be required to cover the deficit
using existing reserves and/or by borrowing the funds needed to rebuild the structures.
The 2006 CSMFO survey results showed ten agencies with reserves less than or equal to
10% of either operating revenues or budgeted expenses; twenty-two agencies with reserves
greater than 10%, but less than or equal to 25%; seven agencies greater than 25%, but less
than or equal to 50%; and two agencies greater than 50%. The lowest reserve position was
5% and the highest was 75%. The other five agencies had various reserve structures, the
most predominant of which was a fixed dollar amount. The Port's operating reserve is
equal to 50% of operating expenses, net of Harbor Police expenses charged to the Airport.
The results of the white paper were very similar. The majority of cities having reserve
policies determine their reserves using a percentage of operating expenditures. Of the fiftyone agencies listed, fifteen agencies have reserves less than or equal to 10% of operating
expenses; thirty agencies have reserves greater than 10%, but less than or equal to 25%;
and, six agencies have reserves greater than or equal to 50%. The lowest reserve position
was 2% and the highest was 150%.
Lastly, the Port's credit rating was recently upgraded to "A+" from "A" by Standard and
Poor's credit rating agency. The rating agency informed staff that the Port's strong reserve
position (i.e., six-months operating reserves) and prudent financial management (e.g., the
Board's approval of COP projects in a dollar amount already set aside in reserves) were
factors that weighed in the Port's favor. Standard and Poor's informed staff that it has no
set minimum reserve level with respect to rating criteria; however, the S&P analyst
communicated to staff that, " ... it gets noticed when the reserve position is large."
As previously mentioned, the Port's revenue base is relatively narrow and moderately
sensitive to the economic cycle. Given the current tightening in the credit markets and
increasing indications of an economic slowdown, coupled with the risk of a natural disaster,
a higher reserve limit is deemed prudent.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (619) 686-6423 or via e-mail
at [email protected].
FY 12/13 FINAL BUDGET
POTENTIAL REDUCTIONS IN NON-PERSONNEL EXPENSES
Activiation Consultant
Waterfront Activitation - Spec. Events
Data Center Study
Video Conference Internet Gateway (Equip. Outlay)
Municipal Service Agreements
Total Reductions
$171,800
157,000
200,000
35,000
125,000
311,200
$1,000,000
Attachment D
'!:5: .· Scenario #2 - Non-Personnel Expense Cuts
~
Unified Port
of San Diego
ELUM
Goodrich South Campus Site Investigation
Green Port Program
Real Estate
CVBMP Eng Infrastructure Development
South Bay Power Plant
Engineering -Construction
CIP Workshop Consultants
Financial Services
Cost Recovery Analysis
~
~
3
n Diego Unified Port District
$
200,000
70,000
200,000
225,000
171,800
85,000
50,000
Activation Consultant
Marketing Sponsorship
Public Relations Consultant
Waterfront Activation- Spec Events
157,000
500,000
255,000
200,000
Data Center Study
Video Conf Internet Gateway (eqpt. Outlay)
100,000
125,000
Government Relations
Grant Writing Services
Legislative Services - Washington
75,000
114,000
Municipal Service Agreements reductions
Total Reductions
1,201,100
$ 3,728,900
~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=
m
Paae 11
MEMORANDUM
AGENDA RELATED
JUN 12
!!SI
Date:
June 5, 2012
To:
From:
Jeffrey B. McEntee
CFO/Treasurer
jmcentee@portofsandie b.org
Subject:
FY 12/13 Final Budget
~~1:1(
1/'1
Attached for your review is a copy of the FY 12/13 Final Budget. The Final Budget will
be presented to the Board for adoption at the June 12, 2012 Board meeting.
At the May 8, 2012 Board meeting, the Board approved the FY 12/13 Preliminary
Budget with a shortfall of $3. 7M. Staff presented a recommendation to address the
deficit and the Board approved staff's recommendation that approximately $2.0M of
environmental-related projects and activities included in the FY12/13 Preliminary
Budget receive funding from the Environmental Fund, reduce the FY 12/13 annual
deposit for the Public Art Fund from $1.2M to $0.2M, and use $0.7M from the FY 12/13
estimated surplus to fund the remaining deficit. This change is reflected in the Final
Budget.
Following is a summary of additional changes from the Preliminary to Final Budget:
•
Changes in Revenues:
~ Decrease of $800,000 in NEVP Capital Project Contribution.
~ Decrease of $508,700 in Grants- Capital Project Reimbursement.
~ Increase of $200,000 in RE Parking Revenue for the Embarcadero
Circular Shuttle System.
~ Increase of $295,500 in RE for the Commercial Fisheries Revitalization
Implementation project.
~ Increase of $698,700 to account for the Department of Homeland Security
Sub-Grantee projects.
•
Changes in Non-Personnel Expenses:
~ Increase of $698,700 to account for the Department of Homeland Security
Sub-Grantee projects.
~ Increase of $295,500 in RE for the Commercial Fisheries Revitalization
Implementation project.
~ Increase of $200,000 in RE for the Embarcadero Circular Shuttle System.
~ Increase of $125,000 in General Services & Procurement NPE for Ruocco
Park maintenance expense moved from Major Maintenance Expense.
Page 2 of 2
June 5, 2012
Subject: FY 12/13 Final Budget
•
Changes in Capital Improvement
~ Increase of $1,827,900 in Capital Improvement Program as a result of the
CIP Workshop and a final review of projects by the project managers.
•
Change in Major Maintenance Expense:
~ Decrease of $125,000 in Major Maintenance Expense to move expense to
General Services & Procurement NPE for Ruocco Park maintenance
expense.
As a reminder following adoption, the Board can amend the budget at any time.
If you have any questions, please email or call me at (619) 686-6423.
Attachment
SOUPD Docs. No. 525351
AGENDA RELATED
JUN 12
#
bl
MEMORANDUM
Date:
June 5, 2012
To:
From:
Timothy Deuel
District Clerk
[email protected]
Subject:
Agenda Item No. 31 - FY 12/13 Final Budget
The Draft Ordinance for A) & the Draft Resolution for F) of the above referenced agenda
item are not ready for distribution at this time and will be provided in Friday's packet.
DM 380642
AGENDA RELATED
JUN 12 2012
#
MEMORANDUM
3(
Date:
June 11, 2012
To:
From:
Jeffrey B. McEntee
0
CFOfTreasurer
/
[email protected]
Subject:
Changes from Preliminary to Final Budget - Capital Improvements
l/;(t
7
At tomorrow's Board meeting, staff will be presenting a summary of the changes
between the Preliminary and Final Budgets. Following are the changes:
Preliminary Budget
Changes
Final Budget
$150,708,500
$133,361,300
$31,988,100
{$114,500)
$1 '194,200
$1,827,900
$150,594,000
$134,555,500
$33,816,000
NEVP Capital Project Contribution
Grants - Capital Project Reimbursement
Real Estate Parking Revenue for the Embarcadero Circular
Shuttle System
Real Estate Grant Revenue for the Commercial Fisheries
Revitalization Implementation project
Account for the Department of Homeland Security Sub-Grantee
projects
Total
{$800,000)
($508,700)
$200,000
Revenues
Expenses
Capital Improvement
REVENUES
$295,500
$698,700
($114,500)
EXPENSES
Account for the Department of Homeland Security Sub-Grantee
projects
Real Estate for the Commercial Fisheries Revitalization
Implementation Project
Real Estate for the Embarcadero Circular Shuttle System
Total
$698,700
$295,500
$200,000
$1,194,200
June 11, 2012
Page 2 of2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
See the attached list for projects that account for the $1.8M change in Capital
Improvements. At the Board meeting, staff will be available to answer any questions
the Board may have about these changes.
Please contact me at [email protected] or (619) 686-6476 or (619) 8182279 should you have questions.
Attachment
FY 12/13 CIP Budget
Changes - Preliminary to Final CIP Budget
Project Description
FY 12/13
Preliminary
CIP
FY 12/13 Final
CIP
Difference
Armando Mora
P0333-1
P0364-1
P0315-9
P0346-1
Shelter Island Boat Ramp (Was P0083-1)
Marine Terminal Drayage Truck Compliance Monitoring System
Fiber Optic Design- 2008 CPMSGP (P0265-3 & P0315-9)
2009 AARA Grant- Fiber Optics Installation Old Town to Mills
$200,000
$80,000
$0
$450,000
$318,500
$208,394
$170,000
$355,000
$118,500
$128,394
$170,000
($95,000)
$2,258,000
$0
$1,250,000
$250,000
($1,008,000)
$250,000
$650,000
$0
$40,000
$0
$750,000
$110,000
$137,600
$45,900
$100,000
$110,000
$97,600
$45,900
$6,150,000
$200,000
$2,500,000
$550,000
($3,650,000)
$350,000
$125,000
$6,500
($118,500)
$16,000,000
$14,400,000
($1 ,600,000)
$181,674
$664,776
$169,000
$520,000
($12,674)
($144,776)
$75,862
$0
$3,400,800
$4,050,000
$3,324,938
$4,050,000
$0
$40,000
$40,000
$390,500
$240,000
($150,500)
$500,000
$500,000
$300,000
$0
($300,000)
$150,000
$0
($150,000)
$228,000
$0
($228,000)
DHS Security Grant Round 9
P0387-1 Integrated Reg. Seaport Broadband Fiber Optic Infrastructure
North Bay Phase 7
P0315-13 25% Match on Fiber Optic Project- Phase 7
P0387-2 Integrated Reg. Seaport Broadband Fiber Optic Infrastructure
Terminal Access Phase 8
P0315-14 25% Match on Fiber Optic Project- Phase 8
P0387-4 TWIC Readers
P0315-15 25% Match on TWIC Readers
Ernesto Medina
P0040-5 South Campus Demolition--Pavement & Foundation
P0071 Ruocco Park
JoanSiao
P0351-1 B Street Pier Mooring Dolphin
Linda Scott
P0235-2 - NEVP Phase I Construction - District Share + CCDC
Mark Mcintire
P0420-1 Broadway Pier Security Fence & Gate Installation
P0413-1 Broadway Pier Surface Enhancements
Yeshi Mulugeta
P0258-1 TAMT Cold Ironing Project
P0212-1 H St. Extension (1-5 to Marina Park Way)
Grace
P0431 TAMT Crosby St. Pier Modernization (FY 12 & 13 breakdown per
WBS request provided by Grace)
Kelly Falk
P0429 Commercial Fisheries Revitalization Plan Implementation - Phase
One
Chris Hargett
PXXXX Chula Vista - Pre-Design CVBMP
Kristine Zortman
National City Park/Site Development
Paul Brown
P0352-2 Crosby St. to 28/th St. Parking Facility Study & Special
Assessment District Management Plan
San Diego Marine Terminal Enhancement
Reconstruct 32nd St. - Harbor Dr. to 1-5
Total
Docs #527144
$1,827,882
6/11/2012
MEMORANDUM
AGENDA RELATED
12
#
31
Date:
June 11, 2012
To:
From:
Jeffrey B. McEntee / ~~
CFO/Treasurer
P?y
[email protected]
Subject:
Additional Information Requested at April 30, 2012 Preliminary Budget
----...,~---
t:::
It has come to our attention that a couple of suggestions from Board Members were
omitted from Staffs May 4, 2012 Memo to the Board entitled "Information Requested at
April 30, 2012 Preliminary Budget Workshop/Special Meeting". Following are additional
short-term and long-term action items.
SHORT-TERM
Cost Recovery
The Board asked Staff to analyze services provided by the District that should be
subject to cost recovery. While this item was addressed generally in the May 4, 2012
Memo, it should be noted that the scope of the study to be performed during FY 12/13
will include an analysis of recovering staff time for processing tenant projects.
LONG-TERM
Costs for Mitigation for Tenant Projects
The Board asked Staff to analyze expenses associated with mitigation for tenant
projects. The suggestion was made, that the way this was handled historically, when
the District had more resources, may need to be revisited. Staff will perform an analysis
during FY12/13 and return to the Board with a recommendation as to what costs should
be borne by the tenants, and how any new or revised policy or practices should be
codified.
Please contact me at [email protected] or (619) 686-6476 or (619) 8182279 if you have questions.
MEMORANDUM
AGENDA RELATED
12
Date:
June 11, 2012
To:
From:
Jeffrey B. McEntee
ft
CFO/Treasurer
[email protected]
Subject:
Environmental Health Coalition's Concerns and Recommendations
Regarding Use of Environmental Fund Moneys
#_.....,..2::;..&.1 _ _
1tf1
The purpose of this memo is to advise the Board concerning conversations District Staff
has had with members of the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) related to the use
of Environmental Funds for budgeted project and activity costs in the FY 12/13 Budget.
(See attached list of environmental-related projects and activities.)
On two occasions, Staff met with members of the EHC, most recently last Friday, to
discuss Staff's recommendation to use moneys from the Environmental Fund to pay for
environmental-related projects and activities. The meetings were constructive and
solution oriented.
At Friday's meeting, Diane Takvorian and Joy Hunter expressed the following concerns:
• Staff is recommending that some of the funds be used for environmental
compliance, and this was not the original intent of the Environmental Fund.
• Staff is recommending that $65K be used for expenses related to an SDG&E
Energy Program. The budgeted expenses are reimbursable by SDG&E and the
reimbursement would be used for other Port expenses.
To mitigate EHC's concerns, Diane Takvorian recommended the following:
• Use of the moneys from the Environmental Fund for environmental-related
projects and activities should be a one-time only use.
• Use of the Environmental Fund money should be treated like a loan and the
borrowed money should be replaced in future years when the Port has sufficient
surplus funds.
During the public comment period for the FY 12/13 Final Budget at tomorrow's Board
meeting, Diane Takvorian or another member of the EHC will likely want to address the
Board and comment on this issue.
June 11, 2012
Page 2 of 2
Please contact me at [email protected] or (619) 686-6476 or (619) 8182279 should you have questions.
Attachment
FY 12/13 Preliminary Budget
General
Ledger
Account
Project or Activity
Account Description
Budget
Envronmental and Land Use Management De !)t.
620100
ANALYTICAL LAB/BIOASSAY ON-CALL
75,000
620100
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT TRUCK RETROFIT
620100
CLEAN AIR PROGRAM
13,000
620100
CLIMATE MITIGATION &ADAPTATION PLAN
52,500
620100
ENDANGERED SPECIES MANAGEMENT
620100
GOODRICH SOUTH CAMPUS SITE INVESTIGATION
387,200
32,500
200,000
620100
GREENPORTPROGRAM
70,000
620100
INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ON-CALL
42,000
620100
MITIGATION BANKING
620100
MUNICIPAL & CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER
620100
NCMT MITIGATION & MONITORING
620100
PREDATOR CONTROL
35,400
620100
REGIONAL HARBOR MONITORING PRO
84,000
620100
SITE INVESTIGATION & MARINE BIOLOGY
66,500
620100
STORMDRAINING CLEANING
15,400
620100
TOY REGULATORY ORDER
91,000
620100
WILDLIFE ADVISORY GROUP NATURAL RESOURCES MGMT PLAN
87,500
Subtotal
660100
Advertising
LEGAL ADS
CLEANUP DAY EVENTS
660110
COPPER REDUCTION OUTREACH
Subtotal
12,000
8,000
20,000
BROCHURES AND MEDIA
Subtotal
660170
4,000
4,000
660110
Promotional Materials
5,000
1,421,500
Subtotal
660120
10,500
154,000
8,000
8,000
CITY/COUNTY WATER PROGRAMS
28,000
660170
COPPER HULL REDUCTION
24,000
660170
FISH SURVEY-BAYWIDE
34,000
10,000
660170
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
660170
SANDAG - IMPERIAL BEACH SAND MONITORING
660170
SCHOOL STORM WATER TRAINING
75,000
660170
SDG&EENERGYPROGRAM
65,000
660170
SHELTER ISLAND TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD
50,000
660170
THINK BLUE
660170
WATERSHED & REGIONAL PROGRAMS
Subtotal
670130
3,400
3,000
28,500
320,900
Subtotal
35,000
35,000
Total from Environmental Land Use Management Department
1,809,400
Attorney's Office
620110
Services - Legal
SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT SITE INVESTIGATION (partial costs)
100,000
Major Maintenance Expense:
POINT LOMA KELLOGG BEACH/AREA SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL
74,900
IMPERIAL BEACH STREET ENDS SAND ABATEMENT
20,000
GRAND TOTAL
DM5#520610
2,004,300
AGENDA RELATED
JUN 12 2012
MEMORANDUM
Date:
June 4, 2012
To:
From:
Darlene Nicandro
Director, Environm~tal & Land Use Management
[email protected]
Subject:
Coastal Strategy Agenda Item
#
33
1n\l
The purpose of this memo is to inform the Board that the agenda item regarding the
coastal strategy is not ready to be included in this agenda packet as staff is synthesizing
additional coastal consultant information to include in the agenda sheet. The agenda
sheet will be ready for the Friday, June 8th, distribution. If you have any questions,
please contact me on my office phone at (619) 686-6473, or via cell at (619) 889-4793.
SOU PO Docs No 525957
AGENDA RELATED
MEMORANDUM
12
#
_pz;.
--------
Date:
June 11, 2012
To:
From:
Darlene Nicandro
Director, Environmental & Land Use Management
[email protected]
Subject:
Additional Information for Coastal Strategy Agenda Item #33
The purpose of this memo is to provide the Board with additional information regarding
the proposed coastal consulting firms' experience and track record as indicated in the
agenda sheet.
AGENDA PAGE
#
CONSULTANT
EXISTING AGENDA
TEXT
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
Page 6
California
Strategies
• Has represented
over 100 projects
costing $20 million
dollars and above
(staff is requesting
clarification on how
many of these
projects were
represented before
the Coastal
Commission)
California Strategies
has represented more
than ten Coastal
Commission projects in
excess of $20 million
dollars before the
Coastal Commission
Page 7
McCabe &
Company
• Has represented 27
projects costing $20
million dollars and
above (staff is
requesting
clarification on how
many of these
projects were
represented before
the Coastal
Commission)
All of these projects
were represented
before the Coastal
Commission (see
information provided in
Attachment A)
SDUPD Docs No 527146
Page 2 of 2
June 11, 2012
Subject:
Additional Information for Coastal Strategy Agenda Item #33
Page 7
McCabe &
Company
• Has obtained
favorable outcomes
a vast majority of the
time, most in their
first appearance
before the Coastal
Commission (staff is
requesting more
specific information
on McCabe &
Company's win/loss
record)
McCabe & Company
has a 239 to 2 win/loss
record for projects
represented before the
Coastal Commission
(see information
provided in Attachment
A)
If you have any questions, please contact me on my office phone at (619) 686-6473, or
via cell at (619) 889-4793.
Attachment A: McCabe & Company Supplemental Information
SDUPD Docs No 516246
McCabe & Company, LLC
Attachment A
Coastal Clients
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
22nd District Agricultural Association, Del Mar*
Jeff Abramson, Capitola
Robert Adler, Malibu
Almco, Pacifica*
Deena Altman, Oceanside
Anthony Anvari, San Clemente
Brian Arthur, Aptos
Axiom Shelter Island, LLC, San Diego
Avalon Bay, Long Beach
AVP Pro Beach Volleyball Tour, Los Angeles
Fred Bailey, Davenport
Richard and Gail Barrett, Pebble Beach
Steve Barth, Malibu
Batiquitos Bluffs, LLC, Santa Monica
Bayside Village, Newport Beach
Beach & Bluff COnservancy, Solana Beach*
Beachcomber Restaurant Group (BRG), Malibu
Beachfront Properties, Pacific Beach
Beachwalk Resort, LLC, Pismo Beach
Greg Beardsley, Monterey
Unda Behar, Malibu
Bel-Air Bay Club, Pacific Palisades
Gordon and Adele Binder, Malibu
Steve Bradshaw (Sunridge Views), Monterey County
Broad Beach Homeowners, Malibu
Dr. Bud & Ann Bruggeman, Dana Point
Nicholas Cage, Malibu
Cal Am Water, Monterey COunty*
California Landmark, Pacific Palisades
Calleguas Municipal Water District
Calvary Christian Church, Pacific Palisades
Fran Camaj, Venice
Cameron Brothers COnstruction, Mission Beach
cannery Row Marketplace LLC, Monterey
Louis Carnevale, Carpinteria
Caruso Affiliated, Los Angeles
Cayucos sanitary District*
Centex Destination Properties, Sand City
Centre City Development COrporation (CCOC), San Dfego
1
McCabe & Company. UC
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
Chadmar Group, Santa Monica
Bill Chadwick, Malibu
Sarah and B.J. Chaney~ Malibu
Chevron, Santa Barbara
Chris & lonnie Clemens, Carpinteria
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
City of carlsbad
City of Carpinteria
City of Encinitas
City of Huntington Beach
City of Imperial Beach
City of Long Beach
City of Los Angeles
City of Malibu
City of Morro Bay*
City of Newport Beach
City of Sand City
City of San Diego
City of Santa Barbara
City of Santa Cruz
City of Solana Beach
Coast Seafoods, Humboldt Bay
Michael & Debbie Collins, Santa Cruz County
Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula
Concordia Homes (Renaissance Terrace), Oceanside
Kevin Costner, Santa Barbara
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
County of Los Angeles, Department of Beaches and Harbors, Marina Del Rey
County of San Luis Obispo
County of Santa Barbara
County of Santa Cruz
Crown Pointe Estates at Malibu, LLC, Malibu
Cypress Point Golf Oub, Pebble Beach
Robert & carole Daly, Malibu
William De La Pena, Laguna Beach
Barry Diller, Malibu
DKN Hotels, Carlsbad
John and Jane Doud, Salinas
Driftwood Properties LLC, Laguna Beach
Encinitas Bay Resort (KSL), Encinitas
Encinitas Town Center Associates II, LLC, Encinitas
Encore Trust, San Diego*
Execpro Services, Santa Monica*
Fifth Avenue Landing, San Diego
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
n.
78.
79.
80.
81.
2
MeCGI» & Company, UC
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
11S.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
Benson Ford, Jr., Newport Beach
Foundations Recovery Network, Malibu*
Neil Frank. Aptos
Barbara Gale, Malibu
Sandv Gallin, Malibu
Georgene Gallo, Malibu
David Geffen, Malibu
Goldrich & Kest, Los Angeles
Green Heron Spring, LLC, Carpinteria
Lauren Greene and Glen Ceresa, Santa Cruz
Jeffrey Haber, laguna Beach
Daniel Haspert, Laguna Beach
Heritage House, Mendodno
Ralph Herzig, Malibu
Home Depot, Long Beach
Hotel Del Coronado (KSL), Coronado
Hubbs -Seaworld Research Institute, San Diego
The Huntley Hotel, Santa Monica*
lnshalla Trust, Malibu
The Irvine Company, LLC, Irvine
Amy Irving, Malibu
Janet Jackson, Malibu
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell UP, los Angeles*
Jeffrey Katzenberg, Malibu
Jonathan Club, Santa Monica*
Keenan Land Company, Half Moon Bay
Susan Keenberg for Barbra Streisand, Malibu
Kelly Ranch, Carlsbad
Brian Kilb, Malibu
lyn Konheim, Malibu
James Koppert, Carmel
lagado, Marina del Rey*
Chris Landon, Venice
lantana Mendocino, LLC, Mendocino Co.
Sheldon Laube and Nancy Engel, Monterey Co.
Legacy Partners (Neptune Marina), Marina Del Rey
Rich Upeles, Sunset Beach*
Loews Hotel, Coronado
larry Longo, Malibu
Lumlere Hotel Group, LLC, Coronado
LUSK (Marblehead), Irvine
Lux Art Museum, Encinitas
3
McCabe & Company, UC
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
William lynch, Ventura
Macerich, Santa Monica
MacPherson Oil Company, Hermosa Beach
Malibu Bay Company, Malibu
Malibu Holdings, Malibu
Malibu Pier Partners, Malibu
Frank Mancuso, Malibu
Mansour Realty Corporation, santa Monica
Marina Pacific Associates
Marina Towers Homeowners' Association, Oceanside
Mariposa land Co., Malibu
Marriott Hotel & Marina, San Diego*
MB Ocean Front Properties, san Diego
McCullough-Ames, san Diego
Patrick McNicholas, Malibu
McWethy Management Partnership, Monterey
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Midway Aircraft carrier Museum, san Diego
l & S Milken, Malibu
Miracosta College, Oceanside
Miramar Hotel, Montecito
Mission Valley Properties, San Mateo
Monterey County Assoc. of Realtors, (City of carmel-by-the-Sea LCP}
Dennis Morin, Laguna Beach
Susan Morrison, Dana Point
Peter Morton, Malibu
Moss Landing Marine Labs, San Jose
Steve and Janet Moss, carlsbad
Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, los Angeles*
MUSE Elementary, calabasas
NF Marina, Marina Del Rey
Richard Nieter, Malibu
NOAS Properties, Malibu
Northwest Hospitality Group/Coast Inn, Santa Cruz
Ocean Colony Partners, Half Moon Bay
Ocean Harbor House Homeowners' Association, Monterey
Mo Ostin, Malibu
Pacifica Companies, san Diego
Pacific Beach Resort, san Diego
Pacific Gateway, San Diego
Palisades Landmark, LLC Pacific Palisades
Palm Avenue carwash, Imperial Beach
4
Pat Pidgeon, Malibu
Pebble Beach Company, Pebble Beach
Pepperdine University, Malibu*
Charles Perez, Malibu
Pescadero Conservation Alliance, San Mateo
Pioneer Bakery, Venice
Playa capital, Playa Del Rey
Tom Pollock, Malibu
Port of Long Beach, Long Beach*
Port of Los Angeles, San Pedro
William and Susan Porter, Santa Cruz
Poseidon Resources Corporation, Carlsbad and Huntington Beach
Prime Property capital (Costanoa), San Mateo
Bruce Ratner, Laguna Beach
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica
RCL Co, Long Beach
Peter Read, Pebble Beach
Protea Flower Hill Promenade, Del Mar
Puffsky, LLC, Santa Cruz
Mickle. Riley, Carlsbad
Rust Trust, Malibu
Ruby's Restaurant Group, Newport Beach
C.J. Rudolph, Padflc Palisades
R.W. Hertel and Sons, Inc. (Creekwood), carpinteria
Stephen and Wendie Ryter, carmel
San Diego Unified Port District. San Diego
San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego*
Sanford Consortium for Regenerative Medidne, San Diego
Santa Barbara Ranch, Santa Barbara
Santa Cruz Seaside Company, Santa Cruz
St. Joseph Center, Santa Monica
Salk Institute of Biological Sciences, 1.a Jolla
SAM Trust, Malibu
199. San Diego County Water Authority, San Diego
200. Santa Barbara Properties {La Entrada), Santa Barbara
201. Santa Monica Amusements, Santa Monica
202.. Santa Monica Place, Santa Monica
203. Alan Schwendener, Seal Beach
204. SeaWorfd, San Diego
205. Self Realization Fellowship, Encinitas*
206. Terry Semel, Malibu
207. Shea Homes, Huntington Beach*
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
19L
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
5
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
219.
220.
221.
222.
223.
224.
22S.
226.
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
Shea Properties, Solana Beach
Kimberly and Arthur Silver, Malibu
Sound Energy Solutions, long Beach
Southern California Edison, San Onofre and Oxnard*
South County Housing (Senior Housing), Padflc Grove
Spears Family Trust, Malibu
can Stahmer, Endnitas
Greg Steltenpohl, Davenport
Sunroad Enterprises, San Diego*
Surfcrest Partners, Huntington Beach
Albert Sweet, Malibu
Barry Swenson Builder, Santa Cruz
Sycamore Meadows, Malibu
Transportation Corridor Agencies, Irvine*
TranSystems, Long Beach
Dr. Alfredo and Robin Trento, Malibu
Trey Trust, Malibu
Michael Tuchman, Malibu
UC Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara
Alan VanVIi~ Santa Barbara
Venoco, Inc., carpinteria
Ventana Inn & Spa, Big Sur
Kenneth & Sharene VIrnig, Pebble Beach
Wavecrest Village, Half Moon Bay
Keith Waddell, San Mateo County
Rock Walker, Santa Cruz County
Westbridge Finandal, Santa Monica
Don Wildman, Malibu
Bill Winokur, Malibu
Woodside Natural Gas, Santa Monica
WSG Development, Monterey
Michael Zacha, Malibu
* Currently active
Last Updated: 5/24/2012
McCabe & Company, Inc.
Coastal Projects over $20 Million
1. Axiom Shelter Island (LCPA and COP for mixed use development in San Diego)
2. Beachwalk Resort (COP for hotel in Pismo Beach)
3. Cal Am Water {COPs for components of desalination facility In Monterey)
4. caruso Affiliated (COP for demolition and reconstruction of Miramar Hotel in Montecito)
5. Alamitos Bay Marina {COP for reconstruction of city-owned boating marina in Long Beach)
6. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula {COP for addition of new hospital wing)
7. Concordia Homes (COP for construction of condominium project in Oceanside)
8. KSL, Encinitas Bay Resort (COP for construction of new hotel in Encinitas)
9. Goldrich & Kest (LCPA and CDP for construction of apartment building and related development
In Marina del Rey)
10. Hotel Del Coronado (COP for construction of two additions to existing hotel in Coronado)
11. Irvine Company, Balboa Marina (COP for reconstruction of boating Marina in Newport Beach)
12. Lusk Homes, Marblehead (COP for construction of large mixed-use development in San
Clemente)
13. Macerich, Santa Monica Place (COP for reconstruction of shopping mall)
14. Pepperdine University, Campus Ufe Project (LROP for new and upgraded campus facilities)*
15. Morro Bay/Cavucos Sanitary District (CDP for wastewater treatment plant upgrade in Morro
Bay)•
16. Pioneer Bakery (COP for mixed-use development in Venice)
17. Playa Capital, Playa Vista {COPs for traffic Improvements for mixed-use development in Oty of I.A)
18. Poseidon Resources {COPs for major desalination facilities in carlsbad and Huntington Beach)•
19. Protea Flower Hill Promenade {expansion of shopping center in San Diego)
20. Rand Corporation (COP for construction of new corporate headquarters in Santa Monica)
21. 5ANDAG (LCPAs and PWP for widening of 1-5 Freeway in San Diego County)*
22. Sanford Consortium for Regenerative Medicine (COP for stem cell research center in San Diego)
23. St. Joseph Center (COP for reconstruction of school and community resources center in City of
I.A)
24. SeaWorld (Master COP for park Improvements in San Diego)
25. Shea Homes (LCPA and COP for housing development in Huntington Beach)•
26. Southern california Edison (COPs for nuclear power plant improvements including replacement of
steam generators in San Clemente}
1
McCabe & Company. Inc.
27. Transportation Corridor Agencies (COP for construction of extension of the 241 Freeway)**
*
**
Project still in process
Project denied
last Updated: 5/24/2012
2
AGENDA RELATED
12
#_..;;;..g_(f_ _
MEMORANDUM
Date:
June 5, 2012
To:
From:
Timothy Deuel
District Clerk
tdeuel@portofsand iego. org
Subject:
Agenda Item No. 36 - Resolution Authorizing Funding in an amount not to
exceed $385,250 and District Services not to exceed $752,918 for Fiscal
Year 2013 Marketing Sponsorship Programs
The Draft Resolution for the above referenced agenda item is not ready for distribution
DM 380642
Page 1 of 1
Agenda-Related Comment: Letter in Support of Item #36 Board of Port Commissioners Meeting lun 12, 2012
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Attachments:
Commissioners Mailbox
Commissioners (7 +Assistants)
6/11/2012 5:00 PM
Agenda-Related Comment: Letter in Support of Item #36 - Board of Port
Commissioners Meeting Jun 12, 2012
Senior Team
Ltr Support Funding Harbor Days.pdf
Commissioners,
Passing along an agenda-related comment.
A hard copy will be placed on your desks.
Best regards,
Donna
AGENDA RELATED
JUN 12
#
.?Jle
>>>
From:
To:
"Susan Johnson" <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
< [email protected] >
Date:
6/11/2012 4:49 PM
Subject: Letter in Support of Item #36 - Board of Port Commissioners Meeting Jun
12, 2012
RE: Item 35. Resolution Authorizing Funding in an amount not to exceed $385,250 and District Services not
to exceed $752,918 for Fiscal Year 2013 Marketing Sponsorship Programs.
Dear Commissions,
Please find attached a letter of support from Councilwoman Bensoussan for the funding of two exciting
events in Chula Vista as part of the 2012-2013 Community Sponsorship grants .
Susan Johnson
Council Aide to Councilwoman Pamela Bensoussan
Chula Vista City Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
(619) 585-5614
gohnson@{hulavistaca.gov
file://C:\Documents and Settings\teichhol\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FD62437POR... 6112/2012
COUNCILMEMBER
June 8, 2012
Pamela Bensoussan
San Diego Port District
P.O. Box 120488'
San Diego, CA 92112
Dear San Diego Port Commissioners,
On Tuesday, you will be asked to approve Community Sponsorship of two exciting events on Chula Vista's
Bayfront. Harbor Days, in September, is a celebmtion of our regional waterfront community and a
signature Chula Vista event vital to the activation of out Bayfront. The South Bayfront PowWow in August
will, for the first time, enable Chula Vista and the Port to join the national Powwow Circuit. This is a great
opportunity to support cultural diversity and our history, while highlighting South San Diego Bay.
Harbor Days was a major annual event on our Marina Harbor from 1989 until2003. In 2010, we brought
back this signature festival with support from the San Diego Maritime Museum, the City of Chula Vista, the
Port Distl'ict, and Bayfront tenants. Once again the public could enjoy an animated bayfront featuring free
historic ship tours, juried Art Shows, interactive kids art mural, a robotics challenge and more than 40
business and non-profit organizational booths attl'acting over 1500 visitors. Last year, with additional
support from the Port of San Diego and the City, Harbor Days was featured as a CentennialCelebration.
The venue was expanded to include the entire waterfront, and special activities were added such as a "Kid's
Zone", "Eco Zone", and SEAL harbor tour. Community involvement increased to apptoxi.mately 30
vendor booths, 40 non-profit/ organizations, 40 artists & performers and the support and sponsorship of
1nore than 20 community businesses and organizations. The event was planned and coordinated by a
tremendous effort of volunteers who are committed to the revitalization of Harbor Days as an annual Chula
Vista Bayfront community event. Last year's attendance of about 3,500 was more than double the prior
year's turnout.
TI1e second event - the Summer Pmvwow, is new to Chula Vista's waterfront. The idea grew from the
evolving partnership between the South Bayfront Artists (a nonprofit organization) and Native American
artists, who joined the group displaying their work in the new waterfront gallery at the Chula Vista Marina.
Tlus will be a wonderful opportunity to grow a popular event into an annual tl'adition celebrating our
community's llistorical roots on the bay, the preservation of our environment, and our cultural diversity.
Thank you for your consideration and I hope you will favor title sponsorship for tl1ese two important
community events.
Sincerely,
Pamela Bensoussan, Councilwoman City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue • Chula Vista • California 91910 • (619) 691-5044 • Fax (619) 476-5379
[email protected]\'
@f'V<ii·O.nsunlotr Rc<)dc-<1 f\lpit

06-12-12 Agenda Related Material

Transcription

Similar documents

Capuchinbird

4S Commons Town Center

Allen`s Swamp Monkey - San Diego Zoo Global Library

San Diego Wild Animal Park Water Master Plan

we`ve accomplished we`ve accomplished

Sudberry Properties Celebrates 30th Anniversary

Napoleon Container Terminal

Subcutaneous Port Catheter (Port, porta

2016 Coronation flyer short.psf

January 17, 2011 - Village of Port Clements