city memorandum - SIRE

PA I
ROCKLIN
CALIFORNIA
CITY MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 5, 2016
TO:
Mayor Greg Janda and Members of the Rocklin City Council
FROM:
Ricky A. Horst, City Manager
SUBJECT:
City Manager Report
1. City of Rocklin's General Obligation Bond Rating is AAA: Fitch Ratings affirmed the
City of Rocklin's AAA General Obligation bond rating and it AA+ Certificates of
Participation rating. The City of Rocklin is one of very few California cities to have
the highest possible "AAA" credit rating. Fitch cited the City's strong financial
reserves, moderate debt profile and resilient local economy as the major drivers of
their recent rating action. (See Fitch Ratings Press Release as attached.)
2. Rocklin Partners with Roseville in Homeless Study: Roseville has graciously
extended and Rocklin has accepted an invitation to join forces in a homeless study
for our duel jurisdictions. Rocklin and Roseville will be engaging Sacramento Steps
Forward to determine the impact of the homeless community on our jurisdiction(s).
There has been much discussion at the county level regarding a course of action to
meet homeless needs. We feel it prudent to better understand the extent of
homelessness in our jurisdictions and the impact therein prior to moving forward
any particular course of action.
3. HdL Placer County Sales Tax Allocations — 3Q Comparison: HdL reports that 3Q
sale tax allocations county wide saw an overall increase of 5.68%. A number of
Placer County jurisdictions reported a slight decrease year over year with other
realizing an increase in the single digits. Rocklin was the exception reporting an
overall 30.53% increase year over year. (See HdL report as attached) From a state
wide prospective, local share of sales and use tax revenues was up 2.4% year over
year. New and used auto sales and leases continued to exhibit solid gains and
were the primary contributor to the statewide growth. Rocklin's grow, while
including auto sales and leases benefited from a number of new retail openings
driving up our year of year numbers.
4. California Water Conservation, Flood Control and Stormwater Management Act:
On Monday, December 14, the Association of California Water Agencies, the
June 30, 2003
Page 2
California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities filed a
constitutional amendment with the Attorney General's office. The measure would
create a new, optional funding method local agencies can use to finance
stormwater management and flood control projects. The following statement can be
attributed to the ACWA, CSAC and the League: "This measure recognizes the
current water realities and would create a new optional funding method local
governments can use at their sole discretion to establish conservation pricing, to
finance flood control and stormwater management... We have filed this measure in
the hopes of advancing the discussions towards a viable policy solution in 2016."
City staff has completed an assessment of the City's existing stormwater
conveyance system with will be presented in detail at the upcoming City Council
Strategic Planning.
5. Bickford Ranch Project is Back: Bickford Ranch, a master-planned community
housing project in Placer County, won approval from county supervisors. The
project, consisting of 1,928 acres, was acquired by WestPark Communities in
2012. While this project is outside our jurisdictional boundaries, we will need to
discuss several areas of potential impact as well as opportunities for sharedservices. The City may see traffic impacts from this development, especially should
the planned Clover Valley project moves forward. Additionally, based on future fire
service plans, the City of Lincoln, Placer County Bickford Ranch, and Rocklin may
have an opportunity for shared services. (See Sacramento Business Journal Article
as attached.)
6. PCWA Water Conservation Warning Letter: Placer County Water Agency is in
receipt of a letter from the State Water Board notifying them that their cumulative
water conservation had fallen more than 1% below the conservation target of 32%
as set for PCWA by the State Water Board. While it appears that the City of Rocklin
met its target, as part of a larger agency jurisdiction, there will likely be an
expectation for the City to do more this coming year. (See PCWA Press Release as
attached.)
7. Rocklin Succeeds in Meet and Confer with State Department of Finance: The City
of Rocklin requested a "Meet and Confer" process with the State Department of
Finance to resolve a dispute regarding a ROPS (Recognized Obligation Payment
Schedule) Based on a review of the additional information as presented by the City,
DOE reversed its previous determination regarding the ROPS. (A copy of the
Department of Finance Letter is attached.)
8. November New Business License Report: (See attached)
12/18/2015
Press Release
Fitch 1 atinffs
Fitch Affirms Rocklin, CA's COPs at 'AA+'; Outlook Stable
Fitch Ratings-New York-18 December 2015: Fitch Ratings has affirmed the ratings on Rocklin,
California's (the city) outstanding obligations as follows:
--Approximately $1.5 million Rocklin Public Financing Authority certificates of participation (COPs) series
2003 at 'AA+';
--Implied general obligation rating (GO) at 'AAA'.
The Rating Outlook is Stable.
SECURITY
The certificates are secured by the city's covenant to budget and appropriate lease payments for
beneficial use and occupancy of governmental facilities under a standard lease-leaseback transaction.
Additional security is provided through a debt service reserve surety and two years of rental interruption
insurance up to an amount equal to maximum annual debt service in either year.
KEY RATING DRIVERS
STRONG FINANCIAL RESERVES: Financial reserve levels remain very strong and are supported by
increasing revenues.
MODERATE DEBT PROFILE: The city's direct debt burden is low and overall debt is moderate. The
pace of direct debt amortization is rapid and future capital needs are minimal.
RESILIENT LOCAL ECONOMY CONTINUES TO GROW: The city's local economy, while slowed by the
recession, has remained strong relative to the struggling Sacramento MSA (the MSA). Housing prices
have recovered much of the value lost in the recession, and increased residential and commercial
development have both driven tax base growth and bolstered sales tax revenues.
APPROPRIATION AND ABATEMENT CONSIDERATIONS: The one notch rating distinction for the COPs
from the city's implied GO rating reflects the annual appropriation and abatement risk.
RATING SENSITIVITIES
BALANCED OPERATIONS AND SOLID RESERVES: The current rating level assumes the city will
address any future operating shortfalls while maintaining solid reserves. Failure to do so could pressure
the rating.
CREDIT PROFILE
The city of Rocklin is located within Placer County, 22 miles northeast of the city of Sacramento. The
city's current population is 60,344.
RESILIENT LOCAL ECONOMY CONTINUES TO GROW
Since the last recession, the city's economy has recovered and continues to trend upwards. Commercial
https://www.fi tchr all ngs.com /si te/fi tch- ho m &press r ease?i d= 997106
1/4
12/18/2015
Press Release
and residential development reversed previous tax base declines and the city posted solid 6.5% and
8.6% gains in taxable assessed value (AV) for fiscal 2015 and 2016, respectively; the current taxable
value is $7.8 billion.
The city's employment base has also been resilient. Recession-related employment losses were fewer
than the surrounding MSA. Both employment and labor force figures have returned to pre-recession
levels, resulting in an unemployment rate that is consistently below the county, MSA, state, and national
averages.
The city has experienced significant population growth due to its relative affordability and proximity to the
Sacramento region's employment base. While many residents take advantage of employment
opportunities in the surrounding MSA, the local economy of the city benefits from several large local
employers, with regional offices for Oracle and UPS, and higher education, with Sierra College and
Wiliam Jessup University (all within the city limits).
STRONG FINANCIAL PROFILE
The city's financial operations have been consistently strong. The unrestricted general fund balance
climbed to a high $32.0 million or 81% of spending at the end of fiscal 2014. Revenue collections fell
slightly during the recent recession but have subsequently rebounded, as evidenced by a 4.8%
compounded annual growth rate over the past five years.
Expenditures have grown by a similar rate over this same period at a 4.7% compounded rate. Growing
pension costs may increase expenditures over the next few years, but the city's practice of planning for
and making additional pension payments positions it well for addressing this potential challenge.
Continuing the trend of solid operating performance, fiscal 2015 unaudited results show a $788
thousand surplus, with unrestricted reserves at a still solid 74.1% of spending.
The fiscal 2016 budget assumes a reduction in general fund reserves due primarily to $600 thousand in
expected street maintenance expenditures. However, the city expects actual results to exceed budgeted
projections given anticipated revenue growth. Property taxes continue to benefit from higher AV, sales
taxes appear likely to increase due to recently completed retail construction, and permits and business
tax revenue have been boosted by ongoing development. .
MODERATE DEBT PROFILE
The city's overall debt profile is manageable. Direct debt levels are low but overall debt levels are
moderate at $4,300 per capita due to sizable overlapping debt of local school and community facilities
districts. The series 2003 COPs are secured by a lien on rental payments from the city for use of a police
facility. The city's direct debt amortizes rapidly with 100% of outstanding debt scheduled for repayment
within 10 years, while capital needs reportedly are minimal.
The city participates in the state pension plan, CalPERS, and historically has funded 100% of its annual
required contribution; the contribution totaled $3.7 million in fiscal 2014. Due to expected increases in
contribution rates, the city proactively made an extra payment to CalPERS of $952 thousand in fiscal
2015. The city plans to continue to make additional pension payments to reduce long-term pension
liabilities going forward.
In 2014, the city established an OBEB trust fund with the California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust
(CERBT). The city transferred $2.2 million to the trust fund in fiscal 2015 and plans to transfer another
$2.7 million in fiscal 2016. The city is working towards full actuarial funding of its OPEB obligations. It
littps://www.fitchratings.com/site/fitch-home/pressrelease?id=997106
2/4
12/18/2015
Press Release
plans to pay at least 40% of the ARC in fiscal 2016 and to increase the contribution by 10 percentage
points each successive fiscal year (up to fiscal year 2022).
Carrying costs for debt service and retiree benefits were manageable at 13.9% of fiscal 2014
governmental expenditures.
Contact:
Primary Analyst
Rupali Mahida
Analyst
+1-212-612-7839
Fitch Ratings, Inc.
33 Whitehall
New York, NY 10004
Secondary Analyst
Stephen Walsh
Director
+1-415-732-7573
Committee Chairperson
Steve Murray
Senior Director
+1-512-215-3729
Media Relations: Elizabeth Fogerty, New York, Tel: +1(212) 908 0526, Email:
[email protected].
Additional information is available at'www.fitchratings.comi.
Fitch recently published an exposure draft of state and local government tax-supported criteria
(Exposure Draft: U.S. Tax-Supported Rating Criteria, dated Sept. 10, 2015). The draft includes a number
of proposed revisions to existing criteria. If applied in the proposed form, Fitch estimates the revised
criteria would result in changes to fewer than 10% of existing tax-supported ratings. Fitch expects that
final criteria will be approved and published by Jan. 20, 2016. Once approved, the criteria will be applied
immediately to any new issue and surveillance rating review. Fitch anticipates the criteria to be applied to
all ratings that fall under the criteria within a 12-month period from the final approval date.
Applicable Criteria
Exposure Draft: U.S. Tax-Supported Rating Criteria (pub. 10 Sep 2015)
(https://www.fitchratings.comicreditdeskireports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=869942)
Tax-Supported Rating Criteria (pub. 14 Aug 2012)
(https://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=686015)
Additional Disclosures
Dodd-Frank Rating Information Disclosure Form
(https://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/press_releases/contenttridf frame.cfm?pr_id=997106)
Solicitation Status (https://www.fitchratings.com/gwsien/disclosure/solicitation?pr_id=997106)
Endorsement Policy (https://www.fitchratings.com/jsp/creditdesk/PolicyRegulation.faces?
context=2&detail=31)
https://wwwfitchratings.com/site/fitch-home/pressrelease?1th097106
3/4
12/1812015
Press Release
ALL FITCH CREDIT RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS.
PLEASE READ THESE LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK:
HTTP://FITCHRATINGS.COM/UNDERSTANDINGCREDITRATINGS
(http://fitchratings.com/understandingcreditratings) . IN ADDITION, RATING DEFINITIONS AND THE
TERMS OF USE OF SUCH RATINGS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE AGENCY'S PUBLIC WEBSITE
'VWVW.FITCHRATINGS.COM'. PUBLISHED RATINGS, CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGIES ARE
AVAILABLE FROM THIS SITE AT ALL TIMES. FITCH'S CODE OF CONDUCT, CONFIDENTIALITY,
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AFFILIATE FIREWALL, COMPLIANCE AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES
AND PROCEDURES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE 'CODE OF CONDUCT' SECTION OF THIS
SITE. FITCH MAY HAVE PROVIDED ANOTHER PERMISSIBLE SERVICE TO THE RATED ENTITY OR
ITS RELATED THIRD PARTIES. DETAILS OF THIS SERVICE FOR RATINGS FOR WHICH THE LEAD
ANALYST IS BASED IN AN EU-REGISTERED ENTITY CAN BE FOUND ON THE ENTITY SUMMARY
PAGE FOR THIS ISSUER ON THE FITCH VVEBSITE.
Endorsement Policy - Fitch's approach to ratings endorsement so that ratings produced outside the EU
may be used by regulated entities within the EU for regulatory purposes, pursuant to the terms of the EU
Regulation with respect to credit rating agencies, can be found on the EU Regulatory Disclosures
(https://www.fitchratings.com/regulatory) page. The endorsement status of all International ratings is
provided within the entity summary page for each rated entity and in the transaction detail pages for all
structured finance transactions on the Fitch website. These disclosures are updated on a daily basis.
https ://www.fi tchr ngs.com/site/fitch-horn e/pres s rel eas e?i d = 997106
4/4
Emu?
COMPANIES
PLACER COUNTY
SALES TAX ALLOCATION TOTALS - 30 COMPARISON
302015
Auburn
Colfax
Point-of-Sale
County Pool
State Pool
1,535,557
189,667
1,473,318
167,929
287
Gross Receipts
Point-of-Sale
County Pool
State Pool
Lincoln
-71.43%
1,642,251
83,259
5.07%
218,002
26,927
221,680
25,267
(3,678)
1,660
-1.66%
6.57%
(110)
-73.05%
(2,129)
-0.86%
Point-of-Sale
County Pool
680,593
84,064
711,425
81,088
(30,832)
2,976
-4.33%
3.67%
-73.78%
127
485
(358)
Gross Receipts
764,784
792,998
(28,214)
Point-of-Sale
County Pool
231,848
28,637
242,211
27,607
(10,363)
1,030
-4.28%
3.73%
Point-of-Sale
County Pool
43
165
(122)
-73.77%
260,528
269,983
(9,455)
-3.50%
2,436,644
300,966
1,881,855
214,494
554,789
86,472
29.48%
40.31%
455
1,282
(827)
-64.51%
2,738,065
2,097,630
640,434
30.53%
Point-of-Sate
County Pool
State Pool
11,259,063
1,390,680
10,994,995
1,253,211
264,068
137,469
2.40%
10.97%
2,102
7,489
(5,387)
-71.93%
Gross Receipts
12,651,845
12,255,695
396,149
3.23%
3,576,803
441,794
3,493,574
398,198
83,229
43,596
2.38%
10.95%
Point-of-Sale
County Pool
State Pool
668
2,380
(1,712)
-71.94%
4,019,265
3,894,152
125,113
3.21%
Point-of-Sale
County Pool
State Pool
19,938,510
2,462,734
19,019,059
2,167,794
919,452
294,940
4.83%
13.61%
3,722
12,955
(9,233)
-71.27%
Gross Receipts
22,404,967
21,199,808
1,205,159
5.68%
Gross Receipts
12111/2015 3:58 em
(717)
1,725,510
151
State Pool
Placer County
All Agencies
1.004
247,098
Gross Receipts
Placer County
Unincorporated
4.22%
12.94%
41
Gross Receipts
Roseville
62,239
21,738
244,969
State Pool
Rocklin
Percent
Difference
Gross Receipts
State Pool
Loomis
Dollar
Difference
302014
HdL • (909) 861-4335 • www.hdlcompanies.com
Page 1 of 1
WestPark Communities wins approval for Bickford Ranch development - Sacramento Bu... Page 1 of 2
From the Sacramento Business Journal:
http://www.bizjournals.comisacramento/blog/morningroundup/2015/12/placer-countys-long-stalled-bickford-ranchproject.html
Placer County's long-stalled
Bickford Ranch project is back
Dec 9, 2015, 7:09am PST
Bickford Ranch, a master-planned
housing project in Placer County, won
approval from county supervisors
Tuesday
—
for the third time.
A cornucopia of lawsuits, bankruptcies
and bad markets plagued previous
iterations of the 1,928-acre project.
WestPark Communities, which acquired
SUBMITTED RENDERING
the project in 2012, is the developer
A map of the proposed development
called Bickford Ranch, a master-planned
now.
housing project in Placer County, which
won approval again from county
Supervisors voted 4-1 on Tuesday in
supervisors Tuesday.
favor of revisions to plans most recently
approved in 2004. Those revisions shift 64 acres from residential
development to open space. Density goes up from 2.47 to 2.69 units
per acre, allowing the same number of residential units overall, just
under 1,900.
Other revisions made more housing medium-density, rather than high
or low, eliminated a planned golf course and 9.7-acre commercial site
http://www.bizjoumals.corn/sacramento/blog/morning-roundup/2015/12/placer-countys-1.. . 12/09/2015
WestPark Communities wins approval for Bickford Ranch development - Sacramento Bu... Page 2 of 2
and increased overall open space by nearly 110 acres. The changes
also created a 164-acre "transition area" between homes and open
space preserves.
The property, named for a ranch that operated on part of the property
until the early 1980s, is north of Interstate 80 and south of Highway
193, between Lincoln and Newcastle. County supervisors approved the
original entitlements for the project in 2001, then rescinded them three
years later after a judge agreed with a Sierra Club lawsuit. County
supervisors approved revised entitlements in 2004, and some early
infrastructure work started, then stopped in 2005.
Lennar Communities sold the project in 2005 to SunCal Cos., based in
Irvine. But SunCal Cos. ran into its own problems when funding partner
Lehman Bros. went bankrupt, and property owner SunCal Bickford
Ranch LLC itself filed for bankruptcy in 2008.
There was no immediate word on how soon Bickford Ranch could
begin development.
Ben van der Meer
Staff Writer
Sacramento Business Journal
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/blog/morning-roundup/2015/12/placer-countys-1.. . 12/09/2015
Page 1 of 1
ICEW
r,7,1
a9P-
L 740 41 74. -
N1,7,50'
1?;vir4.0-,c1
Ill eft;
trarIA
[.= -Pet otr Ctr ,r,t,
'fr- Pt-Ji l
http://media.bizj.us/view/img/7900182/d2ebb76e-7253-4736 -b76f-95e1dc544a26.png
12/09/2015
FbLACER COUNTY
WATER AGENCY
CE
CE ,
E7.1
PCW
water • energy • stewardship
144 Ferguson Road
IL
Gray Alien, District
Primo Santini, District 2
Mike Lea, District 3
P.O. BOX 6570
Auburn, CA 95604
Robert Dugan. District 4
Joshua Alpine, District 5
--'HQ 4E
(530) 823-4850
(800) 464-0030
Einar Maisch, General Manager
,vves'y
December 18, 2015
VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected]
Christian Carrigan, Esquire
Director, Office of Enforcement
State Water Resources Control Board
1001IStreet
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
SUBJECT:
PCWA Water Conservation Warning Letter
Dear Mr. Carrigan:
Placer County Water Agency is in receipt of your form letter dated December 9, 2015,
which notified PCWA that its cumulative water conservation had fallen more than 1%
below the conservation target of 32%, set for PCWA by the State Water Board. You
advised PCWA to immediately take additional steps to enhance its water conservation
efforts, noting a list of actions that PCWA should consider, and finally warning PCWA
that the State Water Board may initiate formal enforcement if PCWA does not meet its
conservation requirement in the future.
First, let me say that I am extremely proud of the dedication and sacrifice displayed by
PCWA's customers who exceeded the 20% conservation goal established in 2014 and
32% water conservation mandate of this summer. Despite having sufficient local water
supplies to meet normal demands, PCWA customers responded to the drought and the
call for conservation in exemplary fashion. They should be recognized and applauded
for their efforts and their response. I also applaud the leadership of PC WA's elected
Board of Directors and the hard working PCVVA staff who have guided us through this
difficult drought with unwavering resolve and determination to meet our conservation
target.
Efforts put forth by PCWA to implement water-saving practices have been distinguished
as some of the best in the state. In 2014 and 2015, the California Municipal Utilities
Association awarded PCWA its Resource Efficiency and Community Service Award,
which recognizes water programs that effectively save and use water resources through
F
1
PCWA Water Conservation Warning Letter
December 18, 2015
Page 2
innovation. The judging panel included the State Water Board's Deputy Director of
Drinking Water. PCWA also follows all the Best Management Practices advocated by the
Californian Urban Water Conservation Council.
In response to the drought, the average PCWA residential household reduced its
summer 2015 water use by about 211 gallons per day, compared to a requirement of
only 44 gallons per day for residential households in the City of Los Angeles. The impact
of meeting PCWA's 32% conservation mandate has resulted in unprecedented
destruction of outdoor landscapes, a decrease in property values, and a reduction in
quality of life in our community. The same cannot be said for communities in the cooler
and more densely populated coastal regions of the state, which had significantly less
onerous requirements_ Our citizens are only now beginning to recognize the inequity of
the State Board's conservation requirement plan, and realize that while we gave much,
other regions of the state, including communities much more reliant on the State and
Federal water systems, suffered significantly less.
As to your list of recommended actions, PCWA has already implemented all of them:
•
Further reducing the number of days and/or runtimes that irrigation is allowed
PC WA's adopted Water Shortage Contingency Plan restricts outdoor watering to two
days per week through November, with no watering in the winter months. However, in
response to the severity of the drought, PCWA asked customers to cut back outdoor
watering to one day per week in November. We placed ads in local newspapers, used
freeway billboards, purchased targeted social media ads, and sent out press releases to
capture the attention of our customers and mobilize their response to reduced watering
days during the drought.
•
Reminding customer that outdoor irrigation is prohibited during and 48 hours
following measurable precipitation
PCWA's Water Shortage Contingency Plan includes this prohibition and defines
measurable precipitation as 34-inch of rainfall. The prohibition is printed on our water
waste and customer outreach door tags as well as in letters sent to all customers
requesting their help in meeting our 32% conservation target, and through social media.
•
Increasing staffing and budgets for water conservation messaging/outreach,
surveillance, and enforcement
PCWA Water Conservation Warning Letter
December 18, 2015
Page 3
Three part time, temporary staff were hired for the drought and two employees have
been hired permanently. Weekend outreach events have nearly tripled in 2015 over
previous years, requiring additional funding for overtime and outreach materials.
PCWA's Board approved an additional $30,000 for agency specific outreach, and
contributed an additional $20,000 to extend the regional water efficiency advertising
campaign into the fall and winter months. The Board also approved using $150,000
from reserves for targeted drought efforts. Funds from other activities have been
transferred to augment the depleted water efficiency advertising, consulting, and
printing budgets during the drought.
•
Imposing fines for water waste or violation of conservation requirements
PCWA's Water Waste Prohibition includes an initial warning notice, then a second, third,
and fourth violation level, with the third and fourth levels having punitive charges.
Customers can report water waste using a form on PCWA's website, by email, and via
our innovative mobile app. We have heightened use of this process in 2015 and
customers have been diligent about reporting waste and responding to their waste once
notified.
•
Finding and repairing system leaks
During the drought, our field crews have placed increased emphasis on leak repairs. In a
normal year, we repair approximately 250 water leaks. The number of leak repairs
increased to more than 300 in both 2014 and 2015. Even the smallest of leaks is now
rapidly repaired. Further, the expediency with which we fix the leaks has taken on
increased importance as crews work extended shifts and overtime in making leak repair
a priority. These efforts have come at a cost, as we have postponed larger pipeline
maintenance projects and even prolonged lead-time on new service connections.
•
Adjusting rate structures to incentivize water conservation
PCWA has had a steeply inclining rate structure, designed to encourage conservation,
for many years.
•
Reviewing water meter data to identify high water users for targeted outreach
Around 7% of our annual water use comes from a few hundred customers with
dedicated irrigation meters. PCWA has sent monthly water budgets and water
efficiency reminders to these customers since 2013. When the PCWA Board approved
additional drought funding in June, we hired temporary staff to make contact with each
PCWA Water Conservation Warning Letter
December 18, 2015
Page 4
dedicated irrigation customer receiving a water budget, and permanent staff met with
landscape and maintenance personnel onsite. By October, the readership of our water
budget reports went from 40% to 98%, and the conservation levels of these customers
in 2015 average 40% compared to 2013.
In September, we analyzed our water meter data to identify our top 20% residential
water users who had not conserved at least 32%, and reached out to them through
direct mail to request increased efforts. We also re-analyzed our non-residential
accounts to identify large water users and opportunities for enhanced conservation.
Water for the American River
In addition to the above measures to reduce consumption consistent with state
mandates, in both 2014 and 2015 PCWA released extra water from its Middle Fork
Project reservoirs for transfer to agencies below the mouth of the American River. This
additional release of water helped maintain storage in Folsom Reservoir and enhance
the available pool of cold water, and when released it augmented flows in the Lower
American River, all of which provided net environmental benefits.
Summary
During the summer months of 2015, PCWA customers consistently exceeded the State
set conservation mandate. In the month of July, for example, the conservation level was
38.1%. However, as we move into winter, the opportunity to conserve becomes much
more difficult. Data the state has collected during the drought demonstrates that
winter per capita demands, which are primarily indoor uses, are essentially the same for
hotter inland regions as for coastal regions; yet inland regions such as ours typically
have a conservation mandate of approximately double that of the coastal regions.
Expecting our region to conserve twice as much indoors, as others using the same
amount, increases the inequity of an already inequitable standard. PCWA actively
participated in the public comment period prior to, and since, adoption of the
conservation standard. In both cases, PCWA suggested changes that better reflected
local water supply conditions and factors such as climate.
PCWA aspires to continue doing its part for the greater good of California, yet doing so
requires the ongoing goodwill of our customers. Our region has already suffered
disparate financial and quality of life impacts as a result the State's conservation
mandate plan, and we believe the threat to carry unfair and inequitable mandates into
the winter season, with threats of formal enforcement, will destroy the remaining
goodwill of our customers and significantly diminish their willingness to assist the
PCWA Water Conservation Warning Letter
December 18, 2015
Page 5
statewide effort. Nobody wins in that situation, and that is of special concern
considering our customers were among the state's highest conservers in 2014 and 2015.
By using punitive approaches and having unreasonable expectations, the state's
enforcement will only result in discouragement.
To maintain the goodwill of our customers and the effectiveness of their conservation
efforts, we respectfully request that the Office of Enforcement revise their letter in
order to acknowledge our aforementioned accomplishments and to withdraw the threat
of formal enforcement.
Sincerely,
PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY
Einar L. Maisch, P.
General Manager
cc:
Dr. Matthew Buffleben, Chief, Office of Enforcement
Felicia Marcus, Chair, State Water Resources Control Board
State Senator Jim Nielsen
State Senator Ted Gaines
State Assembly Member Beth Gaines
PCWA Board of Directors
PCWA Legal Counsel
Placer County, Chief Executive Officer
City of Rocklin, City Manager
City of Lincoln, City Manager
Town of Loomis, Town Manager
City of Auburn, City Manager
City of Colfax, City Manager
City of Roseville, City Manager
San Juan Water District, General Manager
Nevada Irrigation District, General Manager
Tahoe City Public Utility District, General Manager
North Tahoe Public Utility District, General Manager
Regional Water Authority, Executive Director
Water Forum, Executive Director
G:/vf2015cor.
e .Ito k,
a:
w
o
Time
Int
1..
-z
17
DEPARTMENT OF
NAN CE
EDMUND G. BROWN JR. • GOVERNOR
91 6 L STREET • MACRAMENTEI A E 95B 1 4-37015 U www.ocir.DA,mov
December 17, 2015
Ms. Mary Rister, Finance Officer
City of Rocklin
3970 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, CA 95677
Dear Ms. Rister:
Subject: Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule
This letter supersedes the California Department of Finance's (Finance) Recognized Obligation
Payment Schedule (ROPS) letter dated October 28, 2015. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code
(HSC) section 34177 (m), the City of Rocklin Successor Agency (Agency) submitted a
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 15-16B) to Finance on September 22, 2015,
for the period of January 1 through June 30, 2016. Finance issued a ROPS determination letter
on October 28, 2015. Subsequently, the Agency requested a Meet and Confer session on one
or more of the determinations made by Finance, The Meet and Confer session was held on
November 18, 2015.
Based on a review of additional information and documentation provided to Finance during the
Meet and Confer process, Finance has completed its review of the specific determination being
disputed.
• Pursuant to HSC section 34186 (a) (1), the Agency was required to report on the
ROPS 15-16B form the estimated obligations versus actual payments (prior period
adjustment) associated with the January through June 2015 period
(ROPS 14-15B). HSC section 34186 (a) (1) also specifies the prior period adjustment
self-reported by the Agency is subject to review by the county auditor-controller (CAC).
The amount of Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) approved included the
prior period adjustment totaling resulting from the CAC's review of the Agency's
self-reported prior period adjustment.
During the Meet and Confer process, the Agency contended that a portion of the prior
period adjustment was related to Item No. 47 on ROPS 14-15B, which was for a ROPS
14-15A shortfall, and the funds have already been expended. The Agency requested
that the prior period adjustment be reduced to the amount originally reported of $36,496.
During the meeting, the CAC concurred with this adjustment. Therefore, Finance is
reducing the prior period adjustment by $475,082 to $36,496.
In addition, per Finance's letter dated October 28, 2015, we continue to make the following
determination not contested by the Agency during the Meet and Confer:
Ms. Mary Rister
December 17, 2015
Page 2
• Item No. 10— Low Mod Fund Loan for purposes of the Supplemental Educational
Revenue Augmentation Fund (SERAF) in the amount of $381,040 requested for
ROPS 15-16B is not allowed. HSC section 34191.4 (b) (2) (A) allows this repayment to
be equal to one-half of the increase between the ROPS residual pass-through
distributed to the taxing entities in that fiscal year and the ROPS residual pass-through
distributed to the taxing entities in the fiscal year 2012-13 base year.
According to the County Auditor-Controller's report, the amount distributed to the taxing
entities for fiscal year 2012-13 and 2014-15 are $0 and $449,866, respectively.
Therefore, pursuant to the repayment formula, the maximum repayment amount
authorized for fiscal year 2015-16 is $224,933. The Agency requested and was
approved to expend this amount during ROPS 15-16A. As such, the Agency has
exhausted the maximum repayment amount authorized for fiscal year 2015-16. The
Agency may be eligible for additional funding beginning ROPS 16-17.
Except for the item denied in whole or in part, Finance is not objecting to the remaining items
listed On your ROPS 15-16B. The Agency's maximum approved RPTTF distribution for the
reporting period is $1,519,695 as summarized in the Approved RPTTF Distribution table below:
Approved RPTTF Distribution
For the period of January through June 2016
Total RPTIF requested for non-administrathdo obligations
Total RPTTF requested for administratNe obligations
Total RPTTF requested for obligations on ROPS 16-16B
1,812,231
125,000
1,937,231
1,812,231
Total RPTTF requested for non-administrative obligations
Denied item
Item No. 10
Total RPTTF authorized for non-administrative obligations
(381,040)
1,431,191
125,000
125,000
Total RPTTF requested for administrative obligations
Total RPTTF authorized for administrative obligations
Total RPTTF authorized for obligations
ROPS '14-15B prior period adjustment
Total RPTTF approved for distribution
Is
1,556,191
(36,496)
1,519,695
On the ROPS 15-16B form, the Agency reported cash balances and activity for the period
January 1 through December 31, 2015_ Finance will perform a review of the Agency's selfreported cash balances on an ongoing basis. Please be prepared to submit financial records
and bridging documents to support the cash balances reported upon request. if it is determined
the Agency possesses cash balances that are available to pay approved obligations,
HSC section 34177 (1) (1) (E) requires these balances be used prior to requesting RPTTF.
Please refer to the ROPS 15-16B schedule used to calculate the total RPTTF approved for
distribution:
http://www.dof.ca.cov/redevelooment/ROPS
Ms. Mary Rister
December 17, 2015
Page 3
This is Finance's final determination related to the enforceable obligations reported on your
ROPS for January 1 through June 30, 2016, This determination only applies to items when
funding was requested for the six-month period. Finance's determination is effective for this
time period only and should not be conclusively relied upon for future ROPS periods. All items
listed on a future ROPS are subject to review and may be denied even if it was not denied on
this ROPS or a preceding ROPS. The only exception is for items that have received a Final and
Conclusive determination from Finance pursuant to HSC sectfon 34177.5 (i). Finance's review
of Final and Conclusive items is limited to confirming the scheduled payments as required by
the obligation.
The amount available from the RPTTF is the same as the amount of property tax increment
available prior to the enactment of the redevelopment dissolution statutes. Therefore, as a
practical matter, the ability to fund the items on the ROPS with property tax is limited to the
amount of funding available to the Agency in the RPTTF.
Please direct inquiries to Evelyn Suess, Dispute Resolution Supervisor, or Mary HaKerman,
Analyst, at (916) 445-3274.
Sincerely,
....TWIN HOWARD
n Budget Manager
cc:
Ms. Kim Sarkovich, Chief Finance Officer, City of Rocklin
Ms. Roxanne Nored, Managing Accountant Auditor, Placer County
111121=21
ROCK UN
1 A BETTER STORAGE SOLUTION
2 A MOTHER'S TOUCH BAKERY
3 ABA IN ACTION
4 ALL RIGHT RESTORATION & CONSTRUCTION
5 AMERICAN DEFENSIVE FIREARMS
6 APPLIED ELECTRICAL
7 BOWENWORKS WONDERS
8 CABREIRA LONGO SERVICES
9 CALIFORNIA DREAM CONSTRUCTION
10 CAMPFIRE PROVISIONS
11 DL PLUMBING CO
12 FILTHY AMERICANS
13 FLUENT HOME
14 FUCHS, STEFFANY
15 GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION
16 GIL CONSTRUCTION INC
17 HARRISON CONSTRUCTION
18 HOME PRO DIRECT, INC
19 IN-N-OUT BURGERS
20 1 & L PLUMBING
21 JACCUZZI OF SACRAMENTO
22 JESSEMILY
23 SNACK HEATING AND COOLING
24 LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES
25 LEISURE LIFE WALK-IN TUBS & SHOWERS
26 LITTLE MY THO VIETNAMESE RESTAURANT
27 NATHAN SCHATTNER FITNESS
28 ORGANIC VIBEZ ENTERTAINMENT
29 OUTSIDE THE BOX
30 PEAKES, SHALAINA
31 PREMIER WINDOW TINT
32 RESULTS TRANSFORMATION CENTER
33 ROCKLIN 65 EXECUTIVE SUITES
34 RT SAMOIAN
35 SCHAUBMAYER PAINTING INC
36 SCHULTE CONSTRUCTION
37 SKINNER, AVERY
38 SUPERCUTS
39 THE FINISH SMITH
40 THE FIRM BY ATWOOD
41 TED ENGINEERING, INC
42 UFC GYM
43 ULTIMATE ELECTRIC
44 UNITED PACIFIC 85432
45 VAMPIRE PENGUIN
46 WALDREN, MAKENNA
47 WILLIAMS CONSULTING
48 YAYA FOOT SPA
Rocklin Monthly New Business License Report
November 2015
RUSH, SCOTT
Drit1711
HAMEL, BENJAMIN
DELANEY, WILLIAM
RUFFNER, SCOTT & BARBARA
RICE, JONATHAN R
HAMMER, ROBERT
BOWENWORKS WONDERS LLC
CABREIRA, KRISTOPHER
CALIFORNIA DREAM CONSTRUCTION INC
HAMMILL, MALINDA
PET ENTERPRISES, INC
FILTHY AMERICANS
FLUENT HOME, LLC
FUCHS, STEFFANY
GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION
GTL CONSTRUCTION INC
S.E. HARRISON INC
HOME PRO DIRECT, INC
IN-N-OUT BURGERS
GALVAN, JOSE G
HTSC INC
WUTHRICH, JESSICA
KVACH, STEPAN
HICKOK, TOM
LEISURE LIFE WALK-IN TUBS & SHOWERS
DONG, LEI
SCHATTNER, NATHAN
ANDERSON, HANS
ANDERSON, ANDREW
PEAKES, SHALAINA
WILLIAMS, NICOLAS
SACRAMENTO TRANSFORM LLC
SESSIONS, BRANDON
SAMOIAN, RANDALL T
SCHAUBMAYER PAINTING INC
SCHULTE, SCOTT R
SKINNER, AVERY
WISSENBAcK ENTERPRISES, INC
SMITH, DILLON
ATWOOD, DIANE
T5D ENGINEERING, INC
MPGP580 LiC
ALLEN, JOSEPH I.
AFRO, LLC
COUNT OF ROSEVILLE INC
WALDREN, MAKENNA
WILLIAMS, PHILUP
GUO, LI JUN
Ad d r es s
City of Rocklin
ROCKLIN, CA 95677
STE 103 ROCKLIN, CA 95765
UNIT H
ROCKLIN, CA 95677
STE 101 ROCKLIN, CA 95765
ROCKLIN, CA 95765
SACRAMENTO, CA 95821
ORANGEVALE, CA 95662
GRANITE BAY, CA 95746
STE 103 RoCKLIN, CA 95765
STE 106 ROCKLIN, CA 95677
SACRAMENTO, CA 95819
ROCKLIN, CA 95677
STE 160 FOLSOM, CA 95630
ROCKLIN, CA 95765
VACAVILLE, CA 95687
ROCKLIN, CA 95677
STE 700 ROCKLIN, CA 95765
STE 103 ROCKLIN, CA 95765
ROCKLIN, CA 95765
STE 110 ROCKLIN, CA 96765
STE 800 ROCKLIN, CA 95677
APT 307 ROCKLIN, CA 95677
STE 109 ROCKLIN, CA 95677
CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA 95610
ROCKLIN, CA 95765
LOCKEFORD, CA 95237
STE 17 ROCKLIN, CA 95677
ROCKLIN, CA 95765
CARMICHAEL, CA 95608
ROCKLIN, CA 95765
LINCOLN, CA 95648
ROCKLIN, CA 95677
STE 200 DRAPER, UT 64020
STE 111 ROCKLIN, CA 95765
STE 107 ROCKLIN, CA 95677
ROCKLIN, CA 95765
STE B
STE 101 DAVIS, CA 95618
FOLSOM, CA 95630
ROCKLIN, CA 95677
SACRAMENTO, CA 95832
STE 200 ROCKLIN, CA 95677
STE 106 ROCKLIN, CA 95765
RIO LINDA, CA 95673
AUBURN, CA 95603
RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95670
STE 903 ROCKLIN, CA 95765
ROCKLIN, CA 95765
ROCKLIN, CA 95677
November 2015
Monthly New Business License Report
GRANITE
4415
DR
DR
5051
EL DON
DR
DESTINY
6960
AVE
7569
PRATT
WAY
TRIPP
5536
RD
17985 N TRETHE WAY
FAIRWAY
DR
6000
CIR
THUNDER RIDGE
5452
4900
RD
ENGLE
CT
CATALINA
2621
407
Pt.
POLERMO
3188
DR
WESTWOOD
LN
13937 5 SPRAGUE
BLVD
6815
LONETREE
DR
COMMONS
5194
AVE
1131 W SUNSET
SPAFFORD
ST
2940
IRON POINT
RD
1024
CROSSINGS
DR
5490
BABETTE
WAY
2275
DR
GRANITE
4415
BLVD
LONETREE
6815
ST
BIRNAM
6725
DR
BELMONT
98
2377
WAY
GOLD MEADOW
BLVD
SUNSET
CT
THOR
Cl
EMERALD
ST
OAK
BLVD
LONETREE
ST
PACIFIC
BLVD
LONETREE
BLVD
LONETREE
WAY
TIOGA
AVE
OAK
OAK HILL
DR
LONETREE
BLVD
DR
COMMONS
ST
SETH
WAY
MEADOW
ST
NATOMA
BLVD
LONETREE
AVE
ALBANY
BLVD
FIVE STAR
BLVD
LONETREE
BLVD
LONETREE
KNIGHTS
WAY
STANFORD RANCH RD
2209
5208
BIOS
3790
6815
4235
6823
6520
2738
9489
6315
6815
5197
1341
3360
31
6684
154
6700
6700
6815
4910
6011
(916) 893-4116
(916) 947-0134
(916) 947-1812
(916) 955-7397
(9 16) 259-1989
(209) 601-9379
(916) 532-9818
(916) 524-8154
(916) 224-7543
(916) 601-9032
(916) 678-6861
(916)1101-8354
(855) 238-4826
(530) 368-1818
(916) 652-7486
(916) 484-5600
15301 753-0373
(844) 783-4663
(949) 509-6315
(916) 205-8624
(916) 315-8827
(916) 532-3189
(916) 871-5642
(530) 368-9103
(916) 526-8333
(619) 606-3369
(916) 276-8022
(916) 749-0846
(916) 757-0032
(209) 743-3916
(530)488-0479
(916) 402-0672
(916)789-9999
(916) 203-9534
(916) 337-1677
(916) 784-2378
(916) 956-0475
(925) 330-9321
(916) 470-2497
(916) 627-5525
(916) 608-0707
(916) 276-0656
(707) 356-82.83
(916) 415-1260
(916) 218-6001
(530) 908-9752
(916) 502-6686
(916) 663-6165
Misc Retail Sales/Services
Online Sales & Services
Personal Services
Contractor
Retail
Subcontractor
Massage Therapy
Maintenance/Handyman
Contractor
Online Sales & Services
Subcontractor
Graphic Design
Security -Alarms/Guards
Hair Stylist
Retail
Contractor
Contractor
Contractor
Restaurants
Subcontractor
Retail
Hair Stylist
Subcontractor
Contractor
Contractor
Restaurants
Personal Trainer
Performing Arts
Online Sales & Services
Hair Stylist
Misc Retail Sales/Services
Health Spa/Fitness
Property Management
Contractor
Subcontractor
Contractor
Personal Services
BarberShop/Salon
Contractor
Equipment Rental
Engineers
Health spa/Fitness
Subcontractor
Gas Stations
Restaurants
Personal Services
Consultant
Massage Therapy