SR 01-23-2018 3F
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 23, 2018
Agenda Item: 3.F
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Susan Cline, Director, Public Works, Architecture Services
Subject: Agreement Modification No. 2 to Provide Schematic and Construction
Documents, Bidding and Construction Administration Services for the Civic
Center Multipurpose Sports Field Project
Recommended Action
1. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and
execute a second modification to agreement #10553 (CCS) in the amount of
$364,859 (including a 10% contingency) with RJM Design Group, Inc., a California-
based company, for the preparation of construction documents, bidding and
negotiation, and construction administration services required to complete the
design for the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field Project. This would result in an
amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $534,997.
2. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
section of this report.
Executive Summary
To ensure the timely completion of the next step s to keep the City’s commitment to
construct the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field, staff requests authorization to
execute a second modification to the existing design agreement with the consultant ,
RJM Design Group, Inc. (RJM). The additional scope of work to be added to the original
agreement would include the preparation of construction documents, bidding and
negotiation, and construction administration services for the Civic Center Multipurpose
Sports Field Project. As the schedule was reported to Council in June 2017, this
modification is being delivered a month early and would allow final design services to
keep the project on schedule to open the sports field by (or before) spring 2021.
Background
On February 9, 2016, staff presented the Civic Working Group’s Final Report and
proposed next steps for the Civic Auditorium to Council (Attachment A). Council
directed staff to explore the possibility of placing a temporary synthetic turf sports field
2 of 5
including temporary restroom facilities at the corner of 4th Street and Pico Boulevard, to
work with partners such as the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD)
and Santa Monica College (SMC) on funding options, and to return to Council with cost
estimates for design and construction of the field.
On June 14, 2016, Council approved the second year of the FY16-18 Capital
Improvement Program budget, in which $200,000 was identified for design services for
the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field Project (Attachment B).
On October 25, 2016, staff presented a quarterly update on the project at a Council
Study Session (Attachment C). At that meeting staff was directed to initiate a discussion
with the California Coastal Commission regarding the temporary sports field project and
its removal of approximately 600 spaces of surface parking; to continue discussions
with SMMUSD regarding a potential partnership project to include subterranean parking
and a possible permanent field with a possible softball component having a clay infield;
and reissue the Request for Proposals (RFP) to a wider range of potential firms for the
design of the sports field in an effort to identify a fee proposal that aligned with the
$200,000 approved budget.
On January 17, 2017, staff issued an information item per Council direction to provide
an interim progress update for the sports field project (Attachment D).
On February 28, 2017, staff delivered an update to Council regarding discussions with
the California Coastal Commission, and negotiations with SMMUSD to develop a
permanent multipurpose sports field with the possibility of a clay infield for softball and
subterranean parking, and intent to award feasibility and concept design services for the
field project to RJM (Attachment E). Council directed staff to continue negotiations with
SMMUSD for the partnership project and set a definitive deadline of June 17, 2017 to
either reach an agreement for development of a permanent field over subterranean
parking or end negotiations and proceed with advancing the temporary fi eld.
On June 27, 2017, following completion of the site analysis and conceptual design study
3 of 5
by RJM, staff presented an economic study, design feasibility analysis and two concept
design options for a multipurpose sports field at the Civic Center (Attachm ent F). Option
one was a temporary field with a synthetic turf overlay for softball with no new parking
spaces. Option two was a permanent field with a synthetic turf softball overlay with
subterranean parking. Council directed staff to advance plans for a temporary field with
no added parking and continue discussions with SMMUSD to determine if softball
accommodations, including a synthetic turf infield overlay and softball-related amenities,
should be included in the final project program.
On September 26, 2017, following notification that SMMUSD was not interested in
pursuing a softball field overlay, Council authorized a first modification to the agreement
with RJM in the amount of $94,198 for schematic and design development services
required for future submission of the project to the California Coastal Commission,
which resulted in an amended agreement not to exceed $170,138 (Attachment G).
Discussion
To advance plans for the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field Project, as directed by
Council, staff recommends that Council authorize a second modification to the
agreement with RJM for final design services. Staff entered into a contract for design
services in a phased approach, rather than awarding complete design services, to
maximize flexibility and cost savings for the project. The additional scope of work to be
added to the original agreement would include the preparation of construction
documents and bidding and construction administration services in the amount of
$364,859 (including 10% contingency).
This second modification would allow RJM to complete all design services required for
construction of a 120-yard by 75-yard California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) soccer
field, suitable for lacrosse, with 5-yard buffer zones, security and ball containment
fencing, equipment and maintenance storage and modular restroom facilities.
This second modification would result in an amended agreement with a new total
amount not to exceed $534,997 and would allow the project to expeditiously secure a
4 of 5
construction permit upon notification of approval by the California Coastal Commission.
Next Steps
Staff anticipates the following next steps:
Return to Council in fall 2018 for amendment of the Civic Center Specific Plan
following the completion of a parking study.
Return to Council in summer/fall 2019 for authorization to award the construction
agreement upon securing California Coastal Commission approval.
Staff anticipates that construction will be completed on schedule in spring 2021.
Vendor Selection
On October 31, 2016, the City published a Request for Proposals for feasibility concept
study and design services for design of the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field
Project. The RFP was posted on the City’s on-line bidding site and notices were
advertised in the Santa Monica Daily Press in accordance with City Charter and
Municipal Code provisions. A total of 92 vendors downloaded the RFP. Nine firms
responded. Responses to the RFP were reviewed by a selection panel of staff from the
Public Works and Community and Cultural Services departments.
AHBE Landscape Architects
BFS Landscape Architects
Brightview Design Group
David Volz Design
Hirsch & Associates, Inc.
HOK
Pleskow Architects
Rios Clementi Hale Studios
RJM Design Group
5 of 5
Evaluation was based on the following selection criteria: cost of services, understanding
of the project, experience on similar projects and feedback from references. Staff then
interviewed three shortlisted firms. Based on this criteria and criteria in SMMC 2.24.073,
staff recommended RJM Design Group, Inc. as the best firm to provide professional
design services for the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field Project based on the
firm’s expertise with field design, cost of services, understanding of the project, and
feedback from references.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The agreement modification to be awarded to RJM Design Group, Inc. is $364,859
(including a 10% contingency), for an amended agreement total not to exceed
$534,997. The agreement modification requires the following FY 2017-18 budget
changes:
1. Release of fund balance from reserve account number 1.380255 of $364,859.
2. Appropriate $364,859 to account C019194.589000.
Prepared By: Voneelya Simmons, Project Manager
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. February 9, 2016 Staff Report
B. June 14, 2016 Staff Report
C. October 25, 2016 Staff Report
D. January 17, 2017 Information Item
E. February 28, 2017 Staff Report
F. June 27, 2017 Staff Report
G. September 26, 2017 Staff Report
H. RJM - Oaks Initiative Form
I. Written Communications
Information Item
1
Date: January 17, 2017
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Karen Ginsberg, Community and Cultural Services Director
Susan Cline, Public Works Director
Subject: Civic Center Field Status Report
Introduction
This report is to update the Council on the status of the Civic Center Field project following the
Council study session held on October 25, 2016 (Attachment A).
Background
On February 9, 2016 (Attachment B) staff presented the Civic Working Group Final Report and
proposed next steps to Council. Council directed staff to explore the possibility of placing a
temporary field at the corner of 4th St. and Pico Blvd., to work with partners such as the School
District and College on funding options and to return to Council in May with cost estimates. At
the May 24, 2016 Council budget study session (Attachment C), funding totaling $200,000 was
identified in FY 2016-17 as part of the FY 2016-18 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for design
of the field. Based upon a very preliminary analysis in May, it was noted in the report that a
temporary field for soccer and lacrosse (60 X 110 yards plus sideline space), lighting, fencing and
a temporary restroom trailer would displace approximately 430 surface parking spaces and
replacement of the parking would need to be addressed prior to seeking Coastal Commission
approval for the field project. Following considerable discussion and in response to public
testimony, Council adopted a motion directing staff to earmark funds for the construction of the
Civic Center multi-purpose sports field and to provide quarterly updates to Council on the status
of the project to ensure that it moves forward as quickly as possible. The adopted FY 2016-18
CIP Biennial Budget includes $200,000 in FY 2016-17 for the design of the Civic Center sports
field and the five year CIP budget plan for FY 2016-17 through FY 2020-21 includes the use of
reserve funds for the construction of the Civic Center sports field in FY 2018-19.
2
On October 25, 2016 (Attachment A) staff presented a quarterly update on the project at a Council
study session. Following the presentation, staff was directed to:
• Reissue the Request for Proposals (RFP) to a wider range of potential firms for the design
of the temporary field in an effort to identify a fee proposal that is aligned with the $200,000
budget in the FY 2016-17 CIP budget;
• Initiate a discussion with Coastal Commission staff regarding the temporary sports field
project on the Civic Center parking lot and its resulting removal of surface parking; and
• Continue discussions with SMMUSD staff regarding a potential partnership project in the
Civic Center to include subterranean parking and a permanent multi-purpose sports field
with associated permanent amenities.
Discussion
The following provides a summary of the status of each of the three items staff was directed to
pursue.
Status of RFP
The RFP was reissued on October 31, 2016 and closed on November 30, 2016. Nine teams
submitted proposals ranging in price from $165,900 to $531,400. Staff from Public Works and
Community and Cultural Services reviewed the proposals and short-listed three teams.
Interviews were held on January 9, 2017 and staff will return to Council in February for award of
the design contract.
Coastal Commission
Staff has scheduled a meeting with key Coastal Commission staff for January 17, 2017. Due to
Coastal Commission staff schedules this was the earliest meeting date available. In preparation
for this meeting, staff has pulled together background materials for this discussion.
Status of potential partnership project with SMMUSD
At the November 28, 2016 Board of Education meeting, District staff presented options and
tradeoffs regarding using School Bond Measure ES funding to implement development of Phases
1 and 2 of the Samohi Campus Plan (SCP) Blue Plan or alternatively implement Phase 1 of the
SCP and partner with the City to develop a permanent sports field and subterranean parking
3
structure on the Civic Center site. The Board directed its staff to work with City staff to explore
whether there are feasible financing options to implement all of the projects (Phases 1 and 2 of
SCP and field/parking) concurrently and directed its staff to return with an update on January 19,
2017. While several board members present weighed in on their preferences should they need
to choose between options, they expressed interest in receiving input from the PTA Council and
possibly others before making a decision. It was also noted that it would be important for all Board
members to weigh in on this decision should it be necessary (Attachments D and E).
Staff from the City and District have each been doing due diligence for this potential partnership
project to include discussions with each institution’s financial advisors and bond counsel. As
outlined in Attachment E, it is estimated that this project would range in a rough order of magnitude
cost of between $80-85 million. W hile SMMUSD could contribute a portion of the necessary funds
from the District’s ES bond measure that was approved by the voters in November 2012, City
staff have determined that a General Obligation bond requiring approval by two-thirds of local
voters would be needed to fully fund the project. With this in mind, staff from the District and City
have also been meeting regularly to develop a recommended term sheet for a partnership project
and plan to return to Council and the Board of Education in February for direction. At that time,
City staff will also bring forward a recommendation on consultant selection for the temporary field
and information from the meeting with Coastal Commission staff.
Prepared By: Karen Ginsberg, Community and Cultural Services Director
Attachments: Attachment A: October 25, 2016 Staff Report
Attachment B: February 9, 2016 Staff Report
Attachment C: May 24, 2016 Staff Report
Attachment D: November 28, 2016 Board of Education Agenda
Attachment E: November 28, 2016 District Presentation
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 25, 2016
Agenda Item: 4.A
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Karen Ginsberg, Director, Community & Cultural Services
Susan Cline, Director, Public Works Department
Subject: Study Session on Civic Center Multi-Purpose Sports Field Options
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a study session to review and provide
direction to staff on a preferred option for advancing the development of the Civic
Center multi-purpose sports field.
Executive Summary
Development of a multi-purpose sports field in the Civic Center is at a point where
direction is needed from the Council to proceed. Staff has received two proposals from
landscape architecture firms for the design of the temporary sports field in the Civic
Center. Both proposals exceed the funds approved in the FY16-17 Capital Improvement
Program budget. Separately, City staff has had some initial discussions with Santa
Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) staff regarding a possible opportunity
to form a partnership to address permanent options for field space and parking.
Background
On February 9, 2016 (Attachment A) staff presented the Civic Working Group Final
Report and proposed next steps to the Council. Council directed staff to explore the
possibility of placing a temporary field at the corner of 4th and Pico, to work with partners
such as the School District and College on funding options and to return to Council in
May with cost estimates. At the May 24, 2016 Council budget study session
(Attachment B), funding totaling $200,000 was identified in FY16-17 as part of the
FY16-18 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for design of the field. Based upon a very
preliminary analysis in May, it was noted in the report that a temporary field for soccer
and lacrosse (60 X110 yards plus sideline space), lighting, fencing and a temporary
restroom trailer would displace approximately 430 surface parking spaces and that
replacement of the parking would need to be addressed prior to seeking Coastal
Commission approval for the field project. (Attachment C) Following considerable
discussion and in response to public testimony, Council adopted a motion directing staff
to earmark funds for the construction of the Civic Center multi-purpose sports field and
2 of 6
to provide quarterly updates to Council on the status of the project to ensure that it
moves forward as quickly as possible. The FY16-18 adopted CIP Biennial Budget
includes $200,000 in FY16-17 for the design of the Civic Center sports field and the five
year CIP budget plan for FY16-17 through FY20-21 assigns reserve funds for the
construction of the Civic Center sports field in FY18-19.
Recently, SMMUSD staff approached City staff with interest in exploring the possibility
of developing a permanent multi-purpose sports field at the Civic Center with
subterranean parking.
The discussion below provides a quarterly update on the project status including
identification of several options for consideration by the Council including providing staff
with direction on whether to proceed with feasibility and design of a temporary multi-
purpose sports field or to direct staff to pursue the idea of a partnership project with
SMMUSD that would accommodate subterranean parking as well as a permanent multi-
purpose sports field and return to Council with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
to formalize discussions with SMMUSD and outline the issues to be addressed.
Discussion
Status of Request for Proposals
On July 21, 2016 staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to three prequalified firms
to provide a feasibility planning analysis and design of a single multipurpose sports field
with synthetic turf suitable for regulation California Interscholastic Federation (CIF)
soccer, lacrosse, rugby and the possibility of accommodating CIF High School softball
use. Field lights, fencing and temporary restrooms were identified as components to be
included. The RFP asked that the firms responding provide costs for a
feasibility/concept phase and a design development/construction document phase.
Proposals were received from Rios Clementi Hale Studios (RCHS) and AHBE
Landscape Architects. The Office of James Burnett respectfully declined to submit a
proposal due to the firm’s workload and belief that they were not a good fit for the
limited scope of the project. Both of the proposals exceed the $200,000 budgeted in
FY16-17 for design by a substantial amount as follows:
3 of 6
RCHS: Phase 1: $149,075
Phase 2: $653,725
TOTAL $802,800
AHBE: Phase 1: $ 59,910
Phase 2: $364,060
$423,970
Discussions with SMMUSD
In response to Council direction, staff has been in regular contact with SMMUSD staff
regarding the development of the temporary field in the Civic Center. Recently,
SMMUSD staff expressed interest in exploring the feasibility of forming a partnership to
address both the field and the parking loss on the site by jointly funding the
development of parking as part of a permanent multi-purpose sports field. Use of the
field and parking along with other issues such as ownership/possessory interest rights
of the improvements and land, allocation of responsibility for design and construction,
provision for interim parking for the public and City employees during construction,
financing of development, responsibility for maintenance and operations of the parking
and sports field facilities, use of parking revenues and managing a coordinated
schedule of events would need to be fully negotiated as part of any future agreement
should this concept put forward by SMMUSD staff move forward.
Parking Considerations
There are currently approximately 1000 parking spaces in the surface parking lot.
Based upon further analysis that was completed in preparing to issue the RFP for the
temporary field, it is estimated that a temporary field would result in the removal of
closer to 600 parking spaces currently serving City Hall, the Santa Monica County
Courthouse, Samohi, the Civic Auditorium and other surrounding uses.
Based upon an initial analysis, it is estimated that if two levels of subterranean parking
were to be developed on the site, each level could accommodate approximately 350
spaces for a total of approximately 700 spaces. Relocation of sewer and utility lines
would need to occur as part of a below grade structure, but the existing storm drain on
the Civic site would not be affected given its location below the Early Childhood
Education Center (ECEC) footprint. Analysis would also be needed to determine
whether the existing below grade monitoring wells located on the property adjacent to
4 of 6
Pico Boulevard would be affected by subterranean parking. As shown on Attachment C,
the location of the proposed Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) would not
be affected if this concept were to proceed.
It is estimated that a project of this scale would range between $80-85 million based
upon a rough order of magnitude cost analysis. A full financing plan would be needed
to address the full cost of implementing this concept.
If parking were to be provided below grade, it would enable the sports field to be
installed as a permanent facility rather than a temporary facility including associated
amenities such as a permanent restroom facility, storage and field lighting. Additionally,
providing parking below-grade would be of benefit to the long term repurposing the Civic
Auditorium. City staff continue to have concerns about the feasibility of securing
Coastal Commission approval for a temporary field at the Civic Center without
identifying replacement parking and believe that providing parking below grade would
address this concern. It is likely that a partnership project of this scope would require
four years to implement from start to finish which would extend the timeframe outlined
for the temporary field by a minimum of an additional year. While there would need to
be amendments made to the 2005 Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP) to implement this
concept, it would address many of the goals outlined in the CCSP which called for
parking to serve the needs of Civic Center activities, shared use of parking, placing
parking below grade as part of the Auditorium Special Use District and development of
a sports field at the southeast corner of the Civic Auditorium parking lot.
Options for Consideration and Next Steps
The Council has several options to consider in providing direction to staff as outlined
below.
A. Direct staff to identify additional funds for procurement of services from one of
the two firms that submitted proposals to develop the design of the temporary
multi-purpose sports field and return to Council with an award recommendation;
or
B. Direct staff to reissue the RFP to a wider range of potential firms for the design of
the temporary field in an effort to identify a fee proposal that is aligned with the
$200,000 budget in the FY16-17 CIP budget; or
5 of 6
C. Direct staff to continue discussions with SMMUSD staff to include the necessary
steps that the District would need to take with the School Board with the intent to
return to Council with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to outline issues
to be addressed and formalize discussions with SMMUSD for a partnership
project in the Civic Center that would include subterranean parking and a
permanent multi-purpose sports field with associated permanent amenities.
One option that the Council could consider would be to direct staff to proceed with
Options B and C concurrently so as not to lose time should Option C not move beyond
the discussion stage. Based upon the direction of the Council, staff will proceed
accordingly.
Environmental Statement
CEQA review is not required for a Council study session to review and provide direction
to City staff on the potential Civic Center multi-purpose sports field project. City Council
direction to procure services for the conceptual design and/or planning activities for the
Civic Center is not a project under CEQA because it is an activity that is excluded from
the definition of a project by Section 15378(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The
proposed actions involve an administrative activity of government, which will not result
in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. Furthermore, Council direction
for Staff to procure feasibility and planning studies for possible future actions at the
Civic Center are also statutorily exempt under Section 15262 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Prior to any future approval actions for the project, City staff will complete a
CEQA review and provide the appropriate environmental documentation for Council
consideration.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary. Staff will return to
Council with any budget enhancements including a financing strategy that considers
competing priorities and responds to the direction provided.
6 of 6
Prepared By: Karen Ginsberg, Director
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. February 9, 2016 Staff Report (Web Link)
B. May 24, 2016 Staff Report (Web Link)
C. Civic Field Site Diagram
D. Written Comments
City Council
Report
City Council Regular Meeting: February 9, 2016
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 13
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Karen Ginsberg, Director, Cultural Affairs (CCS)
Martin Pastucha, Director, Andy Agle, Director
Subject: Civic Working Group Final Report and Next Steps for the Civic Auditorium
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Accept the Civic Working Group’s report.
2. Consider the proposed ‘Guiding Principles’ and ‘Priorities for Council
Consideration’.
3. Consider the proposed alternatives and direct staff to issue an RFQ for the
renovation and operation of the Civic Auditorium as a first step in implementing
the Civic Working Group’s recommendations.
Executive Summary
Council appointed the nine member Civic Working Group (CWG) to one two-year term
in the fall of 2013, and tasked them with facilitating community dialogue and developing
recommendations regarding the future of the Civic as the hub of a new mixed-use
cultural district. The CWG completed its task in September 2015, and approved a
report on the process and outcomes (Attachment A). The CWG’s recommendations are
summarized in two sections of the report, the ‘Guiding Principles’ and ‘Priorities for
Council Consideration’. Staff has developed several proposed alternatives to move
forward with the CWG’s recommendations and is asking for Council d irection on the
report, the proposed ‘Guiding Principles’ and ‘Priorities for Council Consideration’, as
well as next steps for the Civic and the surrounding site. Staff is recommending that the
City issue an RFQ for the Civic Auditorium only as a first step in implementing the
CWG’s recommendations.
Background
The Santa Monica Civic Auditorium (Civic) was designed by Welton Becket and
completed in 1958. The 73,000 square foot building is a local landmark and is located
on approximately four acres. The overall Civic site (Site) comprises approximately 10.3
acres. The Early Childhood Education Center (ECEC) will utilize approximately 1.4
acres, leaving approximately 4.9 acres of surface parking. The closure of the Civic in
2 of 13
June of 2013 provides a significant opportunity for the City to determine how best to
preserve and repurpose the building and the adjacent Site for future generations.
Over the course of the last few years Council has worked extensively with the
community and with staff to consider options and possibilities. On August 14, 2012,
(Attachment B) Council authorized the suspension of the Civic renovation project due to
the loss of redevelopment funds and directed staff to develop alternatives for the
rehabilitation of the facility. Council considered these alternatives at an October 23,
2012, (Attachment C) study session. At that meeting Council affirmed the intent to
close the facility as planned and directed staff to return once additional research,
including outreach to stakeholders and experts, was completed. As part of this process
the City worked with the Urban Land Institute to hold a Technical Assistance Panel
which brought in experts to look at the future of the Civic and issue a report. On June
11, 2013, (Attachment D) Council reviewed and commented on recommendations
regarding an interim use of the Civic, long-term management options, and strategies to
generate revenue for the renovation, and the concept of the development of a cultural
campus with the Civic Auditorium as the hub. At that time, Council also directed staff to
return with a recommended structure and criteria for a temporary Civic Working Group
(CWG) that could provide input on the development of recommendations for the
renovation, programming and long-term operation of the Civic.
On October 22, 2013 (Attachment E) Council appointed nine members to the Civic
Working Group (CWG) to one two-year term and tasked them with facilitating
community dialogue and developing recommendations regarding the future of the Civic
as the hub of a new mixed-use cultural district, which was the vision articulated in the
Urban Land Institute Technical Assistance Panel’s final report (Attachment F).
The CWG held regular public meetings in the East Wing of the Civic between December
2013 and September 2015. The CWG structured its work and the community visioning
process around three well-attended public workshops. The first took place on
September 27, 2014 and focused on the facility, the site and development of a set of
working assumptions for the CWG’s deliberative process. The second workshop
3 of 13
unfolded in two parts, over two days, in early in 2015, on January 31st and February 1st,
and was structured around an on-line interactive ‘trade-off’ tool that was specifically
developed for this planning process.
Workshop #2 participants, and community members who accessed the tool via the
City’s website, were able to explore alternative uses for the Civic and the surrounding
site, and make choices regarding use preferences and potential fundi ng sources for
capital and annual operating costs. The process allowed nearly 1,700 participants to
formulate priorities and corresponding tradeoffs regarding the future use of the Civic
Auditorium, potential adjacent cultural uses as well as potential private land uses, and
open space, which helped inform the Civic Working Group’s recommendations and are
detailed in the report.
The third community workshop took place on June 13, 2015, and provided an
opportunity for the public to discuss the Civic Working Group’s findings and draft
recommendations.
From the beginning, the members of the CWG placed a very high priority on community
engagement and transparency. All of the materials developed for the CWG, or that the
members of the CWG referenced during their work, including notes and video from each
workshop, are available on the Civic Auditorium’s website (santamonicacivic.org), as
part of an extensive document library (Attachment G). All of the CWG documents and
written community feedback were also compiled in Volume II of the CWG report, which
is also available on-line.
The CWG was supported in its process by an interdepartmental team of staff from
Community and Cultural Services, Housing and Economic Development, Planning and
Community Development, and Public Works, as well as a diverse team of consultants
led by HR&A Advisors, Inc. (HR&A).
Discussion
Civic Working Group report
4 of 13
The attached report, prepared by HR&A, presents the Civic Working Group’s process,
findings and recommendations in detail (Attachment A). It lays out the information and
the rationale that the CWG used to arrive at its collective recommendations and also
documents other community points of view expressed throughout the planning process.
The CWG approved the report at its final meeting on September 28, 2015, after making
minor revisions. The CWG structured its recommendations to Council in two parts,
consisting of a series of ‘Guiding Principles’ which specify parameters for the future of
the Civic and the surrounding site, and a set of ‘Priorities for Council Consideration,’
which begin to address implementation and next steps.
Guiding Principles
The CWG developed six broad Guiding Principles that form its central
recommendations to Council. The Guiding Principles incorporate the CWG’s far-
reaching public outreach into both goals, and limits, for the future Civic and the Site, and
are intended to serve as a clear, but flexible, framework for implementing a new mixed-
use arts and cultural district anchored by a re-purposed Civic Auditorium, and to
reconnect the site with its surroundings for the first time since its development . The
CWG Guiding Principles are as follows:
1. Preserve and rehabilitate the landmarked Civic Auditorium.
Rehabilitate the landmark Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.
Satisfy the community’s desire for an iconic, multi-generational, innovative, state-
of-the-art, professional performing arts venue that is the anchor of a cultural
campus.
Consider taking advantage of the Civic Auditorium’s flexibility to enable it to serve
both performing arts and special events, including community events.
2. Create a vibrant cultural and community hub around the Civic Auditorium.
Strive to create a signature Civic Auditorium arts and cultural campus that will
serve as the city’s cultural center with a preference for the performing arts.
Include synergistic arts and cultural features, and uses that add to an exciting
experience for patrons, such as a flexible performance event space.
5 of 13
Integrate complementary uses that create activity during both daytime and
evening such as cafes, restaurants and open space.
3. Consider private land uses that support and enhance the cultural campus.
Ensure that any private land uses are synergistic with the spirit and activities
planned for the site, and add to its vibrancy.
Ensure that any private land uses create a smooth, interactive connection to the
surrounding neighborhood and the landmarked Civic Auditorium through
compatibility of use and scale.
Collaborate with the City to commemorate the lost Belmar Triangle neighborhood
that predated the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium on the site.
4. Create a flow between the Civic Auditorium site and the surrounding
community.
Visually and physically connect the Civic Auditorium, the site, adjacent amenities,
streets, neighbors and institutions.
Prioritize uses that enhance linkages and connectivity between the Civic campus,
Santa Monica High School, Main Street, Pico Boulevard, Tongva Park, the Pier
and the beach.
Consider establishing a cultural network with the Santa Monica High School
performing arts venues including Barnum Hall and the Memorial Greek
Amphitheater, and other shared use possibilities with the high school.
Integrate the site with the City’s mobility plans for pedestrians, vehicle s, bikes,
and transit.
5. Include open space on the site.
Include open space that encourages cultural, recreational, and athletic uses
consistent with a vibrant cultural campus.
Investigate plans that would allow for a full size multi-use playing field on the site.
6. Generate innovative and financially sustainable proposals for the Civic and its
site.
Consider creating a consortium of public and private management entities.
6 of 13
Ensure financial strategies for capital, including revenue and general obligation
bonds, are viable, meaning that they fund estimated costs for Civic Auditorium
rehabilitation and any other planned capital improvements on the site.
Ensure financial strategies for the Civic Auditorium and site operations and
programming are viable and do not rely upon open-ended subsidies from the
City’s general fund.
Evaluate private philanthropic funding and non -traditional sources of funding for
renovation and operation of the Civic Auditorium.
Priorities for Council Consideration
Implementation of the vision for a renovated Civic Auditorium as the hub of a mixed-use
cultural district will take a sustained commitment over a number of years. In order to
assist Council in formulating next steps in the process, the CWG developed a series of
‘Priorities for Council Consideration’ which lay out the beginnings of a possible
implementation plan. They are:
Develop a milestone schedule for all of the steps needed to implement
rehabilitation and operation of the Civic, and development and operation of new
arts, cultural and open space uses, and new private uses, on the Civic site,
consistent with the Guiding Principles.
Formulate and implement a transparent Request for Proposals (RFP) process for
seeking competitive proposals from highly-qualified companies to rehabilitate and
operate the Civic, and to develop new arts, cultural and open space uses, and
new private uses, on the Civic site, consistent with the Guiding Principles.
In formulating the RFP process, evaluate alternative approaches that might
reduce developer/operator risk and uncertainty and maximize value to the City,
including, for example, City processing of land use entitlements prior to
requesting competitive proposals.
Evaluate options for an appropriate long-term management structure for the Civic
site that reflects best management practices for high-performing, self-sustaining
mixed-use arts and cultural districts and maximizes value for the City while
achieving public objectives.
7 of 13
Consider assigning, delegating or sharing City control of the Civic Auditorium and
the Civic site as a whole to, or with, the selected management entity to operate,
maintain and program the facilities on the Civic site.
Consider dedicating all revenue from ground leases, City tax revenue, and any
other value capture strategies, generated from new uses on the Civic site, in
order to support predevelopment and development costs for the Civic Auditorium,
new arts, cultural and open space uses, parking, and public amenities.
Identify and evaluate a range of other potential public financing methods to
support construction of improvements to the Civic and new arts, cultural and
open space uses, including for example, general obligation bonds, revenue
bonds, special assessments, dedication of a share of citywide Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT), and use of state and federal tax credit programs.
Evaluate private philanthropic funding opportunities and non-traditional sources
to fund renovation of the Civic Auditorium, and annual operation of new arts,
cultural and open space uses at the Civic site, while minimizing dependence on
the City’s General Fund for annual operations.
Investigate plans that would allow for a full size multi-use field on the site, but if
that investigation indicates that such a field is not consistent with a mixed use
arts and cultural district, or if the Council otherwise decides not to include such a
field on this site, then address community desire for a field on this site by building
fields elsewhere.
Commission Action
The Arts Commission considered the CWG’s report and reviewed the ‘Guiding
Principles’ and ‘Priorities for Council Consideration’ at its meeting on November 16,
2015. The Commission voted unanimously to endorse the Guiding Principles and
Priorities for Council Consideration developed by the Civic Working Group. The
Commission also added a statement to the motion that reiterates the importance of the
Civic as a cultural venue, in keeping with the City’s adopted cultural policy documents.
At its meeting on November 19, 2015, the Recreation and Parks Commission voted
8 of 13
unanimously to advocate to retain the playing field as part of the plans for the Civic
Auditorium site as described in the 2005 Civic Center Specific Plan.
Alternatives
Staff worked with HR&A to develop a robust set of alternati ves for Council to consider in
relation to the CWG’s recommendations and next steps. While some alternatives are
more complex than others, each will require an investment of staff and consultant time
to frame, analyze and present the issues and options to Council for direction at various
stages, and substantial time to implement.
1. Implement a Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals Process for
Reuse of the Civic Auditorium Only
This approach would focus on the Civic Auditorium only, and make no
decision about the rest of the site at this time . It is in keeping with the overall
CWG recommendations, and could yield a solution for the Civic and/or serve
as the initial step in implementing a phased approach.
Advantages:
Maintains the focus on the highest priority City and CWG objective, i.e.
reuse of the Civic Auditorium.
Immediately tests the degree of market acceptance for the CWG’s
recommendation that Civic reuse focus on a privately operated
performing arts venue.
Could include a modest amount of supportive development directly
adjacent to the Civic Auditorium such as the replacement/expansion of
the East Wing and reconfiguration of the Main Street/Pico Boulevard
corner.
Does not raise the controversial issue of more extensive private co-
development that is inconsistent with the adopted Civic Center Specific
Plan.
Defers significant cost and logistics of constructing subterranean
parking.
Could be implemented independent of any other possible site
improvements.
9 of 13
Could be implemented faster than a strategy for reuse of the entire
Civic site, assuming responsive proposals are submitted by qualified
operators.
Responses could also help inform decisions regarding any possible
future phases for the site.
Disadvantages:
Defers the objective of creating a mixed-use arts and cultural district at
the Civic site.
Defers the CWG’s objective of reconnecting the Civic site to the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Narrows the range of prospective bidders to only those qualified to
operate the Civic Auditorium.
Puts a higher premium on the need for public funding to finance the
cost of the renovation of the Civic Auditorium.
2. Resolve Key Open Space Issues Regarding a Sports Field and General
Development Parameters Prior to Seeking Proposals for Reuse of the Civic
Auditorium and Civic Site
The CWG Report defers to Council two key issues that could affect the
willingness and ability of qualified respondents to submit proposals for the
reuse of the Civic Auditorium and the Civic site as a whole: (a) whether to
include a sports field at the corner of Fourth Street and Pico Boulevard, as
envisioned in the 2005 Civic Center Specific Plan; and (b) guidance on the
general scale and locations of arts/cultural and/or private development that
might be permitted on the site.
Advantages:
Could provide important general guidance about these issues to City
staff for drafting a Request for Proposals (RFP); to prospective RFP
respondents; and to City decision makers and the public in evaluating
proposals.
Could ultimately attract a wider range of qualified developers and
operators.
10 of 13
Disadvantages:
Requires making preliminary decisions about these issues in the near
term prior to seeking proposals for the Civic Auditorium and Civic site.
Requires significant additional investment of both staff and consultant
time in site planning and analysis.
Requires consultant assistance to further investigate physical planning
and financial planning for development of field facilities.
Takes more time to implement, including potential amendments to the
existing Civic Center Specific Plan.
3. Implement a Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals for Reuse of
the Civic Auditorium and the Civic Site
This alternative most comprehensively reflects the CWG’s recommendations
and leaves open-ended the issues of development, scale, parking and open-
space which proved to be the most contentious throughout the process.
Advantages:
Goes the furthest in attempting to implement all of the objectives in the
CWG report, for both the Civic Auditorium and the balance of the Civic
site.
While more expensive to implement than pursuing the limited reuse of
the Civic Auditorium alone, this alternative enables a more diversified
range of financing strategies, potentially reducing the demand for
public funding.
Disadvantages:
Requires significant detailed planning regarding management and
funding options for the entire site, which could take as much as
several years and requires a significant investment of staff and
consulting time.
Requires significant cost and logistics for constructing subterranean
parking.
Is unlikely to attract a wide range of developers and operators
because of the unresolved issues related to the development
envelope and open-space, and therefore would require substantial
investment from the developers with little certainty that anything would
come of it.
Takes more time to implement.
11 of 13
4. Take No Further Action at This Time
The Civic Auditorium would remain closed to the public, with the East Wing
available for meetings, and the remainder of the facility available for limited
access, revenue-producing uses, such as film shoots.
Advantages:
Requires no further action or investment of resources at this time.
Retains Council and staff focus on other identified City priorities.
Disadvantages:
No progress on reuse of the Civic or improvements to the Civic site.
No progress on reducing City exposure related to the advancing age
and condition of the Civic Auditorium.
Could engender public frustration about the lack of progress on the
Civic and the appearance that the CWG effort was ill-timed.
Recommendation
After careful consideration of the options, adopted City priorities, and available
resources, staff believes that the best approach at this time would be that outlined in
Alternative One: to take action on part of the CWG’s recommendations through an initial
step that focuses on the Civic Auditorium only and to make no decision about the rest of
the site at this time.
This approach would allow the City to begin implementation of th e vision articulated by
CWG relatively quickly with a modest investment of staff and other resources. It would
defer decisions about the broader site to a time when other planning processes have
been completed and additional information is available, for example the campus
development plan for improvements to the Santa Monica High School campus which is
underway, the Downtown Community Plan, exploration of ways to finance sports fields
such as a public-private partnership and expansion of the field space at the Santa
Monica Airport. Further, the response would allow the City to quantify the level of
interest in investing in and operating the Civic Auditorium, on the part of entertainment
companies, philanthropists, and other potential partners. This is anticipated to be
significantly different than when the City first issued an RFP in 2009, as the market and
major players have changed in the intervening years.
12 of 13
The restoration of the Civic Auditorium and resolution of the use or uses of the rest of
the site will be a lengthy multi-year process. If Council were to direct staff to issue an
RFQ for the Civic Auditorium only, the process to develop and issue an RFQ, and for
responses to be received and evaluated, could take nine months to a year, at which
point staff would return to Council for direction on next steps.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of
recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required
in the future.
Prepared By: Jessica Cusick, Cultural Affairs Manager
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Civic Working Group Final Report (Weblink)
B. August 14, 2012 Staff Report (Weblink)
C. October 23, 2012 Staff Report (Weblink)
D. June 11, 2013 Staff Report (Weblink)
E. October 22, 2013 Staff Report (Weblink)
F. Urban Land Institute Report (Weblink)
G. Civic Auditorium Website Library (Weblink)
H. Written Comments from the Public
I. Written Comments from the Public
J. Written comments a
13 of 13
K. Written comments b
L. Written comments c
M. Written comments c - Attachments
N. Written comments d
O. powerpoint
City Council
Housing Authority
Redevelopment Successor Agency
Report
City Council Meeting: May 24, 2016
Agenda Item: 4.A
1 of 17
To: Housing Authority, Redevelopment Successor Agency, Mayor and City
Council
From: Gigi Decavalles-Hughes, Director, Finance Department, Budget
Donna Peter, Director, Martin Pastucha, Director
Subject: Financial Status Update, FY 2016-17 Proposed Operating Budget, and FY
2016-18 Proposed Biennial CIP Budget
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Receive the FY 2015-16 through FY 2019-20 Financial Status Update; and
2. Review and provide direction to staff regarding the FY 2016 -17 Proposed
Operating Budget and FY 2016-18 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) Budget.
Executive Summary
As part of maintaining our AAA credit rating, the City has established a two -year
Operating Budget schedule and a rolling five-year General Fund budget projection. The
City has also consistently invested in maintaining its vital infrastructure through a
Biennial Capital Improvement Program adopted in the “exception year” of the two -year
Operating budgets. The upcoming FY 2016-17 budget year is an exception year and so
the emphasis is on both capital budgeting and looking ahead to the next cycle for the
Operating Budget in light of future fiscal trends.
The May 2016 General Fund Financial Status Update includes the Proposed FY 2016 -
17 Budget in its projection of the City’s future budget climate. The Update shows
positive balances during the first three years of the five -year forecast and shortfalls of
$3.5 and $6.4 million (1.6% of the General Fund Budget), respectively, in the last two
years. These shortfalls reflect large-scale capital infrastructure improvements and also
anticipate that costs associated with providing current service levels are expected to
increase at a faster pace than revenues.
To maintain fiscal sustainability in future years, it is incumbent on the City to focus
resources where they are most impactful. The FY 2016-17 Proposed Budget begins this
shift of resources towards the City’s strategic goals and the elements that will lay the
groundwork for a new operating and strategic framework for the City. This framework,
2 of 17
(based on the dimensions of wellbeing as defined by the Wellbeing Index and long -
standing principles of sustainability, and reflective of the Council’s five strategic goals )
will act as the foundation for the City’s FY 2017-19 Biennial Budget. The financial
status of non-General funds remains stable. The proposed Citywide FY 2016-17
exception year operating budget is $508.1 million.
As in recent years, the FY 2016-18 Proposed Biennial Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) Budget makes significant investment in maintaining and enhancing critical City
infrastructure and City facilities that are essential to providing City services. Santa
Monica is a leader in responsible financial and environmental leadership in municipal
capital planning and construction. Funding for critical infrastructure protects the City’s
existing capital investment and minimizes future maintenance and replacement costs. In
addition, the Proposed Budget funds dozens of new projects that advan ce Council’s five
Strategic Goals – particularly the goal of establishing a new model for mobility – and
proposes alternate financing to fund large community priority projects such as park
expansion. The proposed Citywide capital budget is $113.7 million for FY 2016-17 and
$121.7 million for FY 2017-18.
The total FY 2016-17 Citywide Proposed Budget is $621.8 million, $372.3 million of
which is in the General Fund.
Background
Council adopted the FY 2015-16 Budget and approved the FY 2016-17 Budget Plan on
June 23, 2015 (Attachment A). Staff returned to Council on January 26, 2016
(Attachment B) with proposed midyear budget changes that reflected a higher growth in
overall tax and parking revenues, and also increased expenditures slightly to account
for operational needs. The January 2016 Update showed a potential shortfall of
approximately $2.2 million in FY 2019-20. Since January, staff completed an exception-
based budget process, identifying budget adjustments where programs, activities or
revenue had changed significantly since the biennial budget adoption.
Discussion
Economic Update
The national economy continues to grow at a slow pace. Economic growth has
averaged only 2% annually since the end of the economic downturn, well below typical
rates for periods of economic recovery, and the anticipated growth over the next two
years is anticipated to be only slightly higher. There are also global economic concerns
that may affect the national economy. However, the labor market has improved, with
over 5 million jobs added during the last two years helping to drop the national
unemployment rate to 5%. The housing market has continued to improve; recent
economic forecasts project continued increases in home prices and sales are
anticipated to continue to grow over the next few years. Inflation is expected to remain
3 of 17
relatively low. In December, the Federal Reserve indicated its overall confidence in the
economy by raising short term interest rates for the first time in nearly a decade.
Like the national economy, the State economy is expected to show modest
improvement over the next few years. Unemployment in the State has fallen to 5.6%
after peaking at 12.4% in 2010, and is projected to drop below 5% by the end of 2017.
Housing sales and median prices as well as the commercial real estate market remain
strong and are expected to continue the recent trend over the next few years. The
Governor has submitted a balanced budget for the fourth year in a row. Income tax and
corporation tax revenues are expected to show solid growth and, as mandated by
Proposition 2, any temporary spikes in revenue will be set aside for future recessions.
However, sales taxes appear to be moderating.
Santa Monica’s diversified tax base and geographic location have led to a st rong
recovery from the most recent economic downturn. The City’s economically-driven tax
sources have recovered significantly to reach or exceed pre -recession levels. However,
the local recovery has shown some signs of moderating over the last year.
Property values remain the third highest in Los Angeles County. Assessed values are
expected to increase by 4% in FY 2016-17 and 3% annually in future years. Sales tax
growth is expected to moderate going forward, reflecting a continued shift of sales to
online platforms. Tourism, which provides a strong stimulus to the local economy by
creating jobs and producing revenues, continues to be one of the strongest performing
components of the local economy. Staff recently calculated that approximately 18.5%
of General Fund revenues are generated by the tourism industry. Transient Occupancy
Tax revenue growth continues to be strong, but the rate of increase is moderating as
FY 2015-16 growth of 4% is projected to be less than half of the average annual
increase over the last five years. Moderate growth is expected over the forecast period
as average room rates continue to increase and two new hotel properties are scheduled
to come online in FY 2016-17. Business license taxes are expected to decrease by
0.4% in FY 2016-17, reflecting the loss of several large taxpayers, and then grow slowly
over the forecast period. Utility Users Taxes are expected to grow about 2.5% due to
additional UUT from prepaid phone charges per AB 1717, then grow about 1.4%
annually over the forecast period as non-taxed internet-enabled telecommunications
services gain ground over the more traditional services that are currently taxed, and as
water conservation measures lower the amount of water consumed and therefore taxed.
Additionally, the ending of the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act moratorium may pose a
significant risk to UUT from telecommunications in the future.
Organizational Framework and Performance Management
Staff is embarking on a strategic, multi-year effort to create an operational and strategic
framework, align City operations under this framework, and clarify desired outcomes.
This framework will be based on the dimensions of wellbeing as defined by the
4 of 17
Wellbeing Index and long-standing principles of sustainability, and will be reflective of
the Council’s five strategic goals. A revised performance management system will
measure and track how various services and programs impact or sustain the wellbeing
of the community. An outcome-based budgeting approach will focus resources where
they are most impactful. The first elements of this initiative will be adopted along with
the FY 2017-19 Biennial Budget.
General Fund Financial Status Update
The chart above reflects five years of fund balances for the General Fund a s projected
in the Financial Status Update once the FY 2016-17 Proposed Budget is incorporated.
The primary reason for the dip in the last two years is the introduction of $4 million in
annual debt service costs for the City Yards Modernization project, the end of
contributions made from General Fund savings to workers’ compensation self -insurance
reserves, and continued increases to pension contributions. It is clear from these
projections that continued pressure on increasingly limited resources will require the
City to prioritize programs and operations and shift resources to those most effective
5 of 17
and important needs in order to maintain a balanced budget in the future.
Under the Probable Case Scenario, the General Fund shows a potential shortfall of
$3.5 million in FY 2018-19, which increases to $6.4 million (1.6% of the General Fund
budget) in FY 2019-20. Revenue growth is expected to increase at an average rate of
2.6% during the forecast period. Expenditure growth rates, anticipated to average 3.9 %
during this period, will exceed revenue growth, gradually lowering the surplus each
year.
The Best Case Scenario reflects slightly higher revenues than are projected in the
Proposed Budget as well as lower healthcare costs. In the best case, the Gene ral Fund
fiscal condition would be positive throughout the forecast period, with a positive balance
of $5.6 million in FY 2019-20.
The Worst Case Scenario reflects lower revenues than are projected in the Proposed
Budget (reflecting the effects of a potential recession) as well as continued increases in
workers’ compensation claims and the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act’s (ACA) “Cadillac Tax”, an excise tax on high-cost health plans, in the last year
of the forecast. While the Cadillac Tax has already been postponed by a year, it is
anticipated that, even if the tax were eliminated, employers would ultimately pay higher
premiums necessary to subsidize the cost of the ACA program. The worst case shows
a potential shortfall of approximately $5 million, or 1.4% of the City’s General Fund
budget, in FY 2016-17, increasing to $20.5 million (5.2% of the General Fund budget) in
FY 2019-20. Since deficit spending is prohibited under California law, any revenue
shortfall would be offset by reductions in expenditures or use of reserves.
Other Funds Status
Other major funds that are included in the Financial Status Update fall into two
categories: 1) funds that operate with sufficient revenues to sustain necessary operatin g
and capital needs, and 2) funds that have a structural deficit where ongoing revenues
are not sufficient to cover ongoing expenditures.
Self-Sustaining Enterprise Funds
The Resource Recovery and Recycling (RRR), Water and Wastewater Funds have
sufficient revenues to cover current operations, due to rate increases in the Water and
RRR Funds that will allow the implementation of the Sustainable Water Master Plan and
the Zero Waste Master Plan, respectively, while also maintaining reserve levels. The
Wastewater Fund continues to have adequate revenues and reserves to meet current
operational and capital expenditures.
The Big Blue Bus Fund will maintain a positive fund balance over the next five years.
6 of 17
The Beach and Airport Funds will also generate adequate revenues to sustain their
operations throughout the next five years.
Staff projects the Pier Fund to be self-sustaining through the end of FY 2017-18,
contingent on capital project expenditures. Capital needs that are unable to be funded
by the Pier Fund during the forecast period must compete with capital needs addressed
through the General Fund.
The Cemetery Fund is planning to implement a green burial program in FY 2016-17
which is projected to increase revenues, eliminating the need for a General Fund
subsidy through the end of the forecast period.
Funds Requiring General Fund Subsidies
The Housing Authority Fund has a projected operating structural deficit of $500,000 -
$850,000 annually through the forecast period, due to the loss of redevelopment
funding for the administration of the senior voucher program, and the reduction of U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocations.
Exception-Based FY 2016-17 Operating Budget Adjustments
As part of the FY 2015-17 Biennial Budget, Council adopted the FY 2015-16 Budget
and approved the FY 2016-17 Budget Plan. Under biennial budgeting policies, staff
requests adjustments to this plan only if programs, activities or revenues have changed
significantly since the Biennial Budget adoption. This year, the changes are more
forward-looking, reflecting a greater shift towards the City’s strategic goals and the early
efforts at creating a unifying and metrics-based framework that will be the foundation for
the FY 2017-19 Biennial Budget and beyond.
The Citywide operating FY 2016-17 Proposed Budget is $508.1 million, $335.2 million
of which is in the General Fund. Staff recommends $26.8 million in adjustments to the
FY 2016-17 Budget Plan approved by Council in June 2015. The majority, or $21.4
million, are revenue adjustments. $7.3 million, or 34% of the revenue changes are a
continuation of FY 2015-16 adjustments made at midyear. Expenditure adjustments
total $5.4 million. Changes are summarized below, and listed in detail in Attachment C.
Revenue Adjustments – General Fund
The FY 2016-17 Proposed Budget for the General Fund includes a number of
recommended revenue adjustments, netting to an increase of approximately
$6.2 million. Of this amount, $3.7 million reflects the resumption of scheduled
settlement payments from Boeing, which are restricted as to use. Unrestricted on-going
7 of 17
adjustments total $2.5 million. Significant increases include $3.9 million from Downtown
parking structure fee increases that further the City’s mobility goals, and $2.2 million
from increased parking usage. Adjustments in tax revenues reflect trends in the greater
economy as noted in the Economic Update section. These include an additional
$3.1 million from higher than anticipated property taxes and $0.7 million from
Documentary Transfer Taxes as the local real estate market continues to improve; and
$0.9 million in Sales Taxes.
Partially offsetting are decreases in Transient Occupancy Taxes (-$3.5 million) reflecting
a decrease in occupancy rates over the last year, and a several month delay in the
opening of two new hotels, decreases in Utilities User Taxes (-$1.8 million) due to
changes in the telecommunications market and the proliferation of nontaxed
telecommunication services, and decreases in electricity use and natural gas prices;
and the transfer of Community Broadband revenue to the new Community Broadband
Fund (-$2.1 million). All revenues recommended for adjustments are identified in
Attachment C.
Revenue Adjustments – Other Funds
Significant revenue adjustments in other funds include:
Special Revenue Source (04) Fund – increase of $3.4 million due to increased
development agreement contributions and Energy Efficient Rebates from
efficiency projects, partially offset by a decrease from the elimination of the
Downtown Shuttle Program;
Housing Authority (12) Fund – increase of $1.0 million due to an increase in
Section 8 housing assistance program vouchers and Section 8 administrative
expense reimbursements;
Community Broadband (28) Fund – increase of $2.1 million due to revenues
transferred from the General Fund related to Community Broadband Services.
Pier (30) Fund – increase of $1.0 million due to greater than anticipated lease
revenues;
Wastewater (31) Fund – increase of $1.7 million to reflect a revised impact on the
fund from water conservation. Much of the water savings is being achieved from
decreased use of water for landscaping, which does not use the sewer system.
Airport (33) Fund – increase of $3.6 million due to renegotiated lease rates for
Airport Office Shop Rentals; and
Big Blue Bus (41) Fund – increase of $1.1 million primarily due to increased
capital grants and an extension of the federal fuel tax credit. Partially offsetting is
a reduction in passenger revenues reflecting a decreasing trend in ridership.
Operating Expenditure and Staffing Adjustments – General Fund
8 of 17
Proposed General Fund operating expenditure adjustments result in a net appropriation
of $1.4 million, including the transfer of $1.5 million to the new Community Broadband
Fund. Changes are detailed in Attachment C. While a few of these adjustments are
housekeeping items, realigning budgets with operations, staff is also recommending
changes that transition the City’s operations towards meeting the Council’s five strategic
goals, and changes that begin to lay the groundwork for the City’s new outcome-based
framework. Staff is recommending the following strategic changes:
Focusing on Mobility, appropriate one-time funds to support the Gateway Access
Master Plan and implement State CEQA changes that alter the way circulation
impacts are measured;
Focusing on securing local control of the City land occupied by the Santa Monica
Airport, appropriate funds to lease land from the Airport for the 12 acre expansion
of Airport Park on non-aviation land, and add 1.0 FTE limited-term Public Works
Construction Specialist position, reimbursed by the Airport Fund, to oversee the
progress of construction projects at the airport;
Focusing on maintaining an inclusive and diverse community, appropriate
$300,000 for a pilot program providing rental assistance to rent-burdened
households living in rent-controlled apartments, for the purpose of preserving
housing affordability (see Attachment D for full project description), appropriate
one-time funds for the Pico Neighborhood Plan to review development standards
for the boulevard and neighborhood, add 1.0 FTE Tenant Relocation Coordinator
to serve as a central contact and facilitator for displaced tenants, and adjust
staffing in the Housing Division (with no net budget change) to accommodate the
increasing complexity of affordable housing issues;
Focusing on the Learn + Thrive goal, adjust Library staffing by a net of 1.0 FTE
positions to accommodate increased library programming and implementation of
the Library Strategic Plan, add 2.3 FTE positions to support programming at
Lincoln Middle School Pool, and add 1.0 FTE Organizational Development and
Training Coordinator to expand and enhance staff training at the Santa Monica
Institute;
Supporting multiple goals, add 2.3 FTE permanent and part-time attorney
positions and legal assistant staff in the City Attorney’s Office;
Furthering the City’s longstanding sustainability goals, staff is recommending the
addition of 1.0 FTE Senior Sustainability Analyst to oversee the implementation
of the Climate Action Plan, with no net budget change, extension of 3.0 FTE
limited-term positions, reimbursed by the Water Fund, to focus on water
conservation efforts, 2.0 FTE positions to maintain hardscape at the Colorado
Esplanade, Tongva Park and Ken Genser Square, and a reorganization in the
Architectural Services Division that will increase the capacity of staff to manage
the City’s infrastructure maintenance projects; and
To lead the City’s efforts in defining the data strategy that will serve the new
performance management system, staff is requesting 1.0 FTE Chief Data Officer,
and a two-year limited term 1.0 FTE position to develop a customer relationship
management system that will link services and track data such as call topics,
9 of 17
issues and response times. Both positions will be located in the City Manager’s
Office.
The General Fund includes a net increase of 12.5 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions,
largely offset by reallocation of funds and reimbursements from othe r funds, that results
in a net General Fund appropriation of $0.1 million. Staffing adjustments are detailed in
Attachment E.
Operating Expenditure and Staffing Adjustments – Other Funds
Proposed operating expenditure adjustments for other funds result i n a net
appropriation of $4 million. A detailed list is included in Attachment C. Significant,
strategic and staffing-related changes include the following:
Housing Authority (12) Fund – increase of $1 million to reflect an increase in
Section 8 housing assistance program vouchers and administrative expenses;
Water (25) Fund – increase of $0.6 million to reflect addition of a 1.0 FTE
SCADA Software Analyst and extension of Water Conservation Unit limited -term
staffing through FY 2016-17 due to a delay in hiring;
Community Broadband (28) Fund – create a new enterprise fund related to
Community Broadband Services;
Pier (30) Fund – transfer the Office of Pier Management from the City Manager’s
Office to the Public Works Department to better align day-to-day operations and
management of the Pier;
Airport (33) Fund – increase of $1 million to reflect additional maintenance costs
as the City takes on the role of property manager for aviation property at the
Santa Monica Airport, and reimbursement to the General Fund for the addition of
a 1.0 FTE limited-term Public Works Construction Specialist;
Big Blue Bus (41) Fund – increase of $0.2 million to reflect a net decrease of
1.6 FTE positions including the addition of a Motor Coach Operator Supervisor to
accommodate the additional need of increased service associated with Expo,
particularly related to on-time performance, an LCNG Technician position to meet
the needs associated with the BBB’s increased fleet size and its demands on the
fuel and wash system, and additional training needs; and
Self-Insurance, General Liability (56) Fund – increase of $0.1 million for
consultant services to develop a system to administer mandated protected leave
programs.
Other funds include a net increase of 5.4 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) at a cost of
$1.2 million, which includes the transfer of $0.7 million for 4.0 FTE positions in the
Community Broadband Fund. Staffing adjustments are detailed in Attachment E.
10 of 17
Fees and Charges
The master fee resolution is presented to Council annu ally with the budget. For
FY 2016-17, most fees will increase by the automatic cost of living adjustment.
Additionally, there will be some modifications to the fee schedule, which for the most
part are clean up items such as description changes and ensuring consistency with
similar fees and related ordinances. Additionally, changes will be proposed to certain
Newsrack Permit fees and CREST Childcare fees. These changes will be discussed in
more detail in the budget adoption staff report presented to Cou ncil on June 14, 2016.
In addition to the changes to the master fee resolution, staff will propose to establish for
the first time a City TV rate card to standardize billing practices and fees, and will also
be proposing changes to Breeze Bikeshare program fees. These will be discussed in
more detail in the budget adoption staff report.
Finally, there will be some minor changes proposed for the master fine resolution to
ensure the City’s fine schedule remains consistent with State law.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Biennial Budget Process
The City of Santa Monica biennially develops a five -year Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) budget (Attachment F). Funds for the first year (FY 2016-17) are approved and
appropriated as part of the budget process, and funds for the second year (FY 2017-18)
are approved now and will be appropriated prior to the start of the second fiscal year.
Budget plan numbers for FY 2018-19 through FY 2020-21 are included as a planning
tool to demonstrate total anticipated capital funding needs.
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) FY 2016-18 Proposed Biennial Budget makes
significant investment in maintaining and enhancing critical City infrastructure and City
facilities that are essential to providing City services. Funding for critical infrastructure
protects the City’s existing capital investment and minimizes future maintenance and
replacement costs. In addition, the Proposed Budget funds dozens of new projects that
advance Council’s five Strategic Goals – particularly the goal of establishing a new
model for mobility – and proposes alternate financing to fund large community priority
projects such as park expansion.
CIP Budget Overview
The Citywide CIP Proposed Biennial Budget is $113.7 million in FY 2016-17, and
$121.7 million in FY 2017-18. The FY 2016-17 Proposed Budget represents an increase
of $27.5 million or 32% compared to the FY 2015-16 Adopted CIP Budget of
$86.2 million. Almost a third of this increase is due to the allocation of redevelopment -
related loan repayments to affordable housing development. Another third results from
the appropriation of settlement funds previously held in reserve for the design of the City
11 of 17
Yards Modernization project. The last significant portion is in the Vehicle Replacement
Program, where efforts are being made to catch up on deferred replacements. The
General Fund represents $37.1 million or 33% of the total FY 2016-17 CIP Budget.
The Proposed CIP Budget for FY 2017-18 is $121.7 million, and the General Fund
Budget is approximately $61.9 million or 54% of the total. The General Fund budget is
higher than usual in FY 2017-18 due to the Fire Station 1 construction budget of
$41.6 million. Bond funding was previously anticipated for this project, but bond
issuance is now proposed for the larger City Services Building and City Yards
Modernization projects instead. One-time reserves are available to fund the Fire Station
1 construction.
All non-General Funds included in the CIP budget are able to support their respective
capital improvement budgets, with the exception of the Pier Fund. While the Pier Fund
can support its capital needs in FY 2016-17, the CIP Budget Plan projects a need for a
General Fund subsidy toward Pier Fund CIPs in the amount of $1.4 million in
FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19, and $1.7 million in FY 2019-20. These amounts will be
finalized with each annual budget adoption and will be deducted from the annual CIP
allocation for General Fund projects. Only projects deemed critical to Pier infrastructure
maintenance or safety are recommended for funding.
Budget Process
Departments prepare project application submittals for funding consideration. The CIP
Committee, comprised of the City’s Department Heads and the Assistant City Manager,
scores projects that are competing for limited funds according to three broad criteria,
defined as follows:
Mandated Activities
Council / Community Priorities
Fiscal Responsibility
Capital Program Areas and Council’s Strategic Goals
The CIP Biennial Budget funds projects in several categories or program areas. The
chart below presents the average budget breakdown by category over the biennial
budget period.
12 of 17
Note: Internal service transfer budgets are not included in this breakdown. Budgets for the computer,
telecommunications, and vehicle replacement funds are in the General Government category.
The FY 2016-18 CIP Biennial Budget and the five-year Capital Plan advance Council’s
adopted Strategic Goals. The goal of establishing a new model for mobility is central to
the five-year Capital Plan. The Plan includes 29 mobility-related projects, both new and
ongoing, with total recommended budget allocations exceeding $65 million over the
five-year planning period.
In addition, this budget appropriates over $10 million for affordable housing production
and preservation, contributing to the goals of maintaining an inclusive and diverse
community and taking a leadership role in regional efforts to address homelessness.
While work to secure local control of the broader Airport land is underway, this CIP
Budget includes $1.1 million in design funding for Airport Park Expansion, recognizing
that converting 12 acres of land currently under City control to park land is a key Council
and community priority.
To advance the goal of continuing the partnership to support education from Cradle to
Career, the CIP Budget includes an additional $1 million budget appropriation to the
existing Early Childhood Education Center project, which will be built in partnership with
Santa Monica College.
13 of 17
Impacts on the Operating Budget
If all projects proposed in this five-year plan are completed, they will add an estimated
$0.5 million to the General Fund operating budget in FY 2017 -18, increasing to an
estimated $1.6 million in FY 2020-21. The most significant increase is $0.6 million
annually to maintain the City Services Building once it is constructed. These ongoing
costs are considered by the CIP Committee when projects are evaluated during the CIP
Budget Process to ensure that the Capital Budget Plan does no t create unsustainable
ongoing maintenance needs.
Alternate Financing Needs for Significant Projects
Given the General Fund annual CIP allocation of $21 million, alternative financing
strategies must be pursued to complete a number of large priority proj ects while still
continuing to fund other capital improvements and infrastructure maintenance work that
comprise much of the annual CIP budget. Design work on these projects is either
already underway, or is budgeted in the first two years of the five -year CIP plan using
available funds.
Fire Station #1 Construction
Project design costs for the construction of Fire Station #1 were budgeted in the
previous CIP, and design is underway. Construction has been delayed due to land
acquisition complications and as a result, construction costs have escalated. It was
anticipated that bond financing would be required for this project, but funds are now
available to pursue a pay as you go approach. Construction is estimated to cost roughly
$41.6 million and is budgeted in FY 2017-18.
City Services Building
On March 27, 2012 (Attachment G), Council authorized staff to seek proposals for the
feasibility, initial design and cost estimates for a City Services Building (CSB) located on
the site just east of City Hall. On April 28, 2015 (Attachment H), Council authorized the
City Manager to award a design services contract for the Building. If Council approves
the resulting design, construction could begin on the City Services Building in FY 2018 -
19. Construction of the City Services Building and associated tenant improvements to
the existing City Hall building are proposed to be financed with a lease revenue bond for
approximately $74.5 million. The debt service payments would be partially covered from
what the City would have otherwise paid in rent at other facilities, and the difference
would be diverted from the General Fund CIP allocation annually in future budget cycles
once the CSB is operational. The debt service contribution is currently estimated to
reduce available CIP funding by approximately $3.2 to $3.4 million initially, and will
decrease slightly each year until year 18-27 of CSB operations, depending on final
financing. Over time, the building would generate lease savings that, along with utility
savings, would eventually exceed the cost of annual debt service and provide long -term
savings to the City. The building debt would be retired in 30 years while the building is
designed with a useful life of 150 years.
14 of 17
City Yards Modernization
The City Yards is a 14.7-acre site located at 2500 Michigan Avenue that serves as the
base for the City’s maintenance operations, associated offices, storage facilities, and
other industrial uses. The City Yards operates seven days a week and currently houses
more functions and employees than it was designed to accommodate. The scope and
breadth of the operations has evolved over time. Functional and space needs are no
longer met by the facilities for any of the operations housed at the City Yards.
On January 27, 2015 (Attachment I), Council approved the City Yards Master Plan in
concept, and on July 28, 2015 (Attachment J), Council awarded a bid to Hathaway
Dinwiddie Construction Company for concept design, cost estimation services, and
feasibility analysis for the City Yards Modernization. The feasibility analysis indicates an
estimated cost of $114 million to complete the first phases of the City Yards
Modernization project. This CIP plan proposes utilizing $11.7 million in Charnock
settlement funds to fully fund the design phase of the project. Remaining available
Charnock settlement funds totaling $38.3 million will be used to fund a portion of
construction.
The remaining construction budget of $64 million is proposed to be funded with a lease
revenue bond. The General Fund would not bear the full burden of debt service costs
for the City Yards. Costs would be allocated to other funds with associated operations at
the City Yards, including Resource, Recovery, and Recycling and the Vehicle
Management Fund. At this time, staff is projecting a $4.0 million annual debt service
cost for the General Fund. This cost is included in the General Fund Financial Status
Update shown in this report, beginning in FY 2018-19.
City Yards Modernization efforts would also be coordinated with adjacent Water and
Wastewater plans, ensuring that those funds would also contribute their share of costs.
Staff will explore financing options and feasibility and will return to Council with a
recommendation.
Park Expansion Efforts
Santa Monica currently has 1.4 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which is well
below the countywide average of 3.3 acres per 1,000 residents. This proposed capital
budget includes a total of $3 million in design funding for the Airport Park Expansion,
Memorial Park Expansion, and Temporary Civic Center Sports Field projects.
Preliminary construction estimates for these three projects total approximately $86
million, which is more than the General Fund CIP annual allocation will be able to
support. Alternate financing will be required for construction, and could come from
parks and recreation development impact fees, bond proceeds from a potential future
County parks bond measure, and proceeds from a potential future local general
15 of 17
obligation bond. As design on these projects progresses and construction estimates are
refined, staff will continue to explore alternate financing options and provide
recommendations to Council.
Concept design is already underway on the Airport Park Expansion project. There are
some considerations of note that will need to be addressed in planning stages for
Memorial Park Expansion and the Temporary Civic Center Sports Field. At Memorial
Park, it will be critical to identify and secure a permanent home for the staff and vehicles
from the Public Landscape Division that are currently housed at the Colorado Yards
(former Fisher Lumber site). A Temporary Civic Center multi-purpose field suitable for
soccer and lacrosse (60 x 110 yard plus sideline space, lighting, fencing and a
temporary restroom trailer) would displace approximately 430 surface parking spaces.
Replacement of these spaces would need to be addressed prior to seeking Coastal
Commission approval for the field project.
Unfunded Projects
Projects that do not receive funding are listed in the budget document and are tracked
for consideration in future funding cycles. In many cases these are still high priority
projects, but they may need to be deferred for a number of reasons such as exploring
opportunities to leverage City funds with external funding where possible, or to
acknowledge workload considerations where existing staffing capacity is fully committed
to other urgent projects.
In some cases, staff is able to continue preliminary or related work until it is possible to
fully fund a broader effort. For example, due to a large number of high budget projects
that are critical to maintaining core City services or infrastructure, there was insufficient
funding available in this budget cycle to fund the Lincoln Neighborhood Corridor Pl an.
Staff will continue to explore funding options for this project, which is currently estimated
to cost $18 million. In the current budget cycle, staff will also begin broader Streetscape
Planning efforts to conduct visioning and financing analysis around improving
streetscapes Citywide.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended actions. Staff will return to Council on June 14, 2016 to recommend
adoption of the FY 2016-17 Proposed Budget.
16 of 17
Prepared By: Susan Lai, Budget Manager
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. June 23, 2015 Staff Report (web link)
B. January 26, 2016 Staff Report (web link)
C. FY 2016-17 Proposed Revenue and Expenditure Adjustments
D. Rental Assistance Pilot Program
E. FY 2016-17 Proposed Position and Classification Changes
F. FY 2016-18 Proposed CIP Biennial Budget
G. March 27, 2012 Staff Report (web link)
H. April 28, 2015 Staff Report (web link)
I. January 27, 2015 Staff Report (web link)
17 of 17
J. July 28, 2015 Staff Report (web link)
K. Written comments
L. powerpoint
Board of Education Special Meeting AGENDA: November 28, 2016 i
BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING
AGENDA – SPECIAL MEETING
November 28, 2016
A special meeting of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education will be
held on Monday, November 28, 2016, in the District Administrative Offices: 1651 16th Street,
Santa Monica, CA. The Board of Education will call the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Board
Room at the District Offices.
The public meeting w ill begin at 7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
B. Pledge of Allegiance
X. DISCUSSION ITEMS (30 minutes)
These items are submitted for discussion. Any action that might be required will generally be
scheduled for the next regularly scheduled Board meeting.
D.01 Samohi Campus Plan – Potential for Joint Civic Center Field and Parking
Lot Project or Development of Samohi Campus Plan Phases
1 and 2 (30) ..................................................................................................... 1
XIII. MAJOR ITEMS (25 minutes)
These items are considered to be of major interest and/or importance and are presented for action
at this time. Some may have been discussed by the Boar d at a previous meeting.
A.01 Approval of the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 District Calendars (15) ............... 2
A.02 Increase in Staffing (FTE) – Facilities Improvement Projects (5) ........................... 3
A.03 Increase in Staffing (FTE) – Special Education (5) ................................................ 4
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public Comments is the time when members of the audience may address the Board of Education
on items not scheduled on the meeting’s agenda (the following rules apply to both general public
comments as well as comments about a specific agenda item). The Brown Act (Government Code)
states that Board members may not engage in discussion of issues raised during Public Comments,
except to ask clarifying questions, make a brief announcement, make a brief report on his or her
own activities, or to refer the matter to staff. Individual members of the public who submit a public
speaking card prior to the Board hearing an agenda item or general public comments shall be
allowed three (3) minutes to address the Board on each agenda or nonagenda item, depending on
the number of speakers. If there are ten or more speakers on an agenda or nonagenda item, the
Board shall limit the allowed time to two (2) minutes per speaker. Individual speakers who submit
a public speaking card after the Board begins to hear an agenda item or gener al public comments
shall be allowed one (1) minute to address the Board. A public speaker may yield his/her time to
another speaker, but must be present when his/her name is called. The donor would then give up
his/her opportunity to speak. The public speaker who receives the donated minutes shall speak
for no more than four (4) minutes maximum. The president may take a poll of speakers for or
against a particular issue and may ask that additional persons speak only if they have something
new to add. Individuals represented by a common point of view may be asked to select one
individual to speak for the group. The president may, at his/her discretion, allow five (5) minutes
for those who are serving as a spokesperson for a group or organization.
Board of Education Special Meeting AGENDA: November 28, 2016 ii
V. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will adjourn to a special meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 13,
2016, at 4:00 p.m. in the District Administrative Offices: 1651 16th Street, Santa Monica,
CA. The next regular meeting is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 15,
2016, at the district office.
Board of Education & Board of Trustees Special Meeting AGENDA: September 20, 2016
_________________________________________
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Board of Education Special Meeting AGENDA: November 28, 2016 1
TO: BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION
11/28/16
FROM: CHRISTOPHER KING / SYLVIA G. ROUSSEAU / Postponed
JANECE L. MAEZ / CAREY UPTON from 11/17/16
RE: SAMOHI CAMPUS PLAN – POTENTIAL FOR JOINT CIVIC CENTER FIELD
AND PARKING LOT PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT OF SAMOHI CAMPUS
PLAN PHASES 1 AND 2
DISCUSSION ITEM NO. D.01
At the Board’s prompting, District staff has engaged in multiple discussions with City staff
regarding the use of the Civic Center property located across 4th Street from Samohi,
particularly with regard to the City’s proposed temporary multi-use sports field. City staff and
District staff have discussed options for this facility initially related to the addition of a softball
field component to the temporary field, as well as additional options related to a larger joint
City/District project consisting of a two-story subterranean parking structure below a permanent
multi-use sports field including a softball field and related appurtenances, located in the Civic
Center parking lot near the corner of Pico and 4th St.
Steve Massetti and Carey Upton will present the options to the Board, along with the anticipated
impacts of the various options. The next step, should the District choose to pursue the Civic
Center Field and Parking option, would be for District staff to enter into negotiations with City
staff regarding several outstanding issues, resulting in a Memorandum of Understanding
between the City and the District to further develop the project.
Board guidance is being sought regarding the pursuit of the Civic Center Field and Parking
Option and/or construction of Samohi Campus Plan Phases 1 and 2 simultaneously.
Board of Education & Board of Trustees Special Meeting AGENDA: September 20, 2016
_________________________________________
MAJOR ITEMS
Board of Education Special Meeting AGENDA: November 28, 2016 2
TO: BOARD OF EDUCATION ACTION/MAJOR
11/28/16
FROM: CHRISTOPHER KING / SYLVIA ROUSSEAU / MARK O. KELLY Postponed
from 11/17/16
RE: APPROVAL OF THE 2017-18, 2018-19, AND 2019-20 DISTRICT CALENDARS
RECOMMENDATION NO. A.01
It is recommended that the Board of Education approve the district calendar for the 2017-18,
2018-19, and 2019-20 school years.
COMMENT: The district calendar is a negotiated item between the Board of Education and
the Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom Teachers’ Association (SMMCTA) per
Article VI.A.4 of the current agreement.
Copies of the calendars will be available at the board meeting.
MOTION MADE BY:
SECONDED BY:
STUDENT ADVISORY VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
Board of Education Special Meeting AGENDA: November 28, 2016 3
TO: BOARD OF EDUCATION ACTION/MAJOR
11/28/16
FROM: CHRISTOPHER KING / SYLVIA ROUSSEAU / Postponed
JANECE L. MAEZ / CAREY UPTON from 11/17/16
RE: INCREASE IN STAFFING (FTE) – FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
RECOMMENDATION NO. A.02
It is recommended that the Board of Education approve a 1.0 FTE (8 Hrs/SY) Campus Security
Officer position to ensure safety and security during construction projects at Malibu High School.
FUNDING NOTE: The cost will be taken from the BB project budget, and that 2016-2017
budget will be adjusted $41,454 for salary and benefits.
MOTION MADE BY:
SECONDED BY:
STUDENT ADVISORY VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
Board of Education Special Meeting AGENDA: November 28, 2016 4
TO: BOARD OF EDUCATION ACTION/CONSENT
11/28/16
FROM: CHRISTOPHER KING / SYLVIA ROUSSEAU / TERRY DELORIA / Postponed
PAMELA KAZEE from 11/17/16
RE: INCREASE IN STAFFING (FTE) – SPECIAL EDUCATION
RECOMMENDATION NO. A.03
It is recommended that the Board of Education approve the addition of the following positions in
Special Education in order to meet IEP requirements and student needs for the 2016-2017
school year.
Paraeducator 3 6.0-hour (0.75 FTE) Santa Monica High School
Paraeducator 3 6.0-hour (0.75 FTE) Special Education
FUNDING NOTE: The 2016-2017 budget will be adjusted $56,040 for salary and benefits.
MOTION MADE BY:
SECONDED BY:
STUDENT ADVISORY VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
Samohi Campus Plan
First Project
November 17, 2016
Board of Education Meeting
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
Next Step –A CROSSROAD
The proposed project paths are:
•Simultaneously Construct Phases 1 and 2
(Blue Plan)
•Construct Phase 1 and partner with the
City of Santa Monica to construct a multi-
use sports field and underground parking
at the Civic Center site
(Gold Plan)
**All of the costs and durations/dates in this presentation are approximate and based
on best guess estimates, as opposed to a comprehensive examination and study.**
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
SCOPE
Blue Plan
•Phase 1 (P1): Three story building with three floors of classrooms &
labs and CTE and an underground 25M Stretch Pool [97K GSF]
•Phase 2 (P2): Three story building with three floors of classrooms &
cafeteria and a distribution center and 80 parking spaces
underground [104K GSF]
Gold Plan
•P1: Three story building with three floors of classrooms & labs and
an underground 25M Stretch Pool [97K GSF]
•Civic Center (CC): Permanent multi-purpose field with softball
overlay on grade, permanent support structures above two floors of
subterranean parking, approx. 750 spaces
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
PROPOSED TIMELINE
Blue Plan
•Design: 1/2017 –12/2017
•DSA Review: 1/2018 –12/2018
•Construction: 1/2019 –6/2022
•Completion: 7/2022 (42 months construction)
Gold Plan
•Design: 1/2017 –12/2017
•DSA Review*:1/2018 –12/2018
•Construction: 1/2019 –6/2021
•Completion: 7/2021 (30 months construction)
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
LAND USE
Blue Plan
•P1 & P2 built on NE quadrant simultaneously
•Retains P8 plan to construct subterranean parking spaces under the
stadium
Gold Plan
•P1 built on NE quadrant as planned
•Site gains useful property by obtaining Civic Center area for parking
and playfield
•Reduces need to build as much subterranean parking in P8
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
CONSTRUCTABILITY
Blue Plan
Constructing Phases 1 & 2 together creates efficiencies, reducing
cost, time and impacts to school
It reduces construction zone impacts -P8 impacts will be the same
as indicated in the SCP
Gold Plan
Constructing P1 & P2 separately is not as efficient as constructing
both together
After P1 is complete and open, accessing P1 while P2 is under
construction will be more difficult than if they are constructed
together
Phase 1 will be completed in less time than combining P1 & P2.
Reduces construction time of P8 due to less excavation for parking
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
ACADEMICS
Blue Plan
Building P1 & P2 simultaneously will increase time to get students
into P1 classrooms by one year
Will reduce time to get students into P2 and subsequent phases
each by two years
Gold Plan
Building P1 and P2 consecutively will not increase the time to get
students into P1 classrooms, consistent with the SCP
Will not decrease time to get students into P2 and subsequent
phases, consistent with the SCP
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
ATHLETICS
Blue Plan
Slightly improves completion timeline of Athletic facilities during
implementation of SCP
Causes Softball and Baseball share Sealy field for up to 20 years
Depending on whether the City builds a temporary field at the Civic
and the status of the field at that time, may or may not provide
needed swing space during the big field flip of P8
Gold Plan
Within four years, this plan provides an additional multi-use field
and a softball field
This field will be in place to assist with swing space during the big
field flip of P8
Slightly improves final phase of Athletic facilities only, by reducing
construction time of parking under stadium
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
PARKING
Blue Plan
Samohi will need up to 300 parking spaces for school staff/faculty
off campus for the next seven phases. (needed spaces fluctuate
from 300 during P1-2, down to 150 in P5 and back up to 250 in P7-8)
Parking for parents and events will be challenging
The temporary field and ECEC will eliminate nearly 1,000 spaces and
potentially make parking at the Civic difficult or impossible
Additional parking (750 spaces) will be added in P8 when parking is
constructed under the football field
Gold Plan
This project will provide parking for school staff/faculty and for
parents/events
Parking will be significantly impacted only during construction of the
parking structure and fields
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
SWING SPACE
Blue Plan
Constructing both phases simultaneously will require the Science
Building to be demolished in two to three years
Samohi will need around 6 portable classrooms added to the SCP
swing space plan during construction of P1 & P2
Gold Plan
This plan reduces the need for parking swing space, but otherwise
fits within the SCP swing space plan
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
IMPACT TO NEXT PHASES
Blue Plan
Accelerates the beginning and completion of each phase by 2 years,
beginning with P2, carrying forward to all subsequent phases
Gold Plan
By moving uses off campus, provides alternative building and
phasing plans to the SCP such as moving the South Gym
replacement and/or shifting location of P3 building or the North
Gym
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
PROJECTED MEASURE ES BUDGET
Current Budgeted Allocation: $122,500,000
Blue Plan
P1 & P2 (w/ escalation to 2020 construction midpoint)
Construction $96,000,000
Soft Costs $44,000,000
Total $141,000,000
(Exceeds allocation by $18,500,000)
Gold Plan
P1 (w/ escalation to 2020 construction midpoint)
Construction $58,000,000
Soft Costs $24,500,000
Total $82,500,000
Civic Center
SMMUSD $50,000,000
Total $132,500,000
(Exceeds allocation by $10,000,000)
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
PROJECTED PARKING COSTS/EXPENSES
Blue Plan
Rental of Parking for Faculty/Staff for the life of the SCP ranging
from 110 spaces to 300 spaces per year at current rate with 5%
escalation:
$21,616,000
Gold Plan
Rental of 300 parking spaces for Faculty/Staff for 4 years of
construction per year at current rate with 5% escalation:
$2,276,000
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
TOTAL SCP BUDGET
Original SCP Budget to build phases sequentially with Escalation
$1,176,806,000
Blue Plan
$1,025,097,000
Reduction due to constructing P1 & P2 simultaneously
$151,709,000
Gold Plan
$1,013,833,000, includes $50,000,000 for Civic Center
Reduction due to constructing P1 & CC simultaneously
$162,973,000
City would need to fund the other $35,000,000 to complete the Civic
Center Parking Structure and Field Project
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
BONDS & ACQUISITIONS
Blue Plan
There is a concern that building the two phases together means the
building will only consist of the frame structure when voting occurs
which might negatively impact a 2020 bond election
Gold Plan
There is a concern that using the Measure ES bond to build parking
will negatively impact a 2020 bond
The parking and field should be near completion by the 2020 bond
election
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
ENTITLEMENTS
Blue Plan
While the SCP will require an EIR, this plan does not impact CEQA
If the Coastal Commission allows the temporary field at the Civic, it
would negatively impact parking availability
Gold Plan
The Civic Center permanent field and parking structure should have
an easier path through Coastal Commission than the temporary
field and would not negatively impact SCP EIR
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
LEGAL/LEASING
Blue Plan
No impact
Gold Plan
The District would need to enter into a MOU/Joint Use Agreement
to share the CC facility
Parking availability, costs, revenues, maintenance costs, and
management of the project would need to be determined
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Samohi Campus Plan
PUBLIC PERCEPTION
Blue Plan
Building P1 & P2 would launch Samohi into the SCP
Gold Plan
Using Measure ES funds for athletics and parking rather than
academics might create a negative perception
However, this plan shows a coordination with City partners toward
reopening the Civic Auditorium (which could be impacted by a lack
of parking) and providing a permanent Multi-Use field for
community sports as well as a much needed permanent home for
softball
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
QUESTIONS???
Samohi Campus Plans
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, January 21, 2018 12:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Item: 3.F - 2nd Modification to a contract kept hidden from the public
Dear City Council,
RE: Agenda Item: 3.F, a second modification for the RJM contract for the Civic Center Field.
Earlier today we forwarded our communications asking for a copy of the RFP and the responses for this contract. This request
originated on November 2nd and is needed to respond to the money staff is asking you approve as a second modification to a
contract we've never seen. How is this OK?
We testified before you weeks after submitting this PRA request letting you know the public was still not in receipt of these
documents and thus unable to speak to the agenda item that again forwarded consent and left the public in the dark.
How much longer are you willing to perpetuate this situation? It's simply outrageous to spend more than HALF a Million Dollars
to design a Sports field!
Please remove this item from the consent calendar, direct staff to provide the public with all documents we've been asking for,
and bring the Civic Center Field back in February as a discussion item.
Sincerely,
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
Santa Monica Parks & Recreation Task Force
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein
Item 3-F
01/23/18
1 of 3 Item 3-F
01/23/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 11:56 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Rick Cole; Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez; Ted
Winterer; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day
Subject:Agenda Item 3F - RJM Contract for Civic Center Field required TWO options be
presented to City Council
Dear City Council,
Why was the conceptual design for the multi purpose field sports field we paid RJM for as a part of
their contract signed on May 23rd, 2017 never presented to us? Please see details of the contract
below.
The public deserves an explanation about why we paid for plans that were never presented. We
need to understand why we are paying for more of the same! We deserve to know who made the
decision to withhold this design?
We also deserve to know how and why a "new surface parking lot" which has not been presented,
discussed or voted on by City Council became a condition for this contract.
We ask that you pull this agenda item and postpone any additions to the contract until the public has
the opportunity to understand where our money is being spent.
From the City contract with RJM:
Prepare Feasibility and Concept Design Plans illustrating extent of proposed, single,
temporary, multipurpose sports field on the project site. Two Conceptual Plans shall be
developed, (1) single multipurpose sports field including soccer, lacrosse and rugby play
fields, and (1) single multipurpose sports field including soccer, lacrosse, rugby and Title 9
compliant softball field. a. The Conceptual Designs shall consider all existing site features such as;
existing topography / drainage, trees / vegetation, sun exposure / shade, site programming,
circulation, adjacent site uses, utilities and budget. b. Consideration will also be given to the following
elements; incorporation of suitable environmentally sustainable products, energy efficient field
lighting, synthetic turf utilizing non-recycled rubber fill material, pre-manufactured bleacher seating,
security fencing, dugouts, storage, removable outfield fencing, site and pathway lighting, ADA
compliant restroom trailer with hard piped water supply line, and appropriate buffering/screening
elements adjacent to 4th Street and the Civic Auditorium. c. Our proposal has assumed that the
conversion of the Civic Parking Lot into a new multipurpose playfield will be designed and constructed
to: i. Accommodate a proposed new synthetic turf AYSO high school soccer field, with lacrosse and
rugby overlay, approximately 370’x264’ in size. ii. Accommodate the option of a proposed new Title 9
softball field including; location of dirt infield, provision for readily convertible turf outfield, dugouts,
and suitable storage for removable outfield fencing. iii. Containment of play equipment, including
airborne balls, within site confines. iv. Achieve a safe and secure synthetic turf play field utilizing non-
recycled rubber fill material, useful during day and night, sensitive to neighbouring conditions and
Item 3-F
01/23/18
2 of 3 Item 3-F
01/23/18
2
suitable to the coastal environment. v. Minimize impact on existing surface and underground utilities
including ground water monitoring wells located on site (Exhibit F, RFP), grading impacts and
mitigation of potential impacts accompanying simultaneous construction of three adjacent Civic
Center projects. 9. Prepare for and attend meeting with City to review Conceptual Design Plans and
discuss suggested refinements. 10. Prepare refinements to the Conceptual Design Plans. 11. Develop
Preliminary Grading Plan. This plan will illustrate proposed 1’ contours relative to the existing
contours indicated on the project survey. The intent of the proposed grading will be to: a. Minimize
earthwork and related costs required to accommodate the multipurpose field, with consideration
to the three adjacent Civic Center projects, as outlined in the RFP (Early Childhood
Education Center, new surfacing parking lot and underground storm water retention and
treatment facilities). b. Respond / Comply with required Best Management Practices and water
quality considerations regarding the management and treatment of storm waters. This proposal
includes on-site Hydrology as directly impacted by the proposed improvements and excludes any
studies of off-site Hydrology. This proposal also excludes any retention/detention basins and/or pump
systems to retain initial storm runoff, other than that required for LID/Hydromodification. c. Preserve
the existing grade at / around the existing Civic Auditorium and adjacent R.O.W. conditions. This
proposal assumes off site public street plans are not required. Grading, proposed driveways and
landscaping adjacent to the street will be shown on the Grading Plan. 12. Develop Preliminary
Hydromodification/Treatment a. This proposal excludes any Floodplain Studies or mitigation and/or
Flood Control that may be required by past or current floodplain studies. This proposal excludes
special permits/processing with US Army Corps of Engineers or Fish & Game, or Flood Control. If
such services are required, the consultant may provide as an alternative. 13. Preliminary Statement
of Probable Construction Costs for proposed Concept Design Plan. 14. Prepare PowerPoint
Presentation and support exhibits for City Council Review. 15. Prepare for and attend
City Council Hearing to present Concept Design Plans and Estimates.
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein
This communication may be unlawfully collected and stored by the National Security
Agency (NSA) in secret. The parties to this email do not consent to the retrieving or
storing of this communication and any related metadata, as well as printing, copying, re-
transmitting, disseminating, or otherwise using it. If you believe you have received this
communication in error, please delete it immediately.
Item 3-F
01/23/18
3 of 3 Item 3-F
01/23/18
REFERENCE:
Modified Agreement
10553 (CCS)