HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance Committee Agenda - March 15, 2018CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA - Final
100 Civic Center Drive - Crystal Cove Conference Room, Bay 2D
Thursday, March 15, 2018 - 3:00 PM
Finance Committee Members:
Diane Dixon, Chair / Council Member
Will O'Neill, Mayor Pro Tem
Kevin Muldoon, Council Member
William Collopy, Committee Member
Patti Gorczyca, Committee Member
Joe Stapleton, Committee Member
Larry Tucker, Committee Member
Staff Members:
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Carol Jacobs, Assistant City Manager
Dan Matusiewicz, Finance Director / Treasurer
Steve Montano, Deputy Director, Finance
Marlene Burns, Administrative Specialist to the Finance Director
The Finance Committee meeting is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Among other things, the Brown Act requires that
the Finance Committee agenda be posted at least seventy-two (72) hours in advance of each regular meeting and that
the public be allowed to comment on agenda items before the Committee and items not on the agenda but are within
the subject matter jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. The Chair may limit public comments to a reasonable amount
of time, generally three (3) minutes per person.
The City of Newport Beach’s goal is to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an
attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, we will
attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact Dan Matusiewicz, Finance Director, at least
forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is
feasible at (949) 644-3123 or dmatusiewicz@newportbeachca.gov.
NOTICE REGARDING PRESENTATIONS REQUIRING USE OF CITY EQUIPMENT
Any presentation requiring the use of the City of Newport Beach’s equipment must be submitted to the Finance
Department 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
I.CALL MEETING TO ORDER
II.ROLL CALL
III.PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments are invited on agenda and non-agenda items generally considered to be
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Speakers must limit comments
to three (3) minutes. Before speaking, we invite, but do not require, you to state your name for
the record. The Finance Committee has the discretion to extend or shorten the speakers’ time
limit on agenda or non-agenda items, provided the time limit adjustment is applied equally to all
speakers. As a courtesy, please turn cell phones off or set them in the silent mode.
IV.CONSENT CALENDAR
March 15, 2018
Page 2
Finance Committee Meeting
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2018A.
Recommended Action:
Approve and file.
DRAFT MINUTES 021518
V.CURRENT BUSINESS
AUDIT CLOSINGA.
Summary:
The City’s external audit firm, White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP will meet with the
Finance Committee to discuss the audit findings for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2017. The committee will have an opportunity to discuss any potential areas of
concern and the auditors can discuss any changes in accounting standards or
disclosures that were relevant for the audit year.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file.
STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
REVIEW OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET TO ACTUAL RESULTSB.
Summary:
In preparation of the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year budget, staff will review budget
assumptions against actual results for Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file.
FACILITIES FINANCIAL PLANC.
Summary:
Review Facilities Financial Plan for financial solvency based on known Council
priorities.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENT A
March 15, 2018
Page 3
Finance Committee Meeting
HARBOR & BEACHES MASTER PLAND.
Summary:
Review current Harbor & Beaches Master Plan for financial solvency based on
known Council Priorities.
Recommended Action:
Recommend forwarding to City Council for review and approval.
STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT A
PENSION DISCUSSIONE.
Summary:
Agenda item reserved for any discussion regarding the status of the City's pension
liability.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file.
WORK PLAN REVIEWF.
Summary:
Staff will review with the Committee the agenda topics scheduled for the remainder
of the calendar year.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENT A
VI.FINANCE COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS
WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR
REPORT (NON-DISCUSSION ITEM)
VII.ADJOURNMENT
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2018
Page 1 of 11
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FINANCE COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 15, 2018 MEETING MINUTES
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 3:01 p.m. in the Crystal Cove Conference Room, Bay 2D, 100
Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660.
II. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council Member Diane Dixon (Chair), Mayor Pro Tem Will O'Neill,
Committee Member William Collopy, Committee Member Joe Stapleton,
and Committee Member Larry Tucker
ABSENT: Council Member Kevin Muldoon (excused) and Committee Member Patti
Gorczyca (excused)
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager Carol Jacobs, Finance
Director/Treasurer Dan Matusiewicz, Deputy Director, Finance Steve
Montano, Budget Manager Susan Giangrande, Accounting Manager
Rukshana Virany, Police Chief Jon Lewis, Fire Chief Chip Duncan, Public
Works Finance Administrative Manager Jamie Copeland, Deputy Director
of Police Support Services Jonathon Stafford, Police Department IT
Coordinator Tom Encheff, Fire Assistant Chief Jeff Boyles and Julie Lang.
MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC: Jim Mosher
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chair Dixon opened public comments.
Jim Mosher commented that the “open budget” portal is more useful than he thought it would be.
He expressed concerns that the data is only updated periodically and would like a better sense of
what is happening with the budget in “real time.” He suggested the timeliness of the data is a higher
priority than absolute accuracy of the data provided. He inquired regarding the “checkbook” portal
and noted he was not able to find a reference to it in previous Finance Committee minutes.
Staff responded that there is a four-week refresh interval for the “Open Budget” module but they
are simply behind schedule on the next update. There are outstanding matters regarding the “Open
Checkbook” module, which involve discussions with the City Attorney and Human Resources
regarding the public disclosure of sensitive information on confidential agreements and invoicing.
Chair Dixon closed public comments.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2017
Recommended Action:
Approve and file.
MOTION: O’Neill moved, and Collopy seconded, to approve the minutes. The motion carried
(5 – 0, Muldoon and Gorczyca absent).
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2018
Page 2 of 11
B. MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 2018
Recommended Action:
Approve and file.
MOTION: Collopy moved, and O’Neill seconded, to approve the minutes, as amended. The
motion carried (5 – 0, Muldoon and Gorczyca absent).
V. CURRENT BUSINESS
A. CREATE A SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW COUNCIL FINANCE POLICIES
Summary:
The Finance Committee will consider the creation of a Finance Subcommittee to review Council
Finance policies, discuss membership, scope of work and timeline.
Recommended Action:
Discuss and recommend the formation of Finance Policy Subcommittee and related details.
A request was made by Mayor Pro Tem O’Neill to create a subcommittee to review the Council
Finance Policies (“F” Policies). Several have already been reviewed or are under review, and this
new subcommittee would review approximately fifteen (15) of the remaining policies.
Discussion ensued regarding the purpose and scope of the subcommittee.
Chair Dixon inquired whether the subcommittee would consist of Mayor Pro Tem O’Neill and
Committee Members Stapleton and Tucker.
Mayor Pro Tem O’Neill stated that he would like the subcommittee to review approximately four (4)
of the policies at a time and submit recommendations or suggestions to the Finance Committee for
their review and consideration prior to forwarding final recommendations to the City Council.
Chair Dixon inquired as to the timeline for the subcommittee, the appropriate levels of review for
the Finance Committee, and which suggestions should be forwarded to the City Council for policy
decisions.
Mayor Pro Tem O’Neill stated that ultimately the suggestions and recommendations on the “F”
policies would be forwarded to the City Council for their final approval. It was likely the review
process would not be completed prior to the City Council budget review for the upcoming year. He
envisions the subcommittee’s work would commence immediately and be completed around
September 1, 2018.
Chair Dixon opened public comments. Noting there were no members of the public who elected to
speak on this item, Chair Dixon closed public comments.
MOTION: O’Neill moved, and Stapleton seconded, to all form a subcommittee consisting of Mayor
Pro Tem O’Neill and Committee Members Stapleton and Tucker to review the City Council Finance
policies and return with recommendations for the Finance Committee’s review in September 2018.
The motion carried (5 – 0, Muldoon and Gorczyca absent).
B. RISK-BASED RESERVE SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE
Summary:
Discuss Finance Committee progress since the last meeting.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file.
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2018
Page 3 of 11
Finance Director Matusiewicz stated the intent of this item was to give a status update on the
project. He mentioned Committee Members Collopy and Gorczyca participated in a conference
call with staff and the consultant from GFOA to review the first drafts of study reports.
These reports primarily dealt with “extreme” events to get a sense of how to utilize the study
information. For example, in the earthquake example that was provided, the subcommittee
members were presented with information that illustrated the level of reserves required to have
certain confidence levels the financial impacts of the extreme event could be met and
addressed. The take-away from the meeting was there should be some level of reserves where
the City can affordably and efficiently address extreme events with cash reserves and then
maintain insurance to address a certain range of financial impacts. At the upper limit, in the
event of extreme events, such as a 9.0 earthquake, it may be best to issue debt to cover costs.
Finance Director, Matusiewicz described various strategies that lead to an entity’s financial
flexibility. A chart was displayed that showed the how cash reserves, insurance and debt are
interrelated and could be used to cover unexpected events. Using the illustration, as an
example, Finance Director Matusiewicz described that it may be cost effective to use cash
reserves to get to the 75% confidence level that a loss could be covered but it would likely be
more cost effective to achieve the remaining level of coverage with a combination of insurance
and potential debt issuance to achieve the desired level of confidence that sufficient funds
would be available to pay for the event.
Committee Member Collopy described how these instruments could be used in conjunction
with cash reserves to address extreme events including an indemnity policy tied to the
damages for a specific event, and a parametric policy, which would provide payout tied to a
certain threshold, such as a 9.0 earthquake. The consultant is spending a considerable amount
of time on determining the types of losses that could be adequately covered with reserves.
Examples were given such as if a certain number of cars where not sold in a particular year,
the parametric policy would provide cash upon reaching the threshold event. In summary, he
stated the purpose of this study was to provide staff with a tool that has higher fidelity whether
the reserves are adequate to cover the amount of losses that could be expected given the
uncertainty of extreme events.
Committee Member Collopy commented staff is reviewing the consultant’s information and
discussing the merits of a parametric and/or indemnity instruments, and whether the current
reserve amounts are adequate, inadequate, or too rich.
Discussion ensued regarding the recommendations that would be provided to the Finance
Committee from staff and the consultant. Staff responded that a recommendation would be
made by staff to the Finance Committee, based upon the consultant’s study, regarding the
various options available and the degree of confidence the City would be willing to accept, to
address risks and extreme events. There will be a “substance-based” analysis provided by the
consultant.
Finance Director, Matusiewicz stated the staff report to the Finance Committee, as a result of
this study, would provide options to address risk and it would ultimately be the City Council’s
decision to determine what level of coverage/risk the City would be willing to accept. He
mentioned various types of risks cities face including promises made to developers and
pension obligations. He summarized that addressing risk typically involves an interrelationship
among cash reserves, debt and insurance.
Chair Dixon inquired as to the feasibility of “preapproval” of debt and whether that has been an
approach taken by other municipalities.
KNN Municipal Advisor, Mark Young commented that the GFOA consultant is using a
“worksheet analysis” to identify risks and that process is commendable. He has used this
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2018
Page 4 of 11
approach for other municipalities and the resulting transparency into the process is worth the
time for the analysis. There are seven (7) worksheets in the analysis and one is related to
liquidity, one factor used to assess an agency’s credit worthiness and ability to obtain and afford
additional financing quickly. He noted, in general, it is not common to have a particular debt
facility “prenegotiated,” and it is best to evaluated on a case-by-case basis. He mentioned that
if an agency has very little debt on balance sheets and shows a surplus every year, a Line of
Credit (LOC) would relatively easy to obtain. Most AAA credit-rated cities have very little
General Fund debt and are able to obtain LOC’s
Committee Member Tucker expressed skepticism that a LOC could be negotiated with terms
that would bail the City out no matter what happened. A lender would not likely be willing to
accept such terms.
Committee Member Collopy expressed it was a novel idea and worth exploring but conceded
that his perspective was from that of a borrower not a lender.
KNN Municipal Advisor provided an example from the City of Poway, which experience large
fires quite frequently. They have a history of major fires; however, they know they will likely
need to significantly draw down their reserves quickly because reimbursement by FEMA would
take at least 18-24 months. Poway spent a significant amount of time determining how much
cash reserves they should have on hand to deal with the liquidity issue even though they would
expect to be eventually reimbursed by FEMA.
Committee Member Tucker expressed skepticism of study and suggested it is possible the
results of the study could simply affirm the City’s current reserve policies are adequate but
encouraged staff and Finance Committee “stay the course,” and monitor the study as it
progresses.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the adequacy of cash liquidity to respond quickly to risk
events.
Chair Dixon inquired if there were any constraints on the City’s ability to issue debt in response
to an extreme event would it alter City’s strategy. Staff noted there is an interrelationship
between cash reserves, access to debt and insurance. Constraints on debt may impact the
level of required reserves and or insurance.
Chair Dixon opened public comments. Noting there were no members of the public who elected
to speak on this item, Chair Dixon closed public comments.
Staff noted that the consultant anticipated the final report to be issued in June; however, they
have already been providing interim reports and anticipate an earlier final report by April or
May.
Finance Director Matusiewicz stated the Finance Committee will be given a report of the
findings for their consideration. Ultimately, the Finance Committee’s recommendations would
be forwarded to the City Council for final review and consideration.
Committee Member Collopy suggested staff not report every component of the study as it
comes in. He suggested the Subcommittee’s involvement should be a “top down” approach
versus “bottom up” and that staff only involve the Subcommittee after major sections have been
completed. He reaffirmed that the overarching goal is to ensure the City is maintaining
reasonable reserves to mitigate risks.
There was no further discussion on this item.
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2018
Page 5 of 11
C. DEBT POLICY-REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE
Summary:
Subcommittee will discuss revisions of Debt Policy and discuss next steps.
Recommended Action:
Recommendation to the City Council to revise the Debt Policy as indicated.
Chair Dixon announced the Committee received a red-line version of the draft revised debt
policy.
Mayor Pro Tem O’Neill acknowledged Mr. Young and Committee Member Tucker’s efforts to
improve the policy. He mentioned the Council policies, as established, do not bind the Council
to particular courses of action, and the policy can be waived anytime with four (4) votes. He
noted the differences between Council policies and Charter provisions, which can only be
changed by a vote of Newport Beach residents. He noted that in the “after-action” report issued
after the Civic Center COP debt was issued, there was mention of the City’s lack of a
comprehensive debt policy. Subsequently, a debt policy was created. The changes to the debt
policy suggested as part of the staff report are substantive, rearrange the document for clarity
and understanding but do not represent massive changes.
It was discussed that from one perspective, one of the goals of the debt policy is to maintain
good standing with credit rating agencies, which look at the City’s ability to use debt. Language
was also included in the draft address new California laws. Failure to adopt these changes
might prevent some of the new assessment districts from moving forward.
Comments were made regarding including specific language, identified in Section F9 of the
draft debt policy, which would ensure a City Council would have to affirmatively vote on a
authorizing bond resolution to utilize call options greater than 10 years or a “make whole” call
provision if circumstances determine those call provisions would benefit the City. The staff
report would also have to affirmatively identify the type of call provisions being presented to the
City Council.
Mayor Pro Tem O’Neill stated that, for the record, Committee Member Gorczyca expressed
objections regarding the utilization of any alternative debt instruments, as a “well-run” City
should not include those in their debt policies and procedures. He noted she referenced the
County of Orange debt policy prohibits alternative debt instruments. The City of Mission Viejo
also has a similar provision. He noted there was merit to this philosophy and noted that within
the draft policy in Section G. This would let staff and residents know the City does not anticipate
utilizing these instruments. It is also important to the residents to keep the City’s AAA bond
rating and the debt policy should not create a circumstance which would not reflect positively
on the City’s credit rating.
Chair Dixon affirmed removing the provisions would might compromise the City’s favorable
debt rating.
Mayor Pro Tem O’Neill stated the reference to the AAA bond rating was included inadvertently
and the draft redline policy is not in its final format. It was noted that subsequent to the creation
of the debt policy, the credit rating agencies are currently including climate change and sea
level rises as determinants of an agency’s credit rating. The final debt policy should include
wording which would set the City up to have its credit rating downgraded.
Mr. Young affirmed that he heard from credit rating agencies that policy decisions should be
driven by their potential effects on the agency’s credit rating.
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2018
Page 6 of 11
Chair Dixon noted the Newport Beach residents are very proprietary about the City’s AAA bond
rating. She inquired whether there were other options that could be considered to protect the
City’s credit worthiness.
Mr. Young stated the City’s AAA bond rating is an impressive economic development tool. It is
not locked into policy, as down the road, there may be community needs that may be greater
than the value of the AAA rating.
Mr. Young stated that by not acknowledging there are other potential debt management tools
available to the City there is a potential the policy would not be a strong instrument.
Committee Member Collopy inquired as to the triggers that would invite the City to consider
alternative debt tools.
Mayor Pro Tem O’Neill affirmed that all debt decision must come back to the City Council,
including the utilization of alternative debt instruments. The use of alternative debt instruments
must also require the City to utilize an independent financial advisor. An independent financial
advisor must also be utilized when the City utilizes other forms of debt.
Mr. Young stated all debt has to come back to the Council; alternative debt instrument must
include the use of an independent financial advisor, not just staff. The utilization debt must also
include the use of an independent financial advisor.
Discussion ensued regarding the circumstances by which the City would have to utilize the
services of an independent financial advisor. It was clarified that only debt considered a security
pursuant to SEC and MRSB regulations would require the use of an independent financial
advisor.
Discussion further ensued regarding the circumstances and procedures that may be followed
if the City determines to affirmatively recommend provisions that are in conflict with proposed
debt policy section F9. This would make any deviation fully transparent to the public. It was
noted that the decision regarding the Civic Center COP may not have changed, even if this
provision was in place, however, the entire process would have been more fully transparent to
the public.
Chair Dixon inquired if the debt policy would have an impact on the City’s credit rating and
requested clarification of any Charter constraints.
Committee Member Tucker stated the debt policy should remain “apolitical,” The City Council
makes policy decisions and they may consider the political ramifications of particular decisions.
However, it would not be appropriate for the Finance Committee to be making those
considerations at this point.
Chair Dixon inquired as to the factors that could potentially impact the City’s credit rating.
Committee Member Tucker stated that the draft policy will now include edits and clarification
of terms that will provide deeper understanding of the City’s debt policy. He suggested further
editing to provide further clarification, including consistency of defined terms.
Discussion ensued regarding the elements and clarifications that should be included in the draft
policy before it returns to the Finance Committee.
Finance Director Matusiewicz suggested an edit on the bottom of Page 7 of the draft policy, to
include the word, “section.”
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2018
Page 7 of 11
Chair Dixon affirmed staff would provide “clean up” language in the proposed policy and it
would be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration with no further review by the
Finance Committee.
Chair Dixon opened public comments.
Jim Mosher expressed concerns with “malleable” policies, which can be waived at the spur of
the moment. Certain Council policies adopted by resolution included clauses which state
provisions cannot be waived by the City Council. Those circumstances should be affirmatively
noticed on the agenda when the City Council is planning to waive a provision. He concurred
with Committee Member Collopy’s suggestions to formalize and provide uniformity of
definitions in the document. He noted he had “structural” concerns with the document, including
on page 9, how the fixed rate debt would be structured. He noted it was stated previously a
preference to pay off debt very rapidly, including a strong preference and policy for “double”
debt payment. It seems contradictory to state in the policy that we are not going to do that. He
also expressed confusion as to the provisions in Item F9 within the policy. He suggested
consistency throughout the document.
Chair Dixon closed public comments.
Committee Member Tucker confirmed many of the suggestions made by the speaker, stating
the document can be edited to provide further clarity. He suggested staff utilize the City
Attorney’s Office to review the document for clarity and “flow” to ensure clarity.
MOTION: O’Neill moved, and Collopy seconded, to approve the revised debt management
policy, as amended and edited by the Committee Members and staff. The motion carried (5 –
0, Muldoon and Gorczyca absent).
D. REVIEW OF POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET TO ACTUAL RESULTS
Summary:
In preparation of the 2018-2019 Budget, staff will review budget assumptions against actual
results for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 and pertinent updates concerning the Fiscal Year 2017-2018
to date.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file.
Chief Jon Lewis and Deputy Director of Police Support Services Jonathan Stafford,
representing the Police Department made a staff report, which included display of a PowerPoint
Presentation.
Chief Lewis stated he would provide an overview of the Police Department Fiscal Year 2017
budget, accountability measures, and management procedures for the funds that have been
entrusted for the Department’s operations. Overall, the Department features a $57 million dollar
budget, of which 86% is spent on personnel costs. There are 146 sworn police officer positions,
77 civilian positions, various part-timers and volunteers who augment services. The materials
and operations portion of the budget is $8 million and there is a smaller portion, $3.2 million,
dedicated to capital costs.
Chief Lewis spoke regarding recent budget savings reflected in the budget due to retirement
of long-tenured employees and the current number of vacancies being carried in the
Department. Vacancies are due to retirements and attrition.
Chair Dixon inquired if the Department is aggressively managing overtime costs.
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2018
Page 8 of 11
Chief Lewis stated there is a correlation between minimum staffing levels and utilization of
overtime. The majority of overtime usage is to fill shortages in minimum staffing levels. He
referred to the “table of organization” and the Department’s ability to over hire in the event of
an anticipated retirement. The Department does stay within its budgeted positions.
He further mentioned that overtime costs are often offset by salary savings, realized through
the carrying of vacancies. Eighty-five percent (85%) of Department overtime costs are related
to minimum staffing requirements, primarily with field personnel. Back-of-house functions, such
as support services, do not require minimum staffing levels. Chief Lewis provided examples
regarding overtime costs relative to whether it is a longer tenured versus shorter tenured
employee providing coverage. He noted the Department utilizes an overtime spreadsheet
matrix and it has been an effective tool in managing overtime costs.
It was reported the Police Department receives grant funding for the provision of certain
services, such as traffic safety. In that case, the funds are used to support services such as
DUI checkpoints. The federal grant is used to specifically fund overtime for traffic and safety
enforcement; however, it cannot be used to support minimum staffing requirements. There are
also other programs, such as ABC establishment accountability efforts, which provide revenue
offsets.
Deputy Director of Police Support Services Stafford provided detail on the Department’s
personnel budget and provided examples from the City’s new open budget portal, as well as
other technology tools. He utilized the numbers from those instruments so that any member of
the public listening to the presentation could “match up” the numbers as well.
Finance Director Matusiewicz commented that last year there was a deviation between budget
and actual. CalPERS used to collect the payment for Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL). Staff
was able to get that changed starting in 2018.
Mayor Pro Tem O’Neill stated it is important for the Finance Committee to continue to take
“deep dives” into Departmental budgets to ensure public transparency and understanding as
to why financial decisions are made. Factors, such as the UAL, which are set by outside
agencies determine what the City can and cannot do in certain areas. He expressed ongoing
support for continued deep evaluation of the Department budgets so that the public can be
provided deeper understanding of the structural factors that come into play.
Committee Member Collopy stated that the Finance Committee does not have control over final
budget decisions. Mayor Pro Tem O’Neill responded the Finance Committee provides
transparency into the process and citing the example of the shift from the 30 year to the 20
year period that was recently establish due to diligent work by Department staff.
It was noted that the next State Controller’s Report would not require the City to provide
information regarding the UAL.
Mayor Pro Tem O’Neill commented that the Finance Committee can make recommendations
regarding increasing or decreasing the number of personnel in every Department, although
they do not have discretion over rates of pay or benefits.
Chief Lewis returned to the presentation and provided detail on the fleet replacement program.
The Department seeks to realize efficiencies and they manage outflows and purchases that
are consistent with Council policies and purchasing guidelines. Each purchase is complete only
when all Departmental controls have been enacted, starting with the budget preparation each
year. Every purchase has oversight at the line, division, and management level. He cited the
credit card purchasing policy as an example and provided detail regarding the levels of
approval required.
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2018
Page 9 of 11
Deputy Director of Police Support Services Stafford provided detail on the Department’s fleet
maintenance program. The Department’s budget covers purchases, repairs and replacements.
The Department has “black and white” vehicles as well as motorcycles, which need to be
“outfitted” with specific equipment including in-vehicle computers and mobile video. The after-
market outfitting is not supported by the manufacturer and are handled separately from the
initial purchase. He noted the vehicles are received from the manufacturer ready to be outfitted;
however, there is an additional 20% cost to equip the vehicles after purchase.
Deputy Director of Police Support Services Stafford commented on Council Policy F9, which
determines the time/mileage thresholds that have to be met prior to vehicle replacement. He
noted the Department replaces the vehicles in worst condition first and they are very careful
about selecting new vehicles. He spoke regarding the recent renovation of the SWAT van and
the Department decision to find a better option for the City’s Commend Post vehicle.
Chair Dixon mentioned the 2015 study of the City’s fleet and noted that without compromising
safety the City was able to save a significant amount of funds.
Chief Lewis affirmed the City’s fleet is in very good condition and overall officers take good
care of Department assets. The vehicles are also the most visible representation to the
community of Department operations.
Chief Lewis shifted the presentation to the Department’s travel and training process, including
the layers of approval and accountability for expenditures. There are City mandated
requirements for travel and training expenses and he described the management review
required prior to approvals including review of the types of training, location, training providers,
and evaluations made by each employee’s supervisor prior to approval. Other options are
considered for travel and training if there are more efficient and effective methods.
Committee Member Collopy inquired as to who enforces or “polices” the travel and training
process, to ensure there are no abuses.
Chief Lewis provided detail regarding the Department’s in-house travel specialist, the Staffing
Division Secretary, who is well-versed in City policies and purchasing procedures. The
guidelines are applied rigidly and there are separate spreadsheets for internal control to project
and forecast for training and travel costs.
Deputy Director of Police Support Services Stafford affirms there are even internal controls that
exist for the Chief’s purchases, travel, and training.
Committee Member Collopy inquired whether the Fire Department has a similar internal control
system for travel and training.
Fire Chief Duncan noted the Department must also adhere to the City’s procedures related to
travel and training and that some Department training is articulated in Memorandums of
Understanding. The Fire Department also provides in-house training at its training facility.
Chair Dixon inquired whether the Police Department is adequately funded and noted there has
been an increase in crime in certain parts of the community.
Chief Lewis commented the Department is lean, efficient, and utilizing resources effectively.
Currently, they are not filling vacancies and are using overtime for certain core functions.
Department staff reviews the budget line-item by line-item and is usually finding budget savings
over budget cycles. He mentioned that as the Department get closer to filling all vacant
positions; they will continue to maintain vigilance over the budget, as funds will be less flexible
without the salary savings realized through the current vacancies.
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2018
Page 10 of 11
In response to an inquiry from the Committee, Chief Lewis acknowledged a significant portion
of his work time is spent monitoring the budget versus direct policing work; however, the
processes are definitely interwoven. More of his time is spent with the administrative aspect of
Department operations rather than the actual business of police work.
Chair Dixon opened public comments. Noting there were no individuals who elected to speak
on this item, Chair Dixon closed public comments.
There was no further action taken on this item.
E. YEAR-END CLOSING RESULTS
Summary:
Staff will present year-end closing results for Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file.
Staff provided a brief report and made reference to a report that was distributed to the Finance
Committee. There was a $12.5 million dollar surplus, with $5 million from reserves and a
significant amount from expenses.
Chair Dixon inquired whether Department savings are included in the surplus amount, to which
staff responded in the affirmative.
Chair Dixon opened public comments. Noting there were no individuals who elected to speak
on this item, Chair Dixon closed public comments.
There was no further action taken on this item.
F. PENSION DISCUSSION
Summary:
Agenda item reserved for discussion regarding the status of the City’s pension liability, payment
strategies, CalPERS policy updates and/or advocacy efforts.
Recommended Action:
Discussion if applicable.
Chair Dixon referred to a letter sent by Finance Director Matusiewicz related to CalPERS
amortization rates.
Finance Director Matusiewicz stated the week prior to the Finance Committee meeting, the
League of California Cities lobbyist reported that the amortization policy may have already been
“killed” by labor, as the perception would be it would pull money “off the table” for negotiations.
Finance Director Matusiewicz detailed the “mismatch” between the assumptions of the 20-year
versus 30-year gains and losses. There is a significant amount of “credit” beyond 30 years that
is not being utilized by cities. This change in policy will eliminate almost all of the negative
amortization build into the prior schedules and made a “level” dollar payment, rather than an
“inclining” payment that tracks with payroll. For almost 18 years, the City would be paying off
the amount of underpaid principal.
Chair Dixon commented on the well-written structure of the letter and it was so well understood
that CalPERS voted to go to a 20-year amortization, even reading from Finance Director
Matusiewicz’s letter in their meeting.
Finance Director Matusiewicz stated the big savings would be realized by shortening the
amortization period. The liability is still increasing; however, this decision would mitigate some
of the liability.
Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2018
Page 11 of 11
Chair Dixon commended City staff for their time and efforts to send Finance Director
Matusiewicz to Sacramento to give the employer’s side of the story.
Discussion ensued as to scheduling the next update on this matter. Staff will return when
appropriate to update the Finance Committee on any other material updates.
Chair Dixon opened public comments. Noting there were no individuals who elected to speak
on this item, Chair Dixon closed public comments.
There was no further action taken on this item.
G. REVIEW OF FINANCE COMMITTEE WORKPLAN
Summary:
Staff will review with the Committee the agenda topics scheduled for the remainder of the fiscal
year and highlight those work plan items carried forward from the prior fiscal year. The
Committee will also consider setting up a subcommittee to review finance related Council
policies.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file.
This item was continued to a future meeting.
VI. FINANCE COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE
PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON-
DISCUSSION ITEM)
The meeting scheduled for June 21, 2018, was rescheduled to June 14, 2018.
Committee Member Tucker inquired if the Finance Committee could receive additional information
regarding the individual components of that make up the accrued liability of the net pension
obligation.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
The Finance Committee adjourned at 5:12 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Finance
Committee.
Filed with these minutes are copies of all materials distributed at the meeting.
The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on February 12, 2018, at 2:29 p.m., in the binder
and on the City Hall Electronic Board located in the entrance of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic
Center Drive.
Attest:
___________________________________ _____________________
Diane Dixon, Chair Date
Finance Committee
From:Larry Tucker
To:Burns, Marlene
Cc:Tucker, Larry
Subject:FC Minutes of Meeting of February 15, 2018
Date:Monday, March 12, 2018 4:33:53 PM
Hi Marlene,
I would like to have the last paragraph appearing before the Motion in the middle of Page 7 re-
worded in its entirety as follows:
“Committee Member Tucker noted that several of the cleanup edits he had previously suggested did
not get into the latest draft of the Debt Policy. Since most of them were matters of form or word
choices they should be looked at again by staff. He also noted that when a document is reorganized
with extensive edits, it is important to re-read the document to ensure the defining of terms is still in
the right place, as well as paragraph references being correct. He also suggested that the City
Attorneys Office proofread the entire document for clarity and consistency. It is important that the
City’s well thought out Debt Policy not be diminished by defined terms being out of place, bad
paragraph references or not quite right word choices.”
Thank you.
Larry Tucker
Item No. 4A1
Draft Minutes of February 15, 2018
Correspondence
March 15, 2018
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FINANCE COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 5A
March 15, 2018
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
FROM: Finance Department
Dan Matusiewicz, Finance Director
(949) 644-3123, danm@newportbeachca.gov
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 AUDIT REVIEW (WITH AUDITOR)
SUMMARY:
In connection with the City’s financial statement audit, the auditors have expressed an
“unmodified” opinion of the City’s Fiscal Year 2016-2017 financial statements, meaning
they are presented fairly without reservation, in all material respects. In connection with
the Single Audit, a compliance audit of federally assisted grant programs, the auditors did
not note any findings of non-compliance or questioned costs. The auditors also have
certain obligations to communicate the audit results to both City Council and
management. The attached letters from the City’s auditors, White Nelson Diehl Evans,
fulfill those obligations for the required communication.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and file.
DISCUSSION:
The first audit letter (see Attachment A) is intended to communicate matters of particular
significance that City Council should be aware of including:
• Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
• Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
• Corrected and Uncorrected Adjustments
• Disagreements with Management
• Management Representations
• Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants
Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Audit Review (With Auditor)
March 15, 2018
Page 2
• Other Audit Findings or Issues
We are pleased to report that the auditors reported no significant difficulties encountered
in connection with the performance of the audit, corrected or uncorrected adjustments,
disagreements with management, or other audit findings or issues.
The second letter (see Attachment B) entitled “Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal
Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters” is intended to
communicate deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in internal
control and instances of non-compliance or other matters.
The auditors did not identify any deficiencies in internal control considered to be material
weakness. These are deficiencies that would result in more than a remote likelihood of a
material misstatement of the financial statements or would not otherwise be prevented by
the City’s internal controls.
They did identify a deficiency in internal control considered to be a significant deficiency in
internal control. This deficiency is less severe than a material weakness, yet important
enough to merit attention to the governing body. During their analysis of the Fiscal Year
2016-2017 calculation of the estimated net pension liability and related deferred outflows
and inflows of resources for the City’s defined benefit pension plan, the auditors noted the
City made a prior period adjustment in error. Staff inadvertently included prior period
retroactive adjustment in the amount reported for the employer contributions made during
Fiscal Year 2015-2016, subsequent to the net pension liability measurement date of June
30, 2015. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) does not
consider prior period retroactive adjustments as part of employer contributions for Fiscal
Year 2015-2016.
The auditors recommend that the City implement procedures to ensure that employer
contributions made subsequent to the measurement date are recorded accurately in the
City’s general ledger and are reconciled to the records of such contributions maintained by
CalPERS. Going forward, staff will ensure not to include any prior period retroactive
adjustments in amounts reported for employer contributions.
The auditors did not identify any instances of noncompliance or other matters that require
specific communication to the governing body as promulgated by Government Auditing
Standards. We are pleased to report that there were no management comments this year
and no instances of non-compliance concerning federal award programs.
You will have the opportunity to speak to the auditors, without staff present, to answer any
questions that you might have concerning the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Audit.
Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Audit Review (With Auditor)
March 15, 2018
Page 3
Prepared by: Submitted by:
/s/ Rukshana Virany
/s/ Dan Matusiewicz
Rukshana Virany Dan Matusiewicz
Accounting Manager Finance Director
Attachments:
A. Auditor’s “Audit Committee Letter”
B. Auditor’s Letter “Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control
Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters”
ATTACHMENT A
AUDITOR’S LETTER “AUDIT COMMITTEE LETTER”
2875 Michelle Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92606 • Tel: 714.978.1300 • Fax: 714.978.7893
Offices located in Orange and San Diego Counties
- 1 -
To the Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
of the City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, California
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities,
each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Newport Beach,
California (the City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2017. Professional standards require that we
provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards, as
well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have
communicated such information in our letter on planning matters dated July 19, 2017. Professional
standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit.
Significant Audit Findings
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant
accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. No new
accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during fiscal
year ended 2017. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a
lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the
financial statements in the proper period.
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are
based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions
about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their
significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them
may differ significantly from those expected.
The most sensitive estimates affecting the City’s financial statements are as follows:
a. Management’s estimate of the fair value, the price that would be received to sell an
asset in an orderly transaction between market participants, of investments is based
on market values provided by outside sources.
b. Management’s estimate of the value of capital assets (infrastructure assets) is based
on industry standards.
c. The estimated useful lives of capital assets for depreciation purposes are based on
industry standards.
- 2 -
Significant Audit Findings (Continued)
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices (Continued)
d. The annual required contributions, pension expense, net pension liability and
corresponding deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources for
the City’s public defined benefit plans are based on actuarial valuations provided by
outside resources.
e. The annual required contribution and actuarial accrued liability for the City’s Other
Post-Employment Benefit Plan are based on certain actuarial assumptions and
methods prepared by an outside consultant.
f. Management’s estimate of the claims payable liabilities related to general liability
and worker’s compensation claims are based on actuarial valuations.
We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop these estimates in determining that they
were reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.
Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to
financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the financial statements were
reported in Note 8 regarding claims payable, Note 10 regarding the CalPERS defined benefit plans,
and Note 11 regarding the City’s Other Post-Employment Benefit Plan.
The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing
our audit.
Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during
the audit, other than those that are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of
management. We did not identify any known or likely misstatements that required such
communication.
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or
auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial
statements or the auditors’ report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the
course of our audit.
Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management
representation letter dated December 26, 2017.
- 3 -
Significant Audit Findings (Continued)
Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and
accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation
involves application of an accounting principle to the City’s financial statements or a determination of
the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards
require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant
facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.
Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and
auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However,
these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses
were not a condition to our retention.
Other Matters
We applied certain limited procedures to management’s discussion and analysis, and the schedules of
changes in net pension liability and related ratios, and the schedules of contributions related to the City’s defined benefit plans, which are required supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the
financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s
responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or
provide any assurance on the RSI.
We were engaged to report on the combining and individual non-major fund financial statements and
schedules (supplementary information), which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI.
With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and
evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the
information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America,
the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate
and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the
supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the basic financial
statements or to the basic financial statements themselves.
We were not engaged to report on the introductory and statistical sections, which accompany the
financial statements but are not RSI. We did not audit or perform other procedures on this other
information and we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on them.
- 4 -
Upcoming Changes in Accounting Standards and Regulatory Updates
Procurement Rules under Uniform Guidance
The Uniform Guidance has different procurement rules than those previously required by the
Circular A-133. Due to the work required by nonfederal entities to implement these new rules, a
two-year grace period was given. In May 2017, an additional one-year grace period was given.
Beginning July 1, 2018, nonfederal entities will be required to comply with all of the Uniform
Guidance procurement rules. Included in these new rules is the requirement for written policies and
procedures.
Commencing with the fiscal year 2018-2019 audits, auditors will request the written policies of the
nonfederal entity for all single audits and review the procurement policies and procedures for
compliance with the Uniform Guidance procurement rules.
Other Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB) Standards
In June 2015, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Statement No. 75,
Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions. The scope of
this statement addresses accounting and financial reporting for post-employment benefits other than
pension (other post-employment benefits or OPEB) that is provided to the employees of state and local
governmental employers. This statement establishes standards for recognizing and measuring liabilities,
deferred outflows of resources, deferred inflows of resources, and expense/expenditures for defined
benefit and defined contribution plans. This statement requires governments to report a net OPEB
liability or asset on the face of the financial statements. The City is required to implement GASB
Statement No. 75 in fiscal year ending June 30, 2018.
Restriction on Use
This information is intended solely for the use of the City Council and management of the City of
Newport Beach and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified
parties.
Irvine, California
December 26, 2017
ATTACHMENT B
AUDITOR’S LETTER “INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON INTERNAL
CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER
MATTERS”
2875 Michelle Drive, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92606 • Tel: 714.978.1300 • Fax: 714.978.7893
Offices located in Orange and San Diego Counties
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER
FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS
BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental
activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information
of the City of Newport Beach, California (the City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2017, and the
related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial
statements and have issued our report thereon dated December 26, 2017.
Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal
control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate
in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for
the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly,
we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or
detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a
combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a
material misstatement of the City’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and
corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies,
in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention
by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this
section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material
weaknesses or, significant deficiencies, and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies
may exist that were not identified. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any
deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. We did identify a certain
deficiency in internal control, described below that we consider to be a significant deficiency.
Significant Deficiency – Deferred Outflows of Resources – Pension Contributions
During our analysis of the current year calculations of the estimated net pension liability and related
deferred outflows and inflows of resources for City’s defined benefit pension plans, we noted that the
City had made a prior period adjustment to correct the deferred outflow of resources related to
employer contributions made during fiscal year 15-16 that were subsequent to the net pension liability
measurement date of June 30, 2015. We recommend that the City implement procedures to ensure that
employer contributions made subsequent to the measurement date are recorded accurately in the City’s
general ledger and are reconciled to the records of such contributions maintained by the California
Public Employees’ Retirement System.
City’s Response
The City concurs with the comment and the recommendation. The City inadvertently included prior
period retroactive adjustments in the amount reported for the employer contributions made during
fiscal year 15-16 subsequent to the net pension liability measurement date of June 30, 2015. CalPERS
does not consider prior period retroactive adjustments as part of employer contributions for fiscal year
15-16. Going forward, staff will make sure not to include any prior period adjustments in amounts
reported for employer contributions.
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free from
material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws,
regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and
material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on
compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express
such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that
are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.
City’s Responses to Findings
The City’s responses to the finding identified in our audit is described above. The City’s response was
not subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and,
accordingly, we express no opinion on it.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and
compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the
City’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in
accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control and
compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
Irvine, California
December 26, 2017
NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT
FY2017 BUDGET PERFORMANCE
CHIP DUNCAN, FIRE CHIEF
Item No. 5B1
Review of the Fire Department Budget to Actual Results
Staff Presentation
March 15, 2018
EXPENDITURE TYPE BY PROPORTION
82.7%
16.5%
0.9%
SALARIES & BENEFITS $37.83M M&O $7.54M CAPITAL OUTLAY $390K
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
M&O CAPITAL OUTLAY
FY2017 BUDGET PERFORMANCE
Budget Actuals % Used
SALARIES & BENEFITS $37,826,571 $37,181,086 98%
M&O $7,540,563 $7,067,026 94%
CAPITAL OUTLAY $389,988 $374,881 96%
TOTAL $45,757,122 $44,622,993 97.5%
UNEXPENDED BALANCE $1,134,129
MANAGING THE BUDGET -PERSONNEL
Fire Operations/EMS
•Constant Staffing
•On-Duty & In-House Training
•Overages Offset by Salary Savings
& Revenue (Strike Teams & Special Events)
Marine Operations
•Dynamic Staffing
•On-Duty & In-House Training
FY2017 SALARIES AND BENEFITS
Budget Actuals Balance % Used
SALARIES $18,065,964 $17,618,558 $447,406 97.5%
OVERTIME $4,269,213 $5,376,463 ($1,107,250)125.9%
BENEFITS $15,491,394 $14,186,065 $1,305,329 91.6%
TOTAL $37,826,571 $37,181,086 $645,485 98.3%
MANAGING THE BUDGET –CHECKS & BALANCES
Assistant Chiefs–
•Plan and Approve Purchases
•Review Travel & Training Requests
Administrative Manager –
•Contract Management
•Bid/Purchasing Oversight
•Review and Approve All Invoice Payments
•Oversight of Purchasing Card Transactions
Initiatives –
•Preventative Maintenance -Equipment and Facilities
•Extended Warranties on Costly Equipment
•Creation of ISF for Equipment Replacement
•Joint Dispatch JPA (Metro Net)
FY2017 REVENUE
ACTUALS
STRIKE TEAM REIMBURSEMENT $196,010
SANTA ANA COLLEGE $39,656
FALSE ALARM FINES $34,830
MEDI-CAL GEMT & IGT $391,080
PARAMEDIC SUBSCRIPTIONS $292,327
PARAMEDIC SERVICES $3,563,727
JUNIOR LIFEGUARDS $1,023,568
OTHER $6,318
TOTAL $5,547,521
FUTURE CHALLENGES
•Airport Development
•Fire Prevention
•Marine Operations supporting Harbor Operations
•Increasing Call Volumes
•Expansion of Paramedic Services
QUESTIONS?
4
La
s
t
Up
d
a
t
e
d
3
/
7
/
2
0
1
8
Start
S
t
a
r
t
Est. Project
D
a
t
e
D
a
t
e
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
C
o
s
t
(
D
e
s
i
g
n
)
(
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
8
FS
5 ‐
CD
M
(&
Li
b
r
a
r
y
)
8
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
2016
2
0
1
7
50
FS
2 ‐
La
n
d
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2017
2
0
1
8
5
FS
2 ‐
Lid
o
7,461,200 2017
2
0
1
8
13
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Jr
.
Gu
a
r
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
‐ 2018
2
0
1
9
25
Su
n
s
e
t
Vie
w
Pa
r
k
w/
P
e
d
Br
i
d
g
e
s
& Dog Park 8,629,431 2018
2
0
2
0
51
Gr
a
n
t
Ho
w
a
l
d
Pa
r
k
Sp
o
r
t
Fi
e
l
d
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
6,192,121 2019
2
0
2
1
3
FS
1 ‐
Pe
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
(&
Li
b
r
a
r
y
)
5
,
2
9
8
,
3
0
2
2020
2
0
2
2
37
Gir
l
s
& Bo
y
s
Clu
b
(E
a
s
t
Blu
f
f
Pa
r
k
)
‐ 2020
2
0
2
2
6
FS
3 ‐
Sa
n
t
a
Ba
r
b
a
r
a
9
,
5
0
9
,
4
8
6
2022
2
0
2
5
6
1
2
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
Total
4
9
,
5
9
0
,
5
4
0
3
4
Ke
y
Me
t
r
i
c
T
a
r
g
e
t
M
a
x
De
b
t
Sv
c
as
% of
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
N
A
<
8.0%
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
FF
P
Re
s
e
r
v
e
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
(0
0
0
'
s
)
$
8
,
2
1
6
N
A
Ke
y
St
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
M
i
n
M
a
x
A
v
g
GF
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
to
FF
P
(0
0
0
'
s
)
$
8
,
0
0
0
$
9
,
2
7
4
$
8
,
6
0
1
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
(0
0
0
'
s
)
$
7
,
5
3
3
$
8
,
2
1
6
$
7
,
7
6
4
GF
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
to
FF
P
as
% Re
v
3
.
0
0
%
4
.
2
%
3
.
4
%
De
b
t
Sv
c
as
% of
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
2
.
4
4
%
4
.
0
%
3
.
1
%
5
6
F
F
P
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
(0
0
0
'
s
)
$
1
5
,
3
2
0
$
5
2
,
2
2
2
$
3
0
,
6
2
2
Ke
y
St
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
M
i
n
M
a
x
A
v
g
GF
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
to
FF
P
(0
0
0
'
s
)
$
8
,
5
0
0
$
1
3
,
4
9
7
$
1
0
,
0
1
0
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
(0
0
0
'
s
)
$
0
$
8
,
2
1
6
$
6
,
3
5
8
GF
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
to
FF
P
as
% Re
v
3
.
0
0
%
4
.
2
%
3
.
2
%
De
b
t
Sv
c
as
% of
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
0
.
0
0
%
4
.
0
%
2
.
3
%
FF
P
Re
s
e
r
v
e
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
(0
0
0
'
s
)
$
3
0
,
6
4
4
$
7
4
,
3
1
3
$
3
5
,
1
1
6
7
8
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
De
b
t
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
(D
b
t
.
Sv
c
< or = 8% of GF Rev):132.6 $ Million
CI
T
Y
OF
NE
W
P
O
R
T
BE
A
C
H
FA
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
FI
N
A
N
C
I
A
L
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
DA
S
H
B
O
A
R
D
30 YearCouncil Debt Mgmt Policy (F ‐6)15 Year
0.
0
0
%
1.
0
0
%
2.
0
0
%
3.
0
0
%
4.
0
0
%
5.
0
0
%
6.
0
0
%
7.
0
0
%
8.
0
0
%
9.
0
0
%
10
.
0
0
%
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
5
2
0
3
7
2
0
3
9
2
0
4
1
2
0
4
3
2
0
4
5
GF
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
to
FF
P
as
a Pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
GF
Re
v
e
n
u
e
GF
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
% Bu
d
g
e
t
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
‐
as
% of
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$6
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$8
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
5
2
0
3
7
2
0
3
9
2
0
4
1
2
0
4
3
2
0
4
5
GF
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
to
FF
P
Co
m
p
a
r
e
d
to
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
GF
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
to
FF
P
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
‐
10
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
20
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
30
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
40
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
50
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
60
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
70
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
80
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
90
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
8
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
4
2
0
3
5
2
0
3
6
2
0
3
7
2
0
3
8
2
0
3
9
2
0
4
0
2
0
4
1
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
3
2
0
4
4
2
0
4
5
FF
P
Re
s
e
r
v
e
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
‐
10
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
20
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
30
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
40
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
50
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
5
2
0
3
7
2
0
3
9
2
0
4
1
2
0
4
3
2
0
4
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Ca
s
h
Fu
n
d
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
De
b
t
Fu
n
d
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
‐
5,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
15
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
20
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
25
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
30
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
35
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
40
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
45
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
5
2
0
3
7
2
0
3
9
2
0
4
1
2
0
4
3
2
0
4
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
‐
5,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
15
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
20
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
25
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
30
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
35
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
40
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
5
2
0
3
7
2
0
3
9
2
0
4
1
2
0
4
3
2
0
4
5
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
Ma
x
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
‐
8%
of
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
0.
0
0
%
1.
0
0
%
2.
0
0
%
3.
0
0
%
4.
0
0
%
5.
0
0
%
6.
0
0
%
7.
0
0
%
8.
0
0
%
9.
0
0
%
10
.
0
0
%
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
5
2
0
3
7
2
0
3
9
2
0
4
1
2
0
4
3
2
0
4
5
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
as
% of
GF
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
‐
as
% of
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
‐
5,0
0
0
,
0
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
15
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
20
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
25
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
30
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
35
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
20
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
An
n
u
a
l
GF
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
Pe
r
i
o
d
i
c
GF
or
On
e
‐tim
e
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
Ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
Ca
s
h
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Total
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Y
e
a
r
P
r
o
c
e
e
d
s
C
O
I
I
s
s
u
e
R
a
t
e
T
e
r
m
M
a
t
u
r
i
t
y
20
1
0
Ci
v
i
c
Ce
n
t
e
r
CO
P
s
20
1
1
1
2
3
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1,289,442 124,289,442 4.4%
3
0
2
0
4
1
Tr
a
u
n
c
h
2
0
‐
‐
‐
5.0%
3
0
3
0
Tr
a
u
n
c
h
3
0
‐
‐
‐
5.0%
3
0
3
0
GF
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
e
q
u
a
l
t
o
$
8
.
5
m
/
y
e
a
r
(
l
e
v
e
l
d
o
l
l
a
r
)
GF
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
e
q
u
a
l
t
o
3
%
o
f
a
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
GF
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
e
q
u
a
l
t
o
5
%
o
f
a
n
n
u
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
GF
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
e
q
u
a
l
t
o
3
%
G
F
R
e
v
b
u
t
n
o
t
<
t
h
a
n
$
8
.
5
M
1 of 4
3/
7
/
2
0
1
8
Ac
t
i
v
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
YR
R
e
p
l
E
s
t
$
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Ag
e
:
U
s
e
f
u
l
Y
e
a
r
s
to
C
o
s
t
Es
t
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
F
Y
Design Start
F
Y
Const Start
F
V
Cost Est @
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
N
e
t
Proposed
Pr
o
j
N
o
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
B
u
i
l
t
S
q
Ft
/
S
q
Ft
2
0
1
8
L
i
f
e
S
t
a
r
t
D
a
t
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
Y
e
a
r
Y
e
a
r
2
.
5
%
Growth
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
t
i
o
n
s
C
o
s
t
1
G
e
n
Go
v
C
i
v
i
c
Ce
n
t
e
r
2
0
1
3
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
67
5
5
6
0
5
5
J
u
n
‐13
6
7
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
2070
2
0
7
3
‐
‐
4
G
e
n
Go
v
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
s
2
0
1
3
2
9
,
0
0
0
67
5
5
6
0
5
5
J
u
n
‐13
1
9
,
5
7
5
,
0
0
0
2070
2
0
7
3
‐
‐
41
G
e
n
Go
v
C
i
v
i
c
Ce
n
t
e
r
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
2
0
1
3
4
5
0
16
,
0
0
0
5
6
0
5
5
J
u
n
‐13
7
,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
2070
2
0
7
3
‐
‐
2
P
o
l
i
c
e
P
o
l
i
c
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
at
Co
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
Ya
r
d
19
7
3
6
0
,
0
0
0
80
0
45
5
0
1
7
N
/
A
4
8
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2032
2
0
3
5
7
3
,
0
3
7
,
6
7
7
73,037,677
40
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
B
i
g
Ca
n
y
o
n
Au
x
.
Ya
r
d
2
0
1
5
9
,
0
0
0
57
5
3
5
0
5
1
M
a
y
‐12
‐
2062
2
0
6
5
‐
50
F
i
r
e
F
S
2 ‐
La
n
d
Pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
**
4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2017
2
0
1
8
4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
4,000,000
3
F
i
r
e
F
S
1 ‐
Pe
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
(&
Li
b
r
a
r
y
)
1
9
6
2
6
,
0
0
0
80
0
56
5
0
4
M
a
r
‐18
4
,
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
2020
2
0
2
2
5
,
2
9
8
,
3
0
2
5,298,302
5
F
i
r
e
F
S
2 ‐
Li
d
o
19
5
2
1
1
,
5
0
0
80
0
66
5
0
0
M
a
r
‐14
7,461,200
2017
2
0
1
8
7
,
4
6
1
,
2
0
0
7,461,200
6
F
i
r
e
F
S
3 ‐
Sa
n
t
a
Ba
r
b
a
r
a
1
9
7
1
1
0
,
0
0
0
80
0
47
5
0
7
M
a
r
‐14
8
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2022
2
0
2
5
9
,
5
0
9
,
4
8
6
9,509,486
7
F
i
r
e
F
S
4 ‐
Ba
l
b
o
a
Is
l
a
n
d
19
9
4
4
,
4
0
0
80
0
24
5
0
2
6
M
a
r
‐14
3
,
5
2
0
,
0
0
0
2041
2
0
4
4
6
,
6
8
9
,
0
3
0
6,689,030
8
F
i
r
e
F
S
5 ‐
CD
M
(&
Li
b
r
a
r
y
)
1
9
5
0
1
0
,
0
0
0
80
0
68
5
0
‐1
M
a
r
‐14
8
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
2016
2
0
1
7
8,500,000 8,500,000
9
F
i
r
e
F
S
6 ‐
Ma
r
i
n
e
r
s
(a
p
p
a
r
a
t
u
s
ba
y
on
l
y
)
2
0
1
8
1
,
5
0
0
67
5
05
0
‐1
M
a
r
‐14
1,106,101
2016
2
0
1
7
1,106,101 1,106,101
47
F
i
r
e
F
S
6 ‐
Ma
r
i
n
e
r
s
(L
i
v
i
n
g
Ar
e
a
Re
b
u
i
l
d
)
1
9
5
7
3
,
0
0
0
80
0
61
7
2
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
2024
2
0
2
5
2
,
8
5
2
,
8
4
6
2,852,846
10
F
i
r
e
F
S
7 ‐
SA
H
2
0
0
7
6
,
5
0
0
80
0
11
5
0
3
9
M
a
r
‐14
5
,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
2054
2
0
5
7
1
3
,
6
2
1
,
7
8
7
13,621,787
11
F
i
r
e
F
S
8 ‐
Np
t
.
Co
a
s
t
1
9
9
5
1
1
,
0
2
7
80
0
23
5
0
2
7
M
a
r
‐14
8
,
8
2
1
,
6
0
0
2042
2
0
4
5
1
7
,
1
8
2
,
7
1
3
17,182,713
12
F
i
r
e
L
i
f
e
g
u
a
r
d
HQ
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
5
,
5
0
0
80
0
**
2
5
2
2
M
a
r
‐14
4
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
2038
2
0
4
0
7
,
5
7
4
,
9
1
4
7,574,914
13
F
i
r
e
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Jr
.
Gu
a
r
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
2
,
2
2
5
57
5
**
1
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2018
2
0
1
9
2
,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
2,050,000
‐
15
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
‐Ba
l
b
o
a
(C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
w/
FS
‐1)
1
9
6
2
3
,
0
0
0
70
0
56
5
0
4
4
J
a
n
‐12
‐
2059
2
0
6
2
‐
‐
16
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
‐CD
M
(C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
w/
FS
‐5)
1
9
5
8
3
,
8
0
0
70
0
60
5
0
0
J
a
n
‐12
‐
2016
2
0
1
8
‐
‐
17
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
‐Ma
r
i
n
e
r
s
2
0
0
6
1
5
,
3
0
5
57
5
12
5
0
3
8
J
a
n
‐12
‐
2053
2
0
5
6
‐
‐
18
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
‐Ce
n
t
r
a
l
1
9
9
7
6
5
,
0
0
0
57
5
21
5
0
3
4
J
a
n
‐12
3
7
,
3
7
5
,
0
0
0
2049
2
0
5
2
8
6
,
5
3
5
,
1
6
5
86,535,165
20
R
e
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
M
a
r
i
n
a
Pa
r
k
20
1
5
2
2
,
0
0
0
57
5
3
5
0
4
7
J
a
n
‐12
1
2
,
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
2062
2
0
6
5
4
0
,
3
7
4
,
9
6
9
40,374,969
21
R
e
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Co
a
s
t
Ct
r
2
0
0
7
1
6
,
8
6
5
57
5
11
5
0
3
9
J
a
n
‐12
9
,
6
9
7
,
3
7
5
2054
2
0
5
7
2
5
,
4
0
2
,
9
9
6
25,402,996
22
R
e
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Th
e
a
t
r
e
Ar
t
s
Ce
n
t
e
r
1
9
7
3
1
2
,
0
0
0
57
5
45
5
0
1
2
J
a
n
‐12
6
,
9
0
0
,
0
0
0
2027
2
0
3
0
9
,
2
7
9
,
7
3
3
4,639,866 4,639,866
23
R
e
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
O
A
S
I
S
Sr
.
Ct
r
2
0
1
0
4
3
,
2
3
2
57
5
8
6
0
4
2
J
a
n
‐12
2
4
,
8
5
8
,
4
0
0
2057
2
0
6
0
7
0
,
1
2
5
,
4
2
7
70,125,427
25
R
e
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
S
u
n
s
e
t
Vi
e
w
Pa
r
k
w/
P
e
d
Br
i
d
g
e
s
& Do
g
Pa
r
k
0N
A
*
*
∞
2
M
a
r
‐14
1
0
,
4
5
0
,
0
0
0
2018
2
0
2
0
1
0
,
9
7
9
,
0
3
1
2,349,600 8,629,431
29
R
e
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
B
o
n
i
t
a
Cr
e
e
k
‐
Ar
t
i
f
i
c
i
a
l
Tu
r
f
2
0
1
5
N
A
8
3
1
0
7
J
a
n
‐12
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2025
2
0
2
5
2
,
3
7
7
,
3
7
2
2,377,372
33
R
e
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Yo
u
t
h
Ce
n
t
e
r
(C
Y
C
)
‐
Gr
a
n
t
Ho
w
a
l
d
1
9
8
8
5
,
1
4
6
57
5
30
5
0
1
4
J
a
n
‐12
2
,
9
5
8
,
9
5
0
2029
2
0
3
2
4
,
1
8
0
,
9
1
9
4,180,919
34
R
e
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
C
a
r
o
l
l
Be
e
k
Ce
n
t
e
r
1
9
8
0
1
,
5
5
5
57
5
38
5
0
1
5
J
a
n
‐12
8
9
4
,
1
2
5
2030
2
0
3
3
1
,
2
9
4
,
9
6
0
1,294,960
35
R
e
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
B
o
n
i
t
a
Cr
e
e
k
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ct
r
.
1
9
8
8
2
,
8
7
6
57
5
30
5
0
2
0
J
a
n
‐12
1
,
6
5
3
,
7
0
0
2035
2
0
3
8
2
,
7
0
9
,
7
8
0
2,709,780
36
R
e
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
C
l
i
f
f
Dr
i
v
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ro
o
m
1
9
6
0
7
5
0
57
5
58
5
0
1
8
J
a
n
‐12
4
3
1
,
2
5
0
2033
2
0
3
6
6
7
2
,
6
0
3
672,603
37
R
e
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
G
i
r
l
s
& Bo
y
s
Cl
u
b
(E
a
s
t
Bl
u
f
f
Pa
r
k
)
1
9
6
5
1
1
,
8
0
0
57
5
53
5
0
4
J
a
n
‐12
6
,
7
8
5
,
0
0
0
2020
2
0
2
2
7
,
4
8
9
,
3
7
0
7,489,370
‐
51
R
e
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
G
r
a
n
t
Ho
w
a
l
d
Pa
r
k
Sp
o
r
t
Fi
e
l
d
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
**
5
0
3
M
a
r
‐18
5
,
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
2019
2
0
2
1
6
,
1
9
2
,
1
2
1
6,192,121
38
R
e
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
L
a
w
n
Bo
w
l
i
n
g
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
(S
a
n
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
Hi
l
l
s
Pa
r
k
)
1
9
7
4
2
,
7
5
0
57
5
44
5
0
2
1
M
a
r
‐14
1
,
5
8
1
,
2
5
0
2036
2
0
3
9
2
,
6
5
5
,
8
3
9
2,655,839 326,468,951
429,154,339 16,528,837 412,625,502
Re
c
e
n
t
l
y
Re
m
o
v
e
d
fr
o
m
Ac
t
i
v
e
Li
s
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
/
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
Ya
r
d
Me
r
g
e
‐
Ph
a
s
e
I
*
*
5
0
2
M
a
y
‐12
4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2018
2
0
2
0
4
,
2
0
2
,
5
0
0
4,202,500
Re
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
S
u
n
s
e
t
Ri
d
g
e
2
0
1
4
N
A
4
∞‐
4
J
a
n
‐12
‐
2014
2
0
1
4
8
,
0
2
0
,
7
5
4
8,020,754
Re
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
L
o
w
e
r
Ca
s
t
a
w
a
y
s
‐
Pa
r
k
**
∞
4
4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2019
2
0
2
2
4
,
4
1
5
,
2
5
2
4,415,252
‐
Re
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
E
a
s
t
b
l
u
f
f
Pa
r
k
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
2
0
1
6
N
A
2
∞‐
2
J
a
n
‐12
‐
2013
2
0
1
6
‐
‐
Re
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
W
e
s
t
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Co
m
m
Ct
r
(i
n
c
l
po
o
l
)
2
0
1
7
2
5
,
0
0
0
57
5
1
5
0
2
J
a
n
‐12
‐
2018
2
0
2
0
‐
‐
Re
c
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Pi
e
r
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
‐
‐
FF
P
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
2 of 4
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
20
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
6
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
AS
S
U
M
P
T
I
O
N
s
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Fu
n
d
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
2
0
4
,
3
7
4
,
3
4
4
21
0
,
5
0
5
,
5
7
4
21
6
,
8
2
0
,
7
4
2
22
3
,
3
2
5
,
3
6
4
23
0
,
0
2
5
,
1
2
5
23
6
,
9
2
5
,
8
7
8
24
4
,
0
3
3
,
6
5
5
25
1
,
3
5
4
,
6
6
4
258,895,304
266,662,164
GF
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Gr
o
w
t
h
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
3
.
0
0
%
3
.
0
0
%
3
.
0
0
%
3
.
0
0
%
3
.
0
0
%
3
.
0
0
%
3
.
0
0
%
3
.
0
0
%
3
.
0
0
%
3
.
0
0
%
FF
P
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
@ 3%
of
GF
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
6
,
1
3
1
,
2
3
0
6,3
1
5
,
1
6
7
6,5
0
4
,
6
2
2
6,
6
9
9
,
7
6
1
6,
9
0
0
,
7
5
4
7,1
0
7
,
7
7
6
7,
3
2
1
,
0
1
0
7,
5
4
0
,
6
4
0
7,766,859
7,999,865
GF
An
n
u
a
l
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
% of
Re
v
e
n
u
e
(a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g
$8
.
5
M/
y
r
)
4
.
1
6
%
4
.
0
4
%
3
.
9
2
%
3
.
8
1
%
3
.
7
0
%
3
.
5
9
%
3
.
4
8
%
3
.
3
8
%
3
.
2
8
%
3
.
1
9
%
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
as
% of GF
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
3
.
9
9
%
3
.
9
0
%
3
.
7
9
%
3
.
6
4
%
3
.
3
4
%
3
.
2
4
%
3
.
1
4
%
3
.
0
4
%
2
.
9
4
%
2
.
8
5
%
FF
P
SO
U
R
C
E
S
8,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,500,000
8,500,000
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
FF
P
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
1
7
,
7
0
9
,
2
2
1
30
,
6
4
3
,
8
5
1
28
,
3
5
3
,
4
5
8
15
,
3
2
0
,
4
7
8
21
,
2
5
8
,
9
4
3
17
,
4
0
7
,
4
9
7
16
,
5
4
0
,
0
4
9
16
,
2
4
4
,
1
2
2
18,354,811
19,121,396
So
u
r
c
e
s
An
n
u
a
l
GF
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
8
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,500,000
8,500,000
Pe
r
i
o
d
i
c
GF
or
On
e
‐tim
e
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
In
2
,
6
2
6
,
4
3
3
99
,
6
4
4
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
1
9
,
6
6
8
,
6
5
5
1,2
7
9
,
9
5
2
3,1
9
9
,
6
2
5
10
,
0
0
8
,
6
4
9
65
2
,
1
8
6
66
8
,
5
1
2
68
5
,
8
3
5
70
2
,
4
5
2
720,069
29,883,431
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
Ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
4
0
,
4
5
8
64
,
4
1
8
90
,
8
8
8
38
3
,
0
1
2
63
7
,
7
6
8
56
5
,
7
4
4
57
8
,
9
0
2
56
8
,
5
4
4
642,418
669,249
To
t
a
l
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
3
0
,
8
3
5
,
5
4
6
9,9
4
4
,
0
1
4
11
,
7
9
0
,
5
1
3
18
,
8
9
1
,
6
6
1
9,
7
8
9
,
9
5
4
9,7
3
4
,
2
5
6
9,
7
6
4
,
7
3
7
9,
7
7
0
,
9
9
7
9,862,487
39,052,680
Us
e
s
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
(
8
,
1
6
2
,
4
0
6
)
(8
,
2
1
5
,
5
5
0
)
(8
,
2
1
0
,
6
6
1
)
(8
,
1
3
8
,
8
4
1
)
(7
,
6
8
8
,
2
7
8
)
(7
,
6
7
6
,
6
3
8
)
(7
,
6
6
5
,
4
2
8
)
(7
,
6
4
9
,
3
0
8
)
(7,610,933)
(7,603,024)
De
b
t
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Ot
h
e
r
Fis
c
a
l
Ch
a
r
g
e
s
(
2
,
6
3
2
)
(1
1
,
0
0
0
)
(1
1
,
0
0
0
)
(1
1
,
0
0
0
)
(1
1
,
0
0
0
)
(1
1
,
0
0
0
)
(1
1
,
0
0
0
)
(1
1
,
0
0
0
)
(11,000)
(11,000)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Us
e
s
(
9
,
7
3
5
,
8
7
8
)
(4
,
0
0
7
,
8
5
7
)
(1
6
,
6
0
1
,
8
3
2
)
(4
,
8
0
3
,
3
5
6
)
(5
,
9
4
2
,
1
2
1
)
(2
,
9
1
4
,
0
6
6
)
(2
,
3
8
4
,
2
3
6
)
‐
(1,473,969)
(8,106,837)
To
t
a
l
Us
e
s
:
(
1
7
,
9
0
0
,
9
1
6
)
(1
2
,
2
3
4
,
4
0
7
)
(2
4
,
8
2
3
,
4
9
3
)
(1
2
,
9
5
3
,
1
9
7
)
(1
3
,
6
4
1
,
3
9
9
)
(1
0
,
6
0
1
,
7
0
4
)
(1
0
,
0
6
0
,
6
6
4
)
(7
,
6
6
0
,
3
0
8
)
(9,095,902)
(15,720,861)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
FF
P
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
30
,
6
4
3
,
8
5
1
28
,
3
5
3
,
4
5
8
15
,
3
2
0
,
4
7
8
21
,
2
5
8
,
9
4
3
17
,
4
0
7
,
4
9
7
16
,
5
4
0
,
0
4
9
16
,
2
4
4
,
1
2
2
18
,
3
5
4
,
8
1
1
19,121,396 42,453,215
So
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
Us
e
s
Pr
o
f
o
r
m
a
AC
T
I
V
E
S
C
E
N
A
R
I
O
FO
R
M
U
L
A
,
DO
NO
T
ED
I
T
FO
R
M
U
L
A
I
C
EN
T
R
Y
OF
AN
N
U
A
L
GF
CO
N
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
S
,
ED
I
T
ON
L
Y
IF
CO
N
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
OF
$8
.
5
M
CH
A
N
G
E
S
3 of 4
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
AG
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
AN
D
PR
I
V
A
T
E
CO
N
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
S
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
T
O
T
A
L
N
o
n
FF
P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
P
a
r
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
Ar
t
s
F
F
P
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
A
m
o
u
n
t
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
6
Ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
R
E
F
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
T
r
i
g
g
e
r
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
&
Cu
l
t
u
r
e
B
E
N
E
F
I
T
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
O
t
h
e
r
T
o
t
a
l
P
a
i
d
Ho
a
g
OA
S
I
S
Pl
e
d
g
e
Ma
y
12
,
20
0
9
Ple
d
g
e
Le
t
t
e
r
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
50
0
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
50
0
,
0
0
0
50
0
,
0
0
0
Ho
a
g
OA
S
I
S
Pl
e
d
g
e
Ma
y
12
,
20
0
9
Ple
d
g
e
Le
t
t
e
r
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
50
0
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
50
0
,
0
0
0
50
0
,
0
0
0
Ho
a
g
OA
S
I
S
Pl
e
d
g
e
Ma
y
12
,
20
0
9
Ple
d
g
e
Le
t
t
e
r
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
1,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
1,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
1,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
2,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
2,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
2,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
2,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Fr
i
e
n
d
s
of
Oa
s
i
s
Pl
e
d
g
e
Oa
s
i
s
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
fo
r
Oa
s
i
s
On
l
y
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
2,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
2,0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2,0
0
0
,
0
0
0
No
r
t
h
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
4.1
I
n
Lie
u
Pa
r
k
Fe
e
s
P
a
i
d
wit
h
i
n
5 Da
y
s
of
Aw
a
r
d
of OA
S
I
S
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
‐
5,6
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,6
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,6
0
0
,
0
0
0
No
r
t
h
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
4.1
I
n
Lie
u
Pa
r
k
Fe
e
s
43
0
$$
2
6
,
0
4
6
.
5
1
M
i
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
Pm
t
s
‐
5,6
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,6
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,6
0
0
,
0
0
0
No
r
t
h
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
T2
4.1
9
4
Un
i
t
s
x $2
6
,
0
4
6
.
5
1
M
i
l
e
s
t
o
n
e
Pm
t
s
2
,
4
4
8
,
3
7
2
2,
4
4
8
,
3
7
2
2,4
4
8
,
3
7
2
2,4
4
8
,
3
7
2
‐
‐
No
r
t
h
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
4.2
1
I
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of Fir
s
t
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
1
3
,
5
4
5
,
0
0
0
‐
13
,
5
4
5
,
0
0
0
13
,
5
4
5
,
0
0
0
13
,
5
4
5
,
0
0
0
No
r
t
h
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
4.2
P
u
b
l
i
c
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Fe
e
‐
43
0
Un
i
t
s
@ $3
1
,
5
0
0
I
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
43
0
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
1
3
,
5
4
5
,
0
0
0
‐
(2
7
0
,
9
0
0
)
13
,
2
7
4
,
1
0
0
13
,
2
7
4
,
1
0
0
13
,
5
4
5
,
0
0
0
No
r
t
h
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
T2
Am
e
n
d
e
d
Ag
r
m
t
P
u
b
l
i
c
Be
n
e
f
i
t
Fe
e
‐
94
Un
i
t
s
@ $6
3
,
0
0
0
I
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of 43
1
st pe
r
m
i
t
‐
52
4
th
pe
r
m
i
t
5
,
9
2
2
,
0
0
0
(1
1
8
,
4
4
0
)
5,
8
0
3
,
5
6
0
5,8
0
3
,
5
6
0
5,9
2
2
,
0
0
0
No
r
t
h
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
4.4
Str
e
e
t
Wid
e
n
i
n
g
an
d
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Sig
n
a
l
s
W
i
t
h
i
n
30
Da
y
s
of
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
Re
q
u
e
s
t
‐
‐
2,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
2,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
‐
No
r
t
h
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
Am
e
n
d
e
d
Ag
r
m
t
B
a
y
s
i
d
e
Dr
i
v
e
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
i
t
h
i
n
90
Da
y
s
of
wr
i
t
t
e
n
no
t
i
c
e
af
t
e
r
aw
a
r
d
of co
n
t
r
a
c
t
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
20
0
,
0
0
0
20
0
,
0
0
0
200,000
33
,
2
1
2
,
0
0
0
13
,
6
4
8
,
3
7
2
(3
8
9
,
3
4
0
)
46
,
4
7
1
,
0
3
2
2,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
‐
48
,
9
7
1
,
0
3
2
48
,
9
7
1
,
0
3
2
Th
e
Da
r
t
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(2
4
un
i
t
s
)
(
P
A
2
0
1
2
‐14
6
)
‐
60
0
,
8
7
5
60
0
,
8
7
5
60
0
,
8
7
5
52
,
2
5
0
783,750
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Ba
y
Ma
r
i
n
a
(2
7
un
i
t
s
)
(P
A
2
0
0
1
‐21
0
)
‐
18
6
,
1
4
7
18
6
,
1
4
7
18
6
,
1
4
7
18
6
,
1
4
7
Vi
a
Lid
o
Mi
x
e
d
Us
e
(
2
un
i
t
s
)
(P
A
2
0
1
0
‐08
1
)
‐
10
4
,
5
0
0
10
4
,
5
0
0
10
4
,
5
0
0
10
4
,
5
0
0
22
1
8
Ch
a
n
n
e
l
Rd
.
A
b
e
l
l
Jo
h
n
& He
l
o
u
Ca
r
o
l
‐
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
Pl
a
z
a
CD
M
(6
Un
i
t
s
)
(P
A
2
0
1
0
‐06
1
)
‐
15
6
,
7
5
0
15
6
,
7
5
0
15
6
,
7
5
0
15
6
,
7
5
0
21
4
Na
r
c
i
s
s
u
s
(1
Un
i
t
s
)
(P
A
2
0
1
1
‐19
2
)
‐
‐
‐
60
4
Ac
a
c
i
a
Av
e
(P
A
2
0
1
2
‐00
5
)
‐
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
61
0
La
r
k
s
p
u
r
LL
C
(N
P
2
0
1
3
‐00
3
)
‐
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
81
9
W.
Ba
l
b
o
a
NP
2
0
1
2
‐01
0
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
50
1
‐50
7
L St
(
P
A
2
0
1
6
‐01
0
)
78
,
3
7
5
78
,
3
7
5
78
,
3
7
5
78
,
3
7
5
78
,
3
7
5
41
6
Or
c
h
i
d
Av
e
.
‐
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
Co
h
e
n
Ga
l
i
n
a
‐
30
9
Go
l
d
e
n
r
o
d
‐
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
11
2
30
t
h
St
.
MW
(P
A
2
0
1
5
‐14
9
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
15
6
0
Pla
c
e
n
t
i
a
(P
A
2
0
1
4
‐11
0
)
20
9
,
0
0
0
20
9
,
0
0
0
20
9
,
0
0
0
20
9
,
0
0
0
11
5
30
t
h
St
(
P
A
2
0
1
4
‐14
6
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
41
5
38
t
h
St
(
P
A
2
0
0
6
‐00
5
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
32
3
8
Cla
y
(P
A
2
0
1
5
‐11
4
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
12
8
29
t
h
St
(P
A
2
0
0
7
‐06
7
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
71
0
Go
l
d
e
n
r
o
d
Av
e
(P
A
2
0
1
6
‐03
6
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
61
2
Ac
a
c
i
a
Av
e
(P
A
2
0
1
5
‐17
7
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
31
2
5
Ba
y
s
i
d
e
Dr
(P
A
2
0
1
1
‐00
7
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
71
5
He
l
i
o
t
r
o
p
e
(P
A
2
0
1
4
‐14
4
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
71
6
La
r
k
s
p
u
r
(P
A
2
0
1
4
‐06
8
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
42
2
He
l
i
o
t
r
o
p
e
(P
A
2
0
1
5
‐07
1
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
71
5
Ma
r
i
g
o
l
d
(P
A
2
0
1
5
‐04
6
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
40
4
He
l
i
o
t
r
o
p
e
(P
A
2
0
1
5
‐08
1
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
12
9
34
t
h
St
(P
A
2
0
1
6
‐10
4
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
70
1
Po
p
p
y
Av
e
(P
A
2
0
1
6
‐15
4
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
21
1
Da
h
l
i
a
Av
e
(
P
A
2
0
1
6
‐14
6
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
71
2
He
l
i
o
t
r
o
p
e
(
P
A
2
0
1
6
‐05
4
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
51
4
Fe
r
n
l
e
a
f
(
P
A
2
0
1
6
‐05
1
)
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
26
,
1
2
5
Fr
i
e
n
d
of
th
e
Oa
s
i
s
35
,
0
0
0
35
,
0
0
0
35
,
0
0
0
35
,
0
0
0
1,9
6
2
,
6
4
7
‐
1,
9
9
7
,
6
4
7
‐
‐
1,9
9
7
,
6
4
7
Ho
a
g
DA
# 5
8.2
S
e
m
e
n
i
u
k
Sl
o
u
g
h
Stu
d
y
$
2
0
0
K
Fe
e
Eli
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
wit
h
wit
h
DA
am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
in
20
0
8
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Ho
a
g
DA
# 5
8.2
R
e
i
m
b
Ci
t
y
re
l
a
t
e
d
to
Su
p
e
r
i
o
r
Av
e
Me
d
i
a
n
s
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
of
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
‐
‐
‐
‐
1,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
‐
1,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
1,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ho
a
g
DA
# 5
8.2
P
u
b
l
i
c
Be
n
e
f
i
t
(P
a
r
k
or
Pu
b
Sa
f
e
t
y
)
P
a
i
d
Ju
n
e
20
0
9
Xf
r
e
d
to
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Re
s
e
r
v
e
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
1,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
1,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
1,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ho
a
g
DA
# 5
8.4
S
u
n
s
e
t
Vie
w
Pa
r
k
,
Sh
r
u
b
& Gr
o
u
n
d
c
o
v
e
r
P
e
n
d
i
n
g
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
‐
15
0
,
0
0
0
‐
15
0
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
15
0
,
0
0
0
15
0
,
0
0
0
1,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
15
0
,
0
0
0
‐
1,
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
1,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
‐
3,1
5
0
,
0
0
0
3,1
5
0
,
0
0
0
Sa
n
t
a
Ba
r
b
a
r
a
Co
n
d
o
s
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Sa
n
t
a
Ba
r
b
a
r
a
Co
n
d
o
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3.
3
of
MO
A
U
n
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
Pu
b
l
i
c
Be
n
e
f
i
t
C
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
wit
h
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
of Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
1,6
4
5
,
5
6
6
‐
(3
2
,
9
1
1
)
1,
6
1
2
,
6
5
5
‐
‐
1,6
1
2
,
6
5
5
Sa
n
t
a
Ba
r
b
a
r
a
Co
n
d
o
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3.
3
of
MO
A
U
n
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
Pu
b
l
i
c
Be
n
e
f
i
t
C
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
wit
h
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
of Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
3,3
5
4
,
4
3
4
‐
(6
7
,
0
8
9
)
3,
2
8
7
,
3
4
5
‐
‐
3,2
8
7
,
3
4
5
Sa
n
t
a
Ba
r
b
a
r
a
Co
n
d
o
s
(N
P
2
0
0
5
‐01
4
)
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3.
2
of
MO
A
7
9
Un
i
t
s
x $2
6
,
0
4
6
.
5
1
F
e
e
du
e
at
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
is
s
u
e
2
,
0
6
1
,
8
3
4
‐
2,
0
6
1
,
8
3
4
‐
‐
2,0
6
1
,
8
3
4
2,0
6
1
,
8
3
4
5,0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2,0
6
1
,
8
3
4
(1
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
6,
9
6
1
,
8
3
4
‐
6,9
6
1
,
8
3
4
2,0
6
1
,
8
3
4
Ba
n
n
i
n
g
Ra
n
c
h
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3.1
1
3
7
5
x 30
,
9
0
9
x 80
%
(H
a
i
r
c
u
t
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
)
E
a
c
h
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
27
,
6
6
3
,
5
5
5
‐
‐
27
,
6
6
3
,
5
5
5
‐
‐
27
,
6
6
3
,
5
5
5
Up
t
o
w
n
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
$3
2
,
5
0
0
/
U
n
i
t
‐
1,2
4
4
Un
i
t
s
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Ph
a
s
e
I ‐
68
0
Un
i
t
s
a)
45
5
b) 22
5
P
R
I
O
R
TO
EA
C
H
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
PE
R
M
I
T
2
2
,
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
(4
4
2
,
0
0
0
)
21
,
6
5
8
,
0
0
0
96
6
,
6
6
5
‐
22
,
6
2
4
,
6
6
5
16
,
0
8
9
,
6
1
2
16
,
0
8
9
,
6
1
2
6,965,200
Ph
a
s
e
II ‐
56
4
Un
i
t
s
P
R
I
O
R
TO
EA
C
H
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
PE
R
M
I
T
1
8
,
3
3
0
,
0
0
0
(3
6
6
,
6
0
0
)
17
,
9
6
3
,
4
0
0
63
1
,
4
5
6
‐
18
,
5
9
4
,
8
5
6
18,594,856
PA
2
0
1
1
‐13
4
I
n
Lie
u
Pa
r
k
Fe
e
s
‐
Ph
a
s
e
IP
R
I
O
R
TO
EA
C
H
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
PE
R
M
I
T
‐Le
s
s
Pa
r
k
Cr
e
d
i
t
s
‐
10
,
1
4
3
,
3
6
1
10
,
1
4
3
,
3
6
1
10
,
1
4
3
,
3
6
1
2,8
9
5
,
6
8
7
2,8
9
5
,
6
8
7
2,000,000
In
Lie
u
Pa
r
k
Fe
e
s
‐
Ph
a
s
e
II
P
R
I
O
R
TO
EA
C
H
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
PE
R
M
I
T
‐Le
s
s
Pa
r
k
Cr
e
d
i
t
s
‐
10
,
5
5
0
,
3
8
9
10
,
5
5
0
,
3
8
9
10
,
5
5
0
,
3
8
9
10,550,389
40
,
4
3
0
,
0
0
0
20
,
6
9
3
,
7
5
0
(8
0
8
,
6
0
0
)
60
,
3
1
5
,
1
5
0
1,5
9
8
,
1
2
1
‐
61
,
9
1
3
,
2
7
1
NB
Co
u
n
t
r
y
Clu
b
3.1
5
4
,
8
1
9
x 10
.
0
0
Go
l
f
Clu
b
Clu
b
h
o
u
s
e
I
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of Fir
s
t
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
5
6
2
,
1
9
6
‐
(1
1
,
2
4
4
)
55
0
,
9
5
2
‐
‐
55
0
,
9
5
2
9,2
5
6
Du
n
e
s
Se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
C(
e
)
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
on
Pa
r
c
e
l
B2
I
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
5
0
,
0
0
0
‐
(1
,
0
0
0
)
49
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
49
,
0
0
0
49,000
Du
n
e
s
Se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
C(f
)
F
a
m
i
l
y
In
n
I
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
‐
(2
,
0
0
0
)
98
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
98
,
0
0
0
98,000
Du
n
e
s
Se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
C(
g
)
F
a
m
i
l
y
In
n
P
r
i
o
r
to
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
4
1
0
,
4
0
2
‐
(8
,
2
0
8
)
40
2
,
1
9
4
‐
‐
40
2
,
1
9
4
402,194
56
0
,
4
0
2
‐
(1
1
,
2
0
8
)
54
9
,
1
9
4
‐
‐
54
9
,
1
9
4
Go
l
f
Re
a
l
i
t
y
Fu
n
d
(G
R
F
)
3.1
T
e
n
n
i
s
Clu
b
Re
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
3,
7
2
5
x $1
0
.
0
0
I
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
3
7
,
2
5
0
(7
4
5
)
36
,
5
0
5
‐
‐
36
,
5
0
5
36,505
Go
l
f
Re
a
l
i
t
y
Fu
n
d
(G
R
F
)
3.1
S
i
n
g
l
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
Ho
m
e
s
$5
x $9
3
,
0
0
0
S
i
n
g
l
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
Ho
m
e
s
4
6
5
,
0
0
0
(9
,
3
0
0
)
45
5
,
7
0
0
‐
‐
45
5
,
7
0
0
455,700
50
2
,
2
5
0
‐
(1
0
,
0
4
5
)
49
2
,
2
0
5
‐
‐
49
2
,
2
0
5
La
n
d
Re
Us
e
De
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
Mo
n
r
o
v
i
a
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Sa
l
e
A
c
t
u
a
l
5,
6
3
9
,
0
9
6
5,6
3
9
,
0
9
6
5,6
3
9
,
0
9
6
Lid
o
Ho
u
s
e
Ho
t
e
l
Le
a
s
e
L
e
a
s
e
G
r
o
u
n
d
Le
a
s
e
>
of
Ba
s
e
Re
n
t
or Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Re
n
t
s
‐
‐
‐
‐
75,000
150,000 250,000 328,303 338,152 348,868 358,746 369,488 380,594
Po
l
i
c
e
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
c
o
r
d
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
An
n
u
a
l
Fin
a
n
c
i
a
l
Be
n
e
f
i
t
N
o
t
Us
e
d
1
,
7
0
6
,
0
0
0
1,
7
0
6
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
1,7
0
6
,
0
0
0
We
s
t
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Gy
m
‐
Le
a
s
e
L
e
a
s
e
G
r
o
u
n
d
Le
a
s
e
28
9
,
0
5
5
28
9
,
0
5
5
‐
‐
28
9
,
0
5
5
23
0
,
1
6
7
234,770
239,466 244,255 323,882 330,360 336,967 343,706 350,581 357,592
1,9
9
5
,
0
5
5
‐
‐
7,
6
3
4
,
1
5
1
‐
‐
7,6
3
4
,
1
5
1
TO
T
A
L
1
1
5
,
9
6
0
,
4
5
8
38
,
5
1
6
,
6
0
3
(1
,
3
3
0
,
4
3
7
)
15
8
,
7
8
5
,
7
2
0
5,5
9
8
,
1
2
1
‐
16
4
,
3
8
3
,
8
4
1
19
,
6
6
8
,
8
4
7
1,093,520
1,081,671 10,008,649 652,186 668,512 685,835 702,452 720,069 29,883,431
Pa
i
d
St
a
t
u
s
4 of 4
1 of 1
4 Last Updated 3/15/2018
Start Start
Est. Project Date Date
Priority Projects Cost (Design)(Construction)
8 FS 5 - CDM (& Library)8,818,470 2016 2018
50 FS 2 - Land Purchase 4,000,000 2017 2018
5 FS 2 - Lido 9,665,750 2018 2019
13 Newport Jr. Guard Building - 2019 2020
25 Sunset View Park w/Ped Bridges & Dog Park 8,629,431 2018 2020
51 Grant Howald Park Sport Field Rehabilitation 6,192,121 2019 2021
3 FS 1 - Peninsula (& Library)5,298,302 2020 2022
37 Girls & Boys Club (East Bluff Park)- 2020 2022
6 FS 3 - Santa Barbara 9,509,486 2022 2025
6
1 2 ********
Total 52,113,560
3 4
Key Metric Target Max
Debt Svc as % of Revenues NA < 8.0%
Minimum FFP Reserve Balance (000's)$8,216 NA
Key Statistics Min Max Avg
GF Contribution to FFP (000's)$8,000 $9,274 $8,601
Debt Service (000's)$7,533 $8,216 $7,764
GF Contributions to FFP as % Rev 3.00%4.2%3.4%
Debt Svc as % of Revenues 2.44%4.0%3.1%
5 6 FFP Balance (000's)$15,320 $52,222 $30,622
Key Statistics Min Max Avg
GF Contribution to FFP (000's)$8,500 $13,497 $10,010
Debt Service (000's)$0 $8,216 $6,358
GF Contributions to FFP as % Rev 3.00%4.2%3.2%
Debt Svc as % of Revenues 0.00%4.0%2.3%
FFP Reserve Balance (000's)$30,644 $74,313 $35,116
7 8
Remaining Debt Capacity (Dbt. Svc < or = 8% of GF Rev):132.6$ Million
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FACILITIES FINANCIAL PLANNING DASHBOARD
30 Year
Council Debt Mgmt Policy (F-6)
15 Year
0.00%1.00%2.00%3.00%4.00%5.00%6.00%7.00%8.00%9.00%10.00%
20
1
5
20
1
7
20
1
9
20
2
1
20
2
3
20
2
5
20
2
7
20
2
9
20
3
1
20
3
3
20
3
5
20
3
7
20
3
9
20
4
1
20
4
3
20
4
5
GF Contribution to FFP
as a Percent of GF Revenue
GF Contribution % Budget Debt Service - as % of Revenues
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
20
1
5
20
1
7
20
1
9
20
2
1
20
2
3
20
2
5
20
2
7
20
2
9
20
3
1
20
3
3
20
3
5
20
3
7
20
3
9
20
4
1
20
4
3
20
4
5
GF Contribution to FFP Compared
to Debt Service
GF Contribution to FFP Debt Service
-
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
20
3
1
20
3
2
20
3
3
20
3
4
20
3
5
20
3
6
20
3
7
20
3
8
20
3
9
20
4
0
20
4
1
20
4
2
20
4
3
20
4
4
20
4
5
FFP Reserve Balance
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
20
1
7
20
1
9
20
2
1
20
2
3
20
2
5
20
2
7
20
2
9
20
3
1
20
3
3
20
3
5
20
3
7
20
3
9
20
4
1
20
4
3
20
4
5
Project Funding
Cash Funded Construction Debt Funded Construction
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
20
1
7
20
1
9
20
2
1
20
2
3
20
2
5
20
2
7
20
2
9
20
3
1
20
3
3
20
3
5
20
3
7
20
3
9
20
4
1
20
4
3
20
4
5
Project Expenditures
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
20
1
5
20
1
7
20
1
9
20
2
1
20
2
3
20
2
5
20
2
7
20
2
9
20
3
1
20
3
3
20
3
5
20
3
7
20
3
9
20
4
1
20
4
3
20
4
5
Debt Service Capacity
Max Debt Service - 8% of Revenues Debt Service
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
9.00%
10.00%
20
1
5
20
1
7
20
1
9
20
2
1
20
2
3
20
2
5
20
2
7
20
2
9
20
3
1
20
3
3
20
3
5
20
3
7
20
3
9
20
4
1
20
4
3
20
4
5
Debt Service as % of GF Revenues
Debt Service - as % of Revenues
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Annual GF Contributions
Periodic GF or One-time Transfers
Private Contributions
Interest Earnings
Cash Contributions
Project Total Interest
Debt Service Description Year Proceeds COI Issue Rate Term Maturity
2010 Civic Center COPs 2011 123,000,000 1,289,442 124,289,442 4.4%30 2041
Traunch 2 0 - - - 5.0%30 30
Traunch 3 0 - - - 5.0%30 30
GF contributions equal to $8.5m/year (level dollar)
GF contributions equal to 3% of annual General Fund revenue
GF contributions equal to 5% of annual General Fund revenue
GF contributions equal to 3% GF Rev but not < than $8.5M
Item No. 5C1Facilities Financial Plan
Additional Materials ReceivedMarch 15, 2018
1 of 2
3/15/2018
Active Projects
YR Repl Est $Current Age:Useful Years to Cost Est.Project FY Design Start FY Const Start FV Cost Est @ Private Net Proposed
ProjNo Function Project Built Sq Ft /Sq Ft 2018 Life Start Date Estimate Year Year 2.5% Growth Contribtions Cost
1 Gen Gov Civic Center 2013 100,000 675 5 60 55 Jun-13 67,500,000 2070 2073 - -
4 Gen Gov Council Chambers 2013 29,000 675 5 60 55 Jun-13 19,575,000 2070 2073 - -
41 Gen Gov Civic Center Parking Structure 2013 450 16,000 5 60 55 Jun-13 7,200,000 2070 2073 - -
2 Police Police Station at Corporate Yard 1973 60,000 800 45 50 17 N/A 48,000,000 2032 2035 73,037,677 73,037,677
40 Municipal Operations Big Canyon Aux. Yard 2015 9,000 575 3 50 51 May-12 - 2062 2065 -
50 Fire FS 2 - Land Purchase **4,000,000 2017 2018 4,000,000 4,000,000
3 Fire FS 1 - Peninsula (& Library)1962 6,000 800 56 50 4 Mar-18 4,800,000 2020 2022 5,298,302 5,298,302
5 Fire FS 2 - Lido 1952 11,500 820 66 50 1 Mar-14 9,430,000 2018 2019 9,665,750 9,665,750
6 Fire FS 3 - Santa Barbara 1971 10,000 800 47 50 7 Mar-14 8,000,000 2022 2025 9,509,486 9,509,486
7 Fire FS 4 - Balboa Island 1994 4,400 800 24 50 26 Mar-14 3,520,000 2041 2044 6,689,030 6,689,030
8 Fire FS 5 - CDM (& Library)1950 10,314 855 68 50 0 Mar-14 8,818,470 2016 2018 8,818,470 8,818,470
9 Fire FS 6 - Mariners (apparatus bay only)2018 1,436 866 0 50 0 Mar-14 1,243,576 2016 2017 1,243,576 1,243,576
47 Fire FS 6 - Mariners (Living Area Rebuild)1957 3,000 800 61 7 2,400,000 2024 2025 2,852,846 2,852,846
10 Fire FS 7 - SAH 2007 6,500 800 11 50 39 Mar-14 5,200,000 2054 2057 13,621,787 13,621,787
11 Fire FS 8 - Npt. Coast 1995 11,027 800 23 50 27 Mar-14 8,821,600 2042 2045 17,182,713 17,182,713
12 Fire Lifeguard HQ Replacement 5,500 800 **25 22 Mar-14 4,400,000 2038 2040 7,574,914 7,574,914
13 Fire Newport Jr. Guard Building 0 4,900 775 **2 3,797,500 2019 2020 3,989,748 3,989,748 -
15 Library Library-Balboa (Construct w/ FS-1)1962 3,000 700 56 50 44 Jan-12 - 2059 2062 - -
16 Library Library-CDM (Construct w/ FS-5)1958 3,800 700 60 50 0 Jan-12 - 2016 2018 - -
17 Library Library-Mariners 2006 15,305 575 12 50 38 Jan-12 - 2053 2056 - -
18 Library Library-Central 1997 65,000 575 21 50 34 Jan-12 37,375,000 2049 2052 86,535,165 86,535,165
TBD Library Library Lecture Hall TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
20 Rec Facility Marina Park 2015 22,000 575 3 50 47 Jan-12 12,650,000 2062 2065 40,374,969 40,374,969
21 Rec Facility Newport Coast Ctr 2007 16,865 575 11 50 39 Jan-12 9,697,375 2054 2057 25,402,996 25,402,996
22 Rec Facility Newport Theatre Arts Center 1973 12,000 575 45 50 12 Jan-12 6,900,000 2027 2030 9,279,733 4,639,866 4,639,866
23 Rec Facility OASIS Sr. Ctr 2010 43,232 575 8 60 42 Jan-12 24,858,400 2057 2060 70,125,427 70,125,427
25 Rec Facility Sunset View Park w/Ped Bridges & Dog Park 0 NA **∞2 Mar-14 10,450,000 2018 2020 10,979,031 2,349,600 8,629,431
29 Rec Facility Bonita Creek - Artificial Turf 2015 NA 8 3 10 7 Jan-12 2,000,000 2025 2025 2,377,372 2,377,372
33 Rec Facility Community Youth Center (CYC) - Grant Howald 1988 5,146 575 30 50 14 Jan-12 2,958,950 2029 2032 4,180,919 4,180,919
34 Rec Facility Caroll Beek Center 1980 1,555 575 38 50 15 Jan-12 894,125 2030 2033 1,294,960 1,294,960
35 Rec Facility Bonita Creek Community Ctr.1988 2,876 575 30 50 20 Jan-12 1,653,700 2035 2038 2,709,780 2,709,780
36 Rec Facility Cliff Drive Community Room 1960 750 575 58 50 18 Jan-12 431,250 2033 2036 672,603 672,603
37 Rec Facility Girls & Boys Club (East Bluff Park)1965 11,800 575 53 50 4 Jan-12 6,785,000 2020 2022 7,489,370 7,489,370 -
51 Rec Facility Grant Howald Park Sport Field Rehabilitation **50 3 Mar-18 5,750,000 2019 2021 6,192,121 6,192,121
38 Rec Facility Lawn Bowling Facility (San Joaquin Hills Park)1974 2,750 575 44 50 21 Mar-14 1,581,250 2036 2039 2,655,839 2,655,839
330,691,196 433,754,583 18,468,585 415,285,997
Recently Removed from Active List
Municipal Operations Utilities/Corporate Yard Merge- Phase I **50 2 May-12 4,000,000 2018 2020 4,202,500 4,202,500
Rec Facility Sunset Ridge 2014 NA 4 ∞-4 Jan-12 - 2014 2014 8,020,754 8,020,754
Rec Facility Lower Castaways - Park **∞4 4,000,000 2019 2022 4,415,252 4,415,252 -
Rec Facility Eastbluff Park Extension 2016 NA 2 ∞-2 Jan-12 - 2013 2016 - -
Rec Facility West Newport Comm Ctr (incl pool)2017 25,000 575 1 50 2 Jan-12 - 2018 2020 - -
Rec Facility Newport Pier Restaurant - -
FFP Project Planning
1 of 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
AFFORDABILITY ASSUMPTIONs
General Fund Revenues 204,374,344 210,505,574 216,820,742 223,325,364 230,025,125 236,925,878 244,033,655 251,354,664 258,895,304 266,662,164
GF Revenue Growth Assumption 3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%
FFP Contributions @ 3% of GF Revenues 6,131,230 6,315,167 6,504,622 6,699,761 6,900,754 7,107,776 7,321,010 7,540,640 7,766,859 7,999,865
GF Annual Contribution % of Revenue (assuming $8.5 M/yr)4.16%4.04%3.92%3.81%3.70%3.59%3.48%3.38%3.28%3.19%
Debt Service as % of GF Revenues 3.99%3.90%3.79%3.64%3.34%3.24%3.14%3.04%2.94%2.85%
FFP SOURCES
8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000
Beginning FFP Balance 17,709,221 30,643,851 28,353,458 15,320,478 21,258,943 17,407,497 16,540,049 16,244,122 18,354,811 19,121,396
Sources
Annual GF Contributions 8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000
Periodic GF or One-time Transfers In 2,626,433 99,644
Private Contributions 19,668,655 1,279,952 3,199,625 10,008,649 652,186 668,512 685,835 702,452 720,069 29,883,431
Interest Earnings 40,458 64,418 90,888 383,012 637,768 565,744 578,902 568,544 642,418 669,249
Total Sources:30,835,546 9,944,014 11,790,513 18,891,661 9,789,954 9,734,256 9,764,737 9,770,997 9,862,487 39,052,680
Uses
Debt Service (8,162,406) (8,215,550) (8,210,661) (8,138,841) (7,688,278) (7,676,638) (7,665,428) (7,649,308) (7,610,933) (7,603,024)
Debt Funding
Other Fiscal Charges (2,632) (11,000) (11,000) (11,000) (11,000) (11,000) (11,000) (11,000) (11,000) (11,000)
Project Uses (9,735,878) (4,007,857) (16,601,832) (4,803,356) (5,942,121) (2,914,066) (2,384,236) - (1,473,969) (8,106,837)
Total Uses:(17,900,916) (12,234,407) (24,823,493) (12,953,197) (13,641,399) (10,601,704) (10,060,664) (7,660,308) (9,095,902) (15,720,861)
Projected FFP Balance 30,643,851 28,353,458 15,320,478 21,258,943 17,407,497 16,540,049 16,244,122 18,354,811 19,121,396 42,453,215
Sources and Uses Proforma
ACTIVESCENARIO
FORMULA, DO NOT EDIT
FORMULAIC ENTRY OF ANNUAL GF CONRIBUTIONS, EDIT ONLY IF CONTRIBUTION STANDARD OF $8.5M CHANGES
1 of 1
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS General TOTAL Non FFP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Public Park Public Arts FFP Traffic Amount 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Agreement REF Description Trigger Benefit Benefit & Culture BENEFIT Circulation Other Total Paid
Hoag OASIS Pledge May 12, 2009 Pledge Letter Payment Schedule 500,000 - - 500,000 - - 500,000 500,000
Hoag OASIS Pledge May 12, 2009 Pledge Letter Payment Schedule 500,000 - - 500,000 - - 500,000 500,000
Hoag OASIS Pledge May 12, 2009 Pledge Letter Payment Schedule 1,500,000 - - 1,500,000 - - 1,500,000 1,500,000
2,500,000 - - 2,500,000 - - 2,500,000 2,500,000
Friends of Oasis Pledge Oasis Construction Restricted for Oasis Only 2,000,000 - - 2,000,000 - - 2,000,000 2,000,000
North Newport Center 4.1 In Lieu Park Fees Paid within 5 Days of Award of OASIS Contract - 5,600,000 5,600,000 5,600,000 5,600,000
North Newport Center 4.1 In Lieu Park Fees 430 $$26,046.51 Milestone Pmts - 5,600,000 5,600,000 5,600,000 5,600,000
North Newport Center T2 4.1 94 Units x $26,046.51 Milestone Pmts 2,448,372 2,448,372 2,448,372 2,448,372 - -
North Newport Center 4.2 1 Issuance of First Building Permit 13,545,000 - 13,545,000 13,545,000 13,545,000
North Newport Center 4.2 Public Benefit Fee - 430 Units @ $31,500 Issuance of remaining 430 Residential Building Permits 13,545,000 - (270,900) 13,274,100 13,274,100 13,545,000
North Newport Center T2 Amended Agrmt Public Benefit Fee - 94 Units @ $63,000 Issuance of 431 st permit - 524 th permit 5,922,000 (118,440) 5,803,560 5,803,560 5,922,000
North Newport Center 4.4 Street Widening and Traffic Signals Within 30 Days of Reimbursement Request - - 2,500,000 2,500,000 -
North Newport Center Amended Agrmt Bayside Drive Walkway Connection Within 90 Days of written notice after award of contract 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
33,212,000 13,648,372 (389,340) 46,471,032 2,500,000 - 48,971,032 48,971,032
The Dart Development (24 units)(PA2012-146) - 600,875 600,875 600,875 52,250 783,750
Newport Bay Marina (27 units) (PA2001-210)- 186,147 186,147 186,147 186,147
Via Lido Mixed Use(2 units) (PA2010-081)- 104,500 104,500 104,500 104,500
2218 Channel Rd.Abell John & Helou Carol - 26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
Plaza CDM (6 Units) (PA2010-061) - 156,750 156,750 156,750 156,750
214 Narcissus (1 Units) (PA2011-192)- - -
604 Acacia Ave (PA2012-005) - 26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
610 Larkspur LLC (NP2013-003)- 26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
819 W. Balboa NP2012-010 26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
501-507 L St(PA2016-010)78,375 78,375 78,375 78,375 78,375
416 Orchid Ave.- 26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
Cohen Galina - 309 Goldenrod - 26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
112 30th St. MW (PA2015-149)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
1560 Placentia (PA2014-110)209,000 209,000 209,000 209,000
115 30th St(PA2014-146)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
415 38th St(PA2006-005)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
3238 Clay (PA2015-114)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
128 29th St (PA2007-067)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
710 Goldenrod Ave (PA2016-036)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
612 Acacia Ave (PA2015-177)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
3125 Bayside Dr (PA2011-007)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
715 Heliotrope (PA2014-144)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
716 Larkspur (PA2014-068)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
422 Heliotrope (PA2015-071)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
715 Marigold (PA2015-046)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
404 Heliotrope (PA2015-081)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
129 34th St (PA2016-104)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
701 Poppy Ave (PA2016-154)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
211 Dahlia Ave(PA2016-146)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
712 Heliotrope(PA2016-054)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
514 Fernleaf(PA2016-051)26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125 26,125
Friend of the Oasis 35,000 35,000 35,000
35,000 1,962,647 - 1,997,647 - - 1,997,647
Hoag DA # 5 8.2 Semeniuk Slough Study $200K Fee Eliminated with with DA amendment in 2008 - - - - - - - -
Hoag DA # 5 8.2 Reimb City related to Superior Ave Medians Completion of Project Expenditures - - - - 1,500,000 - 1,500,000 1,500,000
Hoag DA # 5 8.2 Public Benefit (Park or Pub Safety)Paid June 2009 Xfred to Facilities Reserve 1,500,000 - - 1,500,000 - - 1,500,000 1,500,000
Hoag DA # 5 8.4 Sunset View Park, Shrub & Groundcover Pending Improvements - 150,000 - 150,000 - - 150,000 150,000
1,500,000 150,000 - 1,650,000 1,500,000 - 3,150,000 3,150,000
Santa Barbara Condos - - - - -
Santa Barbara Condos Section 3.3 of MOA Unrestricted Public Benefit Concurrent with Certificate of Occupancy 1,645,566 - (32,911) 1,612,655 - - 1,612,655
Santa Barbara Condos Section 3.3 of MOA Unrestricted Public Benefit Concurrent with Certificate of Occupancy 3,354,434 - (67,089) 3,287,345 - - 3,287,345
Santa Barbara Condos (NP2005-014)Section 3.2 of MOA 79 Units x $26,046.51 Fee due at building permit issue 2,061,834 - 2,061,834 - - 2,061,834 2,061,834
5,000,000 2,061,834 (100,000) 6,961,834 - 6,961,834 2,061,834
Banning Ranch Section 3.1 1375 x 30,909 x 80% (Haircut Assumption)Each Building Permit 27,663,555 - - 27,663,555 - - 27,663,555
Uptown Newport $32,500/Unit - 1,244 Units - - - - - -
Phase I - 680 Units a) 455 b) 225 PRIOR TO EACH BUILDING PERMIT 22,100,000 (442,000) 21,658,000 966,665 - 22,624,665 16,089,612 16,089,612 6,965,200
Phase II - 564 Units PRIOR TO EACH BUILDING PERMIT 18,330,000 (366,600) 17,963,400 631,456 - 18,594,856 18,594,856
PA2011-134 In Lieu Park Fees - Phase I PRIOR TO EACH BUILDING PERMIT-Less Park Credits - 10,143,361 10,143,361 10,143,361 2,895,687 2,895,687 2,000,000
In Lieu Park Fees - Phase II PRIOR TO EACH BUILDING PERMIT-Less Park Credits - 10,550,389 10,550,389 10,550,389 10,550,389
40,430,000 20,693,750 (808,600) 60,315,150 1,598,121 - 61,913,271
NB Country Club 3.1 54,819 x 10.00 Golf Club Clubhouse Issuance of First Building Permits 562,196 - (11,244) 550,952 - - 550,952 9,256
Dunes Settlement Section C(e)Restaurant on Parcel B2 Issuance of Building Permit 50,000 - (1,000) 49,000 - - 49,000 49,000
Dunes Settlement Section C(f)Family Inn Issuance of Building Permit 100,000 - (2,000) 98,000 - - 98,000 98,000
Dunes Settlement Section C(g)Family Inn Prior to Occupancy 410,402 - (8,208) 402,194 - - 402,194 402,194
560,402 - (11,208) 549,194 - - 549,194
Golf Reality Fund (GRF)3.1 Tennis Club Reconstruction 3,725 x $10.00 Issuance of Building Permit 37,250 (745) 36,505 - - 36,505 36,505
Golf Reality Fund (GRF)3.1 Single Family Homes $5 x $93,000 Single Family Homes 465,000 (9,300) 455,700 - - 455,700 455,700
502,250 - (10,045) 492,205 - - 492,205
Land Re Use Decisions
Monrovia Property Sale Actual 5,639,096 5,639,096 5,639,096
Lido House Hotel Lease Lease Ground Lease > of Base Rent or Percent Rents - - - - 75,000 150,000 250,000 328,303 338,152 348,868 358,746 369,488 380,594
Police Facility Concord Estimated Annual Financial Benefit Not Used 1,706,000 1,706,000 - - 1,706,000
West Newport Gym - Lease Lease Ground Lease 289,055 289,055 - - 289,055 230,167 234,770 239,466 244,255 323,882 330,360 336,967 343,706 350,581 357,592
1,995,055 - - 7,634,151 - - 7,634,151
TOTAL 115,960,458 38,516,603 (1,330,437) 158,785,720 5,598,121 - 164,383,841 19,668,847 1,093,520 1,081,671 10,008,649 652,186 668,512 685,835 702,452 720,069 29,883,431
Paid Status
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FINANCE COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No.5D
March 15, 2018
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
FROM: Finance Department
Dan Matusiewicz, Finance Director
(949) 644-3123, danm@newportbeachca.gov
SUBJECT: HARBOR AND BEACHES MASTER PLAN
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Review with staff the timing, means of financing, and fiscal impacts associated with
funding the high-priority projects designated in the Harbor and Beaches Master
Plan (HBMP); and
2. Give budget recommendations to the City Manager pertaining the HBMP in
advance of his Fiscal Year 2018-2019 budget proposal.
DISCUSSION:
Each year, as part of the budget process, staff prepares an update to the long-term HBMP.
Staff has projected the timing, means of financing, and fiscal impacts associated with
funding the high-priority projects in the HBMP as recommended by the Harbor
Commission. In order to maintain solvency over the long term, Finance staff spread the
$60 million Balboa Island Seawall replacement project that was slated to begin in 2026 to
three separate seawall efforts each five years apart - $20 million in 2026, $20 million in
2031 and $20 million in 2037.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
/s/ Steve Montano
/s/ Dan Matusiewicz
Steve Montano Dan Matusiewicz
Deputy Finance Director Finance Director
Attachment:
A. Harbor and Beaches Master Plan
ATTACHMENT A
HARBOR AND BEACHES MASTER PLAN
HA
R
B
O
R
& BE
A
C
H
E
S
MA
S
T
E
R
PL
A
N
DA
S
H
B
O
A
R
D
TRUE Updated:
3
/
8
/
2
0
1
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
$0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$6
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
8
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
4
2
0
3
5
2
0
3
6
2
0
3
7
2
0
3
8
2
0
3
9
2
0
4
0
2
0
4
1
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
3
2
0
4
4
2
0
4
5
Ha
r
b
o
r
an
d
Be
a
c
h
e
s
Ma
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
$0
$5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
1
2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
0.
0
0
%
10
.
0
0
%
20
.
0
0
%
30
.
0
0
%
40
.
0
0
%
50
.
0
0
%
60
.
0
0
%
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
1
2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
as
% of
De
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
Revenues
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
‐
as
% of
Revenues
$0
$2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$6
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$8
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
6
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
8
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
5
2
0
3
7
2
0
3
9
2
0
4
1
2
0
4
3
2
0
4
5
2
0
4
7
Al
l
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Re
v
e
n
u
e
So
u
r
c
e
s
Gr
a
n
t
s
Pe
r
i
o
d
i
c
GF
or
On
e
‐ti
m
e
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Fu
n
d
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
Ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
In
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
Bu
l
k
h
e
a
d
,
$1
6
0
.
0
0
,
70
%
Dr
a
i
n
,
$0
.
0
4
,
0%
Dr
e
d
g
i
n
g
,
$3
8
.
2
1
,
17
%
Ga
t
e
Va
l
v
e
s
,
$4
.
0
3
,
2%
Ot
h
e
r
,
$1
0
.
7
9
,
5%
Pi
e
r
s
,
$3
.
7
4
,
2%
Sl
i
p
s
,
$9
.
4
5
,
4%
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
$0
.
5
9
,
0%
Ba
y
,
$0
.
0
8
,
0%
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
by
Ty
p
e
(m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
Wi
t
h
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
(
g
r
a
n
t
s
)
a
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
l
i
s
t
Increment Revenue, $152.99 , 40%
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Fu
n
d
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
,
$2
0
7
.
5
0
, 54
%
Pe
r
i
o
d
i
c
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Fu
n
d
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
or
On
e
‐Ti
m
e
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
,
$6
.
5
0
, 2%
Gr
a
n
t
s
,
$1
5
.
2
4
, 4%
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
by
Ty
p
e
(millions)
I:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
F
I
N
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
\
F
u
n
d
s
\
2
4
0
_
T
i
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
_
1
0
1
\
H
a
r
b
o
r
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
\
H
a
r
b
o
r
an
d
Be
a
c
h
e
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
v2
0
1
8
_
0
3
_
1
5
1 of 4
La
s
t
Up
d
a
t
e
d
:
3/
8
/
2
0
1
8
20
1
8
Re
f
#
P
r
o
j
G
L
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
YR
Bu
i
l
t
L
a
s
t
Re
f
u
r
b
.
Un
i
t
s
Me
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
To
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
To
d
a
y
'
s
To
t
a
l
Co
s
t
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Ag
e
:
Us
e
f
u
l
Li
f
e
Y
e
a
r
s
to
Start Project Estimate FY Design Start YearFY Const Start YearFV Cost Est @2.5% Growth External Contributions Net Proposed Cost
1T
i
d
e
Ga
t
e
Va
l
v
e
s
(B
a
l
b
o
a
Is
l
a
n
d
)
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
Ga
t
e
Va
l
v
e
s
0
0
E
A
3
4
$5
0
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
5
4
$
1
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
2019
2
0
2
2
$
1
,
8
7
6
,
4
8
2
$
1
,
8
7
6
,
4
8
2
2T
i
d
e
Ga
t
e
Va
l
v
e
s
(P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
)
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
G
a
t
e
Va
l
v
e
s
0
0
E
A
3
9
$5
0
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
5
4
$
1
,
9
5
0
,
0
0
0
2019
2
0
2
2
$
2
,
1
5
2
,
4
3
5
$
2
,
1
5
2
,
4
3
5
3
Se
a
w
a
l
l
(B
a
l
b
o
a
Is
l
a
n
d
N & S)
:
Ex
t
e
n
d
Ca
p
Bu
l
k
h
e
a
d
19
3
0
0
LF
7,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
88
20
$700,000 2014 2017 $0 $0
4
15
H
1
1
Se
a
w
a
l
l
(B
a
l
b
o
a
Is
l
a
n
d
,
We
s
t
En
d
)
:
Ex
t
e
n
d
Ca
p
Bu
l
k
h
e
a
d
19
3
0
0
LF
1,
3
0
0
$1
0
0
88
20
$130,000 2014 2017 $0 $0
5A
r
c
h
e
s
Dr
a
i
n
:
Dr
y
We
a
t
h
e
r
Di
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
D
r
a
i
n
2
0
1
7
0
L
S
1
$8
6
0
,
0
0
0
1
8
0
0
$
8
6
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
9
$
8
6
0
,
0
0
0
8
2
0
,
0
0
0
$40,000
6
Bu
l
k
h
e
a
d
(E
d
g
e
Wa
t
e
r
Ln
)
Ex
t
e
n
d
Ca
p
Bu
l
k
h
e
a
d
20
1
7
LF
14
5
$3
0
3
1
20
$43,935 2017 2017 $0 $0
7
1
6
H
1
2
D
r
e
d
g
i
n
g
(G
r
a
n
d
Ca
n
a
l
)
:
No
r
t
h
of
Ce
n
t
e
r
D
r
e
d
g
i
n
g
0
0
C
Y
5
,
0
0
0
$1
7
5
*
*
5
$
3
6
1
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
$
0
$
3
6
1
,
0
0
0
8
N
a
v
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Ma
r
k
e
r
s
:
Co
n
v
e
r
t
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
St
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
Ma
r
k
e
r
s
to
Fl
o
a
t
s
Ot
h
e
r
0
0
L
S
1
$6
0
,
0
0
0
*
*
0
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
$
0
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
9B
a
l
b
o
a
Is
l
a
n
d
/
R
u
b
y
Be
a
c
h
Sw
i
m
Pl
a
t
f
o
r
m
O
t
h
e
r
0
E
A
1
$7
3
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
1
$
7
3
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
$
7
5
3
,
3
7
5
$
7
5
3
,
3
7
5
10
B
i
l
d
g
e
Pu
m
p
o
u
t
Do
c
k
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
0
0
L
S
1
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
*
*
1
5
2
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
$
2
1
0
,
1
2
5
$
2
1
0
,
1
2
5
11
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
(A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
Le
g
i
o
n
)
:
Re
p
a
i
r
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
1
9
5
7
0
L
F
3
2
8
$9
0
0
6
1
4
0
1
$
2
9
5
,
2
0
0
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
$
3
0
2
,
5
8
0
$
3
0
2
,
5
8
0
12
H
a
r
b
o
r
Lo
c
a
l
Co
a
s
t
a
l
Pla
n
O
t
h
e
r
0
0
L
S
1
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
*
*
5
0
3
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
1
$
5
3
8
,
4
4
5
$
5
3
8
,
4
4
5
13
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(M
St
)
:
Ga
n
g
w
a
y
& Fl
o
a
t
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
2
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
$
1
0
5
,
0
6
3
$
1
0
5
,
0
6
3
14
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(1
5
t
h
St
)
:
Flo
a
t
on
l
y
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$5
0
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
2
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
$
5
2
,
5
3
1
$
5
2
,
5
3
1
15
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(O
p
a
l
Av
e
)
:
Ga
n
g
w
a
y
& Fl
o
a
t
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
2
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
$
7
8
,
7
9
7
$
7
8
,
7
9
7
16
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(F
e
r
n
a
n
d
o
St
)
:
Ga
n
g
w
a
y
& Fl
o
a
t
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
2
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
$
7
8
,
7
9
7
$
7
8
,
7
9
7
17
P
u
b
l
i
c
Sw
i
m
Flo
a
t
(1
0
t
h
St
)
O
t
h
e
r
0
0
E
A
1
$3
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
1
$
3
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
$
3
5
,
8
7
5
$
3
5
,
8
7
5
18
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
:
TM
D
L
Co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
:
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
0
0
L
S
1
$3
0
0
,
0
0
0
*
*
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
2
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
$
3
1
5
,
1
8
8
$
3
1
5
,
1
8
8
19
Dr
e
d
g
i
n
g
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
(n
e
e
d
s
fu
r
t
h
e
r
re
v
i
e
w
)
Dr
e
d
g
i
n
g
0
0
EA
2
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
**
30
2
$2,000,000 2019 2020 $0 $0
20
D
r
e
d
g
i
n
g
:
Lo
w
e
r
Ba
y
(C
h
a
n
n
e
l
s
‐
On
g
o
i
n
g
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
)
D
r
e
d
g
i
n
g
0
0
C
Y
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
$2
5
*
*
3
0
4
$
1
6
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
2
$
1
7
,
9
3
6
,
9
5
9
1
4
,
3
4
9
,
5
6
8
$3,587,392
21
D
r
e
d
g
i
n
g
:
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
Is
l
a
n
d
Ar
e
a
(C
h
a
n
n
e
l
s
)
D
r
e
d
g
i
n
g
0
0
C
Y
1
5
,
0
0
0
$5
0
*
*
5
0
4
$
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
2
$
8
2
7
,
8
6
0
$
8
2
7
,
8
6
0
22
P
u
b
l
i
c
Be
a
c
h
e
s
(L
i
d
o
Is
l
e
Br
i
d
g
e
)
:
In
s
t
a
l
l
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
to
Be
a
c
h
B
a
y
0
0
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
4
0
2
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
$
7
8
,
7
9
7
$
7
8
,
7
9
7
23
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
St
)
:
Ga
n
g
w
a
y
& Flo
a
t
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
3
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
1
$
8
0
,
7
6
7
$
8
0
,
7
6
7
24
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(P
a
r
k
Av
e
)
:
Ga
n
g
w
a
y
& Flo
a
t
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
3
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
1
$
8
0
,
7
6
7
$
8
0
,
7
6
7
25
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(1
9
t
h
St
)
:
Ga
n
g
w
a
y
& Fl
o
a
t
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
3
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
1
$
8
0
,
7
6
7
$
8
0
,
7
6
7
26
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(C
o
r
a
l
Av
e
)
:
Ga
n
g
w
a
y
& Fl
o
a
t
P
i
e
r
s
1
9
8
5
1
9
8
5
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
3
3
2
0
3
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
1
$
8
0
,
7
6
7
$
8
0
,
7
6
7
27
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(2
9
t
h
St
)
:
Ga
n
g
w
a
y
& Fl
o
a
t
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
2
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
$
1
0
5
,
0
6
3
$
1
0
5
,
0
6
3
28
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
:
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(N
e
w
p
o
r
t
Is
l
a
n
d
Ar
e
a
)
:
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
0
0
E
A
‐
**
0
2
$
0
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
$
0
$
0
29
Fe
r
r
y
La
n
d
i
n
g
s
(A
g
a
t
e
Av
e
& Pa
l
m
St
)
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
?
Ot
h
e
r
19
3
0
0
EA
1
$0
88
75
4
$0 2020 2022 $0 $0
30
L
o
w
e
r
Ca
s
t
a
w
a
y
s
:
Bu
l
k
h
e
a
d
On
l
y
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
0
0
L
F
2
6
5
$3
,
8
0
0
*
*
8
0
4
$
1
,
0
0
7
,
0
0
0
2020
2
0
2
2
$
1
,
1
1
1
,
5
4
0
$
1
,
1
1
1
,
5
4
0
31
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(S
a
p
p
h
i
r
e
Av
e
)
:
Ga
n
g
w
a
y
& Fl
o
a
t
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
4
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
$
8
2
,
7
8
6
$
8
2
,
7
8
6
32
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(E
m
e
r
a
l
d
Av
e
)
:
Ga
n
g
w
a
y
& Fl
o
a
t
P
i
e
r
s
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
6
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
3
2
2
0
4
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
$
8
2
,
7
8
6
$
8
2
,
7
8
6
33
V
e
s
s
e
l
Se
w
a
g
e
Pu
m
p
o
u
t
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
0
0
E
A
5
$2
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
1
0
5
$
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
3
$
1
4
1
,
4
2
6
7
5
,
0
0
0
$66,426
34
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
Pe
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
Sa
n
d
No
u
r
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
S
a
n
d
2
0
1
7
C
Y
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
2
0
7
$
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
5
$
0
$
0
35
B
a
l
b
o
a
Ya
c
h
t
Ba
s
i
n
Ma
r
i
n
a
(S
l
i
p
s
)
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
S
l
i
p
s
1
9
8
5
0
S
l
i
p
s
1
7
2
$3
5
,
0
0
0
3
3
4
0
7
$
6
,
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
2022
2
0
2
5
$
7
,
1
5
5
,
8
8
8
$
7
,
1
5
5
,
8
8
8
36
D
r
e
d
g
i
n
g
(B
a
l
b
o
a
Ya
c
h
t
Ba
s
i
n
)
:
D
r
e
d
g
i
n
g
1
9
8
5
0
C
Y
2
5
,
6
0
0
$7
0
3
3
4
0
7
$
1
,
7
9
2
,
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
5
$
2
,
1
3
0
,
1
2
5
$
2
,
1
3
0
,
1
2
5
37
B
a
l
b
o
a
Is
l
a
n
d
,
N,
S,
E & GC
:
Bo
a
r
d
w
a
l
k
& Pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
Sy
s
t
e
m
on
l
y
(L
i
t
t
l
e
Is
l
a
n
d
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
~4
2
k
SF
)
Ot
h
e
r
0
0
S
F
9
2
,
0
0
0
$2
5
*
*
8
0
8
$
2
,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
6
$
2
,
8
0
2
,
3
2
7
$
2
,
8
0
2
,
3
2
7
38
Ba
l
b
o
a
Is
l
a
n
d
,
N,
S,
E & GC
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
Se
a
w
a
l
l
1
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
1
9
3
0
L
F
4
,
3
8
6
$3
,
8
0
0
8
8
8
0
8
$
1
6
,
6
6
7
,
6
6
6
2024
2
0
2
6
$
2
0
,
3
0
7
,
9
3
3
$
2
0
,
3
0
7
,
9
3
3
71
Ba
l
b
o
a
Is
l
a
n
d
,
N,
S,
E & GC
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
Se
a
w
a
l
l
2
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
1
9
3
0
L
F
4
,
3
8
6
$3
,
8
0
0
8
8
8
1
1
3
$
1
6
,
6
6
7
,
6
6
6
2024
2
0
3
1
$
2
2
,
9
7
6
,
5
6
2
$
2
2
,
9
7
6
,
5
6
2
72
Ba
l
b
o
a
Is
l
a
n
d
,
N,
S,
E & GC
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
Se
a
w
a
l
l
3
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
1
9
3
0
L
F
4
,
3
8
6
$3
,
8
0
0
8
8
8
2
1
9
$
1
6
,
6
6
7
,
6
6
6
2024
2
0
3
7
$
2
6
,
6
4
5
,
7
6
8
$
2
6
,
6
4
5
,
7
6
8
39
S
u
r
f
s
i
d
e
/
S
u
n
s
e
t
Be
a
c
h
Sa
n
d
No
u
r
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
S
a
n
d
2
0
1
7
L
S
1
$3
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
7
7
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
$
3
5
6
,
6
0
6
$
3
5
6
,
6
0
6
40
D
r
e
d
g
i
n
g
:
Up
p
e
r
Ba
y
Ca
t
c
h
Ba
s
i
n
s
D
r
e
d
g
i
n
g
2
0
0
9
0
C
Y
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
9
2
1
1
2
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
2
7
2
0
3
0
$
2
0
,
1
7
3
,
3
3
2
$
2
0
,
1
7
3
,
3
3
2
41
D
r
e
d
g
i
n
g
:
Up
p
e
r
Ba
y
Ch
a
n
n
e
l
s
D
r
e
d
g
i
n
g
2
0
0
9
C
Y
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
9
2
1
1
6
$
7
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
2
7
2
0
3
0
$
1
1
,
1
3
3
,
7
9
2
$
1
1
,
1
3
3
,
7
9
2
42
R
h
i
n
e
Wh
a
r
f
Bo
a
r
d
w
a
l
k
:
Ma
j
o
r
Re
p
a
i
r
O
t
h
e
r
0
0
L
F
1
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
1
1
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
9
$
1
9
6
,
8
1
3
$
1
9
6
,
8
1
3
43
P
u
b
l
i
c
Ba
y
Be
a
c
h
e
s
:
Sa
n
d
No
u
r
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
(2
5
k
ya
r
d
s
)
O
t
h
e
r
2
0
1
6
0
C
Y
2
5
,
0
0
0
$5
0
2
2
5
1
3
$
1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
2
8
2
0
3
1
$
1
,
7
2
3
,
1
3
9
$
1
,
7
2
3
,
1
3
9
44
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(1
5
t
h
St
)
:
Pi
e
r
& Ga
n
g
w
a
y
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$1
1
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
1
6
$
1
1
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
4
$
1
7
0
,
7
1
8
$
1
7
0
,
7
1
8
45
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(C
o
r
a
l
Av
e
)
:
Pi
e
r
on
l
y
P
i
e
r
s
1
9
8
5
1
9
8
5
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
3
3
2
0
1
6
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
4
$
1
1
1
,
3
3
8
$
1
1
1
,
3
3
8
46
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(E
m
e
r
a
l
d
Av
e
)
:
Pi
e
r
on
l
y
P
i
e
r
s
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
6
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
3
2
2
0
1
6
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
4
$
1
1
1
,
3
3
8
$
1
1
1
,
3
3
8
47
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(F
e
r
n
a
n
d
o
St
)
:
Pi
e
r
on
l
y
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
1
6
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
4
$
1
1
1
,
3
3
8
$
1
1
1
,
3
3
8
48
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(M
St
)
:
Pi
e
r
on
l
y
P
i
e
r
s
1
9
8
5
1
9
8
5
E
A
1
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
3
3
2
0
1
6
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
4
$
1
4
8
,
4
5
1
$
1
4
8
,
4
5
1
49
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(O
p
a
l
Av
e
)
:
Pi
e
r
on
l
y
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
1
6
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
4
$
1
1
1
,
3
3
8
$
1
1
1
,
3
3
8
50
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(P
a
r
k
Av
e
)
:
Pie
r
on
l
y
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
1
6
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
4
$
1
1
1
,
3
3
8
$
1
1
1
,
3
3
8
51
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(S
a
p
p
h
i
r
e
Av
e
)
:
Pi
e
r
on
l
y
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
1
6
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
4
$
1
1
1
,
3
3
8
$
1
1
1
,
3
3
8
52
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
St
)
:
Pie
r
on
l
y
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
*
*
2
0
1
6
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
4
$
1
1
1
,
3
3
8
$
1
1
1
,
3
3
8
53
E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
Je
t
t
y
:
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
O
t
h
e
r
1
9
3
6
0
L
F
3
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
8
2
5
0
1
8
$
3
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2033
2
0
3
6
$
4
,
6
7
8
,
9
7
6
$
4
,
6
7
8
,
9
7
6
54
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
(A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
Le
g
i
o
n
)
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
1
9
5
7
0
L
F
3
3
6
$3
,
8
0
0
6
1
8
0
1
9
$
1
,
2
7
6
,
8
0
0
2034
2
0
3
7
$
2
,
0
4
1
,
1
5
7
$
2
,
0
4
1
,
1
5
7
HA
R
B
O
R
&
BE
A
C
H
E
S
MA
S
T
E
R
PL
A
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
S
I:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
F
I
N
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
\
F
u
n
d
s
\
2
4
0
_
T
i
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
_
1
0
1
\
H
a
r
b
o
r
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
\
H
a
r
b
o
r
an
d
Be
a
c
h
e
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
v2
0
1
8
_
0
3
_
1
5
2 of 4
Re
f
#
P
r
o
j
G
L
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
YR
Bu
i
l
t
L
a
s
t
Re
f
u
r
b
.
Un
i
t
s
Me
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
To
t
a
l
Un
i
t
s
To
d
a
y
'
s
To
t
a
l
Co
s
t
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Ag
e
:
Us
e
f
u
l
Li
f
e
Y
e
a
r
s
to
Start Project Estimate FY Design Start YearFY Const Start YearFV Cost Est @2.5% Growth External Contributions Net Proposed Cost
55
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(R
h
i
n
e
Ch
a
n
n
e
l
)
:
Fl
o
a
t
on
l
y
P
i
e
r
s
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
7
E
A
1
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
1
9
$
1
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
3
4
2
0
3
7
$
2
7
9
,
7
6
4
$
2
7
9
,
7
6
4
56
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
(R
h
i
n
e
Ch
a
n
n
e
l
)
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
1
9
6
0
0
L
F
3
7
5
$3
,
8
0
0
5
8
8
0
2
2
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
0
0
0
2037
2
0
4
0
$
2
,
4
5
3
,
2
3
9
$
2
,
4
5
3
,
2
3
9
57
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(G
r
a
n
d
Ca
n
a
l
,
Ba
l
b
o
a
Av
e
)
:
Pi
e
r
Pl
a
t
f
o
r
m
P
i
e
r
s
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
2
E
A
1
$1
0
,
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
3
7
2
0
3
8
$
1
6
,
3
8
6
$
1
6
,
3
8
6
58
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
(W
e
s
t
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
)
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
0
0
L
F
1
,
7
2
2
$3
,
8
0
0
*
*
8
0
2
3
$
6
,
5
4
3
,
6
0
0
2038
2
0
4
1
$
1
1
,
5
4
6
,
9
0
6
$
1
1
,
5
4
6
,
9
0
6
59
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
(C
o
r
o
n
a
De
l
Ma
r
)
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
0
0
L
F
1
7
5
$3
,
8
0
0
*
*
8
0
2
7
$
6
6
5
,
0
0
0
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
5
$
1
,
2
9
5
,
2
8
7
$
1
,
2
9
5
,
2
8
7
60
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
(P
r
o
m
o
n
t
o
r
y
Ba
y
)
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
1
9
6
5
0
L
F
1
,
1
5
8
$3
,
8
0
0
5
3
8
0
2
7
$
4
,
4
0
0
,
4
0
0
2042
2
0
4
5
$
8
,
5
7
1
,
0
9
9
$
8
,
5
7
1
,
0
9
9
61
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(R
h
i
n
e
Ch
a
n
n
e
l
)
:
Ga
n
g
w
a
y
on
l
y
P
i
e
r
s
0
0
E
A
1
$6
0
,
0
0
0
*
*
4
0
2
9
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
4
4
2
0
4
7
$
1
2
2
,
7
8
4
$
1
2
2
,
7
8
4
62
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
(R
h
i
n
e
Wh
a
r
f
)
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
0
0
L
F
3
4
3
$3
,
8
0
0
*
*
8
0
3
1
$
1
,
3
0
3
,
4
0
0
2046
2
0
4
9
$
2
,
8
0
2
,
3
1
9
$
2
,
8
0
2
,
3
1
9
63
M
a
r
i
n
a
Pa
r
k
Sl
i
p
s
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
S
l
i
p
s
2
0
1
5
0
E
A
2
3
$4
0
,
0
0
0
3
4
0
3
7
$
9
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
5
2
2
0
5
5
$
2
,
2
9
3
,
8
8
1
$
2
,
2
9
3
,
8
8
1
64
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
(S
t
r
e
e
t
En
d
s
‐
Pe
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
)
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
0
0
L
F
2
,
2
1
7
$3
,
8
0
0
*
*
8
0
3
8
$
8
,
4
2
4
,
6
0
0
2053
2
0
5
6
$
2
1
,
5
3
0
,
6
0
2
$
2
1
,
5
3
0
,
6
0
2
65
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(B
a
l
b
o
a
Ma
r
i
n
a
We
s
t
)
:
Fl
o
a
t
on
l
y
P
i
e
r
s
2
0
1
7
0
E
A
1
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
4
0
3
9
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
5
4
2
0
5
7
$
5
2
3
,
9
1
5
$
5
2
3
,
9
1
5
66
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(B
a
l
b
o
a
Ma
r
i
n
a
We
s
t
)
:
Ga
n
g
w
a
y
P
i
e
r
s
2
0
1
7
0
E
A
1
$5
0
,
0
0
0
1
4
1
4
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
5
5
2
0
5
8
$
1
3
4
,
2
5
3
$
1
3
4
,
2
5
3
67
P
u
b
l
i
c
Pi
e
r
(C
e
n
t
r
a
l
Av
e
)
:
Ga
n
g
w
a
y
an
d
Fl
o
a
t
P
i
e
r
s
2
0
1
7
0
E
A
1
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
1
4
0
3
9
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
5
5
2
0
5
7
$
6
5
4
,
8
9
4
$
6
5
4
,
8
9
4
68
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
(B
a
l
b
o
a
Ya
c
h
t
Ba
s
i
n
)
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
1
9
8
5
0
L
F
1
,
3
7
0
$3
,
8
0
0
3
3
8
0
4
7
$
5
,
2
0
6
,
0
0
0
2063
2
0
6
5
$
1
6
,
6
1
5
,
9
7
5
$
1
6
,
6
1
5
,
9
7
5
69
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
(M
a
r
i
n
a
Pa
r
k
)
:
Re
p
l
a
c
e
B
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
2
0
1
5
0
L
F
8
5
7
$3
,
8
0
0
3
8
0
7
7
$
3
,
2
5
6
,
6
0
0
2093
2
0
9
5
$
2
1
,
8
0
2
,
2
8
7
$
2
1
,
8
0
2
,
2
8
7
70
L
a
n
d
Ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
fo
r
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
La
u
n
c
h
Ra
m
p
O
t
h
e
r
0
E
A
1
$0
*
*
8
0
5
$
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
3
$
0
$
0
TO
T
A
L
$151,148,534
$
2
4
2
,
1
1
4
,
5
2
0
$15,244,568
$
2
2
7
,
2
9
0
,
9
5
2
I:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
F
I
N
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
\
F
u
n
d
s
\
2
4
0
_
T
i
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
_
1
0
1
\
H
a
r
b
o
r
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
\
H
a
r
b
o
r
an
d
Be
a
c
h
e
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
v2
0
1
8
_
0
3
_
1
5
3 of 4
34
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
20
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
8
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
1
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
3
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
AS
S
U
M
P
T
I
O
N
S
Ti
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Fu
n
d
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
2,3
1
6
,
6
6
4
2,
3
5
1
,
4
1
4
2,
3
8
6
,
6
8
6
2,4
2
2
,
4
8
6
2,
4
5
8
,
8
2
3
2,4
9
5
,
7
0
6
2,
5
3
3
,
1
4
1
2,5
7
1
,
1
3
8
2,609,705
2,648,851 2,688,584 2,728,912 2,769,846 2,811,394 2,853,565
Gr
o
w
t
h
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
1.
5
0
%
1
.
5
0
%
1
.
5
0
%
1
.
5
0
%
1
.
5
0
%
1
.
5
0
%
1
.
5
0
%
1
.
5
0
%
1
.
5
0
%
1
.
5
0
%
1
.
5
0
%
1
.
5
0
%
1
.
5
0
%
1
.
5
0
%
1
.
5
0
%
HA
R
B
O
R
CA
P
I
T
A
L
SO
U
R
C
E
S
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
Ha
r
b
o
r
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
15
,
3
1
0
,
4
0
2
20
,
5
1
3
,
8
8
3
24
,
3
9
0
,
3
5
5
28
,
9
8
1
,
3
5
1
33
,
8
4
9
,
3
5
2
35
,
4
0
3
,
2
9
9
39
,
2
1
0
,
0
2
2
45
,
0
0
5
,
6
5
2
44,212,324
34,986,470 33,120,071 39,788,973 43,278,926 30,790,999 13,560,064
So
u
r
c
e
s
In
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
2
,
3
1
6
,
6
6
4
2,
3
5
1
,
4
1
4
2,
3
8
6
,
6
8
6
2,4
2
2
,
4
8
6
2,
4
5
8
,
8
2
3
2,4
9
5
,
7
0
6
2,
5
3
3
,
1
4
1
2,5
7
1
,
1
3
8
2,609,705
2,648,851 2,688,584 2,728,912 2,769,846 2,811,394 2,853,565
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
Ea
r
n
i
n
g
s
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Fu
n
d
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
2,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
3,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
4,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
6,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
6,0
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,5
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,500,000
4,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000
Pe
r
i
o
d
i
c
GF
or
On
e
‐tim
e
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Gr
a
n
t
s
82
,
0
0
0
45
1
,
0
0
0
28
7
,
0
0
0
1,4
3
4
,
9
5
7
7,
8
9
9
,
7
6
2
5,0
6
3
,
5
9
9
26
,
2
5
0
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
To
t
a
l
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
6,
3
9
8
,
6
6
4
6,
3
0
2
,
4
1
4
7,1
7
3
,
6
8
6
9,
3
5
7
,
4
4
3
16
,
3
5
8
,
5
8
5
13
,
5
5
9
,
3
0
4
8,0
5
9
,
3
9
1
8,
0
7
1
,
1
3
8
8,109,705
7,148,851 7,188,584 7,228,912 7,269,846 7,311,394 7,353,565
Us
e
s
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
(1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
(1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
)
(1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
)
(1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
)
(1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
)
(1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
)
(1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
)
(1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
)
(1,250,000)
(926,659) (500,000) (500,000)
‐
‐
‐
Ot
h
e
r
Fis
c
a
l
Ch
a
r
g
e
s
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Us
e
s
(1
9
5
,
1
8
3
)
(1
,
1
7
5
,
9
4
2
)
(1
,
3
3
2
,
6
8
9
)
(3
,
2
3
9
,
4
4
2
)
(1
3
,
5
5
4
,
6
3
8
)
(8
,
5
0
2
,
5
8
1
)
(1
,
0
1
3
,
7
6
1
)
(7
,
6
1
4
,
4
6
6
)
(1
6
,
0
8
5
,
5
5
9
)
(8,088,591) (19,681) (3,238,960) (19,757,773) (24,542,329) (8,644,895)
Le
s
s
:
Ca
s
h
Pr
o
j
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
To
t
a
l
Us
e
s
:
(1
,
1
9
5
,
1
8
3
)
(2
,
4
2
5
,
9
4
2
)
(2
,
5
8
2
,
6
8
9
)
(4
,
4
8
9
,
4
4
2
)
(1
4
,
8
0
4
,
6
3
8
)
(9
,
7
5
2
,
5
8
1
)
(2
,
2
6
3
,
7
6
1
)
(8
,
8
6
4
,
4
6
6
)
(1
7
,
3
3
5
,
5
5
9
)
(9,015,250) (519,681) (3,738,960) (19,757,773) (24,542,329) (8,644,895)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Ha
r
b
o
r
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
20
,
5
1
3
,
8
8
3
24
,
3
9
0
,
3
5
5
28
,
9
8
1
,
3
5
1
33
,
8
4
9
,
3
5
2
35
,
4
0
3
,
2
9
9
39
,
2
1
0
,
0
2
2
45
,
0
0
5
,
6
5
2
44
,
2
1
2
,
3
2
4
34,986,470
33,120,071 39,788,973 43,278,926 30,790,999 13,560,064 12,268,733
HA
R
B
O
R
& BE
A
C
H
E
S
MA
S
T
E
R
PL
A
N
SO
U
R
C
E
S
AN
D
US
E
S
PR
O
F
O
R
M
A
4 of 4
I:\Users\FIN\Shared\Admin\Finance Committee\WORKPLAN\2018\2018 FC Workplan 1
Updated 3/12/2018
Scheduled Date Agenda Title Agenda Description
Tuesday, January 09, 2018 Council Study Session 9th - Economic Overview (Optional)Broad Local Economic Overview to be provided by Beacon Economics.
Thursday, January 11, 2018 Risk Based Reserve Analysis Overview Consultant will provide an update and overview of the Risk -based Reserve
Analysis.
Consultant Overview of Property and Sales Tax Revenues Consulting specialists in Property and Sales Tax will provide an overview of
revenue prospects.
Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF)City staff will provide an update on efforts to improve the City's Long Range
Financial Forecast and provide a comparative review of best practices to other
cities.
Review of Finance Committee Resolution The Committee will review its objectives as set forth in Council resolution 94-
110 as amended by 2017-58.
Review of Finance Committee Workplan Staff will review with the Committee the agenda topics scheduled for the
remainder of the fiscal year and highlight those work plan items that were carried forward from the prior fiscal year. The Committee will also consider setting up a subcommittee to review finance related Council Policies.
Monday, January, 29, 2018 Council Goal Setting Session - (FYI Only)
Thursday, February 15, 2018
Create a Subcommittee to Review Council Finance Policies
The Finance Committee will consider the creation of a Finance Subcommittee
to review Council Finance policies,discuss membership,scope of work and
timeline.
Risk-Based Reserve Subcommitte Update Discuss Finance Committee progress since the last meeting.
Debt Policy Review Subcommittee Update Subcommittee will discuss revisions of Debt Policy and discuss next steps.
Review of Police Department Budget to Actual Results
In preparation of the 2018-2019 Budget,staff will review budget assumptions
against actual results for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 and pertinent updates
concerning the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 to date.
Year-End Closing Results Staff will present year-end closing results for Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
Pension Discussion
Agenda item reserved for discussion regarding the status of the City's pensionliability, payment strategies, CalPERS policy updates and or advocacy efforts.
Review of Finance Committee WorkPlan
Staff will review with the Committee the agenda topics scheduled for the
remainder ofthe fiscal year and highlightthose work plan items carriedforward
from the prior fiscal year.The Committee will also consider setting up a
subcommittee to review finance related Council Policies.
MARCH
Thursday, March 15, 2018 Audit Closing The City’s external audit firm, White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP will meet with the
Finance Committee to discuss the audit findings for the fiscal year ending
6/30/2017. The committee will have an opportunity to discuss any potential
areas of concern and the auditors can discuss any changes in accounting
standards or disclosures that were relevant for the audit year.
Harbor & Beaches Master Plan Review Harbor & Beaches Master Plan for financial solvency based on known
Council Priorities
Review of Fire Department Budget to Actual Results In preparation of the 2018-19 Budget, staff will review budget assumptions against actual results for fiscal year 2016-17.
Facilities Financial Plan Review Facilities Financial Plan for financial solvency based on known Council
Priorities
Pension Discussion
Agenda item reserved for discussion regarding the status of the City's pension
liability, payment strategies, CalPERS policy updates and or advocacy efforts.
APRIL
Thursday, April 5, 2018 Submit Budget Documents to Finance Committee - Information
Only ** NOT A MEETING DATE **
Information Only - Not a meeting date.
Thursday, April 12, 2018 Finance Committee Budget Review
MAY
Thursday, May 10, 2018 Finance Committee Budget Review
Agreed Upon Audit Procedures for Internal Control The Finance Department is working with the City’s audit firm, White Nelson
Diehl Evans LLP, to develop agreed upon procedures for the audit of the City’s
internal control processes and procedures. Staff will present these agreed
upon procedures for the Finance Committee’s review.
Harbor & Beaches Master Plan Review Harbor & Beaches Master Plan for financial solvency based on known
Council Priorities
Tuesday May 22, 2018 Council Budget Study Session (Joint FC Study Session ?)
Thursday, May 31, 2018 Reserved For Policy Discussion(s)
JUNE
Tuesday, June 12, 2018 Council Budget Adoption For Information Purposes Only - Not a Finance Committee Meeting Date
Thursday June 14, 2018 Reserved For Policy Discussion(s)
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
City of Newport Beach Finance Committee Work Plan 2017-18 - DRAFT