Agenda 11/20/2001 RPV, City, Council, Meeting, 2001, Agenda RPV City Council Meeting Agenda for 11/20/2001 Rancho Palos Verdes, City Council Agenda November 20, 2001
November 20, 2001

DISCLAIMER

The following City Council agenda includes text only version of the staff reports associated with the business matters to be brought before for the City Council at its Regular Meeting of this date. Changes to the staff reports may be necessary prior to the actual City Council meeting. The City Council may elect to delete or continue business matters at the beginning of the City Council Meeting. Additionally, staff reports attachments, including but not limited to, pictures, plans, drawings, spreadsheet presentations, financial statements and correspondences are not included. The attachments are available for review with the official agenda package at the Reception area at City Hall.

...end of disclaimer...

** CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
**CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTS


BEGINNING OF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

This agenda has been prepared to provide for the orderly progression of City business. Detailed staff reports on specific items are posted in the hallway for public viewing. The City Council wants to hear your comments, however, to run the meeting efficiently, please observe the following rules when you participate in the meeting.

Please try to submit your REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL form to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called at the appropriate time to make your remarks.

For the sake of efficiency, the City Council agenda is divided into several sections:

Consent Calendar: This section consists of routine items which, unless a request has been received from the public, council or staff to remove a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the City Council. If you wish to speak to any Consent Calendar item(s) you will be limited to three minutes.

Public Hearings: This section is devoted to noticed hearings. Although the normal time limit is three minutes for each speaker, the Mayor may grant additional time to a representative speaking for an entire group; however, this should not discourage anyone from addressing the City Council individually.

Regular Business: This section contains items of general business and you will be allowed three minutes to speak on any item.

Public Comments: This part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which are NOT on the agenda. If you have submitted a request to speak, you will be called by the City Clerk at the appropriate time and you may speak for up to three minutes. Please limit your comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Due to State law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Public Comments. If action by the City Council is necessary, the matter may be placed on a future agenda or referred to staff, as determined by Council.

Please make your remarks at the lectern microphone and direct your comments to the City Council and not to the staff or the public.

Conduct at the Council Meeting: The City Council has adopted a set of rules for conduct during City Council meetings. The following is an excerpt from those adopted Rules of Procedure:

Section 6.3 The Mayor shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person(s) who commits the following acts at a regular or special meeting of the City Council:

1. Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Council or any member thereof, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting.

2. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting.

3. Disobedience of any lawful order of the Mayor which shall include an order to be seated or to refrain from addressing the Council.

4. Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly course of the meeting.




RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

NOVEMBER 20, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD



6:00 P.M.CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS.

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-93

NEXT ORD. NO. 371

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:



1. Motion to waive full reading.
Recommendation: Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all council members after the reading of the title.


2. Engineering Services For Signal Design. (Allison).
Recommendation: 1) Award a professional services contract to Willdan Associates for the design of the new traffic signal at Vallon Drive, in the amount of $11,755. 2) Authorize staff to spend the contract amount plus an additional $1,245 for possible extra services for a total authorization of $13,000. 3) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Willdan Associates, Inc.


3. Annual Destruction of Records. (Purcell)
Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 34090 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN CHANGES TO EXISTING RETENTION SCHEDULES, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2000-85.


4. Claim Against The City by John Shahin. (Purcell)
Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of Council’s action.


5. Claim Against The City by Steve Finazzo. (Purcell)
Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of Council’s action.


6. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.)


(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)


REGULAR BUSINESS:




7. Address Curb Painting. (Allison).
Recommendation: 1) Authorize staff to include address curb painting in the Annual Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program. 2) Direct staff to deny future requests for an encroachment permit for address curb painting.


8. Comment Letter To The Regional Water Quality Control Board On The Draft Storm Water Permit. (Allison).
Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, outlining the City’s concerns with the proposed storm water permit.


9. GASB Statement No. 34 Implementation. (Downs).
Recommendation: 1) Adopt the depreciation reporting method for the entire infrastructure of the City. 2) Award a professional services contract to Harris & Associates for the valuation of infrastructure assets for implementation of GASB Statement No. 34, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a professional services agreement with Harris & Associates. 4) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND.


10. Ordinance establishing regulations applicable to skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, and scooters upon public and private property. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance No. ____ , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES, INLINE SKATES AND SCOOTERS UPON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.)



ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.


CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST


Based on Government Code Section 54954.5
(All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections)


CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR


G.C. 54956.8

Potential purchase of open space.

Property: Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029,

7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022

City Negotiators: City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement,
Keith Lenard, Palos Verdes Land Conservancy.

Negotiating Parties: York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

Property: APN 7564-005-001, 7572-001-001 TO 004, 06 AND 07, 7581-023-011

City Negotiators: City Manager Les Evans, City Attorney Carol Lynch, and Public
Works Director Dean Allison,
Keith Lenard, Palos Verdes Land Conservancy.

Negotiating Parties: Barry Hon and Michael Walker.

Under Negotiation:Price and Terms of Payment


CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL

Anticipated Litigation:
(G.C 54956.9(b)

A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council/Agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City Council/Agency.

_______2________
(Number of Potential Cases)

  1. Claim against the City by Chandler’s Palos Verdes Sand and Gravel Inc.
  2. Letter received from Ledsam Contracting, Inc., to Public Works Director Dean Allison. (Said letter on file with the City Clerk’s Office.)

View the agenda at www.palosverdes.com/RPV or
A full copy of the agenda package is at the counter at Hesse Park.


RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

NOVEMBER 20, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD



6:00 P.M.CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS.

7:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2001-93

NEXT ORD. NO. 371

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:




1. Motion to waive full reading.

Recommendation: Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all council members after the reading of the title.





2. Engineering Services For Signal Design. (Allison).

Recommendation: 1) Award a professional services contract to Willdan Associates for the design of the new traffic signal at Vallon Drive, in the amount of $11,755. 2) Authorize staff to spend the contract amount plus an additional $1,245 for possible extra services for a total authorization of $13,000. 3) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Willdan Associates, Inc.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2001

SUBJECT: ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR SIGNAL DESIGN

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Award a professional service contract to Willdan Associates for the design of the new traffic signal at Vallon Drive, in an amount of $11,755.
  2. Authorize staff to spend the contract amount plus an additional $1,245 for possible extra services for a total authorization of $13,000.
  3. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Willdan Associates, Inc.

BACKGROUND

On September 18, 2001 the City Council approved the installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive. To obtain the required engineering services, the Public Works Department requested a proposal from two firms capable of providing the needed services. Proposals were received and reviewed on November 2, 2001.

DISCUSSION

Proposals were received from Willdan Associates, Inc. and Norris-Repke, Inc. The proposals were evaluated on the following criteria:

  1. Understanding of project as demonstrated by the thoroughness of the proposal, the introduction of innovative or cost-saving Ideas and approach.
  2. Experience of key individual assigned to the contract.
  3. Experience of firm in performing this type of service.
  4. References from clients for whom similar work was performed.
  5. Depth of staff available to perform services as established by the project Schedule.
  6. Previous work in RPV performed by the firm.
  7. Previous work in RPV performed by members of the team.
  8. Previous work on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

Willdan and Associates, was determined to be the more qualified firm. The principal reason is that Willdan Associates demonstrated a better understanding of the City’s desire to evaluate decorative signal systems.

At the September 18, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council requested that staff present several options for the traffic signal poles and mast arms rather than the standard metallic poles currently used. Through their proposal Willdan and Associates demonstrated that they have experience in designing such systems.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will result in awarding an engineering contract to Willdan and Associates for the design of a new traffic signal on Hawthorne Boulevard at Vallon Drive.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS

One alternative is to award the contract to Norris-Repke Inc. Staff recommends against this alternative because the proposal submitted by Willdan demonstrated a better understanding of the project.

A second alternative is to solicit additional proposals. Staff recommends against this alternative since there is not likely that lower design costs would be achieved, and the process to re-circulate the request for proposals will increase administrative costs, and delay the project.

FISCAL IMPACT

The adopted budget as modified by Resolution 2001 - 78 includes funding for the recommended action. The funding source for this project is the general fund. This project is gas tax eligible, however, the City’s Gas Taxes Funds are fully committed to programs and projects.

Submitted by,

Dean E. Allison
Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,

Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Professional Service Agreement


PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 20th day of November 2001, by and between CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Willdan Associates, hereafter referred to as "CONSULTANT".

IN CONSIDERATION of the covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1
SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.1 Project Description

The Project is described as follows:

Design of Traffic Signal at Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive




1.2 Description of Services

CONSULTANT shall perform Services described in CONSULTANT’S Proposal dated November 5, 2001. That proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference

1.3 Schedule of Work

A copy of the project schedule is included in exhibit "A".

Upon receipt of written Notice to Proceed from the CITY, CONSULTANT shall perform with due diligence the Services described in the CONSULTANT's Proposal in the section entitled Statement of Understanding and Scope of Work. CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall CONSULTANT be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of CITY to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove CONSULTANT's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by CITY, other contractors, or governmental agencies, or any other delays beyond CONSULTANT'S control or without CONSULTANT'S fault.

ARTICLE 2
COMPENSATION

2.1 Fee

CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT an Amount Not To Exceed $11,755.00 as indicated and further described in Exhibit "B".

2.2 Payment Address

All payments due CONSULTANT shall be paid to:

City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

2.3 Terms of Compensation

CONSULTANT will submit invoices monthly for the percentage of work completed in the previous month. CITY agrees to pay all undisputed invoice amounts within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. CITY agrees to notify CONSULTANT of any disputed invoice amounts within ten (10) days of the receipt of invoice.

Additionally, in the event CITY fails to pay any undisputed amounts due CONSULTANT within forty-five (45) days after invoices are received by CITY then CITY agrees that CONSULTANT shall have the right to consider said default a total breach of this Agreement and be terminated by CONSULTANT without liability to CONSULTANT upon ten (10) working days advance written notice.

2.4 Additional Services

CITY may request in writing that CONSULTANT perform additional services not covered by the specific Scope of Work set forth in this Agreement, and CONSULTANT shall perform such services and will be paid for such additional services in accordance with CONSULTANT's Standard Schedule of Hourly Rates attached as part of Exhibit "C".

ARTICLE 3
INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

3.1 Indemnification

CONSULTANT will defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its Boards and its officers, employees and agents (collectively "CITY"), against any claim, loss or liability that arises because of the sole or primary negligence or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its agents, officers, directors or employees, in performing any of the services under this Agreement.

3.2 General Liability

CONSULTANT shall at all times during the term of the Agreement carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect, a policy or policies of Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, with minimum limits of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence and in the aggregate, combined single limit, against any personal injury, death, loss or damage resulting from the wrongful or negligent acts by CONSULTANT. Said policy or policies shall be issued by an insurer rated in Best's Insurance Guide with a rating of B+ or better.

3.3 Professional Liability

CONSULTANT shall at all times during the term of this Agreement, carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect a policy or policies of professional liability insurance with a minimum limit of one million ($1,000,000.00) dollars.

3.4 Worker's Compensation

CONSULTANT agrees to maintain in force at all times during the performance of work under this Agreement worker's compensation insurance as required by the law. CONSULTANT shall require any subcontractor similarly to provide such compensation insurance for their respective employees.

3.5 Notice of Cancellation

A. All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be canceled by the insurance carrier without thirty (30) days prior written notice to CITY. CONSULTANT agrees that it will not cancel or reduce said insurance coverage.

B. CONSULTANT agrees that if it does not keep the aforesaid insurance in full force and effect, CITY may either immediately terminate this Agreement or, if insurance is available at a reasonable cost, CITY may take out the necessary insurance and pay, at CONSULTANT's expense, the premium thereon.

3.6 Certificate of Insurance

At all times during the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall maintain on file with the City Clerk a certificate of insurance showing that the aforesaid policies are in effect in the required amounts. The comprehensive general liability policy or policies shall contain an endorsement naming the CITY as an additional insured.

3.7 Primary Coverage

The insurance provided by CONSULTANT shall be primary to any coverage available to city. The insurance policies (other than workers' compensation and professional liability) shall include provisions for waiver of subrogation.

ARTICLE 4
TERMINATION

4.1 Termination of Agreement

(a) This Agreement may be terminated at any time, with or without cause, by either party upon sixty (60) days prior written notice. Notice shall be deemed served upon deposit in the United States Mail of a certified or registered letter, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the other party, or upon personal service of such notice to the other party, at the address set forth in Article 6.12.

(b) In the event of termination or cancellation of this Agreement by CONSULTANT or CITY, due to no fault or failure of performance by CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall be paid compensation for all services performed by CONSULTANT, in an amount to be determined as follows: for work done in accordance with all of the terms and provisions of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall be paid an amount equal to the amount of services performed prior to the effective date of termination or cancellation in accordance with the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "D"; provided, in no event shall the amount of money paid under the foregoing provisions of this paragraph exceed the amount which would have been paid to CONSULTANT for the full performance of the services described in Article 2.1.

ARTICLE 5
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS

5.1 Ownership of Documents and Work Product

All plans, specifications, reports and other design documents prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of service, which shall be deemed the property of the CITY. CITY acknowledges and agrees that all plans, specifications, reports and other design documents prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement shall be used exclusively on this Project and shall not be used for any other work without the written consent of CONSULTANT. In the event CITY and CONSULTANT permit the reuse or other use of the plans, specifications, reports or other design documents, CITY shall require the party using them to indemnify and hold harmless CITY and CONSULTANT regarding such reuse or other use, and CITY shall require the party using them to eliminate any and all references to CONSULTANT from the plans, specifications, reports and other design documents. If a document is prepared by CONSULTANT on a computer, CONSULTANT shall prepare such document in a Word Perfect 5.1 format; in addition, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with said document both in a printed format and on a three and one-half inch (3- 1/2") floppy diskette. The initial draft documents shall be submitted with six (6) copies. The final documents are to be submitted with six (6) copies, appropriately bound for making other copies. One copy of all survey and supporting data shall be submitted with the final documents.

ARTICLE 6
GENERAL PROVISIONS

6.1 Representation

A CITY representative shall be designated by the City Manager and a CONSULTANT representative shall be designated by CONSULTANT as the primary contact person for each party regarding performance of this Agreement.

6.2 Fair Employment Practices/Equal Opportunity Acts.

In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Fair Employment Practices Act (California Government Code Sections 12940-48) and the applicable equal employment provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 200e-217), whichever is more restrictive.

6.3 Personnel

CONSULTANT represents that it has, or shall secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform CONSULTANT's services under this Agreement. Any person who performs engineering services pursuant to this Agreement shall be licensed as a Civil Engineer by the State of California and in good standing. CONSULTANT shall make reasonable efforts to maintain the continuity of CONSULTANT's staff who are assigned to perform the services hereunder and shall obtain the approval of the Director of Public Works of all proposed staff members who will perform such services. CONSULTANT may associate with or employ associates or subconsultants in the performance of its services under this Agreement, but at all times shall be responsible for their services.

6.4 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

CONSULTANT agrees not to accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make CONSULTANT "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code Section 1090 and 87100) in any decisions made by City on any matter in connection with which Consultant has been retained pursuant to this Agreement.

6.5 Legal Action

Should either party to this Agreement bring legal action against the other, the case shall be handled in Los Angeles County, California, and the party prevailing in such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fee which shall be fixed by the judge hearing the case and such fee shall be included in the judgment.

Should any legal action about the Project between CITY and a party other than CONSULTANT require the testimony of CONSULTANT when there is no allegation that CONSULTANT was negligent, CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for its testimony and preparation to testify at the hourly rates in effect at the time of such testimony.

6.6 Attorney's Fees

In the event of litigation between the parties arising out of or connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to recover, in addition to any other amounts, actual attorney's fees and costs of such litigation.

6.7 Assignment

This Agreement shall not be assignable by either party without the prior written consent of the other party.

Notwithstanding the above, CONSULTANT may use the services of persons and entities not in their employ, when it is appropriate and customary to do so. Such persons and entities include, but are not necessarily limited to, surveyors, specialized consultants, and testing laboratories. CONSULTANT'S use of others for additional services shall not be unreasonably restricted by the CITY provided CONSULTANT notifies the CITY in advance.

6.8 Independent Consultant

CONSULTANT is and shall at all times remain, as to the CITY, a wholly independent CONSULTANT. Neither the CITY nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of CONSULTANT or any of the CONSULTANT's employees, except as herein set forth. CONSULTANT expressly warrants not to, at any time or in any manner, represent that it, or any of its agents, servants or employees, are in any manner agents, servants or employees of CITY, it being distinctly understood that CONSULTANT is, and shall at all times remain to CITY, a wholly independent contractor and CONSULTANT's obligations to CITY are solely such as are prescribed by this Agreement.

6.9 Hazardous Materials

Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, CONSULTANT and its subconsultants and/or contractors shall have no responsibility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal or disposal of, or exposure of persons to hazardous materials in any form at the site of the Project.

6.10 Titles

The titles used in this Agreement are for general reference only and are not part of the Agreement.

6.11 Extent of Agreement

This Agreement represents the entire and integrated Agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a subsequent written agreement signed by both parties.

6.12 Notices

All notices pertaining to this Agreement shall be in writing and addressed as follows:

If to CONSULTANT:

Lew Gluesing
Willdan
13191 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 405
Industry, CA 91746-3497

If to CITY:

Mr. Dean Allison, Director of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written.

 

Dated:_________________ ________________________________

BY:______________

Title

Dated:___________________

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
A Municipal Corporation

BY:

_________________
MAYOR

City of Rancho Palos Verdes

ATTEST:
_______________
CITY CLERK



3. Annual Destruction of Records. (Purcell)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 34090 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN CHANGES TO EXISTING RETENTION SCHEDULES, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2000-85.

MEMORANDUM

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2001

SUBJECT: ANNUAL DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS

RECOMMENDATION

ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 34090 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN CHANGES TO EXISTING RETENTION SCHEDULES, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2000-85.

INTRODUCTION

Adoption of this proposed resolution will permit the destruction of records in accordance with the records retention policy adopted by the City Council and amend the retention schedules for the Finance Department and the Building, Planning and Code Enforcement Department.

BACKGROUND

In 1985 the City established a records management program to eliminate the unnecessary build-up of records and to maintain an inventory of both active and inactive records. That program was put in place after retention and destruction schedules were devised to facilitate the orderly and efficient transfer, retention and destruction of records. These schedules were set to satisfy administrative, legal, State and Federal requirements for records retention. Since the establishment of this program, records reaching their maximum retention period have been destroyed on an annual basis.

The Finance Department has extended the retention period for Record Series No. 9 (Cancelled Checks) from five to seven years. This change was made to meet audit requirements. The Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Department has changed the retention for a number of their records: Series Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 22 to a "permanent" status. Apparently, those records have never been destroyed, and the schedule has now been changed to reflect the actual departmental practice of retaining these records.

ALTERNATIVES

1.Maintain these inactive records.
2.Consider off-site additional storage space.

CONCLUSION

The City has a records management program and has adopted official retention and destruction schedules that allows for the annual destruction of records in accordance with those schedules.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Atts:
Resol. No. 2001 – __ Records Destruction
Retention Schedules
Destruction Schedules


RESOLUTION NO. 2001-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 34090 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN CHANGES TO EXISTING RETENTION SCHEDULES AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2000-85.

WHEREAS on March 19, 1985 the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Retention and Destruction Schedules to facilitate the orderly and efficient transfer, retention and destruction of the records of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes; and

WHEREAS, certain retention schedules were revised with the adoption of Resolution No.2000-85; and

WHEREAS, it is now deemed necessary to make certain changes to the retention schedules for the Finance Department and the Planning, Building & Code Enforcement Department.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Destruction of City Records: The records of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as set forth in the approved departmental Destruction Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are hereby authorized to be destroyed as provided by Section 34090 of the Government Code.

Section 2: Excepted Records: The provisions of Section 1 above do not authorize the destruction of:

(a) Records affecting the title to real property or liens thereon

(b) Court records

(c) Records required to be kept by statute

(d) Records less than two (2) years old

(e) The minutes, ordinances or resolutions of the City
Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or any
City Committee or Commission

Section 3: City Attorney Written Consent: The written consent of the City Attorney has been obtained for this destruction.

Passed approved and adopted November 20, 2001.

 

_________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:
____________________
City Clerk


JANUARY 2001
CITY CLERK
DESTRUCTION SCHEDULE

DEPARTMENT: CITY CLERK/ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

The following list of official record series was eligible for destruction on January 1, 2001. The Item Number refers to the Department's retention schedule and the Series Description refers to the type of record as it appears on that schedule.

RECORD NO SERIES DESCRIPTION

RECORDS ELIGIBLE FOR DESTRUCTION

2

Budget (Department only) 1999 & prior

4

Elections Campaign Statements (Losers) 1996 & prior
6 Contracts 1986 & prior
7 Council Legislative Action Files 1993 & "
8 Council Agenda 1996&"
9 Counter Copy of Agenda Packets 1999&"
11 City Council Minutes Reference Copy
(duplicate copy)
None eligible
13 City Council Ordinances Control Record 1996 & prior
15 City Council Resolution Control Record 1996 & prior
16 Vehicle Ownership Records None eligible
18 File Indices
"
19 Petitions (elections) None eligible
20 Petitions (other than in 19) 1999 & prior
22 Claims Files Closed 1991 & prior
23 Workers Comp.claims 1991 & prior
24 Statements of Economic Interest
City Council (Dup.Record)
Planning Comm. (Dup.Record)
Designated Positions (Orig.)

1997 " "

1997 " "
1994 " "

 


JANUARY 2001
RECREATION AND PARKS
DESTRUCTION SCHEDULE

DEPARTMENT: RECREATION AND PARKS DEPT.

The following list of official record series was eligible for destruction on January 1, 2001. The Item Number refers to the Department's retention schedule and the Series Description refers to the type of record as it appears on that schedule.

NO.

SERIES DESCRIPTION

RECORDS ELIGIBLE
FOR DESTRUCTION

1

Activity Reports (Duplicate record) 2000 and prior
2 Budget Files 1996" "
3 Cash Receipts 1994" "
4 Correspondence and Subject Files 1996" "
5 Rec. & Parks Committee Files 1994" "
6 Rec. & Parks Facilities Log
Book

1995" "
7 Facilities Use Permit 1996" "
8 Recreation Class Reports (REACH) 1998" "
9 Timesheets (duplicate record):
Full & Part time

2000" "

 


January 2001
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
DESTRUCTION SCHEDULE

DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE

The following list of official record series was eligible for destruction on January 1, 2001. The Item Number refers to the Department's retention schedule and the Series Description refers to the type of record as it appears on that schedule.

RECORD NO. SERIES DESCRIPTION

RECORDS ELIGIBLE
FOR DESTRUCTION

1

Activity Reports 1998 and prior

2

Budget Files 1993" "
3 Correspondence & Subject Files

1997 " "

4

Correspondence-Chronological Files 1994 " "
5 Grant Files (completed) 1995 " "
6 Legal Opinions 1991 " "
7 Claims Files (closed) 1991 " "
8 Personnel Applications 1999 " "
9 Personnel Cards - Full Time Employees 1976" "
11 Personnel Records, Fulltime Employees 1981" "
12 Personnel Records, Partime Employees 1981" "
13 Friday Admin. Report 1995" "
14 Treasurer's Annual Reports 1991" "
15 Treasurer's Ledgers 1991 " "
16 Treasurer's Monthly Reports 1991 " "
17 Treasurer's Warrants Register &
Requests for Warrants

1996" "
18 Animal Control Files 1999" "
19 Public Art 1991" "
20 Community Forum Files 1991" "
22 Film Permits 1997" "
23 Parking Citation Disposition Forms 1999 " "
24 Cable Television Advisory Board 1991" "

 


JANUARY 1, 2001
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DESTRUCTION SCHEDULE

DEPARTMENT: FINANCE DEPARTMENT

The following list of official record series was eligible for destruction on January 1, 2001. The Item Number refers to the Department's retention schedule and the Series Description refers to the type of record as it appears on that schedule.

RECORD NO. SERIES DESCRIPTION

RECORDS ELIGIBLE FOR DESTRUCTION

1

Accounts Payable 1996 &prior

2

Accounts Receivable 1996 "
3

Finance Department Budgets

1999 "
5 Bank Reconciliation Files 1991 & prior
6 Budget Files (duplicate) 2000 " "
7 Business License & Business Tax Registrations 1996 " "
8 Business License Reports 1994 " "
9 Cancelled Checks 1994 " "
10 Cash Journal 1996 " "
11 Cash Receipts 1996 " "
12 Correspondence and Subject File 1996 " "
13 Correspondence - Chronological 1996 " "
14 Demands/Warrant Register & Control 1996 " "
15 Special District Files 1990 " "
16 Duplicate Check Record 1997 " "
17 Expenditure & Revenue Ledgers 1996 " "
18 General & Subsidiary Ledgers 1981 " "
19 General & Subsidiary Ledgers (Monthly) 1996 " "
20 General & Subsidiary Ledgers (Annual) 1981 " "
21 Health & Benefits Reports 1996 " "
22 Journal Vouchers 1991 " "
23 Ledger Reconciliation 1998 " "
25 Payroll Records 1991 & prior
26 Payroll Reports 1991 " "
27 Purchase Orders (Duplicate record) 2000 " "
28 Report of Accounts 1991 " "
29 Retirement Records 1986 " "
30 Revenue Folders 1996 " "
31 Time Sheets 1991 " "
32 Trust Deposit Records 1991 " "

 


JANUARY 2001
PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
DESTRUCTION SCHEDULE

DEPARTMENT: PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

The following list of official record series were eligible for destruction on January 1, 2001. The Item Number refers to the Department's retention schedule and the Series Description refers to the type of record as it appears on that schedule.

RECORD NO.

SERIES DESCRIPTION RECORDS ELIGIBLE
FOR DESCRIPTION

6

Corres. & Chron. Files 1991 " "
8 Development Code Enforcement File 1991 " "
15 Open Planning Application File (completed) 1999 " "
17 Parcel Maps - Reference Copy When superseded
19 Reference Maps When superseded
20 Reproducible Maps " "
21 Subject Files 1999 and prior

 


JANUARY 2001
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DESTRUCTION SCHEDULE

DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS

The following list of official record series was eligible for destruction on January 1, 2001. The Item Number refers to the Department's retention schedule and the Series Description refers to the type of record as it appears on that schedule.

RECORD NO. SERIES DESCRIPTION

RECORDS ELIGIBLE
FOR DESTRUCTION

1 Activity Reports (Duplicate record) 2000 and prior
2 Budget Files 1999" "
3 City Council Agendas (Duplicate File) Jan 2001 " "
4 Maps and Plans None eligible
5 Contractor Invoices to City 1996" "
6 Subject & Project Files (completed) 1991 " "
7 Chronological Files 1996 " "
8 Highway Permits (completed) 1994 " "
9 Improvement Undergrounding & Maintenance
District files (completed)

1990 " "
10 Inventory of Road Infrastructure As superseded
11 Los Angeles County Road Dept.Service
Requests (completed)

1996" "
12 Los Angeles County Engineering Department
Service Requests (completed)

1996 " "
13

Maint. Records: Streets, Roads, Sidewalks
& Tree Removal

1991" "
14 Radar Speed Studies 1996 " "
15 Telephone Logs 1999 " "
16 Time Sheets 1995 " "

 



4. Claim Against The City by John Shahin. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of Council’s action.

MEMORANDUM

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2001

SUBJECT: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY JOHN SHAHIN

RECOMMENDATION

Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of Council’s action.

BACKGROUND

The claimant in this matter has alleged that a City contractor caused damage to his home in an amount exceeding $10,000. Said damage occurred during the installation of a sewer system. Carl Warren & Co. has investigated this matter and has advised the City to reject the claim.

Respectfully submitted,

Jo Purcell

Reviewed:

Les Evans



5. Claim Against The City by Steve Finazzo. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of Council’s action.

MEMORANDUM

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2001

SUBJECT: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY STEVE FINAZZO

RECOMMENDATION

Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant.

BACKGROUND

This claim stems from a view restoration application that was filed with the City last year. Mr. Finazzo claims that the offending foliage has not been cut back sufficiently to restore his view. Carl Warren & Co. has investigated this claim and has tried to reach a settlement with Mr. Finazzo but to no avail. In the absence of such settlement, Carl Warren & Co. has advised the City that the claim should be rejected.

Respectfully submitted,

Jo Purcell

Reviewed:

Les Evans



6. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.


PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.)


(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)


REGULAR BUSINESS:



7. Address Curb Painting. (Allison).

Recommendation: 1) Authorize staff to include address curb painting in the Annual Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program. 2) Direct staff to deny future requests for an encroachment permit for address curb painting.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2001

SUBJECT: ADDRESS CURB PAINTING

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Authorize staff to include address curb painting in the Annual Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program.
  2. Direct staff to deny future requests for an encroachment permit for address curb painting.

BACKGROUND

From time to time the City receives complaints from residents regarding the activities of contractors engaged in re-painting address along the City’s curbs. The complaints generally relate to the pricing and collection practices of the contractors. Many residents indicate that although their address did not need re-painting, and they did not wish to pay for the work, they were intimidated by the contractor to such a degree that they went ahead and paid for the work. The price charged by the contractor range from $6 - $10 dollars per address.

The City’s Municipal Code requires a permit for any non-city activity within the public right of way. A business licenses is also required for any person to carry on business in the City. The companies who perform curb painting generally do not meet both of these requirements. When complaints are received regarding firms without a business license or permit, the Sheriff Department is dispatched to locate the contractor and stop their activities. There have also been instances when a contractor obtained both a permit and business license, and then proceeded in a manner that resulted in complaints from residents. When this occurred the contractor was contacted, their payment for permit and business license was refunded, and they were asked to stop operations.

To reduce complaints from residents, the Public Works Department has not issued any permits for address curb painting since 1999. However address curb painting does serve a useful purpose; emergency vehicles are aided by the curb painting, and most visitors find the identification useful. Staff believes a system must be established to maintain the curb painting without disturbing our residents.

DISCUSSION

Staff recommends that address curb painting be incorporated into the City’s Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal Program. Under such a plan, the City’s contractor will re-paint all address on the roadways included in the program. Currently the City’s residential roadways are either slurry sealed or overlayed every seven years. Such a schedule will assure that the curb painting is properly maintained.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendations will revise the manner in which address curb painting is maintained in the City. The goal of the revision is to eliminate the activities that result in complaints from residents.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS

One alternative is to continue to allow firms to obtain permits and licenses to perform the address curb painting and then stop and refund fees to any firm that creates complaints from residents. Staff recommends against this recommendation because it will require significant staff time to regulate.

A second alternative that was considered is to issue permits for curb painting only to civic organizations such as the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. These two groups, however, have never approached the City to perform this work. More fundamentally the City would not be able to allow one organization to perform the work without letting all organizations perform the work.

FISCAL IMPACT

Adopting the staff recommendations will result in additional annual expenditures to include curb painting in the Annual Residential Overlay and Slurry Seal program. It is estimated that the annual cost in 2001 dollars is $7,500. The funding source would be the General Fund. Although curb painting is Gas Tax eligible, the City’s annual Gas Tax revenues are fully committed to other programs and projects.

Submitted by,

Dean E. Allison
Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,

Les Evans, City Manager



8. Comment Letter To The Regional Water Quality Control Board On The Draft Storm Water Permit. (Allison).

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, outlining the City’s concerns with the proposed storm water permit.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2001

SUBJECT: COMMENT LETTER TO THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD ON THE DRAFT STORM WATER PERMIT

RECOMMENDATIONS

Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, outlining the City’s concerns with the proposed storm water permit.

BACKGROUND

The Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region (Board) recently issued a draft of the proposed new storm water permit, and has requested comments. Staff has analyzed the permit, determined how the permit would impact the City, it residents and merchants, and prepared the attached comment letter for the Mayor’s signature.

DISCUSSION

The new permit imposes new regulations on the City, its residents and merchants. Many of the permit requirements are reasonable and will likely improve storm water quality. An example of this is the requirement that contractors working in the street must collect the liquid waste from saw cutting operations before it drains into the storm drain system. However, several of the new regulations are unreasonable, such as a new requirement that all transit stops in the City must have trash containers, and the requirement that the General Plan will need to be updated to include new storm water regulations.

The attached letter provides discussion point by point on the issues that staff found to be most objectionable. There is a general theme to the comments and that is a concern over how the Board intends to define Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the fact that the Board specifies certain actions rather than defining a performance level and allowing cities to establish new procedures to meet the performance level, and finally the concern over the cost to the city to implement the new regulations.

In addition to the new storm water permit there are other current storm water quality issues facing the City and staff may be providing a verbal update to the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT

Staff could identify no fiscal impact to the recommended action.

If adopted by the Board the new permit will have a significant fiscal impact to the City, its residents, and merchants. It is difficult to establish a numerical impact but it will likely be tens of thousands of dollars annual.

Submitted by,

Dean E. Allison
Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,

Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

Draft Letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board

November 20, 2001


Mr. Dennis Dickerson, Executive Officer
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region
320 West 4th Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, California 90013

SUBJECT: Comments on Draft Storm Water Permit

Mr. Dickerson:

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates this opportunity to provide the following comments to the Draft storm water permit.

As the Permit is currently structured, there is no certainty as to what areas of the City will be designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area

The overriding issue for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is what areas are defined as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). This is because previous drafts of the permit defined nearly the entire City of Rancho Palos Verdes as an ESA. The result of this definition was that many of our property owners would need to include a costly Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) in their development, while much larger projects in other cities would not.

The current permit no longer defines the ESAs but rather requests Cities to subsequently define the ESAs in their jurisdiction. The proposed ESA in each City would then be reviewed and approved by the Board in conjunction with the Department of Fish and Game. While this change has the potential for improvement, this two-stepped approach to the permit makes it difficult for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to comment on the overall permit at this time. For the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the reasonableness of the overall permit is highly dependant upon what areas are ultimately approved by the board to be included as an ESA.

Projects adjacent to the Environmentally Sensitive Areas

The permit requires that certain projects adjacent to an ESA include a SUSMP in their plan of development. There is no basis for this category of project needing SUSMP. More fundamentally, whether a project adjacent to an ESA requires a SUSMP will depend on how the ESA is defined. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes understands the need to include a SUSMP in the plan of development for a project draining into an ESA but not for one that is simply adjacent to the ESA.

Lack of Equity between projects

There remains a lack of equity in the new permit regarding the type of projects that require SUSMPs. In general, construction of a 2,500 square foot residential improvement in or adjacent to an ESA will require a SUSMP while a 95,000 square foot commercial project not in or adjacent to an ESA will not.

Cost to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes

The new permit will require several new activities without providing the necessary funds. These new activities include:

  • Annual inspection of Restaurants
  • Annual inspection of Gas Stations
  • Annual inspections of Service Stations
  • Installation and maintenance of trash bins at all transit stops
  • More frequent street sweeping for some streets in the City
  • More frequent catch basin cleaning
  • More aggressive public information and public participation program

The City has no funding sources for these new activities which means that some current activities will need to be reduced or eliminated.

Industrial Commercial Inspections

The new permit will require inspections at many city businesses. This will be costly for the City and its merchants, and will have limited benefit. It is not clear how the City will fund these new activities.

The existing permit requires visits based on the type of business and the potential for exposure. In addition there is always the opportunity to add businesses that were found to be potential polluters. The new permit starts with the assumption that all industrial and commercial businesses (including: insurance offices, shoe stores, etc.) are polluters and need to be inspected, which is not the case. The program will require the implementation of "minimum BMPs" at facilities that have not historically been shown to be potential causes of storm water pollution.

Requirement to put trash receptacles at all transit stops

The new permit requires the placement and maintenance of trash bins at all transit stops. This requirement is arbitrary and does not acknowledge that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does a very good job of picking up trash along its arterial roadways. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes should not be required to place trash bins at its transit stops because other areas of Los Angeles County may have litter problems. Regulations to reduce litter should be performance based rather than a one size fits all requirement.

Format of Permit

For cost reasons the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prefers not to modify its Municipal Code with each revisions to the permit. To accomplish this the City has established a framework in its Municipal Code for implementing changes in storm water regulations. If the Board were to include permit changes in the Special Provisions section, the City will save the cost of revising its Municipal Code.

Process

The Board appears to be adopting regulations that have not had adequate public review or comment.

As discussed above the Board is asking for comments to the permit without defining the Environmentally Sensitive Areas in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. It is difficult to comment on the overall permit unless and until the ESAs are defined.

The Storm water Quality Management Plan (SQMP) now incorporates the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process. There has not been adequate review or public comment on the TMDL process for this to happen.

The Permit makes provisions for the removal of exempt discharges by the Executive Officer without a public review or comment period.

Requirement for an update to the General Plan

The new permit will require the City to update its General Plan to include a new section on storm water. It will be costly for the City to make such an update, and there appears to be little justification.

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment on the new Municipal Storm Water Permit. The City believes that the permit should be flexible enough to accommodate the unique characteristics of each city, and avoid expending funds on programs that will have limited benefits.

Sincerely,

Marilyn Lyon
Mayor



9. GASB Statement No. 34 Implementation. (Downs).

Recommendation: 1) Adopt the depreciation reporting method for the entire infrastructure of the City. 2) Award a professional services contract to Harris & Associates for the valuation of infrastructure assets for implementation of GASB Statement No. 34, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a professional services agreement with Harris & Associates. 4) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, FOR A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2001

SUBJECT: GASB STATEMENT NO. 34 IMPLEMENTATION

Staff Coordinators: Kathryn Downs, Accounting Manager
Don Noble, Deputy Public Works Director

RECOMMENDATIONS:

  1. Award a professional services contract to Harris & Associates for the preparation of the inventory of infrastructure assets of the entire City, and calculate their respective net book value for implementation of GASB Statement No. 34; and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a professional services agreement with Harris & Associates.
  2. Adopt Resolution 2001-___, amending Resolution 2001-43, the budget appropriation for fiscal year 2001-2002, for a budget adjustment to the City’s General Fund.
  3. Adopt the depreciation reporting method for the infrastructure assets of the City in conformance with GASB Statement No. 34.

BACKGROUND:

In June 1999, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board ("GASB") issued Statement No. 34 ("GASB 34") titled "Basic Financial Statements – and Management Discussion and Analysis – for State and Local Governments", known as the "New Governmental Financial Reporting Model" ("New Reporting Model"). This statement established a new financial reporting format for state and local governments, and represents the largest single change in the history of governmental accounting and financial reporting.

With the development and release of Statement No. 34, GASB elected to incorporate some of the most popular features of traditional financial reporting found in annual reports of publicly traded companies into the New Reporting Model, including:

  • A narrative overview and analysis in the form of Management’s Discussion and Analysis ("MD & A") in a format similar to what is commonly presented in the front of annual reports of publicly traded companies;

  • Government-wide (consolidated) financial statements that provide a clear picture of the whole City, rather than individual fund statements;

  • Expanded budgetary reporting, including comparisons of actual results with the original budget and the final (amended) budget; and

  • Capitalization and depreciation of the City’s "infrastructure assets" (e.g. roads, sewer system and drainage system) that will require the preparation of the necessary detailed infrastructure inventory.

Prior to the adoption of the New Reporting Model, the financial statements of public agencies generally included land, buildings and equipment only. After adoption of the New Reporting Model, the City’s financial statements will include roadways, sewer systems, drainage systems and other infrastructure assets.

In other cities and governmental agencies, many of these infrastructure systems were constructed using debt financing, rather than cash reserves. After the adoption of the New Reporting Model, financial advisors and other interested parties will be able to compare the agency’s cost and depreciated value of sewers, storm drains and other infrastructure assets with the amount of debt used to finance their construction. In addition, the City Council, staff, financial advisors and the City’s residents will be able to analyze the amount of its investment and depreciated book value of the entire infrastructure of the City.

The City is required to implement GASB 34 with the issuance of its audited financial statements for FY 2002-2003. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board Staff encourages early implementation of GASB 34. Accordingly, staff recommends the City’s early implementation in conjunction with the preparation of the audited financial statements for FY 2001-2002, the current fiscal year. This should provide staff with adequate time to ensure compliance by the required date, especially in light of the significant amount of work required to conduct the infrastructure inventory.

As the GASB is the ultimate authority on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) for state and local governments, non-compliance with Statement No. 34 would require the City’s auditors to issue a qualified opinion (rather than an unqualified "clean" opinion), rendering the statements to be non-compliant with federal and state legal requirements. This would result in the City’s bond ratings to fall to an unacceptable risk category and may require the repayment of federal and state funds deemed ineligible. Also, the City’s comprehensive annual financial report would not qualify for the prestigious national and state awards for meeting standards of report preparation, as it has every year since 1993.

DISCUSSION:

Consideration of Use of the Depreciation Reporting Method or Modified Approach for Infrastructure Reporting

Depreciation Reporting Method

The depreciation reporting method is currently utilized for the City’s buildings and equipment. In accordance with GAAP, land is never depreciated. The City’s buildings, computer hardware and software, equipment and furniture are depreciated using the straight-line method with the following estimated useful lives:

Building and improvements

35 to 50 years
Computer software and hardware 3 years
Equipment and vehicles 3 to 10 years
Furniture and fixtures 10 to 15 years


The accounting concept of depreciation allows for the systematic reduction of the carrying value of assets (e.g. buildings, equipment, roadways and sewers) over the period of time they are used. The historical cost is divided by the estimated useful life (in years) to determine the annual charge for depreciation. The resulting "net book value" is computed by subtracting the total accumulated annual depreciation from the historical cost, as the following example demonstrates:

Assumptions:

 

Est. historical cost - computer network installed in early FY 99-00
$250,000

Estimated useful life 3 years
Annual charge for depreciation

$83,333

Net book value of computer network installed in FY 99-00:

 
Historical cost - computer network installed in FY 99-00
$250,000
Less: total accumulated depreciation through the end of FY 01-02
 
($250,000 divided by 3 years estimated useful life, multiplied
by 3 years service equals $250,000)

($250,000)
Net book value as of June 30, 2002 $ ______0

 

If the depreciation reporting method is used for reporting infrastructure assets, a one-time determination of the estimated historical cost, useful life and net book value will be necessary. Annual depreciation is calculated and recorded as an expense in the current reporting period and a proportionate reduction of the net book value of the asset.

The use of the depreciation reporting method offers the following advantages to the City:

  • Comparability – Based upon discussions with the City’s auditors, other California municipal finance officers and GASB 34 consultants, only major metropolitan cities will adopt the modified approach;

  • Simplicity – The use of the depreciation reporting method enables integration of the accounting method currently used by the City and all other non-governmental organizations;

  • Cost Savings - Based upon discussions with other municipal finance officers and the City’s auditors, Finance staff believes the cost of implementing the Modified Approach (the alternative described below) would probably exceed $100,000 immediately, followed by the cost of performing future evaluations, record keeping, and reporting that would exceed $100,000 annually.

Modified Approach

The City has the option of choosing the "Modified Approach" for infrastructure assets, but only if it satisfies the following requirements.

  • The City must develop and maintain an up-to-date inventory of its infrastructure assets.

  • The City must perform or obtain condition assessments of the infrastructure assets and summarize the results using a reliable measurement scale. It is essential that such condition assessments be replicable by other measurers to reach substantially similar results.

  • The City must determine an annual estimate of the cost to maintain and preserve the infrastructure at a condition level established and disclosed by the City.

  • The City must assert and document that infrastructure assets are being preserved at or above the condition level established and disclosed by the City.

If the modified approach is elected for its infrastructure, the City would be required to present two types of information regarding the assets. First, the results of the three most recently completed condition assessments must be presented to demonstrate that infrastructure assets have been maintained at or above the condition level established by the City. Second, an estimate of the dollar amount needed to maintain or preserve infrastructure assets at the level established by the City, and actual amounts of expense for each of the past five reporting periods must be disclosed. The purpose of the second disclosure is to allow readers of the financial statements to make their own assessment of the City’s long-term commitment to maintaining infrastructure assets.

As described previously in this report, Finance staff believes the cost of performing the conditional assessment of the three previous years would exceed $100,000. Finance staff believes the cost of performing future evaluations, recordkeeping, and reporting using the modified approach would exceed $100,000 annually. Because of the significant cost, it appears that only very large local governments will elect to use the modified approach. In addition, governmental accounting industry leaders have stated that in the event infrastructure assets are not maintained at the established condition level, the local government’s bond rating is likely fall to an unacceptable risk category and may even require the return of Federal and State funds.

It should be noted that selecting a method does not permanently commit the City to that method. The method may be changed at a future date, as the City’s needs change. Upon review of both methods and consultations with the City’s auditors, staff recommends the use of the depreciation reporting method for infrastructure assets.

Services Required by Public Work’s Professional Advisors

Regardless of whether the City decides to use either the depreciation reporting method or the modified approach, a detailed inventory of the City’s infrastructure is required. Most of the City’s infrastructure was inherited from Los Angeles County upon incorporation of the City in September 1973. No reliable infrastructure records were provided at that time. Because it has not been necessary to include the City’s infrastructure assets in the City’s financial statements prior to the adoption of GASB 34, a detailed inventory of the entire infrastructure of the City does not exist. This is consistent with other municipalities.

The City’s budget includes an appropriation of $15,000 for Public Work’s consultants and $7,500 for Finance’s consultants in FY 2001-2002. The staff report presented with the budget presentation in April 2001 stated that the $15,000 would enable a preliminary review with the expectation that additional services would be necessary to complete the infrastructure inventory. Based upon findings during planning meetings with the City’s auditors and staff, it has become obvious that it will be necessary to retain Public Work’s consultants to prepare the infrastructure inventory.

Public Work’s staff has interviewed three qualified engineering firms with GASB 34 experience. Based upon their experience and day-to-day working knowledge of the City’s infrastructure, Harris & Associates was clearly the most qualified consultant to perform the infrastructure inventory and valuation. The Personnel Profiles of the Harris & Associates team that would serve the City during the GASB 34 project are attached to this staff report. If retained, the Public Work’s professional advisor would perform the following:

  • Compile inventories of infrastructure assets;

  • Determine the actual acquisition date or estimate the acquisition date;

  • Determine the useful life of each type of infrastructure asset;

  • Establish unit costs of infrastructure assets or components in order to establish replacement cost in the event the modified approach is elected;

  • Discover actual historical cost of infrastructure assets, or apply an industry index to arrive at estimated historical cost; and

  • Calculate the current net book value of infrastructure assets utilizing straight-line depreciation.

Harris & Associates proposed three options as follows:

  • Option 1 would provides a level of effort designed to meet the minimum requirements of GASB 34, assuming the City has adequate records to prepare the infrastructure inventory and determinations of net book value. In light of Staff’s awareness that a detailed inventory of infrastructure assets does not exist, Option 1 is not acceptable.

  • Option 2 would provide the necessary in-depth records search, development of a detailed inventory, infrastructure valuation and determinations of net book value at a cost of $40,040. Estimations used in the valuation process will be minimized.

  • Option 3 would provide the same in-depth records search, development of a detailed inventory, infrastructure valuation and determinations of net book value, but supplemented with field inspections to verify locations, quantities, and measurements at a cost of $52,500. It’s the opinion of Finance staff and the City’s auditors that the work proposed with Option 3 is not necessary for GASB 34 implementation.

Services Required by Finance’s Professional Advisors

As described previously, the net book value of the infrastructure inventory will be integrated into the audited financial statements of the City upon the adoption of the New Reporting Model. Therefore, Finance staff believes it’s in the best interest of the City to retain the City’s auditors to supervise the preparation of the infrastructure inventory that they will opine thereon as follows:

  • Plan and review the work performed by Public Work’s consultants during their preparation of the infrastructure inventory and calculations of estimated net book value to ensure compliance with GASB 34; and

  • Re-format the audited financial statements of the City to conform to GASB 34.

CONCLUSION:

1) Staff strongly recommends that the City Council adopt use of the depreciation reporting method rather than the modified approach for the entire infrastructure of the City upon adoption of the New Reporting Model.

2) Based on evaluation of the three consultants interviewed, staff recommends awarding a professional services contract to Harris & Associates for the inventory and valuation of the City’s infrastructure assets. If the City Council agrees, staff suggests authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a professional services agreement with Harris & Associates.

As the majority of City infrastructure was obtained upon incorporation of the City in September 1973 and no detailed inventory records exist, staff recommends selection of Option 2 to enable the preparation of a detailed infrastructure inventory and valuation of net book value.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The FY 2001-2002 City budget includes an appropriation of $15,000 for Public Work’s consultants and $7,500 for Finance’s consultants. The attached budget resolution increases the appropriation in the amount of $28,000 for the Public Work’s consultants and $7,000 for Finance’s consultants, resulting in a $35,000 reduction of estimated (budgeted) General Fund balance to slightly in excess of $5,000,000.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dennis McLean
Finance Director

Reviewed:

Les Evans
City Manager



10. Ordinance establishing regulations applicable to skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, and scooters upon public and private property. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance No. ____ , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES, INLINE SKATES AND SCOOTERS UPON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2001

SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES, INLINE SKATES, AND SCOOTERS UPON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY

RECOMMENDATION

Introduce Ordinance No. ____ , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES, INLINE SKATES AND SCOOTERS UPON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE" by title only.

DISCUSSION

At the request of the Sheriff’s Department, the City Attorney’s office has prepared an ordinance establishing regulations governing the use of skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, scooters and similar wheeled devices upon both private and public property. Absent regulations that specifically address this issue, the Sheriff’s Department was concerned about its authority to issue citations to persons who skate or ride skateboards, scooters or other similar devices on private commercial properties, even if the businesses find the activities to be dangerous and do not want them to occur on their properties.

Under its general police powers, the City has the authority to adopt regulations to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Additionally, California Vehicle Code Sections 21967 and 21969 expressly authorize the City to adopt rules and regulations restricting persons from riding or propelling skateboards, roller skates, and similar devices on public highways, sidewalks, or roadways.

In order to protect both private and public property, as well as the public’s health, safety and general welfare, from the unwanted or hazardous use of skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, scooters and similar wheeled devices, the attached ordinance establishes regulations prohibiting the use of these types of devices on any public or private property where signs prohibiting those activities are clearly posted.

If enacted, the proposed Ordinance will add Chapter 9.30 prohibiting the use of skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, scooters and similar motorized or unmotorized wheeled devices on private property if the property owner posts appropriate signs notifying all persons that such activities are prohibited. The proposed Ordinance also will add new Section 12.16.120 prohibiting the use of skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, scooters and similar unmotorized wheeled devices on public property if (i) the City Council, by resolution, designates the property closed to such activities, and (ii) the City posts appropriate signs notifying all persons that such activities are prohibited. By utilizing this approach, property owners and the City can prohibit these activities on a location-by-location basis.

It is important to note that the Ordinance draws a distinction between: (1) public streets, sidewalks, and roadways and (2) other types of public property, such as parks, with respect to the regulation of motorized wheeled devices. California Vehicle Code Section 21968 preempts local regulation of the use of motorized wheeled devices on public highways, sidewalks or roadways. That Section expressly prohibits the use of motorized skateboards on any sidewalk, roadway, or any other part of a highway or on any bikeway, bicycle path or trail, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail. Thus, the City must rely on that Section to prohibit the use of such devices in those areas and cannot adopt its own regulations.

If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation that the ordinance be adopted, the Council should read the proposed Ordinance by title only, waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance. The Ordinance may be adopted after second reading at the next Regular or Adjourned meeting of the City Council.

CONCLUSION

Adopting the staff recommendation will enable the City to prohibit the use of skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, scooters and similar wheeled devices on public and private property where the property owner posts signs setting forth the prohibition.

Respectfully submitted,

Jo Purcell
City Clerk

Reviewed by,

Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:
Draft Ordinance


ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES AND INLINE SKATES UPON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY AND AMENDING THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE

WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 21967 authorizes cities to adopt rules and regulations prohibiting or restricting persons from riding or propelling skateboards on highways, sidewalks, or roadways subject to the provisions of Vehicle Code Section 21968; and

WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 21968 prohibits the use of motorized skateboards on any sidewalk, roadway, or any other part of a highway or on any bikeway, bicycle path or trail, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail; and

WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 21969 further authorizes cities to adopt rules and regulations prohibiting or restricting persons engaged in roller skating on highways, sidewalks, or roadways subject to the provisions of Vehicle Code Section 21968; and

WHEREAS, the City wishes to regulate the use of skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, scooters and other similar motorized or unmotorized wheeled devices to the maximum extent permitted by law.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Title 9 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code hereby is amended by adding new Chapter 9.30 to read as follows:

"Chapter 9.30

REGULATION OF SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES, INLINE
SKATES, SCOOTERS AND SIMILAR DEVICES ON POSTED PROPERTY.

Sections:

9.30.010

Skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, scooters and similar wheeled devices prohibited on posted property.
9.30.020 Posting required.
9.30.030 Penalties.


9.30.010 Skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, scooters and similar wheeled devices prohibited on posted property.

No person shall, and it shall constitute a public nuisance for any person to, operate, ride, propel, or coast any skateboard, or utilize roller skates, inline skates, scooters or any similar motorized or unmotorized wheeled device having wheels less than six (6) inches in diameter, upon any private property within any zone in the city, where notice of such prohibition has been posted and is clearly visible at a minimum of two entrances to the prohibited area or in the immediate vicinity of the area where such activity is prohibited. This section shall not apply to persons participating in any program, event or class which is sponsored by the property owner in which use of the self-powered wheeled devices described herein are specifically authorized, permitted or required.

9.30.020 Posting required.

The prohibition set forth in Section 9.30. 010 of this Chapter shall not apply unless a property owner posts at least two notices in substantially the following form: ‘PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9.30.010 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE, NO SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES, INLINE SKATES, OR SCOOTERS ARE PERMITTED.’

9.30.030 Penalty for violation.

It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision, or fail to comply with any of the requirements, of this chapter. Any person violating any provision of this chapter or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of an infraction and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by: (1) a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for a first violation; (2) a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars for a second violation within one year; (3) a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars for each additional violation within one year."

Section 2.Title 12 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Section 12.16.120 to Chapter 12.16 to read as follows:

"12.16.120Skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, scooters and similar wheeled devices prohibited on public property.

A. No person shall, and it shall constitute a public nuisance for any person to, operate, ride, propel, or coast any skateboard or scooter, or utilize roller skates, inline skates or any similar unmotorized wheeled device having wheels less than six (6) inches in diameter, upon any public street, sidewalk, alley, or roadway within the city, where such public street, sidewalk, alley, or way is designated by resolution of the City Council as closed to such activities and where notice of such prohibition has been posted and is clearly visible in the immediate vicinity where such activity is prohibited.

B. No person shall, and it shall constitute a public nuisance for any person to, operate, ride, propel, or coast any skateboard or scooter, or utilize roller skates, inline skates or any similar motorized or unmotorized wheeled device having wheels less than six (6) inches in diameter, upon any public park or other public property within any zone in the city, where such public property is designated by resolution of the City Council as closed to such activities and where notice of such prohibition has been posted and is clearly visible at a minimum of two entrances to the prohibited area or in the immediate vicinity of the area where such activity is prohibited.

C. The notices required by paragraphs A and B of this section shall be in substantially the following form: ‘PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12.16.120 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE, NO SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES, INLINE SKATES, OR SCOOTERS ARE PERMITTED.’

D. This section shall not apply to persons participating in any city-sponsored program, event or class in which use of the self-powered wheeled devices described herein are specifically authorized, permitted or required."

Section 3. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 4. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.

Section 5.This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _______ day of _______________, 2001.



_____________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:


___________________________

City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)

I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is five, that the foregoing Ordinance No. ____ passed first reading on 2001, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on ____________, 2001 and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:


CLOSED SESSION REPORT:



ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.)



ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.



CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST


Based on Government Code Section 54954.5
(All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections)


CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

G.C. 54956.8

Potential purchase of open space.

Property: Filiorum 7572-012-024, 7572-012-028, 7572-012-029, 7573-003-016, 7581-023-031, 7581-023-029, 7572-002-022

City Negotiators: City Manager; City Attorney; and, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement,

Keith Lenard, Palos Verdes Land Conservancy.

Negotiating Parties: York Long Point Associates

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

Property: APN 7564-005-001, 7572-001-001 TO 004, 06 AND 07, 7581-023-011

City Negotiators: City Manager Les Evans, City Attorney Carol Lynch, and Public Works Director Dean Allison, Keith Lenard, Palos Verdes Land Conservancy.

Negotiating Parties: Barry Hon and Michael Walker.

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment


CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL

Anticipated Litigation:
(G.C 54956.9(b)

A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council/Agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on the below-described existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City Council/Agency.

__________2________
(Number of Potential Cases)

  1. Claim against the City by Chandler’s Palos Verdes Sand and Gravel Inc.

2. Letter received from Ledsam Contracting, Inc., to Public Works Director Dean Allison. (Said letter on file with the City Clerk’s Office.)